|
|
Results 1 - 20
|
|
Results from: Answered Questions, Answers, Unanswered Questions, Notes
Contents include: "Orthodox"
On or After: Wednesday, September 2, 2009
|
| Results |
Type |
Verse |
Author |
Date |
ID# |
| 1 |
no more animal sacrifice |
Note |
Heb 8:13 |
DocTrinsograce |
Wed 09/30/09, 6:36pm |
218739 |
| |
The orthodox Christian response to this question is consistent from the various theological traditions:
"From the Holy Gospel, which God Himself first revealed in Paradise (Gen. 3:15),afterwards proclaimed by the holy Patriarchs and Prophets (Gen. 22:18; 49:10-11; Rom. 1:2; Heb. 1:1; Acts 3:22-24; 10:43), and foreshadowed by the sacrifices and other ceremonies of the law (John 5:46; Heb. 10:7), and finally fulfilled by His well-beloved Son (Rom. 10:4; Gal. 4:4-5; Heb. 10:1)." --Heidelberg Catechism
"The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises (Rom. 15:8), prophecies (Acts 3:20, 24), sacrifices (Heb. 10:1), circumcision (Rom. 4:11), the passover (1Cor. 5:7), and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah (Heb. ch. 8-10; 11:13), by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation (Gal. 3:7-9, 14)." --Westminster Larger Confession
"Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein He was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent's head (1 Cor. 4:10; Heb. 4:2; 1 Peter 1:10-11); and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), being the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever (Heb. 13:8)." --London Baptist Confession of Faith
"Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ, till after his incarnation; yet the virtue, efficacy and benefits thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages, successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types and sacrifices wherein he was revealed and signified to be the Seed of the woman, which should bruise the serpent's head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same, and for ever. " --Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order
"This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel (2 Cor. 3:6-9) under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come (Heb. 8-10; Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 5:7); which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah (1 Cor. 10:1-4; Heb. 11:13; John 8:56), by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament (Gal. 3:7-9, 14; Psa. 32:1-2, 5).
"Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance (Col. 2:17) was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 1:21; 11:23-25; Matt. 28:19-20): which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy (Heb. 12:22-24; 2 Cor. 3:9-11; Jer. 31:33-34), to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles (Luke 2:32; Acts 10:34; Eph. 2:15-19); and is called the new testament (Luke 22:20). There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations (Gal. 3:8-9, 14, 16; Rom. 3:21-22, 30; 4:3, 6-8, 16-17, 23-24; 10:6-10; Heb. 4:2; Gen. 15:6; Psa. 32:1-2; 1 Cor. 10:3-4)." --Westminster Confession of Faith
The shadow is utterly unnecessary when the Perfect has replaced it. |
| 2 |
agreeing with chuch |
Answer |
1 Tim 4:16 |
BradK |
Wed 10/7/09, 8:35am |
218820 |
| |
Hello Alaci,
Welcome to the Forum! Since your question is general- and I don't know specifics- I can only comment generally:-)
I would say, it's important- even crucial- that we agree on the Essentials of the Faith: The Diety of Christ, the Authority of Scripture, Salvation by grace through faith, etc. I would assume your church is Orthodox and holds these beliefs? So, in essentials unity (Eph. 4:3-6);
In non-essentials, such as manner and frequency of Communion, Baptism, the perpetuity of Sign gifts, etc. there's room for grace.(Rom. 14:1)
When I started attending my present church, there were some areas with which I disagreed. I met with my pastor and he said something very simple, yet profound, "Brad, I'm the senior Pastor and there are things I disagree with!". I thought, "hmmm... good point". I'm still fellowowshipping there and teaching some 13-plus years later! So, I truly believe it's not that we disagree- as long as it's not over essentials- but how we learn to agree to disagree over the non-essentials! These can be huge stumbling blocks...
Speaking the Truth in Love,
BradK |
| 3 |
Gos Can Speak! |
Note |
1 Cor 12:3 |
stjohn |
Tue 11/17/09, 1:04pm |
219287 |
| |
Dear teacher,
All one would really have to do to discover that God speaks is, read the Bible. It's histories are copiously rife with the truth of God speaking. God speaks throughout the Bible. The Bible starts out with God speaking in Genesis 1:3 ("And God said")... And ends with Him speaking in Revelation 22:20, where Jesus Christ testifies of Himself: "Yes, I am coming quickly."
