Angainor:
Are you saying there is no way a person could possibly conclude the Bible was inspired without a human authority telling you?
I’m afraid you didn’t answer the question. You made the assertion that the books of the new testament were written by the apostles, and all others are excluded. So again, how do you know that? History contains a great many books and gospels, some of which are outstanding, some of which were used by the early Church almost as if they were authoritative. Someone told you this particular collection is the word of God, but how do you know it’s true? Because it sounds holy? Is that the test we place upon writing to declare it the word of God?
Angainor:
The authorship of many of the books are known fairly certainly from a historical perspective. The rest are theologically consistant with the known books.
Indeed. Where is this historical information coming from? Did these people who assembled the bible have any sacred beliefs which were not literally spelled out within the pages they collected? How about the Church in the living times of the apostles? Would anyone at the time that the books of the new canon were written have made the assertion that a belief or teaching not blatantly spelled out within the new canon is to be rejected?
It is within this “historical perspective” that sola scriptura fails. The very people who both wrote the bible as well as those who gathered and sealed the most important and authoritative writings of those authors lived their lives in a faith that does not match what protestants have extracted from the canon.
Angainor:
Also, I believe the Church was working to preserve the word of God without requiring the assistance of authoritative individuals.
Actually, it was the very need for authority which prompted the assembly of the canon. There was a broad outcry to determine which writings were divine and which were not. But what Church are you referring to? Baptist? Pentacostal? It is true that the Church was working preserve the words of those whom God divinely inspired, but which Church? And if you trust this Church enough to accept all of its decisions, without question, regarding not only what is divinely inspired, but what is not, then why do you choose to disregard everything else those same people believed?
Why are you ignoring their faith and practices? Because a thousand years later it became fashionable to rewrite history from the canon alone in a complete vacuum of the world it was written and assembled in? The bible is a priceless collection of divinely inspired writings, the very best we have and never to be contradicted, but it was never, even at the times it was written and assembled, the entirety of the faith. The bible is a collection of scriptural teachings. It was never intended, by anyone, to be an unabridged instruction manual. It is only a part of the total faith that Christ and the apostles gave to us. John himself said this, John 21:25 “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” The apostles had more to teach us than was preserved in writing during their lifetime. Why do you disregard it?
Angainor:
Have you ever heard of the game
Telephone?
Sure but it’s a very different game when you write your message down on paper and pass it around the table. Catholic tradition is written.
Angainor:
Is it your place to say that it is not the Holy Spirit’s work if every now and again the Church does not take a step back, look at the whole picture, and
test itself?
Yes, hence the word “reformation.” The last one was less than fifty years ago (Vatican II. Read “Gaudium et spes” and see for yourself). The Church has been very rigorous about preserving the integrity of what we were entrusted with, the original deposit of faith. At the time, that deposit was oral. It was taught verbally. Writings were certainly made, writings of unimaginable importance, but none of them were meant to be a complete unabridged instruction manual. No one at the time thought they were.
Catholics refuse to alter that deposit in any way because the Church belongs to Christ, not us. Those who have been handed down the authority and responsibilities of the apostles are entrusted with it, and no man may change it save Christ himself when he returns. It is the protestants who one day decided to disregard the portions of that original faith that made them unhappy. That decision sprang from a very serious conflict five centuries ago in which enormous mistakes were made on all sides. But the truth has never changed.
Angainor:
