Christianity VS Orthodoxy

[DoGMaTiX]

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.

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.

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

Yo Vader, I am utterly confused by these three comments.

first you edit my post by replacing your name with Paul and AFFIRM that these cults are also christian because Paul says so.

then you say you didn't say what I quoted directly from your post and then put another qualifier in the mix by saying they don't mean Saviour so they are not included in the christian circle.

BUT THEN again you say lets pretend you said only Lord which you didn't you said king and lord which they DO affirm and once again state that it is Paul that is including them as believers.

HUH???!!!!!!

I think you know that you made a mistake in your statement and are backtracking but then recant your backtracking but then backtrack again but then recant

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

What are getting at? Are you again affirming they are saved?

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).

Nice try. They affirm the same creeds that I do. As for the reformed confessions yes I believe that they are outside(but not to far off) the REFORMED orthodox camp but not outside the CHRISTIAN Orthodox camp.

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

Not really

[bob]

Romans 10
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]

nuf said

Creeds be d**ned. Quit shaming me bro. If the Rasta have done this they are in. Period.

[DoGMaTiX]

bob said:

Romans 10
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]

nuf said

Creeds be d**ned. Quit shaming me bro. If the Rasta have done this they are in. Period.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!


Notice it says "it is with your HEART that you believe and are justified".

There is more to this kind of faith then just HEAD knowledge, it is a salvific faith of the heart that is only granted by the Holy Spirit and this SAME Holy Spirit is promised to bring us to ALL TRUTH. Not only that 1 John speaks of more QUALIFYING doctrine to get you in the Christian arena, like "anyone who does not believe that Christ has come IN THE FLESH is ANTICHRIST" hmmmmm who could these be? oh yeah JW's and Mormons. Why would John and the apostles add to just affirming Christ as Lord? Oh yeah those heretics of their day who believed that Christ was King and Lord called the GNOSTICS.

com' on man

Creeds be d**ned.

Dang Kent, this again shows your lack of respect for authority or anything other than your own made up ideas.

[OrthodoX]

[bob]

Rol Rol Rol,

I am ashamed of you. Look at what you say...

Notice it says "it is with your HEART that you believe and are justified".

There is more to this kind of faith then just HEAD knowledge, it is a salvific faith of the heart that is only granted by the Holy Spirit

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

You never once mentioned a belief in the/a Creed. You are starting to sound like a Reformer now. You make it sound like it is the Holy Spirit that saves or something. Is it the Holy Spirit that saves Roldan? Or is it this "get in line with the Creeds" that quickens the Totaly Depraved soul? I'm getting confussed here.

And John just went to all that trouble to explaining to us that the only way to get saved was to progresivly purge our lives of all that is sin like Homosexuality and Pre-Marital sex, Charismaticism, Oneness, and oh yeah lack of submission to Mother. You know, all those things that are Anti Creedal. I mean Anti Two Creedal.

So the Holy Spirit does just exactly WHAT? Does he "quicken" me and the Creed "enlightens" me? If thats the case then Rome is right. It is only our exposure and ADHEARANCE to mans ideology, we call that works, that you find salvation. Which is consistent once again with Orthodoxy. Just look at their opinions on the "age of accountability". You can only be a hell bound sinner if you are a certain age. So once again Scripture is made a lie when it says that only Noah and his family were saved. Nope says Orthodoxy, everybody below the "age of accountability" went to heaven too.

Oh, and then theres that hang up in Eph. 2: 8-9. You know, where it says, "so that none may boast". None that is unless you die being UNDER the "age of Accountability".

No, you say, John didnt say that Salvation was a "process", he said that it was the only way to know you were saved. Really John? So I can sorta be saved but not really know if I am saved? Thats funny. I thought "these things >>>>>> SCRIPTURE <<<<<<<< were written so that YOU MAY KNOW!!!!!! that youa re SAVED". Doesnt mention the first freakin Creed ANYWHERE in that verse John and Rol.

So let me guess where we are going to go next.

