But for John 3:16 to teach eternal security shouldn't eternal security at least be mentioned in the verse? "Eternal security" does not even exist in the verse. To "believe in Jesus" means not merely intellectual assent or however you put it. Faith IS important, but we must also DO what He commanded or else our faith is a dead faith(Ja 2:14-17).

So are you basing your judgement on scripture itself? Or are you basing your judgement on what you're reading into scripture?

The Church teaches-as she has always taught-that salvation is a process or is like a trust that has been put away for us. It is a promise, but it is not a guaranteed promise. Its like your father putting your inheritance into a trust and he tells you that that inheritence belongs to you-it is yours. But there are conditions of maturity that you must meet in order to receive it: like doing your chores, doing your homework, graduating high school and college, etc.

By meeting those requirments the son receives his trust promised to him. He does not earn it(or rather he does not "work" for it)because it was a trust-it already belonged to him by the promise of the father. But if that son failed to meet those requirments, he would have lost it. So with salvation. It is a gift freely promised and freely given. But if we fail to cooperate with God's grace and mature to the fullness God requires because "nothing unclean and enter it(heaven)" then we can lose it(Matt 7:21,see also Matt 28:19-20; Mark 16:16; Phil 2:12; John 6, etc.).



But as is your "framework of interpretation" is a closed system that precludes that you will never be wrong. Hence your interpretation is always safe because it is always "reasonable"(at least according to you), and therefore assures that anything that you disagree with is not. Your invitation to "persuasion" is an illusion, so is any possibility of you considering, much less accepting, anyone else's critique of your version of what you've interpreted.

All that is left is for someone to present evidence that the Church is historically the true Church(and hence its validity stands). Because IF the Church is true then your charge of circular reasoning is no longer valid

And when one begins to demonstrate the manifold evidence of this you ignore it or dismiss it.

So it seems rather easy to admit you can be wrong when you've practically guaranteed that you can't.


Heb 1:[1] In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; [2] but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Again, shouldn't a verse actually say what you claim it says instead of you telling us it says something that it doesn't? All those verses say is that God spoke to us through men and lastly though a man-His Son. That's all.

Nowhere does those verses say that the canon is closed, nor does it even say what books comprise the canon.


But you accept the authority of Scripture on the authority of Scripture? You're begging the question.

To say that those other books contradict the teachings of scripture simply means that you assume the conclusion that Christianity is correct. You base this conclusion on the authority of Scripture. Which again begs the question.

If you base the assumption of Jesus' authority on the "historical reliability of the Resurrection", where do you obtain your knowledge of the Resurrection? Either from others or from Scripture? If from the authority of Scripture, then again you beg the question. If from others then you commit the same error that you say we do.

Biology textbooks do not derive their authority from themselves, nor do history textbooks. They derive their authority and authenticity from an authoritative body that formed the work. Ancient historical works do not even derive their authority from themselves, because without someone in a position of authority to confirm their authenticity they would not be considered good "historical" sources.

There must be an authority outside of the works themselves to confirm their authenticity.

Eternal security is just the doctrinal name for what Scripture does teach, namely, that every single person who believes has everlasting life and will never perish. The "has" is present tense, meaning they have it now. Eternal life never ends. Thus, it can never be lost (less the person would become dead). Therefore, eternal life cannot be lost. That's just ES, where ES is shorthand for the doctrine.


Yes, the Church has always taught those things. But the Church is wrong.


I've had my mind changed about plenty of interpretations before. I imagine it will happen again in the future. If you think my interpretation of any given passage is wrong, we can talk about it. If you can show me that your interpretation is more reasonable than mine, I'll be glad to change my view.


The phrase "has spoken" is in the perfect tense, whereas the word "spoke" is in the aorist. "But" is a strong contrast. The point the author is making is that although God spoke at one time piecemeal, He has now spoken completely and fully in Christ Jesus. There is nothing left to say, so to speak. Hence, the Canon (the revelation concerning God in Jesus Christ) is completed.


