|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Easter Message : Christ did not die for sin
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The idea, I think, is that God wrote the books of the canon.
This idea is utterly incompatible with the view that there is no similarity whatsoever between the created and the Uncreated.
Human words do not show anything about God (analogia fidei). Created beings do not show anything about God (analogia entis).
At this point, I will sharply stop agreeing with andreas. Created beings do show the nature of God - we are made in his image and likeness, and he took our form upon him himself, to humble himself and work our redemption. The whole creation declares the glory of God, including the fallen human nature which Christ took and elevated to the right hand of Godhead.
The reason human words do not well express God is that fallible human nature cannot accept the image of the imperishable Word of God. Only in the unique occurrence of the incarnation is the Word of God fully present in the world. This is why it is proper to say that only Jesus Christ, and not scripture is the Word of God - the bible does not directly partake of the divine nature, but Jesus himself did.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I find this whole "God wrote the Bible" thing really insulting to humanity,
Sure. Nevertheless, this is where Mudfrog, and others such as myself, are coming from. This is also the *ahem* traditional view of Christianity.
The point is that if the Orthodox tradition does not see it that way then it is simply at odds with the Catholic and Protestant traditions, which do.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This is also the *ahem* traditional view of Christianity.
Again, a failure to take into consideration the universal (both in time and in space) church...
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
At this point, I will sharply stop agreeing with andreas. Created beings do show the nature of God
A good thing to note that our approaches differ.
[ 02. April 2007, 14:54: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The idea, I think, is that God wrote the books of the canon. That's the idea behind the concept of "canon." So whether or not they were the church, or part of it, is not the issue.
Hmm. If you look at the history, the criterion they used to determine if a book was canonical or not was whether or not it had Apostolic authorship, not divine authorship. I find this whole "God wrote the Bible" thing really insulting to humanity, and quite contrary from the way God does things in Scripture, where people are allowed to act without the Divine hand on their puppet strings, often screwing things up (think David and Bathsheba), but nevertheless, and sometimes in spite of themselves, accomplishing God's will.
I think it quite interesting that God had such a different vocaulary and style when dictating to Paul than when dictating to John. I find that much more explainable if I accept that Paul wrote Romans and John wrote his gospel, than if I maintain that God wrote both.
This sounds right, on the whole. I always thought 'God breathed' meant 'inspired' (with the implicition in the verb of being inspired his Spirit) – rather than God-penned.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If the Orthodox view is different, then your view is not the *ahem* traditional view, but only ONE traditional view.
I'm not sure if the Orthodox would make so strong a claim, actually; maybe they would. I haven't studied it. But the way you put it not only doesn't sound like anything I've ever heard in Orthodoxy; it doesn't make sense.
I know a lot of people who will say PSA is not just one way of looking at the atonement, it's the ONLY BIBLICAL WAY. Your assertions about the authority of scripture start to take on the same sort of feel. Leaving me to think maybe your understanding isn't quite so universal as you suppose.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
(oops, crossposts! that was to Freddy)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
This is why it is proper to say that only Jesus Christ, and not scripture is the Word of God - the bible does not directly partake of the divine nature, but Jesus himself did.
While I agree about the inadequacy of human language, western Christianity has always seen the Bible as the word of God. As authoritatively reported in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
quote:
The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical "because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church". The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement.
So while I think that it is true that properly speaking only God Himself is the word of God, this does not mean that Scripture cannot also be called the word of God - as has been done throughout its history.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This is also the *ahem* traditional view of Christianity.
Again, a failure to take into consideration the universal (both in time and in space) church...
Yes. Good point. Sorry. I meant "Western Christianity." ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
But are you really sure that Eastern Christianity does not recognize the Bible as the word of God? Does it really make its traditions of equal authority to Scripture? If so then there is a deeper gulf than I thought between the eastern and western church. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
It strikes me as incredibly insensitive and unnecessarily provocative to give (and broadcast!) such talks in the lead up to Easter.
As I've said already, there seems perfectly good reason to do this - in order to communicate the Easter gospel effectively we need to respond to popular worries about it. Chief amongst these is PSA.
The chief worry that people have about the gospel is PSA??
