Ship of Fools: What is the heart of the Christian Faith?

Thread: What is the heart of the Christian Faith? 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=030766

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

On the Priestly Genetalia thread Ad Orientam said:

quote:
we [speaking for the Orthodox] have no intention of welcoming Anglicans, or RC's or whatever in unity as they are because our starting point is always, confess the orthodox faith first, then we can talk about unity.

Given that Anglicans, and RCs, happily assent to the Creeds I am left wondering what the Creeds leave out that is so important that we can be said not to possess "the orthodox faith".

In the same way parts of the Anglican Communion are threatening to leave because of the gay issue. Again, is this something that should have been added into the Creeds to make it quite clear to everyone?

How can we distinguish between "real" Christians and those who are just pretending? If not in the Creeds, where can we find the heart of the Christian faith?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

The Creed (we only use the one) was never meant as a complete summary of the faith but as a defence against a certain heresy. So, where do we find the orthodox faith? Certainly in the scriptures, the ancient liturgies, the council, the fathers and the lives of the saints.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Creed (we only use the one) was never meant as a complete summary of the faith but as a defence against a certain heresy. So, where do we find the orthodox faith? Certainly in the scriptures, the ancient liturgies, the council, the fathers and the lives of the saints.

Maybe you should see into the heart of the church, not its head.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Creed (we only use the one) was never meant as a complete summary of the faith but as a defence against a certain heresy. So, where do we find the orthodox faith? Certainly in the scriptures, the ancient liturgies, the council, the fathers and the lives of the saints.
Maybe you should see into the heart of the church, not its head.

It's not either or but both. That's why I became an Orthodox Christian.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
How can we distinguish between "real" Christians and those who are just pretending? If not in the Creeds, where can we find the heart of the Christian faith?

"Real" Christians are the ones who agree with you. Everyone else is just faking it. This is a very flexible method of determination, useful for all sides in any given intra-Christian dispute.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

An ichthus tends to do it.

If someone believes that Jesus is the Christ, and the Son of God, and professes their faith in him, then I consider them to be my brother (or sister) in Christ.

Whether they're a good Christian is a whole other question. But I'm sure they'd be able to pick on my faith as much as I could pick on theirs, so I don't see that as reason to declare them outside the tribe.*

(* With a couple of exceptions. Such as, for instance, Fred Phelps. Who I'm pretty sure is worshipping a Jesus of his own imaginings, rather than anything to do with the real thing.)

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
An ichthus tends to do it.

If someone believes that Jesus is the Christ, and the Son of God, and the Saviour of mankind, and professes their faith in him, then I consider them to be my brother (or sister) in Christ.

Whether they're a good Christian is a whole other question. But I'm sure they'd be able to pick on my faith as much as I could pick on theirs, so I don't see that as reason to declare them outside the tribe.*

(* With a couple of exceptions. Such as, for instance, Fred Phelps. Who I'm pretty sure is worshipping a Jesus of his own imaginings, rather than anything to do with the real thing.)

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

...grr. Silly edit window keeps enabling flood protection on me, and then stuffing up my post formatting on the eventual result.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

The terms 'the Christ', 'the Son of God' and 'the Saviour of Mankind' can mean different things. People interpret them in different ways. Do you allow for some leeway in this?

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The terms 'the Christ', 'the Son of God' and 'the Saviour of Mankind' can mean different things. People interpret them in different ways. Do you allow for some leeway in this?

Some, yes, but not an inexhaustible supply. Mormons, for instance, mean something so radically different by "Son" and "God" that I wouldn't classify them as agreeing with me on the subject whatsoever.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Creed (we only use the one) was never meant as a complete summary of the faith but as a defence against a certain heresy. So, where do we find the orthodox faith? Certainly in the scriptures, the ancient liturgies, the council, the fathers and the lives of the saints.

AO, I agree that all those entities embody the orthodox faith. But what does that faith contain that is not in the Creed? What would I, as an Anglican, have to believe in order to share in the orthodox faith?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

@OP

quote:
The view as articulated thus:
we [speaking for the Orthodox] have no intention of welcoming Anglicans, or RC's or whatever in unity as they are because our starting point is always, confess the orthodox faith first, then we can talk about unity.

is digusting and awful.

