|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Protestantism
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Why did Luther exist as a force in history in the way he did? It took 500 years for him to come along. Nowhere in the history of the Church was there an example of something as radical as a Luther.
Nonsense. What about Wyclif & Hus? Just over the mountains from Luther's Saxony the kingdom of Bohemia had broken away from Rome about a century earlier - and initially at least much more bloodily than Luther's German Reformation.
A thousand years before that blood was spilled in Constantinople and half the cities of the Empier over monophysitism. Even the Emperor and the Empress fell out over it. And the supposedly monophysite churches still exist, and have tens of millions of adherents.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
The only 'church' that can claim to consistently defend a single Truth is the only one which has ever done so. We believe that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and I would argue that this is manifestly so.
[...]
The fact that the Church's theology is unchanged should suggest to an objective observer that something is protecting it from error.
OK, I come clean here. I do not think that either the doctrine or the practice of the Orthodox churches is unchanged since the time of the Apostles. I don't think there is any serious evidence for that at all. I don't belive it is true.
And, to make matters worse, I do not think that either the doctrine or the practice of the Orthodox churches is unchanged since the time of the great councils either. And I suspect that the liturgy and practices of the Egyptian and Armenian churches - supposedly monophysite heretics - have changed about the same amount since then. Maybe less. So if I was forced to choose churches on the grounds of historical continuity with, or resemblence to, the Great Church of ancient times, I could not distinguish between the Copts or Constantinople.
In fact I don't think the doctrines and practices of those churches are entirely unchanged since the time of the schism with the western European churches. Although the liturgy is perhaps less changed than in the west, I am almost willing to bet it is changed.
So your argument doesn't wash. As a Christian faced with a real choice of which church to be a member of, the idea that the Orthodox have preserved the unchanged Truth throughout history doesn't help me at all. Because how do I know it is true? All I have is your word for it! And I also hear the Copts and the Romans and the Anapbaptists and the Restorationists and even some of the blunter Presbyterians telling met that it is false! How can I be sure?
To even be able to meaningfully assess it I'd have to know an awful lot more about the history of the church and comparitive liturgy than I do. (And I already do no more about those things than nine out of ten, if not ninety-nine out of a hundred, of my fellow Christians) And I'd probably have to learn Greek & Syriac. It would take me years if I was capable of it at all.
"But," the little Protestant angel with the fluffy tail sitting on my other shoulder says, "but, you have the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Read them..."
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Why did Luther exist as a force in history in the way he did? It took 500 years for him to come along. Nowhere in the history of the Church was there an example of something as radical as a Luther.
Nonsense. What about Wyclif & Hus? Just over the mountains from Luther's Saxony the kingdom of Bohemia had broken away from Rome about a century earlier - and initially at least much more bloodily than Luther's German Reformation.
Not to mention the Waldenses who predate Hus and Wycliffe by a couple of centuries
quote:
A thousand years before that blood was spilled in Constantinople and half the cities of the Empier over monophysitism. Even the Emperor and the Empress fell out over it. And the supposedly monophysite churches still exist, and have tens of millions of adherents.
I think that was Justinian and Theodora wasn't it?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Emperor Justinian was Orthodox.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yes, and Theodora his wife was Monophysite...which I think is the point to which Ken was alluding
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by whitelaughter:
The term Mother of God is blasphemous, really.
On the contrary, the Word was made flesh, therefore the Virgin is indeed the Mother of God. She did not give birth to a man, but to God Who was made man.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by whitelaughter:
[Of course, correction is necessary. If 'every Protestant is their own Pope', how have we managed to hang together in denominations for 4 centuries?
Er...we haven't - witness the plethora of Protestant denominations.
quote:
The glory goes to God, who arranged for Scripture to be very clear (given the subject matter).
Ah, someone else who asserts that Scripture is 'clear'. How come then we don't agree on what it means? What do you mean by 'clear'?
And your statement about 'Mother of God' is a denial of Christ's divine nature.
[ 03. November 2005, 15:08: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
And your statement about 'Mother of God' is a denial of Christ's divine nature.
