Thread: What do we mean by Protestant, or indeed Reformed? 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=025223
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
The thread about the enthronement of Archbishop Justin raised the question of what is meant by Protestant, and the point was raised that it is not a synonym for Reformed. So, my question is, what do these terms mean?
The Church of England claims to be "both Catholic and Reformed". Are these terms of liturgy, theology, organisation, or something else?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The term 'Reformed' refers to a Calvinistic theological perspective. My understanding is that the CofE is traditionally Catholic in liturgical and ecclesiastical terms, and Calvinistic in theological terms.
However, not all Protestants are Calvinists; John Wesley's Methodists and their revivalist and Pentecostal descendants are described as Arminian. Presumably not all Anglicans are Calvinists either, and this messageboard has taught me that some of them chafe against Catholic liturgies and ecclesiastical controls.
I'll leave it to a specialist to describe Calvinism and Armenianism, but I get the impression that the distinctions have more or less collapsed in British Christianity now. Or maybe it's simply that the terminology has been banished from the pulpit and from church life. Most of the people who seem to discuss the issue online are American. Some of them feel that the self-help, can-do implications of Arminianism have influenced almost all American churches, regardless of their official doctrines. Could the same be said of British churches? I don't know.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
Some of the Protestant ones are called "Kirks" in Scotland, and we have no Bishops, but men and women "ordained" in charge of the Kirks. It's quite different from CofE ones and definitely from RC.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I've never understood the 'reformed' in 'catholic and reformed', as a description of the C of E, to mean Reformed (capital letter) = Calvinist. Obviously there is a Calvinist element within the C of E, stronger at some times and some places than in others. But most Anglicans wouldn't own the title Calvinist (indeed most of us wouldn't understand what Calvinism is!).
To my mind, Catholic is the noun and reformed the adjective. The essential nature of the Church is to be Catholic, but it needs to be reformed from time to time (or rather, continually) to keep it so.
Protestant is a perfectly respectable term to describe more or less the same thing. Those of us who are by nature a bit rebellious, even non-conformist (though not Nonconformist) ought to rejoice in the description of Protestant. Unfortunately the term has come to mean the opposite of Catholic, and to be associated with Ian Paisley, with the street-corner ranters against Popery, or with the gloomier aspects of bible-focused and unsacramental religion.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I should probably clarify my current level of understanding.
As I see it, the Reformation split the western church, between those who remained in full communion with the RCC, and those who did not. Those parts of the western church and their offshoots which remain out of communion with Rome I would consider to be Protestant. I would also consider them to be reformed, having been transformed by the Reformation, in one way or another.
I struggle to see how a definition of Reformed can be limited only to Calvinism, as that would exclude Lutherans. I associate Calvinism with the Westminster Confession, which is still endorsed in full by few Christians, and never by the Church of England.
To be Protestant but not Reformed would seem to me to be limited to the sedevacantists.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Angloid
Oh, I know that the terms 'Calvinist' and 'Arminian' aren't really used or understood nowadays, and that not all Anglicans are Calvinist! I think this kind of terminology is about traditional rather than current differences.
The impression I'm getting already from this thread is that 'reformed' has two distinct meanings: it either means 'Protestant', as in the CofE and in Lutheranism, or it means 'Calvinist'. However, I've always read that the 'Reformed' part in the URC name was a reference to the traditional Calvinism of the two old denominations that merged in its creation. And the analysts of one Methodist church survey say it's rather odd for Methodists to describe themselves as 'reformed', since this term designates Calvinism, and John Wesley's Methodists, as I noted before, aren't known for their Calvinism. The commentators wouldn't have said this if they'd taken this word simply to mean 'Protestant', because by that token, all Protestants are 'reformed', and Methodists are obviously Protestants.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
This Anglican is proud to be a Protestant, and a Calvinist.
Oh shit, pride is a sin...
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, not all Protestants are Calvinists; John Wesley's Methodists and their revivalist and Pentecostal descendants are described as Arminian.
Erm, not exactly. Methodists, Salvationists and Nazarenes (I can't speak for the Penties) are acdtually Wesleyans, not true Arminians. The difference is that we, whilst not being Calvinists, would nonetheless subscribe to that part of Calvinism called 'total depravity.'
- soemthing that Arminians don't subscribe to. They say that one can simply choose to follow Christ; Wesleyans say that is impossible due to sin and that prevenient grace is required.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
...or with the gloomier aspects of bible-focused and unsacramental religion.
None taken!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
- soemthing that Arminians don't subscribe to. They say that one can simply choose to follow Christ; Wesleyans say that is impossible due to sin and that prevenient grace is required.
I doubt very much they would say one can simply choose to follow Christ. It's not a simple choice at all, even to an Arminian.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
The "Anglicans are not Protestant" idea got traction with the Anglo-Catholic Revival. "Protestant" was really a reference to "Anglicans who don't agree with us."
It has gained serious currency in the US and Canada, much to my regret. It does a large disservice to much of Anglican history and an especial disservice to Methodists who only gradually separated from the Anglicans in a series of complicated steps 1783-1820 or so.
In Canada the Calvinist/Arminian division collapsed completely in 1925 when the United Church was formed by merger between the Methodists, most Presbyterians, and the Congregationalists. The Twenty Articles, our doctrinal statement, are silent about Calvinism/Arminianism and most ministers and congregations just amble along and don't give it a second thought.
Anglo-Catholicism goes for Sacramental Arminianism, which is against Calvinism in both aspects.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, not all Protestants are Calvinists; John Wesley's Methodists and their revivalist and Pentecostal descendants are described as Arminian.
Erm, not exactly. Methodists, Salvationists and Nazarenes (I can't speak for the Penties) are acdtually Wesleyans, not true Arminians. The difference is that we, whilst not being Calvinists, would nonetheless subscribe to that part of Calvinism called 'total depravity.'
- soemthing that Arminians don't subscribe to. They say that one can simply choose to follow Christ; Wesleyans say that is impossible due to sin and that prevenient grace is required.
I defer to your greater theological knowledge, and I'm glad that my post prompted you to bring more precision to the debate. However, in my reading John Wesley is usually placed close to the Arminian camp than anything else; certainly, the Wesleyan Methodists are routinely contrasted with the Calvinistic types that predominated in Wales. I admit that my sources are often historical rather than theological.
In terms of 'total depravity', isn't it the case that Wesley eventually emphasised victory over sin rather than depravity? Also I would be wary of implying that Methodism, Salvationism and the Nazarenes have taken Wesley in the same direction up to the present point.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[qb]Erm, not exactly. Methodists, Salvationists and Nazarenes (I can't speak for the Penties) are actually Wesleyans, not true Arminians. The difference is that we, whilst not being Calvinists, would nonetheless subscribe to that part of Calvinism called 'total depravity.'
There are some Methodists who are Calvinist enough to subscribe to total depravity, but not many of them on this side of the pond. I don't know what passes for Methodist in England.
--Tom Clune
[ 24. March 2013, 00:08: Message edited by: tclune ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I struggle to see how a definition of Reformed can be limited only to Calvinism, as that would exclude Lutherans.
