|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What do we mean by Protestant, or indeed Reformed?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I tend to agree with Jengie. I do think that these things shape and help create what we believe and how we believe and so on ... Christianity is an incarnational faith. It's based on events at a particular point and time.
So it makes perfect sense for God to lead, guide, minister to us etc etc through whatever tradition/specific circumstances we're in. We aren't disembodied spirits floating about the place.
'Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great, God appeared in a body ...'
We're not Gnostics who despise matter. We are Christians who find God in and amongst whatever circumstances we find ourselves in - and that includes churches and traditions.
How could it be otherwise?
I don't see how acknowledging that we each of us interpret our experiences and so on through some particular lens, filter or framework in any way obviates the Godward aspect.
God works in and through these things - perhaps sometimes despite them - but he uses 'means' - and that involves real people in real places at actual points in time.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I tend to agree with Jengie. I do think that these things shape and help create what we believe and how we believe and so on ... Christianity is an incarnational faith. It's based on events at a particular point and time.
So it makes perfect sense for God to lead, guide, minister to us etc etc through whatever tradition/specific circumstances we're in. We aren't disembodied spirits floating about the place.
'Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great, God appeared in a body ...'
We're not Gnostics who despise matter. We are Christians who find God in and amongst whatever circumstances we find ourselves in - and that includes churches and traditions.
How could it be otherwise?
I don't see how acknowledging that we each of us interpret our experiences and so on through some particular lens, filter or framework in any way obviates the Godward aspect.
God works in and through these things - perhaps sometimes despite them - but he uses 'means' - and that involves real people in real places at actual points in time.
Is this addressed to me?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If so, where have I suggested that we're disembodied spirits floating about the place, etc.....?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Being non-denominational is just as denominational as being denominational.
This sounds vaguely paradoxical, like the group who are proud of how humble they are, or the group who are intolerant of those who don't live up to their standards of tolerance.
In each case, it doesn't mean that it's impossible - it's not impossible to be humble, tolerant and hold one's tradition lightly.
Having a belief and acting on it are two different things. When we fall short of our own ideals we call it sin and acknowledge our weakness.
But the same thing can happen at the group level - the way that people interact, the way we humans establish and follow and enforce norms of behaviour within groups - is just as fallen as when we act as individuals.
The Reformed tradition arose because people came to believe that the Church had gone wrong, had become corrupted. As all churches do, in different ways.
A shared belief against the particular ways the medieval Christian church had gone wrong is no defence against going wrong in general.
Any database structure which has no process for correcting existing data is heading for trouble, however wonderful it's procedures are otherwise.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Look denominations are just one form (I think largely created by John Knox) but only one possible form. John Calvin had something approaching a Methodist Circuit as the basic unit for a church organisation. Congregationalist of course see the independent congregation as the basic unit. That is only within the Reformed tradition.
Tradition therefore does not equal denomination. I also distinguish between tradition and Tradition. What I am talking about here is a tradition, of which there are many within the Church. These traditions are even less tidy than denominations.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Being non-denominational is just as denominational as being denominational.
This sounds vaguely paradoxical, like the group who are proud of how humble they are, or the group who are intolerant of those who don't live up to their standards of tolerance.
In each case, it doesn't mean that it's impossible - it's not impossible to be humble, tolerant and hold one's tradition lightly.
Russ
I am reminded of Yinger's development of Weber's work on churches, sects, and denominations. Very crudely, 'church' referred to groups which saw themselves as having universal membership within a given society (you were considered in unless you opted out) whereas a 'sect' was a group which one must actively join, and to which entry may be refused. He added a subdivision under 'sect' - the institutionalised sect which has set up a bureaucracy and other organisational support systems.
Between these two lies the denomination According to Yinger the denomination is, in many ways, like a church except in accepting the legitimacy of other similar groups. It recognises that other similar groups offer a route to salvation, as equally valid as its own.
Whilst we may well not use these same terms in quite the same way, they give some insight into the nomenclature current among sociologists.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Denominations are good and should retain their identity and their individual ways. People respond differently to different things and there is a tradition that will suit us all.
There is no such thing as One Church - even the Roman Church has different orders; it's almost like having loads of different denominations but with one Pope. (Who may not actually be of your Order).
If we all share in one bread, ie Christ the bread of life, then we are all members of One Church, ie the body of Christ, whether or not we acknowledge our brothers and sisters in Christ as such. The liver was never supposed to look or feel the same as the hip bone.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Denominations are good and should retain their identity and their individual ways. People respond differently to different things and there is a tradition that will suit us all.
There is no such thing as One Church - even the Roman Church has different orders; it's almost like having loads of different denominations but with one Pope. (Who may not actually be of your Order).
If we all share in one bread, ie Christ the bread of life, then we are all members of One Church, ie the body of Christ, whether or not we acknowledge our brothers and sisters in Christ as such. The liver was never supposed to look or feel the same as the hip bone.
Let me clarify - you state my position too. There is one Church, but I meant that there isn't one organisational church that can call itself the only church with the only way of doing things. In my mind, of course, was the Roman church that says that it is the example of the unified, indivisble church. it cites the many Protestant denominations as being the evidence that we are not part of the one true church - being mere 'ecclesiastical communities.' My mention of Orders was intended to show that just because they have one pope, the RC church is actually a confederations of many different 'denominations' all with differing emphases and disagreements.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
To enlarge a little upon Mudfrog's point:
A recent conversation with a rather scholarly friend at church, whose own views are reassuringly up the candle, bears on this question.
He said that the name "Protestant Episcopal Church" has gone out of favor because of the common feeling that the word "Protestant" is negative. But negativity is not implied in a more historic meaning of the word. According to his analysis (although he didn't say it in so many words), we need to see the "pro" in Protestant. It once meant positive affirmation. "Protestant Episcopal" therefore reinforces "Episcopal." According to him, the old meaning survives in the case of a disputed will. Anyone challenging does not "protest" it but "contest" it. To protest the will means to be in favor of its provisions.
I haven't had a chance to verify his explanations from other sources. Can anyone comment?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I take the points that Russ, Raptor Eye and Mudfrog are making - and Drewthealexander's broad sociological definitions are helpful here too.
I'm not sure, though, that the existence of Orders within the RC Church - or authocephalous Churches within the Orthodox Church - are necessarily analogous to denominations in a Protestant context - although there are parallels to a certain extent.
Equally, would one say that the Church in Wales is a different denomination to the Church of England or that the Scottish Episcopal Church isn't Anglican?
I'm not RC but what the RCs would argue, of course, is that there is an essential unity of faith across the various Orders - irrespective of variants in practice or emphasis - in a way that can't be claimed for the various Protestant denominations. Although, in theory at least, there is supposed to be a degree of commonality and shared belief across the Protestant spectrum ... but it depends on your starting point or where you stand. Many conservative Protestants, of course, would have far more in common with some conservative RCs or Orthodox than with certain types of full-on liberal Protestant ... and presumably vice-versa on the more liberal side of things.
What I was getting at - and I'm not applying it to Raptor Eye particularly - is that you do get the impression with certain Protestants that they feel themselves above and beyond tradition (small 't') and that somehow the ugly 't' word doesn't apply to them but only to everyone else.
So, for instance, particular pietistic Protestants don't realise that they are in fact in line with a pietistic tradition that can be traced back to the 17th century and beyond. They seem to think it's just them and Jesus and them and their Bible. That's not how these things work.
Other forms of Protestant - and Jengie Jon and Mudfrog, I would suggest - are fully aware that they are part of a received tradition and they celebrate and declare that fact - which doesn't mean that they diss everyone else's traditions - just that they are comfortable in their own skins and have made a principled stand on what they believe to be a valid way of doing things.
They don't pretend that traditions don't exist. They acknowledge them and embrace particular traditions and aspects of traditions.
That's what I mean about us not being disembodied spirits. Mudfrog is working out his faith in the context of a Wesleyan tradition as it is reflected and refracted through the Salvation Army. Jengie Jon is expressing hers through a particular standpoint within the Reformed tradition.
So yes, I do believe that the term 'non-denominational' is disingenuous to a certain extent. However non-denominational or non-sectarian we claim to be we will inevitably have imbibed some aspect or other of the various denominations and sectarian expressions that form our outlook.
Having said all that, I am intrigued by the work of the Orthodox sociologist, Andrew Walker who suggests that a 'sectarian' model - shorn of its negative connotations - is a viable - perhaps THE viable - 'plausibility structure' for Christian churches as we enter a post-Christian era.
For Walker this applies to the base-community, the retreat house and monastic community as well as to the local congregation. He believes that the only way for Christianity to survive the onslaught of secularism is to adopt an 'intentional' or sectarian (in the 'gathered' sense) model.
I think this can be done both within the context of historic 'inclusive' Churches as well as more explicitly intentional congregational churches and connexional networks.
I think I've mentioned here before how I've been struck and positively impressed by a group of RC ladies here who gather weekly for 'lectio divina'.
They are a real asset to their parish and have been influenced very positively by fellowship with Pentecostals and Christians from the local United Reform Church.
I'm not saying that this has diluted the Catholicism of their spirituality - it hasn't - but they have been positively influenced by the 'intentionality' (for want of a better word) that they have seen demonstrated among the Penties and the URC.
Sure, as a Protestant I see Christianity in terms of interlocking sectors of a Venn Diagram rather than something which is the particular property of a Capital Letter Church. But equally, I do take a dim view of certain forms of Protestant expression that go off and plough their own furrow without reference to the wider tradition ... although I would accept that experiments of this kind can feed back and enrich the rest of us.
It's hard to strike a balance.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What I was getting at - and I'm not applying it to Raptor Eye particularly - is that you do get the impression with certain Protestants that they feel themselves above and beyond tradition (small 't') and that somehow the ugly 't' word doesn't apply to them but only to everyone else.
So, for instance, particular pietistic Protestants don't realise that they are in fact in line with a pietistic tradition that can be traced back to the 17th century and beyond. They seem to think it's just them and Jesus and them and their Bible. That's not how these things work.
I'm not sure if the following argument 'works' but is the point that some 'pietistic Protestants' would say they are seeking to get to the heart of what Jesus taught, how the early church operated and so on; and that they build on the efforts of their spiritual predecessors who were trying to do the same thing.
