bigcat22 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Even as a Protestant (by default), I have to say that the more educated I become on the subject the stranger Sola Scriptura becomes to me. I can't find anything in ancient times that reflects the belief that the accepted New Testament scriptures are the complete and total teachings of Jesus and his Apostles distilled to their purest form and on their own completely sufficient to build Christianity from scratch. I have noticed a belief among some Protestants that if the entire world ended tomorrow but one hundred years from now a random person found an intact Bible, then pure and correct Christianity would arise unchanged. I held this belief at one point and took it for granted, but as I said above it just seems so odd now.

It's clear the formation of canon had plenty of arguments and politicking involved. Like the controversy over Revelation. We also have references to completely missing texts, like some of Paul's letters and the Gospel to the Hebrews that are held in high regard by earlier writers. What we have is great, but it's not like it's some sort of carefully planned and crafted instruction manual for Christianity.

---

I'm not sure that's the correct way to define Sola Scriptura. I believe most reformed baptists (read Calvinists) define it as a statement about the nature of scripture that implies the exclusivity of scripture (theopneustos ... translated from the original Greek as "God breathed")

Scripture is then the sole (ie unique) infallible rule of faith for the Church. This doesn't mean that the church will not/can not have other rules of faith, natural revelation, etc. but none of that can displace the unique position of scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith. There can be other rules of faith but they must be under the authority of scripture.

---

In my view the issue is not so much the text of the Scriptures so much as the understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures that is the issue. To say that the Scriptures are infallible is something all Christians should be in agreement on and we can all say Amen. The problem is that the interpretation and understanding of these Scriptures must ALSO be infallible.

To be more accurate in what you have stated above....

Quote:

---

My/our interpretation of Scripture is then the sole (ie unique) infallible rule of faith for the Church. This doesn't mean that the church will not/can not have other rules of faith, natural revelation, etc. but none of that can displace the unique position of my/our interpretation of scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith. There can be other rules of faith but they must be under the authority of my/our interpretation of scripture.

---

Quote:

---

Redstone - The Bible is NOT the Word of God.

---

I believe you misunderstood what Redstone was saying. The Bible is not THE Word of God, because THE Word of God is Jesus Christ. The Prologue of the Gospel according to St John is not talking about the Bible. Unfortunately I have seen people think it is. This is what he is getting at, I think.

Quote:

---

Redstone - The Bible is a literal product of the Apostolic (Catholic / Orthodox) Church, debated and prayed over for 3 centuries, in councils mostly from Rome.

---

Is this not true? There is a difference between the bible and the scriptures! The image which comes to mind when you say "the Bible" didn't appear in that form until roughly five centuries ago.

Quote:

---

Larry Lajitas - The Bible is not the "breathe" of God. The Bible is a book that contains letters which forms stories. It is infallible as long as it is translated properly.

---

This is of course perfectly true. The breath of God is quite literally the Holy Spirit.

I can't understand why anyone would have any trouble with these statements, as they are referring to titles of God as directed at God, or statements which seem to me to be matters of historical fact.

I also don't see anyone walking back any claims.

Quote:

---

In terms of overplaying man's role, here's some statements I'd make that I believe to be True.

1. Man, of his own will, was not and is not capable of producing a book that is the infallible word of God
2. God is capable of producing an infallible book.

---

This is irrelevant. No one believes 1, and literally not once has that been suggested in this.

Two is a statement of fact that clarifies nothing. God can produce anything He like. He could have dropped a modern NKJV into Abraham's hands. He did not. We are not speaking about what might have happened, but what DID happen. And this is what you continually evade.

Seeing as we agree about what COULD have happened, regarding what DID happen, where do we disagree?

I'll repeat: the canon is holy and inspired. And everything else in the OP, IMO.

Not a contradiction.

Quote:

---

...that does not lessen the fact that what we have today was inspired by God.

---

I don't understand why this keeps coming up. Literally no one is arguing that the scriptures were not inspired by God, or that the formation itself wasn't guided by God. It is all grace, by which I mean, God working in the world. From the beginning until now He works in the world through men. The Spirit both inspired the authors to write, and the Church same church to canonize (which just means standardize).

Quote:

---

We need to keep in mind that a fairly strong consensus arose among virtually all Christians as to what was "canonical" by the end of the 1st century - 3rd century AD, long before the first Church council.

---

The first recorded church council was in 48 AD in Jerusalem. There were many councils and synods before the first ecuenical council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

But this doesn't argue that councils established the canon. Councils witnessed to the canon which was in use in the local provinces at the time. This is why they vary from one region to the other, but as you note, not very much.

But still, you say ~3 centuries (and in truth the canon was not finalized for longer than that). Did those people have the scriptures He wanted for them to have, for their salvation? Surely, yes?

