Are the Greek/Russian orthodox Valid Christian Churches?

Your speaking out of both sides of your mouth! Tell me what authority will you use to determine whether my positions are in keeping with "heretical" groups???? What will be the basis for this discussion? Now, let me guess......hmmmmmmm! Rome's majority report?

 

I take the position of many Protestant and Baptist historians that view what Rome has chosen to preserve in a skeptical light of clear bias. Of course, you swallow Rome's majority report hook line and sinker and all other conclusions are considered invalid from your perspective. We have already been around this merry-go-round. The New Testament provides inspired commentary on how to view the future of New Testament Christianity in clear light of the rise and prosperity and dominance of apostate Christianity. That is the lens through which I look at Rome's majority report.

 

Well then, just supply the names of those groups irregardless of their heretical status. Let's go all the way back to the 2nd century. You made the claim and now you are running from it. Ohhhhh yeeaahhhhh.

WM

WM

 

The only thing I am running from is the authority you plan to use in disputing my statement.

Ok, if I named a group what resources would you use to determine whether that group is (1) heretical; (2) similar or unsimilar to my primary positions; (3) authoritative to determine these issues?

 

The difference between my position and those of Rome is that I make the Church Fathers subject to the Scriptures rather than interpretative of the scriptures.

I take the same approach to history. I make the church father's majority report, accusations toward others, etc., subject to the Scriptures rather than accurate reports of true "Christian" history.

 

I believe there is sufficient Biblical evidence that predicts the rise and fall of apostate Roman Christianity. Sufficient to expose its doctrines and practices as pagan in origin but mixed with Christian language.

I believe the Scriptures predict the characteristics of apostate Christendom and some of those characteristics is that they will murder others in the name of God for simply what they believe and practice; they will slander and distort what true Christianity believes and practices; they will embrace the very doctrines the scriptures condemn as heresies. Rome fits all these things perfectly; They will merge with the state in to a state church.

 

Well...there you have it. He believes.

WM

 

Jn. 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

This is prophetic and specifically applied to Judaisms response to New Covenant Christianity. However, there is a deeper principle here that characterizes false religion from the time of Cain until the destruction of the Great Whore of Revelation.

Satan is a MURDER and so are his RELIGIOUS children and RELIGIOIUS institutions. If they cannot MURDER the very person of a child of God they will MURDER their character and doctrine by misrepresentation (Mt. 5:10-12). They will speak evil and misrepresent true Christianity even as they did John the Baptist and Jesus. The Great Whore is a murderer of God's people (Rev. 17:6).

The very character of their doctrine and practice invalidates their word in regard to their enemies and their true enemies will always be the true churches of God.

 

Oh I see. Well, what resources would you use to convince me that man actually did land on the moon? If you are going to deny history, then you can take any position that you want simply claiming that history has been altered to hide what you claim to be true. That's the ticket!

WM

 

What? Are you going to deny you do not have a basis to "believe" the contrary? You are playing a game of deception and both you and I know it. You are attempting to go through a back door to establish Roman revision of history as the authority to determine heretics, to determine orthodoxy as you have already admitted that you don't present any Biblical "evidence" because it is tainted by human interpretations - so you BLINDLY choose to believe in UNINSPIRED interpretators of the Bible or TRADITION as your authority.

So don't play the silly game that I simply "believe" and you do not. The difference is I don't accept what you BELIEVE to be your final authority in this matter or in matters of doctrine and practice.

 

Come on! Your very argument assumes Romanist version of history is equally valid as the history of man landing on the moon and yet that assumption is the very thing I am denying. The moon landing has various sources that have no basis to assume bias. Not so with Rome and Romanist revision of history. I have given you some inspired basis for my approach and handling of HUMAN historical sources that relate to the future of Biblical Christianity.

 

I repudiate Romanist Revision of "Christian history" on the basis of inspired predictive history. God's Word clearly characterizes the true from the false in its prophetic declaration of church history from the end of the apostolic age (New Testament writers speak of the days that follow after their own ministry) to the second coming of Christ.

 

The Inspired predictions of church history beyond apostolic days is that true Christianity will decrease while apostate Christian will increase. That true christianity will be the persecuted and false christianity will be the perscutors. That true christianity did not originate in union with secular government but false christianity will unite with secular government. That false christianity will be characterized by specific false doctrines while true Christiantiy will be distorted and charged with false allegations.

Those preditcions are confirmed by the Romanist Revision of history.

 

You do know that the Romans were doing this very thing during and after the time of Christ don't you? Now you're dodging my questions by swimming in the eschatological pool of pure and unadulterated speculation. Now answer my questions before people here start to doubt you.

Oops... Too late

WM

 

Just as Rome's final authority for both doctrine/practice and history are the TRADITIONS of the elders so the Scriptures are the final authority for doctrine/practice and interpretative lenses of secular history for true christians.

Rome chooses to approach the scriptures and history through UNINSPIRED men while New Testament Christianity chooses to approach doctrine/practice and history directly through INSPIRED men.

Rome denies that the common saint can be taught the scriptures by the Holy Spirit but rather must be taught through traditions, the church and uninspired men. The Scriptures teach the very opposite (1 Jn. 2:29). The Bible is its own best interpreter and context and fundemental rules of common sense interpretation can be used by the least child of God to the most learned child of God to arrive at the SAME FUNDEMENTAL TRUTH. God can just as easily reveal the truth of scriptures to the simple child of God as He can to the scholar.

 

Ok... At what point in history do you stop accepting the historical record as valid... 1511?

WM

 

I said ALL CHILDREN OF SATAN characterize the murder of God's children. You simply pick and choose one when it applies to the Romans, the Jews, the church at Rome, the Protestant Reformed Roman Catholics, etc. All these groups CHARACTERIZED this principle in their history of dealing with true Christianity as a people.

Have true children of God killed other children of God? Yes! But this principle CHARACTERIZES secular and religious Rome's dealing with Christian opposition to them.

Your question is silly and simply circular rationalization. You assume your position is true and then challenge me to authenticate my position according to the basis of your own assumptions. Now, that is the real basis for doubting someone's position when they play the merri-go-round game.

 

The Munster incident occurred after that point and most reliable historians recognize the abundance of evidence that the Munster incident simply framed evangelical anabaptists as objects of persecution when the Munsterites practiced pedobaptism and believed bizarre doctrines that were equally condemned by evangelical Anabaptists around them. Yet it was attributed to the evangelical Anabaptists and was the cause of their persecution and murder by both Protestants and Catholics alike when they were on record of repudiating it themselves. Yet this distortion of history is still being reported as accurate today by those who simply swallow hook line and sinker Roman Revision of history.

I suspect any reports originating with biased reporters.

 

Indeed....ROFL......one.....you havent been stabbed & seriously, Ive got better things to do besides laugh at your antics all day. Go bother someone who gives two :smilewinkgrin:

 

GE:

You obviously know a lot more about these things than me.

I read an article the other day though, that might be new information for you and the forum members here on BB.

It was about the role Seventh Day Sabbath observance in Russia played just before the Revolution started, and how the 'Saturdarians' were persecuted and killed for the stance.

But I have not read extensively on this or the general differences and similarities between 'orthodox Christian' churches.

So I shall read this thread for more information.

Not that it really interests me.