Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Grace, Graciously Offered | John 11:43 | mark d seyler | 173865 | ||
Orthodox 1. Sound in opinion or doctrine, especially in religious doctrine; hence, holding the Christian faith; believing the doctrines taught in the Scriptures; - opposed to heretical and heterodox; as, an orthodox Christian. 2. According or congruous with the doctrines of Scripture, the creed of a church, the decree of a council, or the like; as, an orthodox opinion, book, etc. 3. Approved; conventional. He saluted me on both cheeks in the orthodox manner. --H. R. Haweis. Note: The term orthodox differs in its use among the various Christian communions. The Greek Church styles itself the 'Holy Orthodox Apostolic Church', regarding all other bodies of Christians as more or less heterodox. The Roman Catholic Church regards the Protestant churches as heterodox in many points. In the United States the term orthodox is frequently used with reference to divergent views on the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus it has been common to speak of the Trinitarian Congregational churches in distinction from the Unitarian, as Orthodox. The name is also applied to the conservative, in distinction from the 'liberal', or Hicksite, body in the Society of Friends. --Schaff-Herzog Encyc. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) I am using "orthodox" according to it's primary definition, as doctrine that is in agreement with the Scriptures. The "historical documents" are the books of the Bible. I am aware of the creeds you have mentioned many times, however, if they do not agree with Scripture, well, what can I say? My faith is not founded in the "creeds and confessions" of man, but rather comes from the pages of Scripture. I merely mention the numbers since you are so fond of citing all those who agree with your views. I merely wish to point out that there are many who disagree, not that that is in and of itself any sort of proof, or "garuantee of orthodoxy". Millions could publish millions of creeds, and those creeds could contain millions of errors. It is only the Word of God that is innerrant. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
2 | Grace, Graciously Offered | John 11:43 | DocTrinsograce | 173867 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, I still await the affirmation of my paraphrase of your doctrine. Meanwhile, thank you for the definition of orthodoxy. Haven't we been down this path before? I'm gratified that you're looking up the words -- the last definition I heard from you was that it had to do with Eastern Orthodoxy -- so it is helpful to take care to make a correction if you change your use of a word. Citing authority is a perfectly acceptable tool in rational debate. Would it be helpful for me to cite for you some of those who agree with you? I could do that... and it might be interesting. If I did so, though, some might get the wrong idea. There's a logical fallacy called "Guilt by Association." Please advise. Again, I look forward to the correction of my paraphrase. In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | Grace, Graciously Offered | John 11:43 | mark d seyler | 173874 | ||
Hi Doc, If you wish to refresh yourself on my previous comments regarding the varied uses of Orthodox, or Orthodoxy, please see my post 172593, in which I mention four different ways different groups claim the title of "orthodox", the Greek Orthodox being only one of them. In that post I clarified my use of this term in the same was as my most recent post. I am not changing how I am using this word, my usage has remained the same, as the record will bear out. As for your "paraphrase of my doctrine", no, that is not an accurate representation of what I have written. And since you have not been interested in discussing the actual texts of the Scriptures I have posted, I am not really interested in discussing your paraphrase of "my doctrine". What it comes down to is what the Bible says. If you want to discuss this, let's stick to that. This post I am responding to is an easy example, you have claimed that I am changing what I am saying, yet I challenge you to go back to what I have written, and see if that is true. It is not. To tell you the truth, I'm not interested in either convincing you, or proving myself to you, only in presenting a Scriptural view of Salvation, which takes into account the dozens of Scriptures which your view would have us to say, "they say that, but they don't mean that." What we would not dream of doing ourselves some would ascribe to God, in not saving from the fire those who are within our power to save. Jesus said, "If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more your Father in heaven..." You would have us to believe that "You, being evil, would save the undeserving helpless from the flames, but God wouldn't." But God desires all to come to salvation, none to perish in their sins, and died for the sins of the world, because He loved the world. God saves the willing, and wills all to be saved. And don't worry, I don't think there is a person on this forum who would mistake us as being in agreement on this particular point. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
4 | Grace, Graciously Offered | John 11:43 | DocTrinsograce | 173886 | ||
Dear Brother Mark, I'm simply responding to some few of your replies to my own posts. I've not sought to draw you into polemic exchange. Indeed, I only pursue this question on the forum since it is the single venue in which you have chosen to respond to me at all. You say I've not accurately paraphrased your teaching. It would be helpful -- if you actually desire that it be properly understood -- if you would correct me. Would it make it easier if I numbered your assertions? (1) You have described receiving, confession, and repentance in prior posts as prerequisites to God's salvific work. (2) You have described these as human actions, but you do not believe that these actions are works. (3) You have stated that God initiates the process, but that human beings conclude the process. (4) These human acts must be performed before hand as a means of insuring regeneration -- which always follows these actions. (5) Your doctrine asserts that a lost man (who is dead in sin) may choose to perform specific actions to intentionally and inevitably (6) insure his own destruction, and (7) the consequential birth of another: the new creature. I'm only seeking to gain a consistent and clear statement of your soteriological beliefs. I've even taken pains to modify it as you have graciously offered a few corrections. It will form the basis from which I can ask further questions. Not in an effort to persuade you, but rather in an effort to fully satisfy my own curiosity. I apologize that such inquiry annoys you. If you do not wish to "dialogue" it is a very simple matter to refrain from replying to my posts. Certainly that is sometimes the more virtuous course. In Him, Doc |
||||||