Ship of Fools: Are the Creeds important?

Thread: Are the Creeds important? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024155

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I am currently attending an evangelical Anglican church. I've come from a very Orthodox with a big O background so this is all very new to me. I've really enjoyed the oppurtunity that the change in church styles has given me to reflect upon faith and the place it has in my life.

However, over the past few weeks I've noticed a few instances where people have said things like 'Jesus isn't God, Jesus is God's son' and have spoken about Jesus in what for me, coming from the perspective I do, seems to be a decidedly untrinitarian way. The level of teaching and worship at the church also seems to lack a quality that I can only describe as 'oomph' but a better word might be depth.

I don't want to encroach too much on the Trintarianism thread as I acknowledge that there are different understandings of who and what Jesus was; but I am interested in people's views about how important solid theological understanding, such as those outlined in the creeds, is to Christian faith.

Does it matter if you don't understand the nature of Christ (who does?) or what your church teaches about it so long as you follow him?

I come from the perspective that it does and it matters deeply, not from an intellectual perspective but from the whole thing making sense as a narrative. If you lack a basic coherant statement of who and what God is and who and what Christ is then how can you understand what the resurrection was for? I feel sometimes like people get stuck at the cruxifixion.

But then I don't want to be a person who says that if you don't subscribe to my understanding of this then you are wrong.

So I am open to listening and being educated.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I'm with you on that one. As an Anglican (Episcopalian) myself, though, I'm grateful that our church, while it uses the creeds, allows for freedom of conscience as well as for people "belonging before believing" - so people do have very different opinions sometimes about doctrinal points. I guess the hope is that they will find their way to the credal position.

Do you know whether there is an "official" understanding at this new church? Being Anglican, I would assume it is the orthodox view of Christ. If so, maybe they need to do a better job of teaching.

To me, it does matter, but with the caveat that not everyone in the community - in fact, no one in the community - will be perfect in their understanding. I'd be more concerned with what the church is actually teaching than with what you might hear from individuals' conversation.

It could be that "God" to them means "God the Father" or something - some people might have sloppy words for such complex concepts. After all, we do pray to "Almighty God" in the name of "...your [God's] Son..." Maybe that's caused some confusion in the technical terms people are using?

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

Creeds are a tool for excluding people.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Creeds are a tool for excluding people.

That was their original intention, from what I understand; they defined orthodoxy with specific reference to particular heresies to demarcate those heresies as being Just Not On.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Creeds are a tool for excluding people.
That was their original intention, from what I understand; they defined orthodoxy with specific reference to particular heresies to demarcate those heresies as being Just Not On.

Well, weren't they actually supposed to be a uniting element more than a divisive one? To provide some consistant understanding of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire at a time when people were killing each other over dipthongs?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Creeds are a tool for excluding people.
That was their original intention, from what I understand; they defined orthodoxy with specific reference to particular heresies to demarcate those heresies as being Just Not On.
Well, weren't they actually supposed to be a uniting element more than a divisive one? To provide some consistant understanding of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire at a time when people were killing each other over dipthongs?

Not as far as I can see, except in the "scare the laity witless with the threat of anathematisation if they give Nestorianism or Arianism the time of day" sense. If you'd wanted to unite, you'd have said "Nestorius and Arius are wrong, but we're all children of the same God saved by the same Christ", rather than "Nestorius and Arius are evil and wicked and if you listen to them you'll be chucked out and probably burn in Hell" - which is what the councils producing the creeds did say, in effect.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

American Episcopalian here -- yes the creeds do matter. They are minimal formulations of the Church's collective beliefs about the nature of God, of Christ, the Incarnation, etc. Orthodox Christians need to engage with the creeds, even if seeing them as approximations to ultimate truth and perhaps limited in time, culture and metaphysical concepts. Still, they ate the best we've got as agreed upon formularies.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

The Creed* defines. It is not meant to exclude people but rather heterodox doctrines. Christianity has content, and if someone were to present the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism and claim it was Christianity, they would be wrong. That's not what Christianity is. Which is not to say Christianity is right and Buddhism is wrong; it's just to say that Buddhism isn't Christianity.

So that's what the creed does. It says, "Here are the teachings that are central to Christian belief." (Even more literally, it says, "I believe thus-and-such" -- but when the Church recites it together, she proclaims that these are her core beliefs.)

It doesn't even say "You aren't a Christian if you don't believe this" (again leaving aside the so-called Athanasian so-called Creed).

So, no, it's not a horrible bad nasty mean ugly thing to make people feel unwanted and kick out people we don't like. It's a definition of the core beliefs of this religion of ours - the one we call Christianity.

_________________
*I'm going to talk about the Nicene/Constantiopolitan Creed here; the Apostles' Creed is a western baptismal formula not used in the EOC (and doesn't add anything to the Nicene Creed except the descent into Hades), and the so-called Athanasian so-called Creed is, um, interesting, but not I believe officially part of any Church's self-definition.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

quote:
So that's what the creed does. It says, "Here are the teachings that are central to Christian belief." (Even more literally, it says, "I believe thus-and-such" -- but when the Church recites it together, she proclaims that these are her core beliefs.)

.....

It's a definition of the core beliefs of this religion of ours - the one we call Christianity.

I appreciate the way you put this, mousethief. A problem arrives, when "we" are conventionally expected to participate in reading the Creed aloud as part of the Eucharistic service. When we do this, we are, inevitablyi also saying "I believe thus-and-thus."

This can be difficult for some of us, especially if we know something of the historical process by which some of the Creed's formulations have been defined.

I used to find myself engaging in an interior theological debate as I recited. Very distracting, not to mention negative. Now I simply don't recite the Creed, replacing it with silent meditation.

What DO people who happily recite the words and use the "we" really think about them? As literal truths? Metaphors? Some kind of God-poetry? I have no idea.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
What DO people who happily recite the words and use the "we" really think about them? As literal truths? Metaphors? Some kind of God-poetry? I have no idea.

Probably any of the above depending on the person. Might be worthwhile to do some kind of poll.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

Roybart, I do the interior theological monologue too but part of that for me is important as it is me conciously and knowingly defining myself as acknowledging these words as true.

The current church service I attend has never gone near the creed and when I mentioned it at cell the opinion was more towards remaining Biblically based. (Which of course the creed IS)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Macrina, a simple answer to your question, is 'Yes', and I agree with you. I also agree that churches are wrong to play them down. They are a fairly short and fundamental statement of ancestral wisdom and what a person can, should and ought to believe.

We don't have all the time to regard each provision as equally important and significant, but they do represent how wiser people than us have resolved past disputes. We do need to agree with them. Anyone who finds themselves thinking 'I don't understand that' should take it as God suggesting to them it's time they find out. Anyone who finds themselves thinking 'I'm not sure about that', should ask themselves serious questions, on the assumption that the Creed is right and they are wrong.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
...I am interested in people's views about how important solid theological understanding, such as those outlined in the creeds, is to Christian faith.