So they are following tradition, but only in the sense of trying to get to the root (hence the term 'radical reformers' applied to medieval anabaptist and other more recent groups) - if they felt a certain practice or doctrine wasn't actually emulating Jesus and the early church then they would reject it, even if it was taught by many of their spiritual predecessor groups.
Hoping this at least makes sense, even if people don't agree with me...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Ok lets try and separate out three of the groups who came from the western church at the time of the Reformation.
There were the Roman Catholic church, and I will leave others to speak of that. Then there were the Protestants. Now you need to split those into two. There were the Magisterial Reformers (Luther, Zwingli et al) and there were the Radical Reformers (the anabaptists).
Now the Radical Reformer did not have any more tolerance from the Magisterial than they did from Roman Catholicism.
However in the UK things got muddied by Anglicanism. The argument between the two national magisterial forms of church government Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism dominated everything. The result in England was that anything that was not Episcopalian was lumped together with Presbyterianism.
Pietism, oh that is a very Anglican Reformed tradition adapted for Lutheranism.
Jengie
[ 02. April 2013, 11:21: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I might be wrong, Jengie, but I've always thought that pietism was a two-way process ... with plenty of Lutheran influences on Anglicanism/Wesleyanism ...
But you're the expert ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
@South Coast Kevin - yes, the argument you've put forward is a common 'Anabaptist' or 'radical reformer' one and variations of it turn up in lots of different places ... whether Quaker, Brethren, Baptist, restorationist 'new churches' or whatever ...
I'd have certainly bought-into that point of view quite strongly at one time.
It's certainly an impetus I can understand and have some sympathy with. However well-intentioned though, I think it does inevitably lead to an us/them approach where one can think of one's own individual group or clique as somehow 'closer' to the New Testament 'norm' as one might imagine it, than anyone else's.
Of course, the same might be said in reverse against those who claim that their Church is the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic ChurchTM.
For my money, Richard Baxter, that most eirenic of Puritans, was pretty good on this sort of thing. He castigates the 'Papists' of his time for believing themselves to be the only ones who would ultimately be saved, the Anglicans and Presbyterians for other ills and the Anabaptists for a kind of 'holier-than-thou' attitude.
Now, that isn't to say that individual RCs at the time wouldn't have been reasonably eirenic - I'm sure some were given the constraints and politics of the time - nor that all Anglicans or Presbyterians would have taken a dim view of everyone else, still less that all Anabaptists would have felt themselves spiritually superior.
What Baxter was suggesting was that each system had its own tendencies towards exclusivity and judgementalism in their different ways.
My own 'take' is that any suggestion that any of us are somehow closer in practice to the NT 'norm' (whatever that might be) is filtered through a thick screen of our own subjectivity. It is all highly selective and subjective. We pick those bits that suit us and reject those aspects which don't.
The weakest part of the late, lamented Arthur Wallis's book 'The Radical Christian' - something of a manifesto for the emerging 'new churches' in the UK in the early 1980s was the chapter where he imagines a visit to a first-century church meeting. It was simply his own congregation in togas ... it was a 20th century charismatic 'restorationist' meeting read back into the pages of the New Testament - complete with lyres instead of guitars and all manner of practices which just wouldn't have fitted a first-century context.
In short, what such group are doing are re-imagining the NT church in their own image.
Now, I'm not suggesting that a church service in 1st century Ephesus or Corinth would have been identical to an RC High Mass or the Orthodox Liturgy of St John Chrysostom - and I don't think the RCs and the Orthodox are suggesting that either (or if they are it's only at the populist level) ... but the fact that all the oldest extant Christian Churches share certain features and patterns in common should tell us something, I think.
That's not to say that I'm seeking to invalidate or dismiss what groups such as the Vineyard, the Baptists, independent charismatics or anyone else are doing - simply that they should recognise that their own 'take' is simply that, a 'take' - and may not be any more authentically rooted in the NT than those traditions which they reject.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's certainly an impetus I can understand and have some sympathy with. However well-intentioned though, I think it does inevitably lead to an us/them approach where one can think of one's own individual group or clique as somehow 'closer' to the New Testament 'norm' as one might imagine it, than anyone else's.
Yes, I'm sure you're right to an extent. I'd like to think it's possible to avoid the us / them approach, though; mainly by just assuming good faith on the part of all the other groups and denominations. Even if the others aren't as close to the NT norm as you (general 'you') think you are, they're either trying their best to get there or they think other things are more important than emulating the NT norm.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My own 'take' is that any suggestion that any of us are somehow closer in practice to the NT 'norm' (whatever that might be) is filtered through a thick screen of our own subjectivity. It is all highly selective and subjective. We pick those bits that suit us and reject those aspects which don't... In short, what such group are doing are re-imagining the NT church in their own image.
Or perhaps (good faith assumption coming up!) groups like this are trying to re-imagine their own church in the image of the NT church. Of course, they'll get it wrong in places, maybe many places, and of course they - all of us - interpret things through a thick screen of subjectivity. But I think it's unnecessarily negative to say that we 'pick those bits that suit us and reject those aspects which don't'.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What I was getting at - and I'm not applying it to Raptor Eye particularly - is that you do get the impression with certain Protestants that they feel themselves above and beyond tradition (small 't') and that somehow the ugly 't' word doesn't apply to them but only to everyone else.