I would have rated the reality of the resurrection, or the problem of evil, or Christian sexual ethics, or the uniqueness of Christ as higher up the ladder of concerns for the general public's acceptance of the gospel.
Im my conversations with non-Christians, PSA hasn't even rated. quote:
If we are to spout anything other than pietistic drivel in our public Easter communication, we need to engage with this issue. And what better time to do it than Holy Week. I have certainly preached about PSA not being the only show in town during Passiontide. In fact last Sunday I heard an Anglican bishop* do the same.
But the basic point is this: for huge swathes of Christendom, Fr John's views are not 'controversial', 'upsetting' or disturbing to faith. The attempt to paint them as such is indicative of an aggressive and ecclesially imperialistic conservative evangelicism which seems to be ascendent within Anglicanism at the moment. It is sad that Bishop Wright seems to fancy himself as a cheerleader for it.
*A PEV, as it happens, which might suggest that opposition to PSA is not part of some uber-liberal conspiracy.
Whether accurate or not, the newspaper article doesn't represent John's talks as being very tactful.
The word 'sensationalist' springs to mind.
It doesn't seem like he is saying, "look, there are more dimensions to understanding the work of Jesus on the cross than simply PSA"
The article quotes John as saying about PSA, quote:
"This is repulsive as well as nonsensical. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If a human behaved like this we'd say that they were a monster."
If you are going to use words like "aggressive" to characterise an position, you'd have to say that John falls into this category.
From what I can understand from John's quotes, the understanding of Easter that he seems to be putting forward is that Jesus didn't achieve anything for us on the cross - it was only a grand gesture of empathy.
This not only seems to leave out the traditional protestant understanding, but I would have thought also leaves out the traditional catholic and eastern orthodox view of Easter.
The broadcast (and my criticism is as much with the broadcaster as with the speaker) does not appear to be a debate or a balanced view of all the views that Christians hold to. It seems to be one man putting forward his particular view and scoring a few cheap shots at a view that many Christians sincerely hold. quote:
My Duck said:
Is outrage!! Why can't they just let us get on with believing what The Experts tell us we ought to believe, then there would be no need for all this nonsense!!
It's late where I am at present, so forgive me; I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make, are you agreeing or disagreeing? quote:
Liverpool fan said:
Oh moi oh moi. So the only thing to do in Holy Week is to present one way of understanding the cross.
Yet isn't this just what the BBC is doing?
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Freddy
It's not an Eastern/Western thing. After all, many Western fathers were perfectly Orthodox, like Ireneos or Hilary or Ambrose...
And keep in mind that the bible being one book is not an ancient view! There being many scrolls, many books, many portions of books and even many extra-biblical books thought of as biblical...
I think you will find fr. Romanides' take on that very enlightening as to what I also believe:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.02.en.the_cure_of_the_neurobiological_sickness_of_rel.01.htm#s3 paragraph 3 and forward...
[ 02. April 2007, 15:10: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Right. So if Jesus did not die for our sins,
Assuming that Fr John takes a mainstream non-PSA Catholic position he is not claiming we are not saved from our sins through Jesus' life, death and resurrection. He is merely taking issue with one account of how this salvation is brought about.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
This idea is utterly incompatible with the view that there is no similarity whatsoever between the created and the Uncreated.
Other than that deliberatly planted in creation by the uncreated God.
What do you think it means to say that we were created in God's image?
quote:
Human words do not show anything about God (analogia fidei). Created beings do not show anything about God (analogia entis).
True but God's words can accuratly talk of God, and God can choose to reveal God in the creation.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What do you think it means to say that we were created in God's image?
I don't think that this says anything about God... We are strange beings, that's for sure, but God we are not. We have a lot of qualities and characteristics. Do you think that any of these can be found in God as well?
quote:
True but God's words can accuratly talk of God, and God can choose to reveal God in the creation.
Revelation is "face-to-face", it is very intimate and personal; it's not described with words... See Paul's "words that cannot be spoken"...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Right. So if Jesus did not die for our sins,
Assuming that Fr John takes a mainstream non-PSA Catholic position he is not claiming we are not saved from our sins through Jesus' life, death and resurrection. He is merely taking issue with one account of how this salvation is brought about.