I say the best way to deal with Kent here guys,is to invoke that Heretical Vantilian philosophy. Lets say that "well, those Scriptures that were ""written so that you may know"" are Gods Creed. You know, the Incomprehensible God? So, the "you" in the verse is refering to God and not us. That verse is just a post-it note reminder on Gods refrigerator door, reminding himself that He may "KNOW" that, at least, He and the other three parts of the God Head, is saved.

And lets not forget either Kent, that if we know we are Saved, and God knows we are Saved, then our knowledge and Gods knowledge HAVE CROSSED at some point, and therefore WE ARE NOW GOD!

( Funny here too, that if the Councils have known what God really meant, then their Knowledge and Gods Knowledge, HAVE INTERSECTED at a point, and therefore the Councils are now GOD! Oh yeah, thats right, thats what yall believe! Silly me for being suprised by that one!!!)

Now I am sure some will balk at what I have just said. But lets be honest, what I just said is EXACTLY what Tyler has said TR believes.

1.) He told me at our first meeting that if I ever knew what God knew, then I would be God.

2.)He told me at my house that if a Bible fell from an Airplane, landed in front of an unsaved native, that it would be INSUFICIENT for Salvation. Herminio was sitting there, and several weeks later Laroi wittnessed the same.

3.) John, you continue to reinforce everything Tyler and Gentry have said about the Creeds being our ONLY means of knowing the mind of God. Ergo---The Creeds are now God.

4.) Tyler has also made it very clear that we cannot even derive our values from Scripture. We are to look to upstanding neighbors and men of the community for our values. So since this is the case then, your comment reguarding

1.Homosexuality
2.Hymenaian Heresys
3.Polygamy, as well as, many others that are only found in Scripture, you cannot call them a sin. That is Gods Creed. Get your own that names those things. Just make sure it is from watching your Neighbor. But not when he is in the Backyard I guess. I dont know about Tylers opinion about watching your Neighbor in the Back Yard. I never got that far.


As to your Solo v. Sola argument, Ben went over that with ya'll, and so did I. They mean the same thing. You are only reinforcing that it is a "club" called Orthodoxy and that is your password. It is Intelectually dishonest at best. For the Latin is as clear as the English Solo is the derivative from Sola.

But of course once again it is consistent with the Hyper Orthodox position, as I am sure you would affirm next, that Sola de Gloria means To God AND the Creeds Alone, the Glory. Don't you just hate that "ALONE" word? Reminds me of when we used to try to shove sticks in our buddies bicycle spokes at high speeds! It really messes up a nice day dont it? ;D

oh yeah, Roldan. Did you say submit? Submit? I have! To the Word ALONE. If that is Insufficient then I will GLADLY BE d**nED!!!!! I will be the happiest man in Hell my friend!!!

Though He slay me yet I will Serve Him! There is my Creed. Learn it! Live it! LOVE IT!!!!

[DoGMaTiX]

bob said:

I am ashamed of you. Look at what you say...

Notice it says "it is with your HEART that you believe and are justified".

There is more to this kind of faith then just HEAD knowledge, it is a salvific faith of the heart that is only granted by the Holy Spirit

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

You never once mentioned a belief in the/a Creed. You are starting to sound like a Reformer now. You make it sound like it is the Holy Spirit that saves or something. Is it the Holy Spirit that saves Roldan? Or is it this "get in line with the Creeds" that quickens the Totaly Depraved soul? I'm getting confussed here.

Wow, talk about apples and oranges.

Now you are talking about regeneration. stay on topic bro.

NOW GET THIS VERY CAREFULLY.

We get in line with the creeds BECAUSE we are ALREADY regenerated. Got it? Good. hehehehe

Don't dodge the obvious my man and jump to another subject. Nice try

You specifically stated that Jw's Mormons and Rastafarians are saved, period.

Deal with that first.

As to your Solo v. Sola argument, Ben went over that with ya'll, and so did I. They mean the same thing. You are only reinforcing that it is a "club" called Orthodoxy and that is your password. It is Intelectually dishonest at best. For the Latin is as clear as the English Solo is the derivative from Sola.

LOL, ummmm whos Ben?

oh yeah, Roldan. Did you say submit? Submit? I have! To the Word ALONE. If that is Insufficient then I will GLADLY BE d**nED!!!!! I will be the happiest man in Hell my friend!!!

