Faith and Canonicity
Submitted by Collin on August 22 2001 12:56:42
In reply to Re: Well we can agree on one thing submitted by John Doe on August 22 2001 09:13:05
|
Faith is evidence in things unseen, but all faith has a basis. If one has no basis for their faith to fall back on it is called delusion. You believe that it is impossible to verify the Bible through any external means. I truly hope you're wrong. I've had a friend who would smile when a conversation hit that point, "How convenient," he would grin. A self-supportive self-contained method of proof is very "difficult" to bring about, if not impossible - to borrow your colloquialism. Even considering that the Bible needs to be taken on faith, you MUST have a basis for your faith. You brought up the interesting point that one needs to wonder about the Canonicity of the books in order to adequately use Scripture as a support. Let me ask you then what basis for your faith do you have? You claim the Bible is self-supportive and cannot be proved through any means but that of its own internal sources. I find it hard to believe that a book honestly written by our God would be this left to this much unsupported speculation. Yet for this discussion I will give you the benefit of the doubt just to respond. To recap: The God of the Universe, of logic and order, who sent His one and only Son to die on the cross- all just so that we can have a relationship with Him again. This is the God we are talking about. He whose one mission is to love us and be in relationship with us eternally at any price has paid everything He has. Now here we are 2000 years later discussing how we know His absolute moral will and you are claiming His single authoritative transmission of His divine will has no external verification but that of itself. That an infallible omnipotent omniscient omnipresent God inspired people across multiple centuries, from multiple cultures, to write multiple books in multiple languages, to multiple audiences, with multiple translations to give us His perfect will. Certainly this is possible for such a God, yes. And then you believe He left it up to a few weak and fallible humans from multiple theologies to be guided to finding His true infallible works among literally hundreds or thousands of others? It would certainly be a stretch, but I would suppose that presumption would be open for consideration if these works were clearly identified or even if these men all agreed on God's guidance. And yet it's evident by your own post that they aren't. Everything I've ever heard about the Canonicity process has been filled with discord and tension. These books were compiled in anything but harmony based partially on a political basis, by your admission, and remain fought over to this day, to become what again? The one true moral authority from God? You've not shown there's even an agreement of what belongs in the Bible let alone an internal basis for support. I refuse to believe that God would sacrifice Jesus Christ to redeem us through grace back into relationship with Him and then leave us to unfounded faith as to whether or not the Bible is His absolute moral law. Faith is not what I have a problem with, it's "magical faith" without a strong basis. This group seems to want to prove through inductive reasoning, based on personal experience and effect or mere presumption to the issue, and then attempts to explain away any holes by magical faith. I truly hope that is the not the reality, but if it is I shall quit attempting dialogue on the topic, for it is clear that any similar position will neither shed light nor move us forward in discussion. Dive deep, seek peace, love forever, Collin Maxwell |
Follow ups: