In response, we simply need to point out that these assumptions of modern scholars are simply that - assumptions. How do critical scholars know that the canon was an entirely human construct? For someone to rule out divine intervention would require them to either know the mind and actions of God or to know that God doesn't exist.But, the critical scholar has no basis for knowing either of these things.)Check out our meetup calendar, view and rsvp for the upcoming 6 months, review our past meetups and check out our group photos!In reference to RSVP's, Attendance, Your Personal Tab, Meetup Updates, Inactivity for 6 months or more.When it comes to the canon question, theology and history need to be dialogical partners, not adversaries.
That is not to say we lack reasons for believing in the canon (I think we have very good reasons), rather it is simply to say that the average believer is not aware of those reasons and therefore is unable to articulate them.
Thus, it is clear that these naturalistic assumptions are more the starting point of critical scholarship, not its conclusion.
[MK] I think one of the critical weaknesses in modern canonical studies is that Christians often have no theology of canon.
Gate 1 Travel has provided quality, affordable escorted tours, river cruises and vacation packages for more than 35 years.
We look forward to showing you More of the World for Less on your next vacation.
In fact, we would consider scheduling any idea presented by a member to see if others would be interested in it.