I'm assuming then that you have a home church that you lead?

[bob]

Wow, talk about apples and oranges.

Now you are talking about regeneration. stay on topic bro.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your talking to John right? He's the one who jumped tracks back on the Sodomy idea. We can ask if God can make a rock so big that He can't move it too if yall like. Me on topic? I started this thread to get an answer on what constitutes Christianity. Can one be a Christian without being Orthodox. That is the TOPIC. Yall are starting the rabbit trails, not me. Now you object to me following you into the brush. LOL

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


NOW GET THIS VERY CAREFULLY.

We get in line with the creeds BECAUSE we are ALREADY regenerated. Got it? Good. hehehehe

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

Got it Bro!

Therfore One can be saved and not be Orthodox! Or better put, a Heretic can be saved. Got it! Therefore a Rasta can be saved, a JW can be saved, a Mormon can be saved, a Baptist can be saved, and the BEST OF ALL!!!!! A PRESBYTERIAN can be saved!!!!!!

I GOT IT!! FINALLY!!! Thank you Roldan.

Did you get that TR?

~~~~~~~~~~~

Don't dodge the obvious my man and jump to another subject. Nice try

You specifically stated that Jw's Mormons and Rastafarians are saved, period.

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

Bull hocky Roldan! Nice try? Give me a break. Tell ya what a nice try was. A nice try was John poisioning the water hole by telling Smurf I denied the Second Coming. That was a bold face lie. and a darn nice try! I guess moderators who happen to toe the Creedal line can do that though. Hmmm wonder if God really gives a rip if youv'e told a lie or if you just commited Sodomy?

I never said that they(Rasta's JW's) were saved PERIOD! I said if ANYONE finds themselves in line with Romans 10, then they are IN. PERIOD! It aint your d**n Creeds, Its the WORK OF GOD!!!!! THATS PERIOD!!!!

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

Deal with that first.

~~~~~~~~~~

Done.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote:As to your Solo v. Sola argument, Ben went over that with ya'll, and so did I. They mean the same thing. You are only reinforcing that it is a "club" called Orthodoxy and that is your password. It is Intelectually dishonest at best. For the Latin is as clear as the English Solo is the derivative from Sola.



LOL, ummmm whos Ben?

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

Otero

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


Quote:oh yeah, Roldan. Did you say submit? Submit? I have! To the Word ALONE. If that is Insufficient then I will GLADLY BE d**nED!!!!! I will be the happiest man in Hell my friend!!!



I'm assuming then that you have a home church that you lead?

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

huh? No I'm a member of a PCA church. Pastor was a student of Vantil.

Speaking of that Rol, are you administering the Sacraments on Sunday? Hope you are Ordained. Herminio will rip you a new one!!!

[bob]

Hello?

[DoGMaTiX]

bob said:

Hello?

Hi

[ChristVader]

Speaking of that Rol, are you administering the Sacraments on Sunday?

hello?

[ChristVader]

Bull hocky Roldan! Nice try? Give me a break. Tell ya what a nice try was. A nice try was John poisioning the water hole by telling Smurf I denied the Second Coming. That was a bold face lie. and a darn nice try! I guess moderators who happen to toe the Creedal line can do that though. Hmmm wonder if God really gives a rip if youv'e told a lie or if you just commited Sodomy?

I never said that they(Rasta's JW's) were saved PERIOD! I said if ANYONE finds themselves in line with Romans 10, then they are IN. PERIOD! It aint your d**n Creeds, Its the WORK OF GOD!!!!! THATS PERIOD!!!!

hello?

[ChristVader]

Quote:As to your Solo v. Sola argument, Ben went over that with ya'll, and so did I. They mean the same thing. You are only reinforcing that it is a "club" called Orthodoxy and that is your password. It is Intelectually dishonest at best. For the Latin is as clear as the English Solo is the derivative from Sola.



LOL, ummmm whos Ben?

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

Otero

hello?