No, I get it from the authority of Jesus, which I derive from historical documents. Jesus tells me some historical documents are inspired, and therefore, I believe Him. Those documents under inspiration claim they are the only inspired documents, therefore I believe them.


I don't get it from the authority of Scripture. I get it from the historical value of certain first century documents, which include books that I have come to regard as Scripture (e.g., Matthew) and others I do not (e.g., Josephus).


I'm glad you think that biology textbooks get their authority from the scientific community. I would not agree with that.

And the fallacy of tautology is a logical fallacy as well. The fallacy exists when the conclusion of a statement is inherent within its own premise.

1. If ES is true, one can have logical certainty of salvation.

What does "Eternal Security" mean if other than "a believer's present certitude of his/her eternal destiny with God in heaven?" If by ES you mean that or anything of like import, however worded, then "logical certain of salvation" merely restates the premise. That is a tautology.

And if you want to understand why the fallacy of tautology is considered a species of circular reasoning, you can Google it.



This statement is also flawed because the conclusion is true only upon the unstated conditions that the person is male and of sufficient age for marriage. But without such external information the statement isn't necesarily true. You're floundering here.

But this is much a sideshow from the topic. On an earlier post to me you stated:



There have been a number of "if you want my take on ES, start a new thread" comments to others.

I think taking this off the table may be fitting since the OP discussion regarding that other person has long since been dormant. A new thread is forthcoming.

Can you distinguish a tautology from an analytical statement?

The Church regards itself as a ‘pilgrim’ in life. “The pilgrim church on earth…” and salvation in that light is taken from the words of scripture on the subject which together give us that meaning.

From Matthew 16 24-27… “Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.”

In this passage we are given the image of ‘taking up our cross and following’. We are also told that we are yet to be judged on the last day… for what we have ‘done’. It doesn’t make sense that there is need for a final judgement for what we have done if we’ve secured our salvation already.

From 1 Corinthians 5 6-10 Paul says to the faithful… “ Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. For we live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”

Again, we are told we are away from the Lord while we inhabit our earthly body and we are yet to appear in a judgement scenario where it will depend on how we’ve pleased God in this passage of earthly life.

In Hebrews 9 27-28… “Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.”

In Hebrews we are told that Jesus will bring the salvation when he comes again for those passing through that judgement at that time.

We know we are saved by virtue of Jesus death for our sins, but in our separation from Jesus in earthly life we remain at risk. What he asked us to do til then was ‘take up our cross and follow Him’.

Yes, I can. But since you don't seem inclined to address my point that your conclusion "logical certainty of salvation" simply is a restatement of the definition of "ES" (your premise), making your statement tautological and analytically meaningless, I have no interest in continuing this sideshow. I'm attempting to move the topic forward in the other thread. You can join there or not as you see fit.

If you think a tautology is identical to an analytical statement, then you obviously don't know the difference. There's no circularity in the argument I presented, much less a tautology. Invite anyone here -- Obi, PED, gherkin, FJ, whoever, to look at it if you like. They'll all certainly disagree with the argument, but not on the grounds you are charging.

You're right to a point. By being baptized I have been saved(Mk 16:16). By continuing in the faith and living my life in cooperation with God's grace He is working in me-thus I am being saved(1Cor 1:18; 2Cor 2:15). And once my life on earth is complete and as I continued in the faith I will be saved(Matt 24:13).

But it does not follow that I can't lose salvation by forfeiting faith(Heb 10:24-29). For is by being faithful we are saved, then by being faithless we are also saved so long as we had faith at some time before, and that one act guarantees eternal security? The gift of "eternal life" here consists of receiving the divine life of God through grace(2Pet 1:4) and it is a first installment(2Cor 5:5). Ity is not the fullness of eternal life that we will receive when the heavens and earth are renewed on the last Day. Therefore we most definitely CAN lose it.

Your version sounds dreadfully like the sin of presupmtion.


Eternal life cannot be lost, but neither is our salvation complete until we die(see above Scriptures). So long as we are here on earth we are the Israelites in the desert during their 40 years. It is our time of testing. And with the testing comes the possibility that if we are faithless and disobedient we will fail.

