Open-Minded Creationism!

[vossler]

Sorta broke my CF rhythm, busy-ness and all that, but this discussion is good in that its gettin below sea level, if you will, and pearing at the underbelly of the iceberg.

Breaking one's CF rhythm isn't a bad thing. I thought I was in the process of doing just that and lo and behold I'm still here. As long as I'm following the Lord, it's all good though.

My apologies. That's the second time this week I used 'you' instead of 'one' since I meant it generally and not personally. I certainly wasn't accusing you of anything!

No problem, I didn't take it that way.

Sounds familiar, and I think that's fine if one is dealing with one's own revelation of faith. But when it comes to something that spans across the ages and the nations, like scripture, does that really work? Do we know that the councils that determined the canon were inspired? By what reconning if so? And what of this thing we call 'The Bible'? How does it form and function effect our understanding of the message of scripture? Is it excerting undue influence?

I don't have answers to these questions, even if I have my leanings as to which direction I tend to go.

Well if it doesn't work then I believe we're in trouble. If my God isn't omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent then He isn't much of a sovereign God is He? As such He shouldn't have too much difficultly ensuring that His Word is complete and without error, don't you think? As far as the Bible exerting undue influence, well I had to chuckle when I read that because I think its quite the opposite.

Pretty much as you do. Prayer. Study. Silence. Fasting. Worship. Even a clearness committee if the situation seems to warrent it. Listeng for that small, still voice that always seems to say the most unexpected things at the most inconvenient times.

Isn't that the beauty of God, He's always challenging us to not be complacent by formulating an ABC method of communication.

 

[Willtor]

http://www.davidhocking.org/

I can't find the blog that it was in...but there are some great articles about the Bible and when/how/why it was translated, it's basis etc that are also pertinent to this dicussion if you care to read them...


here are some others
http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-jesus-favored-old-testament-textual-manuscript.htm

Is this the article you mean? http://www.davidhocking.org/blog/?p=131

 

[Gwenyfur]

That's one of 'em. but...I was thinking more of this one
http://www.davidhocking.org/blog/?p=134

 

[vossler]

This is hardly an objective criterion for correction, though, don't you think?

Ahh...correction, now that's an entirely different subject, I thought we were talking about what was Scripture? In order to correct something one needs a standard or rule to use as a measuring stick, Scripture certainly meets that standard, don't you think?

Now if the question is what is Scripture, well that's where I accept by faith that only the Bible meets that standard. Could a book be excluded that shouldn't have been? Or is there a book included that doesn't belong? I have only one answer, two emphatic NOs!!! Remember we serve an awesome God who loved us enough to send His Son to die for us. I think given that tremendous love, I should have no doubt believing that He didn't make sure His Word wasn't complete and without error. Think about it, if that weren't true the entire Christian faith could be subject to question and doubt.

Nope. Just seems curious that even the most scholarly theologian had difficulty assessing the divine inpiration of the Scriptures. So insisting that one's take on the matter, based solely on faith, is correct seems... unconvincing, to say the least.

Thankfully it isn't my job to convince anyone, I'll leave that to the Holy Spirit. BTW, faith in Jesus is the anchor of our Christian belief. He was pretty convincing, to say the least.

Including non-canonical scripture? That's the question.

Well if it's non-canonical it can hardly be called Scripture, right?

 

[chaoschristian]

As far as the Bible exerting undue influence, well I had to chuckle when I read that because I think its quite the opposite.

Ah, not 'The Bible', but the format, the codex. I always seem to come back to this question in these discussions on the nature of scripture: how does the fact that scripture is well scripture bound together in a codex with verse numbers and other stuff effect the way we receive what the text says? And is the influence of this format something we recognize? Is it something that pushes us to certain conclusions that we wouldn't arrive at 'naturally' if it were otherwise?

Look at this way, if you had only ever heard the Gospel, and never read it, if you had only ever experienced 'the words of God' in a group setting, and not in your study, how do you think it would change the way you look at the message that was being conveyed?

We're so imbedded in a literate culture, that it's almost impossible to talk about this without colouring it with the language of literacy.

Forgive me, as you can see, this is something I struggle with.