[OrthodoX]

James-

There is no church creed for the canon...only different lists that were debated and eventually one was decided upon by the council. This is no problem for me since I believe in the providential guidance of God over his church through godly leadership...aka....councils.

Why do I reject the anathamas council of Trent and accept the anathamas of the second council of Constantinople? As I said in my article, there is a string of orthodoxy connecting the teachings of the NT with the second council of Constantinople, or rather it is biblically true whereas Trent was anti-bible and anti-creedal.

And James, it is absolutely ridiculous to say you are reformed in your position of canonization and creedalism! You are not! You have PCA pastors tell you they disagree with Tyler and me? Which ones? Not ANYONE on puritan board, (see for yourself : www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11013 ) nor any of the pastors WE (you and I) both know. And what mysterious "reformed seminary" are you continually referring to?

James, with that said, it is not an easy issue. I have been entrenched in this topic for quite some time and still many days have more questions than answers. I have doubted, despaired, and have found some of my views to be just plain jacked up. One truth continually keeps me sane...Christ will always lead his church in all truth. She is always growing and being purified- this is the promise of Scripture. I think if we start here, that the Church is a sufficient entity of Christ and will always be led in the truth, rather than thinking that the church is easily decieved and "never does anything good" we will be in a more godly position and more succeptible to the truth.

James, you say you are a humble seekeer of truth. Then I pray the Lord bless you in your seeking of him. Grace and peace to you.

DoX

[ChristVader]

James was having trouble logging in so I am posting this for him

James says::

Ok, I am assuming you posted this response over here because it was more in line with this thread?



John:

There is no church creed for the canon...only different lists that were debated and eventually one was decided upon by the council. This is no problem for me since I believe in the providential guidance of God over his church through godly leadership...aka....councils.



Me:

The same councils that formed the creeds (as in written out summaries of doctrine) were the same councils that established the WRITTEN list of Canon. You have used the word ‘creed’ to refer to everything from three specific documents to “I believe” statements. If you don’t want to call the authoritative books the councils wrote down in a list, a ‘creed’ then fine. My point concerning church history and your departing from it is still valid.



John:

This is no problem for me since I believe in the providential guidance of God over his church through godly leadership...aka....councils.



Me:

Yes it is a problem for you since you inconsistently hold two opposing positions.

1) “I believe in the providential guidance of God over his church through godly leadership…aka…councils.” Also you have said many times that Christ would not lead his bride in error (or something to this effect).

2) You reject the canon held by the church for over 1000yrs (arguably as long as 1500yrs).



So how do you reconcile these two positions?

A) God allowed the church to be in error for over 1000yrs as to what books are God Breathed. This would destroy your number (1) assertion.

B) Don’t reject the canon held by the church for the majority of its history. This would destroy your number (2) assertion.



John:

Why do I reject the anathamas council of Trent and accept the anathamas of the second council of Constantinople? As I said in my article, there is a string of orthodoxy connecting the teachings of the NT with the second council of Constantinople, or rather it is biblically true whereas Trent was anti-bible and anti-creedal.



Me:

What? Biblically true? How can you know that? You didn’t pit the council of Trent against Scripture did you?



Your string of orthodoxy is quite convenient but less of a string and more of disjointed dots. I would like to see Edwin’s string, I bet it looks more like a string then yours.



Regardless, you have appealed to Scripture to determine your position on this and again demonstrated that you can’t follow your own system consistently.



John:

And James, it is absolutely ridiculous to say you are reformed in your position of canonization and creedalism! You are not! You have PCA pastors tell you they disagree with Tyler and me? Which ones? Not ANYONE on puritan board, (see for yourself : www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11013 ) nor any of the pastors WE (you and I) both know. And what mysterious "reformed seminary" are you continually referring to?



Me:

No, it is ridiculous that you think your position is the traditional reformed view and further disturbing that you won’t admit that there is a disagreement in reformed circles centered around some new interpretation (yours) on this issue.