I take it some might be more welcoming than this to others who call themselves Christian and attempt to follow Jesus. It makes me remember offensive things said in my youth about people who wore odd clothes and spoke in funny ways and went to church in buildings where they sometimes spoke foreign languages.

Re the question in the thread's title, is not the heart of Christianity simply following Jesus and trying to be the least bit kind to one another. Charity, or to update the word, love. Explaining love as acting lovingly. I see nothing Jesusly in the quote that prompted this topic. Nil.

Perhaps the defence for the quote in the OP is about context, but it is still terrible. I take it as an outdated and sinful Old World way, the sort of terrible that has allowed people to pretend to follow Christ while killing each other, most recently in Europe I think in the former Yugoslav territories.

Thankfully, we have here various joint ministries among Anglican, Roman Catholics, United Church (means Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregationalists), Lutherans and Mennonites. There aren't enough Orthodox to bother with here - and I almost want to say, thankfully, but I suspect the quote does not articulate the reality about Orthodox except in some unique intolerant sense, hopefully answered by the context of the original debate. Please reassure that this is so.

If there were any Orthodox locally, I would hope to have them do what comes normally to us if there were more: join in. The separation articulated in the OP is a symptom, and coming together with Christ and in Christ is the cure. [Help]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Surely, Ad Orientem, you mainly mean formal unity (communion and such as well) would require that level of doctrinal and eccesiastical agreement, not loving each other and acting together as fellow Christians for various things?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
@OP

quote:
The view as articulated thus:
we [speaking for the Orthodox] have no intention of welcoming Anglicans, or RC's or whatever in unity as they are because our starting point is always, confess the orthodox faith first, then we can talk about unity.
is digusting and awful.

I take it some might be more welcoming than this to others who call themselves Christian and attempt to follow Jesus. It makes me remember offensive things said in my youth about people who wore odd clothes and spoke in funny ways and went to church in buildings where they sometimes spoke foreign languages.

Re the question in the thread's title, is not the heart of Christianity simply following Jesus and trying to be the least bit kind to one another. Charity, or to update the word, love. Explaining love as acting lovingly. I see nothing Jesusly in the quote that prompted this topic. Nil.

Perhaps the defence for the quote in the OP is about context, but it is still terrible. I take it as an outdated and sinful Old World way, the sort of terrible that has allowed people to pretend to follow Christ while killing each other, most recently in Europe I think in the former Yugoslav territories.

Thankfully, we have here various joint ministries among Anglican, Roman Catholics, United Church (means Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregationalists), Lutherans and Mennonites. There aren't enough Orthodox to bother with here - and I almost want to say, thankfully, but I suspect the quote does not articulate the reality about Orthodox except in some unique intolerant sense, hopefully answered by the context of the original debate. Please reassure that this is so.

If there were any Orthodox locally, I would hope to have them do what comes normally to us if there were more: join in. The separation articulated in the OP is a symptom, and coming together with Christ and in Christ is the cure.

But how can we be one if we d not share the same faith? That's what I don't understand and never will. Unity is more than holding hands and saying "Isn't it lovely that we all get along". If you can make a case for excluding the Arians, Montanists, Donatists or JW's then it's just a matter of degree.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Surely, Ad Orientem, you mainly mean formal unity (communion and such as well) would require that level of doctrinal and eccesiastical agreement, not loving each other and acting together as fellow Christians for various things?

Isn't the former what we're talking about? Oh, but I do believe we can be civil to each other and in a very limited sense even do things together. I'm not a fan of ecumenical services though and think they should be avoided. Ecumrnical discussions are for the most part pointless and sometimes even harmful.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The Creed (we only use the one) was never meant as a complete summary of the faith but as a defence against a certain heresy. So, where do we find the orthodox faith? Certainly in the scriptures, the ancient liturgies, the council, the fathers and the lives of the saints.
AO, I agree that all those entities embody the orthodox faith. But what does that faith contain that is not in the Creed? What would I, as an Anglican, have to believe in order to share in the orthodox faith?

