Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Bro. James, Jun 20, 2005.
Who determines what is orthodox?
That is all.
The Holy Spirit working through the Church (not the individual).
That is all.
The ecumenical creeds determine "official" orthodoxy.
Well, that was short...
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
For clarification bro. James;
Are you looking for what MEN say is "orthodox"?
If so, then we could give you as many opinions as there are hairs on the back of a bull elk.
If you want to know what is "orthodox" according to God; then we need to start with one point at a time.
Who is God?
Who is The Son?
Who is the Holy spirit?
What is sin?
When was creation?
Who is man?
What is immortality?
What is redemption? And why is it needed?
What is sanctification?
What is the "Last days".
What is the "Day of the Lord"?
What is the Kingdom of God? What is the Kingdom of Heaven?
Who is a faithful servant?
Who IS a servant?
What is salvation? Is it on going or is it a one time event?
What is the Millenium?
Who or what is the Devil?
Who are the 'devils'?
Who are the angels?
Who is the Angel of The Lord?
Get my drift?
Not a short thread at all considering these open-ended issues.
So WHO decides "orthodoxy"? MEN will tell you that some council of MEN decide the issue. God will tell you the issue is already a done deal. Man's PRIDE gets in the way however.
Just watch the replies, and you will see it manifest itself...
In HIS service;
Orthodoxy is the view of the Bible one gets as he looks through the glass, tinted and bent by man.
Orthodoxy: Divine guidance through "the perfect law of liberty"--the unadulterated teaching of The Word for those who have been "born from above".
It is also a word "coined" by religious "glee clubs" and "mutual admiration" societies.
Who determines what is orthodox? The Orthodox Church? Seriously, though, the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the creeds produced thereby are a pretty good starting point.
Yours in Christ
Every time man conviens a council on the Bible, mans understanding becomes more clouded and deluded. It is some of the very nonsense that prevents us from understanding what God is saying to us in his Word.
So would you deny the doctrine of the Trinity, and Christ being fully God and fully Man?
Yours in Christ
Would you say that is the case with the council of Jerusalem regarding Gentiles and the Church?
Orthodoxy is what men have to say about their understanding of the scripture, collected and drawn in a systematic and logical document.
Everyone makes claims that the Holy Spirit "shows" what is truth, and that is a dream. Even men who walked with Jesus had false doctrine, according to the Lord Himself and other apostles as they corrected them.
No, we must use the gray matter that God has given us and think these things through as best we can understand the scriptures we have at hand.
My orthodoxy may be another man's heresy if I follow some mystical exposition.
Well I guess I have to back up some, huh? I guess I just have a suspicion of most modern councils that happen. My pardon for mispeaking.
The historic church wanted to maximize inclusion and handle heresy on a case by case basis.
People such as av1611 want to maximize the people in Hell by excluding as many as possible.
By the way the 1611 included the Apocryphia.
I have not seen this in person; but I have been informed that some KJV editions included Apocryphal writing as a sort of addendum. They were not included in the "inspired" sixty-six books. God has always provided his people with the right "cannon", sometimes called "the two-edged sword".
The writings of men and The Word of God cannot be on the same plane because of the authorship. Men are depraved. Re: Book of Mormon, Koran, etc. A cursory review shows the Book of Mormon to be a paraphrase of some of the KJV--including some language errors--plus a deranged theology and inaccurate history. It is presented as The Word of God. It is not.
It is no wonder, Satan himself is become an angel of light.
The term Orthodox literall means " Sound Doctrine"
Some try to use it in context with historical creeds and so called historical interpretations which may or may not be sound. Historical is not a basis for what is sound. For Example Historical thinking kept Blacks on the back of the Bus until Rosa Parks challenged this with truth and justice.
The Bible itself sets the standard for what is orthodox.
The problem is that the Bible does not itself give us its correct interpretation. Otherwise, you wouldn't have all these different groups (denominations/sects/what-have-you)with their mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible all claiming to be "just following the Bible".
The Bible was written in history by those in the Church to those in the Church in the context of the life of the Church. Therefore to discount the historical consensus of the Church's understanding regarding the meaning of Scripture would be a mistake.
The Reformation went cross grainf from the things that became historical but did not line up with scripture.
You mean, things that didn't line up with their interpretations of scripture.