That is a charitable way to see it. That is how I am thinking he meant it as well. Hope we are right. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
If you are going to use words like "aggressive" to characterise an position, you'd have to say that John falls into this category.
Well, it's difficult. Those of us who object to PSA do so not least because it suggests something pretty horrific about the nature of God. Expressing horror calmly, whilst retaining the force of that horror, is not straightforward. As it is, John is somewhat less in-yer-face than the most prominent Roman Catholic writer against PSA, Fr James Alison, who memorably described PSA as involving God in 'a bizarre form of S+M'.
Freddy: a cursory glance at JJ's other writings would suggest that he believes in real, objective salvation through Christ. Contrary to the media image, he is not actually particularly 'liberal' - he is definitely on the 'catholic' wing of AffCath, and is a former member of the (conservative A-C) Church Union's theological committee.
[ 02. April 2007, 15:58: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
I think it quite interesting that God had such a different vocaulary and style when dictating to Paul than when dictating to John. I find that much more explainable if I accept that Paul wrote Romans and John wrote his gospel, than if I maintain that God wrote both.
But the two don't contradict each other. John wrote the epistle, and the Spirit inspired it. Both are true. That's the way creation works. Gods made me, so did my parents. We are what we are because of God's plan, and also because we evolved from the dust of the earth, mostly by means of natural selection. All who God chose to be amongst the elect are eternally saved. Everyone who freely chooses the side of God mysteriously turns up to have been amongst the elect all along. That's the way creation works.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Revelation happens face-to-face between the One true God and a Saint. It is not what the Saints wrote in the scriptures or what the Saints wrote after the scriptures.
Yes. And also yes, the criterion for canonicity was the Apostolic origin of the books. But we've done that now. And those books are our clearest witness to God's revelation to the saints, and more importantly God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I think you will find fr. Romanides' take on that very enlightening as to what I also believe:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.02.en.the_cure_of_the_neurobiological_sickness_of_rel.01.htm#s3 paragraph 3 and forward...
That's a heretical load of tosh.
And if you really think tht it was all an Evil Carolingian Plot, I have this Genuine Templar Relic I need to sell you.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's a heretical load of tosh.
I don't have a problem with you objecting... We don't share the same faith. No big deal. So long as the distinctions are preserved...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
This is why it is proper to say that only Jesus Christ, and not scripture is the Word of God - the bible does not directly partake of the divine nature, but Jesus himself did.
While I agree about the inadequacy of human language, western Christianity has always seen the Bible as the word of God. As authoritatively reported in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
quote:
The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical "because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church". The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement.
So while I think that it is true that properly speaking only God Himself is the word of God, this does not mean that Scripture cannot also be called the word of God - as has been done throughout its history.
The inerrancy of scripture is a tangent and there'ds a thread in Dead Horses about it. However, I cannot let the aboe apss without pointing out that the RCC sees it as inerrant as far as doctrine is concerned. It can still have mistakes and we can make mistakes when interpreting it. Thus: The human element in the composition of the Gospels is officially recognized by the Catholic Church (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 18 November 1965 (paragraphs ii and 12):
To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their powers and faculties….. God speaks through men in human fashion…. the interpreter of sacred Scriptures… must look for that meaning which the sacred writer, in a determined situation and given the circumstances of his time and culture, intended to express.
Thus the writers of the Gospels as well as all the scriptures are human authors in the fullest sense of the word: if we are to understand the word of God speaking through them, we must first understand the human elements of the composition….The fact that there is a human element and human prejudice within the writings is not an obstacle but the vehicle through which we hear the word of God.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point that some of are making is that PSA, which Jeffrey John seems to assume to be the only explanation of the crucifixion's significance in Christianity, is not the only or best explanation.
The other alternative is that Jesus did die on the cross, and He did die to save us from our sins, but He did not die as payment for our sins. Rather He died as part of the means of defeating the power of hell with humanity.
While we wait for the broadcast on Wednesday, I'd like to follow tangent this if I may.
