First, there continued to be discussion about which books were canon for a thousand years after Carthage, with various scholars (RCC) suggesting changes. And ALL of the canonical lists were ratifications, not determinations.
The Reformation continued with the NT canon, but set aside the disputed OT books that had never won full acceptance. I think most Protestants agree that the Catholic Church hadn’t drifted very far during the first 300 years, and were in a good position to know what the local churches had already believed for 250+ years. The Gospels and Paul’s Epistles were accepted as scripture almost as soon as they were penned.
There is a book you might be interested in - ‘A Severe Mercy’. Just checked - still in print after 20 years (http://www.amazon.com/Severe-Mercy-Sheldon-Vanauken/dp/0060688246/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248010573&sr=1-1) It starts with a man explaining his own path to Christianity at Oxford after WW2. Logic only carries you so far, after which there is a ‘leap of faith’ - but as someone pointed out to him, there was also a leap of faith to go backwards into unbelief.
Another book - I read much of it yesterday flying back from Indiana - is ‘Deep Survival’ (http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Survival-Who-Lives-Dies/dp/0393326152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248010657&sr=1-1). It discusses a variety of accidents from the viewpoint of recent knowledge about how humans make decisions. Humans are not logical, nor were our minds meant to be. Our minds are irrevocably linked to our bodies and emotions, and thought is another form of emotion...or maybe the other way around.
You have inherited certain forms of thought, just as Border Collies can be bred with an eye towards herding techniques. I just got back from visiting family I hadn’t seen in 40 years. My Dad died when I was 14 (and left for Vietnam when I was 12). Yet his family say my mannerisms and thought patterns are exactly like his.
If a Border Collie can inherit a long outrun (sweep out to gather sheep), or inherit how much force they will use in working sheep, then why do we act as though our thoughts are independent of us?
When you understand that ‘thought’ and ‘emotion’ are different expressions of the same process, a lot of human actions become clearer. When you understand that behaviors are genetically based, in many cases, then original sin becomes easier to understand.
Logic is as false a description of human thought as the physics of Aristotle were a false description of the world in which we live - although those physics were a good enough description to last for 1500 years! Logic is a tool for problem solving, but emotions and faith are also a critical part of how our brain works. My wife’s intuition is right as often as my logic, and why not? They are both the result of the same sort of thought processes inside our minds.
And I BELIEVE it is the job of the Holy Spirit. However, belief is also rooted in how our brains work to comprehend the world and make timely decisions. Someone who separates belief, emotion and thought doesn’t understand the processes by which our brains make it possible for us to function in the world.
You may wish to cite some examples because I highly disagree. To the best of my knowledge, no council, local or general, considered changing the Christian canon as accepted by custom throughout Christendom since the 4th century AD.
The Reformation continued with the NT canon, but set aside the disputed OT books that had never won full acceptance
You may be confusing different naming and divisions of the deuterocanonical OT books as being different books. The deuterocanonicals were fully accepted by the Church, East and West.
I think most Protestants agree that the Catholic Church hadn’t drifted very far during the first 300 years, and were in a good position to know what the local churches had already believed for 250+ years
The Church had the liturgy, the Eucharist, the sacraments, the exaltation of Mary as the advocata of Eve and other elements rejected by the Reformers in this period.
As for what was believed, there was a wide variety of heterodox beliefs. The Trinity was not in dispute; just the ontological issues regarding the Trinity, as well as Christology.
Judging what individual fathers considered canon it is obvious that canon grew as time progressed and varied widely among individual authors. So, neither the Church theology, Christology, or canon were in any way or form uniform to support your statement implying that local churches believed pretty much the same thing.
Logic only carries you so far, after which there is a ‘leap of faith’ - but as someone pointed out to him, there was also a leap of faith to go backwards into unbelief.
That's ridiculous. Logic can be applied to the reality. It's a tool that helps us understand what cause and effect is. Our logic can only go so far, because at some point we cannot determine cause and effect and must surrender. Nothing logically justifies a "leap of faith" nor does it prove that our ignorance is somehow enlightened with unknowable truth by doing so.
As for unbelief, it is simply a surrender to our limited ability to know, re-sizing man to his proper size without interjecting human fancy into it. It is brutally honest.
Logic is a mental discipline, a tool that help us construct things. We are capable of it by nature. Whether we use it or not is a different story. I think it's much easier to create a world in your fancy than to deal with the real one.
Part of growing up is recognizing the difference between wishing and reality, between magic and the world around us. To a 5-year old, Santa may not only be "logical" but is definitely "real." The world we know today tells us that it is way too big for our understanding but that doesn't justify inventing a deity because it "solves" the problem.
Perhaps at the root of this is man's unwillingness to accept his position in the universe, a sense of entitlement, and fear of the unknown. Perhaps mankind has more growing up to do.
But this is all unnecessary. I simply asked "how do you know it is from God" or "how do you know it is "God inspired" or "how do you know this holy book is true and the other is not?" I am not interested in critiquing other poeple's beliefs. I am simply asking a logical question form those who seem to claim to know something as certainty but are unable to prove it.
If someone really believes he can fly like Peter Pan but cannot corroborate it may be better not to make such claims publicly. If someone says that he or she believes that under certain circumstances we can fly like Peter Pan there is nothing to question. It's a hypothesis at best. But if it is claimed as a matter of fact and not faith, then proof is in order and you better have one in order not to look like a fool.
I think of all people, Christians should have the humility and wisdom to never make such matter-of-fact claims because, after all, faith is hope of things unknown.
No human behavior has been linked to genetics. Homosexuals have tried, but there simply is no evidence for that. All human behavior is learned. Some have better propensity to learning than others, but that has more to do with conditions leading to the birth and any damage incurred in the process.
If you take an infant, put him in the backyackrd, in a cage, give him food and water, never talk to him, never hug him, etc., you won't have a "human" being as we know it. He won't be able to speak a language, he will have none of the social graces, or qualities we consider "God-created" humanity. You will have a human beast. His human genes will do nothing to making him "civilized."
Logic is a tool with which you make a working model. The operant word here is working. It works. It makes no other pretenses. It does not bring in supernatural or spiritual. It simply takes what's at hand and makes it work. Is it universally true? Under the circumstances it operates, yes. That's why we know what it is is and understand how it works.
If I give you a math problem and you solve it, I can't assume to know how you did it, unless you tell me. With faith you can't to that because it's a "leap" (assumption) form the start and it's based on some experience we choose to interpret as providential.
Aristotle's physics were not real physics. They were speculative inferences without the necessary scientific method. He claimed that things fall on earth (i.e.gravity) because "things fall towards the center," implying that the earth was the center of the Universe.
Looking at the sky move around us, we can understand why he may have thought so. Ptolemy constructed a whole navigational system based on that geocentric system. It still works, from our earthly perspective, even if it is wrong. Science, unlike religion, makes no claim as to the absolute truth. It either works or doesn't. There is no guessing and there is no revelation, praying or faith involved.
Without logic, we have to depend, on chance. Now, let's see, which will I choose...do I get a job, save money and retire, or do I stick my hand out and wait for manna to fall from the sky? Good luck! You will need it!
What we do is based on logic, no matter how perfect or how flawed. We try not to do things we know will not work. So, there is always logic involved, no matter if it s driven by reason or emotion, how perfect or flawed it may be.