The story in Calvinist circles is that the term derives from a letter by the Queen of England who described the Protestants in Geneva as "more reformed". By this she meant that the Calvinists had gone further in breaking with Rome. i.e. Luther strove to eliminate any ecclesiastical traditions which he felt were contrary to Scripture-- Calvin sought to eliminate those not specifically mandated in Scripture.
That's our story and we're stickin' to it.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
However, not all Protestants are Calvinists; John Wesley's Methodists and their revivalist and Pentecostal descendants are described as Arminian.
Erm, not exactly. Methodists, Salvationists and Nazarenes (I can't speak for the Penties) are acdtually Wesleyans, not true Arminians. The difference is that we, whilst not being Calvinists, would nonetheless subscribe to that part of Calvinism called 'total depravity.'
- soemthing that Arminians don't subscribe to. They say that one can simply choose to follow Christ; Wesleyans say that is impossible due to sin and that prevenient grace is required.
Sorry Muddy, but Arminians do subscribe to the doctrines of both total depravity and prevenient grace.
Roger E. Olson's Arminian Theology: Myth And Realities is the best authority on the subject of which I am aware.
There was a stream of Calvinist Methodism which originated with Whitefield, was exemplified in the Countess Of Huntingdon's Connexion (a term which always sets my puerile sense of humour sniggering) and which today is practically moribund.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
The United Church of Canada believes in total depravity:
Article V of the Basis of Union (Of the Sin of Man)
quote:
We believe that our first parents, being tempted, chose evil, and so fell away from God and came under the power of sin, the penalty of which is eternal death; and that, by reason of this disobedience, all men are born with a sinful nature, that we have broken God's law and that no man can be saved but by His grace.
This did not drive away the Methodist Church of Canada.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Arminianism is basically Remonstrant Calvinism (as expressed at the Synod of Dort). The major difference between Arminianism and mainstream Calvinism is that Arminians believed that unimpaired free will was necessary to human dignity.
I have heard people describe Catholicism and Lutheranism as "Arminian," which is a rather bizarre historical error.
It would not be an exaggeration to describe the Edwardian and Elizabethan prayer books as Calvinist. Many of the Caroline Divines were Calvinists as well--by which I mean they were in line with the theology of the Institutes.
Calvinism is far from being non-sacramental. Calvin's theology of the Eucharist is probably higher than most people who haven't read him think.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Many of the Caroline Divines were Calvinists as well
With the rather high-profile exception of the Laudians, who were opposed by the Calvinitsts as much for their ecclesiology and sacramentalism as for their soteriology and anthropology.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
The term Protestant originated with the Protestation presented by Lutherans at the Diet of Speyer (1529), protesting against brakes on further reform of the church, and as the ODCC points out, in the sixteenth century was sometimes used of Lutherans to distinguish from them from the Reformed.
The Thirty-Nine Articles are thoroughly Reformed in their soteriology but not their ecclesiology, and the ODCC also points out that the word Protestant was never used in the BCP.
(The ODCC also makes the interesting point that Charles I used the word Protestant to mean neither Roman Catholic nor Puritan, ie Elizabeth’s via media!)
All the Reformed are Protestant, but not all Protestants are Reformed – exceptions include liberal Protestants, Arminian Protestants and Calvinist predestinarians who reject other Calvinist distinctives such as paedobaptism (eg Spurgeon), presbyterian ecclesiology and opposition to hymn-singing.
Today Protestantism means not Orthodox (despite Wesley’s sympathies with aspects of Orthodoxy) or Roman Catholic.
The boundaries with Roman Catholicism have become blurred since the advent of the charismatic movement in 1959 (in the preceding half-century, a Roman Catholic Pentecostal would have been an oxymoron, but a charismatic Roman Catholic is not) and by the “co-belligerence” or “ecumenism of the trenches” which has marked evangelical and RC co-operation in opposing things such as abortion, and which has been accompanied by theological initiatives such as the Evangelical And Catholics Together movement.
I don’t think anyone has yet mentioned the Anabaptists, who were and are a product of the Reformation and are undoubtedly Protestant, but whose soteriology is certainly not Reformed.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
...or with the gloomier aspects of bible-focused and unsacramental religion.
None taken!
None intended, Mudfrog! Sorry for the ambiguity. I can't imagine that your religion, bible-focused and unsacramental though it may be, is anything like gloomy. I hope you know what I mean though.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
This may surprise people but please be patient. There are several definitions of Reformed. Protestants are those who protested at the state of the Western Church in the 16th Century and were excommunicated by the see of Rome. It was 50/50 responsibilityand split the western church in two, the Roman Catholic Church was formed at the Council of Trent.
However lets go back to the state of the Protestants churches in the immediate situation after the split. They were dispersed set of churches centred around a number of city states. There was Luther's one, there was one in Basel, there was one in Zurich under Huldyrich Zwingli, there was Geneva under William Farel, there was Strasbourg. I doubt I have listed all of them. The absence of Calvin is deliberate, he is second generation, not one of this original. So not one Protestant Church, there has never been a split between the Reformed and Lutherans because we have never been together!
Now enter John Calvin. First he is French, a refugee and I think never ever took citizenship Geneva though he did of Strasbourg. In someways you need to split Calvin the theologian from Calvin the Church adminstrators. The theologian is pivotal in church thought, he basically takes the theology of the Western church and reframes it in a way that paves the way for systematic theology.
As an adminstrator he is far sighted and does a number of important things. I would note among these the greater involvement of laity in church administration. However he also wanted to create unity in these diverse city churches.
He failed with the tri-partite version including the Lutherans, I suspect trying to reconcile Luther and Zwingli was beyond even John Calvin despite them being both dead by this time. However a second attempt resulted in agreement between the Genevans and the Church in Zurich. As a unity across churches created by the Reformation it has used the title Reformed. The Reformed tradition has ever since been one that splits and merges. Calvin seems to be the father of ecumenism.
So now there are three different definitions of Reformed
- The western church as a whole is Reformed in the sense that the theological debate takes place largely within the terms of the debate as created by Reformed theologians. If you are arguing about whether Arminianism or Predestinarianism is right you are conducting a discussion in Reformed theology and intriguing one that would not have seem ill formed to Calvin.
- The churches that trace their line back to the Consensus Trigernius, many of which belong to World Communion of Reformed Churches. There are people who have split who do not belong. This intriguingly has a very broad range of theology. It never for them has been solely John Calvin. The theology is broad.
- Finally there are those who are inspired by John Calvin and see him as almost the sole theologian for them and often summarise it as in TULIP. These are quite often quite separate from those in definition 2. The fact that if we take Calvin on his own terms he would be highly doubtful over the TULIP.
I am Reformed in the sense of 1 & 2 but I owe too much to other theologians to be 3.
Jengie
[ 24. March 2013, 09:47: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Actually rethinking 3 needs splitting into 2, there are those who work in the tradition that comes for Calvin and is broad, I am among them and the 39 articles is recognisably a Reformed document to those of us who are. It is low Calvinist.
Then there are the purist or narrow Reformed which is what I describe above. Those who seek to out Calvin Calvin and to keep to a pure theology. I tend to refer to these as Neo-Calvinist,who take only John Calvin as authoritative and treat the rest of the theological tradition only to the extent it fits with this.