And so what rule of faith did they have? Some different one than ours? Some deficient one? Surely no. Sola scriptura cannot be the ancient rule of the Church. It simply can't, not the way it is defined today.

Scripture is not the only thing that is God-breathed. I believe the breath of God, the pnevma, what we translate as the Spirit, would probably also qualify.

I think it is great to say that we are exclusively subject to that which is God-breathed. Him breathing on them and saying "Receive the Spirit" looms with significant importance, then, eh?

Zobel said:

---

Scripture is not the only thing that is God-breathed. I believe the breath of God, the pnevma, what we translate as the Spirit, would probably also qualify.

I think it is great to say that we are exclusively subject to that which is God-breathed. Him breathing on them and saying "Receive the Spirit" looms with significant importance, then, eh?

---

I don't necessarily disagree, but the term "theopneustos ", which is literally translated as "God breathed" is only used once in the original Greek Scriptures and that is in 2 Timothy 3:16 when Paul says "Each and every scripture is theopneustos and profitable for teaching, for convincing, for correction, for training in righteousness."

Yep. The Church is also "God-Breathed". Love it!

Jesus literally breathed on his disciples and said receive the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I'm familiar. If one adheres to Pauline authorship, that verse was written before any of the gospels. I don't believe St Paul had a time machine and given his general way of talking about himself in an extremely deprecating fashion I doubt he'd ascribe the title of scripture to his own writings. So, then, we can safely say St Paul was talking about the old testament scriptures.

Now, what was St Paul's view of the old testament scriptures? We don't know entirely for sure. We know what he quotes directly. We know that being a Pharisee he held the Torah, the Psalms, and the Prophets to all be scripture. We also know he makes casual reference to rabbinic tradition and a myriad of other extra-canonical writings to support his points. Some things he wrote we later realized were quotes or very clear references to previously lost works.

Anyway, the point is 2 Tim 3:16 doesn't say anything about scripture being the sole rule of faith, and nothing in St Paul's writings remotely supports that either. He never implies or even comes close, and in several cases actively says things that fly in the face of it. That scripture is God-breathed doesn't mean apostolic verbal instruction isn't.

It's not a magic word.

Quote:

---

his general way of talking about himself in an extremely deprecating fashion I doubt he'd ascribe the title of scripture to his own writings.

---

Maybe so but he does tell others to be imitators of him. He also acknowledges that God commanded him to bring the gospel to the gentiles. He may have known that what he was writing was not from himself, but from God.

All conjecture, I don't know obviously. Just a thought.

You're perfectly correct - he does have authority. Not only to write, in the Spirit, but also to proclaim the gospel and to teach, in the Spirit. The two things are identical. His letters refer constantly to what he proclaimed at the command of Christ Jesus. And he says that they should remember him in everything, both as he taught in person and wrote. And to avoid those who don't follow his way of life, taught both in person and in writing.

The point is St Paul doesn't base his preaching solely on what was written in things which people understood as scriptures. He doesn't say "the scriptures say what they say in plain Greek/Hebrew and anyone can read them and understand them." He refers always to the scriptures combined with the gospel revealed to him. He says the correct understanding of the Prophets was a mystery hidden even from the angels. It wasn't in the clear, and he tells us why: because if it was in the clear the Powers of the world would have opposed it, and not crucified Christ Jesus. So it isn't only the scriptures, but the scriptures and the gospel and knowledge that comes from the Spirit.

I don't think St Paul would put his writings on par with what he refers to as scripture per se. I do absolutely believe he understood his gospel to be the same as the visions received by the prophets. He describes himself as one sent in a deliberate way that mimics the language used in the OT of the prophets. St Luke does the same thing in Acts. I think we should read his writings not self-authoritative in and of themselves, but as having authority rooted in this vision and mission.

The follow-on to the last sentence is that everything he said or wrote in "official capacity" in that mission was also rooted in that authority. But some (most?) of what he wrote and nearly all of what he said wasn't preserved as scripture. So what distinguishes one from the other?

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Rephrased, your argument is effectively that:

1. Through men, God delivered His Word.
2. Later, other men, apparently on their own, somehow recognized what was the Word of God.

---

This is not the same thing as what I am asking you to agree with me on. There is a massive difference between being "apparently on their own" vs. not being on their own but instead protected and guided into truth by the Holy Spirit.

---

Fair, If it's your opinion that man could not have achieved an infallible book without the Holy Spirit, I can agree to that since it's a shift from what Zobel said previously.

---

Would you also agree that these men were working together in their process as a part of group and were not coming to their own, independent, personal decisions or conclusions on what was indeed inspired Scripture and what was not?

---

No. because it contradicts your own point 2.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

This version of Sola Scriptura that you described would be a stranger to the Reformers as well.