Where, pray tell, does it say in the Scriptures that the Corinthians discovered that God can speak? Pardon me, sir, but the important thing the corinthians discovered was that they were so far out of orthodoxy that, Paul wrote them several chapters admonishing them for being too worldly, and for their idolatrous, drunken, incestuous, childish behaviors and dissension of many kinds. And that they should grow up, and be adults in their thinking. (1 Cor 13:11, 14:20) If you read First Corinthians in context -without putting all your eggs in the "spiritual gifts" basket- you might just see that there is much, much more to be learned here then, child's play.
John |
| 4 |
All Don't Have The Same Ministry In Lord |
Note |
1 Cor 12:5 |
stjohn |
Sat 11/21/09, 5:59pm |
219356 |
| |
Hi Justme,
Thanks for your thoughts and concerns, it is much appreciated. I am cognizant of Mr. Martell's teaching, I've visited the website in question and read all that was available there.
Everything has been taken into consideration, Justme. Thanks for your concern for proper orthodoxy and adherence to the TOU gracing our pages.
John |
| 5 |
Satan's flood. Want some info. |
Note |
Rev 12:15 |
justme |
Sat 12/5/09, 9:26pm |
219583 |
| |
orinvee: I have read your last statement in which you said, "Two of the biggest lies that Satan has foisted upon Christianity is the 'eternal torment of sinners' and 'the Trinity'. Neither of these teachings are biblical and are anathema to godly worship."
You have blasphemed against the Holy Trinity! You have the audacity to smear the Holy Trinity? Further more, what then does Matthew 25:46 mean when Scripture says "eternal punishment"?
Just what Bible translation are you reading to give you such lies? To me it sounds like the New World translation, are you a JW? If you do not believe in eternal torment for those who reject Jesus Christ, what do you think Matthew 25:41 is describing? You are unorthodox and heretical in your contempt for the Holy Trinity. The Universalistic Theology of heaven, and the renunciation of eternal torment for those who reject Jesus Christ is heretical. The consequences for teaching this lunacy is eternal torment and for those who follow this apostate theology, that you endorse.
You are correct that "one must 'swim' through an ocean of false doctrines and creeds and dogma to find the nuggets that lie hidden in the murky depths." The truth is you dispute the two most distinct teachings in the New Testament.
Yes satan deceives the "whole world" and satan has seduced you into rejecting not only the Holy Trinity but eternal torment in a literal hell. You have been deceived by the evil one without recognizing the flawed Scripture twisting you have embraced.
The biggest lie satan has foistered is the Bible means something else other than what the Bible really says. That wrong is right and right is wrong. I pray your will see the error in your thinking.
Justme |
| 6 |
Is there a reason to debate? |
Note |
Bible general |
stjohn |
Sat 12/26/09, 3:01pm |
219938 |
| |
Dhaniei, I'm not sure what you mean by "us" when you say the timeline of Jesus' death is not clear from the Scriptures. Perhaps it isn't clear to some, but I have no doubt that what the Bible has to say is true. One thing that is perfectly clear is: Jesus rose on the first day of the week (Mark 16:1-2, 16:9)! I couldn't help but note you say that you are convinced that He rose on the Sabbath. That really cant be done effectively without employing extra-biblical, heterodoxy. If you think its okay to fiddle around with the sacred text in your privet study then you may do so, and though it is not recommended, no one is restricting you, but, it is not okay to do that here at SBF. Throughout the last two thousand years orthodox scholarship has agreed that Our Saviour rose on the first day of the week, and, frankly, I don't know a single one who calls themselves Christian that believes otherwise. I must admit it seems very much an attempt to disparage the Sunday worshipers, by endeavoring to show Him having rose on the seventh day. Please, let's be cognizant not to attempt to push views on unorthodox study such as sabbatarianism. Thanks
John |
| 7 |
Is Salvation lump sum? |
Note |
Heb 7:25 |
DocTrinsograce |
Tue 12/29/09, 2:24pm |
219998 |
| |
Dear dody,
Remember, every word is in the context of a sentence, every sentence in the context of a passage, every passage in the context of a book. The greatest interpreter of Scripture is Scripture.