Many here are assuming that the crucifixion of the Christ is primarily about atonement. Why then did the crucifixion not occur at the feast of the atonement, in the autumn, but rather in the spring, at the feast of the passover?
Atonement (the festival) is about sins being removed. The passover is about being set free. Mudfrog mentioned it when referring to Romans 6 earlier on the thread. This is language of passover, of being set free, and though the Bible does use atonement as a way as describing the significance of Christ's death, as I read the Scriptures I find that language of the people being set free is not only the major theme, but also more helpful to me.
Yes there are different ways of describing the significance of the atonement, but the significance of the sacrifice of Christ is not limited to atonement.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Balaam ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I have never said that God wrote the Bible.
I have said that the Church didn't write the Bible.
Individual men, drawing upon their own skills, research, eywitness accounts, interpretation and spiritual convictions wrote the various books of the Bible, which ultimately is God-breathed - ie it originated with God and flowed through the men who committed what they knew and saw to 'paper'.
Saying The Church wrote the Bible suggests collaboration, committee authorship, editing, a brief to write to, accepted themes, etc. The fact is that all the books of the Bibnle are Apostolic in origin, are genuinley written by the authors they say they are and are in total agreement. Church authorship would have made sure the church fathers were included an treatise nd books specifically written to order.
The very fact there is a canon of Scripture shouts from he house tops that it is authoritative and is the yardstick by which all other teaching must be measured. The fact that there is so much stuff - including the theory of ransom - which is off the mark suggests that even with this canon, people soon started to beloieve what their itching ears wanted to hear rather than submitting to Scriptural truth.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I woud also want to say that whilst I agree with PSA, I also agree with the other theories as well. Each has merit and we must rcognise that they all have limitations.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But are you really sure that Eastern Christianity does not recognize the Bible as the word of God? Does it really make its traditions of equal authority to Scripture? If so then there is a deeper gulf than I thought between the eastern and western church.
Do you think that we are separated for more than a thousand years for something insignificant?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Do you think that we are separated for more than a thousand years for something insignificant?
I guess you are right. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But when Father Gregory was here the differences did seem insignificant.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
In the synod of Ferrara-Florence, before the synod got started, Saint Mark of Ephesus asked the King how he wanted him to begin, combatively or diplomatically. The King replied " combatively". Afterwards, when the King saw that the Kingdom was going to fall because the Latins were not going to help, he changed his approach, silencing Saint Mark.
I think that there are two attitudes... And pastors can use either, as they see fit, judging in each instance how they are going to speak...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
I just wanted to hear what your thoughts were on this apparent desire to bring a theological debate to a secular audience - I just don't understand the point and what he is trying to achieve.
If Britain is anything like the U.S. televangelists are on the airwaves all the time. We even have stations dispensing religiosity 24/7.
Should they have a monopoly? On what grounds can one begrudge an occasional alternative statement from a theologican who believes that they have 'aired and strayed?'
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But are you really sure that Eastern Christianity does not recognize the Bible as the word of God? Does it really make its traditions of equal authority to Scripture?
Your questions, Freddy, don't even really make sense from an Orthodox POV. They are questions that only make sense from within your paradigm. If we even try to answer them, and we do (foolishly) try, we end up giving answers that don't really fit what we're trying to say, and aren't understood the way we mean them. But we keep trying.
As soon as you start thinking about Scriptures apart from Tradition, then you're talking about something that, for us, doesn't exist. The authority of the Holy Scriptures cannot be greater than, or less than, or equal to the authority of Tradition. The Holy Scriptures are themselves part of Tradition.
It's like this. These days, a movie includes sound and picture, right? You could watch a movie with the sound off, or listen to it with the picture off. But neither the sound alone nor the picture alone is the movie. And if you insisted on taking one without the other, what you'd end up with wouldn't necessarily make sense. No matter which part you took, it would be plain in parts, confusing in parts, and some things would be omitted entirely, because they were only there in the pictures, or only in the words.
For us, Holy Tradition is like the movie. Yes, it includes sound, but it includes pictures, too. You can't have the one without the other. And when you ask, "Is tradition as important as the Scriptures?" it makes about as much sense as saying, "Is the picture as important as the movie?"
