Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50; MarkBsnr; stfassisi; irishtenor; Dr. Eckleburg; Gamecock; wmfights; Cvengr; HarleyD; ...
FK: So, those who follow the Bible follow what was in the beginning and ARE orthodox.

Follow, as in works? Or follow as in private interpretation of the message? Or follow literally? All three are "following" but all three are not necessarily orthodox.

Follow as in CORRECT interpretation. I have faith that the Apostles taught correctly and had correct interpretation. Therefore, following their teachings leads to a Bible-based faith. That is, if they meant what they said. If what they wrote was all in secret code that needed to be deciphered by a group of self-aggrandizing men many years later, then of course following the Bible as is would be a waste of time.

And whose interpretation is orthodox? Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, Unitarian, etc? They all claim theirs is the orthodox interpretation. But if they all believe in one and the same thing, then why have all those different denominations? Ego? Or theological differences? (the latter seems a lot more logical to me)

An orthodox interpretation VERY closely matches the collective and harmonious text and meaning of the totality of scriptures. Minor theological differences do not disqualify a faith from being a Bible-believing one. By no means is mine the only Bible-believing faith. However, there is a "line", and users of the term usually know it when we see it, that when crossed DOES disqualify a particular faith from being "Bible-believing". General claims are of no matter. It's the substance of the faith itself that matters.

FK: The difference is in the level of fidelity to the true scriptures. I freely admit that it is subjective.

Well that settles that issue, I guess. It's all subjective and not objective.

Well, remember that the only issue at hand here is "who is a Bible-believing Christian?" It is a man-made term so it will be subjective. I still find it to be a useful term.

You are close to admitting it, but you will resist (for a while at least) that the Church which was given the authority directly from Christ to bind and loosen also had the task of deciding which books constitute the scripture. And you accept their choices, more or less, but reject their authority. LOL!

I am not close to admitting anything of the sort. :) The Apostolic Church was never given anything like the powers that your "respective" hierarchies now claim for themselves in their claimed "respective" dominations over Christianity. Men do not now, and never have made decisions that only God can make. Therefore, I do not accept the choices of any men as to what is God's word. Only God can determine what is God's word, since it is HIS word. In the same way, I accept that the Fathers wrote what they wrote, because it was NOT God's word, but their own words. I accept that for what it is too. In those cases when their words parrot God's words, then I give thanks again to God.

Only those who believe the true message can be true Christians. But since it seems you are beginning to realize that the 'truth" in the message is in the mind of the beholder, it is impossible to determine who, and to what degree of fidelity, is anyone is a "true" Christian.

Yes, but we are not called upon to judge if anyone else is a "true Christian", so there is no need to determine it. That is only between that other person and God, just as it is with us. God established one Church of all believers, and by His design they populate many different faiths. This is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. In that way no one man or group of men can claim superiority over all other men. It's a humility thing, and it is what Jesus taught. I just don't see a lot of humility in those who think they have absolute power over the one and only true Christian faith.

6,759 posted on 07/31/2008 12:20:51 AM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6721 | View Replies ]


To: Forest Keeper

***Yes, but we are not called upon to judge if anyone else is a “true Christian”, so there is no need to determine it. That is only between that other person and God, just as it is with us. ***

Amen. It is God that will sift the wheat from the chaff.


6,760 posted on 07/31/2008 12:29:03 AM PDT by Gamecock (The question is not, Am I good enough to be a Christian? rather Am I good enough not to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6759 | View Replies ]

To: Forest Keeper

Your last paragraph mirrors pretty much what I believe. God didn’t want ONE church to lord beliefs or control over all. Like the Tower of Babel, when men thought they could actually reach God with their own strengths and abilities, he scattered the church so it could grow in many different areas with all sorts of gifts. The Roman church and the Orthdox churches are only one small part of the entire church structure God made. Hey, and you and I are part of that church, hallelujah!!!


6,767 posted on 07/31/2008 7:05:13 AM PDT by Marysecretary (.GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6759 | View Replies ]

To: Forest Keeper

Thanks for your wonderful labors in The Vineyard and your pings.


6,769 posted on 07/31/2008 7:16:24 AM PDT by Quix (key QUOTES POLS 1900 ON #76 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2031425/posts?page=77#77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6759 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson