Featured ONLY The Originals Are Inspired

Which do you actually mean? "orthodox" or "Orthodox"? Like "catholic" or "Catholic."

 

You mean, which does MK actually mean.

The Heresy of Orthodoxy: What Do the NT Books Tell Us About Early Christian Diversity? - Canon Fodder

 

My "no thanks" is that I am not intending to chase down why you think TGC is not credible when you can just say why you think so.

I do not question Ehrman's scholarship, and I accept his statement that he is not a Christian. I am not sure that it would be considered unusual for non-Christians to teach religion at a secular university.

Can you give an example of where Michael Kruger said Orthodox Christianity is heresy, and how he used the terminology when he said so?

 

I'm not interested in being challenged on a personal level should I share what I know about TGC. It has long been public knowledge. And anyone who is a fan of THC I would think would care enough to do their own research rather than insist on what would amount to hearsay.

OK.

I linked an example in a different post appearing on this same page.

 

You are under no obligation to share anything, but you are the one who brought it up. I would think anyone who thinks it is that important would at least go to the trouble to share a link instead of sending someone off looking for one.

I am not a "fan" of TGC, neither do I read anything there very often. However, when I do I will make the determination of what I think of an article based on the writer and the article itself.

Here is an excerpt from Kruger's book, which to me does not seem to be the way you originally represented it, about his view of orthodoxy -- at least not how I took what you wrote. I post it here for others who are inquiring as well.

In this topsy-turvy world of pluralism and postmodernity, where reason has been replaced as the arbiter of truth by perspectivalism and the unfettered and untouchable authority of personal experience, conventional notions are turned on their head. What used to be regarded as heresy is the new orthodoxy of the day, and the only heresy that remains is orthodoxy itself. "The Heresy of Orthodoxy" is more than a catchy title or a ploy concocted to entice potential readers to buy this book. It is an epithet that aptly captures the prevailing spirit of the age whose tentacles are currently engulfing the Christian faith in a deadly embrace, aiming to subvert the movement at its very core. The new orthodoxy--the "gospel" of diversity--challenges head-on the claim that Jesus and the early Christians taught a unified message that they thought was absolutely true and its denials absolutely false. Instead, the advocates of religious diversity such as Walter Bauer and Bart Ehrman argue not only that contemporary diversity is good and historic Christianity unduly narrow, but that the very notion of orthodoxy is a later fabrication not true to the convictions of Jesus and the first Christians themselves.

In the first century, claim Bauer, Ehrman, and other adherents to the "diversity" doctrine, there was no such thing as "Christianity" (in the singular), but only Christianities (in the plural), different versions of belief, all of which claimed to be "Christian" with equal legitimacy. (Köstenberger and and Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity, 2010, p. 16)​

 

The assertion that post-NT Bible translations are inspired or given by inspiration of God has not been supported with the Bible. That assertion is an opinion of men or a doctrine of men, not a doctrine of God.

2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. It does not refer to any assumed or supposed later translating by inspiration.

 

My correct statements did not go against what any Scripture verses state.

My points correctly and soundly go against adding to the Scriptures opinions of men or against reading into verses something the verses do not state. It should be obvious that a poster is making false allegations against what was stated in agreement with the Scriptures.

 

According to the Scriptures themselves, it could be soundly concluded that inspiration would be a term for the way, method, means, or process by which God directly gave the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles or for the way that the words proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 4:4, Eph. 3:5, Deut. 8:3).

 

The Scriptures are the specific revealed, written words of God given by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles. According to the Scriptures, God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 3:5, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 2:10-13, Rom. 16:25-26, Heb. 1:1-2, Acts 1:2, Eph. 2:20, Acts 3:21, John 16:13, John 17:8, 14, John 3:34, 2 Sam. 23:2, Luke 24:25, 27, 44).

The word of the LORD came to the prophets and apostles (1 Sam. 15:10, 2 Kings 20:4, Isa. 38:4, Jer. 1:4, Jer. 29:30, Ezek. 6:1, Dan. 9:2, Jonah 1:1, Zech. 7:8, Acts 3:21). A true prophet spoke from the mouth of the LORD (2 Chron. 36:12, Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 3:21, 2 Sam. 23:2, Deut. 18:22). The actual specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God or that God breathed out are those original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4, Deut. 8:3, Luke 4:4, Isa. 55:11). God’s Word is “the Scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26, Matt. 26:56). God gave His words or spoke by the mouth of the prophets (Luke 1:70, Jer. 1:9, Acts 1:16, Acts 3:21, Ps. 68:11, 2 Chron. 36:12). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God to those prophets and apostles (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, Jude 1:3). While 2 Timothy 3:16 may not directly mention the prophets and apostles, the parallel verse concerning inspiration (2 Pet. 1:21) clearly connected the miracle of inspiration to them when considered with other related verses in the whole of Scripture. Comparing scripture with scripture, the holy men of God moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit in the miracle of inspiration were clearly the prophets and apostles (2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Eph. 2:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-2, Rom. 16:26, Luke 1:70, Matt. 26:56).

The exact same words that the psalmist wrote in Psalm 95 the Holy Spirit spoke or said (compare Ps. 95:7 with Hebrews 3:7). What Moses said to Pharaoh as the LORD told him (Exod. 9:13), the Scripture said (Rom. 9:17, Exod. 9:16). The whole counsel of God or the overall teaching of the Scriptures would indicate that there can be no new inspired works without living apostles or prophets (2 Peter 1:21, Eph. 3:3-5, Heb. 1:1-2, Luke 1:70, 24:27, 44-45, Acts 1:16, 3:21, 26:27, Matt. 2:5, Rom. 1:2, Rom. 16:25-26, Jer. 29:19, 2 Chron. 36:12, Dan. 9:10, Amos 3:7).

 

I am not sure whether this was deliberate misdirection or a misunderstanding. Either way, Michael Kruger does not deny orthodoxy or think it is heresy. Both the link above and his co-authored book on the subject prove the charge by TurtleSox against him is wrong.

 

Some seem naturally ill-equipped to grasp context.

 

SO???? Was Ehrmann a Christian EVER?? Or, did he lose his salvation when he recanted from everything that he claims he once believed in? He either never really had a conversion experience, even though he swears he believed everything you say is essential to a conversion experience worthy to bring a person to being eternally secure in Christ, or you can lose your salvation by turning your back on 'orthodox Christianity'. Can't have it both ways.

 

Where did I say that?

 

I never said YOU said that. Bart said so himself. Did you know he pastored a large Baptist congregation and led many, many people to faith in Jesus back when he himself believed that was necessary to be saved?

 

Who is the "you" is this sentence?

 

Let me make this simple. What do YOU believe is essential to being eternally secure in Christ? Do you believe Bart at one time also believed and taught the same as you? Have you read his background?