Posted: Jun 05, 2011 11:08 am
willhud9 wrote:John P. M. wrote:willhud9 wrote:
I am merely saying, I do believe the church fathers got it wrong in some things, but in other things the chuch fathers got it right. Only a foolish Christian would accept Aquinas', Augustine's, Calvin's(and he is my favourite), Luther's, and many others works and opinions without making sure they agreed with biblical doctrine.
And if authors of biblical doctrine got it wrong? With all your extensive study on the subject, you know the book is not infallible in any way, so where is the 'anchor point', the point where we can say "This - this is divine doctrine, that on which we can anchor our theology, while this - this is most likely the private opinion of the author" ? Is it enough that the verses say "This is the word of the LORD"? Or is it enough that they are alleged quotes from Jesus? Or is internal consistency of the resulting theology key?
There are certain verses in scripture which are the opinion of the author. An entire thread was created months ago on Psalm 137:9. A Psalm asking God for retribution for the apparent sins committed against the psalmist. Did God grant that request? No. But it still is a Psalm and is included in the Bible.
This is a curious reply.
So - most verses in scripture are not the opinion of the author, then. And the reason we can know this, is because when the psalmist asked for something and God didn't grant it, that would mean it was the psalmist's personal agenda?
I don't want to get too personal and risk an ad hom, but I seem to smell some cognitive dissonance going on here, since you know well the origin of the texts in question, and on other, more practically geared threads on the origin of the Bible, I think you would agree to a great extent with modern biblical scholars. And yet you claim now that we can anchor our theology in the words of these biblical authors, as long as God within the stories granted their requests, or acted in such a way as to confirm their words. And this view is held, while simultaneously rejecting large parts of scripture, such as the most fantastical stories, even though they were perfectly consistent with the wishes and plans of God within the text.