Christianity VS Orthodoxy

[bob]

Acts 28:23 says....

23They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.

end......


Now I continue to encounter this same line of reasoning and debate between camps that both declare themselves Christian.

I have done a cut and paste of another discussion here on the board. It is that of Trinitarian vs Oneness.

Here it is.....


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HHH-

Then you differ with Christianity. The Church historically has always held to this view of God. See for example the Nicene Creed.

OrthodoX






Differ with christianity as defined by the Nicene Creed. But not with Christianity as defined by the scriptures.




HHH-

We need to determine which creed we believe in. You have yours and I have mine. I choose to believe what the Church has affirmed for 2000 years. You might have some historical backing with the Arians, but thats about it. To deny the Trinity is heresy. It is un-biblical and therefore unorthodox. The creeds are the historic Christian Church's interpretation of the bible. To deny them is to stand against the Church.

We can go further if you wish, but all of 2000 years of Church history, the history of the institution charged with preserving and handing down the teachings of Christ and his apostles by the power of the Holy Spirit, is against you. And TD Jakes or whatever oneness cat you follow.

OrthodoX


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Now I find this funny that in this situation I affirm the belief in the Trinity but I COMPLETELY REJECT affirming ANYTHING just because the "church" has affirmed it. I could not agree with HHH more on this issue when he says....

But not with Christianity as defined by the scriptures.

Now I ask, where in Scripture does it ever tell us to put our confidence in the Church?

What if we were all living during the time of the Crusades. When the Church came around pressing its paritioners into "Holy Service" would we, knowing what we know today, still have submitted to the "Church"?

What of the "Church's" burning of the Martyrs? Would we still support that, and more importantly, how is it that we in the Post Modern Reformed Camp today, now throw our support to that entity that once sought our deaths? For we Reformers were once the Heretics. Yet now as we grow fat and happy in this land of freedom, we now choose to take on the same hatered that Rome had for us.

I just dont get it. Either we articulate our views from Holy Writ or we dont.

Paul never looked to the Church for his defence. So why should we? Would we dare at this point go to Scripture? There is no way we can defend the Trinity based on Church History and NOT Scripture, and then turn right around to defend the Church by going to Scripture. You have just removed Scripture from all your available "cards" to play.

I stand with Scripture Alone and the followers of The Way. Sola Scriptura per Paul.

[SOLAFIDE]

The hymn that our church often sings goes as follows:

On CHRIST the solid rock I stand/
ALL other ground is sinking sand/
ALL other ground is sinking sand/

This song states exactly what we are debating. We should stand on Christ alone. He's the One that took our place at the cross, not the church. The song goes on and says ALL other ground is sinking sand. All other ground includes the "Church", your family, your friends, and any other source besides the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now true, the Church is good for Believers. Scriptures agree of having a gathering place for fellow Believers. But when your church takes the faith off of God and puts it in itself, we are to not partake in it aswell.

This was talked about in 1Corinthians 1:12-13. These Scriptures were on the subject of Sectarianism. People in the Corinth Church we not following the Solid Rock. They were following Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas. They go on to say is Christ divided? All of these apostles delievered and preached the same wonderful gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. They did not preach the gospel of Paul, nor Apollos, nor Cephas. The Gospel of Christ was preached.

I ask how dare we put our faith in a "Church" thats not even close to being perfect. Why would I put my faith in my Pastor Rusty Reed when he is a sinner just as I am? If i'm gonna trust and have faith in something its gonna be in my Lord who was the perfect lamb that was slain in place of us.

My point is, if we put our faith in our Church, what are we really believing? We couldn't be believing in the Scriptures because like I have been saying, the Scriptures say He is THE WAT THE TRUTH THE LIFE. No one can come to the Father BUT BY ME. Not by the church, not by Paul, BUT BY CHRIST.

So in closing I say
In Christ the Solid Rock I'll stand
All other ground is sinking sand
ALL OTHER GROUND IS SINKING SAND

PEACE
SMURF

[HIPHOPHEAD]

AMEN!

[bob]

.....let's get it on......