Indeed, as one who respects Mary but doesn't revere her, I have no problem whatsoever with the term 'theotokos' (God bearer) because it was given to Mary not as a status for her, but as an affirmation that Jesus, her child, was God.
As Gabriel said: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore also, that Holy One, who is to be born will be called the Son of God."
Luke 2 v 35
[code]
[ 03. November 2005, 15:56: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Indeed. Theotokos was originally a Christological rather than a Mariological statement and I believe came to the fore in the Nestorian controversy of the early 5th century
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Just to point out that Protestantism does not have a catholic Ecclesiology. Even if Protestants had never argued there would be a multiplicity of denominations. The historic argument in Protestantism is whether it is possible to have an ecclesiology outwith the local congregation. Some accept that it is possible up to the nation state and others do not. That is why there is the Church of Scotland, the United Reformed Church and the Presbyterian Church of Wales. It is also why there is a Baptist Union and a Congregational Union. Note the change in nouns, the Unions are unions of local churches.
To measure sucess you need to measure the continuity of local witness and that in places does go back over 400 years (Anyone for Gainsbourgh URC or John Bunyan Memorial Baptist Church?) Why should these local congregations survive so long if there was not something there greater than any individual? The finance for both these chapels came from their attenders pockets, and though I grant they have had inspired ministers, it is a good minister indeed who can inspire a congregation to give when he has been dead several hundred years!
It seems to me, in a setup which was persecuted in England, full of individualism (had to be to survive the persecution), and prone to the cult of the personality coming from the individualism, the question is not why so many have come and gone, but why do any survive?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
There is an interesting anathema contained in the second council of Nice, which is an ecumenical council.
quote:
Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.
How do Protestants reply to this anathema?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
There is an interesting anathema contained in the second council of Nice, which is an ecumenical council.
quote:
Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.
How do Protestants reply to this anathema?
If you are talking about the "rabid funamentalist" Protestants that I grew up with, the answer is simple. The truth that they follow was the one that Jesus taught and has remained in the church since that time. They may have been an underground movement that did not register in history, but they are the traditonal church.
Now in reality, I do try to follow the teachings of the Council of Nice which I would understand that to be what they are talking about. There is no mention in that quote of future councils or teaching of the church. They ask that I hold to the teaching of the past, not of future councils.
Also in there is the comment that if it is in the New and Old Testaments, then I should follow that practice. Which leads me back to my own reading of the Bible and how the Holy Spirit wishes me to apply it to my life.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
No, this is the second council of Nice, the one that said: "Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols."
ETA: http://www.newadvent.com/fathers/3819.htm
[ 03. November 2005, 17:57: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Find me a reference in Scripture where the entirety of the Apostolic Church erred, or was said to be capable of erring....
<snip>
....when we rely upon ourselves, we err, but that does not extrapolate to the God-guided Church, which has chiefly concerned itself with preserving the Apostolic Church in purity, defending against _wrong_ interpretations of Scripture.
When we submit to the authority of the Church, we are not acknowledging the truth as delivered by one man or even a council, but the consensus of the faith from the beginning, punctuated and beautifully elucidated in the writings of the hundreds of holy Fathers of the Church, many of whom died martyrs, most of the rest died as saints, someone whose humility, love, and loving obedience are so evident that they are manifestly Christlike.
It's all very noble and beautiful to talk about the holy Fathers, who died martyrs, filled with humility, love and loving obedience. No disrespect meant to the deep, important tradition, but this reverence that we hold for these matters doesn't, however, make them necessarily true.
The God-guided Church has chiefly concerned itself with preserving the Apostolic Church in purity?!? Alas, my friends, I believe we have come again upon the Circular Definition Proof (CDP, as perhaps we should begin referring to it).
Definition 1: The God-guided Church is only made up of those who have retained the Orthodox theology from the beginning.
Definition 2: Any who are said to err are excluded from the God-guided Church on the basis that the church has proclaimed that they have erred.
Conclusion: The Orthodox Church is the God-guided Church, and as such is incapable of erring.