I'm pleased to see that you're not applying this to me ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Not only do I not identify myself as a protestant with or without a small 'p', I don't think myself above and beyond tradition.
God comes first, however: before every organised church, before the scriptures, before doctrine, and before our own preferences. Unless the Lord builds the house, the masons labour in vain.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I s'pose what I'm getting at is that whilst it is the Lord who builds the house the masons still have to labour with stones taken from particular quarries in particular places at particular points in time - and that these quarries may well have been worked for centuries or else, even if newly dug or blasted out of the earth, they'll contain stone which crops up elsewhere.
I think you're right, South Coast Kevin that it is possible to be in some kind of 'sectarian group' (in sociological rather than negative or even theological terms) and not be sectarian in one's attitudes.
I've cited Andrew Walker the sociologist a few times here. I remember reading something he wrote in relation to Donald Gee, the great Pentecostal 'elder-statesman' of the UK & Ireland Assemblies of God.
Gee was a former Congregationalist and a pretty bright cookie all round. Towards the end of his life he had very fruitful correspondence with Roman Catholics and always maintained respect for the historic Churches - and even knew something of Orthodoxy - presumably its more mystical and hesychast aspects.
So, yes, I believe that those who follow Christ's example in various ways can be found right across the board - among the RC Orders, among the Quakers, Salvationists, the historic Churches, Pentecostals, among all manner of Christians in all times and all places - 'religious' and 'lay-people', monastics, clergy, all manner of bod's ...
Now, even though they have a more 'specific' or 'particular' definition of Church, the RCs and the Orthodox would say the same - just as they believe that it's possible to be part of what they see as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and be a complete bozo. If I understand the RC position correctly then not even the Pope is guaranteed to be 'saved'.
These things cut both ways.
On the one hand you could accuse a group like the Vineyard, say - and I'm just using them as one example of a Protestant 'sect' even though they might wish to disavow the term - of being schismatic or going-it-alone.
You could argue that it is tacit in their approach, 'We meet separately and do things our way, therefore this implies that we believe we are doing it in a way that's closer to the NT ...'
They may not say that explicitly, but you could argue that it's implicit in their modus operandi.
Just as on the other hand you could accuse the RCs or the Orthodox of being sniffy and high-horse-ish about everyone else.
'We belong to the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and you don't, therefore your ecclesial body isn't even worthy of bearing the name church ...'
Now, I appreciate that some RCs and some Orthodox do regard other churches as churches ... only small c churches and not Big C ones. In the same way as they might recognise some Christians as catholic with a small c but not a large C or orthodox (or at least more orthodox than others) with a small o rather than a Big O.
I've come across some pretty dim Orthodox, to be frank, who come out with daft statements to the effect that Anglicans are no closer to Orthodoxy than Muslims are ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
But by and large, I suspect most of them would have a sliding scale along which some Christians would be seen as closer to them in belief and practice than others.
Conversely, the same happens in a looser way in reverse. You might have Baptists, for instance, who believe that Pentecostals or Brethren are closer to the NT norm or standard than Anglicans are by virtue of the practice of credo-baptism rather than paedobaptism ...
I submit that all of us make these kind of distinctions, even if we claim not to.
And equally, and I need to be careful here - just because we don't accept a particular label - Protestant say - it doesn't mean that this label doesn't apply to us in some way or other.
Ok, I'm being rather playful and provocative, but I still maintain that we're all part of some tradition or other whether we recognise it or not.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Yes, some quarries will be well dug and deep and produce very valuable stone, but God the builder is above and beyond tradition and may use stone and masons from anywhere he pleases.
I observe the attitudes you describe in some people from each denomination, while others simply try to get on with being Christian and loving others as themselves without trying to label them or deny the validity of their faith.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, but I s'pose what I'm saying is that we can't transcend labels whether we like it or not - there's no such thing as being above and beyond them. By historical and contextual forces we all inevitably wear some label or other.
That's different from using labels to exclude or to condemn. You can acknowledge, say, that you come from the Reformed tradition or the Eastern Orthodox tradition or the Anabaptist tradition or the Roman Catholic tradition or whatever else - without that necessarily meaning that you are wielding that label against anyone else in a condemnatory way.
All I'm saying is that it is unrealistic to claim not to belong or be influenced by some tradition or other.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I s'pose I'm saying that God uses 'means' and those means can and do include the various Christian traditions. How could it be otherwise?
That's what I mean by us not being disembodied spirits.
To acknowledge God working through, say, the Benedictines or the Quakers or the Orthodox or the Salvationists or whoever else isn't to deny God the glory and to idolise the means and channels instead - although it can lead to that of course.
You may as well say that it's Bibliolatrous to acknowledge that God speaks through scripture or idolatrous to suggest that he works through sacraments ... or through creation or through people or through ...
That's why I'm suggesting it's unrealistic to claim that we personally transcend traditions - because we don't, and because we each of us, in whatever way, have imbibed or drawn things from those traditions.
Years ago, before my conversion, a Baptist bloke 'witnessed' to me on a train and made me think about the claims of Christ. He didn't do that in a vacuum. He couldn't have done so if he hadn't been drawing on a Christian tradition that went back through various meanderings and permutations to the apostolic deposit ...
That isn't to claim apostolic succession for what he was doing, but all of us believe or continue to learn/develop in our faith because what other people have done and what other people have passed on.
