|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Where do we draw the line?
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Two recent threads; Heresy and Incarnation; have both posed the question as to where the line marking 'orthodoxy' must be drawn. It also involves the question of when 'revelation' ceased.
Some would argue that the Scriptures are the limit of revelation. Anything not in accord with them ( which usually means not in accord with a particular interpretation of them) is not on.
Others on the threads have argued that 'orthodoxy' is to be defined as what the early Fathers agreed and Chalcedon seems to be the cut-off point.
I would disagree. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth so I take revelation to be on-going.
In other words there is no cut-off point. But your mileage might vary.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
Here's the problem I see with that: since the definition we are talking about is of "orthodoxy", then it can't really be just PERSONAL. yet, accepting that we each may have revelation on an ongoing basis means we may each have a different "orthodoxy", and that would seem to defy the very definition of the term.
I personally don't deny that God may continue to reveal truths to us over time. But there needs to be a way to discern which truths are just "my own" and which delineate "orthodox" belief. While I may firmly believe that God revealed some new and different thing to me, I can't really clam that new revelation to be "orthodox" if it has never before been revealed to the Church (however you define "Church").
I think that the ORthodox (note caps) approach of viwing "Truth" as that which has been accepted by the Chruch (Tradition) throughout time (including the present) may be best. it allows for the incorporation of new revelation, but not on an individual basis. it' means that if a belief (interpretation), over time, is accepted by the Church as a whole, then it is from God. Otherwise, it's suspect. Who determines whether a belief meets that criterion? Where is the bright line? I don't know that there is a bright line. there is only a range of certainty, from "definitely NOT Orthodox" to "definitely Orthodox" with many, many things falling in-between. the certainties may change over time, but they won't change willy-nilly and without due consideration of what was held to be true in the past.
In a way this may be seen as parallel to science (although I don't generally like drawing such parallels)in that new data do not usually negate old data, they just add to the database upon which conclusions are drawn. new data MAY (and quite often does) negate old conclusions, though. I see "revelation" as data here.
note: yes, I know sometimes data is just flawed.. but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking more about situations like Relativity modifying Newtonian Physics.. it just shows that there are limits, not that Newton was dead wrong. the data wasn't flawed, it was limited, and the conclusions still hold true... but only under specific conditions.
additional note: I'm a biologist, not a physicist, but all the biological examples I can think of off the top of my head tend to lead to dead horse issues.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
To me 'by their fruits you shall know them' provides a good cut-off point. If we live our faith in a way that is damaging to people inside or outside of the church, then we've crossed a line.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If we live our faith in a way that is damaging to people inside or outside of the church, then we've crossed a line.
I'd go a lot further and say that any faith that causes damage when put into practice is a badly constructed faith. I'd even go so far as to say that our faith is good only to the extent that it leads us to try to treat others well. Isn't the problem, though, that we normally use our faith to determine the true difference between damaging and helpful? A sincere, but misguided faith will lead us to dismiss the apparent damage as only temporary or inconsequential compared to what we think is the real, long-term benefit.
Regarding the OP, one can believe both (a) that Scriptures are the limit of written revelation and (b) that personal revelation from the Holy Spirit is on-going. So, in line with what Anyuta posted, I might expect you to accept an argument because it is based on Scriptures, but I can't expect you to accept an argument because it is based on my personal revelation.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
W Hyatt: A sincere, but misguided faith will lead us to dismiss the apparent damage as only temporary or inconsequential compared to what we think is the real, long-term benefit.
Yes, this is a risk.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Two recent threads; Heresy and Incarnation; have both posed the question as to where the line marking 'orthodoxy' must be drawn. It also involves the question of when 'revelation' ceased.
Some would argue that the Scriptures are the limit of revelation. Anything not in accord with them ( which usually means not in accord with a particular interpretation of them) is not on.
Others on the threads have argued that 'orthodoxy' is to be defined as what the early Fathers agreed and Chalcedon seems to be the cut-off point.
I would disagree. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth so I take revelation to be on-going.
In other words there is no cut-off point. But your mileage might vary.
I argue that revelation that is necessary for our salvation was fulfilled in the Christ event. Jesus Christ is our Saviour, we are not waiting for another Redeemer.
Therefore on this issue, revelation reached its conclusive end in the person of Jesus Christ.
Of course, God is still revealing new things everyday, but these things, IMHO are measured against the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
[ 02. August 2013, 04:12: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
I think revelation is ongoing, not necessarily because God is still revealing new things, but I think that we learn new things from what God has said and done.
For example, we have translated and reinterpreted many different parts of the bible as time has gone on. By research and archeology, we now know more about bible times and the people in those times than in previous generations. We reinterpret passages based on our understanding of the world rather than a 1st century Jewish/Hellenistic understanding.
This is new revelation.
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If we live our faith in a way that is damaging to people inside or outside of the church, then we've crossed a line.
I'd go a lot further and say that any faith that causes damage when put into practice is a badly constructed faith. I'd even go so far as to say that our faith is good only to the extent that it leads us to try to treat others well. Isn't the problem, though, that we normally use our faith to determine the true difference between damaging and helpful? A sincere, but misguided faith will lead us to dismiss the apparent damage as only temporary or inconsequential compared to what we think is the real, long-term benefit.
Regarding the OP, one can believe both (a) that Scriptures are the limit of written revelation and (b) that personal revelation from the Holy Spirit is on-going. So, in line with what Anyuta posted, I might expect you to accept an argument because it is based on Scriptures, but I can't expect you to accept an argument because it is based on my personal revelation.
I agree with Anyuta on this, I couldn't add anything to how the answer was put.
On the issue of damage/harm, isn't that as personal and subjective as personal revelation? What might constitute liberation for me might constitute harm to someone else (along the lines of: One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist)?
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Sergius-Melli: On the issue of damage/harm, isn't that as personal and subjective as personal revelation?
I think there are ways of doing harm that are quite universal.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Privilege must always harm itself for the benefit of the underprivileged. More: suffer harm from the underprivileged. Lay its life down. Willingly.
Anything heterodox there?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