If you want to understand a movie, you need both the sound and the picture. You need the whole thing.
And if you want to understand what God has revealed to the Church, you need the whole of the Tradition he's given to us -- Scripture, liturgy, icons, all of it. It's a whole. It doesn't make sense to separate out the parts, and set them against each other.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Your questions, Freddy, don't even really make sense from an Orthodox POV. They are questions that only make sense from within your paradigm.
I see that you are right. Thanks.
Reading through the posts on this topic, I see that this was sparked by andreas comment to Mudfrog and his response:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
This is the impression I get:
You seem to think that the bible is God's revelation to mankind.
The way I see it, the bible is different than God's revelation. God reveals Himself to the Saints. They try to guide others in their way, so that they too get born from above, and in doing so some of them produced the Scriptures. So, the scriptures are guidelines on one's way towards God. They are shades, instructions; not the plane expression of the revelation.
Well indeed. Scriptural authority is very important to us Protestants. I would rather be guided by revealed, objective truth, than by the subjective thoughts of people who lean on their own understanding.
If you have such a low view of Biblical inspiration then it is no wonder that you will not agree with those who do.
The point is that Mudfrog was relying, incorrectly from my point of view, on the authority of Scripture. Andreas' response seems not to accept the authority of Scripture. Hence the misunderstanding.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The fact is that all the books of the Bibnle are Apostolic in origin, are genuinley written by the authors they say they are and are in total agreement.
Um, no.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's a heretical load of tosh.
I don't have a problem with you objecting... We don't share the same faith. No big deal. So long as the distinctions are preserved...
Its not the faith that is different it is the absured Da Vinci Code nonsense about history that he goes on about all the time.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
My feeling on the differences between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church / Protestant churches is that the true differences are the ones we haven't talked about, the ones we haven't pinned down to points like we have with things like a) filioque b) primacy of the pope of Rome c) celibate priests d) ancestral guilt etc. I hope that our discussions here help this little part of Christianity (us, the Ship) so that the differences and the similarities become clearer, so that we can understand both each other and ourselves better.
ken: it's no conspiracy theory that the new peoples did not become obedient to the conquered peoples... It's no conspiracy theory that they subdued the native peoples. It's no conspiracy theory that Augustine for example did not know the underlying assumptions behind Nicea... It's no conspiracy theory that the result of this new theology that emerged in the Western Europe gave birth to Inquisitions and burnings and tortures and censorships and slavery and slave-trading...
[ 02. April 2007, 20:41: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Its not a conspiracy theory it is a lie. Or at any rate a delusion. The things your priests are teaching you about the history of Western Europe are not true. They are lies designed to make you hate Roman Catholics.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Goodness, I was agreeing with Andreas for the first part of this thread...
This isn't an East-West issue. Goodly numbers of Roman Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, liberals and open evangelicals don't believe in PSA.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Dwarf,
the impression that I get is that Western theology is very fluid at the moment. I think this is a good thing. However, I like my view to travel through the centuries... I am not satisfied with the fact that today PSA for example is not dominant in many circles. What interests me more is the reasons for it being put forth in the first place and the influence it had on the people throughout the centuries. If I am being told the truth, and not lies, PSA is connected with feudalism. I guess this explains a lot. Why for example this discussion was never made by the Greek speaking fathers... But I am not looking for just its causes. OK, we say feudalism... How could a Church that was experiencing the faith, the faith that was once delivered to the Apostles, get led into PSA? How could people who claimed to be Christians get involved with feudalism in the first place? How could they not see that God is not like that? Why? This why is what concerns me.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
How could a Church that was experiencing the faith, the faith that was once delivered to the Apostles, get led into PSA?
Human imperfection?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
It's not a sin we are talking about here... If it was a sin, I would understand. Note, that I am not angry at them... I am OK and I forgive them, so long as modern Christians do not ask for union without first rejecting that view...
We are talking about faith. From the Orthodox point of view, to the extent that I understand it, faith comes after personal intimate knowledge. Man follows the way towards theosis, a way that has been described in depth in many many church books, and when one follows that way, knowledge of God comes.