The historic use of passages like John 12:32, Philippians 2:10-11, and 1 Timothy 2:4 to support universalism is untenable at best and specious at worst. Particularly so in the light of such passages as Matthew 13:30; 49; 25:32; 46; Luke 3:17; 16:26; John 8:42-44; 15:6; Acts 16:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; etc. etc. The Scripture clearly delineates a distinction between believer/unbeliever, wheat/tares, sheep/goats, saved/lost, etc. and their disparate ultimate destinations.
Pastor Samson is rendering a sound and orthodox interpretation.
May I ask, with what group or denomination with which you study? Your approach sounds familiar.
In Him, Doc |
| 8 |
Is Salvation lump sum? |
Note |
Heb 7:25 |
DocTrinsograce |
Thu 12/31/09, 8:48am |
220028 |
| |
Hi, Dodoy...
What you are espousing is called synergistic soterism: universal atonement and libertarian free will. It was first espoused in Christendom by a monk named Pelagius Bretto -- hence it is often called Pelagianism. The theological view of libertarians are held by Socinians, Molinists, Arminians, and Open Theists. (The Romanists hold a view very similar to yours called Semi-pelagianism, denying any real effect of original sin on human nature.)
In Pelagianism, human nature is neither good nor bad, but simply ignorant -- given the facts, man is able to choose salvation. Hence, man is in need of a tutor.
In Semipelagianism, human nature is neither good nor bad, but simply injured -- given healing, man is able to choose salvation. Hence, man is in need of a physician.
By contrast, orthodox Monergism asserts the Biblical perspective that man is dead (Ephesians 2:1, Colossians 2:13), lacking the moral ability to change his nature (Jeremiah 13:23) -- given regeneration (2 Corinthians 5:17) man is able to walk in righteousness (1 John 3:7, 10). Hence, man is in need of a Savior (John 1:13; 6:44).
I now understand your reticence to respond to my questions, or tell us with whom you are studying.
The presupposition that allows you to build your philosophical structure, is a heterodoxical definition of sin. Milliard Erickson renders a very good summation of the orthodox Christian definition: "Sin is any lack of conformity, active or passive, to the moral law of God. This may be a matter of act, of thought, or of inner disposition or state."
You see, man is born in sin with an evil and wicked nature (Matthew 7:11, Ephesians 2:3), sharing the same evil nature as Satan (John 8:44). Man sins by choice and by the motivation of his very nature. Sin fills every aspect of his being from head to toe (Isaiah 1:5-6). His heart and mind is filled with it (Ecclesiastes 9:3, Ephesians 4:17-19, Titus 1:15, 1 Timothy 3:8, 6:5). There remains no good in men (Romans 7:18). Man is basically evil, not good. His heart is as hard as stone (Ezekiel 11:19, Jeremiah 23:29). Man imagines that he is only sick, but the Bible says he is dead (Ephesians 2:1, Colossians 2:13). Man feels he is, at worst, near-sighted, but Scripture says he is blind (2 Corinthians 3:14). Man shrugs off his vices as minor, but the Word says he is a slave (John 8:44, Ephesians 2:2, 2 Timothy 2:26). As I pointed out before, man lacks the moral ability to change his nature (Jeremiah 13:23). He can't stop sinning or even want to stop sinning (2 Peter 2:14). Everything he does has a sinful motive behind it, even when his actions outwardly appear good (Genesis 6:5). Man is unable to obey God (Matthew 7:18, Romans 8:7-8). He never seeks God (Romans 3:11). He is unwilling and unable to come to God for help (John 3:19-20, John 5:40, John 6:44, 65). Man is always set against God. His will is not neutral or self-determining. He always wills in accordance with his nature. Since his nature is evil, his thoughts and motives are always evil. But this moral inability does not annul his responsibility. Quite the contrary it compounds his guilt. Remember, this sinfulness is self-inflicted. God does not cancel Man's debt simply because Man has squandered the loan and is unable to pay God back. Man is guilty and deserves to go to Hell (Romans 6:23).
This is the doctrine traditionally called total depravity. It is a question of extent and degree. Tim Challies writes, "We can put one drop of deadly poison in that glass and it renders that entire glass poisonous so that if you were to drink it, you would quickly drop dead. That one drop extended to every part of the glass even though the entire vessel is not filled with poison. This represents humans after the Fall. While they are not wholly corrupt, the corruption they do have extends to every part. And finally consider a third glass which is filled entirely with poison. From top to bottom there is nothing but deadly poison. This represents Satan, who the Bible portrays as being absolutely corrupt so there is no good left whatsoever, but this does not represent humans here on earth. Humans are not as depraved as they could possibly be."