That's not such an easy question. What orthodoxy is not, is just saying yes to the right things. Orthodoxy demands that we think with the Church, breath with the Church, participate in the life of the Church. Heart AND mind. Of course, some things we assent to expicitly, such as the Creed, and other things implicitly. And that's what thinking with the Church is really all about, that we understand the faith through the Church. Did you want a list? That could be very long indeed. Really what Orthodoxy expects from the West is repentence, then the rest will flow from that.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Ah, I think that may be the key then. If we're still able to acknowledge one another as practicing, despite our disagreements, the Christian faith, with mutual charity, then I think that matters more than some kind of formal ecclesiastical unity. [Smile]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But how can we be one if we d not share the same faith? That's what I don't understand and never will. Unity is more than holding hands and saying "Isn't it lovely that we all get along". If you can make a case for excluding the Arians, Montanists, Donatists or JW's then it's just a matter of degree.

I repeat my question from a couple of days ago (on a different thread, I think) - precisely to what extent must our faith be the same in order for there to be unity? ISTM what you want is for people to subscribe to your denomination's statements of faith and practice; that's enough unity for you.

Also, what do you think about defining unity as gathering around Christ? We reveal Christ to the world by loving one another and doing what he did (and more, Jesus said his followers would do!) while he was on earth. I think having ecumenical missions and social projects is far more important than ecumenical services; as long as we see ourselves as part of the church in our city / area, then personally I think gathering separately is not a huge problem. I think the main thing is recognising, supporting and praying for each other's work.

AO, you just seem to have a far stricter and broader than necessary view of what constitutes the essentials of the Christian faith...

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Really what Orthodoxy expects from the West is repentence, then the rest will flow from that.

Repentance from what?

From my manifold sins? Have already done that - and will continue to do so for as long as I keep committing them.

From not being Orthodox? No-one has yet demonstrated anything repentable about that.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Well, if AE is talking about unity in the sense of two denominations fusing into one, then of course that's going to get into a lot of issues regarding the different doctrines both groups hold.

But that's not at all necessary for the kind of unity we can all have as fellow Christians, praying together, loving one another, and working together on various things.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
But that's not at all necessary for the kind of unity we can all have as fellow Christians, praying together, loving one another, and working together on various things.

Yes, and from my limited experience it seems that when we do this, the doctrinal / worship practice differences seem to become, well, less important. I was working on a social project a couple of months back and got talking to a Roman Catholic wife and husband. Their vibrant love of God and evident enthusiasm for being open and upfront about their faith rocked a few of my preconceptions...

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

To be honest, I don't think any of this is about faith or what we believe: it's about authority.

To what source to do we look for authority to direct our belief and practice? I think as Christians we would (I hope) all answer "Jesus Christ" to that question. But as to how we receive that authority now, there is huge variability - Bible (which one?), (Holy) Tradition (which one?), Church (which one?), the influence today of the Holy Spirit (discerned by whom?), our own powers of Reason (alone or collectively?) - one of these to the exclusion of all others, or a blend of various ones? That is where fundamentally our differences lie.

To the statement Ad Orientem made:

quote:
Orthodoxy demands that we think with the Church, breath with the Church, participate in the life of the Church. Heart AND mind.

the question immediately arises which "Church"? *The* Church by whose definition? Is it enough to consider yourself part of the Church Universal in your own mind, or must you be part of the Church Universal by someone else's definition? And if so, whose?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But how can we be one if we d not share the same faith? That's what I don't understand and never will. Unity is more than holding hands and saying "Isn't it lovely that we all get along". If you can make a case for excluding the Arians, Montanists, Donatists or JW's then it's just a matter of degree.

Wow. Just wow. It is so much worse than I ever imagined.

Your argument of course is taking things to an illogical extreme, and I suspect anyone would see that. I have always viewed some things as rather interesting on the social level. Are people willing to "and also with you" when someone says "God/The lord be with you", and, the willingness to say "peace be with you" with the response "and also with you". Rather, no, there will not peace and God will not be with me from you.