It doesn't happen in a vacuum.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, but I s'pose what I'm saying is that we can't transcend labels whether we like it or not - there's no such thing as being above and beyond them. By historical and contextual forces we all inevitably wear some label or other.
That's different from using labels to exclude or to condemn. You can acknowledge, say, that you come from the Reformed tradition or the Eastern Orthodox tradition or the Anabaptist tradition or the Roman Catholic tradition or whatever else - without that necessarily meaning that you are wielding that label against anyone else in a condemnatory way.
All I'm saying is that it is unrealistic to claim not to belong or be influenced by some tradition or other.
I'm not claiming that I haven't been influenced by some tradition or other, nor that I transcend anything. God does, I don't. I am saying that I belong to Christ above all, including the tradition I am currently being influenced by. The only label I will wear is that which reads 'Christian'.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ideally, Raptor Eye, that would be the case ... but it's not as simple as that. I'm not saying that we should all go around saying, 'I belong to Paul, I belong to Apollos ... etc' but neither can we pretend that there aren't distinct flavours and strands within Christianity as a whole.
It sounds terribly pious to say, 'The only label I accept is Christian ...' but then we have to unpack what we mean by that and that's when labelling inevitably starts.
There's no way around that, it seems to me. Just as there's no way around tradition or Tradition. Traditions are there whether we like it or not. Labels are there whether we choose to accept them or not. Some of us will wear several labels but we don't have the luxury of being completely naked like Adam.
We aren't a disembodied faith, we are grounded in particular places and times and in particular ecclesial communities.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Jehovah's Witnesses would claim to be Christian, even though their faith and praxis differs in substantial ways from what is regarded as mainstream Trinitarian Christianity.
Are we to say that the Jehovah's Witnesses are simply another flavour of Christian?
Sure, as a 'marginal' group that derives from within the wider Christian tradition and which split off from it at some point it's going to have certain hallmarks of Christianity in its DNA ... but would we be right to label it Christian?
You see, immediately we have a labelling issue. What constitutes Christianity and what doesn't.
There's no way around that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Jehovah's Witnesses would claim to be Christian, even though their faith and praxis differs in substantial ways from what is regarded as mainstream Trinitarian Christianity.
Are we to say that the Jehovah's Witnesses are simply another flavour of Christian?
Sure, as a 'marginal' group that derives from within the wider Christian tradition and which split off from it at some point it's going to have certain hallmarks of Christianity in its DNA ... but would we be right to label it Christian?
You see, immediately we have a labelling issue. What constitutes Christianity and what doesn't.
There's no way around that.
I feel that with so much theological diversity within the historical denominations it almost seems unfair to deny JWs the label 'Christian'.
The concept of 'covering' was discussed and dismissed here a while ago, but it does seem as if highly unorthodox people are covered by virtue of belonging to the Anglican Communion, in a way that people who pursue their unorthodox beliefs in less respectable surroundings are not.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Can I point out that we have another weasel word coming up. That word is "sect". To give you some idea my father is quite happy to refer to the URC as a sect, by Max Weber's terminology most Baptist churches clearly are. However Max Weber is using it for the form of church he actually prefers/idealises. In his terminology it simply means a religious grouping that one chooses as opposed to the default one of society (which is a church).
The modern term derogatory meaning is not implied in the original sociological use. This is important to bear in mind when you see a person using this term. You could be misunderstand their meaning. There are various developments from that simple categorisation.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
To the OP, we mean historically and geographically culturally differentiated. Like Jewish, Greek, Roman, Syriac.
We cannot possibly, in the main, retrace those steps to become what we weren't. We should retrace them to embrace them regardless.
As for JWs being heretic, that is Christian tradition. Heresy. All of it. The beliefs. Especially the unbiblical second order mandatory excluding distinctives. If a JW feeds the hungry, visits the sick, the imprisoned, widows and orphans in their affliction how unchristian are they? How heterodox?
Was Jesus a Trinitarian?
And a good Trinitarian, twice on Sunday, rich, racist, homophobic warmonger is a disciple of Jesus how ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Jehovah's Witnesses would claim to be Christian, even though their faith and praxis differs in substantial ways from what is regarded as mainstream Trinitarian Christianity.
Are we to say that the Jehovah's Witnesses are simply another flavour of Christian?
I'd answer 'No' to this but my main reason is that the JWs isolate themselves from all other Christian groups. If it wasn't for this factor, I'd be tempted (I think...) to describe them as simply another flavour of Christian, albeit highly unorthodox!
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the one hand you could accuse a group like the Vineyard, say - and I'm just using them as one example of a Protestant 'sect' even though they might wish to disavow the term - of being schismatic or going-it-alone.
You could argue that it is tacit in their approach, 'We meet separately and do things our way, therefore this implies that we believe we are doing it in a way that's closer to the NT ...'
They may not say that explicitly, but you could argue that it's implicit in their modus operandi.
Yeah, I guess... But, taking it to the extreme, aren't all groups schismatic except for either the Orthodox or Roman Catholics? Every other Christian group has splintered off from the root (institutionally speaking) for one reason or another.
I know you weren't having a go at my flavour of Christianity in particular, but Vineyard churches (AFAIK) are always happy to work with all the other mainstream churches. I can instantly think of two projects local to me where people from my church happily serve alongside folks from many other nearby churches of various kinds.