---

From what I know of Lutherans I would agree with you. From what I've read on some of the "less polished" elements of the Reformation, maybe not.

---

Yeah. You'll generally see that era defined as the Magisterial Reformation and then the subsequent Radical Reformation.

When you get to the Radical Reformation, all bets are off in terms of what they will say or believe. Fairly certain they did not hold the Scripture to be infallible and that there were living prophets. I think Hardcore History did a couple episodes on a city that was overrun with Anabaptists and the craziness that followed.

Quote:

---

This is irrelevant. No one believes 1, and literally not once has that been suggested in this.

---

It's hugely relevant. Also, you must have misunderstood. I also did not claim that anyone said it. I made the claim that it was a true statement.
-------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Two is a statement of fact that clarifies nothing. God can produce anything He like. He could have dropped a modern NKJV into Abraham's hands. He did not. We are not speaking about what might have happened, but what DID happen. And this is what you continually evade.

---

It in fact does does clarify something, as you attested to. From your response, you seem to agree that God could have created an infallible book in a multitude of manners. In fact, we know that God communicated with man through a multitude of manners, from the burning bush, to a cloud, to the Angel of the Lord, etc, etc.

So back to my question. Are my statements both true?

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Rephrased, your argument is effectively that:

1. Through men, God delivered His Word.
2. Later, other men, apparently on their own, somehow recognized what was the Word of God.

---

This is not the same thing as what I am asking you to agree with me on. There is a massive difference between being "apparently on their own" vs. not being on their own but instead protected and guided into truth by the Holy Spirit.

---

Fair, If it's your opinion that man could not have achieved an infallible book without the Holy Spirit, I can agree to that since it's a shift from what Zobel said previously.

---

Would you also agree that these men were working together in their process as a part of group and were not coming to their own, independent, personal decisions or conclusions on what was indeed inspired Scripture and what was not?

---

No. because it contradicts your own point 2.

---

How So????
ETA: I think you are conflating YOUR point 2 with MY point 2. Yours is in the quotes above and mine is quoted in bold below. My position has always included the Holy Spirit guiding his Church as a body. Your position appears to be in conflict with my view. Please help me better understand.

Quote:

---

Faithful Ag said:
1. The men/writers of the Bible who were guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit in their writings
2. The men/Church who collected those writings, discerned which writings were and were not to be included in the Bible, and that these men were also guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit

---

Of course they're true. They're also irrelevant to the point of discussion. No one disagrees with either one so why belabor the point?

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Rephrased, your argument is effectively that:

1. Through men, God delivered His Word.
2. Later, other men, apparently on their own, somehow recognized what was the Word of God.

---

This is not the same thing as what I am asking you to agree with me on. There is a massive difference between being "apparently on their own" vs. not being on their own but instead protected and guided into truth by the Holy Spirit.

---

Fair, If it's your opinion that man could not have achieved an infallible book without the Holy Spirit, I can agree to that since it's a shift from what Zobel said previously.

---

Would you also agree that these men were working together in their process as a part of group and were not coming to their own, independent, personal decisions or conclusions on what was indeed inspired Scripture and what was not?

---

No. because it contradicts your own point 2.

---

How So????
ETA: I think you are conflating YOUR point 2 with MY point 2. Yours is in the quotes above and mine is quoted in bold below. My position has always included the Holy Spirit guiding his Church as a body. Your position appears to be in conflict with my view. Please help me better understand.

Quote:

---

Faithful Ag said:
1. The men/writers of the Bible who were guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit in their writings
2. The men/Church who collected those writings, discerned which writings were and were not to be included in the Bible, and that these men were also guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit

---

---

I'm sorry, but these two statements are not the same, no matter how many question marks you use.


Statement 1: The men/Church who collected those writings, discerned which writings were and were not to be included in the Bible, and that these men were also guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit

Statement 2: Would you also agree that these men were working together in their process as a part of group and were not coming to their own, independent, personal decisions or conclusions on what was indeed inspired Scripture and what was not?


Statement 1 makes it clear that any action that was taken by the men/Church was "guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit." That's not my claim. That was your claim.

Statement 2 drops the Holy Spirit all together in favor of a "process" that apparently no longer involves the Holy Spirit.

So no, they are not the same statements because you've attempted to drop out the necessity of the Holy Spirit in favor of man seemingly having the ability decide what was inspired on their own.

Zobel said:

---

Of course they're true. They're also irrelevant to the point of discussion. No one disagrees with either one so why belabor the point?

---

No. They aren't irrelevant.

What we've just agreed is that in the process of writing and collating the Scriptures, that the only necessity in the equation was God actively participating.

Man played a role as well, but it would be considered a passive role, not one of necessity. Their role existed because God deemed it so, not because of any special ability that man had.

