I can understand that for some Christians, looking into the history of how the Bible came to be canonized through Holy Tradition and Church authority may seem to be a threat to their faith, but a thread like this might invariably open the issue. But once again, this type of inquiry is not the same as questioning the validity of the Bible. It is simply a matter of umnderstanding by what process the Bible came to be as it is today.
It is not a threat to my faith to understand that the Holy Spirit was the one prayed to for guidance, and the one who gave guidance.
And I do have a fairly good understanding of the process, where a geographically diverse group of Christians came together and came to a more or less better understanding of which spiritual texts were universally used throughout of the various Christian eccessiastical traditions, and more or less agreed that there was assurance that these books could be deemed to be God-breathed.
It is not a threat to my faith at all actually, that OO agreed to Enoch, but others did not, that the eastern and western traditions differed somewhat as well. For the most part it was not a controversial decision, because everybody agreed that scripture was what they were using as scripture already and had been from a very early date.
That was the main basis for their agreement in the first place. They agree to use what they were already using, so there was not much of a compromise!
There were a few outliers of course, a few books included that some had doubts about, a few rejected that some considered to be Scripture, but authentically apostolic, universally used, and approved by the guidance of prayer and the Holy Spirit were the criterion.
This is not a threat to my faith at all. I don't know why you would think that it might be. The post I was commenting on noted how his brethren were opening up a can of worms by over-arguing the point and casting doubt on the authenticity of Scripture itself through their incessant obsession over this side issue.
As if one could not choose between the Koran and Scripture for example, without resorting to circular reasoning!
But of course it will always be raised in these threads, precisely because it is a side issue. When people do not have enough ammunition to deal with the actual issue of sola scriptura directly, the easiest thing to do is to turn the focus on something else.
Protestantism in general, by the way,(not that I am Protestant personally) did not reject the Church of 250 AD. It was the church of 1500 AD that was being protested and being called to reform to a faith that more closely resembled 100 AD and the more authentic faith of the apostles.
It is not Christianity as a whole that is being spurned here, or even the idea of a church making decision on scripture that is being challenged, but a church that makes decisions without regard to Scripture that is being challenged.
The more that you delve on the side issue, the more that it is understood with anyone with the eyes to see and the ears to hear that when it comes to sola scriptura, those who reject it have no good reason that they know of why they do so. Lamentably, they sometimes even start questioning the authenticity of Scripture itself as a defense.