The PCA pastor’s and the seminary have already been named but I can repeat them. And why would you refer to this seminary as “mysterious”. I said Gentry studied there, I wasn’t trying to hide anything I thought you would know exactly what I was talking about. Anyway, Pastor Rick Franks (Cornerstone Pres), Associate Pastor Quenton (Tampa Bay Pres), Whitfield Seminary President Dr. Talbit and some of his associates. This is just to name a few. But I can go back and have and will continue to let Calvin, Luther, and other reformers point out the error of your position.



I am a member on the Puritan board and did follow comments on Tyler’s article when Roldan first put it over there. I did not see even one supporting his article, but I did see a few comments that seemed to support some things that Herminio had asked about and don’t doubt Tyler has some supporters as well. I HAVE NOT denied that your position is held by some who call themselves reformed. I HAVE denied that your position is the traditional reformed view.



You have attempted to make it seem like this is heretic/preterists against orthodox reformers and this is simply intellectually dishonest. I for one argued strongly against Tyler before I ever changed my position on a few eschatological passages. Also you ignore that Gentry has been criticized for his position by fellow orthodox reformers. You just want to win by implementing guilt by association. Because the preterists disagree with you they are wrong no matter how many times we prove that we are in agreement with the Westminster, reformers, etc, and you are not. John, admitting that the preterist may have a valid position on this doesn’t mean you have to concede they are right about other things.



John:

James, with that said, it is not an easy issue. I have been entrenched in this topic for quite some time and still many days have more questions than answers. I have doubted, despaired, and have found some of my views to be just plain jacked up. One truth continually keeps me sane...Christ will always lead his church in all truth. She is always growing and being purified- this is the promise of Scripture. I think if we start here, that the Church is a sufficient entity of Christ and will always be led in the truth, rather than thinking that the church is easily decieved and "never does anything good" we will be in a more godly position and more succeptible to the truth.



Me:

Look John, I agree that this is not an easy issue, but you need to define your terms. What is this Church that you keep saying Christ has lead? It keeps morphing depending on how it suits your argument. Calvin discusses God’s guidance of the Church in detail, but he also defines what he means by ‘Church’. I’ll pull some quotes if I have time, but I need to spend some time with my girls right now.



Thank you for the civil dialog.

[ChristVader]

John says...

John:

James, with that said, it is not an easy issue. I have been entrenched in this topic for quite some time and still many days have more questions than answers. I have doubted, despaired, and have found some of my views to be just plain jacked up. One truth continually keeps me sane...Christ will always lead his church in all truth. She is always growing and being purified- this is the promise of Scripture. I think if we start here, that the Church is a sufficient entity of Christ and will always be led in the truth, rather than thinking that the church is easily decieved and "never does anything good" we will be in a more godly position and more succeptible to the truth.

Paul Manatas answer seemed like fun here! ;D

I read your posts and am not interested in discussing your subjective feelings and sob stories...

;D ;D

[ChristVader]

James was having trouble logging in so I am posting this for him

James says::

Ok, I am assuming you posted this response over here because it was more in line with this thread?



John:

There is no church creed for the canon...only different lists that were debated and eventually one was decided upon by the council. This is no problem for me since I believe in the providential guidance of God over his church through godly leadership...aka....councils.



Me:

The same councils that formed the creeds (as in written out summaries of doctrine) were the same councils that established the WRITTEN list of Canon. You have used the word ‘creed’ to refer to everything from three specific documents to “I believe” statements. If you don’t want to call the authoritative books the councils wrote down in a list, a ‘creed’ then fine. My point concerning church history and your departing from it is still valid.



John:

This is no problem for me since I believe in the providential guidance of God over his church through godly leadership...aka....councils.



Me:

Yes it is a problem for you since you inconsistently hold two opposing positions.

1) “I believe in the providential guidance of God over his church through godly leadership…aka…councils.” Also you have said many times that Christ would not lead his bride in error (or something to this effect).

2) You reject the canon held by the church for over 1000yrs (arguably as long as 1500yrs).



So how do you reconcile these two positions?

A) God allowed the church to be in error for over 1000yrs as to what books are God Breathed. This would destroy your number (1) assertion.

B) Don’t reject the canon held by the church for the majority of its history. This would destroy your number (2) assertion.