You further mistake unity with working together.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
To be honest, I don't think any of this is about faith or what we believe: it's about authority.

To what source to do we look for authority to direct our belief and practice? I think as Christians we would (I hope) all answer "Jesus Christ" to that question. But as to how we receive that authority now, there is huge variability - Bible (which one?), (Holy) Tradition (which one?), Church (which one?), the influence today of the Holy Spirit (discerned by whom?), our own powers of Reason (alone or collectively?) - one of these to the exclusion of all others, or a blend of various ones? That is where fundamentally our differences lie.

To the statement Ad Orientem made:

quote:
Orthodoxy demands that we think with the Church, breath with the Church, participate in the life of the Church. Heart AND mind.
the question immediately arises which "Church"? *The* Church by whose definition? Is it enough to consider yourself part of the Church Universal in your own mind, or must you be part of the Church Universal by someone else's definition? And if so, whose?

You must know how I would answer that. The Church is visible and we must be visibly in communion with it. Yes, we (Orthodoxy) believe that we are THE Church.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Really what Orthodoxy expects from the West is repentence, then the rest will flow from that.

It's already been asked, but I too would ask, repent of what? It's hard to repent when you don't know what sin you may have committed.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

quote:
Really what Orthodoxy expects from the West is repentence, then the rest will flow from that.
It's already been asked, but I too would ask, repent of what? It's hard to repent when you don't know what sin you may have committed.

Repent of its errors, beginning with its addition to the Creed.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
AO, I agree that all those entities embody the orthodox faith. But what does that faith contain that is not in the Creed? What would I, as an Anglican, have to believe in order to share in the orthodox faith? ...

It's already been asked, but I too would ask, repent of what? It's hard to repent when you don't know what sin you may have committed.

Robert, forget it. You are asking in a Western mode. There is no Orthodox "Summa Theologiae". There is not even an Orthodox "Catechism". Nobody can give you a real answer to what you are asking there. At least certainly not a definitive answer that all Orthodox would agree with. That's just not out there.

If I want to be nasty, then I could say that Orthodoxy has intellectually flat-lined for the last thousand years. If I want to be nice, then I could say that for the last thousand years the Orthodox focus has been on something else than expanding and harmonising the doctrinal apparatus in agreement across their communion.

Anyway, what Orthodoxy really is about is belonging. What you have to believe in is that you must become Orthodox. What you must repent of is that you have not been Orthodox. That's pretty much it. The rest is detail, you will pick it up. Though not much of it will be doctrinal detail. You will probably be able to chant an entire liturgy in Old Slavic before you can give an account of the Orthodox faith at the level of the Penny Catechism. That's just not how they roll, best I can tell.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You must know how I would answer that. The Church is visible and we must be visibly in communion with it. Yes, we (Orthodoxy) believe that we are THE Church.

So what do you believe other Christians (Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, RC, etc.) are?

I would also, since this has been coming up in various ways (I just asked him about a reference to John 6 on another thread), ask IngoB the same question: What do you believe other Christians (Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Orthodox, etc.) are?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You must know how I would answer that. The Church is visible and we must be visibly in communion with it. Yes, we (Orthodoxy) believe that we are THE Church.
So what do you believe other Christians (Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, RC, etc.) are?

I would also, since this has been coming up in various ways (I just asked him about a reference to John 6 on another thread), ask IngoB the same question: What do you believe other Christians (Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Orthodox, etc.) are?

Christians not in communion with the Church. In otherwords, outside the Church. As for what non-Orthodox think of the Orthodox, that is their own business.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
...(* With a couple of exceptions. Such as, for instance, Fred Phelps. Who I'm pretty sure is worshipping a Jesus of his own imaginings, rather than anything to do with the real thing.)

Not any more he isn't - he died in March.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Christians not in communion with the Church. In otherwords, outside the Church. As for what non-Orthodox think of the Orthodox, that is their own business.

But do you mean "outside the Church" in the sense of "not real Christians," or "not really part of God's family," or what? (What I suppose the Baptists would call "unsaved.")