In Him, Dco |
| 9 |
Is Salvation lump sum? |
Note |
Heb 7:25 |
lightedsteps |
Sat 01/2/10, 12:01pm |
220058 |
| |
Hi Doc
In my attempt to better understand your teaching posted to dodoy I have gone back to your post 220028
Whereby I am finding it hard to nail down any definitions for a word and a term which you have used.
(Heterodoxical)
Heterodoxical or heretical groups, the Middle Ages involved constant attempts to renegotiate and redefine relationships among people. .....Technorati
(Orthodox Christian)
This is all I am able to find for your use of this term.
I am sure this cannot be what you are saying. Where could I find the definition as you are using it.
The Orthodox Christian belongs to the Body of Christ, the Church of Christ. This Eastern Orthodox Church is organically the same congregation (or ecclesia) which was born at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem on Pentecost, a direct continuation from the Apostles by laying on of hands from each generation of priests to the next. The Orthodox Christian recognizes the rich Christian heritage and proclaims that he belongs to this Church, which corresponds to the Church of the Apostles as does a grown-up person correspond to a picture taken of him as a child.
The Orthodox Christian has been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity and follows the ideals and beliefs of both the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. He believes in a living and loving God, Whose Grace protects and guides him in the path of redemption. He believes that God has revealed Himself in the Bible through the Prophets and especially in the Person of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son who is man's Savior. He especially believes in the Incarnation of Christ as God-Man, in His Crucifixion and Resurrection, in His Gospel and Commandments, and in the world to come. ......Orthodox Christian Page
Thank you for your indulgence
lightedsteps |
| 10 |
Is Salvation lump sum? |
Note |
Heb 7:25 |
DocTrinsograce |
Sat 01/2/10, 4:31pm |
220061 |
| |
Dear lightedsteps,
Thank you for the questions.
The word orthodoxy comes from two Greek root words: ortho (right or correct) and doxa (opinion or thinking). In theology, when we use the word, we mean the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. The word heterodoxy uses a Greek root word heteros (different or other). We use the word to man those teachings that are contrary to orthodoxy. The Eastern Orthodox Church capitalizes the word. In the same way, the Roman Catholic Church capitalizes catholic -- which simply means universal or ubiquitous.
Don't hesitate to ask such questions. We only effectively communicate when our terms are clearly defined for one another.
In Him, Doc |
| 11 |
Is Salvation lump sum? |
Note |
Heb 7:25 |
lightedsteps |
Sat 01/2/10, 10:15pm |
220062 |
| |
Hi Doc
A little deeper clarification if you don't mind.
you said in regard to Christian ( orthodoxy )
"In theology, when we use the word, we mean the essential doctrines of the Christian faith.
1) Does this refer to the most basic doctrines that all denominations can agree on or are they the doctrines of only certain denominations?
What I am seeking for is the understanding of who is being specifically spoken of.
2) When you say ( orthodoxy ) would this be the same as I would say Christendom meaning all Christians regardless of denomination? Where I would be speaking about or on behalf of the Christian Faith in the general sense.
3) In your using the word ( orthodoxy ) does it encompass the Pentecostals and Catholics within this term because of the differences found in their doctrinal beliefs?
you say ( heterodoxy )
"We use the word to mean those teachings that are contrary to orthodoxy."
4) Is it as simple as a different or other opinion or thinking?
Or does it lean more in the direction of heresy idolatrous schismatic unorthodox something more on the order of contrary to and opposite in nature or character to the held theology?
The reason I ask is that neither the term ( Christian orthodoxy ) nor the word ( heterodoxy ) have a very benign sound to them.
Forgive me for saying it this way but they convey the feeling of being very staid and absolutely without any room for question.
