The Bible tells us of many individuals who didn't know Scriptures to whom it was committed to love God. One doesn't need Scriptures to love God. It seems to me that in your mind the Bible is the source of faith and love for God. More bibliolatry.
Jesus said the scriptures testify about Him, they help us KNOW Him.
Well, they announce the coming of the messiah, but it was not clear what He would be like, for the Jews believed it wold be a warior-king and not someone Christ-like. No one who knew the Scriptures recognized Christ from the Scriptures!
Do you believe that your extra-Biblical tradition is sufficient by itself to know God? For example, is it enough to know God through Mariology?
Extra-biblical tradition, according to whose biblical tradition? The 16th century renegade priest's? Or the Bible put together by Christ's own Apostolic Church 1,200 years earlier?
You cannot fully appreciate Christ without Mariology.
But wait, I think you have said that the only way to know God is through, in essence, the lines from Jesus' mouth in the Bible, however, that's STILL in the Bible. Isn't it your "job" to at least know those lines even if you "throw the rest of it out?"
I don't think I would have said that. We certainly can not know what was Jesus like on this earth without the Gospels.
And it's not my "job" to know the Bible. It is the job of those who were ordained to give that knowledge to others. Just as with the Ethiopian eunuch. And Christ makes that very clear when He says:
For the "job" of everyone in the Church is not to preach and teach, or to know the scriptures.
One can be an Arminian and be a Bible-believing Christian easily, but all those others you listed are clearly NOT Bible-believing Christians
Why, because their "bible" doesn't fit the man-made bible of Luther's? The Church established which books will be in the Bible and the Protestants rejected some and made their own. By your definition, none of the Protestants/Baptists could possibly be Bible-believing Christians since they don't use the Bible used by the original Church, which includes the so-called Apocryphal books and the Septuagint.
In other words, it's all what man's definition you are willing to accept as "true," that determines who is "Bible-believing" and who is not. If you deny the authority of the Church then anything goes.
Kosta: The amalgam of the so-called "Bible-believing" Christians includes people like LDS.
FK: No they are not, they have created their own Bible. You have been interacting with Bible-beliving Christians of different faiths, even the non-Reformed, for years
You just prove my point above. I have dealt with people who call themselves Bible-believing Christians but who also made up their own Bible. So, why should I treat these so-called Bible-believing Christians any different than the LDS?
None of them uses the Bible put together by the original Church.
Kosta: The Bible tells us that Jesus called for unity and not disunity.
FK:That's too broad a brush
I don't think so, FK. To be one as He and the Father are one is not really much of a wiggle room.
Sure there is only one truth, and God wants all believers headed toward that truth, but that doesn't mean that by His design He doesn't have different paths for us to get there.
He speaks only of one way, His way. And He even reminds us that the path is narrow, not broad.
He established HIS CHURCH, not one church of men lording its power over other Christians
Go back to Paul's 1 Cor 12:28 and read it again. No one says anyone was lording over other men; it merely says that God appointed different people to do different things in the Church.
He left the faith in the hands of others to carry on, but as to the faith itself, He left THAT in HIS OWN HANDS
The faith was delivered once and left in the hands of the Apostles and those who followed in their footsteps to safeguard.
Kosta: Obviously He never told everyone should read the Bible.
Oh, obviously. I'm sure in Christ's omniscience He thought "Yeah, some guys are gonna make this thing up to add to the other junk some dead guys made up, but NAW, people shouldn't read it.
Well, rant all you want. He never did say we should read the Bible. Rather He told the disciples they should teach all nations and baptize...again, Jesus did not conduct Bible study classes and feel-good sessions and discussions.
This is actually an interesting perspective regarding the actions of discernible persons in each age.
When Christ asked Peter who they said He was, Peter responded He was the Messiah. Christ then blessed him and indicated that had been revealed to Peter by the Father via Peter's faith.
This occurred during the age of the Hypostatic Union, prior to the Church Age. During the present Church Age, immediately upon acceptance of the Son by faith alone, God the Holy Spirit regenerates the human spirit and indwells the believer.
Today what is significant about the Scripture is the communication of the Word of God to the believer via the active ministry of God the Holy Spirit.
The difference between that age and this is that the believers of that day were imbued by the Holy Spirit, but not indwelled by the Holy Spirit. The Father revealed the Son to Peter in what I would understand to be the call and if earlier than Christ's query, a part of Peter's election (God the Father's Plan for a particular believer determined from eternity past for a believer).
Today, the believer is indwelled by God the Holy Spirit, an activity purely performed by the volition of God, not an experience on the behalf of the believer, but an action of God, providing a temple for the indwelling of the Son as well as the Father, which He performs so that He is able to continue tosanctify us continually by His Plan for each believer. As long as we remain in fellowship with Him, He is free to continue that sanctification process, not because of our power or authority, but because of His integrity to Perfect Holiness which demands Perfect Righteousness and Perfect Justice.
Now back to your comment regarding believers who knew the Scriptures. Prior to the age of the Hypostatic Union, the Incarnation of God in the Son, the age of Israel provided a temple for the Shechinah Glory in the physical building known as he temple or tabernacle (place for indwelling). The Jew came to know the Word (MEMRA) by the study of Scripture via the priesthood.
In the age of the Hypostatic Union, the Word was made flesh in the Son, and revealed directly in person of the Son to the believer. In this Church Age, a mystery prior to the New Testament, the Word is revealed to us by the ministry of God he Holy Spirit.
The Word, though, is not without effect. For those remaining in fellowship today, when they know the Word, He is revealed to the believer. In the Age of the Hypostatic Union, the believer who knew the Word, the Memra, was also able to recognize the Son, for He was the Word Incarnate. This might indicate that those believers who knew the Word, would recognize Him while they remained in fellowship with Him, but perhaps if they refused to recognize Him, actually manifest a falling out of fellowship or perhaps simply not in a state of believing (PISTIS/PISTEOU).