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I'm willing to accept that Christian is a rather broad term, at the very least Trinitarian. As for who is "saved", I would say that we know how one CAN be saved, that is, through the Church. Those outside we don't know for sure but there is the danger that they aren't. That's not to say that being inside is a guarantee either, just that it is the only way we know for sure one can be.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Not sure how to ask what I'm trying to ask here... :/ I mean, let's say you were with a group of Christians of various churches on a desert island. Would you pray together? Would you see them as brothers and sisters in Christ?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Certainly not if what was being prayed for conflicted with the orthodox faith. Certainly I would try to love them as I would any other human being, for we are all made in the image of God.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I would also, since this has been coming up in various ways (I just asked him about a reference to John 6 on another thread), ask IngoB the same question: What do you believe other Christians (Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Orthodox, etc.) are?

Heretic and/or schismatic Christians. In terms of the "Body of Christ" analogy, something like a diseased organ, a severed hand, the atrophied legs of a quadriplegic. Part of the body, but with impaired function by and in itself, and not integrated into the body's systems properly so as to follow the will of the Head as a healthy whole. Our friend Ad Orientem of course has recently moved over from the healthy to the collapsed lung. [Biased]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm willing to accept that Christian is a rather broad term, at the very least Trinitarian. As for who is "saved", I would say that we know how one CAN be saved, that is, through the Church. Those outside we don't know for sure but there is the danger that they aren't. That's not to say that being inside is a guarantee either, just that it is the only way we know for sure one can be.

Woah, steady on. Isn't being saved rather more to do with Jesus than with the 'Church' (in quotes because you and I mean different things by the word). Even if you want to say that true faith in Jesus will inevitably lead to being in the 'Church', then it's still Jesus doing the saving, IMO.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I would also, since this has been coming up in various ways (I just asked him about a reference to John 6 on another thread), ask IngoB the same question: What do you believe other Christians (Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Orthodox, etc.) are?
Heretic and/or schismatic Christians. In terms of the "Body of Christ" analogy, something like a diseased organ, a severed hand, the atrophied legs of a quadriplegic. Part of the body, but with impaired function by and in itself, and not integrated into the body's systems properly so as to follow the will of the Head as a healthy whole. Our friend Ad Orientem of course has recently moved over from the healthy to the collapsed lung.

If you want to use the collapsed lung anology then fine,but you then beling to an impaired body, you yourself are only functioning with one lung. I say, bollocks. The body is not impaired. They body is still fully functioning. Schismatics and heretics are simply not part of the body.

[ 18. July 2014, 21:49: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm willing to accept that Christian is a rather broad term, at the very least Trinitarian. As for who is "saved", I would say that we know how one CAN be saved, that is, through the Church. Those outside we don't know for sure but there is the danger that they aren't. That's not to say that being inside is a guarantee either, just that it is the only way we know for sure one can be.
Woah, steady on. Isn't being saved rather more to do with Jesus than with the 'Church' (in quotes because you and I mean different things by the word). Even if you want to say that true faith in Jesus will inevitably lead to being in the 'Church', then it's still Jesus doing the saving, IMO.

But I wouldn't nake such a distinction. To be saved through the Church is to be saved through Christ. The Church, after all, is his body.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But I wouldn't nake such a distinction. To be saved through the Church is to be saved through Christ. The Church, after all, is his body.

So then if someone who isn't in the Orthodox Church (earthly sense, I mean, going to an Orthodox church, getting baptized by Orthodox clergy, taking Orthodox Communion, etc.) trusts in Jesus to be saved, then they are being saved through the Orthodox Church as well, even if they don't know it?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
To be saved through the Church is to be saved through Christ. The Church, after all, is his body.

Sorry, but IMO this is stretching words beyond what they can bear. Christ and the Church are not the same thing, so being saved by one is not equivalent to being saved by the other. You have to justify the link between the two, in terms of their role in salvation, I think.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Wow. No wonder Jesus actually delays coming back. There's no sign of us wanting Him, wanting to be like Him, be His arms E or W is there? We won't let Him back.