I think those are hugely relevant points.

Necessity is kind of strange when talking about history. Whatever happened was necessary because it happened. God willed it to be done that way.

Man didn't play an passive role. They did things. They wrote. Writing is an action. They collected. They translate. All actions. God worked, yes. That is what grace is, God working in the world for salvation. Through men.

This is an impossibly difficult conversation and I don't know why. So, I'm out. Cheers.

Quote:

---

AgLiving06 said:
I'm sorry, but these two statements are not the same, no matter how many question marks you use.


Statement 1: The men/Church who collected those writings, discerned which writings were and were not to be included in the Bible, and that these men were also guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit

Statement 2: Would you also agree that these men were working together in their process as a part of group and were not coming to their own, independent, personal decisions or conclusions on what was indeed inspired Scripture and what was not?


Statement 1 makes it clear that any action that was taken by the men/Church was "guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit." That's not my claim. That was your claim.

Statement 2 drops the Holy Spirit all together in favor of a "process" that apparently no longer involves the Holy Spirit.

So no, they are not the same statements because you've attempted to drop out the necessity of the Holy Spirit in favor of man seemingly having the ability decide what was inspired on their own.

---

I think you are better than this, but I'm afraid this is what happens when you constantly try to rephrase other people's arguments and straw-man your case like you are doing here. You attempted to put words into Zobel's mouth that Zobel never said. When asked to clarify YOUR position you then default back to something else. You tie yourself up into knots and nobody can figure out what you are trying to say, or when you are talking for yourself vs. when you are attempting to talk for someone else. In this case you are twisting and contorting my statements to drop something that I NEVER dropped, namely the Holy Spirit. You took the liberty of trying to drop it for me, and I won't let that go unchecked.

I have been 100% consistent in my positions. Both of my statements above are perfectly consistent with each other. It is YOU who are attempting to insert meaning or remove meaning where you find convenient in an attempt to make your case. Nowhere did I remove the Holy Spirit from this process.

Pay close attention here...

Quote:

---

Faithful Ag's original statements:
The only point right now that I am attempting to make is that the Bible comes to us through a process that involves more than just the men who wrote the actual letters/books. There were:

1. The men/writers of the Bible who were guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit in their writings
2. The men/Church who collected those writings, discerned which writings were and were not to be included in the Bible, and that these men were also guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

---

...and then how my follow-up statement expands and clarifies my original statement:

Quote:

---

Statement 2: Would you also agree that these men were working together in their process as a part of group and were not coming to their own, independent, personal decisions or conclusions on what was indeed inspired Scripture and what was not?

---

In my second statement I am speaking of THESE MEN (the same men as in my original statement) which would follow perfectly that these men were the Church (Bishops/priests if you like to clarify further) and therefore it was THESE SAME MEN who were also guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit and that THESE VERY SAME MEN were NOT acting on their own as individuals and thus coming to their own personal decisions about what was Scripture but rather THESE SAME MEN were working together as a group to discern what was and was not Scripture.

We call this group the Church. It was visible. It was known. It had known leaders. It was the rightful teaching office charged to protect the faith from any error. It was these men that I am speaking of throughout.

The only one attempting to pick and choose when the Holy Spirit is involved and when it is not in the entire process is you. It is and has been my clear and consistent position that the Holy Spirit was involved in ALL of it from the very beginning and throughout the entire process and the Holy Spirit is continuing to guide and protect Christ's Church even to this day and will for all the ages.

My question for you is do you agree with this position as articulated above? If not, why not?

Quote:

---

I think you are better than this, but I'm afraid this is what happens when you constantly try to rephrase other people's arguments and straw-man your case like you are doing here

---

Who created a straw man? You asked me whether I agreed with your statement. I said no and used your examples as cause for why I said no.

Quote:

---

You attempted to put words into Zobel's mouth that Zobel never said.

---

I haven't done that either.

Quote:

---

When asked to clarify YOUR position you then default back to something else. You tie yourself up into knots and nobody can figure out what you are trying to say, or when you are talking for yourself vs. when you are attempting to talk for someone else. In this case you are twisting and contorting my statements to drop something that I NEVER dropped, namely the Holy Spirit. You took the liberty of trying to drop it for me, and I won't let that go unchecked.

---

First, this is nonsense.

Second, this is a message board, so things clearly get lost in this medium of communication. I'm not the only one having to clarify additional positions and so forth. You seem to think it's a bad thing to have to add additional clarity to the conversation and I'm not sure why? That's typically how normal discussion should go...

Third, you clearly did drop the name, but we'll get to that in a minute.