 

[Willtor]

Is this the article you mean? http://www.davidhocking.org/blog/?p=131

That's one of 'em. but...I was thinking more of this one
http://www.davidhocking.org/blog/?p=134

They're interesting articles, but they don't really seem to address the topics they set out to address. In the first article (the one I cited), since my research has led me to different conclusions on some of these things, I wish he would give his reasons so I could compare. In the second one (the one you cited) he doesn't give his reason for thinking that the Scriptures are infallible. I agree that they are infallible, but I'd like to hear why he thinks so.

 

[laptoppop]

Ah, not 'The Bible', but the format, the codex. I always seem to come back to this question in these discussions on the nature of scripture: how does the fact that scripture is well scripture bound together in a codex with verse numbers and other stuff effect the way we receive what the text says? And is the influence of this format something we recognize? Is it something that pushes us to certain conclusions that we wouldn't arrive at 'naturally' if it were otherwise?

Look at this way, if you had only ever heard the Gospel, and never read it, if you had only ever experienced 'the words of God' in a group setting, and not in your study, how do you think it would change the way you look at the message that was being conveyed?

We're so imbedded in a literate culture, that it's almost impossible to talk about this without colouring it with the language of literacy.

Forgive me, as you can see, this is something I struggle with.

I took a class in Phillipians where every class session we started out reading the entire book beginning to end out loud. One estimate is only about 5% of the people were literate - most folks literally HEARD the letter. Hearing it like that is a different experience - for me, I found myself focusing more on the broad themes as opposed to the details. Even just reading it from a printout without chapters and verses is cool -- or listening to someone else read it. Its very cool to experience the Bible in different ways.

 

[Willtor]

I took a class in Phillipians where every class session we started out reading the entire book beginning to end out loud. One estimate is only about 5% of the people were literate - most folks literally HEARD the letter. Hearing it like that is a different experience - for me, I found myself focusing more on the broad themes as opposed to the details. Even just reading it from a printout without chapters and verses is cool -- or listening to someone else read it. Its very cool to experience the Bible in different ways.

That's cool. Have you ever done that "manuscript" study on Mark? You have the book of Mark on loose-leaf paper and you draw tons of circles and arrows on it to connect themes and words.

I am convinced that examining the Scriptures in these different ways, themselves, promote different forms of interpretation. The Mark study was certainly an eye-opener for me. The question is whether every form lends itself to an interpretation that corresponds to what the author intended. Certainly, I don't think that any form is going to undermine the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, but there are implications.

 

[laptoppop]

That's cool. Have you ever done that "manuscript" study on Mark? You have the book of Mark on loose-leaf paper and you draw tons of circles and arrows on it to connect themes and words.

I am convinced that examining the Scriptures in these different ways, themselves, promote different forms of interpretation. The Mark study was certainly an eye-opener for me. The question is whether every form lends itself to an interpretation that corresponds to what the author intended. Certainly, I don't think that any form is going to undermine the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, but there are implications.

I haven't done the Mark thing - it sounds cool. I don't think I'd refer to "the" intended meaning too much. Most of Scripture has lots of purposes and meanings and levels - kind of like an onion. As you ponder/meditate/memorize/consider Scripture in different ways, new and different things are taught to you. This doesn't mean any are false -- just that there is a wonderful richness there.

Indeed - just the word Jesus - when you consider all His roles/names/dynamics/etc. can affect how you see a verse. The same verse can be drastically different when you see Him as Lord, as King, as servant, as Messiah, as healer, as teacher, as incarnation, as God, as perfect revelation, etc. This doesn't mean they are false - just different facets on the jewel.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I took a class in Phillipians where every class session we started out reading the entire book beginning to end out loud. One estimate is only about 5% of the people were literate - most folks literally HEARD the letter. Hearing it like that is a different experience - for me, I found myself focusing more on the broad themes as opposed to the details. Even just reading it from a printout without chapters and verses is cool -- or listening to someone else read it. Its very cool to experience the Bible in different ways.

I love listening to someone read the word....it's amazing the difference it makes in hearing vs reading....

 

[Willtor]

I haven't done the Mark thing - it sounds cool. I don't think I'd refer to "the" intended meaning too much. Most of Scripture has lots of purposes and meanings and levels - kind of like an onion. As you ponder/meditate/memorize/consider Scripture in different ways, new and different things are taught to you. This doesn't mean any are false -- just that there is a wonderful richness there.

Indeed - just the word Jesus - when you consider all His roles/names/dynamics/etc. can affect how you see a verse. The same verse can be drastically different when you see Him as Lord, as King, as servant, as Messiah, as healer, as teacher, as incarnation, as God, as perfect revelation, etc. This doesn't mean they are false - just different facets on the jewel.

I don't mean to say that there aren't plenty of proper interpretations. Certainly, God makes Himself known through Scripture to individuals - where they are - all the time. But there are also plenty of faulty interpretations. One may get something from a passage or verse that was never intended, and even be honestly mistaken. It's happened throughout history on a variety of matters. As it applies to this discussion, it may be that some misunderstandings have occurred due to the particular forms in which the Scriptures appear.

Consider my Mark study, for example. It seems unlikely that any of us (students) were going to go too far wrong because the form was new and unusual for us, and there was nothing about it that indicated that our previous ways of studying Mark were invalid. But if the study were to become incredibly popular, given a few hundred years, people might come along and argue that this was always the proper way to study Mark. Interpretations might arise that rely entirely on the form in which it is now being studied, and cannot be supported (may even be disputed) by other means of study. One might ask, "didn't God know that we would study Mark in this way?" to which one can only respond, "yes, He knew." But it wouldn't validate the interpretation.

I know you weren't arguing this point, and I may be preaching to the choir, but this discussion of looking at the Bible in different forms (you hear Philippians, and I look at Mark, mss-style) speaks quite to the heart of the one in which I was just engaged.

 

[shernren]

4. Mallon, if the Scriptures were written as filtered through man's understanding, then we would not have passages such as "Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow." 1 Peter 1:10-11.

Rather, the histories were given by those who lived them. The prophecies were from God and they clearly did not always understand what they were writing, but they were faithful to put down what they had been shown.

If you'd wanted to support such a view 2 Peter 1:19-21 might have made more sense as a quote: And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (ESV) - but as it is, Peter clearly states in the portion quoted that the prophets had to search intently and with great care. Now where in verbal plenary inspiration is there any need to search intently and with great care? Do human typewriters have to do anything other than write what they're told?

God: Moses, do you have your papyrus, quill*, and ink* ready?
Moses: Yes. Speak, Lord.
God: "In the beginning".
Moses: (writing) "In the beginning".
God: "I created".
Moses: "I created" -
God: No! When I say 'I', you write 'God', unless I'm using reported speech!
Moses: "No! When I say - "
God: Scrap that. Let's try this again.
Moses: (spoken) Right.
God: "In the beginning".
Moses: (writing) "In the beginning".
God: "God created".
Moses: "God created".
God: (aside) Only nuts speak of themselves in third person in eyewitness accounts**.
Moses: "Only nuts - "
God: ENOUGH! That's it. I'm going to write all this out Myself***. Humans.

* I have no idea what they actually wrote with. This is merely an artistic reconstruction, almost certainly anachronistic.
** As the Fundamentalists would have us believe.
*** On stone, naturally.

Of course, this is merely a caricature of plenary verbal inspiration. But the ending (intentionally) shows what I consider to be the main problem with it: if that is how the Bible was written then why employ writers at all? Why not have angels bear it down from heaven? After all, God gave manna in the desert, so it wouldn't be too hard for Him to wake us one fine Sunday morning to the sight of thousands of little leather KJV Bibles dotting the road for us to pick up and bring to church. If "theologically, from the standpoint of content, the Bible regards the human writers as having contributed nothing, and Scripture [is] entirely the creation of God" (as the New Bible Dictionary puts it), then why bother with the human writers at all? After all, it is precisely the illusion (if it is just an illusion) that the human writers did contribute something which has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

I say that in the Bible God does not so much override human language and words (to substitute His own) but redeems them in their autonomy. After all, that is what He has always been doing throughout history: He does not "reformat" the Jews' hearts and minds but redeems them, even to the point of the Exile; He does not allow His Son to overcome death without first submitting to it, redeeming it from within instead of overriding it from without. Is it not plausible that we have here the same thing, in the arena of human language and words? What we have here is not so much God's writings slapped upon man as man's writings uplifted, inspired, and authorized by God.

 

[vossler]

Ah, not 'The Bible', but the format, the codex. I always seem to come back to this question in these discussions on the nature of scripture: how does the fact that scripture is well scripture bound together in a codex with verse numbers and other stuff effect the way we receive what the text says? And is the influence of this format something we recognize? Is it something that pushes us to certain conclusions that we wouldn't arrive at 'naturally' if it were otherwise?