It's a ridiculous argument. I challenge tradition and consider my own interpretations of Scripture not because I see myself as the Sole Proprietor of Truth™, but because I believe that honest dialogue between people with differing opinions will arrive more closely at the truth, taking into consideration the great history of tradition, councils and ideas, than those who simply sit and refuse to question for the sake of some false sense of continuity.
Why else are we here on this confounded Ship?
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Andreas1984:
Well I could perhaps suggest you read chapter 11 of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion
quote:
IMPIETY OF ATTRIBUTING A VISIBLE FORM TO GOD.—THE SETTING UP OF IDOLS A
DEFECTION FROM THE TRUE GOD.
There are three leading divisions in this chapter. The first contains ...
The concluding part contains a refutation of the
second Council of Nice, which very absurdly contends for images in opposition to divine truth, and even to the disparagement of the Christian name.
Not that it will be the line that all Protestants take, but that Calvin will take a line that clearly addresses that Council and gives a clear statement of where he is coming from. Remember too that this book is written against persecution, there was a price of Calvin's head and its intended circulation was amongst the Protestants in France.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I don't think that this document is helpful. In fact, I think that it would have been better for him if he had not spoken thus.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Why?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I have read it, in another translation and I still want to know the Why. The advantage of my translations is I have foot notes, the quotes he made are genuine though the attributation to John the Eastern Prelate is not.
So the Why stands?
Is someone who does not worship pictures worse than an idolator? For that is what the council concluded.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Indeed, heresy is worse than ignorance of truth.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
And it's not worship. Greek latrevein means to recognize someone as God. We don't confess icons to be God. Worship is not the verb to be used.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
And it's not worship. Greek latrevein means to recognize someone as God. We don't confess icons to be God. Worship is not the verb to be used.
If veneration was so important in the NT church can you give me any passages in the Bible that teach us how we should carry out these acts of veneration properly? Or where the church was corrected for not carrying out veneration properly?
As a protestant I see much of the worship today related back to the OT church (Acts 7 v 38) - longer tradition than even the Orthodox church
For circumcision - I see baptism
For passover a meal that also incorporates a sacrafice of atonement - I see the Lord's Table
So I also see a distinct lack of images in the OT church hence why should the NT church need them?
Also tradition does change one church council declared the use of icons as wrong and then the next one does a complete about turn - which council should we trust. (My knowledge of ecumenical councils is limited - but I think I am right in this)
--------------------
I'm holding out for Grace......, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity
Bono
Posts: 395 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
No, this is the second council of Nice, the one that said: "Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols."
ETA: http://www.newadvent.com/fathers/3819.htm
In my mind we have two sides here, one is saying that these are a good way to worship God. And another that points to the Bible and says that we are not to worship things that are manmade.
A responding question is what of my brothers and sisters in Christ who are uncomfortable in the extreme with icons and wonder why people are "worshiping" pictures? Am I to just tell them that they are wrong when they are trying their best to follow the scriptures?
Again the text says that we are to follow the scriptures. Am I to put the teaching of the council above them? If so, then when am I supposed to know when someone is in error?
I personally don't have a problem with other people using icons. I personally just can't see the purpose in them when I can just talk to God directly. But if that's what someone needs, then that is fine with me.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitelaughter
Shipmate
# 10611
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
again, small c churches. The central trunk of Orthodoxy is both unchanging and eternal.
[shrugs] Then why bother learning or discussing anything? Just wait and see whether one's own demonination survives - if not, you'll shift elsewhere, and if so, it's probably orthodox. This belief encourages apathy.
Posts: 114 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
Also tradition does change one church council declared the use of icons as wrong and then the next one does a complete about turn - which council should we trust. (My knowledge of ecumenical councils is limited - but I think I am right in this)
You are, and it's a good point. How are Councils discerned from amongst the many councils?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
Work commitments do not permit me much time for discussion - but somethings to consider:
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
So I also see a distinct lack of images in the OT church hence why should the NT church need them?