So I do appreciate what you're getting at but, unless (like some currently prolific posters) you want to see a unified worldwide church institution, I don't see what my lot are doing wrong. Of course we think we're doing (trying to do...) things in a way that God approves of, otherwise we'd (try to...) do things differently!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Jehovah's Witnesses would claim to be Christian, even though their faith and praxis differs in substantial ways from what is regarded as mainstream Trinitarian Christianity.
Are we to say that the Jehovah's Witnesses are simply another flavour of Christian?
I'd answer 'No' to this but my main reason is that the JWs isolate themselves from all other Christian groups. If it wasn't for this factor, I'd be tempted (I think...) to describe them as simply another flavour of Christian, albeit highly unorthodox!
So ecumenicalism is the sign of being Christian? That's a fairly new definition, I imagine.
I have an example of JW integration: some years ago I invited a local JW author to read some of his poems at a Methodist church concert. He did come along, after obtaining permission from JW leaders. It would be interesting to know whether there are examples of deeper cooperation, perhaps of an unofficial nature, between JW congregations and others around the world. (Unfortunately Google isn't immediately very helpful on this. Most of the articles about the JWs are by non-JWs expressing outright disapproval.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I THINK I get what South Coast Kevin is saying (please correct me if I'm wrong, SCK). It's not about ecumenicalism but a recognition of SOME orthodoxy/truth amongst particular groups. It seems to me as if JWs don't want to be recognised for orthodoxy by other churches, almost, like that would be a sign of things that to them are apostasy. Does that make any sense? I mean, going from other threads on Purg, the Eastern Orthodox church may not recognise the apostolic succession of the Anglican church but they would recognise Anglicans as Christians. I think JWs wouldn't want to be seen as fellow Christians by mainstream denominations, because to them that would be joining in with heretics.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I THINK I get what South Coast Kevin is saying (please correct me if I'm wrong, SCK). It's not about ecumenicalism but a recognition of SOME orthodoxy/truth amongst particular groups.
I'm trying to think this out for myself, really, and I don't know if I'd actually follow through with my JW-inclusivity if it were up to me. Pragmatism regarding how others would react might win the day...
Fundamentally, I want to say that I'd work on a Christian project with anyone who shared that project's goals. I'm very reluctant to judge whether a group's beliefs are so heretical that I wouldn't consider serving alongside people from that group, or involving them in the decision-making, planning etc. of the work. If they can get on board with the project then great, let's work together. I think.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ideally, Raptor Eye, that would be the case ... but it's not as simple as that. I'm not saying that we should all go around saying, 'I belong to Paul, I belong to Apollos ... etc' but neither can we pretend that there aren't distinct flavours and strands within Christianity as a whole.
It sounds terribly pious to say, 'The only label I accept is Christian ...' but then we have to unpack what we mean by that and that's when labelling inevitably starts.
There's no way around that, it seems to me. Just as there's no way around tradition or Tradition. Traditions are there whether we like it or not. Labels are there whether we choose to accept them or not. Some of us will wear several labels but we don't have the luxury of being completely naked like Adam.
We aren't a disembodied faith, we are grounded in particular places and times and in particular ecclesial communities.
I don't think we're far from each other, Gamaliel, and I know that labels are inevitable to some extent, but I think that they should be used and interpreted with great caution as they hold the potential to incite idolatry, prejudice, judgementalism and schism all of which easily lead to hatred and strife.
We may be grounded in particular ecclesial communities with their own special characteristics, but it's important that we remember that we belong primarily to Christ and that we listen for his voice above all the sounds made by elders and echoes of past theologians, in co-operation with our fellow Christians.
To follow on with later points made, we all draw a line of validity so that the people our side are fellow Christians, while those on the other side are not. Some believe only those of their own denomination are Christian, some see only Trinitarians as Christian, others are so liberal that they think that anyone acting kindly is a Christian. Is it really for anyone other than Christ himself to judge?
Would any of us refuse to work on a church project with someone else based on their theological outlook? I'd like to think not, but I clearly remember someone refusing to countenance a volunteer as she didn't regularly attend any church...... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I'm not advocating dismissing people and so on ...
All I'm saying is that God uses 'means' and uses people and it's inevitable that those people will have some label or other. If you lived in Ethiopia, unless you joined some imported Western group you'd probably either be Muslim or Ethiopian Orthodox.
Same if you were living in medieval Western Europe ... you wouldn't have had much choice other than be a Roman Catholic.
I'm also using the term sect in the Max Weber sense and as Jengie Jon's Dad uses it. I don't have any issue regarding the URC or Baptist churches as being sects in the non-derogatory sense ... but simply as churches to which people, by and large, how chosen to belong to.
One could argue - and I would at times - that largely convert Orthodox parishes here in the US and over in the US are sociologically a form of sect too ... insofar that most people there have chosen to belong to them rather than being 'cradle' in the way that many if not most Orthodox are in Greece, the Balkans, Russia etc.
I would argue that a Church can be Church (capital C) in one part of the world and sociologically speaking a sect in another.
Hope that clarifies things.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Would any of us refuse to work on a church project with someone else based on their theological outlook? I'd like to think not, but I clearly remember someone refusing to countenance a volunteer as she didn't regularly attend any church......
