The philosophy behind the theology

[SMA12]

For those willing to listen:

One of the biggest divisions between Catholics and Protestants is the philosophy each uses in regards to theology.

The Catholic philosophy is that Christ established a Church and gave that Church authority. Therefore, when there is disagreement about theology or interpretation of the Word of God, we turn to the authority Christ left us, guided by the Holy Spirit, to settle it. This approach leads to us to a unified, integrated Church. The individual Catholic's duty is to conform himself or herself to God, rather than conforming God to himself or herself.

The Protestant philosophy is that each individual is given the the authority to interpret theology or Scripture for himself or herself, through the help of the Holy Spirit. Disagreements, therefore, lead to division and disintegration. The individual Protestant is his or her own authority. So many times he or she is left conforming God to his or her own personal beliefs, whether intentionally or subconsciously, because they have no higher authority to turn to other than personal interpretation. Disagreements arise, and rather than settling the matter, it has become too easy to go start your own religion, your own version of Christianity.

The abandonment of authority has lead us ever closer to religious and theological anarchy.

The individual Catholic has fallen many times. But there is no confusion as to what Catholicism is. Protestants, beginning with the original reformers, have 500+ years to get their act together, yet all of the reforming has lead to so much confusion, Protestants cannot even agree on the most basic of subjects.

The reformers were right to rebel against Catholics who weren't living up to Catholicism. But throwing the baby out with the bath water, they abandoned Catholicism itself and left behind 1500+ years of Church history and Christian thinking. They then had only their own authority to guide them. The disintegration had begun.

If you aren't ready to accept the Catholic Church, at least consider the philosophies behind the theology. One leads toward unity. One leads toward disunity.

God bless you all,
SMA12

 

[bbbbbbb]

For those willing to listen:

One of the biggest divisions between Catholics and Protestants is the philosophy each uses in regards to theology.

The Catholic philosophy is that Christ established a Church and gave that Church authority. Therefore, when there is disagreement about theology or interpretation of the Word of God, we turn to the authority Christ left us, guided by the Holy Spirit, to settle it. This approach leads to us to a unified, integrated Church. The individual Catholic's duty is to conform himself or herself to God, rather than conforming God to himself or herself.

The Protestant philosophy is that each individual is given the the authority to interpret theology or Scripture for himself or herself, through the help of the Holy Spirit. Disagreements, therefore, lead to division and disintegration. The individual Protestant is his or her own authority. So many times he or she is left conforming God to his or her own personal beliefs, whether intentionally or subconsciously, because they have no higher authority to turn to other than personal interpretation. Disagreements arise, and rather than settling the matter, it has become too easy to go start your own religion, your own version of Christianity.

The abandonment of authority has lead us ever closer to religious and theological anarchy.

The individual Catholic has fallen many times. But there is no confusion as to what Catholicism is. Protestants, beginning with the original reformers, have 500+ years to get their act together, yet all of the reforming has lead to so much confusion, Protestants cannot even agree on the most basic of subjects.

The reformers were right to rebel against Catholics who weren't living up to Catholicism. But throwing the baby out with the bath water, they abandoned Catholicism itself and left behind 1500+ years of Church history and Christian thinking. They then had only their own authority to guide them. The disintegration had begun.

If you aren't ready to accept the Catholic Church, at least consider the philosophies behind the theology. One leads toward unity. One leads toward disunity.

God bless you all,
SMA12

That is assuredly a Catholic understanding of the issue. However, I believe it seriously misrepresents the Protestant philosophy. Here is the way I would have phrased it:

The Catholic philosophy is that Christ established a Church and gave that Church authority. Therefore, when there is disagreement about theology or interpretation of the Word of God, we turn to the authority Christ left us, guided by the Holy Spirit, to settle it. This approach leads to us to a unified, integrated Church. The individual Catholic's duty is to conform himself or herself to the Catholic Church, rather than conforming God to himself or herself.