[/QB]
"Exodus 26:1. In God's commands to Moses concerning the tabernacle, given just a few chapters after the giving of the Ten Commandments, is this instruction: "Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twisted linen and blue and purple and scarlet; you shall make them with cherubim, the work of a skillful workman." A similar command with respect to the Ark of the Covenant instructed Moses to have two cherubim of hammered gold at the ends of the mercy seat. God said, "And there I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel" (Exodus 25:22)...
From the very earliest years of the Church, Christians used such symbols as the cross, the fish, the peacock, the shepherd, and the dove." from "No Graven Image"
The Second Commandment:
" You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Exodus 20:4,5)."
Time to tear up the family photo album! Not to mention knock down the Statue of Liberty and all those other statues around of politicians!
What you say! God doesn'r prohibit these images - just the 'worshipping' of them. Well, do the Orthodox worship images? If you kiss a photo of a a family member are you worshipping the photo, or expressing affection for the family member? In the act of doing so, are you making the photo - or even the person depicted in the photo - an idol to replace God? I think not.
More on Icons
I realise that for many Protestants - especially of a Calvinist or Presbytarian persuasion - I may as well be an alien from outer space talking about icons in Church, and it may really sound like a foreign language!
(Anecdotally - I remember from when I lived on Patmos, once, while in the cave of the Apocalypse, an American - I guess Protestant - was shouting loudly about the 'desecration' of the site of the Revelation, he was complaining about the 'pagan practice' of icons and threatened to rip them all out, he seemed so mad (annoyed) that he nearly did so. The monks were quite calm with him - but you could see that their vocation outraged him too!) I understand that some people feel particularly passionate about this. However, I have seen many Anglican Churches with icons in them (and most seem to have stain glass windows et. and even a few of the Smells and Bells ones with statues - which are - incidentally - banned in Orthodoxy). The Difference in the OT between Worship and Veneration
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Hi again SQ.
I'll answer some of your points. Not all of them, as then this debate would be far too hard to do in one thread, and I think that we actually agree more than first appearences show regarding justification, for instance.
As I said before, when John wrote to the churches in Laodicea and Sardis (Revelation 3) they weren't merely 'local' churches that were erring. They weren't a body of believers that, though they may err, could be corrected by looking at the other body of beleivers just up the road. They were the only church that anyone without significant time and money would ever see, in that century. It didn't matter one jot that another church in Athens or wherever was doing fine, because any normal poor person from Laodicea would never ever have travelled to Athens. As far as they were concerned, they were the whole church. They were erring.
Hi Dinghy - I don't know if you've read my comments about the small vs the large C churches. That small churches will err is a given. Christ never promised that individuals - even those with leadership entrusted to them - would not err. But if the Church itself was prone to error, it would no longer exist in anything like its early form.
That errant small c churches could affect some believers for their entire lifetimes shows the danger of heresy.
When St. Paul addressed these churches, what was he was correcting? He was correcting individuals for deciding that the faith, in some way, meant something other than what had been taught by Christ and the Apostles.
When St. Paul wrote his corrective letters, he was speaking for the Church, with authority, and he was defending a single truth as understood by the Church.
quote:
You missed my point about Leo X, I beleive, or else you're trying some form of logical coverup
that's logically inconceivable.
quote:
(by the way, yes, that's the right guy). Leo X denied the existence of God, but sold forgiveness from him. I can find neither of those supported in the bible. John XII engaged in devil worship and turned the Vatican into a brothel. I can find support for neither of these in the bible. THese guys, as far as it appears to me, were most definitely not sola scriptura. This is not a chance to advertise how great Orthodoxy is. It is not a chance to denigrate either the RCC (and that isn't my intention in this post, either) or protestants. This is not an opportunity to go off on a tangent, or talk about Martin Luther, or anything like that. Please tell me, in simple, logical steps, why Leo and John's many crimes were the result of sola scriptura.
short version:
Popes read bible, decide to ignore Church theology, start their own religion, leads to Protestantism, that splinters to what we have today where Mormons will argue ceaselessly that they are Christians. Whether they are or are not is not the point, the point is that pliable theology makes them possible.
explanation:
Go back and look at the first step. There's nothing wrong with reading the Bible, we do, it is the foundation of the faith, and on average probably 2/3 or more of any given service in the ORthodox Church consists of readings from Scripture. The error is in deciding for yourself what it means. That's what the first seven councils addressed, and those committing heresy came back to the fold, some disgruntled for sure, but back into a unified and universal Church and theology. Rome, on the other hand, decided to start their own Church. That's what happens when you read the Bible and find, in your reading, something that you believe is being misinterpreted, and believe it is significnt enough to start telling people about it.