Quote:

---

In my second statement I am speaking of THESE MEN (the same men as in my original statement) which would follow perfectly that these men were the Church (Bishops/priests if you like to clarify further) and therefore it was THESE SAME MEN who were also guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit and that THESE VERY SAME MEN were NOT acting on their own as individuals and thus coming to their own personal decisions about what was Scripture but rather THESE SAME MEN were working together as a group to discern what was and was not Scripture.

---

So first, if you want to take this stance, there was no reason to even provide a second statement.

We've previously agreed that there were men/church. So that acknowledges a group of people working together.

We've previously agreed that the process was overseen and protected by the Holy Spirit such that their decisions would necessarily align with that of the Holy Spirit.

We've previously agreed that the conclusion of what would be considered to be inspired would be correct because of the oversight and protection of the Holy Spirit.

So why even make the second statement unless you're trying to shift the argument?

Impossibly difficult?

I asked you if 2 statements were correct. You agreed. I then offered a conclusion based on those 2 statements.

Why is necessity strange though? It's applicable to basically everything we do in our life.

I want to get from TX to NY for a trip, so I took an airplane. Was it a necessity that I too the airplane just because I did? Of course not, I could have driven myself, walked, taken a train, taken a taxi, etc etc.

The necessity was that I get to NY. How I chose to get there was my choice.

Or, I could use Mary as an example.

Catholics, for example, hold that Mary was immaculate conceived to avoid the stain of original sin, so that Jesus would be free of original sin. So the necessity was that Jesus be born free of original sin. In their view, God chose to keep Mary free of original sin from conception. So the exact same concept.

I believe even the Orthodox hold that Mary could have sinned but chose not to. It's not clear why that's important, and maybe it's not, but again, the necessity was that Jesus be born free of the affects of the fall and so presumably Mary choosing to be sinless was important.

Either way, it's not a particularly difficult thing.

My friend, you're continuing an argument about points with two separate people who agree with you on those points. There is no objection from either of us, but you keep arguing about it. I'm not sure what you want. Aggressive agreement? But either way, it's not productive.

Larry Lajitas said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

The cycle of proselytizing on this forum, now firmly in the Catholic and Orthodox phase, is so weird.

---

Well, I don't know if it's a phase on this board. I can pretty much promise you if you move 1,000, 1,500 or 5,000 years from now the Apostolic Churches will still be around.

Those that went to some cool super hip husband/wife non-denominational church will be remembered as having attended some weird dead form of pseudo Christianity.

More likely than not they won't be remembered at all.

---

They said the same thing about Islam.

---

Islam is far more powerful. They have a rigorous worship and sacramental life unlike here where you walk into church on Sunday with your coffee and a hipster ripping on a guitar.

---

Speaking as a Muslim...

You'd really be surprised. There's a lot more "Friday Muslims" out there than you would think. You're just exposed in the media to the Salafi fundies

I mean..it is a little ironic that this "argument" started because you made a claim that nobody was making or agreed with, but I do disagree it was not productive. Defining terms and finding agreement is always productive.

Quote:

---

However, Your intentionally adding/removing words and meaning from someone else's words is setting up a different argument or position from the one conveyed and intended. Then telling someone that this new position is wrong and attacking it is textbook straw-man. There are two examples in this thread as shown below.

---

I've not removed a single word or meaning from someone's argument.

I have rephrased things, but that's to try and make sure I understand their argument. In fact looking back to your big "gotcha" I don't see that Zobel materially argued against it.

The where the disagreement went is to the importance of man in the compiling of the Scriptures, and even then Zobel and I appear to agree that the only necessity was God and that man was not a required actor but the method God used to write and compile the Scriptures.

------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

I am going down a very logical and direct path but I think you know that which is why you are trying to avoid the issue. I am not shifting the argument even in the slightest.

---

I'll be completely honest with you. I have no clue what you're trying to do...hence why I commented that based on your clarification of your second statement, it's essentially identical to the first statement and was not necessary.

------------------------------

Quote:

---

CAN YOU AGREE WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE?

---

sure

Quote:

---

I've not removed a single word or meaning from someone's argument.

I have rephrased things, but that's to try and make sure I understand their argument. In fact looking back to your big "gotcha" I don't see that Zobel materially argued against it.

---

When you "rephrase" the statements of others you have a tendency to change what the others both said and what they intended to say - even if only for your "own understanding." You inject meaning and assumptions into things that were never intended by the other person. Maybe that is just your style, but it makes it quite difficult and confusing to engage in productive discussions. Perhaps if you asked for a clarification or help understanding another's position BEFORE jumping to tell them what their position is, what it means or leads to, and why they are wrong - well, it might make for more fruitful dialogue.

And just because someone doesn't "materially argue" against one of your distortions or misrepresentations does not imply acceptance or agreement with it.