The heart of the Christian faith E & W is a hard vacuum.

And nature surely abhors it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, what Orthodoxy really is about is belonging. What you have to believe in is that you must become Orthodox. What you must repent of is that you have not been Orthodox. That's pretty much it. The rest is detail, you will pick it up. Though not much of it will be doctrinal detail. You will probably be able to chant an entire liturgy in Old Slavic before you can give an account of the Orthodox faith at the level of the Penny Catechism. That's just not how they roll, best I can tell.

Golly, this is actually pretty good. Not perfect, but pretty good. Except if you want to know what we believe, we have this thing called the Creed. We have church services. We have typika.

It's true we don't have the kind of groupthink that the Roman Catholic Church and the U.S. Republican Party have. We don't have an Official Catechism with numbered points like Wittgenstein's Tractatus.

If you want to be nasty, you could say we have intellectually flat-lined for 1000 years, but only if you ignore Gregory Palamas, or you are missing four fingers. The very most you could say would be 600 years. In which we haven't been reinventing Christianity or fabricating new dogmas, what the hell is wrong with us?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:

How can we distinguish between "real" Christians and those who are just pretending? If not in the Creeds, where can we find the heart of the Christian faith?

You could begin by defining real. Is real a faith assertion or something empirical? Or maybe something experiential. After that try defining Christian heart. Is such a thing to do with action based charity? In NZ we sometimes have hitch hikers. I generally drive past but for once I didn't. The guy had left his wife and 8 week baby in a broken down car and was hitching to where he had another vehicle so he could go back for them. I wonder how many of those I have driven past. And of course it is winter here.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
How can we distinguish between "real" Christians and those who are just pretending?

I'm tempted to say that the obsession with this has perhaps caused more damage to the earthly church over the centuries than... well, a whole lot of things. Particularly when earthly power (law, punishment, hot pokers, etc.) has been involved. Even though we were told that the tares will grow along with the wheat and get sifted out at the end by those who know much more than we do...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
How can we distinguish between "real" Christians and those who are just pretending?

Why do we need to? Our Founder told at last one parable about letting the wheat and tares grow up together, and let the harvester -- that's not us -- sort 'em out later. I have always understood that to be about the Church and authentic and inauthentic Christians.

My job is to do what *I* can to be a real, authentic Christian, not to decide who else gets to claim that title.

That said, I think the use of the word "Christian" has become problematic, inasmuch as everybody wants to call themselves that regardless of whether or not they believe the Creed. I tend to think of Christianity as a trinitarian belief that is delineated by the Nicene Creed as a "sine qua non." Clearly others do not. That's not my problem.

I daresay, unless one is a priest or other kind of spiritual advisor, it's not one's problem at all how or what someone else believes. Is that guy over there an authentic Christian?, I might be tempted to ask. When I'm at my best I will tell myself, MYOFB and pray for your own salvation.

Unless it's politicians, then it all goes out the window and I loudly decry the incongruity between their actions and their supposed faith. I'm not perfect.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
To be saved through the Church is to be saved through Christ. The Church, after all, is his body.
Sorry, but IMO this is stretching words beyond what they can bear. Christ and the Church are not the same thing, so being saved by one is not equivalent to being saved by the other. You have to justify the link between the two, in terms of their role in salvation, I think.

Have you read the scriptures? It's no stretch. Christ founded the Church, a visible Church, so that we might know where to go to be saved, and the Church is his body.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Just to ask AO again since it kind of got lost above:

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
So then if someone who isn't in the Orthodox Church (earthly sense, I mean, going to an Orthodox church, getting baptized by Orthodox clergy, taking Orthodox Communion, etc.) trusts in Jesus to be saved, then they are being saved through the Orthodox Church as well, even if they don't know it?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Just to ask AO again since it kind of got lost above:

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
So then if someone who isn't in the Orthodox Church (earthly sense, I mean, going to an Orthodox church, getting baptized by Orthodox clergy, taking Orthodox Communion, etc.) trusts in Jesus to be saved, then they are being saved through the Orthodox Church as well, even if they don't know it?