The Protestant philosophy is that each individual is given the the Bible as the sole, inspired authority. The Protestant understands that the Church, at its very best, is composed of fallible humans who, at their best, have attempted to understand and interpret the Bible, guided by God, the Holy Spirit. None can make a claim to a monopoly on understanding and interpretation because the Holy Spirit has been liberally poured out to all who believe in Jesus Christ so that the Church is composed of a holy and a royal priesthood of all believers, according to St. Peter.

When anyone or any body of believers sets itself in opposition to the divinely revealed Word of God, the Bible, it is not the duty of a Christian to docilely submit to their authority but, as Peter stated, we must obey God rather than man.

 

[SMA12]

That is assuredly a Catholic understanding of the issue. However, I believe it seriously misrepresents the Protestant philosophy. Here is the way I would have phrased it:

The Catholic philosophy is that Christ established a Church and gave that Church authority. Therefore, when there is disagreement about theology or interpretation of the Word of God, we turn to the authority Christ left us, guided by the Holy Spirit, to settle it. This approach leads to us to a unified, integrated Church. The individual Catholic's duty is to conform himself or herself to the Catholic Church, rather than conforming God to himself or herself.

The Protestant philosophy is that each individual is given the the Bible as the sole, inspired authority. The Protestant understands that the Church, at its very best, is composed of fallible humans who, at their best, have attempted to understand and interpret the Bible, guided by God, the Holy Spirit. None can make a claim to a monopoly on understanding and interpretation because the Holy Spirit has been liberally poured out to all who believe in Jesus Christ so that the Church is composed of a holy and a royal priesthood of all believers, according to St. Peter.

I would almost agree with your re-wording of the Catholic philosophy if you added but one caveat:

"The individual Catholic's duty is to conform himself or herself to the Catholic Church, given authority and guided by God Himself, rather than conforming God to himself or herself by his or her own personal authority.

The Catholic Church only echoes what Heaven reveals.

As far as the Protestant philosophy, I know I tended to focus on the negative aspects. But they cannot be ignored. Are you ignoring the disunity, disintegration, and disagreement the Protestant philosophy causes? Or do you believe it to be a trivial issue?

When anyone or any body of believers sets itself in opposition to the divinely revealed Word of God, the Bible, it is not the duty of a Christian to docilely submit to their authority but, as Peter stated, we must obey God rather than man.

And if God gave authority to to the Church He established, regardless of whether you believe that Church to be the Catholic Church, it's okay to rebel against that God given authority? What authority do you personally have?

I have always found it somewhat ironic that one of the common Protestant claims against Catholicism is that we follow man made teachings rather than God, yet the Protestant churches are the ones founded by men. If they all only followed God's teachings, and not man's, why so much contradiction?

And if you admit the Church is made up of fallible Christians with fallible interpretations, are you saying Christ left us with no way to be certain of the truth? Did He send us out into the world to preach something we can't be sure we have quite right?

Remember, Christ did not leave us with a Bible. He left us with a Church. The very pillar and bulwark of truth.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I would almost agree with your re-wording of the Catholic philosophy if you added but one caveat:

"The individual Catholic's duty is to conform himself or herself to the Catholic Church, given authority and guided by God Himself, rather than conforming God to himself or herself by his or her own personal authority.

The Catholic Church only echoes what Heaven reveals.

As far as the Protestant philosophy, I know I tended to focus on the negative aspects. But they cannot be ignored. Are you ignoring the disunity, disintegration, and disagreement the Protestant philosophy causes? Or do you believe it to be a trivial issue?



And if God gave authority to to the Church He established, regardless of whether you believe that Church to be the Catholic Church, it's okay to rebel against that God given authority? What authority do you personally have?

I have always found it somewhat ironic that one of the common Protestant claims against Catholicism is that we follow man made teachings rather than God, yet the Protestant churches are the ones founded by men. If they all only followed God's teachings, and not man's, why so much contradiction?

And if you admit the Church is made up of fallible Christians with fallible interpretations, are you saying Christ left us with no way to be certain of the truth? Did He send us out into the world to preach something we can't be sure we have quite right?

Remember, Christ did not leave us with a Bible. He left us with a Church. The very pillar and bulwark of truth.