On the topic of changing the meaning of another's position...you clearly removed the Holy Spirit from my statement when I did no such thing. I have illustrated that by putting my first and second statements together without changing a single word and the two are perfectly congruent. You agreed with part one and did not agree with part two. Now apparently you agree with both parts. My words and meaning did not change - only your interpretation of them.

Quite an interesting example given the area of discussion on the Bible, and of the merits of Sola Scriptura. One must be careful not to twist the written word to their own destruction. The Scriptures are infallible - but they do not interpret themselves and a flawed interpretation or understanding can have serious consequences.

------------------------------

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I am going down a very logical and direct path but I think you know that which is why you are trying to avoid the issue. I am not shifting the argument even in the slightest.

---

I'll be completely honest with you. I have no clue what you're trying to do...hence why I commented that based on your clarification of your second statement, it's essentially identical to the first statement and was not necessary.

---

I try not to get ahead of myself in these discussions, and while you may want to jump ahead to get to the endgame, I prefer to carefully take it a little at a time.

You are correct that my two statements were essentially identical, but isn't it interesting how you initially objected to the second statement? You did not agree with the second statement until I put them together one right after the other.

Edit: the Holy Spirit guided the entire process through the Church. The Holy Spirit is still guiding the Church even to this very day.

The Church debated for centuries the canon, including plenty of personal .... opinions, sometimes like girls in a high school.

We have plenty of notes from them. The Church came first, not the Bible (which again, is inspired and holy, please read it).

Quote:

---

When you "rephrase" the statements of others you have a tendency to change what the others both said and what they intended to say - even if only for your "own understanding." You inject meaning and assumptions into things that were never intended by the other person. Maybe that is just your style, but it makes it quite difficult and confusing to engage in productive discussions. Perhaps if you asked for a clarification or help understanding another's position BEFORE jumping to tell them what their position is, what it means or leads to, and why they are wrong - well, it might make for more fruitful dialogue.

---

Nonsense. As I pointed out, the one item you claim to represent this was left unchallenged.

In fact, the one time on this thread that I did incorrectly read something, you pointed it out and I agreed that I was incorrect.

You seem to continually try and say that I'm the only one on this thread that is unclear, and that's just simply not true.

Quote:

---

On the topic of changing the meaning of another's position...you clearly removed the Holy Spirit from my statement when I did no such thing.

---

No. I won't back down to this one. I did not remove a single word from your statement. I copied it as you wrote it. If you want to continually accuse me of changing your words, we are pretty much done here. I went so far as to copy/paste your sentences next to each other so it was explicitly clear that there was a difference. It was only after that point that you clarified that it should be implied the Holy Spirit was present in that second sentence.

So on one hand you want me to not make assumptions about people's intent, but on the other hand, I'm supposed to make assumptions about people's intent. That's not the way to have an actual conversation.

Quote:

---

You are correct that my two statements were essentially identical, but isn't it interesting how you initially objected to the second statement? You did not agree with the second statement until I put them together one right after the other.

---

It's not really interesting at all.

It didn't progress the conversation in any way because we've now clarified that your second statement is identical to the first statement.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

"The only point I am attempting to make is that the Bible comes to us through a process that involves more than just the men who wrote the actual letters/books There were:

1. The men/writers of the Bible who were guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit in their writings;
and
2. The men/Church who collected those writings, discerned which writings were and were not to be included in the Bible, and that these men were also guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Would you also agree that these men were working together in their process as a part of a group and were not coming to their own, independent, personal decisions or conclusions on what was indeed inspired Scripture and what was not?"

CAN YOU AGREE WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE?

---

Sure

---

Okay, for the sake of discussion/progression let us just move forward. We know the Holy Spirit guided the Church throughout this process. Would you then agree with all of the following statements? For any you do not agree with please help me understand why you cannot agree

1. That the process of writing, collecting, and discerning the Scriptures happened over a period of many, many (hundreds) of years all guided and protected by the Holy Spirit.

2. These writings were discerned by the men of the Church and tested against the Faith that had been carefully protected and passed down to them from the disciples and through the Church in order to recognize which Scriptures were indeed inspired works.

3. The men who were involved throughout this process were not random individuals. Rather these men were known through and by the Church, were (aside from the original disciples) actually chosen/sent by the Church in their ministry/duties. These men were the disciples of the original disciples, or their disciples, and on down the line so that everyone knew from where and by whom their understanding and knowledge of the faith was derived and known.

4. That during this period of time, different Church communities had received different letters and writings and there was not complete agreement among the various Church leaders about which of these writings were to be held and read and treated as Scripture and which were not inspired Scripture.

5. Ultimately, decisions on what is Scripture were made, and that we can trust that these fallible men were able to make these decisions with an infallible charism because they were in fact guided throughout the decades and centuries by the Holy Spirit working through the Church.