Does it matter if you don't understand the nature of Christ (who does?) or what your church teaches about it so long as you follow him?

I'm not convinced that it does matter. Surely the important thing in Christianity is what you do (the fruits of your tree, as Jesus might put it), not what you happen to believe about the exact nature of the relationship between God, Christ and the Spirit.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Macrina, a simple answer to your question, is 'Yes', and I agree with you. I also agree that churches are wrong to play them down. They are a fairly short and fundamental statement of ancestral wisdom and what a person can, should and ought to believe.

We don't have all the time to regard each provision as equally important and significant, but they do represent how wiser people than us have resolved past disputes. We do need to agree with them. Anyone who finds themselves thinking 'I don't understand that' should take it as God suggesting to them it's time they find out. Anyone who finds themselves thinking 'I'm not sure about that', should ask themselves serious questions, on the assumption that the Creed is right and they are wrong.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that they represent which one of a load of competing views that quite often are hard to actually find a significant difference between happened to win in the battle for supremacy in the first millenium. What is heterodoxy but the orthodoxy contender that didn't happen to win?

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

I agree with the big O Orthodox mouse.

When we say "We believe" we are saying what the church believes. Not what we individually believe.

One of the problems of Protestantism, and by extension that subsect of Protestantism called Evangelicalism is that it is prone to take things which the Bible teaches as corporate and teach them as individualism. This cult of me can be found in the I'm going to do this songs they sing. But it is wrong. Take the teaching of the Bride of Christ. We are not individually brides of Christ (though I've heard this preached): The Church is the Bride of Christ, it's collective, not individualistic.

And so it is with the creeds, they are the collective view of the church. Not everyone in a congregation will agree with everything the creed says, but collectively it is what the Church believes and teaches. There is no hypocricy in reciting the bits you are less than 100% sure about.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Who exactly in the church is asserting that there is no incarnation?

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
When we say "We believe" we are saying what the church believes. Not what we individually believe.

In the new English translation of the creed in the RC church, we are now obliged to say "I believe", leaving very little wiggle room (should you need it).
I was much happier with "we", stating that we as a congregation are united in this list of beliefs. I mean, it's only proclaimed in a group; I don't know anyone who uses the creed when alone.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
When we say "We believe" we are saying what the church believes. Not what we individually believe.
In the new English translation of the creed in the RC church, we are now obliged to say "I believe", leaving very little wiggle room (should you need it).
I was much happier with "we", stating that we as a congregation are united in this list of beliefs. I mean, it's only proclaimed in a group; I don't know anyone who uses the creed when alone.

Indeed. The problem with "the creed is what we the church believes" is that it starts Credo, not Credemus.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that they represent which one of a load of competing views that quite often are hard to actually find a significant difference between happened to win in the battle for supremacy in the first millenium. What is heterodoxy but the orthodoxy contender that didn't happen to win?

If you think the Holy Spirit plays no part in the decisions of the Church, then that might matter.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that they represent which one of a load of competing views that quite often are hard to actually find a significant difference between happened to win in the battle for supremacy in the first millenium. What is heterodoxy but the orthodoxy contender that didn't happen to win?
If you think the Holy Spirit plays no part in the decisions of the Church, then that might matter.

I'm afraid I see little evidence that he's ensured the church always gets it right. We wouldn't have all these schisms if he did. Which side did the HS guide correctly in 1054? How do we know for sure? What if the Holy Spirit wasn't actually anything like as concerned for doctrinal accuracy as the church was? What if he said "it doesn't really matter, argue amongst yourselves?"

Unthinkable? But I'm thinking it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Then you've got a nice little circular "creeds don't matter because creeds don't matter" echo chamber. Doesn't suit me. Bad theology produces bad fruit. Evidence: the dominionist movement and child abuse.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

I have been reciting the Creeds with crossed fingers for many years. They just don't stand up to scrutiny in the 21st century.

[ 14. November 2012, 12:07: Message edited by: Caissa ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then you've got a nice little circular "creeds don't matter because creeds don't matter" echo chamber.

No, I have no such thing. I have a "Creeds aren't the be all and end all because ultimately who knows, eh?" thing going on.

quote:
Evidence: the dominionist movement and child abuse.

You'll have to join the dots between adding "filioque" and child abuse there, because it isn't abundantly obvious.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
When we say "We believe" we are saying what the church believes. Not what we individually believe.
In the new English translation of the creed in the RC church, we are now obliged to say "I believe", leaving very little wiggle room (should you need it).
I was much happier with "we", stating that we as a congregation are united in this list of beliefs. I mean, it's only proclaimed in a group; I don't know anyone who uses the creed when alone.
Indeed. The problem with "the creed is what we the church believes" is that it starts Credo, not Credemus.

No, the agreed text begins Πιστεύομεν - 1st person PLURAL

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

That's interesting and something I didn't know as my Greek is almost non-existent. I wonder why the Latin versions have all started with Credo then?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Typical of the Western church trying to remove paradox and ambiguity.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Evidence: the dominionist movement and child abuse.
You'll have to join the dots between adding "filioque" and child abuse there, because it isn't abundantly obvious.

You're moving the goalposts. Do you want to talk about doctrine, or just the filioque? I don't recall that anybody has mentioned the filioque on this thread until you just did, so it can't have been terribly important to the argument to this point. Which is to say, it's a red herring.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Actually, I'm not that fussed about either. My point is just that creeds were written by the victors, and today's heresy was yesterday's difference of opinion. Oh, and that I consider the idea that the Holy Spirit made sure the councils always got it right is no more than a hypothesis.

Filioque bothers me not in the slightest in and of itself. I'm merely wondering what the link is between bad theology and child abuse. There was me assuming it had more to do with creating environment that closes ranks and protects people who do that sort of thing. Its only relevance is that it's the main sticking point between East and West; I'm querying the apparent line you drew of Schism --> One side (i.e. the Filioque side) has bad theology --> Child abuse. Please feel free to expand/correct/explain further if that's not what you meant.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
However, over the past few weeks I've noticed a few instances where people have said things like 'Jesus isn't God, Jesus is God's son'

Interesting as I seem to recall some Orthodox posters arguing the same thing. As far as I understand them, they weren't denying the divinity of Christ, but saw God as a personal name, like Fred or Stanley, which, as such, could only belong to one Person of the Trinity.

They could support this by the Creeds as well, because they parsed it as "We believe in a.) One God the Father ... and in b.) his Son Jesus Christ", as opposed to "We believe in one God: a.) the Father ... and in b.) his Son Jesus Christ".

