The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Hi, DogHouse. Aren't you confusing terms here? Churches subscribe to theologies which may or may not be orthodox, but they are not themselves theologies. You've turned psychobobicus' statement about Christian theology into a statement about churches, and in the process you have apparently impugned the faith of just about everyone else here. If you would like to discuss the authority for and history of particular beliefs, that is something we could do reasonably and objectively, but emotionally charged and unsupported blanket assertions are unnecessarily combative and don't really make for fruitful discussion.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

...I suppose that you are right...one unsupported blanket assertion in the thread does not necessarily call for another one in response...

...my point being that what some seem to hold as "orthodox" are views held and practiced by a minority of Christians...whatever Church they hang their hat in on Sunday (or...Saturday as may be the case with respect to the subject of this thread)...

I was seeking a reaction or an opposing view to the notion that middle age theology is not necessarily orthodox, any more so then Seventh Day Adventist theology (and eschatology and soteriology, for that matter). I realize this might be an off-topic tangent, but it didn't look like the thread was getting much action, anyway.

I found the post by searching "Catholic" on the site search utility, by the way...and looking for sentences such as the one referenced in my previous post, and quoted again above...

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...

Point taken. And, not to pick on anyone in particular, my comment that emotionally charged and unsupported blanket assertions are unnecessarily combative and don't really make for fruitful discussion applies to all concerned.

Well, it may be that some seem to hold as "orthodox" views that are held and practiced by a minority of Christians, but you seem to be saying that such views are necessarily heterodox. Just because a certain doctrine is held by a majority of professing Christians doesn't mean the view is orthodox. The doctrine must also be taught in the Bible. To illustrate, if a majority of professing Christians began to deny the deity of Christ, their doctrine would be heretical and not orthodox regardless of their number because it would contradict the plain teaching of Scripture. And those holding to the deity of Christ would be orthodox in their belief despite their being in the minority. Additionally, I think most of us use the term "orthodox" to mean non-heretical, i.e. not deviating from the central doctrines of the faith as taught in the Bible. And in saying "whatever Church they hang their hat in" you seem to be saying that all churches subscribe to heterodoxy, which would be another unsupported blanket assertion (and which, by the way, would include Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches).

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

I thought the "orthodox" Christian faith was that delineated in the the Creeds ... as this is the faith that was passed down through the early Church .... before the division into Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church ..... and well before the division between Roman Catholic and Protestant churches.

The bottom line is that we have Christians and non-Christians in all our denominations and in the Roman Catholic and E.Orthodox churches. I have known Christians who are Seventh Day Adventists, but also those who are not.

in Christ

Dinah

_________________
Forum Code of Conduct
Forum Statement of Beliefs

I share this view. "Orthodox" is as close as we know and can get to the deposit of faith from Jesus to the Apostles via their personal witness to the ministry of our Savior.


My world view in this regard is that all Christians who have received a Triune Baptism are indeed sealed to God and His Church. These faithful then practice and live that relationship more and less fully.

I don't know how to compare a slack Eastern Orthodox Christian to a fervant Baptist Christian performing mission work in South America - I haven't the tools to discern the heart and render any conclusions in this regard...that's God's job and domain.

I do, however, acknowledge that God has revealed Himself to His people via the Church - through Scriptures, etc. - and has instructed a normative path for we Christians to walk. A via media is defined for us.

I believe this reflects the instruction of my Church, as well...they're the ones who put it in my head...

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...

DogHouse, how do you define receiving a "Triune Baptism" and why would you conclude that having received it one would necessarily be faithful?

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

If one, in faith, receives a pouring of water over them, or immersion, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit..they have received a Triune Baptism.

As I know plenty who have received this, and yet not lived in fidelity to it, there is no guarantee that the one receiving would then continue to be true to whatever they responded to to be Baptized in the first place.

To me, salvation is a journey as much as it is a destination. Baptism, in theory, is the initiation of that journey...that's not to say that some seem to "lose their way" during the journey...

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...

I think it was pretty clear, but if not, I was speaking of extra-biblical material. Of course there are a myriad of interpretations of Scriptures.
So?
Funny, since both of these groups consider each other to have "invented" doctrines, anathematized each other and consider each other heretical. Which one, then is orthodox? By the way, there lots of "Catholic" churches. There is the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Eastern Church. There is also the Coptic Orthodox Catholic Church of Alexandria, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Catholic Church, etc. These also claim, obviously, to be "orthodox" despite deep theological differences. Moreover, a strong argument can be made that both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic (especially) have invented and innovated doctrines over the centuries.
Disciplines like fasting during Pascha are not aberrant, extra-biblical requirements. I personally fast from meat during Pascha (I guess I'm just not disciplined enough ). And no, in and of themselves, aberrant, extra-biblical personal practices and lifestyle requirements do not make a cult, but they are characteristics of many widely acknowledged cults.
I agree.
If I'm not mistaken, Mormons use triune baptism, but have a heretical view of Jesus (that he is the brother of Lucifer and a spiritual, literal son of Heavenly Father, who himself is a son of another god). Would you consider Mormons to be "sealed to God and His Church"?
I would say that God had revealed Himself to His people, who are the Church, through the Scriptures and His Creation.

And what of those Christians who are baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ?

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

I believe that the Latter Day Saint's view of the Trinity prevents a Triune Baptism within this theology...while the words may be said, the meaning behind them is different.

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...

From the Catholic Church's perspective, the Church would ask just what that means...what is the relationship between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit within such a statement or faith?

If this means that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons of the single Triune Godhead (the orthodox understanding of the Trinity), then the Catholic Church would consider that a valid Baptism.

If the understanding of Jesus is as a separate God from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, or any other "non-orthodox" understanding, then the Catholic Church would probably not recognize that Baptism.

I believe that anyone who volunteers their time moderating discussions such as these, certainly is closer and more closely kept in the embrace of God, than perhaps a secular lay-person as myself...for what ever that is worth to you...

...you seem like a good egg to me...God judges all justly... mere sinful mortals can only offer opinions...

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...

It's very gracious of you to say that, but I would never ever think such a thing. We're all sinners saved by God's magnificent grace, all of us completely and utterly reliant upon his mercy and loving kindness. And we all serve the Lord as we have opportunity, every one who is his being equally loved and treasured.

Thank you for the kind words, DogHouse. Certainly God is just and true in all his ways. Amen to that!

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

_________________
Jennifer Dent
Site Administrator

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Learning Environment
The Administrators Desk Blog