Wow, you're a far deeper thinker than I am. I've never given that a second thought, much less a first. Interesting thoughts nonetheless though.

Look at this way, if you had only ever heard the Gospel, and never read it, if you had only ever experienced 'the words of God' in a group setting, and not in your study, how do you think it would change the way you look at the message that was being conveyed?

Now that is something I've thought about. I personally think such an approach would be extremely productive and promote or push each of us to a more intimate relationship with our Creator. It's only when we flesh it out in ways like this that real growth occurs.

We're so imbedded in a literate culture, that it's almost impossible to talk about this without colouring it with the language of literacy.

Quite fascinating thoughts, as long as we don't use this to minimize the actual words I can see and relate to what your saying.

Forgive me, as you can see, this is something I struggle with.

I'm having a hard enough time struggling to work out my salvation that I don't have the time or even thoughts of concerning myself in the manner as you do. Maybe someday when I get it together I will.

 

[Mallon]

Ahh...correction, now that's an entirely different subject, I thought we were talking about what was Scripture? In order to correct something one needs a standard or rule to use as a measuring stick, Scripture certainly meets that standard, don't you think?

Indeed. We are discussing what constitutes Scripture... to a first century Christian with no Bible. You are debating from a stance of faith, saying that what Paul meant by "all Scripture" is the 21st century "Holy Bible" (translation aside). I am arguing, based on history, that this probably wasn't the case. That it is entirely possible that some early Christians viewed what are now called "apocryphal books" as Scripture, especially given that some of these books are quoted in canon.
I am unsure what you mean by, "In order to correct something one needs a standard or rule to use as a measuring stick, Scripture certainly meets that standard, don't you think?" If Scripture doesn't comment on the matter we are dicussing, then I hardly see how it can qualify as a rule to gauge the situation.

I think given that tremendous love, I should have no doubt believing that He didn't make sure His Word wasn't complete and without error. Think about it, if that weren't true the entire Christian faith could be subject to question and doubt.

Forgive me, but you seem to be living under the delusion that the Bible and its contents haven't changed at all these last ~1600 years. Does the fact that it has suggest to you that God doesn't love or care about you?

Well if it's non-canonical it can hardly be called Scripture, right?

That's a very post-fourth-century take on the matter.

 

[vossler]

If "theologically, from the standpoint of content, the Bible regards the human writers as having contributed nothing, and Scripture [is] entirely the creation of God" (as the New Bible Dictionary puts it), then why bother with the human writers at all? After all, it is precisely the illusion (if it is just an illusion) that the human writers did contribute something which has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

First of I don't agree with the New Bible Dictionary's definition of Scripture. I think it's quite obvious that Scripture is flavored by the writer, as well it should be. If it weren't then, as you say, why use man.

I say that in the Bible God does not so much override human language and words (to substitute His own) but redeems them in their autonomy. After all, that is what He has always been doing throughout history: He does not "reformat" the Jews' hearts and minds but redeems them, even to the point of the Exile; He does not allow His Son to overcome death without first submitting to it, redeeming it from within instead of overriding it from without. Is it not plausible that we have here the same thing, in the arena of human language and words? What we have here is not so much God's writings slapped upon man as man's writings uplifted, inspired, and authorized by God.

I have no problem with this at all, as a matter of fact this is pretty much how I see this. God works through the limitations of His creation to redeem us. Yes God submits to our fallibility and produces something infallible. I see this as another way or means of God demonstrating His awesome power. Think about it, if God can demonstrate His power in such a way that clearly demonstrates it was Him and Him alone that was able to bring together many different fallen men to produce one cohesive, complete and infallible book doesn't that speak volumes? Don't you think that should give us more cause to rejoice in His greatness and recognize Him for who He is? There's no way man could ever take credit for such a work because he's simply not capable to bring forth something as awesome and splendid as that, yet God chose to him nonetheless. Pretty cool!

 

[vossler]

Indeed. We are discussing what constitutes Scripture... to a first century Christian with no Bible.

They did have the Old Testament and there was no debate as to whether it was considered Scripture. Today we have the Old and New Testaments and for the vast majority of Christians both are considered Scripture. Now you're free to think otherwise, but I won't entertain it.

You are debating from a stance of faith, saying that what Paul meant by "all Scripture" is the 21st century "Holy Bible" (translation aside). I am arguing, based on history, that this probably wasn't the case.