CAN YOU AGREE WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE?



It is my view that God used fallible men to do his infallible work. This included the writing of the Scriptures, the collection of the various works, and the process of recognizing what was and was not actually inspired and infallible Scripture. This was a complex process that was undertaken with the upmost care and concern by the Church throughout the process. All of this was necessary for us to know and have confidence that the Scriptures we hold today are truly Inspired and are the Word of God.

Quote:

---

1. That the process of writing, collecting, and discerning the Scriptures happened over a period of many, many (hundreds) of years all guided and protected by the Holy Spirit.

---

sure.

Quote:

---

2. These writings were discerned by the men of the Church and tested against the Faith that had been carefully protected and passed down to them from the disciples and through the Church in order to recognize which Scriptures were indeed inspired works.

---

Too many undefined words in this to agree or disagree.

Tested against the faith? We never agreed on any of this?

Protected and passed down to them. By who?

Do you think man is capable of doing this on our own?

Quote:

---

3. The men who were involved throughout this process were not random individuals. Rather these men were known through and by the Church, were (aside from the original disciples) actually chosen/sent by the Church in their ministry/duties. These men were the disciples of the original disciples, or their disciples, and on down the line so that everyone knew from where and by whom their understanding and knowledge of the faith was derived and known.

---

Chosen by whom?

They were disciples of the original disciples? Maybe?

Quote:

---

4. That during this period of time, different Church communities had received different letters and writings and there was not complete agreement among the various Church leaders about which of these writings were to be held and read and treated as Scripture and which were not inspired Scripture.

---

sure

Quote:

---

5. Ultimately, decisions on what is Scripture were made, and that we can trust that these fallible men were able to make these decisions with an infallible charism because they were in fact guided throughout the decades and centuries by the Holy Spirit working through the Church.

---

Infallible charism? undefined term.

--------------------------------------------

Now my turn. You skipped a ton of important pieces of data in your rush to get to man.

1. Without the Holy Spirit was man capable of compiling the Scriptures into an infallible book?

2. Was it a necessity that God include man in this process?

3. Was man capable of making an independent decision about the infallibility of Scripture without God's protection?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

2. These writings were discerned by the men of the Church and tested against the Faith that had been carefully protected and passed down to them from the disciples and through the Church in order to recognize which Scriptures were indeed inspired works.

---

Too many undefined words in this to agree or disagree.

Tested against the faith? We never agreed on any of this?

Protected and passed down to them. By who?

Do you think man is capable of doing this on our own?

---

When I say the letters and writings of the early Church were "tested against the faith" that is exactly what I mean. The Christian faith during the early times was passed down through the teaching from the Apostles and disciples. There were many writings from many people during these years that made claims to being from Apostolic origins and authenticity. The process of discerning these works and their reliability included comparing their orthodoxy and agreement with the faith that had been protected, taught, and passed down to them. You are correct to ask "protected and passed down by who". That is a critical question and one that requires an actual answer. How is it that today, a hundred generations and thousands of years later, we can know what we hold as Scripture today is the inspired word of God?

No, I do not believe man could have done this on their own and apart from the Holy Spirit. However, this process was not an individual process of every man for himself to decide, but rather one that worked through God's visible Church on earth. The Church is and was the pillar and foundation of truth, and for this reason the Christians of the first centuries and beyond were able to accept what was true and cast aside what was not. Where there was debate or disagreement it was the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that settled the issue for all Christiandom.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

3. The men who were involved throughout this process were not random individuals. Rather these men were known through and by the Church, were (aside from the original disciples) actually chosen/sent by the Church in their ministry/duties. These men were the disciples of the original disciples, or their disciples, and on down the line so that everyone knew from where and by whom their understanding and knowledge of the faith was derived and known.

---

Chosen by whom?

They were disciples of the original disciples? Maybe?

---

That is my question for you to answer. Do you believe that the leaders of the Church over the first few hundred years (while the Bible was being written and received and discerned) were both 1) called by God; and 2) ratified, ordained and sent by God's visible Church? Where did the teacher's of the faith derive their knowledge and authority to teach the faith? How did the Christian believers know who to follow? When teachings were challenged and heresy needed to be put down, how was it that the people came to know which teaching to believe?

Do you believe there was a visible and apostolic church with the duty and authority to protect, teach, and pass down the faith? It is my position that this church started with the Christ on the original Apostles and disciples, who entrusted this responsibility to their chosen disciples, who ordained and discipled their disciples and on down the line. The Church has always been something a Christian was able to find through her appointed men (Bishops).

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

5. Ultimately, decisions on what is Scripture were made, and that we can trust that these fallible men were able to make these decisions with an infallible charism because they were in fact guided throughout the decades and centuries by the Holy Spirit working through the Church.

---

Infallible charism? undefined term.