I think this partly depends on the identity that the volunteer work is running under. If a project is being named and funded as a Baptist project, and undertaken as a result of an evangelistic understanding of mission, it would be awkward if several of the participants were majorly in disagreement with Baptist teachings.
An ecumenical project would be a different matter. And some church projects are expressly designed to encourage community participation, so it wouldn't matter who turned up.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
An ecumenical project would be a different matter. And some church projects are expressly designed to encourage community participation, so it wouldn't matter who turned up.
What I had in mind with my 'Hmm, I think I'd probably include groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses' was things like town-wide mission activities under a 'Churches Together' umbrella. That sort of thing. And my inclination would be to include any group that (a) called themselves Christian, and (b) wanted to get involved on a cross-church basis (i.e. without wanting to turn it into 'their show'.
I should repeat that this is all hypothetical, at least at the moment, as I'm not in any kind of leadership position. Who knows how my views would change if I actually had to make decisions of this nature?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I certainly wouldn't include JWs in a town-wide Churches Together initiative. I would certainly include JWs in any joint initiative of other local, regional or national interest - such as a Foodbank or other relief effort, activism in the light of a proposed detrimental development of some kind etc.
Does that mean that I believe that individual JWs aren't capable of greater morality/self-discipline/neighbourliness and so on and so forth than individual Trinitarian believers? You bet it does.
I had some very gracious interaction with a very gracious JW lady when I was delivering leaflets for our church's Easter services. She made it clear where she stood but made no effort to diss me, the church or anyone else.
I found myself wishing that many more mainstream Christians would take a leaf out of her book.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, I worded that badly ... what I meant was that I DO believe that individuals from 'marginal' groups like the JWs and Mormons are capable of behaving in far more Christ-like and godly ways than 'conventional' or mainstream Trinitarian believers.
Of course I do.
My brother is very impressed by the behaviour and witness of a Christadelphian in his work-place, for instance. Everything I know about this bloke tells me that he's on the ball in almost every respect.
Just because someone belongs to a group that is considered 'marginal' or heretical doesn't mean that they've got horns coming out of their heads.
Equally, just because someone belongs to a mainstream Church or denomination doesn't mean that they don't ...
RCs, Orthodox and anyone else I know of who claim that their Church is the Original and Best aren't saying that only their own adherents will be saved or can be considered Christians. They may have done so at one time - certainly the RC Church once taught that - but they don't know. You may find individuals within each of these Churches who still believe that, but it certainly wouldn't represent the prevailing view within each body.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Re Churches Together, my understanding is that participant groups need to be able to assent to a set of common beliefs. I know of an Anglican vicar, now the chairperson of my local CT network, who is insistent that the Apostolic/Jesus Name Pentecostals couldn't or shouldn't be part of such a grouping, since they have a different understanding of the Trinity. Of course, they may not want to be part of CT in the first place. But if they're not there, how can they be influenced? Ecumenicalism tends to rub the hard edges off religious groups....
My view, as I've said above, is that plenty of contemporary 'mainstream' Christians muddy the waters by holding radical theological views, so it's perhaps a bit rich of them to accuse others of 'heresy'. (I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the Virgin Birth is an optional element of Trinitarian theology!) Is there such a thing as heresy in today's postmodern, pluralist, tolerant Christian context?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Svit - perhaps you'd like to start by explaining why the Virgin Birth is essential to Trinitarian theology in the first place, because I manage to believe in the latter whilst being decidedly woolly on the former.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
The Virgin Birth, or more properly virgin conception I suppose, is all to do with the nature of Christ though. If He was conceived in the normal way, then there is nothing particularly special about Him. He has a human father and human mother, well, welcome to the human race, Jesus. But He is both Man (with a human mother to show for it) and God (the nature of His conception was divine). And if that's preposterous, why is the Trinity less so?
Not wanting to be flippant, but I have felt for years that if one can accept the outrageous doctrine of the Incarnation, then everything else in the Christian faith is something of a piece of cake ...
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The Virgin Birth, or more properly virgin conception I suppose, is all to do with the nature of Christ though. If He was conceived in the normal way, then there is nothing particularly special about Him. He has a human father and human mother, well, welcome to the human race, Jesus. But He is both Man (with a human mother to show for it) and God (the nature of His conception was divine). And if that's preposterous, why is the Trinity less so?
Not wanting to be flippant, but I have felt for years that if one can accept the outrageous doctrine of the Incarnation, then everything else in the Christian faith is something of a piece of cake ...
I think I'd be less suspicious of the virgin birth were it not for the fact that it can be seen quite readily as an attempt to show that Christ's birth fulfils a prophesy, the details of which (i.e. the Virgin) may well be a mistranslation.
I really don't get why the presence of a bog standard normal second set of chromosomes from a male gamete should be a barrier to the second person of the Trinity becoming a human being any more than the first set from a female gamete. To me the significance is that he was born of woman, not that he was specifically born of a virgin. Indeed, it does answer an otherwise vexed question of where Jesus' paternal chromosomes came from; he could hardly have been haploid or a clone - for one thing he'd be female.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The Virgin Birth, or more properly virgin conception I suppose, is all to do with the nature of Christ though. If He was conceived in the normal way, then there is nothing particularly special about Him. He has a human father and human mother, well, welcome to the human race, Jesus. But He is both Man (with a human mother to show for it) and God (the nature of His conception was divine). And if that's preposterous, why is the Trinity less so?
