Many of the ECF, whom you regard so highly, believed and wrote heresy. As I have pointed out many times, Ireneus believed that Christ lived up to the age of 80. Even the RCC counted Origin as a heretic. Most attribute to him as being the Father of Arianism. The majority of the ECF held to various and sundry heresies and cannot be trusted for their theology. It is not inspired. It is simply opinion. Because they wrote closer to the time of the apostles doesn't mean it is any more accurate in doctrine or in authority.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism
- Thread starter Thinkingstuff
- Start date
- Status
Not at all!
Except that the big flaw in your argument is that not even the whole OT exised in Isaiah's day: to use Isaiah 8:20 as a proof text for discarding anything not found in Scripture is to discard the rest of the OT and all of the NT, since neither of those existed in Isaiah's time. Clearly that cannot therefore be what that verse means and it accordingly does not mean what you think it means...
The same point applies re the subsequent portions of the NT eg: the Gospels.
The whole OT did not apply in Moses day. Do you reject the Ten Commandments? Why not?
quantumfaith
Active Member
DHK, is that not what each of us do when we tout any theological position that we hold. Sure, we back it us with what we claim is "scriptural support" but at the end of the day it comes down to us having trust and faith that "we" properly "divide" scripture and interpret the principles and precepts of the Holy Bible. As I see it, there are certain fundamental things that we "all should" agree upon to agree with one another as being called "christian", but my guess is that your list and mine might be different.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Quantumfaith you are sounding more like Quantumgnostic. If we followed your pessimistic view than the Bible is a useless book and everyone is merely living in self-delusion with no hope of knowing what is truth.
quantumfaith
Active Member
There you go again "doc", so true to form. Can always count on you. :thumbsup:
quantumfaith
Active Member
And may I remind you, it is not proper etiquette either as a believer or a board member to label someone agnostic.
Dr. Walter
New Member
It was no personal knock toward you. I simply analyzed what hope you offered for any objective basis for truth. Everything you said conveyed a total subjective and gnostic evaluation for even defining essentials.
I agree that it is impossible to define or agree what are essentials with anyone who rejects the scriptures as inspired and/or rejects the scriptures as final authority and/or subjects the interpretation of scripture to anything other than contextual analysis where scripture interprets scripture.
However, if two or more persons accept the scriptures as inspired and final authority for faith and practice and interpret the scriptures by contextual analysis allowing scripture to interpret scripture than essentials can be established and defined.
Sure Doc, whatever you say.
So tell me this: Why are Baptists and the Church of Christ so far apart that both have doubts as to the other group's salvation? They both approach scripture just as you said, yet they are poles apart on the so-called essentials.
Last edited by a moderator:
Alive in Christ
New Member
Matt...
It goes without saying they are both excellant proof texts.
I suggest you start taking seriously the testimony of the scriptures regarding these issues. It would definetly be in your best interest to do so. This is not exactly a small issue here.
It goes without saying they are both excellant proof texts.
I suggest you start taking seriously the testimony of the scriptures regarding these issues. It would definetly be in your best interest to do so. This is not exactly a small issue here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Origen was a heretic basing much of his beliefs on Greek philosophy rather than the Bible. Even the Catholic Church recognized this. "Is this what each of us do," you ask????? No, far from it. My only standard in all matters of faith and doctrine is the Bible, not Greek philosophy. What is your standard: existentialism? I hope you get the point there!
Ireneus believed that Christ lived to the age of 80. Chapter and verse please! His ministry began at 30, when he was baptized. It lasted for three years at which age he was crucified. How do you get 80 out of that? "Is this what each of us do," you ask? NO, it isn't. We take the Word of God, and rightly divide according to the command of God as told by Paul in 2Tim.2:15.
If your list is different, then find out why. Study to show yourself approved unto God. What I pointed out in my post was that the ECF believed in some damnable heresies as the Bible calls it. They were heresies that no Christian should tolerate, and yet the Orthodox and the RCC uses them as the very foundation for their faith, putting their writings almost on equal footing with the Scriptures themselves.
Exodus 20 was written well before Isaiah 8:20. But you don't reject it. Your hypocrisy shows.
Alive in Christ
New Member
Zenus...
I am Baptist and I have some friends who are Church of Christ.
Although we disagree on some things, they consider us to be brothers and sisters in Christ, as we do them.
I am Baptist and I have some friends who are Church of Christ.
Although we disagree on some things, they consider us to be brothers and sisters in Christ, as we do them.
I don't know what koolaid you have been drinking but the Church of Christ has no hallmarks of a cult. They don't present their faith in the context of the five solas but they would certainly acknowledge them if asked. It's the only group I have seen that studies their Bible as much as Baptists, although they draw some very different conclusions from that study--which goes to prove my point. Here is a summary of their doctrines: http://church-of-christ.org/who.html#plea
Dr. Walter
New Member
Sure Doc, whatever you say.
It is one thing to claim that is your method and it is quite another thing to actually follow it. The problem is not the scriptures but those handling the scriptures. The Church of Christ student omits the greater contextual teaching of the scripture in regard to the gospel and in regard to the divine design for ceremonial ordinances and resorts to the method of proof texting.
If a person will be honest with the greater context of Scripture there is but one gospel of salvation before and after the cross. If a person will be honest with the greater context of scripture there is only one design for all ceremonial redemptive ordinances - "shadows" of reality rather than conveyors of reality. These two facts are quite easy to demonstrate from the overall context of the Scriptures and one must consciously resist and reject clear and explicit scriptures to teach any other view.
Dr. Walter
New Member
I provided a detailed contextual analysis of Isaiah 8:20 which proved that both its historical and prophetic application support exactly how DKH applies this text. To my knowledge no one has overturned that analysis.
For example, to my knowledge no one has been able to prove both the immediate context (Isa. 8:14-18) and overall context (Isa. 7-9) is not directly applied in the New Testament to Christ and his apostles. The propecy of Immanuel in Isaiah 7 extends to Isaiah 9:6 and Isaiah 8 sits right in the middle. Isaiah 8:18 is explicitly applied by the writer of Hebrews to the apostles of Christ in Hebrews 2:3-4; 12-13. Isaiah 8:14-15 is repeatedly applied directly to Christ in the New Testament.
Isaiah 8:16 is the Messanic prediction of the completion of the Biblical canon by the apostles which prediction is promised in John 14-16 where Christ promises that the Holy Spirit would not only lead them into "all truth" but bring to their remembrance the words Jesus had spoken to them, as well as, give them insight into the things of the future and that through their words future disciples would be brought to these truths. Peter explicitly claims that inspired writings produced by the apostles (2 Pet. 3:15-17) is "more sure" (2 Pet. 1:19-21) than his own oral traditions of his own personal experiences with Christ (1 Pet. 1:17-19).
This prophetic factor proves that Isaiah 8:20 cannot be restricted to its historical setting in which it is found, but is a timeless truth in regard to all scripture.
Last edited by a moderator:
All people who love the Bible and make scripture a serious study do this, or at least they think they do. But in reality they know in advance what their beliefs are and pick those passages that agree with their beliefs. Then they take the conradictory passages and subordinate them, explain them away, contextualize them or do whatever is necessary to make them say something other than what they really do say. You do it, I do it, everyone does it although few are willing to admit it.
I do agree with you on this, that there is but one gospel of salvation. However, it is a lot more inclusive than most of us think it is.
- Status