In Jesus
lightedsteps
|
| 12 |
Is Salvation lump sum? |
Note |
Heb 7:25 |
Beja |
Sun 01/3/10, 6:39am |
220066 |
| |
Light,
Doc can certainly answer the question for himself, but I thought I might be able to help you understand it. Basically what the term boils down to, is the teaching that has been what Christians have principally believed throughout the time between Christ's birth and now. Now this isn't to suggest they all believed the same thing. But that on many doctrines any time somebody did disagree it was obvious that they were outside the traditional Christian teaching on the subject. The basically is referring to the teachings of the apostles, the early church, some of what the Catholic Church has believed especially during its earlier time depending on exactly where you want to see it to have begun and ended; then especially what was recovered through the protestant reformation and during the puritan era, all the way up to the last 100 or so years where we have seen such an unbelievable casting off of the old teachings of Christianity for everybody to decide what is right in their own eyes. You would be surprised how much substantial teachings were agreed upon during these time periods. At least agreed upon to the point that the ones that disagreed stood out pretty clearly.
Now here is what the word gives us in practical terms. When you believe something that is heterodoxy (different from what Christians have always believed) then in order for you to be right, the entire history of Christian religion must have been wrong in order for you to be right. Now...I heartily agree that just because people have always believed something doesn't make it right. And orthodoxy is not an absolute proof of truth. I am a baptist. I believe that only professing believers should receive baptism, yet if you look at Christian history the vast majority has held to infant Baptism. So I do think sometimes the historical position of Christianity is wrong. (Thought I do not think the apostolic church baptised infants.) Yet at the same time our indipendent times lead us to another error. We need to think long and hard about how serious it is to hold to a heterodoxy opinion. You are saying that you alone have come upon some special wisdom that no soul throughout two thousand years of Christianity has figured out but you. You are saying that throughout all Christianity God has seen fit to leave His people in the dark on a subject, until your brilliance has cast light on what He has left hidden. Once again, I'm willing to weigh all views against scripture, but at the same time I think a man must grasp the seriousness of this. And it should be with great fear and trembling, and with expectations that we may be missunderstanding something that any man should disagree with the entire Christian history of thinkers, in which I assure you there were greater men than you and I applying their minds to such things. So in my opinion it is this practical implication of the word "orthodoxy" that makes it significant to us. I hope this helps. Save me if I've explained this poorly, Doc.
In Christ, Beja |
| 13 |
Is Salvation lump sum? |
Note |
Heb 7:25 |
DocTrinsograce |
Wed 01/6/10, 9:00pm |
220098 |
| |
Continued from part 1 (post #220094).
3) I have found many Pentecostals to hold orthodox beliefs. However, they generally suffer the malady of many modern evangelicals by lacking a definitive confession. Consequently, it is difficult to apply a blanket statement to them. However, the Oneness Pentecostalism holds the heretical teaching known in church history as Modalistic Monarchianism.
Although individual Roman Catholics may hold to orthodoxy, the Church of Rome anathematized the Biblical Gospel in 1546 in the Council of Trent.
4) I believe that Pastor Beja responded to this question very well in post #220066.
Concerning your final statement concerning the sound of these words, I assume you mean their connotations. I suppose that orthodoxy and orthopraxy have positive connotations, and heterodoxy and heteropraxy have negative connotations. As you come to understand the actual meaning of these words, and their great importance to our faith, no doubt your feelings will shift. After all, of what value are feelings if they are based on something other than the facts?
Each of us has a right to interpret Scripture, indeed, a very essential right. However, no one has the right to misinterpret Scripture. On these principles rest enormous, far reaching consequences. As the old divines used to say, "ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda" or "the church reformed and always reforming." In other words, we must be continually studying the Word and examining all things in that light. It is by this very approach (someday I'll explain the five solas to you) that the essential doctrines are promoted and taught, and how the same old heresies are defeated as they rise up over and over again through the years.
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason -- I do not accept the authority of the Popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other -- my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." --Martin Luther
In Him, Doc
PS Watch that "feelings" stuff. It generally gets in the way of sound reason. |
| 14 |
Is Salvation lump sum? |
Note |
Heb 7:25 |
lightedsteps |
Thu 01/7/10, 8:00pm |
220114 |
| |
Hi Doc
Thank you for the time you have invested on my questions. They have been most enlightening.
Does not orthodoxy along with it's doctrines compel the believer toward an exclusive understanding of the Holy Scripture which would conform to those doctrines?
Would not then any exegesis of the Holy Scriptures conducted be biased by the very nature of the understanding acquired which would coincide with the dictated doctrines found in orthodoxy?