---

What I am saying is that the men (Church) who collected the Scriptures, who compiled the writings, who included and excluded particular works, were guided and protected from making errors in the process by the Holy Spirit. That in order for our Bible to be infallible today, the men who put ink to paper were inspired to write with infallibility in that purpose, and likewise them men on the other end of the process were inspired to do their part with the same type of inspiration and therefore infallibility.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Quote:

---

Now my turn. You skipped a ton of important pieces of data in your rush to get to man.

1. Without the Holy Spirit was man capable of compiling the Scriptures into an infallible book?

---

No. That is my entire point.

Quote:

---

2. Was it a necessity that God include man in this process?

---

I would say it was not a necessity for God because God can do anything without man. However, a mortal perspective and what MAN needs in this process is quite a different question. God understands what we need, and God provides.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus Christ did not write a single word to leave behind but instead He established His Church and promised the protection of Holy Spirit so that hell would not prevail against the Church. The Bible comes to us through the same Church and therefore we can know the Bible is truth. It is because of this Apostolic Church, and this entire process guided by the Holy Spirit through the Church, that we can know that the Scriptures are the Holy Word of God today. If not for the Church attesting to the Scriptures then I'm not sure how man would have been able to know the Bible is not just another storybook.

Would that have been possible? For God, yes no problem. Quite different for man I am afraid. God chose His methods for a reason.

Quote:

---

3. Was man capable of making an independent decision about the infallibility of Scripture without God's protection?

---

No, and God did not leave the decision up to any individual man either. Everything came to us through His Church with the Holy Spirit guiding the entire process. It is one faith, and only one body, and one truth all guided by the same Holy Spirit and passed down to us through the generations directly from the Apostles.

All this tennis volleying back and forth is dancing past the fundamental issue that is at the heart of this discussion:

BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

It all comes down to authority. The Bible that we have today didn't fall out of the sky in a leather binding with a table of contents. Who or what had/has the authority to define and determine the canon of Sacred Scripture? Luther? Calvin? King James? On what basis can they claim authority? There is NONE. If Luther said "The Holy Spirit is guiding me." How do we know if that's true and who are we to deny it? Perspicacity? A self-refuting concept given the disputes that have been going on for the last 500 years and the thousands of denominations that have disintegrated over the very type of thing we are debating here: the meaning of Scripture.

The undeniably historic and factual answer is very clear: It was DEFINED AND DETERMINED by the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. There is NO OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY with even the hint of DIVINE AUTHORITY required to be able to define and determine what is and is not canonical. If you deny the authority of the OHCAC to define the canon, then you have just stepped off the slippery slope into the meaningless air of relativism. It's every man (or gender undecided person) and his Bible and who the heck are you or we to say otherwise? Without that touchstone, that divinely-assisted Church, built upon a ROCK, it's all just subjective debate and bluster and none of us is any more correct than the other.

The only entity that has the audacity to make the argument that it alone has the divinely-guided authority necessary to define and determine the canon of the Sacred Scriptures is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. The OHCAC looked to Sacred Tradition, which unambiguously predated the canon of scriptures by 3 centuries, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit that was promised to it by Christ himself, to define and determine the canon.

If that's not true, then we all believe a bunch of sophistry.

Come to think of it, the tragic irony of all this is that the OHCAC, the mystical Body of Christ, is torn asunder and splintered because some of its members insisted and continue to insist on a man-made doctrine (Sola Scriptura) that they developed all by themselves at the behest of certain individuals whose novel idea is built entirely on on the divinely inspired nature of a canon that can only be defined and determined by the OHCAC. If it wasn't so tragic it would be hilarious.

You're correct about one thing. For Roman Catholics, it's all about authority. It's what drives Roman Catholics to read Matthew 16 and think it's about Peter. Roman Catholic's desire for "authority" has done more to split the Church than maybe anything else.

But lets see how Jesus dealt with your response in Matthew 15.

Quote:

---

15 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." 3 He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 5 But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, "What you would have gained from me is given to God," 6 he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
8 "'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

---

The Pharisees had authority. They could even have claimed the OT of that time was because of their traditions. They could or should have accused Jesus of not respecting their authority.

Yet we see from Jesus that the only authority he respected is that of the Father. The only tradition that mattered was what came from the Father.

So yes..Authority..But not the authority as defined by man. Not traditions as defined by man. But only that of God.

Two problems. You assume that the tradition of this or that faith makes void the word of God, which remains to be seen. The other is that Jesus told people that because of the authority of Moses' seat that the people should be careful to do everything they told them to do. I don't think you follow the Lord's view of authority.

Actually there's a third problem. How do you know the tradition defined by God? you'll say whatever is in the scriptures but you're right back where you started using a text you inherited from people who's authority you reject.