The CofE has 1 & 3a definition of Reformed. Fails 2 outright and has a few who want to make it 3b
Jengie
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
My apologies about misrepresenting the Arminian position; I must have read somewhere, probably from a Calvinistic source, that Arminians don't believe in total depravity and that they believe that a person can simply decide to follow Jesus though their own volition. I have heard it said by Calvinists that in Arminianism, such faith is contributed by the believer and therefore is salvation by works rather than grace.
I know that in Wesleyanism we do believe in TD and that saving faith is given as a result of the prevenient grace of God. That is different to me deciding to put my faith in God and simply making a choice to invite Jesus into my heart. It is that difference that I thought was seen in Arminianism.
If not, then I am slightly confused. Who are the people then, who do not believe in prevenient grace and total depravity?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I struggle to see how a definition of Reformed can be limited only to Calvinism, as that would exclude Lutherans.
Well, its just a name. The Romans are not the only catholic Christians, the churches in communion are not the only orthodox, Anglicans aren't the only Christians in England or who speak English (and most of them these days are neither), Baptist churches are not the only ones who baptise, Presbyterians are not the only ones who ordain presbyters, evangelicals are not the only ones who proclaim the Gospel. And so on. And what JJ said about the history of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
There was a stream of Calvinist Methodism which originated with Whitefield, was exemplified in the Countess Of Huntingdon's Connexion (a term which always sets my puerile sense of humour sniggering) and which today is practically moribund.
When I was in my teens there were - probably still are - a few Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion churches in and around Brighton (which is where I'm from).
Howell Harris's & George Whitfield's Calvinist Methodists separated from the CofE in the 1810s and 20s. They became the dominant church in many parts of Wales - most of them joined the new Welsh Presbyterian denomination, which is not very large today but was hugely important in the 19th century.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Countess's lot are still alive and kicking in the Fens.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
A key issue for Calvinist theology deals with the question of the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ. A pure Calvinist would argue that since Jesus Christ ascended, it would be impossible for him to be in, with and under the bread and the wine as the body and blood of Christ (I understand I am taking a Lutheran approach to this).
Episcopalians believe that the body and blood are with the bread and wine (consubstantiation).
Therefore they are not reformed in the since of being a Calvinist church.
Calvinists also believe in double predestination--just as some are predestined to heaven, others are predestined to hell)
Anglicans--as I understand them--believe that God wants all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth
Therefore Anglicans do not accept Calvinist theology.
Calvinists argue for the Preservation of the Saints--once saved always saved. If you are not acting as a "saved" person, you belong to the "other" group. (my interpretation)
Anglicans do recognize that people can fall away from the faith, and we are all still saints and sinners.
Therefore, Anglicans are not Calvinists.
I think the term "Reformed" for Anglicans goes to their structure more than anything else.
A better term may be "reforming" which is a continuing process, not forgetting its background, but also addressing modern issues.
Reformed is so static. Reforming means the processing is still going on.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The tern "protestant" was actually coined by Roman Catholics referring to those who were separating themselves from the Bishop of Rome. It was meant as a term of derision.
For the longest time Anglicans and Lutherans avoided the term because we did not want to be lumped in with Calvinists, Arminians, Anabaptists, or Zwinglians. Given the current fundamentalist movement, there are still reasons to avoid the term, in my book.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
No.
quote:
Calvinists also believe in double predestination--just as some are predestined to heaven, others are predestined to hell)
Positively not. There are many, many Calvinists who believe in predestination, just not double-predestination.
quote:
Calvinists argue for the Preservation of the Saints--once saved always saved. If you are not acting as a "saved" person, you belong to the "other" group. (my interpretation)
Who have you been discussing theology with? The only time we can know for sure whether we are saved or not is at the Second Coming.
quote:
pure Calvinist would argue that since Jesus Christ ascended, it would be impossible for him to be in, with and under the bread and the wine as the body and blood of Christ (I understand I am taking a Lutheran approach to this).
Yes, and as a characterization of Reformed views it is flat wrong. If not backsliding into pure Memorialism, classic Calvinism goes for "Spiritual Presence". The United Church of Canada's Basis of Union states it thus:
quote:
The Lord's Supper is the sacrament of communion with Christ and with His people, in which bread and wine are given and received in thankful remembrance of Him and His sacrifice on the Cross; and they who in faith receive the same do, after a spiritual manner, partake of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ to their comfort, nourishment, and growth in grace. All may be admitted to the Lord's Supper who make a credible profession of their faith in the Lord Jesus and of obedience to His law.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
The word 'Protestant' comes from the Latin, protestari, meaning "to witness, testify." It does not mean "to protest." The name of "Protestants" was first used by a group of Lutherans about themselves in the 1529 Imperial Diet of Speyer in Germany.
Incidentally:
quote:
"Of all the Protestant groups today, it is The Salvation Army that represents the best chance of entering into full communion with Rome... I'm serious, for I see The Salvation Army as an authentic expression of classical Christianity. (They) are clear about the person and nature of Jesus Christ. You are close to Rome on many ethical issues. The ordination of your officers is for function and good order within the denomination and would not be an issue affecting priesthood." Cardinal Bernard Law
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Just in case someone is unsure about the meaning of 'protestari':
definition
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
For the longest time Anglicans and Lutherans avoided the term...
That's not really true. As well as what SPK said, Anglicans universally regarded themselves as Protestant in the 17th, 18th, and most of the 19th century. And most still do. In the UK its even part of our constitution. The king or queen has to be a Protestant by law. In Ireland, where this stuff matters more than in most places the Church of Ireland is most definitely Protestant. The period of history when its members ran the show is called the Protestant Ascendancy.
And here in England at least some Anglicans self-identify as Calvinists or Reformed. (JJ's sense 3b). And the CofE is and always has been in full communion with some Lutherans.
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The tern "protestant" was actually coined by Roman Catholics referring to those who were separating themselves from the Bishop of Rome. It was meant as a term of derision.
For the longest time Anglicans and Lutherans avoided the term because we did not want to be lumped in with Calvinists, Arminians, Anabaptists, or Zwinglians. Given the current fundamentalist movement, there are still reasons to avoid the term, in my book.
Which is why I have always liked the description of Anglican and Lutheran churches in the Waterloo Declaration (the full communion agreement between ELCIC and the Anglican Church in Canada): "Lutherans and Anglicans...share a common heritage as catholic churches of the Reformation."
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gramps49:
[qb] The tern "protestant" was actually coined by Roman Catholics referring to those who were separating themselves from the Bishop of Rome. It was meant as a term of derision.
Do you have a source for this? It seems to contradict what I said.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The tern "protestant" was actually coined by Roman Catholics referring to those who were separating themselves from the Bishop of Rome. It was meant as a term of derision.
For the longest time Anglicans and Lutherans avoided the term because we did not want to be lumped in with Calvinists, Arminians, Anabaptists, or Zwinglians. Given the current fundamentalist movement, there are still reasons to avoid the term, in my book.