What I'm actually saying is that God inspired Paul to write those words in anticipation of the complete text. I would also argue that all of the most influential church fathers, as far as I know, through the ages saw it in the same light.

That it is entirely possible that some early Christians viewed what are now called "apocryphal books" as Scripture, especially given that some of these books are quoted in canon.

I haven't seen any credible evidence that suggests that our church fathers saw it as such.

I am unsure what you mean by, "In order to correct something one needs a standard or rule to use as a measuring stick, Scripture certainly meets that standard, don't you think?" If Scripture doesn't comment on the matter we are dicussing, then I hardly see how it can qualify as a rule to gauge the situation.

It's kind of hard for Scripture to comment on something before it is written right? We use Jesus' words to guage our behavior right, but that wasn't possible until they were written.

Forgive me, but you seem to be living under the delusion that the Bible and its contents haven't changed at all these last ~1600 years. Does the fact that it has suggest to you that God doesn't love or care about you?

I might just well be delusional, who knows, I don't believe I am. If you consider it a delusion to believe that Scripture hasn't changed in the last 1600 years, you of course are free to do so. I would submit though that even as the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown, Scripture is neverchanging.

That's a very post-fourth-century take on the matter.

Is that somehow bad?

 

[Mallon]

They did have the Old Testament and there was no debate as to whether it was considered Scripture.

They had the Tanakh, for certain (not the "Old Testament"). And even then, the Tanakh differs considerably in some ways from the traditional Old Testament (with the inclusion of dueterocanon in the latter).
That said, I am not debating whether Paul considered the Tanakh scripture. I am simply questioning whether he limited "all Scripture" to the Tanakh or not. The quoting of non-canon in both the OT and NT leads me to believe otherwise.

Today we have the Old and New Testaments and for the vast majority of Christians both are considered Scripture. Now you're free to think otherwise, but I won't entertain it.

Strawman. You know I am not questioning whether or not the Bible is "scripture." See above.

What I'm actually saying is that God inspired Paul to write those words in anticipation of the complete text.

I know. And I am saying that this faith-based statement is without biblical support, and that, based on everything I have pointed out so far, probably isn't supported by a historical understanding of Scripture, either.

I would also argue that all of the most influential church fathers, as far as I know, through the ages saw it in the same light.

Clearly not the case for the Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches and their respective fathers.

It's kind of hard for Scripture to comment on something before it is written right?

You don't seem to think so. You think Paul anticipated the Bible, knowing "all Scripture" to mean the Protestant "Old + New Testaments".

I might just well be delusional, who knows, I don't believe I am. If you consider it a delusion to believe that Scripture hasn't changed in the last 1600 years, you of course are free to do so. I would submit though that even as the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown, Scripture is neverchanging.

Of course the Bible has changed. It has lost meaning through translation, it has had verses added, it has had verses deleted, and has had various books added and removed. The very finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls has forced us to update our Bibles. Compare the KJV and NIV side-by-side. You know this, vossler. Why do you deny it?

Is that somehow bad?

Looking down the deep well of Christian/Jewish history and seeing your reflection at the bottom? OF COURSE! If you want to understand Scripture the way the authors intended, you have to put yourself in their shoes. You can't just sit comforably in your chair and pretend the authors meant what you want them to mean.

 

[Willtor]

What I'm actually saying is that God inspired Paul to write those words in anticipation of the complete text. I would also argue that all of the most influential church fathers, as far as I know, through the ages saw it in the same light.

The first time I read the epistle of Polycarp I was surprised to find him quoting the Deuterocanon. One of his citations, actually, is the very verse of Tobit that I found so difficult to swallow when I read that. In general, you'll find that the Church Fathers cite quite a lot of sources that aren't Scriptural, and quite a lot of sources that are. The First Epistle of Clement of Rome was apparently as widely read (in the early Church) as any of the NT canon. This is not to argue that Clement should be put in the canon, but to say that I think there's more to the foundation of the faith than simply identifying canon and separating it from non-canon.

The consequence is that the process of such distinction is not separating out the diamonds from the dirt, so to speak. I think it's more along the lines of identifying the most precious diamonds and calling them as such. It's from this framework that I speak when I discuss the Scriptures.

 

[vossler]

They had the Tanakh, for certain (not the "Old Testament"). And even then, the Tanakh differs considerably in some ways from the traditional Old Testament (with the inclusion of dueterocanon in the latter).