It aint Rap or Hip Hop, just smooth R&B here folks

R & B, as in "From Romans on Back". On back to tha Prophets!!!

Not R & B as in "Rome leads to mindless Bloodshed" (of those who happen to dissagreee with her Orthodoxeee )

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Special Note Here:

Just because you used Spell Check now, doesnt mean you now have Correct Theology!!!! ;D

[bob]

Smurf Says....

"Why would I put my faith in my Pastor Rusty Reed when he is a sinner just as I am?"

Smurf, this is a great answer, but what these Modern Proponents of "Orthodoxy" are appealing to is even worse. They are wanting to point back to Creeds that were not even written by Seminary Grads or Pastors. They are pointing back to a time when Church Offices were held by men who could afford to PAY for them.

Just a little bit of Church History study will show you that for at least the first 1500 hundred years of the Churches exixtence, it was the most powerful Political Machine ever constructed. and to top that off, the general public didnt have a clue as to what the Scriptures said or didnt say. Only a few men broke in to this machine. And when they did, they became known as Reformers.

Go study Hus; Luther; Calvin; etc...... When these commoners did break into the Machine and see the light of what Scripture really said( notice that they saw the "light of Scripture" not the "light of Church History" Thats why they called it a REFORMATION! The "Church had gotten "high" on its History, and needed a swift kick in the Theological Pants), they became hated by the Machine, the "Church".

Barring Gods staying hand most died as Martyrs. When was the last time a Liberal was put to death by the Church? An adhearant to Orthodoxy burned at the stake? (Excluding of course Calvins mass purging that he operated out of Geneva. But even that was not a trend of the now 2000yr old Church. That was the action of a then "Heretic" who came into some power in a pocket where Rome couldn't get to him. Would the "Oneness" crowd now find their heads upon the "chopping block" of Orthodoxy.

Seems to me we must either "Exegete the Word", or "Return to the Exclusivisity of the Ideology of Rome". But how can we return to the "ideology" without submiting to the Government of the "Ideology"?

[DoGMaTiX]

smurf4christ said:

The hymn that our church often sings goes as follows:

On CHRIST the solid rock I stand/
ALL other ground is sinking sand/
ALL other ground is sinking sand/

This song states exactly what we are debating. We should stand on Christ alone. He's the One that took our place at the cross, not the church. The song goes on and says ALL other ground is sinking sand. All other ground includes the "Church", your family, your friends, and any other source besides the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now true, the Church is good for Believers. Scriptures agree of having a gathering place for fellow Believers. But when your church takes the faith off of God and puts it in itself, we are to not partake in it aswell.

This was talked about in 1Corinthians 1:12-13. These Scriptures were on the subject of Sectarianism. People in the Corinth Church we not following the Solid Rock. They were following Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas. They go on to say is Christ divided? All of these apostles delievered and preached the same wonderful gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. They did not preach the gospel of Paul, nor Apollos, nor Cephas. The Gospel of Christ was preached.

I ask how dare we put our faith in a "Church" thats not even close to being perfect. Why would I put my faith in my Pastor Rusty Reed when he is a sinner just as I am? If i'm gonna trust and have faith in something its gonna be in my Lord who was the perfect lamb that was slain in place of us.

My point is, if we put our faith in our Church, what are we really believing? We couldn't be believing in the Scriptures because like I have been saying, the Scriptures say He is THE WAT THE TRUTH THE LIFE. No one can come to the Father BUT BY ME. Not by the church, not by Paul, BUT BY CHRIST.

So in closing I say
In Christ the Solid Rock I'll stand
All other ground is sinking sand
ALL OTHER GROUND IS SINKING SAND

PEACE
SMURF

Smurf, this is all wrong. Its wrong because you started with a wrong definition of what Church is. Nobody here puts their faith in a church building or leaders of a church system but on Christ and Him ALONE(Sola Christus)

But what your are not understanding is that God through Christ has ordained or planned to institute or develop a Church or Body of believers saved by grace chosen OUT of the world to represent God and His Glory. The Church is God's ambassador to a Fallen and depraved world. Christ himself holds HIGH regards for His church because it is His BRIDE and Christ is the HEAD of the Church. HE told Peter and the Apostles that they would be the FOUNDATION of the Church with Christ being the CORNERSTONE and All who believe after them would be bricks of this new spiritual temple the Church.