Which is why I have always liked the description of Anglican and Lutheran churches in the Waterloo Declaration (the full communion agreement between ELCIC and the Anglican Church in Canada): "Lutherans and Anglicans...share a common heritage as catholic churches of the Reformation."
Well let me quote the Westminster Confession at you quote:
The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all
And the Belgic Confession
quote:
We believe and confess
one single catholic or universal church—
a holy congregation and gathering
of true Christian believers,
awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ
being washed by his blood,
and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.
Do I need to find more? Basically if a Reformed confession or statement of faith refers to the Church, it explicitly refers to the catholic church.
It may not mean the same thing by Catholic as the Anglican Church does but then neither do the Lutherans nor the Roman Catholics for that matter.
Jengie
[ 24. March 2013, 22:45: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
When I refer to those who recognize the Bishop of Rome as their spiritual leader, I will refer to them as Roman Catholics.
I accept the concept of the catholic church meaning universal. However, many of the fundamentalist evangelist groups would flee from this word.
The topic of this thread, though, was what do we mean by protestant and reformed.
Note to mud: I double checked my information. I was wrong. The term "Lutheran" was coined by the Roman Catholics during the Council of Trent as a term of derision.
Protestant, though, was a political term coined by the princes of Germany who were separating themselves from Rome. The theologians who supported Luther preferred the term "evangelical (catholics)."
However, I will stand by what I said concerning the real presence of Christ in the sacraments and the parts of the TULIP theology I refereed to. As noted, though, some fellowships who come from the Calvinist background have moved away from the strict understanding of TULIP.
Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on
:
Jengie, I think your last sentence summarizes our difficulty in this discussion. We are all coming to many of the terms thrown out in this discussion - catholic, reformed/Reformed, Calvinist - through our own denominational, and personal, filters. The terms become slippery. As a Lutheran, I am not prone to thinking of myself as "Protestant." Yet for many of the people with whom I share communion each week, being "Protestant" is an essential part of their identity. Many Anglicans, and some Lutherans, identify as "Anglo-Catholic" or "Evangelical Catholic" as a way of distancing themselves from what they perceive to be more radical expressions of the Reformation. And yet I am well aware that I am in full communion with Presbyterians in the US, and that Christians of Reformed and Lutheran backgrounds form one united church in Germany.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Right Gramps 49
TULIP was only coined a hundred years after John Calvin. It was coined as part of Dutch controversy.It remains as do all Reformed statements of faith provisional (its not in the Bible). The synod of Ddort statement have not been accepted by Presbyterian a huge subset of the Reformed tradition (CofS is only the Westminster Confession, maybe with Scot thrown in, PCUSA does not have Ddort in there lot and so on.
You really DO NOT KNOW the Reformed tradition but are dealing with a caricature.
Jengie
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
From my point of view the term Reformed (capital R) only applies to those churches that are Calvinistic.
Those UK churches that are Arminian/Wesleyan are from the Catholic tradition that has been reformed from within. This would include The Salvation Army which traces its spirituality, doctrine and government back through Methodism, into Anglicanism and ultimately into Catholicism.
The Calvinistic churches - Presbyterian, Baptist, etc - would not have that ancestry.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
"Consubstantiation" is not an accurate description of Anglican eucharistic theology.
The prayer books (at least before 1979) teach a kind of virtualism in the Eucharist; that the elements are physically unchanged, but that through them the power (virtus) of the Body & Blood of Christ are transferred to believers.
The most common Anglican attitude on the ground is the affirmation of the Real Presence, agnostic as to its mechanics. Although of course you can find Anglicans running the gamut from memorialist to Thomist as far as the Eucharist is concerned.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
As a western Canadian, without much of the sophistication of people from other places with longer history and more understanding of the subtleties, the term Protestant is used here in the specific sense of "not Roman Catholic". "Reformed" usually passes over our heads, but with discussion, we usually understand it to mean "not traditional churches", with that pretty well undefined, but "traditional" most probably meaning meaning churches that were around for the 100 years or so the provinces have existed.
It was interesting to see an eastern church that is in communion with Rome set up a couple of years ago. I don't think it fit with any of the prior understandings for most people (being in communion with Rome is not necessarily obvious), and it was simply considered "other". However, if they have a fall supper* and sell tickets, it will probably aid in understanding.
*means a turkey dinner with all the trimmings. That's about as close as we get to "consubstantiation", with the most critical factor being whether they make tea that doesn't get cross contaminated by being served in coffee urns.
[ 25. March 2013, 02:55: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Calvinists also believe in double predestination--just as some are predestined to heaven, others are predestined to hell)
Positively not. There are many, many Calvinists who believe in predestination, just not double-predestination.
It is true that Calvinists come in various shapes, sizes and numbers of points, but it is also true that Calvin himself believed in double election:
"...for some eternal life is pre-ordained, for others eternal damnation" Institutes Bk 3 Ch xxi
[ 25. March 2013, 06:04: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Therefore Anglicans do not accept Calvinist theology.
Up to a point, Lord Copper...
The anthropology and soteriology of the Thirty-Nine Articles is certainly in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition - see Articles IX to XVIII.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I don't know whether this has something to do with what side of the water you're coming from, but Ken and Jengie are the people whose contributions to this thread make sense to me.
Whether some Anglo-Catholics like it or not, the CofE has been unequivocally Protestant since the accession of Queen Elizabeth in 1558, and Reformed, in the sense of being on the reformed side of the Reformation.
It has usually been rather less unequivocally Reformed in the Calvinist, Westminster Confession sense. The establishment in the later part of Queen Elizabeth's reign is the nearest point that tradition came to being the CofE norm. I suspect most of the laity never noticed, yet alone took the bait.
Two things that have been consistent have been a suspicion of liturgical flummery and a suspicion of the Pope and Popery. These are still more prevalent than some shipmates would like to believe. But it is silly to ignore this.
[ 25. March 2013, 11:46: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
As someone coming from an 'unchurched' background, I wonder whether the baggage of this terminology should be jettisoned as it seems to perpetuate unnecessary divisions.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
One person's ballast and baggage that can be jettisoned overboard is someone else's precious distinctive - so it is very hard to decide what to ditch - even if it were possible.
So, for instance, to pick a few Shippies at random - Mudfrog would cling to one piece of baggage that Jengie, say, or Ken, say, would be happy to chuck overboard - whilst he would equally be willing to kick other things into touch (to mix metaphors) which they would undoubtedly want to retain.
This doesn't just happen in Protestant circles. It happens all over.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Backing up a bit, I find myself in sympathy with Jengie's somewhat exasperated tone at times when posters miss the nuances within the overall and broadly Reformed position. I think this is because - inevitably given the nature of these things - there are so many self-appointed spokespeople who would claim that their 'take' is the correct Reformed one.
If you have a semper reformanda agenda then everything's up for grabs (other than what's between the covers of the Bible and even then there isn't agreement as to exactly what it all means, of course).
The corollary of that is inevitably a 'I'm more Reformed/less Reformed than you' approach. If we're going to be reformed or Reformed then we have to live with that.