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Filioque bothers me not in the slightest in and of itself. I'm merely wondering what the link is between bad theology and child abuse. There was me assuming it had more to do with creating environment that closes ranks and protects people who do that sort of thing. Its only relevance is that it's the main sticking point between East and West; I'm querying the apparent line you drew of Schism --> One side (i.e. the Filioque side) has bad theology --> Child abuse. Please feel free to expand/correct/explain further if that's not what you meant.

I don't remember saying anything of the sort. I said Dominionism leads to child abuse. I think the filioque leads to the second-class status of the Spirit which in turn leads to other problems; I am not so sure that Domioninism is pinned on the filioque and don't see that I said so.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Filioque bothers me not in the slightest in and of itself. I'm merely wondering what the link is between bad theology and child abuse. There was me assuming it had more to do with creating environment that closes ranks and protects people who do that sort of thing. Its only relevance is that it's the main sticking point between East and West; I'm querying the apparent line you drew of Schism --> One side (i.e. the Filioque side) has bad theology --> Child abuse. Please feel free to expand/correct/explain further if that's not what you meant.
I don't remember saying anything of the sort. I said Dominionism leads to child abuse. I think the filioque leads to the second-class status of the Spirit which in turn leads to other problems; I am not so sure that Domioninism is pinned on the filioque and don't see that I said so.

My misunderstanding. No biggie.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that they represent which one of a load of competing views that quite often are hard to actually find a significant difference between happened to win in the battle for supremacy in the first millenium. What is heterodoxy but the orthodoxy contender that didn't happen to win?

Why question the Creeds? Why not simply accept them gratefully? You - or most of us - accept that an electrician knows how to wire our house, even if we don't.

What on earth is the connection between the filioque and child abuse. I've never heard that one before. I'm at a loss how, why or where it might have bounced out of. Is a predilection for child abuse supposed to go with the Orthodox version, the Western one or the Florentine compromise?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What on earth is the connection between the filioque and child abuse.

There is none. It was a misreading. Do keep up.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
[QB] I am currently attending an evangelical Anglican church. ...

However, over the past few weeks I've noticed a few instances where people have said things like 'Jesus isn't God, Jesus is God's son' and have spoken about Jesus in what for me, coming from the perspective I do, seems to be a decidedly untrinitarian way.

And these folk call themselves evangelicals??????? [Ultra confused]

On behalf of all evangelical Anglicans, I offer my profound apologies! This is very dispiriting to read. [Help]

I've been fortunate to receive excellent teaching in most of the evangelical churches I've ever attended, so I am pretty gobsmacked by this, to be honest.

And yes, the Creeds matter.

quote:
Does it matter if you don't understand the nature of Christ (who does?) or what your church teaches about it so long as you follow him?

I do think it matters more that we follow and obey Jesus rather than get every single doctrinal duck in a row ... but a good theological understanding is also important.

I believe it is crucial for the health of confessional Christianity (whether one is evangelical, Orthodox or Catholic) that we hold a rich and full acceptance of the Trinity. Note I said 'acceptance' rather than 'understanding' ... the Trinity is not easily understandable, yet I believe we can grasp enough in order to worship the triune God in all His mystery and knowability.

I very much appreciate the rich Trinitarianism of the Orthodox. Also the Celtic Christian tradition.

quote:
I come from the perspective that it does and it matters deeply, not from an intellectual perspective but from the whole thing making sense as a narrative. If you lack a basic coherant statement of who and what God is and who and what Christ is then how can you understand what the resurrection was for? I feel sometimes like people get stuck at the cruxifixion.

I completely agree with you.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Karl wrote:

quote:
... My point is just that creeds were written by the victors, and today's heresy was yesterday's difference of opinion...

I think if you are going to compare two ways of looking at this, then I think you need to be far more critical of how those issues are being framed. Or how you are framing them. At the moment you've just got them floating free, as if they come from nowhere in particular and can therefore be simple alternatives we (or historically they) can pick and choose from.

The question then is "How realistic is this?". To which I would have to say "Not very".

For a start, what we now call the orthodox position was not just written by the victors. Arianism was actually the winner for a period, but the row didn't go away. The issue had to be revisited. There was a process, however grim some of the rhetoric became.

And largely, the arguments that led up to the councils seem to have been because people were concerned about the the second and third order consequences of certain differences, as much as they were with outright incorrect interpretations (first order differences). A good example of that would be the homoousios vs. homoiousios debate. Only an iota of difference between them.

These are the sort of concerns that provide the setting for the great councils. They were not just choosing between two options.

Indeed, if anyone was choosing between two options, that was the heretics. It's what haeresis means - a choosing to follow a different school of thought. Heresy was not so much about wrongthink as about choosing to divide the church, which is what Paul was on about in 1 Corinthians. To choose part of the truth and neglect the rest is in danger of twisting it badly out of shape. The nearest example I can think of would be as if we had two conflicting schools of physics, one of which declared that electrons were small spherical objects, and the other that they were only waves, present at all times everywhere. In fact we can really only understand particle physics by holding onto particle/wave duality. The one is intimately associated with the other.

Heresy, then, represents a diminution in the truth rather than an alternative way of seeing things. There have been plenty of things that can be seen in different ways, both then and now, such as ways of looking at the atonement. Dividing the body of the church is bad enough, but to do it on the basis of a narrower understanding of things is a catastrophe.

So I'm afraid I just don't buy this "equal explanations" approach. It's only tenable if you decontextualize the whole discussion.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that they represent which one of a load of competing views that quite often are hard to actually find a significant difference between happened to win in the battle for supremacy in the first millenium. What is heterodoxy but the orthodoxy contender that didn't happen to win?
Why question the Creeds?

Why not?

quote:
Why not simply accept them gratefully? You - or most of us - accept that an electrician knows how to wire our house, even if we don't.

I can find out why an electrician does what he does. There's an objective basis to it. The creeds are a not like that; they're the outcome of a theological argument. My brain just doesn't do "it's true because the church fathers said it was true" any more than it does "it's true because Mohammed/Joseph Smith/David Icke said it's true". I need a bit more than that to give something unquestioning acceptance.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

HRB - can you do me a favour, since I'm as thick as a whale omelette, and map homoiousios and homoousios onto particle, wave and wave/particle duality for me so that I can see your reasoning here, because at the moment I don't.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
HRB - can you do me a favour, since I'm as thick as a whale omelette, and map homoiousios and homoousios onto particle, wave and wave/particle duality for me so that I can see your reasoning here, because at the moment I don't.

The example of homoousios etc. was really just an illustration of the fact that an apparently small difference can have major consequences down the line. I'm sure that the matter must have been discussed for a long time before the councils though I guess it took a while for the consequences to become apparent. It was part of attempting to show that there was a back-story to this which was the first part of the post.

The wave-particle thing was really just a separate analogy to show that for some things you can have different ways of looking at them, but for other issues one needs to bear in mind that partial views are at best only part of the whole, and at worst can lead you astray. Perhaps if I had added that I was thinking more of the "fully human, also fully divine" Christology it might have been more obvious here. Sorry, should have done that.

