Neal Orthodox theologians are generally willing to accept the conclusions of the naturalistic theologians regarding errors in the Bible. In other words, they take the word of unbelievers when it comes to saying there are many errors in the Bible, but feel that these do not affect the reader's ability to encounter God through it.

Neo -Orthodoxian Bible. It�s illuminated to me, you know, so yes. But I�m a visual learner.

But you go to the statement by the neo -orthodox and the neo -orthodox position is well the Bible contains

Neo -orthodoxy means this.

And so we read the bible. It talks about mankind falling into sin.

So let's move on to the demythologizing neo -orthodox view.

That is extremely troubling, and so the real question is, why would an Eastern Orthodox catechumen want to be called the Bible Answer Man? Is that even consistent with an Eastern Orthodox understanding of Scripture, which is a part of the greater tradition and can only be understood within that tradition?

And we're going to get into that a little bit more in detail probably next week when we look at the Bible

You are not Barth, Brunner, Tillich, and Niebuhr who are neo -Orthodox.

Let's say you are Eastern Orthodox. You're starting to question the beliefs of your own religion. Perhaps you were even raised in this religion and you are starting to read the scriptures. You're starting to hear evangelical and theologically reformed evangelists and teachers and scholars and theologians really reveal to you what the true teachings of the scripture are and what the gospel truly is.

And where that ended up leading in Neo -Orthodoxism is this idea that the Bible potentially contains

And finally, neo -orthodox opinion, that the Bible in its written form is not the revealed Word of God

In the Neo -Orthodoxian, Karl Barthian way, which verses came alive to them? Just kidding.

In the Neo -Orthodoxian, Karl Barthian way, which verses came alive to them? Just kidding.

He says even the neo -orthodox Theologians those ideas we have just reported like to use the Bible to

It's not a neo -orthodox view. It's classic evangelicalism.

That's from somebody who's Orthodox, who's writing that. So that's the Orthodox Church. Here's another one. Orthodox Confession of Dostoevsky in 1672. He is not present typically nor figuratively, nor by super abundant grace as in other mysteries, nor by bare presence, as some of the fathers have said concerning baptism or by impenation, so that the divinity of the word is united to set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose, but truly and really so that after the consecration of the bread and the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true body itself of the Lord, which was born in Bethlehem of the ever virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of God, the Father, and is to come again in the clouds of heaven.

And I'm going to make some statements by Brian McLaren, quoted by him, and you tell me what you think of those statements. I'm going to quote from several books, but mainly from a generous orthodoxy. Certainty, the context is the Bible, is overrated.

Neo -orthodoxy, now, think about this.

Well, this book is entitled The Heresy of Orthodoxy, an excellent book on Crossway by Crossway Publishers. Dr. Kostenberger, you said what used to be regarded as heresy is the new orthodoxy of the day and the only heresy that remains is orthodoxy itself.