Are the Greek/Russian orthodox Valid Christian Churches?

When you're in a hole, stop digging....

 

Let's see who is really digging a hole for escape.


IF you are a reader who is not Catholic, Orthodox or Episcopalian in your orientation. Is it patently obvious to you that I have been "proven" wrong in my interpretation of Isaiah 8 and my conclusions that written revelation is "MORE SURE" than oral traditions? Let your vote be made known.

 

You asked about liturgies. I answered. Stop moving the goalposts again.

No it doesn't. It just demonstrates that at that time in Ephesus the terms were used interchangeably; even today, all bishops are also presbyters, but not all presbyters are bishops... [/quote]

The Apostolic period and the NR pattern are one and the same.

I don't need to - it's already been demonstrated in this thread.

Newsflash: I'm not a Romanist. Stop using words the meaning of which you clearly don't understand.

 

There's simply no need to deal with it. You've been spanked - take it like a man and move on.

WM

 

I posted...

And Matt Black posted...

Wow. My 1st post on this thread.

How dumb of me...thinking that I could post an opinion.

 

You got to be kidding? You are the one that intoduced liturgies into this discussion not I! I thought you were referring to the Biblical accounts not early traditions.

What utter nonsense! You can't accept the Biblical record so you simply dismiss it with one stroke of the key pad and then jump into the future "today" as though tradition trumps scripture! There is no BIBLICAL basis for your TRADITION.

That is a flat lie and you know it! Not one of you Romanists have even attempted to deal with the post that provides the exposition of Isaiah 8 and its New Testament application! Not One of you! Until you do, either put up or shut up!

Newsflash: You don't have to wear the label "Roman Catholic" to be Roman Catholic in doctrine. You are Roman Catholic in the most important doctrine there is - Biblical authority - as all other doctrine stands or falls on that one.

 

Er...no; it was your thinking you could presume to judge others' salvation that you were rightly called on. As WM said above to Walter, "take it like a man".

 

You are telling a falsehood and you know it! Both you and Matt are so proudful that you cannot tell the truth. Any unbiased reader of this thread knows you are both lying.

If I am wrong, prove it! I have posted the evidence three times now and none of you dare handle it straight on! Why is that if I am so obviously wrong? Put up or shut up!

 

You are telling an out right lie again! He never judged the salvation of anyone. He was denying they were churches in the New Testament sense of the term and said he believed saved people were in them.

 

Don't accuse me of lying. AiC said he didn't consider them to be Christians. That's breathtakingly arrogant.

I'd be very wary of throwing accusations of falsehood around at posters unless you want to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

 

Ok! Perhaps you cannot read correctly. He is talking about the character of their churches not the individual salvation of the membership. He said that he did not consider the churches to be Christian in any way shape or form. If he meant what you think, he would not have continued to say that he believed there were true Christians in those churches.

So, you misunderstood him as it is obvious from his whole quotation he is not denying there are christians in such churches only that the "churches" as institutions of religious practice and doctrine are not Christian in the New Testament sense.

 

But churches are composed of people, right?

 

So you don't beleive Romans 6:1-7? This statement pretty much reveals your character. I have been accused of everything under the sun in this forum and yet I would never make such a threat even to a lost person.

 

Not I, but others might not be so charitable to you.

But my point remains: if you are going to play dirty and resort to gratuitous insults, then I have nothing further to say to you.

 

If you are talking about churches in regard to membership - yes! If you are talking about churches in regard to the doctrinal character and practice, then it is a wrong conclusion to say he is denying saved people can be part of such churches.

He did say he believed there are some saved people in these churches and yet claimed the "churches" were not Christian in any sense of the term. That is not a contradiction, it is a careful distinction being drawn between the Biblical character of the church as to its doctrine and practice rather than an absolute description of every member.

 

Look, we are on page 28 and that means we have only two more pages before DHK terminates this thread.

I will be charitable and say we have come to an impasse and simply drop the matter right here and now. You be charitable and leave it at that.

 

Doc,
I'm sure I won't be regarded as an unbiased witness, but you are obviously quite correct. 2Tim 3:14-17 prove that the Scriptures are sufficient to save us, sufficient to teach us, sufficient to reprove us, to correct us and to train us in righteousness, making us complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work. Why go to the dead (church fathers) for our doctrine when we can go straight to the Living God in His word (Isaiah 8:19. cf. Mark 7:5-13)?

Steve

 

Matt...

That is an absolute LIE Matt. You are slandering me.

Go back and read it again Matt.

I CLEARLY said that that there could be christians in the congregation

I CLEARLY directed my "not christian" comment to the CHURCHES in question. The doctrines, practices, hierarchies, beliefs and liturgies of those churches

I dont consider the CHURCHES in question..(Catholic, Orthodox, and ultra liberal protestant)..to be legitimet christian churches. Just like we dont consider cults like the Jehovas witnesses and Mormans to be "christian".

 

Just a point and a note: Wise for Salvation isn't the same as obtaining salvation. In otherwords I don't find that passage indicating that scriptures are sufficient to save us. Sufficient to make us wise for salvation. In other words and in today's vernacular. Points us in the direction of salvation.

 

Fair enough. The Sriptures contain all the information we need to be saved. You are correct that they cannot in themselves save us. It is God who saves us, through faith in Christ of whom the Scriptures testify (John 5:39).

Steve