ES says that life is not a test. To insist upon ES is to say that spiritual warfare is an illusion because there's no need to fight or perservere-your salvation is guaranteed.

It is a lie.


That's not a reason. That's an opinion.


When's the last time it happened?

Well, I might but we've been down that road before.

Someone who doesn't bat an eye at making such leaps beyond the text to conclusions that in no way follow from the context should have no problem explaining away any objection to his opinions. Your interpretation follows from your theology, not from the text itself. That is obvious by reading your blog.

The problem in this is that your knowledge of this is based on the authority of Scripture. IOW everything that God wanted to say He said through Jesus. But the question is that what did Jesus say?

Are you saying that everything Jesus said is written down in the Bible?


The only "historical documents" that speak to Jesus' life and which are accepted as true are the Scriptures. And the only way to come to this conclusion of the authority of Jesus is to presume on the authority of Scripture. Hence you're still begging the question.



Mohammed tells muslims that the Quran is inspired because he heard God tell him to "recite". Joseph Smith told Mormons that he is Jesus' prophet and that his book is inspired because it came from the angel Gabriel.

It's funny how fuzzy the line is between "locutions" and self-deceptions



Again, many historical documents claim divine inspiriation and that they're the only ones. You're still begging the question.


"Historical value" is a subjective opinion. IOW you place value on the work based on how you see it supporting or not supporting your view. Josephus doesn't mention seeing Jesus being resurrected. He barely mentions Jesus in passing as a "rabbi" who was killed by the Romans under the charge of stirring rebellion. Nowhwere in his works does he treat with the authority of Scripture.

You would do better by mentioning Tacitus and his work "Annals". But he wrote this much, much later(early 2nd century, he was 8 when Rome burned in 63 ad). But neither did Tacitus mention anything about Scripture or Jesus' resurrection. He only states that Christians were followers of a "Christus" which Pontius Pilate put to death.

I have given you many writings from early Christians not only from the first century, but also from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries to demonstrate continuity of belief. Yet you chose to ignore and dismiss them, calling it "preaching".

That is where I base the authority of not only Scripture but also the Church.



Then you're not approaching it objectively.

Im sure you'll say that the textbooks are true because the information in them is based on scientific truths. By saying that you beg the question.

Someone had to discover those truths. They had to test them via SM, verify their conclusions and publish them. Hence others did the same because unless the result is repeatable then its is not scientifically certain.

Then whoever publishes the books had to authoritatively verify that the parts that were going to be published in the textbook were true.

And finally it cannot even be used in classes unless the authority that runs those classes verifies that the textbook is correct in what it says.

Yes it does. Jesus says if I believe I will never perish. I take "never" to mean just that. Never.


I agree that salvation is not complete until we die, but for the one who has believed, it is guaranteed to be completed at death.


It's a conclusion.


About six months ago best I can remember. K.C. Klarner or Tom Eckman may be able to remind me of a more recent change. What about you?


Assertions without arguments . . .


That the canon is closed? Yes, that's based on the authority of Scripture. Your point?


You can read the texts of what we call the NT as history without an opinion one way or another concerning the inspiration. Pinchas Lapide, for instance, was a Jewish scholar who concluded from the historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. He died denying that Jesus is the Christ. He certainly died denying the inspiration of the New Testament. His book is titled The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective if you'd like to read it. Pretty decent book.


But I don't believe Mohammed or Joseph Smith. Neither of them claimed to be God and proved it by fulfilling biblical prophecy and rising from the dead.


And again, you can read them as history without reading them as divinely inspired. Are you under the mistaken impression that only Christians can read and study the NT texts and learn something about the life and beliefs of Jesus?