So how does God make sure that the Church continues to exist in a evil wicked world? Well first off He sent us the Holy Spirit and GAVE US the GIFT of His infallible WORD. Now Also God has Gifted men of old and new to teach us what God has revealed in the Scriptures and this my Dear sister is where the creeds and confessions come in. They are a summary of what Christ and his Word teaches us to believe and to HOLD FAST to these truths so that we may never be decieved or confused by false teachers and false prophets who want to destroy the Church of Christ which is US His precious people.

So of course we put our faith in Christ alone but Christ did not Leave US ALONE. He gave us instruments by which we are to use to go forth and declare the riches and holiness of God in this DARKENED world with the Bright light of Christ found in His Word and in the CREEDS.

AMEN!!!!!!


ps there is so much more to say but I'm in a rush. This just a quick summary of what we believe as Reformers.

here is a link that would help you understand more.

www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Gentry/creeds.htm

[OrthodoX]

Hey sis, Roldans right on the money.

We are to understand that having a "creed" is inescapable. You have a creed, I have a creed. The only question is what is my creed? A creed is a statement about what you believe. Peter said he "believed" that Jesus was the Christ...this was a creed.

Now the question here is what is the proper creed to have? The biblical one? RIGHT Amen. The bible instructs us to have sound creeds which accurately interpret the teachings of the apostles.

Remeber in Ephesians five that Jesus promises to present his bride to his Father, spotless and without blemish? He does this by protecting her and teaching her his truth. He left the apostles the task of giving us what he gave them. The Creeds (or "I Believe") statements of the Church are simply the apostles interpretation of the Bible.

Go ahead and read the Apostles creed. What do you disagree with there?

www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/ancientcreeds.html

Please be careful sis in thinking that you can know what the Bible says without the Church to help you, it is the "pillar and the foundation of the truth"-I Tim.3:15. The Devil roams the earth looking for us who aren't firmly grounded in the scripts.

Those who deny the creeds are unchristian in their beliefs. For example my friend Darth Vader believes Jesus already came back!

And Hip-hop Head denies the doctrine of the Trinity!!

These are serious errors- very unbiblical. The Church throughout her history has written creeds to come against these types of heresies, to protect us, to help us better understand the Bible.

The Bible teaches that Christ is still to return and that the nature of God is trinitarian, right. The creeds tell us just that.

Peace and God bless you lil sis, and I love that hymn, 'On Christ the Solid Rock'.

Kent-

Looking forward to talking with you over some incense and juice We have some things to discuss.

DoX

[bob]

Roldan and Smurf

Paul never looked to the Church for his defence. So why should we? Would we dare at this point go to Scripture? There is no way we can defend the Trinity based on Church History and NOT Scripture, and then turn right around to defend the Church by going to Scripture. You have just removed Scripture from all your available "cards" to play.

I think this must be dealt with first. Why is it that we wish to have it both ways?

On the one hand we wish to simply impose upon the Oneness Crowd, Church History and rub their noses in it, as if it is something to Glory In! Crusades Anyone? French Revolution anyone? Oh Yes Lets talk of the Glorious History of the Church! And still NO EXEGESIS of Gods Precious Word.

Then on the other hand, we want to run back to Scripture to find some defence of this very organism we call the Church. How convienient!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Secondly and far more intriguing is the notion of "looking at the History" of the Church. Well, if this is the criteria for being Christian, as it has been asserted that to be Orthodox is to be Christian, and to be otherwise is to be Heretic, then it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that unless my sermons are being given to me by a Catholic Priest I, by my own standard, am a Heretic. For any one who lives and breathes today surely cannot miss the Church with, by far, the RICHEST History: The Roman Catholic Church.

Exegesis of Scripture, will never stand in the face of Gentry's assertions. I encourage ALL here to go and read Gentry's work. A fifth grade education, will make short work of it. For Gentry and others have reduced your Salvation to it's adhearence to History ALONE, and it's determining of Orthodoxy, I mean Christianity.

