Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Tired of all the political strife and infighting?
Find out how Christians are supposed to act in the following study
https://christianforums.net/threads/charismatic-bible-studies-1-peter-2-11-17.109823/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Orthodox Christianity
- Thread starter Grazer
- Start date
Mike
Member
Orthodox is defined as something that is generally considered right or true; not independently minded.
As it relates to Christianity, I believe it's very important to be available for correction, not only by the Lord, but also by the body of Christ here on earth. The global Church is not without error, but in general I believe it is vital to reduce the likelihood that someone gets off track. We're instructed by scripture to correct individual believers by going to them with another person, so we should place value on our fellow believers when we are in the wrong.
Some will state that they don't seek affirmation from other men; that they seek it only from the Lord. If the agendas and reasoning of individuals didn't stand in the way of them and the Lord, this would be ideal. As it is, we have believers who hear and listen to messages that don't come from the Lord. This is how some cults are established on the backs of singular persons. Sometimes they are purposefully deceptive, but sometimes they have been legitimately fooled by evil spirits.
We know God's Word was passed down the generations orally. His people knew His Word literally word-for-word as well as we know the Pledge of Allegiance in America. If someone changed something, he would be easily corrected, and this was amazingly effective. I believe it is similar with orthodox Christianity. It is useful to help keep believers from going off on their own belief system or getting shaped by secular society.
As it relates to Christianity, I believe it's very important to be available for correction, not only by the Lord, but also by the body of Christ here on earth. The global Church is not without error, but in general I believe it is vital to reduce the likelihood that someone gets off track. We're instructed by scripture to correct individual believers by going to them with another person, so we should place value on our fellow believers when we are in the wrong.
Some will state that they don't seek affirmation from other men; that they seek it only from the Lord. If the agendas and reasoning of individuals didn't stand in the way of them and the Lord, this would be ideal. As it is, we have believers who hear and listen to messages that don't come from the Lord. This is how some cults are established on the backs of singular persons. Sometimes they are purposefully deceptive, but sometimes they have been legitimately fooled by evil spirits.
We know God's Word was passed down the generations orally. His people knew His Word literally word-for-word as well as we know the Pledge of Allegiance in America. If someone changed something, he would be easily corrected, and this was amazingly effective. I believe it is similar with orthodox Christianity. It is useful to help keep believers from going off on their own belief system or getting shaped by secular society.
A
Aardverk
Guest
:o That's 3 for 3 Grazer - you are starting to worry me
You have to be orthodox to be a Christian. Orthodoxy means "right belief," which would mean understanding the Bible and Christ's teachings as they are meant to be understood. Right belief is important because it informs orthopraxy, "right action." In other words, we behave based directly on what we believe.
Liberalism on the other hand, as it is commonly used in reference to Christianity, are those who seek to change "correct belief" and are often heterdox and even heretical. Liberalism in this sense often changes the very meanings of the words of Scripture so as to fit other preconceived ideas. Groups such as the former Jesus Seminar are a primary example of liberalism where meanings have been so changed that the Bible is completely undermined and all historicity is gone. That is not a good thing.
It is one thing to think outside the box and quite another to make Scripture worthless. We simply cannot go about believing what we want about Scripture and the revelation of Jesus and expect to still be Christian.
farouk
Member
The term Orthodox also refers to various Eastern Orthodox churches, which make tradition their main yardstick, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which puts a strong emphasis on Biblical authority, combined with historical assumptions.
So it depends a great deal on how the word Orthodox is actually used.
So it depends a great deal on how the word Orthodox is actually used.
A
Aardverk
Guest
Hence I stopped calling myself a Christian. The problem with that is that many members just assume that I am an atheist
I take issue a little with the assumption that 'outside the box' thinkers render Scripture worthless. The more popular concept, probably from the majority of Christians, is that Scripture is simply not literal. If it were meant to be literal it would probably be easier to follow and not be full of contradictions and open to differing interpretations.
Please read just a little closer as that is the very thing I was avoiding saying.
All Scripture is literal and meant to be literal, properly defined that is.Aardverk said:
Last edited by a moderator:
A
Aardverk
Guest
Whoops - that's just the sort of thing I object to other people doing. Please accept my sincere apologies.
(Davies - was that yet another miracle?)I note your opinion.
Whoops - that's just the sort of thing I object to other people doing. Please accept my sincere apologies.
No apology necessary.It is more than just my opinion. Scholars define "literal" so as to distinguish it from what they refer to as "literalistic." Here is something I have posted before:Aardverk said:
To take the Bible "literally," means to take what was written in the way the author intended. "Literalistically," on the other hand, is what some people mean by the use of "literally." It is to take what is said exactly as it is stated and that is to be our understanding of what is written.
For example, in John 10:9 Jesus says "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture." (NKJV)
To take that literalistically would be to understand Jesus as being an actual talking door made of wood. But of course that is absurd. What that is literally saying, is that in some way he is the means by which we enter the "sheepfold" (verse 1), meaning salvation and eternal life. So, Jesus being a door is a metaphor but it stands for something real. Nor are we actual sheep.
Of course, we do need to be careful here. When the Bible speaks of the physical resurrection of Jesus, it means it literally, in the sense the term is commonly understood--it actually did happen in space-time history--and not as some sort of metaphor. So different genres must be properly understood as well.
tim-from-pa
Member
I guess Orthodox Christianity is what was the Christian masses consensus over the years, and impressive-looking theologians with big beards deemed proper for them to follow. :toofunny It has nothing to do with the bible, except their interpretation of it, which is of course, "right".
Grazer
Member
Oh I agree its not meant literalistically but literal based on your definitions (which I agree with, I've posted similar definitions myself) But I also believe there's room for interpretation based on the culture and the time. Paul often took verses about death and revenge in the OT and turned them into passages about love. Both would be right at the time they were written. So if Paul can do that, what does it say about us?
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
A
Aardverk
Guest
Agreed. Semantics can cause so many misunderstandings. I will use your definitions below.
Agreed. Metaphor is usually pretty obvious and even accepted by the law which otherwise uses words 'literalistically' and not as the author may or may not have intended. In law, what the author meant is irrelevant. What he actually wrote is the important thing - but I digress.
Where we run into problems is in deciding or discerning what can confidently be read literally and what is a parable or an explanation based on a misunderstanding of what was really happening. For example, did the Red Sea actually part or did some geological event temporarily dry it out? We can not know but the location of the Red Sea at the edge of a tectonic plate makes the latter a very real possibility.
The most commonly cited example of something which can't be literally true is the capacity of the ark. We currently have somewhere around 8 million species on earth and many times that number are now extinct. Let's say 50 million species or 250 million actual creatures.
We could of course assume that cramming them in the ark was a miracle but that is not what the bible literally says. If God wanted to save them by a miracle why would he get Noah to build an ark that He knew would not be anywhere near big enough? I don't really expect an answer, I only give the example to illustrate that you really can't take everything literally either.
I would personally extend that principle though the parables and many other parts as well. I accept that some people will take some parts literally that others do not but the simple fact that we 'know' some of the stories are parables should make us alert to this practice in other parts of the bible and open people's minds to the possibility that everything is not necessarily literally true. We should especially bear in mind that it was, and still is, quite normal for rabbis to 'conclude' (make up!) what must have happened about this, that or the other and write it down as fact. I can't think of the Jewish term immediately but Jason will probably tell us.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike
Member
I'm assuming you believe Paul and his writings were inspired by God and that Pauls thoughts/words are actually those of the Lord. I don't want to set you up to cross the ToS, so can we agree that the intent of Paul's writings was God's intent? BTW, you really didn't comment on the value of His Body here on earth to keep individuals from branching off into cultish belief systems. I believe orthodox Christianity is what is being referred to when we talk about Truth.
Grazer
Member
I believe Paul wrote what God intended but the culture of the time plays a factor.
Orthodox Christianity is being referred to when talk about traditions to me.
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
Grazer
Member
:o That's 3 for 3 Grazer - you are starting to worry me
I'm worried myself lol
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
Spring Waters
Member
Why worry? God didn't give you an intellect so you could waste it by being intimidated out of asking the questions that come to mind. ;)
I'd worry about folks that claim to obey the Bible utterly in a 21st century world. Given all the commands relating to violence, prejudice, etc... would there be a Christian in America not bound for or already in prison, if they were Bible obedient orthodox?
I'd worry about folks that claim to obey the Bible utterly in a 21st century world. Given all the commands relating to violence, prejudice, etc... would there be a Christian in America not bound for or already in prison, if they were Bible obedient orthodox?
Of course, that is not the issue here and has little to do with orthodoxy. Orthodoxy, as I pointed out, means "right belief." This includes right belief about the Bible, including what is relevant for the followers of Christ and how it is relevant.
Without orthodoxy, there is no Christianity, no salvation.
I suppose the thing that's up in the air, then, is what is or should be considered orthodox. That is a very weighty subject.
That is the million dollar question. It can be very difficult and it is very weighty but, of course, that neither means we should abandon such a pursuit nor simply disregard what much of the Church currently holds as orthodoxy (not that you're suggesting either of those).