This _had to happen_ for Rome to be excommunicated. And Rome supported their new idea about the very nature of the Creator using the Bible to support them. They twisted some of the tiny bit He's made known to us about Him, a sacred and precious knowledge just in the fact that it relates to Him and was revealed by Him, and they did it with the Bible.
And a new Church was born, with it a new and - for the first time - pliable theology.
So SS is where RC came from, and their further SS errors begat Protestantism, a healthy reaction to a theological world turned upside down, but a misguided one, because it is self-guided.
RC and Protestants both adhere to the same __foundational__ belief: We can decide for ourselves what the Creator's dcommunication means to us.
quote:
Regarding your gedankexperiment about giving 1000 island dwellers bibles, of course only a few of them would come back to you with anything even resembling Christianity. Only a few people in the world, relatively speaking, are Christians. The road is narrow. The bible contains a lot to digest, and not everyone's prepared to take that step.
If you really believe that, why do you sift through theology, picking and choosing what pleases you to believe? IF someone believes themselves to be immortal, but that their immortal state is contingent upon what they do in the next decades, they would be prudent to rely upon something aside from their own intellect when deciding what to believe about The Creator's expectations.
quote:
Finally, you still haven't answered a point I made a while ago. You say that the whole church cannot err. Let's say that's true for a minute. If the church is not any human construct, not any local church (and yes, that includes a church with the adjective "Eastern" before its name) but the worldwide, invisible communion of believers. How can you know that protestantism itself is actually the process by which not-the-whole-church errs? What if both the RC and EO are in error, and protestantism is the faithful remainder by which the church does not wholly fall? You say God promised that the whole, global church would never fall, but then apply that to one part of Christendom, rather than the whole of it. Why?
There are a slew of reasons why the idea of the Church as the entirety of believers is an impossiblity. The most obvious answer is that it provides no consistent answer about how to walk the narrow road. So it cannot contain the Truth about salvation on the narrow road because that Truth cannot be objectively identified. Here's another: This idea of a corporate church was unknown prior to Protestantism. If this is the proper understanding of what the Church is, that's a pretty significant thing, with all manner of obvious implications, so it's probably something that would not have remained completely hidden for the first 1500 years of the faith.
When St. Paul said that people would fall away from the church, he might have suspected that those people would continue to call themselves Christians. After all, the fact that you believe earnestly enough to be part of the faith, and then, likely with no small degee of pain, break away from its teachings, you aren't likely to tale up satanism. Paul saw how different understandings of Christ's message were being preached in his day, and tried to correct it and reconcile those who were astray fully back to the flock.
Now, if the body of general believers is what Christ was talking about, who has fallen away? Can we call anyone who calls themselves a Christian and tries in earnest to follow Christ, based upon what their life has led them to believe, with a pure heart, a non-Christian?
We don't. (except for Mormons). All who follow Christ in earnest are Christians. But we pray, daily, for their reconciliation with the Apostolic Church and its full understanding of theology and salvation. Many Protestant churches are trying, with great faith, to recreate the Apostolic Church. They can't, but they don't have to, it still exists, and it is open to all willing to be educated and then baptized into the Church.
quote:
One last thing. As I write this, you posted six times before me, and you have been informed before that that's bad manners. Please work out what you want to say, all of it, before you post, so your multiple posts don't take up the entire page.
I'm sorry, I think some of what I am saying is new to some people, and so I can be long-winded in an effort to be understandable. As for the multiple posts, I'm tied up until midnight eastern USA time, and I think there are fewer people posting. I'm answering every post in order, and posting as soon as the answer is done, sometimes an hour or more after starting. Should I be doing it in some other way?