Historical value is not subjective. Primary sources are more valuable than secondary sources. Once you get into historical explanations, there are firm principles by which historians abide. I find McCullagh's list particularly helpful:

(1)The hypothesis, together with other true statements, must imply further statements describing present, observable data.
(2) The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope (that is, simply a greater variety of observable data) than rival hypotheses.
(3) The hypothesis must have greater explanatory power (that is, make the observable data more probable) than rival hypotheses.
(4) The hypothesis must be more plausible (that is, be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths) than rival hypotheses.
(5) The hypothesis must be less ad hoc (that is, include fewer new suppositions about the past not already implied by existing knowledge) than rival hypotheses.
(6) The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs (that is, when conjoined with accepted truths, imply fewer false statements) than rival hypotheses.
(7) The hypothesis must so exceed its revivals in fulfilling conditions (2) through (6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis, after further investigation, exceeding it in meeting these conditions

(C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Description (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 19.

An objective assessment of the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection and an unbiased application of the normal canons of historiography make it very difficult not to conclude that Jesus physically rose from the dead. I wrote a brief paper on it here if you would like to read it (way back in 2008).

I suggest you be more careful about what you assert can and can't be known about Christ apart from special revelation.


And I can, in principle, go out and test anything in those books. Just because someone discovered those truths doesn't make that person authoritative. They may KNOW more than me, but that's just an epistemological point. I may do well to listen to them given their advanced knowledge, but that doesn't mean they have any inherent authority.

Now, when you say that the Church is authoritative, if all you mean is that they have achieved a level of expertise in interpretation and nothing more, then fine. That's a rather boring claim that I can whole heartedly agree with. But that's not what you mean when you say the Church is authoritative. So you're just equivocating on your argument here.

No, it does not follow that I can't lose salvation by forfeiting faith(Heb 10:24-29). For if it is by being faithful we are saved, then by being faithless we are also saved so long as we had faith at some time before, and that one act guarantees eternal security?

The gift of "eternal life" here consists of receiving the divine life of God through grace(2Pet 1:4) and it is a first installment(2Cor 5:5). It is not the fullness of eternal life that we will receive when the heavens and earth are renewed on the last Day. Therefore we most definitely CAN lose it.

Your version sounds dreadfully like the sin of presupmtion.



But what of those who believed once and then later did not? Are we to assume that apostates are guaranteed salvation as well?


Well its a false conclusion based on the assumption that your "framework" is superior to anything you don't agree with.

Me? Why should an intellectual giant as yourself care about me?

Are we talking about a real substantive change or just a vague nuanced change?

Concluions based on observations...

If "then canon is closed" means that everything Jesus said and did is in the Bible, then how do you explain John 20:30-31 or Acts 1:2-3?

How do you explain 2 Then 2:15? What are the traditions Paul taught by word of mouth?


Yes it is possible you can, but let's be frank here. Nobody goes to the NT because of mere historic curiosity. Everyone knows what Christianity is and they know what the NT is about. So already they approach the NT with a preconceived notions and/or their prejudices right behind them.

Somebody told you about Jesus the Christ before you ever opened a Bible. That person told you that Jesus is the Son of God, that He loves you so much that He died for you on a cross, and that if you accept Him as your personal Savior then you'll be saved. THEN they handed you a Bible & told you it was the inspired Word of God.

It may have later given you a certitude of inspiration, but you received the knowledge of its inspiration not from the work itself but from the authority you gave to whoever evangelized you.



So them you're willing to accept certain authority outside of the Bible, so long as it doesn't conflict with your theology?



But they had authority in determining what was contained in that work. By testing it you merely proved that they were correct and that your skepticism was unfounded. As far as "inherent" authority that's why they're called analogies.



No, not at all. I mean what the Bible means by the Church's authority, which is what the Church has through numerous dialogues and Councils determined as Jesus' and the Apostles true meaning and therefore God's will.

There's the typical eisogesis that everyone here is so addicted, too. I'm starting to wonder if that's just the methodology prevalent on this board or if that's the official Catholic way. If so, that'd just be one more reason it would be impossible for me to ever be a Catholic. If it's not official, then you're just "doing it wrong."


If they believed, they are guaranteed eternal life, regardless of their future actions, states, etc.


We have an entire thread about the validity of the framework.


