Feedback.

This is a response to Oli's True vs. Inerrancy post in Where Am I Going? Read that before this.

I think Granite is arguing too different things: 1) The Bible is true but not inerrant, and 2) the early men of the church don't have the authority to choose which books are "holy" and which ones are not - it should be left to the individual. I think these two arguments are pretty different, and you can't really use one to defend the other too well.

Anyhow, I think the truth of the Bible and its inerrancy are totally and completely dependant on each other. Saying the Bible is completely true but still with errors is an oxymoron. Likewise it can't be inerrant yet have no truth. In this context where Christianity depends so strongly on the Bible, claiming the book to have errors would be a destruction of its truth. The Bible being false is an error in itself, and then we would all be fools to believe in it with such devotion.

As with the fellows who decided which books to be and not to be regarded as "Scripture," these people were great scholars, historians, etc. during the early years of the Christian church. The Canon went through a ton of people to get the books approved, and theologians today have this combination of books in the Bible to thank for their studies. Moreover, I find the books to have been in the Canon for so long, that they must be God-ordained. If someone were to find one of these books heretical today could possibly mean the death of many souls in the past who believed that this was the true Word of God. That is disasterous! Plus, as Oli pointed out, to have people just pick and choose what books they think is holy and what is not welcomes the idea of relativism, which is what Christianity is completely against. There are absolutes; we can't just pick and choose what we think is right and wrong. It was done once in the beginning of the Christian church, so there is no need to do it again.

This is my Christian rant for the night.

First Google hit for "Canon of Scripture."