Au contraire, my friend. Christ did leave us with the Bible. The Bible pre-existed the Church and is God's direct revelation to mankind. Hence, Jesus, who is God revealed to mankind is called the Word of God. The church cannot take the place of the Bible. It can seek to understand it and interpret it for others, but it is not God's revelation.

 

[Hawkiz]

Do you have a source for you claim that the Bible pre-existed the Church?

Do you mean the OT Septuagint preceded the Church? That would be both fair and correct.

OR, are you claiming that the NT preceded the Church? That would neither be fair nor correct.

OR, are you claiming that the NT Canon of Scripture preceded the Church? This would be entirely false and not in line with any reading of history. The Canon of the New Testament was not officially defined until 397AD. While the books that made it into the Canon were most certainly in use (by the Church) long before 397, they were not defined as Scriptural until that time. Scripture itself demonstrates that the Church existed prior to the NT even being written, with Acts, and all of St. Paul's writings demonstrating this...St. Paul himself was persecuting the Church; prior to being converted, let alone writing Epistles!

Please tell me that you that the OT Septuagint is what you were referencing.

And if that is the case, does your Bible contain all 73 books that were considered Scriptural in the Septuagint? Are you aware that the original Septuagint had 73 and not 66 books? Do you know WHY any books were removed?

Pray, study and think.

The Bible is most certainly the Word of God, but the Scriptures themselves reveal that Christ founded a Church, not a Bible.
When Saul (Paul) meet Christ, Jesus asks him 'Why are you persecuting ME?', not 'Why are you persecuting my Bible?'. The Church IS Christ, and the Scriptures are a part of that Church.

Peace in Christ

 

[bbbbbbb]

Do you have a source for you claim that the Bible pre-existed the Church?

Do you mean the OT Septuagint preceded the Church? That would be both fair and correct.

OR, are you claiming that the NT preceded the Church? That would neither be fair nor correct.

OR, are you claiming that the NT Canon of Scripture preceded the Church? This would be entirely false and not in line with any reading of history. The Canon of the New Testament was not officially defined until 397AD. While the books that made it into the Canon were most certainly in use (by the Church) long before 397, they were not defined as Scriptural until that time. Scripture itself demonstrates that the Church existed prior to the NT even being written, with Acts, and all of St. Paul's writings demonstrating this...St. Paul himself was persecuting the Church; prior to being converted, let alone writing Epistles!

Please tell me that you that the OT Septuagint is what you were referencing.

And if that is the case, does your Bible contain all 73 books that were considered Scriptural in the Septuagint? Are you aware that the original Septuagint had 73 and not 66 books? Do you know WHY any books were removed?

Pray, study and think.

The Bible is most certainly the Word of God, but the Scriptures themselves reveal that Christ founded a Church, not a Bible.
When Saul (Paul) meet Christ, Jesus asks him 'Why are you persecuting ME?', not 'Why are you persecuting my Bible?'. The Church IS Christ, and the Scriptures are a part of that Church.

Peace in Christ

Actually, we know that both the Septuagint as well as the Masoretic text did preceed the Church. So there is no question concerning that. The OT was quite sufficient for Jesus in His ministry as he quoted from it frequently and for the NT writers, who cited it to provide authority to their own interpretations.

Concerning the NT, some would say that the NT preceded the Church, but would depend on how one defines the canon of the NT and the Church. As for myself, I believe that the Church began on the day of Pentecost and at that point in time none of the NT had been written, thus the Church does precede the NT.

 

[Albion]

For those willing to listen:

One of the biggest divisions between Catholics and Protestants is the philosophy each uses in regards to theology.

The Catholic philosophy is that Christ established a Church and gave that Church authority.

That would be a correct description of the Roman Catholic view, but Protestants believe just as much that Christ established a church. What they do not believe is that the diocese of Rome is that church to the exclusion of all other Christians. The Catholic view IOW is that Christ established a denomination, not a church.

