Catholics belief in the basic tenets of Christianity, whether we agree with their interpretation of them or not.
They believe the Bible is Revelation of God
They believe the Triune Godhead
They believe the Deity of Jesus Christ
They believe Man is a Sinful being
They believe in Salvation by Grace (how you GET that grace is their problem)
They believe in a literal Heaven/Hell
From Josh McDowell, some basic definitions:
1 Orthodox - those who hold the basic beliefs of Christianity (
2 Evangelical - those who emphasize the need for man to be born again by the blood of Jesus Christ
3 Fundamentalist - those who hold the basic Bible truths as fundamental (inspiration, virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious atonement, bodily resurrection, second coming)
4 Cult - those who deviate from Christianity in major doctrine by adding to revelation, elevating works into salvation
5 Sect - a group veering away from mainstream but still maintaining identification with a religion
6 Religion - system of worship or practice by man to reach God or enlightenment
7 Occult - from Latin "hidden, secret" those who credit Satan, spirits, gods or goddesses as divine
Evaluating Fundamentalist v New Evangelical
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Aug 16, 2004.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
Lets see'
Josh McDowell or J.I. Packer since Josh is a
New Evangelical and I would figure his def. would read as is stated. I'll go with J.I. Packer.
Bob C -
PastorGreg MemberSite Supporter
Catholicism is not orthodox, Dr. Bob. The problem is that you have used the wrong dictionary. A modern Websters does not come from Noah Webster. Pastor Larry gave you Noah Webster's definition, "Sound in the Christian faith, believing the genuine doctrines taught in Scripture." That does not describe Catholicism.
-
They are both neo but I'd still go with Packer. ;) Not that McDowell is saying anything substantially different. The real question is what are the basic tennets of Christianity? And, frankly, justification by faith alone is a basic tennent. Christianity does not exist apart from that tennent. And, therefore, you cannot be orthodox and reject that tennet at the same time.
Now, Dr. Bob has come up with a six statment "creed" by which he judges orthodoxy. That creed is not sufficient. The early ecummencial creeds are not sufficient, either. Why were, as Packer says, creeds explicating this 'rule' multiplied? They were multiplied because of the new unorthodox heresies. The "fundamentals" that we hold so dear are simply another attempt to define orthodoxy.
Andy -
swaimj,
I don't know if a transcript of Bauder's comments are available on the web or not, but they did publish the proceedings of that conference in book form.
link to the book on Amazon.com
If all of us on Baptist Board buy it, it just might make it into the top 500,000 Amazon best sellers! -
Andy -
No, Bob didn't "come up" with a definition of what makes a person orthodox. You guys are heading into neo-orthodoxy by sucking opinions and definitions out of your thumb as to what is "orthodox".
There are basic Christian doctrines that are established over 2000 years as "orthodox". You and I and Athanius and Anselm all believe them.
I am NOT a defender of Catholicism, but they do hold to these beliefs. Catholics teach salvation by grace through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Now they go afield in how that happens (baptism, eucharist, etc) but that does not make them unorthodox from historic Christianity.
It makes them unsaved! It means they are NOT evangelical Christians. But still orthodox in belief on the major doctrines. -
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
As some would say we and the RC use the same vocabulary but different dictionaries. And yes that means they are "orthodox" in the broadest sense of the word.
-
-
Andy
Page 2 of 2