Why should a Catholic such as you who has direct access to the Truth care about me? Goose and gander and all that, or are you too good to answer your own questions?

And to answer your second question, substantive. Prior to that was about two years when I went through a major shift in my thinking, which resulted in the paper I linked to earlier.


Conclusions are arguments. You've given none.


I never said everything Jesus said or did is in the Bible. I said the revelation concerning God in Christ is complete in Him. Therefore, no other revelation is necessary.


That's very naive.


I don't take McCullagh as authoritative. I take him as presenting a well reasoned argument as to what makes a historical hypothesis reasonable and what doesn't.


You're equivocating on "authority" again. I have that kind of "authority" to determine what I write in my posts. That authority doesn't command your assent, anymore than the textbook writers' authority commands my assent. You believe that the Church's authority commands your assent, and thus the equivocation.


Which is not what you mean by a textbook's writer authority. Just equivocation.

How so? Is Hebrews the youngest book of the New Testament? If it isn’t, you would have to say that all subsequent documents shouldn’t be part of the canon. I think that you are confusing revelation with Scripture, restricting the former to the latter, and logically ending up with having to deny the canonicity of books like 1., 2. and 3. John, 1. and 2. Peter, the Revelation of John, etc.

As do I.

But the fact of his resurrection can also be used as an argument for the authority of the Church. If he established the Church, it can rightly be said to be authoritative, including in questions of interpretation. In the same way it is not given to anyone to interpret a law or a constitution for himself.

I hate it when people misuse words, the Bible is not, and cannot be 'infallible', the Bible is 'inerrant', there's a difference, and it is not a small one. To be infallible you have to be an agent responsible for making decisions.

And where, exactly, does Jesus say that the Bible is inspired? And if he does, where did he present you with the canon of Scripture? Where does Jesus say that "the book of Acts is inspired"? Or "the book of Hebrews is inspired"? Or "the book of Jude is inspired"? I cannot see any place that Christ has said anything about the inspiration of any books, except perhaps (certain parts of) the Old Testament.

You cannot point to 2. Timothy 3:16, as this does not provide us with any definition of what Scriptures constitute the Canon. (And, given its author, it had to be written in the 60s, making older than most of the New Testament.) In fact, when St. Paul wrote about the Church, to St. Timothy, he said that she is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1. Timothy 3:15)

It could be that Christ has revealed this to you privately, but I haven't gotten any list of books from him directly.

I actually hold that Hebrews was one of the last books of the NT written, but that aside, the point is that revelation is complete in Christ. Thus, no more prophets, etc. The closing of the Apostolic age, strictly, is what marks the closing of the Canon. In principle, you could argue that Jesus could appoint new apostles to write revelation, which Heb 1:1-2 would allow (on my view), but since the apostles' job was to serve as the foundation of the Church, it is hard to see what it would mean or how new apostles could be appointed.


No, the resurrection proves the authority of Jesus. If Jesus then gives authority to the Church, you could make the case that way. That, as it stands, is precisely how I make the case for the authority of Scripture. I, however, see no place where He makes the Church authoritative in interpretation of Scripture. Besides, that would be anachronistic, since part of Scripture includes the OT, which the Church wasn't around to interpret. It all gets very messy.


Infallibility means it is impossible to err with regard to what one teaches. The Bible is infallible. The only way around that is to say that the Bible doesn't teach anything. But that's silly for two reasons. First, words (which the Bible contains) teach. You'd have to be a post-modern to argue that the interpreter, not the Bible, teaches. Second, the Bible, strictly, as you well know, is a collection of the written teachings of a variety of people. Those people, under inspiration, infallibly taught, and their teachings are recorded as Scripture. Thus, "the Bible is infallible" is shorthand for sentences like "Paul spoke infallibly as recorded in his letter to the Galatians."


Jesus said that Scripture cannot be broken. That speaks to its necessarily binding nature. He also said repeatedly that Scripture had to be fulfilled. He clearly attributed divine authority to Scripture, which in His day consisted of the OT. The principle one derives from this is NOT that Hebrews is Scripture and thus inspired. It is that Scripture is inspired. The question, then, is what qualifies as Scripture.