This might also reveal some interesting doctrine for us today in the Church Age.
Occasionally, somebody will say 'God spoke to me'. In this Chruch Age, that speaking might come from a particular person of God, probably the Son, who is able to speak through the ministry of God the Holy Spirit providing a temple in our bodies for His indwelling. Would the believer who rejects recognition of such a revelation of the Son today, be in the same state of unbelief as a student of Scripture in the age of the Hypostatic Union who failed to recognize God the Son as the Word?
The Bible tells us of many individuals who didn't know Scriptures to whom it was committed to love God. One doesn't need Scriptures to love God. It seems to me that in your mind the Bible is the source of faith and love for God. More bibliolatry.
What, are you going back to Genesis or something? You live after Christ was here. It is your job to know the scriptures. God commands that you love Him. Without a burning bush experience, how are you going to love Him if you do not know anything of Him. Can blind faith even cover that? Just love ................... whatever?
God is the source of faith and love for God, NOT man. The faith is revealed in the Bible, as is the HOW of how to love God. If, however, man is the starting point, then man makes these up as seems fitting to him. For example, if one didn't think that Scriptures were of use in loving God, then perhaps loving God could be accomplished by simply blindly doing good deeds, which would be premised on the ANTI-Biblical proposition that man was capable of doing them on his own. Man has created his own system that seems pleasing to him.
No one who knew the Scriptures recognized Christ from the Scriptures!
How can you say that, the righteous certainly DID. Jesus Himself said that the Scriptures testified about Him. Are you telling me NOBODY got it? That would be a blind assumption. The Scriptures don't back you up.
You cannot fully appreciate Christ without Mariology.
No doubt. Without a man, or in this case a woman, we cannot fully reach Christ. This would make perfect sense if the world started with man, as you said. No man comes to the Son but through another (wo)man. In the Apostolic world, this is the order of the universe. This view actually makes "co-Mediatrix" look weak. :)
And it's not my "job" to know the Bible. It is the job of those who were ordained to give that knowledge to others. Just as with the Ethiopian eunuch. And Christ makes that very clear when He says: "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message" [John 17:20]
It's not sporting when you make it that easy. :) So, you are telling me, all in the same breath mind you, that it's not your job to know the scriptures, but it IS the job of your teachers to teach you the scriptures. Is that right? Therefore, if your teachers do a Godly job, then you will know the scriptures, but that is not your job, but you are to learn from your teachers, but your teachers should teach truth, but you should not know about, but................ :)
IOW, how can it be the job of your teachers to teach if it is not your job to learn? OOOOORRRRRRR, do your teachers not teach the Bible? If that's true, then you're off the hook, and none of you know the scriptures. :)
FK: One can be an Arminian and be a Bible-believing Christian easily, but all those others you listed are clearly NOT Bible-believing Christians.
Why, because their "bible" doesn't fit the man-made bible of Luther's?
No, I'm sure there are plenty who think the Bible I read is fine, but they are not Bible-believing Christians.
The Church established which books will be in the Bible and the Protestants rejected some and made their own. By your definition, none of the Protestants/Baptists could possibly be Bible-believing Christians since they don't use the Bible used by the original Church, which includes the so-called Apocryphal books and the Septuagint.
Your sect determined what books it wanted to use, even using horse-trading book for book, as if it was a commodities exchange or something. :) Bible believing Christians were not in power then and had no say. While your sect(s) claimed all power and authority, they did not speak for all of God's Church. You have said before that your branch of God's Church did not even accept Revelation until hundreds of years after the Latins declared it official Canon. This is even before the Schism, so which of God's Churches was right? This obviously proves there was not only one voice, and there were true believers, (and I add) including Reformers who lived in those early times, but did not succumb to the power structure set up by men.
In other words, it's all what man's definition you are willing to accept as "true," that determines who is "Bible-believing" and who is not.
Well sure. It's our term and we use it across denominational lines to refer to each other. I have found it to be highly accurate, and have little trouble recognizing another one.
If you deny the authority of the Church then anything goes.
If we deny the authority of the Church then we can start to grow in knowing the authority of God.
I have dealt with people who call themselves Bible-believing Christians but who also made up their own Bible. So, why should I treat these so-called Bible-believing Christians any different than the LDS?
Well, if you put the KJV on a par with the LDS bible, then I have no answer for you. It is very clear that you have no understanding of who Bible-believing Christians are. BUT THAT'S OK! :) We know who we are. :) That's all that matters since we use it to identify each other. The Mormons have their own Bible and that is fine for them, or something, but we know that it isn't the same type of Bible we are referring to for the purposes of the use of the term.
None of them uses the Bible put together by the original Church.
Again, so much emphasis on the Apocrypha that no one on your side quotes from. Why is that? In my personal FR experience, the statistic has now moved to less than 1% of responses to me including any proof offered from any book in the Apocrypha. Further, it's been over a year since I have griped about a proof offered that was Septuagint only. It just doesn't happen all that often. These are not world ending differences. They DO count, don't get me wrong, but I just find it curious that in all of the hundreds of subjects I have discussed, almost no one hauls out the Apocrypha or the Septuagint to make his or her point on that basis. I am fine with treating them the same way you guys do. :)
To be one as He and the Father are one is not really much of a wiggle room.
That depends on which one you eliminate to believe only in the preferred perception of the other one. :)
The faith was delivered once and left in the hands of the Apostles and those who followed in their footsteps to safeguard.
So those who followed men would be saved. No other conclusion is possible if the world started with men.