This is my great concern: Are our differences due to ignorance of each other and bad will, or because the way was somehow lost in the Western part of the Roman Kingdom somehow because of specific historical reasons?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
Sounds like this is yet another issue upon which the "orthodox" Anglicans can rip each other to shreds over. It will be interesting to see how many traditionalist Anglo-Catholic will be declared "apostate" by Network evangelicals for denying PSA.
I haven't paid much attention to Jeffrey John's position and at least on the surface his position is close to mine. However, I think he used bad judgment in going to the press to deny what might appear to be a central Christian doctrine to an unsophisticated newspaper editor and reader. Has he communicated the message he wanted? Unless his sole purpose was to stick a finger in the eye of the nasty evangelicals (a distinct possibility), his intervention is a failure.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I am sorry for the many posts, but I want to be as frank as possible. I don't have bitterness towards modern or ancient Christians, I am not ill-desposed towards modern people and I do not believe in a some kind of supremacy for Orthodoxy... I am well aware of the Orthodox people's mistakes, and I am aware, to some extent, of my own mistakes, with regards to non-Orthodox...
What concerns me is what lies behind the schism, what lies ahead in our future and I give a particular emphasis to what the different churches said in the past. So, don't get confused by my confusing the past, the present and the future in my approaches.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
How could a Church that was experiencing the faith, the faith that was once delivered to the Apostles, get led into PSA? How could people who claimed to be Christians get involved with feudalism in the first place? How could they not see that God is not like that? Why? This why is what concerns me.
.......
This is my great concern: Are our differences due to ignorance of each other and bad will, or because the way was somehow lost in the Western part of the Roman Kingdom somehow because of specific historical reasons?
Oh, I suppose one can ask the same of the East. Could God be present in a Church which led to the existence of the skoptsy; to "Spiritual Christianity"; to Molokans ; the Doukhobors; to Caesaropapism; to Old Calendrists; to the Declaration of Patrirach Sergius supporting the Soviet Stalinist state; to ethnarchs and hierarchs supporting terrorism and to a largely ethnocentric understanding of church?
Shit happens, andreas
[ 02. April 2007, 21:45: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Father, you are talking about a few bad things certain hierarchs did, or a few sects getting formed... I was talking about things that blackened the history of Europe /the New World. Needless to say that I haven't even heard of skoptsy... but we all have heard of slavery...
Don't get me wrong. I am not biased. I am searching for Truth. if the situation in the Orthodox world has been similar to that in the Roman Catholic / Protestant world, I will accept it and move my thought to different directions.
[ 02. April 2007, 21:49: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
It just occured to me that I think I understand why some evangelical/fundamentalists are reacting so hysterically to Canon John. My experience with evangelicals - quite limited - were with the InterVarsity and Campus Crusade crowd in college. I was not a part of them, but I went in to observe them in action out of curiosity - not without some pompous arrogance as a (then) ultra-reactionary Anglo-Catholic that they had nothing to teach me. While the Christian fellowship of these groups was quite impressive, they confirmed my own prejudices as to the relative thiness of their theology. There was no emphasis on the resurrection, nothing on the Incarnation, little of any of the articles of the Creed, no transfiguration, nothing about being partakers of divine nature, but lots of "washed in the blood of the Lamb," "Jesus is my personal saviour, glory and praise," and happy, happy Christian families. In fact, I was struck by the fact that the theology of evanglicals on college campuses were almost as thin as the liberal Anglicans I so abhored, just on different subjects.
The pedagogy of their interpretation of the Good News was more or less exclusively predicated on the PSA. It is a quite effective and moving "bait" to get someone to accept of the Christian gospel - if one accepts the premise of PSA. But, if one rejects it, the evangelicals quite literally had nothing to offer as they had no other peg upon which to hang their hat. Since the evangelical enterprise (at least on American college campuses) seem to stand or fall on PSA, I can see the angry reaction. There is, of course, being more to Christianity than that.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that if the Orthodox tradition does not see it that way then it is simply at odds with the Catholic and Protestant traditions, which do.
Umm...I'm a Protestant (technically speaking), and I don't think God wrote the bible.
Make of that what you will...
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
andreas.....
My point still stands - shit happens.