Not wanting to be flippant, but I have felt for years that if one can accept the outrageous doctrine of the Incarnation, then everything else in the Christian faith is something of a piece of cake ...
I think I'd be less suspicious of the virgin birth were it not for the fact that it can be seen quite readily as an attempt to show that Christ's birth fulfils a prophesy, the details of which (i.e. the Virgin) may well be a mistranslation.
I really don't get why the presence of a bog standard normal second set of chromosomes from a male gamete should be a barrier to the second person of the Trinity becoming a human being any more than the first set from a female gamete. To me the significance is that he was born of woman, not that he was specifically born of a virgin. Indeed, it does answer an otherwise vexed question of where Jesus' paternal chromosomes came from; he could hardly have been haploid or a clone - for one thing he'd be female.
Hegel has so much to answer for.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Svit - perhaps you'd like to start by explaining why the Virgin Birth is essential to Trinitarian theology in the first place, because I manage to believe in the latter whilst being decidedly woolly on the former.
Basically, if all elements of the Trinity are meant to be cosubstantial or 'of the same essence', then how can the Father and the Spirit be supernatural, but the Son not? The 'God made flesh' thing surely only works if Jesus was actually God's supernatural Son. Or is it a case of 'ye are all gods'?
Note that I'm not a theologian, and the Trinity is routinely described as a difficult thing for the layperson to understand. It's unsurprising that some people don't take to it, for one reason or another.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Svit - perhaps you'd like to start by explaining why the Virgin Birth is essential to Trinitarian theology in the first place, because I manage to believe in the latter whilst being decidedly woolly on the former.
Basically, if all elements of the Trinity are meant to be cosubstantial or 'of the same essence', then how can the Father and the Spirit be supernatural, but the Son not? The 'God made flesh' thing surely only works if Jesus was actually God's supernatural Son. Or is it a case of 'ye are all gods'?
Note that I'm not a theologian, and the Trinity is routinely described as a difficult thing for the layperson to understand. It's unsurprising that some people don't take to it, for one reason or another.
I do not find it necessary for there to be a missing human physical father for God to be Jesus' supernatural father. Not at all.
I have no problem with the Trinity. I am, however, decidedly unconvinced on the historicity of the virgin birth story.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Basically, if all elements of the Trinity are meant to be cosubstantial or 'of the same essence', then how can the Father and the Spirit be supernatural, but the Son not? The 'God made flesh' thing surely only works if Jesus was actually God's supernatural Son.
No. Orthodox doctrine is that Jesus is a normal man, born and developed in the usual way, not some sort of avatar inserted into the world by God.
There is no obvious reason that a virgin conception is neccessary for that.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
No. Orthodox doctrine is that Jesus is a normal man, born and developed in the usual way, not some sort of avatar inserted into the world by God.
There is no obvious reason that a virgin conception is neccessary for that.
That's orthodox?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Yes, of course its orthodox! And even Orthodox. Jesus is of the same human nature as the rest of us. He wasn't made of some special Godstuff, wasn't some kind of supernatural manifestation. Its in the Chalcedonian Definition. To say anything different risks wandering into Monopyhsitism on the one hand or Docetism on the other.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
No. Orthodox doctrine is that Jesus is a normal man, born and developed in the usual way, not some sort of avatar inserted into the world by God.
There is no obvious reason that a virgin conception is neccessary for that.
That's orthodox?
Yes. That's orthodox. And the Virgin Birth is also orthodox. But there's no way to make the Virgin Birth important for the Incarnation without heading deep into heretical territory.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, of course its orthodox! And even Orthodox. Jesus is of the same human nature as the rest of us. He wasn't made of some special Godstuff, wasn't some kind of supernatural manifestation. Its in the Chalcedonian Definition. To say anything different risks wandering into Monopyhsitism on the one hand or Docetism on the other.
I may be misunderstanding you Ken, but you seem to be saying that Jesus, in his nature, is not divine - just a man and no more.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
No, no more than Athanasius or the Councils! The opposite view is the one they condemned as Monophytism. (And which the Egyptians and Ethiopians and Armenians now claim they never really held)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, of course its orthodox! ...He wasn't made of some special Godstuff...
??? ...being of one substance with the Father...
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I may be misunderstanding you Ken, but you seem to be saying that Jesus, in his nature, is not divine - just a man and no more.
Bzzt - monophysitism. You say, "Jesus, in his nature, is", implying that Jesus has only one nature. Hence: mono - one, physis - nature. Orthodox Christian doctrine is that Jesus has two natures. In one of his natures Jesus is indeed just a man and no more. In his other nature Jesus is God.
If we leave the philosophical theology to one side, the take home is that God became an ordinary human being just like all of us. Not a demigod. Not a half-God half-man hybrid. God became an ordinary human being.
eta: 'of one substance with the Father' does not mean Jesus is made out of the same stuff as the Father. God is not made out of any kind of stuff. Substance here is used in the original philosophical sense, to mean a particular entity with its own individual existence.
[ 05. April 2013, 22:15: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