Jesus gave no NT canon (that would be impossible for the obvious reasons). But I've denied on these boards more than a few times that the canon is an article of faith. Each of the 27 books of the NT are recognized to be Scripture. Therefore, on Jesus' view that Scripture is divinely authoritative, the 27 books of the NT must likewise be understood as divinely authoritative.

Which Bible is 'inerrant'?



Which Bible?

I don't care if you use the word 'inerrant' or 'infallible', I know what you mean. But please tell me which Bible or Bibles you mean. They differ. They can't all be inerrant or infallible. So please tell me which one, or which ones, and why that one, or those ones? How do you know?

Which you then conflate with the settlement of canon.

But why assume that all of revelation is in the canon?

Yes, and that same Jesus did establish a Church. But he never established a set of new Scriptures. Not once. Unless you want to beg the question, and assume that revelation = Scripture.

It is pretty easy to interpret a text after it is written. It’s much harder to do so before. But kidding aside, many (if not most) OT scholars agree that the NT represents a new interpretation of the OT, an interpretation in light of the revelation in Christ.

Yes, as a person, not a book. The Bible doesn’t teach anything. It contains teaching, but it is not an active agent. So you should say that the Bible is inerrant; that it doesn't contain error.

And, what OT? The first Christians used some version of the Septuagint extensively, and in regards to the fact that St. Paul told Timothy to regard the Scriptures that he had been acquainted with from childhood (2. Timothy 3:15), it is important to note that Timothy was Jew of the Diapora, and could easily have used the Septuagint, or Hebrew version of books that aren’t part of the Masoretic canon.

But you do have one big problem: As far as I’m aware, there existed no Jewish canon until, perhaps, ‘the council of Jamnia’ (if there ever was one), which was after the time of Christ, and of no interest to us.

Yes, indeed.

What do you mean by ‘an article of faith’? Do you believe that we could find other books or letter that could be recognized to be Scripture? If not, isn’t your position then merely semantics?

But how do you recognize it to be the word of God? How do you know that the book of Jude isn’t just a forgery? A ‘burning in the bosom’?

Yes, if you first know that they are inspired. But how do you know it? You claim that it is on the authority of Christ, yet he has never revealed directly what books constitutes Scripture.

I know. It must be a real pain to deal with the Bible as it actaully reads. Better instead you can just go on "interpreting" it to say what you want it to.


Sorry, scripture is clearly not on your side on this. If future sin had no effect on salvation, then why did Paul, in all of his letters to the Church of God-which were already believers and therefore "saved" constantly teach them to not sin? Seems rather superluous to talk so much about avoiding sin when avoiding or not avoiding it-that is assuming your theology to be true-makes no wit of difference.

Paul should have spent more time on the Rapture or the first Mellinium, shouldn't he? Or maybe refuting James' words about not being saved by faith alone?

Why do the Scriptures all say that we will be judged on our deeds, what we do? If faith alone saves us, then why is there any judgement for what we've done?

Which you proved nothing but how subjective and relative your "framework" is. You only presume the Church's framework is circular because you refuse to do the historical work to determine whether or not the Catholic Church is the true Church. So long as you remain in that ignorance you can continue to make the claim of circularity. But once the Church is proven to be the true Church your objection flies out the window and so does your "framework". The last options after that would be to either submit to the Church's true authority or disobey God and continue with your beliefs.

They say ignorance is bliss...


You say "Catholic" like its a derogatory remark...Thank You! If my humility bothers you I apologize. But if you insist about years ago I went from atheism to Catholicism. A couple years ago I finally shed my last few protetsant qualms having to do with Mary and the Communion of Saints after reading a few books, prayer, and speaking with some really good apologists-both Catholic and protestant. Oh, and just recently I went from strict conservatism to a more classical libertarianism.

You feel as though I and every other Catholic on this board is obviously flawed. I'll make to you the very same challenge that I make to every other protestant I come to. You promise to give me your best shot and I promise to be entirely open and objective to your claims and if you can convince me that your theology is in accord with the Bible then I will immediately convert and go to the next protestant Sunday service.

