Sure. But accounts are trustworthy to the extent that they can be checked against empirical data (and pass the check). One may also provisionally trust accounts related to those that have passed tests. But that isn’t the justification for trusting the biblical accounts; those are held through faith and in the absence of any tests.
1 Like
Except I don’t mean faith as “belief without evidence or tests”…
2 Likes
You’re speaking like a Catholic! 
2 Likes
To me, as a sola-scriptura Calvinist, the let’s-call-it orthodox view of the Trinity, as expressed in the historic creeds, establishes something of a generous limit to Luther’s (I’ll give him credit, not sure if that is historically accurate) concept of sola-scriptura plus what can be derived from “good and faithful consequences.”
I think we have used “good and faithful consequences” a bit like the courts have used the Commerce Clause.
I do not really see how to escape that we Prots, no matter how reformed, have a “sacred tradition” like our RC friends. Not as extensive, but we have one. At a bare minimum if as a Protestant you affirm that the 66 books in your bible all belong there and none are missing, that’s a sacred tradition, given that while scripture was inspired, the table of contents was not. It was derived.
1 Like
By the way, I always see a Trinitarian connundrum in this famous passage:
30 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. 32 But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone . (Mark 13:30-32, NASB)
Whatever this is referring to (I don’t think it is the Second coming, but that doesn’t matter for this purpose) the fact that Jesus doesn’t know is usually attributed to temporary and voluntary limits related to the Incarnation. But why doesn’t the Holy Spirit know?
If you have a good answer for this, I’d like to hear it.
Great. Then why do you believe i the authority of scripture? How have you tested its claims? Specifically, why do you believe that Adam and Eve existed?
I am all for your freedom of religion as long as you are for my freedom FROM religion.
Didn’t I just write freedom for non-religion? 
The foundational epistemology traces through the Resurrection:
http://www.veritas.org/evidence-easter-scientists-list/
Why do you think I believe Adam and Eve existed? I don’t usually reveal my personal beliefs about them.
No it is not just about the freedom to be non-religious, it is about to be freedom FROM religious dogma, doctrine, and rules that creep into our laws and government.
So freedom from that pesky idea of universal human rights and dignity?
That’s only about the resurrection, as far as I can see, and has nothing to say about any other aspects of scripture. We could argue about whether your evidence is credible, but even if it is, how does it validate anything other than some portions of the gospels?
Further, if this is an example of faith, it seems to be based on examination of physical evidence, as in science, not another way of knowing. (Again, we could argue over whether your examination is well-conducted, but perhaps another time.)
I thought that might be your answer. So in fact you don’t trust in scripture as a way of knowing, or at least are unwilling to say that you do.
I think death in general, including the second coming. The fig tree speaks of knowing the season, when the time is ripe for the second coming (or death) and the rest of 13 is to be prepared spiritually for either. (Just my interpretation)
In my opinion, the Holy Spirit is a conduit, a communication channel, a “helper” sent by Jesus to connect our individual spirits to God. The Old Testament implies that the presence of God is too intense for humans, so the function of the Spirit is to bridge the gap. The same could be said for Jesus, with some added functionality in judgment. Neither act on their own authority, they do what the Father commands, but that does not mean they are not one with Him.
John 16:13 - However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
John 12:48-50 - He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.”
Yes, but in the doctrine of the Trinity, all three persons of the Godhead are fully God. So why would the Holy Spirit not know? Isn’t the Holy Spirit omniscient?
It seems to me the question of whether or not they know is more about authority than omniscience. It goes back to the question of whether God pulls all the strings behind the scenes in nature. Sovereignty/Omnipotence/Omniscience is more about authority and not necessarily control of every little detail.
It is clear in scripture that each has their own function, which does not necessarily mean that one is less than the other with the exception that God the Father has the authority. The Son was given authority to judge by the Father for the purpose that none enter eternal life without believing in the Son. Could the Father just as easily judge, my guess is yes. But He has given the command to Jesus for the salvation of the world. So, that begs the question, does the Father know who will be saved? Probably, but Jesus has the authority, so the Father doesn’t really know (maybe) until Jesus says “go on through”.
But then again, that’s just an explanation with limited (almost non-existent) understanding of the workings of heaven and God. We won’t really know until we get there, at which point we will also be one with God, but I’m pretty sure He will still have all the authority. My guess is that our version of thinking and knowing will be quite different in heaven.
universal human rights and dignity is from the Enlightment. Certainly not from the Bible.
Don’t impose your enlightenment pseudo-religion on me! 
2 Likes
And you might want to inform MLK about his blunder on that one. Some how he thought the US government was obligated to change its laws based on His articulation of the religious grounding for universal rights. Dangerous, right? 
2 Likes
I have to agree with you here.
And the magical aura around the traditions of the Trinity is another good example of a sacred tradition.
Before the Trinity was explicitly articulated by the Church fathers, Christianity was certainly far more tolerant of divergent views on the metaphysics of deity.
But on the flip side of the coin, if you worked in Kuwait (like I did from 2009 to 2010), you learned that it is virtually impossible to make sense of the Trinity to the average Muslim (they are, technically speaking, Unitarians because they believe Mary was the mother of the Prophet Jesus, not of Jesus as God).
Laws aren’t enough. We have civil rights laws, voting laws, Constitutional Amendments to keep our government secular, yet we are a divided society. I contend that religion (Chrisitianity) plays a big part of the divisiveness in America today.