Funny thing is that the next argument up to bat after this is: "Well, we "Orthodox" folk have the ability to know which of the steps of Church History were right and which ones were wrong.

Whats Funny about that you ask? Well, they borrow the name Orthodox. That's got to really make the Catholics Happy! It would be like me a White guy going to apply for a Minority Bussiness Loan and filling in the blank that ask "Race" and I say "Afro American". Simply because I like part of the program.

Next it is funny because it assumes that someone died and left me as "God" to determin which moves of the Church through History were Good and which were Bad!

Surely the Church was justified by burning Hus at the stake. For he was simply arguing AGAINST the Church and its History!!!!! He was just as much a Heretic as the Oneness crowd no doubt.

The real iceing on the cake was that he was not burned due to his position falling to that of Higher Exegesis. No, he was burned because he stood against Orthodoxy. I mean Christianity, as it is defined by the Orthodoxy of Church History.

[bob]

Orth says....

A creed is a statement about what you believe. Peter said he "believed" that Jesus was the Christ...this was a creed.

OK, so I say "Scripture Alone".

You say Scripture "PLUS" Creeds.

Now in all fairness to this thread, lets not muddy the water with what we believe per what is INSIDE the Holy Writ. This thread is about whether one can be a Chritian without being Orthodox. Can one be saved without adhearing to Church History.

See the premis has been asserted that one must have a Creed. Really, lets see, if I were to place an order of importance on things I think that the Doctrine of the "Trinity" would come in MUCH HIGHER than that of "You are to have a Creed". For without the Trinity who really gives a rip if you have a Creed or not?

So onece again we are EAGER to run to Scripture to defend periphrial issues, all the while letting the foundational issues fall to "My Opinion is Better than Your Opinion". My Church History is better than your Church History.

So Orthodox, the assertion that I should have a Creed is neither found in the Bible. And your selection of ONE CREED, possibly Two, cannot stand with your assertion of looking to Church History. For Church History has produced MANY CREEDS. Your selection of One or Two has destroyed your own position of believing in the Trinity.

But lets stay on track here. Can one be saved and not be Orthodox? That is the thrust of this thread. Period.

[bob]

The Bible teaches that Christ is still to return and that the nature of God is trinitarian, right. The creeds tell us just that.

Proove from the Apostels Creed that Christ is yet to come today or at the time of its writting. But do it on another thread! ;D Start one I'll be right over. Tomorrow!

[HIPHOPHEAD]

consistent said:

...The Bible teaches ... that the nature of God is trinitarian, right.

no. it doesn't ;D

[bob]

So far no one has even dared answer the question posed!

Can one be Christian without being Orthodox?

Or said in reverse, I guess , can a Biblicist be saved?

See, the game afoot here is:

1.) You make a Satatement
2.) A Theological Team rushes your "statement" of to the lab of "Orthodoxy"
3.) Your "statement" is judged as either Orthodox or Heretical.

Hello? Anyone?

Paul says in Romans that if one confesses Christ as King and Lord it's a done deal. The Orthodox say "well that "statement" by Paul was made during the "Alone Period" before God sent wise men to make up BETTER "statements" that REALLY tell us what was meant by Scripture.

So which is it. Salvation verified by Scripture, or, Salvation determined by Creeds?

[DoGMaTiX]

bob said:

Paul never looked to the Church for his defence. So why should we?

Of course Paul looked to the Church for his defense. Why do you think he quotes Old Testament passages of the Old Testament Church? ;D

Would we dare at this point go to Scripture? There is no way we can defend the Trinity based on Church History and NOT Scripture, and then turn right around to defend the Church by going to Scripture. You have just removed Scripture from all your available "cards" to play.

I'm not sure If I understand you here. WHo said we defend the Trinity based on Church History or JUST the creeds? The scriptures alone are our finaly authority, we are just saying that the creeds are useful and important to understanding God's Spirit at work in defending His Church. You know that mannnnnn.

Funny thing is that the next argument up to bat after this is: "Well, we "Orthodox" folk have the ability to know which of the steps of Church History were right and which ones were wrong.