Nevertheless - and bearing in mind that all analogies only work so far - I think my point remains.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Interesting conversation.

Enoch makes clear the conventional/orthodox position as to were "I" (or "we") stand in relation to the Creed.:

quote:
We do need to agree with them. Anyone who finds themselves thinking 'I don't understand that' should take it as God suggesting to them it's time they find out. Anyone who finds themselves thinking 'I'm not sure about that', should ask themselves serious questions, on the assumption that the Creed is right and they are wrong.

This is satisfactory for those who find it satisfactory. I go along with leo, who suggests that this kind of thinking reflects

quote:
... the Western church trying to remove paradox and ambiguity.

Enoch seems to be speaking about two kinds of people:

-- (a) those who see the historically evolved Creed(s) as being an accurate reflection of what "the church" (whatever that is) takes as true;

-- and (b) those others who doubt this, or are in denial.

For the (b) group, the conventional advice is, as it has been throughout history -- try harder, pray to see the light, or take the consequences.

This a-b dichotomy seems well suited to religious controversies of the, let's say, 4th or 16th centuries. In our day, however, people, even those who sincerely practice a version of the faith, are much more likely not to care much about such distinctions. (Distinctions that people killed and died for in the past.)

It's possible to believe that God is our Father (if God requires gender), that Jesus is God (perhaps putting "God" in quotes), and that it's useful to have the image of a Spirit to help us understand God's involvement in physical creation. For me, the physical act of the Sign of the Cross, accomplishes this. I dont' think of a "triune God" so much as a God who is "complex" and "universal." Reciting "we believe" or "I believe" -- or even "I don't believe" amounts, in the end, to pretty much the same thing. (Except that "I don't believe" has historically been very dangerous in Christianity. Poor Arians, poor gnostics, poor heretics of all sorts.)

God is infinitely grander and more mysterious than theologians tend to make God.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

The "victors write history" argument can undermine Christianity altogether. Why for example do we accept the four canonical gospels and not the Gospel of Philip or Thomas as authoritative? Why do we teach that Jesus was an actual human being and not as the docetics claim, God simply "appearing as human"?

At the heart of the concept of revelation is the notion that God indeed reveals Truths to the Church. When this revelation occurs, certain beliefs are by nature, rejected. The assertion that Jesus is NOT the Christ is refuted by the orthodox claim that Jesus IS the Christ. The assertion then that Jesus is God and man, refutes those who argue that Jesus is ONLY God or ONLY just a man.

Now no one is stopping you in this day and age, from setting up a church which acknowledges the Gospel of Philip as authoritative, in the same way that religious groups such as the JWs were created with explicitly unitarian views. However, if you claim continuity with the catholic Church in the past, then you must I believe, accept what the Church has stated as definitive. This definitive things are located in the Creeds.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I have been reciting the Creeds with crossed fingers for many years. They just don't stand up to scrutiny in the 21st century.

...Only if you read them in one particular (and particularly modernist) way. You can just as easily mean, by saying, "I believe...", that you believe the truth that lies in the particular doctrines. I'm curious which parts (or all of it?) you find problematic. The most common, IME, is the virgin birth. Well, think about it this way: What is that doctrine saying about Jesus? Perhaps you can believe in that.

I have my doubts about the eschatology stated in the creed, but it's more to do with my own agnosticism about any particular model of what it means to say that Jesus will return and the dead will rise. I do believe Jesus rose bodily from the tomb, but I don't understand the nature of his body, so I don't pretend to know what it could possibly mean that the dead, most of whom have thoroughly decomposed, will rise again - but I can still say "I believe... in the resurrection of the body," because I don't have to understand the details to believe. I affirm resurrection; I affirm the body. The mystery of it is embedded in the faith of the Church, of which I am a part.

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I agree with the big O Orthodox mouse.

When we say "We believe" we are saying what the church believes. Not what we individually believe.

One of the problems of Protestantism, and by extension that subsect of Protestantism called Evangelicalism is that it is prone to take things which the Bible teaches as corporate and teach them as individualism. This cult of me can be found in the I'm going to do this songs they sing. But it is wrong. Take the teaching of the Bride of Christ. We are not individually brides of Christ (though I've heard this preached): The Church is the Bride of Christ, it's collective, not individualistic.

And so it is with the creeds, they are the collective view of the church. Not everyone in a congregation will agree with everything the creed says, but collectively it is what the Church believes and teaches. There is no hypocricy in reciting the bits you are less than 100% sure about.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Anglican Brat, you write that

quote:
The "victors write history" argument can undermine Christianity altogether.

I understand where you are coming from, but surely it is a feeble faith -- or church -- that can be "undermined" so easily? The "we" repeated so frequently in your post seems to me to consist largely of those with the power to define what and who are to be included, excluded, rewarded, stigmatized. I don't doubt that the Holy Spirit played a role in the creation of such a structure, but I do not assume automatically that the Holy Spirit was its author, nor do I assume that the Holy Spirit floats around approving of it.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
Anglican Brat, you write that
quote:
The "victors write history" argument can undermine Christianity altogether.
I understand where you are coming from, but surely it is a feeble faith -- or church -- that can be "undermined" so easily? The "we" repeated so frequently in your post seems to me to consist largely of those with the power to define what and who are to be included, excluded, rewarded, stigmatized. I don't doubt that the Holy Spirit played a role in the creation of such a structure, but I do not assume automatically that the Holy Spirit was its author, nor do I assume that the Holy Spirit floats around approving of it.

So the Holy Spirit created the Church, but didn't bother to preserve the Church from teaching error?

That's essentially what you are saying. Because the Church in its doctrinal development, operates in prayerful discernment of the will of the Holy Spirit.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

There is a certain romantization of the "losers of history" that I find problematic. Few if any, for example, sympathizes at those poor creationist Christians who discover that their theories of creation science has been thoroughly discredited by Charles Darwin. Few, because the reason why they don't receive much sympathy is because their ideas have been proven wrong.

Yet Arius, who would have completely destroyed the liturgical devotion to Jesus Christ as God, if his views were adopted, is lionized as a hero, defending against an arrogant orthodoxy. Or Marcion, whose hatred of the God of the Jews, would have led the Church to dump the entire Old Testament, is sometimes seen as heroic even though his views would be considered anti-Semitic today.

I agree that the manner that the Church takes in its opposition to what it considers wrong, is sometimes excessive and harsh. This does not however, mean that the Church should not longer establish doctrine.

Posted by wstevens (# 17424) on :

I don't think that a belief that the Holy Spirit guided the church necessarily solves very many problems.

I would like to expand on what Karl: Liberal Backslider said:

quote:

...Which side did the HS guide correctly in 1054? How do we know for sure? What if the Holy Spirit wasn't actually anything like as concerned for doctrinal accuracy as the church was? What if he said "it doesn't really matter, argue amongst yourselves?"

