FYI – I AM talking about YOUR Bible too! 🙂

I am not Catholic and this is not a Catholic understanding I bring to the mix – it IS a catholic – small “c” if you like though.

I also think it might help if YOU slow down a bit and try and understand what I am saying. The ONLY thing I was trying to say regarding the Bible, is that the Bible we know today was put together by the Church in a council – that’s ALL – There was no Catholic – capital C church at the time I am speaking of – that particular group of Christians wasn’t known as such until later – for a long time all we had was “the catholic church”.

You seem to be making a much bigger issue of what I am saying than is necessary.

In this conversation, already established, discussion was around conservative and evangelical Christians and their belief in Biblical inerrancy; you brought a Catholic understanding into the mix with only a capital ‘C’ to make your distinction. I’m simply asking that you slow down a bit when responding and consider your own words with the same critical eye you use on others…do the people I’m talking to use this word the same way? will they know what I mean by the ‘capital C’ Church?

Even with the capital C understanding, I think you are leaping to suggest they had no Bible. It may not have been the apocrypha or the New Testament but it was indeed ‘the Word of God’–the scriptures. Was it Timothy who commented that ‘all scriptures are inspired by God and are profitable for reproof’, etc?

It seems that even as your Bible was being formed, the church (or Church?) was using the Old Testament as their Bible.

Yes – you are correct – The Old Testament or Hebrew Bible was around before the Church (when I capitalize Church like this I’m usually referring to the body of Christ – specifically, in this instance, I’m talking about it when it was all basically one and not splintered as we see it today) – The main difference today is that some churches still include the apocryphal texts that early Christians used and some don’t.

The Bible you know today was put together BY the Church during one of her great councils – that’s really all I was trying to say about that! The letters that became part of the Bible were circulating through some of the churches of the time, as were others that did not “make the cut” – so to speak. But in terms of the Bible – as we know it today – the Church – the body of Christ at the time – preceded it. Ancient Christianity, unlike some more modern churches, took direction not just from the Bible, but from tradition – but I know I’m taking us off topic again – in light of that, I’m not sure how far down this path anyone really wants to go!

You’re probably right on the final point there, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on the “inerrancy” issue; I don’t think it has a lot to do with interpretation, and everything to do with the nature of the Bible itself. Nor would we agree that “the Church came before the Bible” (thought THAT, I’d agree, DOES involve interpretation!). Inerrancy, you’re correct, isn’t “historical” in one sense: people didn’t speak of it as such, but that’s because until the late 19th century, no one would have considered himself to be a “Christian” and yet doubt parts of the Bible to be true.

What do you mean by “that is not a historical Christian way of understanding theology”? I’ve been trying to figure out your use of the modifier ‘historical’.

Also, please clarify your statement “The Church came before the Bible”. Which church? Which Bible? You are taking exception to Byron’s thoughtful statements by using words that are unclear. I’m supposing you meant that “The Church came before the New Testament” but talks of biblical inerrancy include the Old Testament which did predate the Christian church.

I’m not sure if the issue is so much the “inerrancy of the Bible” – although that is NOT a historical Christian way of understanding theology – the Church came before the Bible – It seems that the issue has to do with the interpretation of the Bible – not its inerrancy.

And as for Christian factions not recognizing others, well, I think that has been happening throughout history. I’m sure there are conservative branches of Christianity that would not recognize each other, regardless of what they might have in common – and then you have conservative Christians, like myself, who tend to be socially liberal – in the sense that I don’t believe it is right to legislate my Christian beliefs onto others –

All these things of course can be discussed for hours – and I DO understand what you are saying – but I’m suggesting its not even as simple as trying to separate Christians into liberal and conservative camps when it doesn’t take that much for groups not to agree with each other.

Right, not beholden. But I think tenests is due to my accent.