John:

Why do I reject the anathamas council of Trent and accept the anathamas of the second council of Constantinople? As I said in my article, there is a string of orthodoxy connecting the teachings of the NT with the second council of Constantinople, or rather it is biblically true whereas Trent was anti-bible and anti-creedal.



Me:

What? Biblically true? How can you know that? You didn’t pit the council of Trent against Scripture did you?



Your string of orthodoxy is quite convenient but less of a string and more of disjointed dots. I would like to see Edwin’s string, I bet it looks more like a string then yours.



Regardless, you have appealed to Scripture to determine your position on this and again demonstrated that you can’t follow your own system consistently.



John:

And James, it is absolutely ridiculous to say you are reformed in your position of canonization and creedalism! You are not! You have PCA pastors tell you they disagree with Tyler and me? Which ones? Not ANYONE on puritan board, (see for yourself : www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11013 ) nor any of the pastors WE (you and I) both know. And what mysterious "reformed seminary" are you continually referring to?



Me:

No, it is ridiculous that you think your position is the traditional reformed view and further disturbing that you won’t admit that there is a disagreement in reformed circles centered around some new interpretation (yours) on this issue.



The PCA pastor’s and the seminary have already been named but I can repeat them. And why would you refer to this seminary as “mysterious”. I said Gentry studied there, I wasn’t trying to hide anything I thought you would know exactly what I was talking about. Anyway, Pastor Rick Franks (Cornerstone Pres), Associate Pastor Quenton (Tampa Bay Pres), Whitfield Seminary President Dr. Talbit and some of his associates. This is just to name a few. But I can go back and have and will continue to let Calvin, Luther, and other reformers point out the error of your position.



I am a member on the Puritan board and did follow comments on Tyler’s article when Roldan first put it over there. I did not see even one supporting his article, but I did see a few comments that seemed to support some things that Herminio had asked about and don’t doubt Tyler has some supporters as well. I HAVE NOT denied that your position is held by some who call themselves reformed. I HAVE denied that your position is the traditional reformed view.



You have attempted to make it seem like this is heretic/preterists against orthodox reformers and this is simply intellectually dishonest. I for one argued strongly against Tyler before I ever changed my position on a few eschatological passages. Also you ignore that Gentry has been criticized for his position by fellow orthodox reformers. You just want to win by implementing guilt by association. Because the preterists disagree with you they are wrong no matter how many times we prove that we are in agreement with the Westminster, reformers, etc, and you are not. John, admitting that the preterist may have a valid position on this doesn’t mean you have to concede they are right about other things.



John:

James, with that said, it is not an easy issue. I have been entrenched in this topic for quite some time and still many days have more questions than answers. I have doubted, despaired, and have found some of my views to be just plain jacked up. One truth continually keeps me sane...Christ will always lead his church in all truth. She is always growing and being purified- this is the promise of Scripture. I think if we start here, that the Church is a sufficient entity of Christ and will always be led in the truth, rather than thinking that the church is easily decieved and "never does anything good" we will be in a more godly position and more succeptible to the truth.



Me:

Look John, I agree that this is not an easy issue, but you need to define your terms. What is this Church that you keep saying Christ has lead? It keeps morphing depending on how it suits your argument. Calvin discusses God’s guidance of the Church in detail, but he also defines what he means by ‘Church’. I’ll pull some quotes if I have time, but I need to spend some time with my girls right now.



Thank you for the civil dialog.

Daaaannng!

[ChristVader]

Quote:James was having trouble logging in so I am posting this for him

James says::

Ok, I am assuming you posted this response over here because it was more in line with this thread?



John:

There is no church creed for the canon...only different lists that were debated and eventually one was decided upon by the council. This is no problem for me since I believe in the providential guidance of God over his church through godly leadership...aka....councils.



Me:

The same councils that formed the creeds (as in written out summaries of doctrine) were the same councils that established the WRITTEN list of Canon. You have used the word ‘creed’ to refer to everything from three specific documents to “I believe” statements. If you don’t want to call the authoritative books the councils wrote down in a list, a ‘creed’ then fine. My point concerning church history and your departing from it is still valid.



John:

This is no problem for me since I believe in the providential guidance of God over his church through godly leadership...aka....councils.