My point being there are many denominations to be found within the term Christian orthodoxy.
There are also many divisions found within those several denominations.
Thus my use of the term Christendom.
While these differing factions within a denomination may agree on the most basic of doctrines thereby keeping them all within the bounds of orthodoxy they hold other doctrines that are not mutual in fact may be exclusive only to themselves.
Are they not then incapable of retrieving from scripture a like understanding?
Except where orthodoxy itself is concerned.
Thanks Again
lightedsteps
|
| 15 |
Is Salvation lump sum? |
Note |
Heb 7:25 |
DocTrinsograce |
Thu 01/7/10, 9:04pm |
220116 |
| |
Dear lightedsteps,
It is impossible to approach any exegesis without a hermeneutic. Orthodoxy has been derived from the ultimate authority of the Word itself. The like understanding of which you speak is itself orthodoxy. In our various congregations we may differ on many points. Not all of those differences warrant separation from fellowship.
In Him, Doc
PS May I ask a question? Are you a member of the Church of Christ, or have had affiliation with them? |
| 16 |
Unity Based on Orthodoxy |
Note |
Mic 2:11 |
DocTrinsograce |
Thu 01/21/10, 7:24pm |
220325 |
| |
"Throughout history men have appeared who would become famous for seeking peace at any price. Perhaps the greatest twentieth-century example of such a figure is the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who in 1938 proclaimed that he had achieved 'peace in our time' with Adolf Hitler even as he was preparing to unleash his blitzkrieg on Europe. Chamberlain's aversion to hostility was so great that Hitler played him for a fool.
"Conflict is something that most people, when given the opportunity, try to avoid. Peace is so desirable that significant differences between individuals and groups are often ignored, and unity is sought under the lowest common denominator. When peace is sought under these auspices, it can be easy to ignore the importance of truth altogether. The modern heirs of nineteenth-century Christian liberalism reveal such tendencies. In the drive to live peaceably with other professing believers and even other non-Christian religions, liberalism has tended to redefine Christianity as 'the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man,' or some other innocuous definition. Ironically, liberals tend to tolerate any kind of belief system unless it happens to represent orthodox, biblical faith.
"We cannot, however, judge mainline Protestantism without recognizing that these problems are increasingly evident within evangelicalism. Even though many different denominations were born out of the Protestant Reformation, evangelicals have traditionally confessed the inerrancy of Scripture and the doctrine of justification by faith alone whether they were Lutherans, Baptists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and so on. Today, unfortunately, the desire for unity means that such essential doctrines are often diminished so that Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox can all get along. Professing evangelicals no longer necessarily believe that justification by faith alone is an essential doctrine -- even though without it there is no Gospel (Galatians 1:6–9; 2:15–16).
"If Christian unity is to mean anything, it must be a unity of faith grounded in the truth. To sacrifice conviction for 'peace' is to have no conviction at all.
"Christians have often divided over matters not essential to Christian orthodoxy and lobbed charges of heresy at one another. Such actions have created a distaste for theology in the minds of many people, and there is now a tendency to downplay any essential differences within the visible church because of all the vitriol shown over the less important points of doctrine. Let us be passionate for the truth, but let us not divide unless Christian orthodoxy is at stake."
From Ligonier Ministries, the teaching fellowship of R.C. Sproul. All rights reserved. Website: www.ligonier.org |
| 17 |
Remember... |
Answer |
Gen 2:2 |
BradK |
Sun 02/21/10, 11:05pm |
220966 |
| |
Hello Rick,
As my 9th-Grade teacher was fond of saying, "tell me something I don't already know". You're appearing to be one to quote things out of context and are simply side-stepping the issue by failing to give adequate scriptural support to any of your "views" Possibly you have not read nor are familiar with About Forum and Terms of Use. Please take the time to do so if you haven't. It will be of benefit to all of us.
Our gracious host, the Lockman Foundation in their doctrinal statement holds: We believe that the entire Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God; the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
In About Postings: Postings must be Biblically based and not opposing the Bible's sole authority (sola Scriptura), Christianity, or the deity of Jesus Christ. Whenever possible, postings should include supporting Bible references.
Rick you're welcome to your views, beliefs, etc. However, when they fall outside Orthodoxy or show ignorance of the appropriate protocol here on the SBF, it leads to uneccessary strife!