The loudest voices are often at the extremes. I've been on RC and Orthodox chat-rooms where posters - particularly from the US - have only ever come across particular forms of fundamentalist Protestant and they assume that, for instance, all Reformed Christians are into double-predestination or that all Pentecostals believe that you have to speak in tongues in order to be saved ...
They take some convincing that not all Protestants adhere to this kind of views.
Conversely, others have only come across ultra-liberal Protestants and they seem to think that we're all desperately liberal and out to undermine the faith and so on ...
It all depends on who you've been exposed to the most.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Therefore Anglicans do not accept Calvinist theology.
Up to a point, Lord Copper...
The anthropology and soteriology of the Thirty-Nine Articles is certainly in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition - see Articles IX to XVIII.
However, a large number of Anglicans wouldn't agree with the bulk of the 39 articles (the Reformed leaning would take exception to what they would see as the Erastianism of certain articles) even assuming they had read them.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Raptors Eye
The problem with jettisoning the language is we would have to create a new set to talk about these things. No language is going to be entirely neutral and efficient and yes it has a habit of picking up layers but that is a property of language for you not Christianity. I have at times played with using alternative terms but it only works as long as you make a good deal of effort to keep them in people's conciousness.
Jengie
Posted by Fëanor (# 14514) on
:
Regarding double-predestination, ISTM that if one accepts predestination to salvation, then there exist only three logical corollaries regarding those not in the set of the "predestined":
1. They are damned (which is indistinguishable from double-predestination -- by selecting members into set A, one is simultaneously selecting members into the set B which is equivalent to Not-A)
2. They cease to exist (annihilation-ism)
3. They don't exist (universalism)
As such, I've never given much credence to people who claim to believe in predestination, yet disavow double-predestination, annihilation-ism, and universalism.
Perhaps one of the ship's Reformed contingent could explain my error?
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I once thought that one could happily classify all non-Catholic and non Orthodox christians as Protestant or Reformed until I was informed by posters here that this was emphatically not the case.
In Marseilles on the main street,la Canebiere,there is a late 19th century church,called popularly the 'Eglise des Reformes'
It is ,in fact the Catholic church of St Vincent de Paul built on the site of an earlier convent of the Reformed Augustinians.So 'Reformed' can be used for Catholic churches also,although I did get my nose on a plate for suggesting this might be possible.I'm prepared to accept that this is a quid pro quo for the many arguments about who has the right to call themselves Catholic.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
should have made clear that' eglise des Reformes' means 'church of the Reformed'
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel: One person's ballast and baggage that can be jettisoned overboard is someone else's precious distinctive - so it is very hard to decide what to ditch - even if it were possible.
So, for instance, to pick a few Shippies at random - Mudfrog would cling to one piece of baggage that Jengie, say, or Ken, say, would be happy to chuck overboard - whilst he would equally be willing to kick other things into touch (to mix metaphors) which they would undoubtedly want to retain.
This doesn't just happen in Protestant circles. It happens all over.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Raptors Eye
The problem with jettisoning the language is we would have to create a new set to talk about these things. No language is going to be entirely neutral and efficient and yes it has a habit of picking up layers but that is a property of language for you not Christianity. I have at times played with using alternative terms but it only works as long as you make a good deal of effort to keep them in people's conciousness.
Jengie
I'm not suggesting that language connected with present-day theological viewpoints is jettisoned, but that which should be consigned to history books such as 'Protestant' and 'Reformed'. As others have mentioned, their continued use brings with it assumptions and prejudices which are at odds with reality and perpetuate perceived divisions which no longer apply.
Happily for me, I was ignorant of the implications of the words when I began to attend church, but it may well be off-putting and hold people back if they're led to believe that these people believe 'x' or 'y'. In fact, from my observation and discussions with people from various denominations, there are a wide variety of views within all churches.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Before I forget, I can think of at least one Reformed innovation in worship that Anglicans use more than Reformed churches.
It is responsorial psalms and the person responsible is Huldrych Zwingli, who banned singing a music from churchh, but wanted the people to participate so this is how he did it! So all you people who say daily prayer and say the psalms responsorially, realise at that point you are using a Reformed practice.
That just illustrates the problem when you are dealing with the Reformed tradition, there is so much more to it than a simplistic theological summary.
Oh and if you want a postmodern take on the Eucharist, just have a go at John Calvin's version of Spiritual Presence. It can be read as higher than Luther or as straight memorialism and the language is the language of sign and symbol.
Jengie
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
Regarding double-predestination, ISTM that if one accepts predestination to salvation, then there exist only three logical corollaries regarding those not in the set of the "predestined":
1. They are damned (which is indistinguishable from double-predestination -- by selecting members into set A, one is simultaneously selecting members into the set B which is equivalent to Not-A)
2. They cease to exist (annihilation-ism)
3. They don't exist (universalism)
As such, I've never given much credence to people who claim to believe in predestination, yet disavow double-predestination, annihilation-ism, and universalism.
Perhaps one of the ship's Reformed contingent could explain my error?
What the creator of self-illuminating jewels here said. The difference between "not chosen to be saved" and "chosen for damnation" seems esoteric and meaningless to me. It still means that if you find yourself roasting to a crisp in the next life it's because God overlooked you when making his list.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
My NFI lead elder used to say that he was not a Protestant - because he was no-longer protesting. His view was that being a 'Protestant' meant that there was a barrier to fellowship and prayer with Roman Catholic Christians.
I agree with the use of 'Reformed' as an adjective. However the word clearly means something else to Calvinists. Just as Evangelical means something different to Lutherans.
In the Church of England Arminianism and the High Church party have certainly been linked. This was the tradition that Wesley inhabited. I would be happy to take the label Wesleyan, which I would see as reflecting personal encounter with Christ, discipline in prayer and service, and the essentialness of the sacraments. There are historical and relational links between Wesleyanism and the Oxford Movement.
Wesleyan Eucharistic theology was sacrificial in tone - seeing the Eucharist as 'offering'. If one was trying to divide global Christianity in two I would suggest that is a more helpful line. But it is not very neat as it would run straight through several denominations, Anglican, Methodist and Lutheran.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Before I forget, I can think of at least one Reformed innovation in worship that Anglicans use more than Reformed churches.
It is responsorial psalms and the person responsible is Huldrych Zwingli, who banned singing a music from churchh, but wanted the people to participate so this is how he did it! So all you people who say daily prayer and say the psalms responsorially, realise at that point you are using a Reformed practice.
Yes, but the psalms were sung (or said) antiphonally in the Roman office long before this. Zwingli's only innovation is in forbidding singing; prior to the Reformation, the psalms would certainly have been said antiphonally in situations where singing was not practical or possible.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not sure that we are in a position to consign some of these issues/divisions to an interesting keynote in ecclesiastical history, Raptor Eye. Just because you think they are off-putting and not important doesn't mean that they aren't important to other people's self-identity or the way they understand and work out their faith.
I mean, I don't see Jengie Jon abandoning the use of the term 'Reformed' any time soon, can you?
That's not to say whether Jengie Jon is right or wrong but Jengie Jon wouldn't be Jengie Jon if she didn't have her particular understanding of these things ...
To that extent, Jengie Jon is living out a tradition ... whether thee, me or anyone else disagrees with that is a different issue.