IF such are saved, then the short answer is yes.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Have you read the scriptures? It's no stretch. Christ founded the Church, a visible Church, so that we might know where to go to be saved, and the Church is his body.

Yes, I've read the Scriptures - there's no need to be patronising [Smile]

You say we go to the visible church to be saved - I suppose I think of the 'visible church' as any community of people that gathers around Christ (I know that's a wooly phrase), and in any case where does the idea come from that we must go to the church to be saved? Aren't we saved by going to Christ, by following and believing in him?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Have you read the scriptures? It's no stretch. Christ founded the Church, a visible Church, so that we might know where to go to be saved, and the Church is his body.
Yes, I've read the Scriptures - there's no need to be patronising

You say we go to the visible church to be saved - I suppose I think of the 'visible church' as any community of people that gathers around Christ (I know that's a wooly phrase), and in any case where does the idea come from that we must go to the church to be saved? Aren't we saved by going to Christ, by following and believing in him?

Looking at the scriptures, the Gospels where Christ gounds his Church, and the Acts of the Apostles, and the various epistles, it's quite clear that it's within the context of the Church that we are saved. And we see also the Apostle temporarily, at least, giving one of the Corinthians up to the devil when he excommunicates him, showing that outside the context of the Church we are in danger.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
IF such are saved, then the short answer is yes.

Um... if someone is trusting Jesus... why would they not be saved? [Confused]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

(I mean genuinely trusting, not giving some sort of lip service to trusting Him, and of course with love as well, not just looking at it as some sort of "fire insurance.")

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I say "if" because ultimatey we don't the fate of those outside, though there may well be certain things which point in a particular direction, such as the holiness of the persons life.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Looking at the scriptures, the Gospels where Christ gounds his Church, and the Acts of the Apostles, and the various epistles, it's quite clear that it's within the context of the Church that we are saved.

It's not clear to me. *Shrug* Anyway, saved 'within the context of the church' doesn't necessarily mean saved 'by the church'. I repeat, surely it's Jesus who saves. I'd maybe say we are saved into the church, being the invisible community of all Jesus' followers.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And we see also the Apostle temporarily, at least, giving one of the Corinthians up to the devil when he excommunicates him, showing that outside the context of the Church we are in danger.

I think I'd agree with this. Certainly, I don't mean to imply the church is unimportant. I think being a Christian should pretty much automatically mean being part of a community of people all seeking to draw nearer to Christ and express his ways, his kingdom in the world. I just find very difficult any idea that the agent of our salvation, our restoration, is anything / anyone other than Jesus, God the Son.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

mousethief (eirene by the way) I'm all for The massively inclusive Nicene Creed - evolved to exclude exclusive heresies - being used to include us all here, unless there are any who have to cross their fingers behind their backs as I virtually used to about the fellowship or communion of saints in other creeds.

But what does belief in it signify apart from mere, nominal Christianity? What orthopraxis follows from that orthodoxy that a billion people and more can say and therefore 'mean'. Because we always mean what we say after all ...

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Mousethief:

quote:
Except if you want to know what we believe, we have this thing called the Creed. We have church services. We have typika.

When I first asked this question, Ad Orientam told me that the Creed wasn't much use here; at least that was how I understood his answer. Later s/he cited the filioque clause as something I needed to repent of. Now I could abandon filioque immediately, although it would take me a while to get out of the habit of saying it; I understand it was added illegitimately, and does not accurately reflect earlier expressions of Trinitarian faith. Clearly that in itself is not enough to get me to the heart of the faith. Where would you suggest I look?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

As I just said on another DH thread, I'm not sure that doctrinal purity will get us anywhere, whether towards Heaven, or just in functioning here on Earth (and attempting to bring something Heavenly to Earth!)

Most of the doctrinal/liturgical detail arguments involve some form of power struggle over who gets to say what is "right" and have little to do with what is actually Right.

If our local church, for instance, tried to go with liturgical exactitude or doctrinal superiority, it would have died at about the time we decided to take those positions.