Therefore, when there is disagreement about theology or interpretation of the Word of God, we turn to the authority Christ left us, guided by the Holy Spirit, to settle it. This approach leads to us to a unified, integrated Church. The individual Catholic's duty is to conform himself or herself to God, rather than conforming God to himself or herself.

That would seem to be RC view of the matter, I agree. There's nothing in Scripture that would suggest that this is the right POV, but I do agree that that is a fair representation of the Catholic approach.

The Protestant philosophy is that each individual is given the the authority to interpret theology or Scripture for himself or herself, through the help of the Holy Spirit.

That is the Catholic stereotype of what they would like to think all Protestants are like and do. It is to take the attitude of the fringe of Protestantism and apply it to all Protestants as though they all hold such views.

Disagreements, therefore, lead to division and disintegration. The individual Protestant is his or her own authority.

And that is absolutely incorrect.

 

[Albion]

That is assuredly a Catholic understanding of the issue. However, I believe it seriously misrepresents the Protestant philosophy. Here is the way I would have phrased it:

The Catholic philosophy is that Christ established a Church and gave that Church authority. Therefore, when there is disagreement about theology or interpretation of the Word of God, we turn to the authority Christ left us, guided by the Holy Spirit, to settle it. This approach leads to us to a unified, integrated Church. The individual Catholic's duty is to conform himself or herself to the Catholic Church, rather than conforming God to himself or herself.

The Protestant philosophy is that each individual is given the the Bible as the sole, inspired authority. The Protestant understands that the Church, at its very best, is composed of fallible humans who, at their best, have attempted to understand and interpret the Bible, guided by God, the Holy Spirit. None can make a claim to a monopoly on understanding and interpretation because the Holy Spirit has been liberally poured out to all who believe in Jesus Christ so that the Church is composed of a holy and a royal priesthood of all believers, according to St. Peter.

When anyone or any body of believers sets itself in opposition to the divinely revealed Word of God, the Bible, it is not the duty of a Christian to docilely submit to their authority but, as Peter stated, we must obey God rather than man.

I agree to a large extent with your points, but not everything there. It is a mistake, I said, to picture Protestantism as saying, "You have a Bible, now go, and be guided by it." Historically, the Protestant churches have taken definite stands--as church bodies--concerning doctrine and interpretation. The idea that every individual is on his own is not true! Catholics love to say it, but it's not true.

What Protestantism did was to assert (along with a restoration of the Apostolic and Scriptural teachings that had been left behind by the Medieval Church of Rome) that every Christian has...

A RIGHT TO THE BIBLE,

to NOT HAVE HIS LIFE PUT IN JEOPARDY FOR READING IT OR DISAGREEING WITH THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH,

and to the exercise of his own CONSCIENCE.

In no way does any of that mean that a visible church is unneeded, that the church doesn't have an informed answer about proper doctrine, or that each person's interpretations of Scripture are as good as everyone else's.

 

[Steeno7]

It's neither the Bible or the church. It's the reality of Jesus Christ as the living, indwelling Lord and Savior in the individual's heart and life. Jesus is the Authority.

"And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." (Matt. 28:18)

Jesus is the One who leads those who are His.

"For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." (Rom. 8:14)

"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." (Rom. 8:9 )

Any substitute for Christ ultimately becomes an enemy of Christ.

 

[Shane R]

I agree to a large extent with your points, but not everything there. It is a mistake, I said, to picture Protestantism as saying, "You have a Bible, now go, and be guided by it." Historically, the Protestant churches have taken definite stands--as church bodies--concerning doctrine and interpretation. The idea that every individual is on his own is not true! Catholics love to say it, but it's not true.

What Protestantism did was to assert (along with a restoration of the Apostolic and Scriptural teachings that had been left behind by the Medieval Church of Rome) that every Christian has...

A RIGHT TO THE BIBLE,

to NOT HAVE HIS LIFE PUT IN JEOPARDY FOR READING IT OR DISAGREEING WITH THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH,

and to the exercise of his own CONSCIENCE.

In no way does any of that mean that a visible church is unneeded, that the church doesn't have an informed answer about proper doctrine, or that each person's interpretations of Scripture are as good as everyone else's.