If Jaroslav Pelikan was right when he said that 'Tradition is the living faith of the dead and traditionalism the dead faith of the living ...' then Jengie, and other Reformed Christians are working out the Reformed tradition in a living way - not in a mausoleum/museum type way.
I would suggest that we cannot consign any tradition to the dustbin of history when it still has living adherents.
The fact that Jengie Jon and others are still finding spiritual nourishment through the Reformed tradition suggests to me that it certainly isn't dead in the water.
As to whether it produces a barrier to outsiders ... well, that could be said of any Christian tradition.
'I don't want to be [Roman Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/Pentecostal/Wesleyan/Lutheran/Quaker/etc] - delete tradition of choice - because ...'
We're all part of one tradition or another whether we like it or not.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
But it is not very neat as it would run straight through several denominations, Anglican, Methodist and Lutheran.
Doesn't almost every dividing line in Christianity run straight through Anglicanism?
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Before I forget, I can think of at least one Reformed innovation in worship that Anglicans use more than Reformed churches.
It is responsorial psalms and the person responsible is Huldrych Zwingli, who banned singing a music from churchh, but wanted the people to participate so this is how he did it! So all you people who say daily prayer and say the psalms responsorially, realise at that point you are using a Reformed practice.
Yes, but the psalms were sung (or said) antiphonally in the Roman office long before this. Zwingli's only innovation is in forbidding singing; prior to the Reformation, the psalms would certainly have been said antiphonally in situations where singing was not practical or possible.
Yes but laity saying it!
Jengie
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Just to reiterate that it is an understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, to say that Protestant means someone who is protesting.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The loudest voices are often at the extremes. I've been on RC and Orthodox chat-rooms where posters - particularly from the US - have only ever come across particular forms of fundamentalist Protestant and they assume that, for instance, all Reformed Christians are into double-predestination or that all Pentecostals believe that you have to speak in tongues in order to be saved ...
They take some convincing that not all Protestants adhere to this kind of views.
Conversely, others have only come across ultra-liberal Protestants and they seem to think that we're all desperately liberal and out to undermine the faith and so on ...
It all depends on who you've been exposed to the most.
That makes sense.
Also I think churches - like all other organisatons that survive - develop a sort of immune system against their rivals. Habits and traditions and rituals and doctrines that make you less likely go over to the other side. Most European Protestants are very good at not being Roman Catholic. We've had five centuries of practice.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Up to a point, Lord Copper...
The anthropology and soteriology of the Thirty-Nine Articles is certainly in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition - see Articles IX to XVIII.
However, a large number of Anglicans wouldn't agree with the bulk of the 39 articles (the Reformed leaning would take exception to what they would see as the Erastianism of certain articles) even assuming they had read them. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I reckon I can sign up to about thirty-six-and-a-half of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
But it is not very neat as it would run straight through several denominations, Anglican, Methodist and Lutheran.
Doesn't almost every dividing line in Christianity run straight through Anglicanism?
Most of them run through our parish. Including that one.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The fact that Jengie Jon and others are still finding spiritual nourishment through the Reformed tradition suggests to me that it certainly isn't dead in the water.
Not so long ago it managed to produce Karl Barth, the Iona Community, and Taize - as well as Fred Phelps.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Yes, but the psalms were sung (or said) antiphonally in the Roman office long before this. Zwingli's only innovation is in forbidding singing; prior to the Reformation, the psalms would certainly have been said antiphonally in situations where singing was not practical or possible.
Yes but laity saying it!
Jengie
Rare, but not unknown, prior to the Reformation.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Up to a point, Lord Copper...
The anthropology and soteriology of the Thirty-Nine Articles is certainly in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition - see Articles IX to XVIII.
However, a large number of Anglicans wouldn't agree with the bulk of the 39 articles (the Reformed leaning would take exception to what they would see as the Erastianism of certain articles) even assuming they had read them.
I reckon I can sign up to about thirty-six-and-a-half of them.
In that, I expect you are something of an exception ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
For the large number, I suspect that generalisation is accurate.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The fact that Jengie Jon and others are still finding spiritual nourishment through the Reformed tradition suggests to me that it certainly isn't dead in the water.
As to whether it produces a barrier to outsiders ... well, that could be said of any Christian tradition.
'I don't want to be [Roman Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/Pentecostal/Wesleyan/Lutheran/Quaker/etc] - delete tradition of choice - because ...'
We're all part of one tradition or another whether we like it or not.
The tradition I'm a part of has much to do with Christ and little to do with any organised church. I have been and I am nourished through many sources, including the churches, traditional practices and historical writings. I find it offensive when an attendee of any Christian church runs down those who attend any other. Where is the love of one another that those outside of Christianity are supposed to see?
Yes, we have a rich and diverse traditional heritage to be celebrated, which continues to flourish and nourish the followers of Christ, when it isn't being used to deepen or affirm divisions and foster hatred. It's about time the inflammatory words of prejudice and conflict were left behind. That doesn't mean abandoning the current names of the various denominations, but like our surnames whose meanings are rooted in the past, they shouldn't attach fixed labels with lists of ingredients upon people.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd like to know what tradition that is, Raptor Eye, that has a lot to do with Christ and not a great deal to do with organised religion ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
If there is such a group around then pray tell me about it.
Incidentally, I'm not advocating dissing people on the basis of their tradition, Church, denomination or whatever else. Sure, I can be guilty of doing that.
The point I was trying to make was that we're all part of some tradition or other and we can't pretend otherwise. I'm not saying that you are - but I know plenty of people who claim to sit lightly by the 'traditions of men' and so on and who simply concoct other traditions of their own which they don't recognise as such.
We all do it.
All the time.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know plenty of people who claim to sit lightly by the 'traditions of men' and so on and who simply concoct other traditions of their own which they don't recognise as such.
We all do it.
All the time.
Yes, it's a temptation - to recognise as being of God only those people and things that come clothed in the traditional ways in which we - our group - talk of and think of God.
But it seems to me that there are those who don't have "holding lightly to the traditions of men" as an ideal.
You can't be tempted to fall short of an ideal you don't hold.
The man who falls short of the principle he professes doesn't invalidate the principle.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd like to know what tradition that is, Raptor Eye, that has a lot to do with Christ and not a great deal to do with organised religion ...
If there is such a group around then pray tell me about it.
Incidentally, I'm not advocating dissing people on the basis of their tradition, Church, denomination or whatever else. Sure, I can be guilty of doing that.
The point I was trying to make was that we're all part of some tradition or other and we can't pretend otherwise. I'm not saying that you are - but I know plenty of people who claim to sit lightly by the 'traditions of men' and so on and who simply concoct other traditions of their own which they don't recognise as such.
We all do it.
All the time.
I understand your points. I hope I don't concoct traditions of my own, and I do recognise that I must inevitably have been affected by the influences of the church on my culture, past and present, and by people I've spoken to over time. That doesn't impart upon me any particular tradition, save that of the C of E, perhaps, ref weddings, funerals etc. As I didn't come to faith via any church or individual connected to one, I perhaps have an unusual angle. While I do regularly attend and I'm heavily involved in a particular church tradition now, I'm ready to move to whichever church God leads me to, regardless of denomination.