Imagine that you are a christian from an earlier era, maybe taking part in one of the ecumenical councils:

How do you know what the scope of the revelation is? We now don't think it includes astronomy, but Galileo's opponents did.

How do you know when it has finished? Perhaps we are still at the discussion stage of doctrine-making. Maybe we still need a few hundred years more discussion.

How do you know whether you are one of the people with the revealed doctrine, or one of the heretics who mistakenly believe they have it?

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

quote:
So the Holy Spirit created the Church, but didn't bother to preserve the Church from teaching error?

My understanding of "the church" is something that has evolved quite significantly from its origins. An analogy here might be process by which a coral reef is formed -- a long, slow, occasionally violent process of accretion, accumulation, complication, diversification, elimination, etc. etc. The coral reef may become rich, beautiful and awesome in the process. But it is unrecognizably different from what it was 2,000 or even 200 years earlier. Any reading of church history in the 3rd and 4th centuries, or the wars of religion in the 16th and 17th, would seem to support this.

quote:
[T]he Church in its doctrinal development, operates in prayerful discernment of the will of the Holy Spirit.

I am not sure what you mean by "prayerful discernment." I do not doubt that many have prayed and continue to pray about this. But "discernment" seems to suggests that they have reached the correct conclusion. Alas, so many theologians and institutions have reached competing conclusions about what the Holy Spirit really wants. It seems to me that this comes from the tendency in human beings -- and their institutions -- to create ever more elaborate ideologies and institutions.

Religious rituals also have a tendency to multiply and diversify. Anglicans and RCs have been especially active in that side of organized religion, and I admit that I rather like the way that works

Truth, however, what I am asked to affirm that I believe in, is simple. I doubt that many ESSENTIAL additions to Christian truth have been made since the ministry of Jesus and His disciples.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Typical of the Western church trying to remove paradox and ambiguity.

Which would be an interesting conclusion if it weren't constructed on a faulty premise. The Creed as recited in the Liturgy of the East has always been Πιστεύω not Πιστεύομεν, ever since Patriarch Timotheus (died 517) introduced the Symbol into the Divene Liturgy. In adopting Credo, the Latin West was merely following the practice of her Greek Eastern sister.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:

However, over the past few weeks I've noticed a few instances where people have said things like 'Jesus isn't God, Jesus is God's son'

In extremely conservative evangelical circles there has been developing a new theological perspective that borders on heterodoxy (if it isn't thoroughly so). One focal point has been the diocesan theologicans here in Sydney who have been developing a subordinationist view of the Trinity: the Son, though God, is subordinate to the Father, the head. The Spirit doesn't get much of a look in at all in this flawed theological perspective.

One, if not the reason, why this theology has been developed is to support a subordinationist view of the roles of men and women. Women, who are equal to men on one level, are biblically enjoined to not seek equality to men in the family, in business, etc. As God the Father is in control and ordains what is to be (many of Jesus' prayers can readily be cited to support this, at least on the surface), then so too women should not accept positions in which they have authority over men.

And people wonder why our PM's misogyny speech resonated with so many, both here and internationally.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:

However, over the past few weeks I've noticed a few instances where people have said things like 'Jesus isn't God, Jesus is God's son'
In extremely conservative evangelical circles there has been developing a new theological perspective that borders on heterodoxy (if it isn't thoroughly so). One focal point has been the diocesan theologicans here in Sydney who have been developing a subordinationist view of the Trinity: the Son, though God, is subordinate to the Father, the head. The Spirit doesn't get much of a look in at all in this flawed theological perspective.

... which is obviously minimal comparing to the overwhelming number of liberal theologians and priests who think Jesus is God incarnate only in a "simbolical" way, and therefore the virgin birth, ressurrection, atonement, the miracles, etc, all have to be re-interpreted in very simbolical ways... yet still hypocritically recite the creed in every service.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:

However, over the past few weeks I've noticed a few instances where people have said things like 'Jesus isn't God, Jesus is God's son'
One, if not the reason, why this theology has been developed is to support a subordinationist view of the roles of men and women. Women, who are equal to men on one level, are biblically enjoined to not seek equality to men in the family, in business, etc. As God the Father is in control and ordains what is to be (many of Jesus' prayers can readily be cited to support this, at least on the surface), then so too women should not accept positions in which they have authority over men.

(other content snipped)

We did have someone here from Moore College a while back when this last came up. I'm struggling to remember what he said about it, but I'm pretty sure that there was a lot of debate over what exactly the word subordination actually meant in this context. Some understandings of subordinationism are indeed deemed heretical, though functional subordinationism isn't (IIRC correctly). I'm not sure what he would have said about your claim that it derived from their thoughts one relations between the sexes though. I'm guessing he would have said you had it the wrong way round.

But this thread is about whether the creeds are important, and my earlier point was that the consequences and outworkings are at least as important as some imaginary propositional box-ticking activity. And this example is probably as good an illustration of that as anything else.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
One, if not the reason, why this theology has been developed is to support a subordinationist view of the roles of men and women. Women, who are equal to men on one level, are biblically enjoined to not seek equality to men in the family, in business, etc. As God the Father is in control and ordains what is to be (many of Jesus' prayers can readily be cited to support this, at least on the surface), then so too women should not accept positions in which they have authority over men.

Here you go. Bad theology leading to bad practice.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:

Truth, however, what I am asked to affirm that I believe in, is simple. I doubt that many ESSENTIAL additions to Christian truth have been made since the ministry of Jesus and His disciples.

And Christian truth is simple. St Thomas called Jesus, "My Lord and God." From that simple statement came the doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ's divinity and humanity.

The early Christian witness is "Jesus is Lord." The later "additions" are elaborations of the simple doctrine.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by roybart:

quote:
[T]he Church in its doctrinal development, operates in prayerful discernment of the will of the Holy Spirit.
I am not sure what you mean by "prayerful discernment." I do not doubt that many have prayed and continue to pray about this. But "discernment" seems to suggests that they have reached the correct conclusion. Alas, so many theologians and institutions have reached competing conclusions about what the Holy Spirit really wants. It seems to me that this comes from the tendency in human beings -- and their institutions -- to create ever more elaborate ideologies and institutions.

It seems like some think of the leading of the Holy Spirit as an all-or-nothing proposition, where if the Holy Spirit leads you then the result is that you are completely correct and there is no room for later improvement upon those results (even if the newer results are from the same person still being led by the Holy Spirit). I, on the other hand, think of the leading of the Holy Spirit as leading us from where we are in a direction that brings us closer to God, which means that there is always room for improvement without denying the Holy Spirit's earlier involvement.