RIGHT!!!! Thats when we Go to scripture to find out, right? But I would put my money on God's Providential illumination of His people to get doctrine right.

Surely the Church was justified by burning Hus at the stake. For he was simply arguing AGAINST the Church and its History!!!!! He was just as much a Heretic as the Oneness crowd no doubt.

The real iceing on the cake was that he was not burned due to his position falling to that of Higher Exegesis. No, he was burned because he stood against Orthodoxy. I mean Christianity, as it is defined by the Orthodoxy of Church History.

No my friend, Hus was not going against Orthodoxy The Roman Church was when they started denying Justification by faith alone as taught in Augustines writings and when they started ignoring the writings of the Church Fathers and Apostolic Fathers. So they burned him for their UNorthodox system not his.


one

[DoGMaTiX]

bob said:

OK, so I say "Scripture Alone".

You say Scripture "PLUS" Creeds.

WRONG!!!!!!!!! We say SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!!!! Which includes the prvidential guidance of the Creeds as well that POINTS US BACK to SCRIPTURE.

You Say SOL(O) Scriptura!! with nonthing else to guide your interpretation and, as Tyler puts it, run to your backyards to invent new and heretical doctrines foreign to sound exegesis with no regard for the Church and her historical orthodox findings.

So Orthodox, the assertion that I should have a Creed is neither found in the Bible.

Of course it is. You mean to tell me the bible DOES NOT teach to hold fast to the doctrines/beliefs handed down to us by the Apostles? Thats absurd!!!!

Go read Johns(orthodox) new article on the TR board which proves that.

And your selection of ONE CREED, possibly Two, cannot stand with your assertion of looking to Church History. For Church History has produced MANY CREEDS. Your selection of One or Two has destroyed your own position of believing in the Trinity.

AHH, but your missing the point that we hold to the Creeds of the Orthodox church BEFORE the invasion of man mad religious gnostic greek doctrines of devils of the ROMAN catholic church. which are FOUR creeds CHeck the link above to smurf.


one

[DoGMaTiX]

bob said:

So far no one has even dared answer the question posed!

Can one be Christian without being Orthodox?

Or said in reverse, I guess , can a Biblicist be saved?

Not the same question at all.

To answer your original question, NOPE!!

Paul says in Romans that if one confesses Christ as King and Lord it's a done deal. The Orthodox say "well that "statement" by Paul was made during the "Alone Period" before God sent wise men to make up BETTER "statements" that REALLY tell us what was meant by Scripture.

So which is it. Salvation verified by Scripture, or, Salvation determined by Creeds?

WOW

Ok Kent, Let us go to the Halls of the Jehovah's witnesses, temples of the Mormons and the Rastafarians etc.... and welcome them into the orthodox christian community. After all they affirm that Christ Jesus is Lord.


sheesh

[bob]

So far no one has even dared answer the question posed!

Can one be Christian without being Orthodox?

Or said in reverse, I guess , can a Biblicist be saved?

And again today....

So far no one has even dared answer the question posed!

Can one be Christian without being Orthodox?

Or said in reverse, I guess , can a Biblicist be saved?

Sure all the "backyard" language is fun and gives us little tingly sensations like that first kiss, But lets cut to the chase. What is your CREED reguarding the UNortho.

[OrthodoX]

The Christian is wise to submit to the Godly councils that dealt with these type of things. The Arian heresy was pronounced Anathema...I stand behind this.

The belief that the second coming had already happened was dealt with by Paul....I stand behind that.

Can one be regenerated and a heretic? Sure...but not for long! ;D

Can a person be regenerated AND a homosexual? Sure...until the Holy Spirit indwelling them changes that.

Kent-

Is it okay to be a homosexual as long as you are saved?

I don't believe so. Neither is it okay to be a heretic as long as you are saved...for both heresy and homosexuality are condemned by Holy Writ and God ordained sessions and councils.

Come home to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit filled bride of your Lord!! Stop rejecting her...she is the Church, she alone holds the keys to the kingdom.

DoX

[bob]

WOW

Ok Kent, Let us go to the Halls of the Jehovah's witnesses, temples of the Mormons and the Rastafarians etc.... and welcome them into the orthodox christian community. After all they affirm that Christ Jesus is Lord.


sheesh

Lets edit this for what it really says...

WOW

Ok Paul the Apostel, Let us go to the Halls of the Jehovah's witnesses, temples of the Mormons and the Rastafarians etc.... and welcome them into the orthodox christian community. After all they affirm that Christ Jesus is Lord.


sheesh

First of all, these cats don't go all the way with my origional quote which included that ever nagging point of >>>>> SAVIOR!!!!! But for the sake of the convo! lets pretend for a moment that I only said Lord. Here we go...


Roldan, that is NOT what I Kent say. That is what PAUL says. Got it? Not Me Bro. Paul.

See this is EXACTLY my beef with the Orthodox and the Futurist. Whether they be Dispensational or Partial. The bottom line is ALWAYS at some point this very thing >>>>>

They say>>>>> "There is NO WAY God could have really meant that!"

The Futurist say it about the words "soon", "at hand", "at the door", "some of you standing here will not taste death", etc.

The Orthodox say it about Pauls words there in Romans that I have already mentioned.

See, here is my question. Why is it that there has always been, from the beginning of time, that element of man that has ALWAYS said "did God REALLY mean that?". And the humor of it is that everyone who wants to say that has immediatly just aligned themselves with, no not God, but rather, SATAN!!!!

Does no one realize what God is reduced to, the very second those words cross the lips? God is reduced to less than a LUNATIC!!! Incomprehensible? Darn straight it is Incomprehensible! And whats more is if God is REDUCED then man is ELEVATED. See the subtlness of the lie. It is the lie that God NEEDS man to INTERPRET for Him.

This is offensive to anyone who comes to Scripture believeing it is Gods Word to them.

This IS offensive to anyone who believes that it is God who gives the understanding to what is written, and NOT THE ADDRESS of man at the time of the reading.

It is Gods RESPONSIBILITY to INTERPRET CLEARLY. It is mans responsibility to OBEY that which has been CLEARLY COMMUNICATED.

Rastifarian's Roldan? Roldan, do you mean to tell me your doctrine is PERFECT? Not one problem in it?

Or lets cut to the chase here Roldan. The Reformed Baptist of the 1689 have got REAL PROBLEMS with you dipping babies. Or better said for this context, they are OUTSIDE your Creed. By your standard asserted here, they are no different than the boi's with the braided hair(Rasta's).

This is good. Now we are getting down to the real meat of the issue. ;D

[bob]

Sorry John, but this is a rediculus statement and intelectually dishonest

[quoteThe belief that the second coming had already happened was dealt with by Paul....I stand behind that.
][/quote]

1.) It assumes that Paul was the last one to speak in the writting of the Scriptures. I.E. post Revelation.

2.) It makes it impossible for Is 65 and Rev 21 & 22 to ever happen. For if anyone EVER SAYS post Paul and Hyme, that the Res has occured then they are Anathema.

Thats pure stupidity. Sorry.

As to Homo and Bad Docrtine its apples and oranges John. But of course we could go back over to the other thread and get serious about PreMarital sex too.

But basically what you have shown is good John. That everyone who has ever died with less than an Gentrian Orthodoxy is in hell. That includes Spurgeon, Augustin, Calvin, etc. Basically said anyone outside the bounds of Post Modern Presyterianism is doomed.

Of cours now we will get the list of things that qualify you for entry. Funny. Somehow I feel like we are right back to the handing out of Indulgences.

So how much will you sale me a bottle of Peters Tears for John. ;D

[DoGMaTiX]

bob said:

So far no one has even dared answer the question posed!

Can one be Christian without being Orthodox?

Or said in reverse, I guess , can a Biblicist be saved?

And again today....

So far no one has even dared answer the question posed!

Can one be Christian without being Orthodox?

Or said in reverse, I guess , can a Biblicist be saved?

Sure all the "backyard" language is fun and gives us little tingly sensations like that first kiss, But lets cut to the chase. What is your CREED reguarding the UNortho.

I already answered that in my previous post