I've noticed how rooted some people can be to the tradition of whichever church they attend, and there's nothing wrong with that unless it's used as a means of fostering hatred rather than love. But I'm repeating myself, enough said.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I've noticed how rooted some people can be to the tradition of whichever church they attend, and there's nothing wrong with that unless it's used as a means of fostering hatred rather than love. But I'm repeating myself, enough said.
What about truth?
Many of the things that dictate our 'denomination' or 'tradition' are actually related to what we believe to be true. The ascendency of certain 'truths' above others is actually a tradition in itself. However the recognition of competing 'truths' can be the first step to dialogue.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Don't get me wrong, Raptor Eye (or Russ) - I'm pretty eirenic and don't particularly value any particular church, denomination or tradition over any others - although I would be lying if I didn't admit to becoming more sacramental and liturgical in my approach the older I get.
I think though - and I'm not charging you with this - that it is possible to make a tradition out of not having a tradition - which is to make one's supposed lack of tradition into a tradition ...
I've seen this happen close-hand with the restorationist new churches which claimed not to have traditions and claimed not to be 'religious' but which, if anything, were even more 'denominational' and connectional at times than the denominations they used to rail against.
At least groups like the Vineyard will accept that they are another denomination.
With New Frontiers and some of the other restorationist groups to accept the 'd' word would be to accept that they had failed.
Being non-denominational is just as denominational as being denominational.
Again, I'm not saying this applies to you, but when I hear people say, 'I am not committed to any particular church or tradition but I am open to being led whereever God may lead me ...' it often seems to happen that the Almighty appears to lead them to something very similar or more-of-the-same in a different setting.
So, if they're charismatic, the Lord will apparently lead them to a charismatic setting in another denomination or 'stream'.
Or if they're an evangelical Baptist they might become an evangelical Anglican or vice-versa.
Sure, you do find people who change emphasis and churchmanship - but it's far more common to find people adhering to those traditions they are familiar with and comfortable with.
I'm not saying that's right or wrong - but often - particularly with evangelicals - you'll find that they swap churches not through doctrinal conviction or a change in churchmanship or approach but because there's better youth-work/closer fellowship/better preaching/better music in their opinion/or whatever else ...
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
With New Frontiers and some of the other restorationist groups to accept the 'd' word would be to accept that they had failed.
Which is very ironic, since NF have struck me for a long time as being one of the most organised and self-conscious of all the charismatic streams, with quite clear theological distinctives.
quote:
Being non-denominational is just as denominational as being denominational.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Although, in fairness, I do understand why many charismatic types dislike the word 'denomination'. It is a pretty crummy word. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Classic jargon and Christianese ...
We're all part of the Church. One tree, many branches ... ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
More than one person has suggested 'Wesleyanism' be used as a broad term to represent a particular theology that's found across a range of denominations.
This sounds reasonable from a specialist academic perspective, but to most Methodists today the word 'Wesleyan' is used principally as a historical term, not a theological one. The Wesleyan Methodist Church as was didn't cleave more closely to John Wesley's theology than any of the other Methodist churches did. In fact, some might say the Wesleyan Church was less 'Wesleyan' than the later breakaway movements, in certain respects.
As for 'Protestantism', it may become increasingly redundant because of the blurring faultlines in Christianity. IMO there's been an increasing Catholicisation of Protestants and a Protestantisation of Catholics. More importantly, Pentecostalism-charismaticism is becoming the dominant form of global Christian spirituality outside the RCC (and fairly significant within the RCC too), and will mostly engulf traditional Protestant concerns and divisions.
[ 27. March 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
What about truth?
Many of the things that dictate our 'denomination' or 'tradition' are actually related to what we believe to be true. The ascendency of certain 'truths' above others is actually a tradition in itself. However the recognition of competing 'truths' can be the first step to dialogue.
The pursuit of truth should surely keep us focussed on Christ, who is the truth, rather than focussed on others who we think don't have the truth.
Of course we think that whatever we believe is true, otherwise we wouldn't believe it. If those at the pulpit constantly affirm how right 'we' are and how wrong 'they' are, we're not going to expand or challenge our understanding or beliefs, we're not going to grow in faith, and we're not going to love our brethren in Christ as ourselves. I agree that dialogue is important, as is an open mind and readiness to learn and revise our beliefs.
The beliefs that 'dictated' the denomination or tradition we attend when it was first formed is very unlikely to be what 'dictates' it now.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel: Again, I'm not saying this applies to you, but when I hear people say, 'I am not committed to any particular church or tradition but I am open to being led wherever God may lead me ...' it often seems to happen that the Almighty appears to lead them to something very similar or more-of-the-same in a different setting.
So, if they're charismatic, the Lord will apparently lead them to a charismatic setting in another denomination or 'stream'.
Or if they're an evangelical Baptist they might become an evangelical Anglican or vice-versa.
Sure, you do find people who change emphasis and churchmanship - but it's far more common to find people adhering to those traditions they are familiar with and comfortable with. I'm not saying that's right or wrong - but often - particularly with evangelicals - you'll find that they swap churches not through doctrinal conviction or a change in churchmanship or approach but because there's better youth-work/closer fellowship/better preaching/better music in their opinion/or whatever else ...
I agree that we need to be conscious of these dangers as we discern and follow our calling. We don't all get it right all or even most of the time, as it's so easy to go our own way rather than God's. God often leads us out of our comfort zone. I would not have chosen my present church for myself, but I have grown in faith and understanding thanks to it. Interestingly, as soon as I began to grow too attached to it, events led to my having to accept that I must at some point move on again. It's very easy to put something in front of God on our 'order of importance' list.
I know that we do need labels to some extent, but I think we need to be very careful how we use them, and become conscious of our own prejudices. I'm not saying that this applies to you, but when some people speak of 'evangelicals' or 'charismatics' they have straw caricatures in their minds.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Of course, but how do we know when we are going our own way rather than God's and how do we know whether it is or isn't God's will for us to be in this, that or the other particular expression of church?
Some people feel that God is calling them to become RC, for instance - and yet you'll find that there are plenty of ex or former-RCs in many Protestant churches. Are they wrong and the people who leave Protestantism and become RC right? Or vice-versa?
Laurelin will say that we're all part of the Church - yet to RC and Orthodox Christians no Protestants are part of the Church in an organic and integral sense because The Church is THEIR Church as they define it.
That doesn't mean that they don't think that the rest of us aren't Christians, but they don't think we're part of the ChurchTM.
So we instantly have an issue.
I sometimes wonder whether it really matters that much to the Almighty where we happen to be ... but at other times I find myself wondering the opposite.
Of course, God is involved everywhere and in all places - irrespective of label.
So, it strikes me that if we aren't going to operate by some kind of assessment as to which particular group is THE Church then we are simply going to have to make our own judgements and go by our own tastes and inclinations - and that, being people, we are equally likely to claim God's will or guidance for what are effectively our own personal choices.
To give an example, I remember reading in a New Wine magazine recently how a particular vicar had decided to introduce charismatic practices and charismatic style services and so on at her church because 'I am a God-pleaser and not a man-pleaser.'