Slavery and western Europe is associated with the sugar trade, something that came from southwest Asia and then really took of in ...... Cyprus , where Syrian and Arab slaves were used. From there it spread westwards, beginning with Sicily, the Mediterranean islands and eventually the Caribbean.
Communism arose in an Orthodox country, and at its most extreme period had as its dictator a former Orthodox seminarian.
So, are slavery and Stalinism the products of Orthodoxy? I would not say so myself, but by the questions you ask yourself about western matters you need to ask the same about similar matters in Orthodox territories.
[ 02. April 2007, 22:08: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
It just occured to me that I think I understand why some evangelical/fundamentalists are reacting so hysterically to Canon John. My experience with evangelicals - quite limited - were with the InterVarsity and Campus Crusade crowd in college. I was not a part of them, but I went in to observe them in action out of curiosity - not without some pompous arrogance as a (then) ultra-reactionary Anglo-Catholic that they had nothing to teach me. While the Christian fellowship of these groups was quite impressive, they confirmed my own prejudices as to the relative thiness of their theology. There was no emphasis on the resurrection, nothing on the Incarnation, little of any of the articles of the Creed, no transfiguration, nothing about being partakers of divine nature, but lots of "washed in the blood of the Lamb," "Jesus is my personal saviour, glory and praise," and happy, happy Christian families. In fact, I was struck by the fact that the theology of evanglicals on college campuses were almost as thin as the liberal Anglicans I so abhored, just on different subjects.
The pedagogy of their interpretation of the Good News was more or less exclusively predicated on the PSA. It is a quite effective and moving "bait" to get someone to accept of the Christian gospel - if one accepts the premise of PSA. But, if one rejects it, the evangelicals quite literally had nothing to offer as they had no other peg upon which to hang their hat. Since the evangelical enterprise (at least on American college campuses) seem to stand or fall on PSA, I can see the angry reaction. There is, of course, being more to Christianity than that.
Which is why most evangelicals will happily preach on the other theories of atonement as well. We are not as narrow as you think.
My Good Friday service and open air witness will probably not feature PSA at all. But I still believe it.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
I just wanted to hear what your thoughts were on this apparent desire to bring a theological debate to a secular audience - I just don't understand the point and what he is trying to achieve.
If Britain is anything like the U.S. televangelists are on the airwaves all the time. We even have stations dispensing religiosity 24/7.
In this respect, Britain is nothing like the US. Most people don't have access to the very few areas of the airwaves where there's any density of televangelists. I believe we have exactly one, tiny televangelist-run channel.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
My goodness, mudfrog, I just noticed your sig. Pope Benedict himself would approve!
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that if the Orthodox tradition does not see it that way then it is simply at odds with the Catholic and Protestant traditions, which do.
Umm...I'm a Protestant (technically speaking), and I don't think God wrote the bible.
Make of that what you will...
Good point. I wasn't thinking that individual protestants necessarily believed that - I wouldn't even think that most of us on the ship do. My point was that this is the traditional claim of all protestant churches as well as the catholic church.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
My goodness, mudfrog, I just noticed your sig. Pope Benedict himself would approve!
It was actually said by General William Booth, the Founder of The Salvation Army, at the beginning of the Twentieth Century.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
PSA puts people off Christianity so John is being more of an evangelist than Wright or Ron..
a) Which churches that do not teach PSA are experiencing major growth?
b) Even if PSA 'puts people off Christianity' surely that is irrelevent if it is true. What are you suggesting-that you should lie so as to attract people into the church? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that Mudfrog was relying, incorrectly from my point of view, on the authority of Scripture. Andreas' response seems not to accept the authority of Scripture. Hence the misunderstanding.
In the Orthodox Church, we do indeed accept the authority of Scripture -- but likely not in the same way that Mudfrog does. As Andreas said, we see the Scriptures as a divinely ordained and inspired guide, given to us by our gracious Lord to help us on our path to Him.
But we don't worship the Scriptures, we worship God. We don't follow the Scriptures, we follow God. We don't obey the Scriptures, we obey God. We don't submit to the authority of the Scriptures, we submit to the authority of God.
The Scriptures are good. But they are not intended to replace God.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