This is pretty good. You have highlighted the difference between confessional Protestantism, some might say classical Protestantism, and the chaotic expression that is found in Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism/Restorationism/Pentecostalism.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I agree to a large extent with your points, but not everything there. It is a mistake, I said, to picture Protestantism as saying, "You have a Bible, now go, and be guided by it." Historically, the Protestant churches have taken definite stands--as church bodies--concerning doctrine and interpretation. The idea that every individual is on his own is not true! Catholics love to say it, but it's not true.

What Protestantism did was to assert (along with a restoration of the Apostolic and Scriptural teachings that had been left behind by the Medieval Church of Rome) that every Christian has...

A RIGHT TO THE BIBLE,

to NOT HAVE HIS LIFE PUT IN JEOPARDY FOR READING IT OR DISAGREEING WITH THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH,

and to the exercise of his own CONSCIENCE.

In no way does any of that mean that a visible church is unneeded, that the church doesn't have an informed answer about proper doctrine, or that each person's interpretations of Scripture are as good as everyone else's.

I certainly agree with you on these points and am sorry that I did not make my point more accurately. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[SMA12]

That would be a correct description of the Roman Catholic view, but Protestants believe just as much that Christ established a church. What they do not believe is that the diocese of Rome is that church to the exclusion of all other Christians. The Catholic view IOW is that Christ established a denomination, not a church.

That is not the Catholic view. There was no such thing as a denomination when Christ established the Church. Denominations came later along with the rejection of the authority Christ gave the Church. It seems to me that denominations are also a result of the infusion of relativism into society. "My opinion is truth for me because I believe it" has become an acceptable alternative to absolute truth.

That would seem to be RC view of the matter, I agree. There's nothing in Scripture that would suggest that this is the right POV, but I do agree that that is a fair representation of the Catholic approach.

Nothing?

Matthew 16:

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In Matthew 18, Jesus says to his disciples:

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (15-17)."

The Church is clearly shown to have authority. So what about personal interpretation?

On his way from Jerusalem to Gaza, Phillip the Evangelist encounters a eunuch reading the Book of Isaiah:

"So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him." (Acts 8:27-31).

The point of this passage is that the clear meaning of Scripture is not always evident. This is reinforced again in 2 Peter 1:20:

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation..."

And yet again in 2 Peter 3:15-16:

"So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

Clearly, just picking up the Bible and interpreting it for your self is not recommended. A teacher is necessary; preferably an authoritative one.

That is the Catholic stereotype of what they would like to think all Protestants are like and do. It is to take the attitude of the fringe of Protestantism and apply it to all Protestants as though they all hold such views.

Then what authority do non-fringe Protestants turn to for proper interpretation? Why is that source, whatever it may be, authoritative? And if it were reliable, then why can't non-fringe Protestants agree about [fill in the blank]? Re-read the Matthew 18 quote above and tell me which church you should go to for an authoritative decision if the Church itself is invisible?

And that is absolutely incorrect.

Explain how so. History is full examples to prove my point...

God bless.

 

[CaDan]

I haven't been around CF for a while, so let me re-present CaDan's Three Laws of Discussing Christianity on the Internet:

1. Godwin's Law is incorporated by reference.
2. Whoever knows the most Greek, wins.
3. In the end, it all comes down to ecclesiology.

 

[SMA12]

Au contraire, my friend. Christ did leave us with the Bible. The Bible pre-existed the Church and is God's direct revelation to mankind. Hence, Jesus, who is God revealed to mankind is called the Word of God. The church cannot take the place of the Bible. It can seek to understand it and interpret it for others, but it is not God's revelation.

Christ left us with a Bible? When exactly did He do that?

How did the Bible pre-date the Church when the Bible itself records the formation of the Church?

The Old Testament existed before the Church. Is that the only scripture you accept? Obviously not. The New Testament was written in the century following the establishment of the Church. But even then, over 20 gospels existed. Why do you only accept 4? Whether you know it or not, the New Testament, and the Bible as a whole- OT+NT is a result of the authority of the Church.