I found myself wondering whether it would actually 'please' God more if that church adopted that particular style or whether it went for bells and smells or hymn-prayer-sandwiches or whatever else. Another leader could introduce any one of those styles and approaches and equally feel that they were being a 'God-pleaser rather than a man-pleaser.'
How would they know the difference?
And would God be all that bothered in the first place?
For all they knew God might be better pleased with some other aspect rather than how they did or didn't conduct the worship.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
@ Gamaliel. Alright Mr G? Streuth - read your last post and agreed with all of it. What's the world coming to?
Responding to your question "how do we know if we're in the church God wants us in/promoting the liturgy he wants etc...
My take on that is that knowing isn't the best place to start. Is there some kind of eternal objective standard we're all measured against for every decision we make? Not convinced. God knows how we'll react in the world he's actualised, given that world is shaped by the decisions of free moral agents.
I reckon he's more interested in our motivations - whether we follow our convictions. Do we recognise our choice of church et al as the place where we do the good works he has prepared in advance for us to do?
I reckon Rev Green is in the zone when he asks us to consider what we regard as "truth". That's important in the context of the o/p.
Reminds me of Michael Harper who left all that great work he did promoting unity and charismatic ministry in C of E to join the Orthodox. Bottom line for him was some essentially standards that the true church had to adhere to.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I found myself wondering whether it would actually 'please' God more if that church adopted that particular style or whether it went for bells and smells or hymn-prayer-sandwiches or whatever else. Another leader could introduce any one of those styles and approaches and equally feel that they were being a 'God-pleaser rather than a man-pleaser.'
I think we can distinguish between two sets of differences. There are differences in style (choice of language, organ or guitars, ornate or plain etc.) that are pretty much entirely personal preference. God wants our best, whatever that may be (and for some people, that might even be ECUSA prayer C ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
), but these things don't, fundamentally, matter.
Then there are the actual theological differences between churches - we understand different things about God. This is important - we are called to know and love God, and to imitate Him to the best of our ability, which requires actually knowing who He is. So we should worry about this, and do the best job we can at understanding God.
But we're going to get some things wrong, because we're people.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, but how do we know when we are going our own way rather than God's and how do we know whether it is or isn't God's will for us to be in this, that or the other particular expression of church?
Some people feel that God is calling them to become RC, for instance - and yet you'll find that there are plenty of ex or former-RCs in many Protestant churches. Are they wrong and the people who leave Protestantism and become RC right? Or vice-versa?
For those people whose relationship with God includes consciousness of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, there are more cautions to be employed when discerning God's will than for those who don't have such consciousness. The more we're given, the greater our responsibilities.
Going by my own experience, God doesn't give a fig whether the church is run by the Salvation Army or the Anglicans, United Reformed, Methodists or whoever, God will lead us to where we will serve God's purposes at the time. That will be good for us too, although it might be uncomfortable. If we change labels, it doesn't matter as long as we continue to be willingly in harness to God's will and continue to use discernment.
God's nature doesn't change, it's our interpretations that vary, and in every congregation in every church there are various opinions. Any issue rests upon those with the opinion that lip service must be paid to specific doctrines in order to obtain membership. Honesty, integrity and inclusivity is surely nearer to Christ's teaching.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I am not so sure, being Reformed, the only one I know, goes deep, very deep. It leaves it mark upon people even if they later repudiate it. I do not think God prefers Reformed Christians, I do think he sees them as distinctive from other forms (the way an orange sweet is different from a lemon one).
Jengie
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I am not so sure, being Reformed, the only one I know, goes deep, very deep. It leaves it mark upon people even if they later repudiate it. I do not think God prefers Reformed Christians, I do think he sees them as distinctive from other forms (the way an orange sweet is different from a lemon one).
Jengie
Do you assume that the experience of God elsewhere does not run deep?
Do you assume that it does not leave a mark on people too, whether or not they later repudiate it?
Each church is distinctive as each one of us is distinctive. God loves us, every one, even though we don't always (or often) get it right.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
No. Just as orange flavour is not necessarily stronger than lemon flavour. All have the potential to be as strong, whether all are I can't say, because I do not know them.
By the way you assume that it is experience of God that differs. I am not happy with that, it is more the ways we understand our experience. That of course shapes it, but God is God, but it also shapes how we understand ourselves, how we think and how we react together. What I notice is that the tensions and themes within the Reformed tradition a hundred years ago, are often reflected today. From within the tradition we are often unaware of it. For instance I thought having a walking group was almost universal in UK churches until I started talking about it to those from other traditions.
Jengie
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
What I do believe is that traditions are systems that work to create the way people believe. It is therefore a good idea for a person to master one. Just as you need the learn a specific musical instrument (is a violin player better than a flute player?) so you need to learn one tradition. Once you have a degree of understanding of a tradition then learning from other traditions is worthwhile as a critique but blending means that you need to have a good degree of competency in both tradition.
The whole of these two posts are pretty much a standard take, shaped by my background, for someone who is fairly conservative on the liberal side of the Reformed tradition. I am not in the middle, Reformed tradition does not do "middle".
Jengie
[ 29. March 2013, 09:00: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
How do we know, how do any of us know, Mudfrog, whether there is or isn't such a thing as One Church?
The RCs have different orders, certainly, but they are not the same as denominations within Protestantism - although there are some similarities in the analogy you've drawn.
The Orthodox would claim to be One Church, of course, although it is a Church made up of lots of Autocephalous Churches - Greek, Russian, Romanian, Finnish etc etc
And then, of course, there are the non-canonical Orthodox who are not recognised as being 'kosher' by the various canonical bodies.
And so it goes on ...
Not to mention the various non-Chalcedonian Churches - Copts, Ethiopians, various Syriac and 'Jacobite' Churches etc.
Pragmatically, though, you are right in that there are loads of different flavours to choose from. Where we align ourselves across the spectrum is a moot point - particularly if you're like me and you like different aspects of all of them (or from what I can tell that is).
I think Truman White has hit on something about underlying convictions and taking a stance somewhere or other based on those. That ain't always easy but I admire those who can do it.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
By the way you assume that it is experience of God that differs. I am not happy with that, it is more the ways we understand our experience. That of course shapes it, but God is God, but it also shapes how we understand ourselves, how we think and how we react together.
Jengie
There are experiences of God which we share, but we don't all have the same experiences. I agree that we learn ways of interpreting our experiences through the language and teaching provided by individuals within the churches and by the traditional liturgies and practices, and that in many ways we are shaped and influenced by them. I don't think that they create the way we believe.
I understand your point about immersing ourselves in one tradition rather than 'dipping', but again this should be under God's guidance. For every thing there is a season. I learned a great deal by 'church-hopping' before being led deeply into a specific tradition. I don't assume that I will remain within it forever, even though I would like to. There is a danger of growing such an attachment that it becomes God in our eyes.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.....?
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
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
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
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.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
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?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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...
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
@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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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'.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
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.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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'.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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 ?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
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.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Never read 'im.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
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?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
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.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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)
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
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...
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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 ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0