I'm dead serious. I'm so dead serious that I'll even give you my personal email address and we can correspond there. Because I want to know the Truth. And I promised God that I would follow the Truth no matter where it leads me, even if that it to somewhere I wouldn't expect.

I made that challenge to several protestants here and many more around where I live. None of them here took up my challenge and only a few around where I live are still in contact with me-including some JW's that frequent my neighborhood. Out of three protestant pastors, two I have sent letters asking questions about their teachings that I have yet to get responses from and another who after my first set of questions never responded at all.

You asked, so there.

So what was the shift?


jac, if take one verse of the Bible, form an entire theology around that one verse, and ignore or explain away others verses that contradict that theology then your method is obviously flawed. You'd be better off just taking a felt-tipped marker and start making your Bible look like a redacted file from the Pentagon.

Yet Christ promised that He would not leave His Church orphans and that he would always be with them and would send His Spirit to lead us into all the Truth.

I could agree that all revealtion concerning God is complete in Him. But it doesn't follow from that premise that what He revealed could not or would not be further developed or defined. Nor does it follow from that premise that the Apostles did not nor could not endow those approved men who followed their footsteps with their authority(2 Tim 2:2). It seems more reasonable that Christ would want a continued line of shepherds following the Apostles to guide and direct and teach the generations that came after them, and to further teach, form, bless, and confirm new bishops to spread the Apostles traditions doewn to the present.

jac, I used to be one of those kids who accosted people and asked them, "are you saved?!"or "If you die tomorrow do you KNOW if you're going to heaven or not?" I watched how my pastor "evangelized". So call it "naive" all you want, you know I'm right on this.

The only people reading the Bible purely for historical purposes are SO few it is hardly worth using as an argument. Be it historians, anthropologists, materialists, etc.; they hardly make up the great majority of people who open the Bible on even a weekly or monthly basis, much less a daily one. They are the bleak exception, not the rule.


I wasn't talking about MCCullagh...and you, albeit rather deftly, dodged my question.

"Authority" simply put means "author's rights". And as I said, its called an analogy for a reason. That science textbook is not from God. The Church IS from God, and the Church is the one that produced the NT writings and proclaimed what books belonged in the Bible canon. Therefore because of that authority(God), it(the Church) demands my assent through the textbook(the Bible).

See above...

No, I don't


I don't. General revelation is revelation and it isn't contained in the canon alone.


I don't agree that Jesus established "the Church" (using the term as you are). I do think, however, that He recognized the authority of that which is Scripture, and by His authority, so therefore do I.

Further, I'll add that this is an epistemological point. One of the ways I know that Scripture is authoritative is that Jesus said so. Ontologically, I would say "that which is inspired is binding." The question becomes "what is inspired?" Jesus' statements on the matter are sufficient for the OT in particular. The ramification to what we now call the NT aren't hard to see.


Many do, but they are wrong in thinking that.


See my comments to Doom about this.


I've been through this in some detail already. I refer you back to it beginning here.


I mean something that we accept on authority. And I do not believe that any other books are in principle capable of being recognized as Scripture at this point in history. That would require there to be new apostles sent to "refound" the Church.


No, not a burning in the bosom. Conservatives authors have I think rightly argued that it dates to the late 60s to the early 90s. That makes it unlikely to be a forgery. Moreover, were someone other than Jude to pen the letter, chances are they would ascribe it to someone better known and respected if they were trying to "borrow" credibility from the attributed author.

We can go on from there and make the case that Jude was the actual author of the text. Arguments against that position are, I think, rather weak.


No, not if I know they are first inspired. I read the texts first as fallible, errant history regarding the life of Jesus. I take it those sources are accurate enough to reflect Jesus' own thoughts, words, and actions (as are many ancient biographies). One of the things these historical documents affirm is Jesus' high view of what He considered Scripture. I take that view from Him, and that which is Scripture, I apply same view.