 

[SMA12]

I haven't been around CF for a while, so let me re-present CaDan's Three Laws of Discussing Christianity on the Internet:

1. Godwin's Law is incorporated by reference.
2. Whoever knows the most Greek, wins.
3. In the end, it all comes down to ecclesiology.

Yeah... Hopefully, this thread is about more than just winning. Though it often turns out that way. A talented debater can win a debate and still be incorrect.

My hope is for people actually consider ideas before looking to prove them wrong, even though I often am guilty of just that.

Anyways the discussion is still important. Christian theology and philosophy deals with the salvation and damnation of souls. If I'm wrong I want to know before it's too late. And if truly love my neighbor, I want them to know the truth, that they have the best chance at salvation.

 

[Albion]

That is not the Catholic view. There was no such thing as a denomination when Christ established the Church. Denominations came later along with the rejection of the authority Christ gave the Church. It seems to me that denominations are also a result of the infusion of relativism into society. "My opinion is truth for me because I believe it" has become an acceptable alternative to absolute truth.

This really doesn't have anything to do with me. It's your fight with Merriam and Webster .

Nothing?

Matthew 16:

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In Matthew 18, Jesus says to his disciples:

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (15-17)."

The Church is clearly shown to have authority. So what about personal interpretation?

For what--the third time? I call your attention to two errors in your interpretation and in that claim:

1. the claim was that ALL authority was given to men. There is nowhere in those two passages where there is any indication that ALL authority was given to men, any men.

2. I don't see--and you don't see , although you may imagine it--any reference to the Church of Rome, the Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church or any other such denomination there. The reference is to the body of believers.

You're welcome. I hope you have it clear now.

 

[SMA12]

For what--the third time? I call your attention to two errors in your interpretation and in that claim:

1. the claim was that ALL authority was given to men. There is nowhere in those two passages where there is any indication that ALL authority was given to men, any men.

2. I don't see--and you don't see , although you may imagine it--any reference to the Church of Rome, the Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church or any other such denomination there. The reference is to the body of believers.

You're welcome. I hope you have it clear now.

1. No one said ALL authority was given to men. That is only you putting words in my mouth. But it seems your concept of the Church is incapable of having ANY authority, being invisible and all.

2. Of course there is no mention of "Rome" or the "Vatican". There was no need for distinction- there was but one Church. This is where history and reason come into play. If your church's foundation and ideology only go back to the 16th century it couldn't have been what Scripture was referring to.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

 

[Albion]

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

Ah yes. As spoken by a man (John Henry Newman) who was rewarded with a cardinal's beanie in the Roman Church for saying such things about the church he abandoned.

Personally, and when it comes to religion, I prefer God's Word to human opinion; but to each his own, as they say.

 

[SMA12]

Ah yes. As spoken by a man (John Henry Newman) who was rewarded with a cardinal's beanie in the Roman Church for saying such things about the church he abandoned.

Personally, and when it comes to religion, I prefer God's Word to human opinion; but to each his own, as they say.

As do I. Personally, I don't care for when people make implications that I don't...

The debate has never been Word of "God vs. Opinion of man"but "Where do we turn when we can't agree about what the Word of God actually means." Straw man arguments get us no where.

Anyways, I hope you are still pondering the questions you left unanswered in my previous two posts addressed to you. If not, oh well, maybe others reading this thread will consider them.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Christ left us with a Bible? When exactly did He do that?

How did the Bible pre-date the Church when the Bible itself records the formation of the Church?

The Old Testament existed before the Church. Is that the only scripture you accept? Obviously not. The New Testament was written in the century following the establishment of the Church. But even then, over 20 gospels existed. Why do you only accept 4? Whether you know it or not, the New Testament, and the Bible as a whole- OT+NT is a result of the authority of the Church.

The Church (and I mean the Church, not just your denomination) was guided by God, the Holy Spirit, when it acknowledged the canon of scripture given to it by God through the instrument of human writers.

The Church did not author any of the books of the Bible - either the OT or the NT. All that the Church could do was call a council and agree, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which books are those of the NT.