Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
So, the Sunday School teacher gave out blank pieces of paper and crayons and a told the children to draw a scene from the Bible. Then she invited each child to come up front and tell everyone about their picture. Little Johnny comes up and shows a picture of a bearded man dunking another man under some water. He explains, "This guy is John the Baptist. And this guy getting baptized, that's Jesus the Methodist!"So, was Jesus orthodox?
Or Baptist? - LOL
Every group has its core beliefs, its core way of defining who they are; that's what "orthodoxy" is. I read a book about the thinkers in the Western church whose ideas historically redefined orthodoxy. Names most everybody has heard of, like Aquinas and Augustine and Luther and Calvin, and names few know, like John Duns Scotus. So, today's heresy may be tomorrow's orthodoxy.So, was Jesus orthodox?
Or did he operate outside the realm of the orthodoxy of his day?
Was he a heretic by their standards?
Exactly.Every group has its core beliefs, its core way of defining who they are; that's what "orthodoxy" is.
Agree.So, today's heresy may be tomorrow's orthodoxy.
Right. Orthodoxy is a man-made standard.Back in the day, orthodoxy was defined by the great councils, like Chalcedon and Nicaea.
Perhaps, but there is a reason for this. I'm not much for the fuzzy-studies like sociology, but I understand that group self-definition is important. Who is "us" and who is "them". In-group and out-group. Probably a group survival characteristic in a hostile universe.Terms like orthodoxy and heretic are used to divide and criticize. (or worse) ... But socially, is used to label others with differing beliefs.
Right.Perhaps, but there is a reason for this. I'm not much for the fuzzy-studies like sociology, but I understand that group self-definition is important. Who is "us" and who is "them". In-group and out-group. Probably a group survival characteristic in a hostile universe.
.....and God's affection for sinners is eclipsed.....the very thing the enemy of souls intends. He makes education and eloquence pat itself on the back and the simple message of God's generosity and tenderness towards erring man discounted, even lost.Right.
But this seems completely inappropriate in a Christian context. Tribalism, as I like to call it.
Typically more than "Who is "us" and who is "them"." But more like Us versus Them.
Naming enemies, even declaring war, on anyone outside the tribe.
Using doctrine to measure the worth of other Christians.
Just occurred to me that it is this activity, not church people, that are the tares sowed in the church......and God's affection for sinners is eclipsed.....the very thing the enemy of souls intends.
Agree.He makes education and eloquence pat itself on the back and the simple message of God's generosity and tenderness towards erring man discounted, even lost.
But this seems completely inappropriate in a Christian context. Tribalism, as I like to call it.
That is why life by the spirit and encouragment of the word is important rather than arguments and endless disputes that are not needed.Is "tribalism" completely inappropriate? Having a strong sense of who you are (and what you're called to do) is necessary for a group to survive in a hostile world. Survival mechanism. Look at some of the warnings in the Epistles.
We no longer have a common definition of what being a Christian really means. We tried to keep the teaching of the apostles and elders; that didn't work. Protestantism tried to make the Bible the gold standard, but we can't even agree on what it says, much less on what it means. Maybe shattering into smaller tribes is for the best. But it will pit "father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”![]()
That's a great question, thanks!Is "tribalism" completely inappropriate?
Agree.Having a strong sense of who you are (and what you're called to do) is necessary for a group to survive in a hostile world. Survival mechanism. Look at some of the warnings in the Epistles.
Right.We no longer have a common definition of what being a Christian really means.
Well said, thanks!We tried to keep the teaching of the apostles and elders; that didn't work. Protestantism tried to make the Bible the gold standard, but we can't even agree on what it says, much less on what it means. Maybe shattering into smaller tribes is for the best. But it will pit "father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”![]()
"I once asked One who knew, ‘What is Truth?’ I didn't wait for an answer."What is orthodox in the larger context?
Aye! Some atheists, it seems, study the Bible in order to enable themselves better to make believers stumble and fall. If a believer is really on fire for God will he stumble? Will he fall? Who is lukewarm?FANTASTIC post, thanks!
Just occurred to me that it is this activity, not church people, that are the tares sowed in the church.
And the final judment will gather and burn these things, not the errant believers. (my unproven theory at this point)
Agree.
Study, apologetics, debate tactics, winning arguments, etc. can became a god unto themselves.
Who would discourage anyone from sincere Bible study? However... with what aim?
Re 3:15 | I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. |
Re 3:16 | So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. |
Interesting that would be the result of Bible study. Seems they found some problems.Some atheists, it seems, study the Bible in order to enable themselves better to make believers stumble and fall.
I know of at least one former atheist whose sincere Bible studies were intended to help him trip up believers... but instead brought him to Christ.Interesting that would be the result of Bible study. Seems they found some problems.
Otherwise, what would they have to complain about? (if they found no problems)
So, if a person has reservations about their religious upbringing in order to re-examine them, you claim they have stumbled?Atheists cannot, I believe, cause anyone to stumble who is sincerely in love with God. The ones who do stumble would be those not solidly set on the True Foundation... the ones who are shaky or already in some way unsteady in their course looking too regularly to the side or behind them instead keeping their eyes always on the Lord.
No, not I! Unless God reveals something about another person, how can I make such a claim? If He should give me such a revelation, without also being given the go-ahead, to whom should I reveal my revelation? Are we to be led by the Holy Spirit or by our own logical human minds and ways?So, if a person has reservations about their religious upbringing in order to re-examine them, you claim they have stumbled?
Isa 55:8 | For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. |
Isa 55:9 | For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. |