Me:

Yes it is a problem for you since you inconsistently hold two opposing positions.

1) “I believe in the providential guidance of God over his church through godly leadership…aka…councils.” Also you have said many times that Christ would not lead his bride in error (or something to this effect).

2) You reject the canon held by the church for over 1000yrs (arguably as long as 1500yrs).



So how do you reconcile these two positions?

A) God allowed the church to be in error for over 1000yrs as to what books are God Breathed. This would destroy your number (1) assertion.

B) Don’t reject the canon held by the church for the majority of its history. This would destroy your number (2) assertion.



John:

Why do I reject the anathamas council of Trent and accept the anathamas of the second council of Constantinople? As I said in my article, there is a string of orthodoxy connecting the teachings of the NT with the second council of Constantinople, or rather it is biblically true whereas Trent was anti-bible and anti-creedal.



Me:

What? Biblically true? How can you know that? You didn’t pit the council of Trent against Scripture did you?



Your string of orthodoxy is quite convenient but less of a string and more of disjointed dots. I would like to see Edwin’s string, I bet it looks more like a string then yours.



Regardless, you have appealed to Scripture to determine your position on this and again demonstrated that you can’t follow your own system consistently.



John:

And James, it is absolutely ridiculous to say you are reformed in your position of canonization and creedalism! You are not! You have PCA pastors tell you they disagree with Tyler and me? Which ones? Not ANYONE on puritan board, (see for yourself : www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11013 ) nor any of the pastors WE (you and I) both know. And what mysterious "reformed seminary" are you continually referring to?



Me:

No, it is ridiculous that you think your position is the traditional reformed view and further disturbing that you won’t admit that there is a disagreement in reformed circles centered around some new interpretation (yours) on this issue.



The PCA pastor’s and the seminary have already been named but I can repeat them. And why would you refer to this seminary as “mysterious”. I said Gentry studied there, I wasn’t trying to hide anything I thought you would know exactly what I was talking about. Anyway, Pastor Rick Franks (Cornerstone Pres), Associate Pastor Quenton (Tampa Bay Pres), Whitfield Seminary President Dr. Talbit and some of his associates. This is just to name a few. But I can go back and have and will continue to let Calvin, Luther, and other reformers point out the error of your position.



I am a member on the Puritan board and did follow comments on Tyler’s article when Roldan first put it over there. I did not see even one supporting his article, but I did see a few comments that seemed to support some things that Herminio had asked about and don’t doubt Tyler has some supporters as well. I HAVE NOT denied that your position is held by some who call themselves reformed. I HAVE denied that your position is the traditional reformed view.



You have attempted to make it seem like this is heretic/preterists against orthodox reformers and this is simply intellectually dishonest. I for one argued strongly against Tyler before I ever changed my position on a few eschatological passages. Also you ignore that Gentry has been criticized for his position by fellow orthodox reformers. You just want to win by implementing guilt by association. Because the preterists disagree with you they are wrong no matter how many times we prove that we are in agreement with the Westminster, reformers, etc, and you are not. John, admitting that the preterist may have a valid position on this doesn’t mean you have to concede they are right about other things.



John:

James, with that said, it is not an easy issue. I have been entrenched in this topic for quite some time and still many days have more questions than answers. I have doubted, despaired, and have found some of my views to be just plain jacked up. One truth continually keeps me sane...Christ will always lead his church in all truth. She is always growing and being purified- this is the promise of Scripture. I think if we start here, that the Church is a sufficient entity of Christ and will always be led in the truth, rather than thinking that the church is easily decieved and "never does anything good" we will be in a more godly position and more succeptible to the truth.



Me:

Look John, I agree that this is not an easy issue, but you need to define your terms. What is this Church that you keep saying Christ has lead? It keeps morphing depending on how it suits your argument. Calvin discusses God’s guidance of the Church in detail, but he also defines what he means by ‘Church’. I’ll pull some quotes if I have time, but I need to spend some time with my girls right now.



Thank you for the civil dialog.




Daaaannng!

This is laughably falsifiable and I feel insecure by its assertions.