Speaking the Truth in Love,
BradK |
| 18 |
Good and Evil logycally ANTERIOR to God! |
Answer |
Gen 6:6 |
DocTrinsograce |
Tue 03/2/10, 6:43pm |
221201 |
| |
Hi, Bruno...
To answer your questions explicitly, "No." I do not agree with either option. The subject you bring up is called theodicy. What you have expressed, as an answer, is what is called a false dichotomy. There are other options that do not contradict His self-revelation (the Bible). You might want to go to someplace like www.mongerism.com and look up theodicy.
You might also want to spend some time at that same site looking into the attributes of God. Although you may see "a problem with that" (sic) concerning how we understand the Divine, nonetheless, it is an orthodox Christian distinctive.
In Him, Doc |
| 19 |
questioning |
Note |
Gen 6:6 |
Bruno Dosca |
Mon 03/8/10, 1:13pm |
221355 |
| |
Hello Beja,
Now I understand what you meant by the "ultimate heresy" thing. Sorry to have misunderstood you.
About the government:
You ask: "How would it logically follow that Western governments not obeying scripture proves scripture false?" It simply doesn't follow. I agree with you. What I was pointing to was your personal behaviour not being against a government that was not applying the Biblical justice. But now I see you think the Biblical justice was meant to be applied to Israel and not as a general law for other cases. I am not sure if this the orthodox view since I have heard very different interpretations. But as you think this is the correct view then I see why the whole thing is reasonable and logical in your mind.
Doing an exercise of the imagination, can you imagine yourself stoning to death somebody who has, lets say disobeyed his/her parents, if you were born in Israel during the bronze age? I think it is not difficult to understand why I am so worried about this things.
Regarding the discussion about the truth or falsehood of the Bible I understand your reasons for not wanting to continue it and I accept it. Nevertheless I was invited by Mr. Doc to put my questions about different passages of the Bible that I think contain factual mistakes and/or contradictions. I will put them in a way that wont offend anybody, I wont present them as false and I will accept that the responses will take the scriptures as true. I will only ask if there is somebody who wants to explain it.
Bruno.
|
| 20 |
What is interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 |
Note |
Heb 6:9 |
DocTrinsograce |
Tue 03/30/10, 7:16pm |
221735 |
| |
Dear fundamentals,
Note that there are nine chapters of sound doctrine that lead to Paul's admonition. You skipped an essential verse, as well... "But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;" (Romans 10:8 KJV)
Although you dislike words and phrases, posting unqualified verses, lacking proper context, will edify no one. If you are to assume the role of teacher, you must be the kind of man that is "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." (Titus 1:9 KJV)
By the way, do you know who coined the word fundamentalism? His name was J. Gresham Machen, a professor of theology at Princeton, and the founder of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He wrote, "You will have battles when you go forth as minister into the church. The church is now in a period of deadly conflict. The redemptive religion known as Christianity is contending, in our own church and in the all the larger churches of the world, against a totally alien type of religion. As always, the enemy conceals his most dangerous assaults under pious phrases and half-truths. The shibboleths of the adversary have sometimes a very deceptive sound. 'Let us propagate Christianity,’ the adversary says, 'but let us not always be engaged in arguing in defense of it; let us make our preaching positive, and not negative; let us avoid controversy; let us hold to a Person and not to a dogma; let us sink small doctrinal differences and seek the unity of the church of Christ; let us drop doctrinal accretions and interpret Christ for ourselves; let us look for our knowledge of Christ, not to ancient books, but to the living Christ in our hearts; let us not impose Western creeds on the Eastern mind; let us be tolerant [thinking all views are equally correct] of opposing views.' Such are some of the shibboleths of that agnostic Modernism which is the deadliest enemy of the Christian religion today. They deceive some of God’s people some of the time; they are heard sometimes from the lips of good Christian people, who have not the slightest inkling of what they mean. But their true meaning, to thinking men, is becoming increasingly clear. Increasingly it is becoming necessary for a man to decide whether he is going to stand or not to stand for the Lord Jesus Christ as he is presented to us in the word of God."
Young man, almost a century has past since those words were spoken. Those to whom Machen was referring, were known as liberals. They opposed the careful historical-grammatical interpretation of the texts of Scripture.
In Him, Doc |
| More results... |
|
|
|
