FK: Well, I deal a lot with Latins too, and I know they would STRENUOUSLY disagree with what you say here
Then they can show me that the North African Council of Cartage was "ecumenical." It wasn't. Period.
I said that we Bible-believing Christians use that term to refer to each other, and that we know each other when we come across each other. My experience has been that the term works well across denominational lines.
Works well? Last time I checked, Joel Osteen preaches there's no hell! You find him in your theological camp as a "Bible-believer?" Being a "Bible-believer" says nothing of the private theology each and every such self-styled believer conjures. That's like using the universal "Christian" label. There are all sorts of sects and cults that call themselves "Christian," but what does that really mean. It's nonsense. Some of these groups believe things the other groups consider satanic.
God either intended to communicate MEANINGFULLY to His children, OR, He intended to communicate in secret code only to a few elite
Love is meaningful only if it is returned. Not because it "makes sense." Or because "it's logical." The Church Christ established and left to the Apostles and their successors simply believes that God in His infinite love offers the same blessings to all. Some who call themselves Christians say He offered it only to the "elite," select, elect, chosen. So, before you point the finger at anyone, I would consider pointing the finger at myself first.
If the Apostolic interpretation is correct, then by definition a man cannot know God from the Bible. He can only know God through other men. I will never accept that because I am absolutely convinced that God does, in fact, love ME as more than a downline serf.
I, too, am convinced He loves you, FK. And, yes, we can recognize God's love in other people. That's what makes it real instead of just theoretical, something we read about.
Kosta: By rejecting the OT of the Apostles (Septuagint), who never questioned its canon, the Protestants decided by their human authority to accept the Christ-hating Jamnia formula calling in essence all the non-Pharisaical Jews non-Jews!
FK: We don't see anything "Christ-hating" in our OT. Christ is all over our OT and there are no contradictions. Where do you see Christ-hating in our OT that does not appear in the OT that you use? That is, to such a degree that you feel justified in making the generalization that ours IS Christ-hating and yours is not.
Jamnia resulted in throwing out all the books written by Christians, including the Gospels. They rejected the Septuagint because it was used by the Christians. You call that Christ-friendly? Little context, situational awareness, etc. help put things in proper perspective.
Then they can show me that the North African Council of Cartage was "ecumenical." It wasn't. Period.
Fair enough. It would just shock me if Catholics hereon would agree that no official Church Canon was established in at least one of those early Councils. I have heard many argue strongly against that idea. But, I can't speak for them.
FK: I said that we Bible-believing Christians use that term to refer to each other, and that we know each other when we come across each other. My experience has been that the term works well across denominational lines.
Works well? Last time I checked, Joel Osteen preaches there's no hell! You find him in your theological camp as a "Bible-believer?"
Along with everything else I know about him, if he preaches that, then NO. See how easy that was? :)
Being a "Bible-believer" says nothing of the private theology each and every such self-styled believer conjures. That's like using the universal "Christian" label.
Not at all. The "Christian" label is MUCH broader and includes, as you said, even false Christians. The term "Bible-believing" Christian is much more narrow. Not only does it exclude all false Christians, but it even excludes a large number of TRUE Christians. To me, that makes the term actually mean something. :)
The Church Christ established and left to the Apostles and their successors simply believes that God in His infinite love offers the same blessings to all.
Obviously, in strong contradiction to the Scriptures. The Church you say was established by Christ feels free to contradict Christ whenever it wants. In this case, for example:
Rom 9:14-16 : 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
So, obviously, God does not treat everyone equally in all ways. God gives saving grace to whomever He wishes, but not to all men.
Jamnia resulted in throwing out all the books written by Christians, including the Gospels. They rejected the Septuagint because it was used by the Christians. You call that Christ-friendly?
Well, they WERE Jews, so we would expect them to reject anything in the NT. That's not surprising. But, I expect that they would have rejected the Septuagint because it was in Greek, not the original language. Presumably, they HAD the real Masoretic Text. You can't blame them for that. :)