It seems Right to us to go with fairly minimalist belief statements and a mildly-looser idea of liturgy, while reaching out to the people around us. Since we have made that decision, our church has grown and become stable in attendance and funding.

Any attempt to impose a belief-statement would cause just about everyone to walk away.

I note, without wanting to be particularly rude, that the Orthodox position doesn't seem to have any foothold in my province, since I cannot identify any Orthodox church or meeting. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I guess we just go with what works. Two Great Commandments can't lead one very far astray.

Oh, and the fact that those two statements seem to be pretty common among the majority of all organised religious beliefs, right down the list to Wiccans, and even the secularists would agree with the Second, while being, at best, agnostic about the First (for obvious reasons!) Speaking for the majority, we must be doing something right.

And, paraphrasing the Pope: If we meet atheists doing good, at least we can talk together. Better than shouting religious dogma.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

We recognise the spin off intentions of the OP but Hosts are discussing whether, as the thread has developed, it really belongs in Purgatory. Carry on here meantimes.

B62, DH Host

[ 20. July 2014, 06:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

As the OPer maybe I need to apologise for starting this thread in Dead Horses. Originally it was a mistake - I pushed the "New Thread" button after reading the original thread, thinking I was in Purgatory. However, after the thread had begun, I reflected that there have been many similar threads in the past, none of which have reached any solution, so maybe it was in the right place after all. Either way, apologies to the Hosts for making more work for them.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
However, after the thread had begun, I reflected that there have been many similar threads in the past, none of which have reached any solution, so maybe it was in the right place after all. Either way, apologies to the Hosts for making more work for them.

Being likely to reach a solution or not, is not the criterion for a thread being a 'Dead Horse' thread - many things are not likely to reach a resolution but only the seven specific topics mentioned in our guidelines are Dead Horses. Just for clarification, the subject of this thread (what is at the heart of the Christian Faith) is not a Dead Horse. The reason we left the thread was because the OP mentioned a Dead Horse subject which would have had to be pursued here and not in Purgatory.

quote:
"In the same way parts of the Anglican Communion are threatening to leave because of the gay issue. Again, is this something that should have been added into the Creeds to make it quite clear to everyone?"

But nobody seems to be discussing this, so we basically have a purgatory thread. Of course, if we moved the thread to Purg someone would probably want to discuss the DH part after all, and then it would belong here... [Big Grin]

cheers,
L
Dead Horses Host

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

I was actually thinking it was on the verge of being moved to Hell, though several similar or related threads are starting to blur together for me so it's hard to keep track. [Ultra confused]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Mousethief:
quote:
Except if you want to know what we believe, we have this thing called the Creed. We have church services. We have typika.

When I first asked this question, Ad Orientam told me that the Creed wasn't much use here; at least that was how I understood his answer. Later s/he cited the filioque clause as something I needed to repent of. Now I could abandon filioque immediately, although it would take me a while to get out of the habit of saying it; I understand it was added illegitimately, and does not accurately reflect earlier expressions of Trinitarian faith. Clearly that in itself is not enough to get me to the heart of the faith. Where would you suggest I look?

You seem to be conflating "the heart of the faith" and "what we believe." They are not the same thing. Check out again what IngoB said and I seconded: the heart of Christianity is not propositional, it is incarnational. Come join us, fast with us, feast with us, pray with us, receive the mysteries with us. That is the heart of the faith.

If you want to know what we believe in terms of propositions, that's a separate question and is best answered (but not exhaustively) by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (which we call the Symbol of Faith). If you want to go a step farther (further?), look at the text of the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom -- a great deal of what we believe over and above the Creed is laid out there, particularly in the priest's prayers in the second part (after the gospel).

The services of Holy Week and Pascha contain probably the entirety of the rest of it, but again just reading it doesn't really do the trick. Come to the services and experience them. They are very powerful and lay it all out for us to experience and take part in, in a very real sense..

But again we don't have it all lined out in numbered paragraphs like the Tractatus or Russell's Principa.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Thank you MT, that is very helpful.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0