Boy we're sure getting technical aren't we. The Tanakh, Mikra, Hebrew Bible or Old Testament are for all practical purposes the same thing. If you're looking to split hairs and show those minor differences in such a manner to prove they are not, feel free, I just don't think this audience is interested, I know I'm certainly not. As far as I know the traditional Old Testament didn't include the dueterocanon, but I could be, and I'm sure will be, proven wrong since I'm not nearly as well versed in canonical history as you liken yourself to be.

That said, I am not debating whether Paul considered the Tanakh scripture. I am simply questioning whether he limited "all Scripture" to the Tanakh or not. The quoting of non-canon in both the OT and NT leads me to believe otherwise.

I don't know whether he, Paul, limited 'all Scripture' to the Tanakh, Hebrew Bible, Mikra or Old Testament (pick your title), but I don't truly believe it to be all that important because those words were inspired by the Holy Spirit. BTW, the quoting of non-canon material within the Scripture (Our Bible) is minimal and as far as I know only used in non-doctrinal matters.

Strawman. You know I am not questioning whether or not the Bible is "scripture." See above.

Truthfully...I really don't know what your questioning because I'm truly confused where you're going with all of this.

I know. And I am saying that this faith-based statement is without biblical support, and that, based on everything I have pointed out so far, probably isn't supported by a historical understanding of Scripture, either.

Is it necessary to have something within Scripture that tells us when Paul said "All Scripture" that it meant everything but the New Testament or can we logically infer that it included the New Testament since even you agree that it is Scripture?

Clearly not the case for the Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches and their respective fathers.

I don't know if those fathers didn't believe 'All Scripture' to include the New Testament, I do know that folks like Luther, Calvin, Wesley etc. did. If the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic church fathers didn't believe the New Testament to be under the 'All Scripture' heading, how did they see it?

You don't seem to think so. You think Paul anticipated the Bible, knowing "all Scripture" to mean the Protestant "Old + New Testaments".

No God throught the Holy Spirit's inspiration of Paul anticipated the Bible as we know it today.

Of course the Bible has changed. It has lost meaning through translation, it has had verses added, it has had verses deleted, and has had various books added and removed. The very finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls has forced us to update our Bibles. Compare the KJV and NIV side-by-side. You know this, vossler. Why do you deny it?

I'm obviously more naive or ignorant than you initially thought because I don't know this. Everything I know about the Dead Sea Scrolls has shown that our present Bible is accurate and complete. Given that you have some knowledge to the contrary I would ask that you provide us with an example of how our present Bible has been updated as a result of the discovery of the Scrolls. This should be interesting because the Scrolls weren't discovered until approx. 1947 and our King James Bible was written in the 1600s.

Looking down the deep well of Christian/Jewish history and seeing your reflection at the bottom? OF COURSE! If you want to understand Scripture the way the authors intended, you have to put yourself in their shoes. You can't just sit comforably in your chair and pretend the authors meant what you want them to mean.

I've never claimed to advocate such a comfortable position. Given that our church fathers over 1600 years ago determined what the canon would be, I don't see how me in my 'comfortable position' have in any way attempted to determine what the authors intended. They clearly said so back then and I'm not here to change it in any way shape or form. So my understanding of Scripture always starts with the context and setting, however that isn't the question before us, is it? The question before us, at least in this reference, was "What is Scripture."

 

[vossler]

The first time I read the epistle of Polycarp I was surprised to find him quoting the Deuterocanon. One of his citations, actually, is the very verse of Tobit that I found so difficult to swallow when I read that. In general, you'll find that the Church Fathers cite quite a lot of sources that aren't Scriptural, and quite a lot of sources that are. The First Epistle of Clement of Rome was apparently as widely read (in the early Church) as any of the NT canon. This is not to argue that Clement should be put in the canon, but to say that I think there's more to the foundation of the faith than simply identifying canon and separating it from non-canon.

I have no doubt what you're saying here is probably true. However, my point was that all our significant church fathers believed the New Testament, pretty much as we know it today, to be Scripture.

The consequence is that the process of such distinction is not separating out the diamonds from the dirt, so to speak. I think it's more along the lines of identifying the most precious diamonds and calling them as such. It's from this framework that I speak when I discuss the Scriptures.

That I can agree with 100%.