FK: 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
The only Councils that are binding to the whole Church are those recognized as ecumenical by the Church. The North African Council at the end of the 4th century was not an ecumenical council. This doesn't mean that the Church as a whole did not adopt the canon over time. The specific North African Council that canonized the Bible was the first conciliar definition of the canon. Until that time, different bishops had different canons. The canon used by St. Athanasius (c. 360 AD) was the one that was accepted by that Council.
Kosta: Works well? Last time I checked, Joel Osteen preaches there's no hell! You find him in your theological camp as a "Bible-believer?"
FK: Along with everything else I know about him, if he preaches that, then NO.
But he claims he believes in the Bible. I am sure his beliefs are based on something he found in it. Even the devil quotes the Bible, FK! Being a Bible-believer doesn't make one an orthodox Christian.
Not only does [the term "Bible-believing"] exclude all false Christians, but it even excludes a large number of TRUE Christians.
So, then you admit that it is not necessary to believe in the Bible to be a TRUE Christian? Which begs the question, what then makes the "Bible-believing" Christians different from other true Christians?
Of course, I don't agree with you at all, as all Christians must believe the message of the Bible, as seen through the prism of Christ as taught by the Church and expressed in the books collected by the Church that are in the Bible.
In addition to that true Christians believe in the Holy Trinity and in the Hypostatic union known as Incarnation, in Christ with two wills and two natures, one divine and one human, unconfused and distinct in one Person.
The Church derives its beliefs from Christ's oral teachings, which were later expressed as apostolic writings or scriptures (graqh) of known and unknown authors that comprise the New Testament.
FK: Along with everything else I know about him, if he preaches that, then NO.
Kosta: But he claims he believes in the Bible. I am sure his beliefs are based on something he found in it.
Lots of people CLAIM they believe in the Bible the same way lots of people CLAIM they believe in Christ. By itself, as the Bible says, it doesn't mean anything. All of us (on all sides) are well schooled from our respective FR experiences that some posters claim things that can't possibly be true if we are to believe their own posts! :) So, if someone tells me he is a Bible-believer, and then follows that up with saying that God approves of homosexuality, then I know that it is highly unlikely that he is in fact a Bible-believer.
Even the devil quotes the Bible, FK!
Well, if you remember, MY personal stance has always been that satan has only ever MISquoted the Bible, and to a substantive degree. Many times that would be analogous to claimed Bible-believers making outrageous statements "based on scripture". As I said, these are usually easily spotted. However, there are plenty of issues that are much closer to the line, about which good Bible-believing Christians may disagree. One example would be eschatology. I just see a huge difference between disagreeing on eschatology and disagreeing on whether God approves of homosexuality. "Somewhere" in the middle there is the difference that identifies Bible-believing Christians.
Being a Bible-believer doesn't make one an orthodox Christian.
I completely disagree. If you began with "Claiming to be" then I would agree. However, part of being an orthodox Christian is following what was in the beginning. It doesn't get much more "in the beginning" than the Holy Bible. :) So, those who follow the Bible follow what was in the beginning and ARE orthodox. Now, you may come back and say that orthodoxy only counts for what most people practiced according to recorded history, or something like that, and that is fine. I am talking about what WAS there, regardless of how many people misapplied it then or now. :)
FK: Not only does [the term "Bible-believing"] exclude all false Christians, but it even excludes a large number of TRUE Christians.
So, then you admit that it is not necessary to believe in the Bible to be a TRUE Christian?
No, because there are very many perfectly good Christians who are not Bible-believing, but nevertheless believe IN the Bible. It's just that their interpretation of it is so afoul of logic, reason, common sense, context, etc., that they cannot be considered Bible-believing. It's a giant continuum. There are the crazies, and there are the misguideds (but still Christians), and there are the Bible believers. If one wanted to make an exercise out of it I'm sure there are tons of subgroups within each. I assure you that it is absolute coincidence that Reformers happen to be on top! LOL!
Which begs the question, what then makes the "Bible-believing" Christians different from other true Christians?
The difference is in the level of fidelity to the true scriptures. I freely admit that it is subjective, but as I said, we know 'em when we see 'em. :) Christians can have low, but "passable" fidelity to scriptures and still be true Christians.
Of course, I don't agree with you at all, as all Christians must believe the message of the Bible, as seen through the prism of Christ as taught by the Church and expressed in the books collected by the Church that are in the Bible.
Well, I would agree with YOU that all true Christians must believe in the MESSAGE of the Bible. The hard part is in agreeing on what that message is.
In addition to that true Christians believe in the Holy Trinity and in the Hypostatic union known as Incarnation, in Christ with two wills and two natures, one divine and one human, unconfused and distinct in one Person.
Yes, true Christians believe all of those things, but Bible-believing Christians are a subset of those Christians.
The Church derives its beliefs from Christ's oral teachings, which were later expressed as apostolic writings or scriptures (graqh [didn't copy]) of known and unknown authors that comprise the New Testament.
Well, if that was the whole of it then that would be one thing. But since the Church uses many extra-scriptural writings for its beliefs AND puts them on the same level as Holy Scriptures, that is a big strike against being considered Bible-believing Christians. :)