Which leads me to a sincere question: where does the former idea come from? Are there some Bible passages that indicate this? Are there formal Church doctrines about it? I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who cares to share their thoughts about this.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Because the Church in its doctrinal development, operates in prayerful discernment of the will of the Holy Spirit.

Bullshit. It operates according to whatever the most powerful members of the hierarchy (be they bishops, archbishops, cardinals, patriarchs or popes) want to do.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Typical of the Western church trying to remove paradox and ambiguity.
Which would be an interesting conclusion if it weren't constructed on a faulty premise. The Creed as recited in the Liturgy of the East has always been Πιστεύω not Πιστεύομεν, ever since Patriarch Timotheus (died 517) introduced the Symbol into the Divene Liturgy. In adopting Credo, the Latin West was merely following the practice of her Greek Eastern sister.

How very interesting - thank you.

Pity we didn't get back to the start of the creed as originally agreed.

The plural/singular issue is probably far more mundane that the quibbles of individual consciences. 'I believe' started the apostles creed because it was a baptismal formula.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

Truth, however, what I am asked to affirm that I believe in, is simple. I doubt that many ESSENTIAL additions to Christian truth have been made since the ministry of Jesus and His disciples.
And Christian truth is simple. St Thomas called Jesus, "My Lord and God." From that simple statement came the doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ's divinity and humanity.

The early Christian witness is "Jesus is Lord." The later "additions" are elaborations of the simple doctrine.

A very good explanation of doctrine, though I would put it just slightly differently- not elaborations- clarifications!

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Because the Church in its doctrinal development, operates in prayerful discernment of the will of the Holy Spirit.
Bullshit. It operates according to whatever the most powerful members of the hierarchy (be they bishops, archbishops, cardinals, patriarchs or popes) want to do.

I don't question the role of power in these conversations, but taken to an extreme, you can wind up with conspiracy theories about the moon landing never happening and that the government really hid an encounter with aliens at Roswell. When people in power say that these things are nonsense, the response would be "Well of course, they WOULD say that, they are the powerful."

Of course, if one is not a Christian and rejects the truth of Christian revelation, then yes, the whole development is very political. But if one is a Christian and accepts to some degree, the notion that God actually exists*, then one cannot simply dismiss the revelation of the Church as a matter of power politics.

*Acknowledging that existence is an inadequate term to describe the reality that is God.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by mouse:

quote:

Here you go. Bad theology leading to bad practice.

pssst, she's from Sydney, so has likely picked up Mr Jensen's own take on the Trinity which is along these lines.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think it's the particular context to Macrina's question that makes it all the more interesting.

As Laurelin has already posted, self-respecting evangelicals should really know better than this.

We all know that Protestant churches in general - not only the CofE - contain people whose Trinitarian views range from neo-unitarian through to as solidly Nicence and Chalcedonian as any luxuriantly bearded Patriarch way out East ... and all stations in between ...

However, evangelicalism is supposed to be 'orthodox' on these issues and most evangelical churches and organisations which have some kind of 'statement of faith' tend to express this in terms that would pass muster, I submit, in most, if not all, Orthodox (big O) settings.

That said - and I appreciate that Laurelin's experience has been different - I do think that there has been a 'dumbing down' on this issue - among others - across the popular evangelical constituency.

A far years ago here on Ship I started a thread asking whether evangelicalism was 'weak on the Trinity.' I was shouted down by evangelical posters (nicely of course [Biased]

) who maintained that the evangelicalism they knew and loved had solidly Trinitarian credentials.

That might well be the case for evangelical posters here - most of whom are erudite and well-informed - but I suspect that standards are a lot more lax out in the pews.

I was startled when Andrew Walker in his book on the restorationist house-churches described them (or 'us' at that time, I was part of the scene) as 'nominally Trinitarian.' I wanted to give him a piece of my mind for even suggesting that we weren't fully-orbed Trinitarians in the traditional sense ...

Then I started to listen more closely to what people were saying and praying. In theory, we were as Trinitarian as the next man - and we always maintained the deity of Christ etc - but people's language could be slip-shod and it was certainly possible to hear people express views similar to those that Macrina has heard in her evangelical Anglican church - although such people eventually tended to be put 'straight' in my experience.

My subsequent experience of evangelical Anglicanism is that standards of theological literacy are pretty poor. I've heard completely unorthodox Trinitarian and Christological views being expressed in discussion groups and so on with no attempt on the part of the vicar to intervene - even though he is thoroughly 'orthodox' in this regard himself. He didn't intervene because he felt that he might drive people away if he did ...

I suspect that the problem - if you accept it as a problem, which I do - is more pronounced in those quarters where the Creeds are not recited regularly in worship and where some of the older hymns have been replaced by worship songs ... which tend to be theologically light-weight at best ...

There is an absence of good, old-fashioned catechesis and I suspect that many modern clergy shy away from teaching these things because they're complicated and may baffle people ...

Hence the dumbing-down.

I accept that those of a more unitarian bent won't see this as an issue at all. I'm suggesting that it IS an issue if the movement/tradition you are part of claims to be Trinitarian and claims to have a high Christology.

And - of course - as per the way that Sydney seems to be going - the various non-conformist groups - the Presbyterians, Congregationalists (Independents) and the Baptists were always tussling with revived forms of Arianism and Socinianism during the 17th and 18th centuries.

It's something that bothers me a great deal.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
But if one is a Christian and accepts to some degree, the notion that God actually exists*, then one cannot simply dismiss the revelation of the Church as a matter of power politics.

Neither should one assume that everything that comes from the heirarchy - up to and including the creed - is definitely and absolutely divinely ordained. It's possible that (say) Arius was defeated because God genuinely didn't want his teachings to continue to spread, but it's also just as possible IMO that he was defeated because a bunch of bishops saw a threat to their own positions of power.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

And a whole range of other factors too, Marvin. I don't think the Orthodox/Trinitarian side would claim that politics and so on didn't come into it - no-one is suggesting that everything about the Councils and so on were squeaky-clean.

I adhere to a traditional orthodox/Orthodox view on the creedal formularies even though I'm quite prepared to accept that there was some gerry-mandering and so on going on ...

If it was purely the witness of the Creeds then I would be prepared to concede more ground - but there's also the scriptural warrants (taken overall) and even some intriguing evidence from outside the Christian communities that Christians worshipped 'Christ as God'.

You can find embryonic instances of proto-Nicene and Chalcedonian formularies in the earlier Fathers. Neither Council happened in a vacuum.

I would accept that it was a close-run thing between the Orthodox/Catholic settlement/s and the Arian - but I think it would be just as reductionist to put the whole thing down to episcopal power-play as to suggest that the Creedal formularies simply 'happened' without any kind of agenda ...

History is written by the victors, though, of course.

