18 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhy not? Anyone can call themselves anything, it isn't like we have
Can a person that does not believe that the entire Bible (includes all 66 books) is the inspired and infallible word of God call him/herself a Christian?
a truth detector on our mouths to only allow truth to be spoken.
Kelly
18 Aug 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI actually think they would not be Christians.
Can a person that does not believe that the entire Bible (includes all 66 books) is the inspired and infallible word of God call him/herself a Christian?
Note that belief that it is the word of God doesn't mean that God wrote it literally. Different interpretations are not incompatible with believing that it is the word of God.
18 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaClearly, then, the Christians who lived immediately after Christ's death, before the majority of the New Testament was written, could not have been Christians.
I actually think they would not be Christians.
Note that belief that it is the word of God doesn't mean that God wrote it literally. Different interpretations are not incompatible with believing that it is the word of God.
18 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaI've always thought of Christians as being those who believed in the [Nicene] Creed (except maybe the clause dealing with "One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church"đ.
I actually think they would not be Christians.
Note that belief that it is the word of God doesn't mean that God wrote it literally. Different interpretations are not incompatible with believing that it is the word of God.
18 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhy not?
Clearly, then, the Christians who lived immediately after Christ's death, before the majority of the New Testament was written, could not have been Christians.
Edit: My statement didn't mean that Christian are merely believers in the Bible, there appears to be more than one poster is assuming that perhaps I didn't express myself correctly.
18 Aug 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerA simplification, but one I'm willing to accept. Note that this means that the Bible would be the word of God, since the Creed holds this as true. ("He has spoken through the Prophets" )
I've always thought of Christians as being those who believed in the [Nicene] Creed (except maybe the clause dealing with "One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church"đ.
18 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaIf (in dj2becker's definition) being a Christian requires belief in all 66 books of the Bible, some of which were not written for some decades (at least) after Christ's death, there must have been Christians who would not have had all 66 books at their disposal.
Why not?
Edit: My statement didn't mean that Christian are merely believers in the Bible, there appears to be more than one poster is assuming that perhaps I didn't express myself correctly.
Never mind that the present canon was edited into shape in 325AD.
18 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't see why that contradicts dj2becker's definition. Those obviously couldn't believe something that didn't exist at the time. Doesn't your reasoning prevent the Christian God to speak to Christians through a new Prophet?
If (in dj2becker's definition) being a Christian requires belief in all 66 books of the Bible, some of which were not written for some decades (at least) after Christ's death, there must have been Christians who would not have had all 66 books at their disposal.
Never mind that the present canon was edited into shape in 325AD.