In this instance, I'm prepared to go with the victors - whilst conceding that it gone have gone a different way.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would accept that it was a close-run thing between the Orthodox/Catholic settlement/s and the Arian - but I think it would be just as reductionist to put the whole thing down to episcopal power-play as to suggest that the Creedal formularies simply 'happened' without any kind of agenda ...

History is written by the victors, though, of course.

In this instance, I'm prepared to go with the victors - whilst conceding that it gone have gone a different way.

Part of what's compelling about history in the case of the Arian controversy is that, while the "Catholic party"* were the spiritual victors at the moment, it took a) about eighty years before the Emperor finally adopted the view and b) several more centuries before the various Arian kingdoms converted. So the history in this case was written by the long-term spiritual victors, rather than the short-term temporal victor.

(And the filioque argument, on an interesting side note, is mostly a misunderstanding coming from the Arian past of the Visigoths in what is now Spain; wanting to emphasize the divinity of Christ after their conversion away from Arian views, they elevated him within the Creed.)

* Their chosen self-identification, as far as I can tell: this includes, of course, the episcopal forebears of the Western, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Creeds are a tool for excluding people.

And thank God for that.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
When we say "We believe" we are saying what the church believes. Not what we individually believe.
In the new English translation of the creed in the RC church, we are now obliged to say "I believe", leaving very little wiggle room (should you need it).
I was much happier with "we", stating that we as a congregation are united in this list of beliefs. I mean, it's only proclaimed in a group; I don't know anyone who uses the creed when alone.
Indeed. The problem with "the creed is what we the church believes" is that it starts Credo, not Credemus.
No, the agreed text begins Πιστεύομεν - 1st person PLURAL

leo, that's true regarding the text of the creed promulgated by the Councils. Until the 20th century, though, the liturgical use of the creeds has always been in the first person singular.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

In terms of orthodox people being mean to other people:

Cyril of Alexandria was by all accounts, a nasty piece of work, who probably orchestrated the murder of the non-Christian philosopher Hypathia. Yet he is canonized for his part in the Council of Ephesus which affirmed Mary's title of Theotokos.

Do I think Cyril is a nice guy? No. But my dislike of him does not impact my conviction that the Council of Ephesus was right in affirming Mary's title as God-bearer. Despite Cyril's general nastiness, I actually think he got it right in affirming Mary's role as God-bearer. God can use the most incorrigible of humans, to get his revelation through.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In terms of orthodox people being mean to other people:

Cyril of Alexandria was by all accounts, a nasty piece of work, who probably orchestrated the murder of the non-Christian philosopher Hypathia. Yet he is canonized for his part in the Council of Ephesus which affirmed Mary's title of Theotokos.

Do I think Cyril is a nice guy? No. But my dislike of him does not impact my conviction that the Council of Ephesus was right in affirming Mary's title as God-bearer. Despite Cyril's general nastiness, I actually think he got it right in affirming Mary's role as God-bearer. God can use the most incorrigible of humans, to get his revelation through.

Neither does his nastiness obviate his being a saint. I'd guess most of us wouldn't want our sins plastered on a handbill for everyone to see, yet we all hope for a share of the Kingdom.

Posted by wstevens (# 17424) on :

I do not have too much difficulty with accepting 'embryonic' Christianity, nor the idea that later developments built upon that original embryonic religion, but it seems to me that with every step of building up comes a reduction of confidence. At the beginning of the process we had partial and imperfect concepts. Then we reasoned imperfectly from those concepts (with nothing objective to test them against). Political powerplay was also involved in the process, independently of any concern for truth. So how can we end up with a set of statements about which we can say 'I believe'? It is like trying to do science without being allowed to do experiments. To simply say that the Holy Spirit's involvement in the process ensures that we have ended up with correct doctrine seems too much like evasion.

So which of the assumptions in the previous paragraph are wrong? Or how can we have more confidence about the Holy Spirit's involvement?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wstevens:
I do not have too much difficulty with accepting 'embryonic' Christianity

On what authority?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wstevens:
I do not have too much difficulty with accepting 'embryonic' Christianity, nor the idea that later developments built upon that original embryonic religion, but it seems to me that with every step of building up comes a reduction of confidence. At the beginning of the process we had partial and imperfect concepts. Then we reasoned imperfectly from those concepts (with nothing objective to test them against). Political powerplay was also involved in the process, independently of any concern for truth. So how can we end up with a set of statements about which we can say 'I believe'? It is like trying to do science without being allowed to do experiments. To simply say that the Holy Spirit's involvement in the process ensures that we have ended up with correct doctrine seems too much like evasion.

So which of the assumptions in the previous paragraph are wrong? Or how can we have more confidence about the Holy Spirit's involvement?

The reason why orthodoxy triumphed in the end, I believe was that they were persuasive given their logical consistency with the entire weight of the Christian witness. The orthodox writers were not ignorant that there were passages of Scripture that supported Arian or Unitarian arguments. One theory is that Nicaea was basically a battle over a single verse in the Apocrypha Book of Wisdom which stated that Wisdom was "created" (Wisdom, being seen as the pre-existent Son of God)

However, these passages of scripture could be incorporated within the orthodox program. The deference given to God the Father was understood as referring to the Father's primacy in the Triune Godhead, not as the Arians insisted, that the Father was uncreated and the Son was a creation.

The Arian view simply was logically untenable. If the Son was created, even as the highest of all creatures, then worship of the Son, as witnessed from the days of the early Church, was blasphemy and generations of Christians doomed to hell for violating the First Commandment. Arius, however, did not himself intend to do away with worship of the Son, which probably is what eventually did him in. He could not explain why the Church could continue to worship the Son AND insist that the Son was a created being.

So writing that the orthodox were "wrong" because they excluded those who they felt were in error is insufficient for renouncing their conclusions. To mount an argument against Nicaea entails arguing to some degree that Arius was right.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by wstevens:
I do not have too much difficulty with accepting 'embryonic' Christianity
On what authority?

The same as every other bugger - a complicated judgement of where the lines lie between what you can swallow, what seems unlikely, and what seems perfectly potty.

Posted by wstevens (# 17424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by wstevens:
I do not have too much difficulty with accepting 'embryonic' Christianity
On what authority?

Because I am prepared to give the Gospel accounts of Christ's life and teaching the benefit of the doubt in so far as they relate to decisions about how to behave, and because I find the accounts of the resurrection and it's consequence to be plausible, even if not completely defensible. You might not consider this to be christianity, but it is as far as I currently go.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wstevens:
I do not have too much difficulty with accepting 'embryonic' Christianity

Which generally means, a completely hypothetical Christianity I made up based on my idiosyncratic reading of certain documents.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by wstevens:
I do not have too much difficulty with accepting 'embryonic' Christianity
On what authority?
The same as every other bugger - a complicated judgement of where the lines lie between what you can swallow, what seems unlikely, and what seems perfectly potty.

This is the sort of thing I have problems with. Just because it seems potty to me does not make it wrong.

There may be an element of the policy is what the victor says it is. But there have also been centuries of people thinking and praying about the dogma. Where the lines lie have been tested. If not there would not be anywhere near the agreement between Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant on the creeds.

So I'll go with all the theologogians, philosophers, thinkers and mystics of the past centuries.

If I say that They were biased so I'll think it out for myself (I realise you are not saying this, Karl:LB ) all I do is replace their bias with mine. My individual bias is not likely to be as accurate as that arrived at over the prayers of the centuries.

Where the lines lie is an ongoing process, but we must acknowledge the vast amount of that process that has already gone on.

-

(Parentheses added because on reading through this was sounded sort of passive aggressive, which is not my intention.)

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wstevens:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by wstevens:
I do not have too much difficulty with accepting 'embryonic' Christianity
On what authority?
Because I am prepared to give the Gospel accounts of Christ's life and teaching the benefit of the doubt in so far as they relate to decisions about how to behave, and because I find the accounts of the resurrection and it's consequence to be plausible, even if not completely defensible. You might not consider this to be christianity, but it is as far as I currently go.

The point is that if you apply the same rigor to "embryonic" Christianity that you insist on applying to later doctrinal developments, none of it stands up.

Posted by wstevens (# 17424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
...So I'll go with all the theologians, philosophers, thinkers and mystics of the past centuries.

If I say that They were biased so I'll think it out for myself (I realise you are not saying this, Karl:LB ) all I do is replace their bias with mine. My individual bias is not likely to be as accurate as that arrived at over the prayers of the centuries.

Granted - and this is why I attend church and involve myself with Christianity. But I think belief and understanding necessarily involve our intellectual faculties - unless we think things out for ourselves it is not belief or understanding, it is just repeated words.

If I thought that Christianity were simply a matter of looking at what a lot of other people thought and then reading it out and following their commands, without involving my own mind and my own body in the process, then I would probably not be interested in it.

Posted by wstevens (# 17424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by wstevens:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by wstevens:
I do not have too much difficulty with accepting 'embryonic' Christianity
On what authority?
Because I am prepared to give the Gospel accounts of Christ's life and teaching the benefit of the doubt in so far as they relate to decisions about how to behave, and because I find the accounts of the resurrection and it's consequence to be plausible, even if not completely defensible. You might not consider this to be christianity, but it is as far as I currently go.
The point is that if you apply the same rigor to "embryonic" Christianity that you insist on applying to later doctrinal developments, none of it stands up.

If you accept christian doctrine (I am assuming from your displayed name that you do), then what is the basis of your acceptance? Surely you must think it stands up in some sense - i.e. you must have a made a decision about whether to accept it or not. What was that decision based on?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I trust [pisteuo] in the promises of Jesus, that he would be with us always and that he would send the Holy Ghost to guide the church into all truth.

What that means, practically speaking, is that my first assumption upon finding the consubstantiality of the Trinity hard to swallow (for example) is not that the Church must be wrong, but that I'm not understanding it properly.

[ 16. November 2012, 22:44: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

The Creeds provide a conceptual foundation on which the church has been built. Any group with a belief system defines itself around a series of propositions, vistion or value statements. They arose out of a long period of reflection trying to make sense of something unique in the history of the world - God becomes incarnate. No surprise there was debate about what that meant, what it said about God, and how those beliefs should shape the church.

The great thing about the Creeds is that they define the Christian faith positively - this is what we do believe rather than what we reject.

Historically, they also provide a point of connection with the universal church throughout the centuries.

[ 17. November 2012, 13:03: Message edited by: Ramarius ]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
They arose out of a long period of reflection trying to make sense of something unique in the history of the world - God becomes incarnate.

A very long period of reflection in that it is still ongoing. The words of the creeds may be fixed, how these words relate to life now is still being debated,

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

What I sometimes don't get is why the creeds themselves are considered objectionable by some in the context of liturgical worship. Quite a few people complain that public recitation of the creeds is problematic because it turns people off because we'll "telling people what to believe."

To which I say, yes, indeed. In much the same way as reading from the Bible every Sunday implies that we accord the Bible some authority. In much the same way that we allow the minister to preach in an authoritative manner every Sunday.

And your point is? [Razz]

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
They arose out of a long period of reflection trying to make sense of something unique in the history of the world - God becomes incarnate.
A very long period of reflection in that it is still ongoing. The words of the creeds may be fixed, how these words relate to life now is still being debated,

I'm with you there Balaam - which I called them a "foundation".

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

Thought I'd throw this in - some interesting ideas and the guy's got a cool surname.

Link

Good idea like why wouldn't we have a creed and truth is every church has one, just some write them down for scrutiny and some don't.

[Fixed link - DT, Purgatory Host]

[ 01. December 2012, 08:52: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
They arose out of a long period of reflection trying to make sense of something unique in the history of the world - God becomes incarnate.
A very long period of reflection in that it is still ongoing. The words of the creeds may be fixed, how these words relate to life now is still being debated,

No, not really. The creeds (really, the creed, or for others, the longer or shorter version of pretty much the same thing) are mostly a collection of factual statements. Yes, facts of faith not empirical science, but still the sort of thing one otherwise would call facts.

There really isn't much to debate about the creeds as such. They are true. Or maybe they are false. Water is wet. Or maybe it is not. Debate that if you wish. But if you stand up and say "I believe ... that water is wet," then that is an announcement that the debate is over. That's the point, really. You are declaring publicly that you have decided what is the case, and what not.

The consequences of water being wet are then still up for discussion, admittedly. Whether the Holy Spirit speaks through you just because He has spoken through the prophets, who knows... But we do know, or at least believe, that there is a Holy Spirit and that He has spoken through the prophets. That's a fact of faith. If you do not believe it to be true, then you have no business saying so.

The creeds were created to end certain controversies. They remain a collection of things, which we - as such - do not need to talk about. Because we have all declared that we believe in them, so we are all agreed on that and can move on. Where this is not the case, people are simply lying, in public.

And yes, I realise that there is plenty of room for theology students to find matters of debate in the wordings of the creed. No statement can ever be watertight enough to hinder creative minds. And I don't think that this is wrong either, there is good in theology, even in academic theology. However, most people are not theologians. Indeed, quite a few people are proud to not be overly engaged with theological sophistry. Well, fine. But if you are of simple faith, and most are, then don't go all sophisticated when you recite the creed. Don't dress up your standing up to lie publicly as some kind of complicated intellectual enterprise to discern sophisticated theological concepts with utmost clarity. If you spend hours each week pondering the creed, then I may believe that. But if you simply keep your fingers crossed behind your back so that you can mouth the words with the faithful, then it is all a lie.

What's wrong with keeping your mouth shut if you cannot honestly say "I believe"? In particular these days, where the worst that will happen to you is a mildly disapproving look from an elderly lady in the pews.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0