Thanks for the great arguments, Dinghy.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
What makes you think that your feeble mind - or my feeble mind - can understand scripture better than the concensus of the first millenium of Christianity? Why would any single individual look at the universal understanding of the faith from the first millenium of Christianity and think that any thought they might have would compare to the wisdom of that consensus? That question demands an answer.
And here are two:
1. The Protestant reformers never saw themselves as coming up with the true interpretation of the Bible for the first time. They believed they were restoring the faith of the Fathers and the Scriptures, after centuries of corruption by the medieval RCC.
Of course that's what they intended, and if you believe that 'the faith of the Fathers and the Scriptures' is open to wide interpretation, they were successful beyond what they would have thought possible.
2. Consensus? My head's reeling. Would that be the Monophysite consensus? The Nestorian consensus? The Paulician consensus? The gnostic consensus? The Donatist consensus? The chalcedonian consensus? The Origenist consensus? The Macedonian consensus? The Arian consensus? The semi-Arian consensus? The Aetian consensus? The Marcionite consensus? The Montanist consensus? The Ebionite consensus?.... [/QB][/QUOTE]
I don't know if this is a serious question of not. In what way are any of the above anything more than the beliefs of a splinter or strayed flock? They were in consensus within their own heresy?
If you're looking for consensus, look to the theology to which the Arians, Nestorians, Montanist and others reconciled themselves after the issue was decided by a universal council of Bishops representing the entirety of the Christian world.
Or look to the Nicean/Constantinoplian(?) Creed and its 1600 year history.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE]
Of course the theology of the church hasn't changed. Martin Luther didn't want to change the Biblical foundation of the creeds, he wanted to remove the overgrown weeds from the Truth so that it could be seen again.
Then you made some points about Roman Catholic "encrustation", with which I agree (I'm Orthodox, not RC).
I'll answer both things at once. I don't believe that the RC church is an evil institution. Barnacled, yes, and errant, but not evil. From their inception onward, the average RC priest has earnestly believed that they were responsible for the salvation of their flock and tried their best to that end. Likewise, though power can breed corruption, the leadership was chosen for their fealty and piety, was benevolent, and had every intention of preserving the Truth intact. Yet relying upon their own interpretation of the bible, having set themselves up as the arbiters of its meaning, they bred error after error.
This in spite of the fact that they started with the fullness of understanding of the universal Apostolic Church, as well as having Bibles.
To argue that Protestants haven't similarly erred is preposterous unless Truth is relative. If you think that any of the Catholic interpretations of the Bible - that's what their innovations and errors were - are dangerous to a person's salvation, given that they arose from people reading the Bible - and the Fathers - in earnest, how can you be sure that some of your beliefs are not similarly in error?
The best you can do is argue that your understanding is correct. Try arguing Bible verses with a sharp Unitarian or JW. But both of you can look outside yourselves for Truth, and when you do, the one unchanged theology in the one unchanged Christian Church are waiting with love.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
2. Consensus? My head's reeling. Would that be the Monophysite consensus? The Nestorian consensus? The Paulician consensus? The gnostic consensus? The Donatist consensus? The chalcedonian consensus? The Origenist consensus? The Macedonian consensus? The Arian consensus? The semi-Arian consensus? The Aetian consensus? The Marcionite consensus? The Montanist consensus? The Ebionite consensus?....
I don't know if this is a serious question of not. In what way are any of the above anything more than the beliefs of a splinter or strayed flock? They were in consensus within their own heresy?
If you're looking for consensus, look to the theology to which the Arians, Nestorians, Montanist and others reconciled themselves after the issue was decided by a universal council of Bishops representing the entirety of the Christian world.
Or look to the Nicean/Constantinoplian(?) Creed and its 1600 year history. [/QB]
This is the kind of junk I am talking about. Preserving the Truth means simply killing, condemning or throwing out any person who disagrees with your understanding of things. Because that keeps people from falling away -- blind acceptance of unchallenged dogma, bred through fear and rigid discipline.
I remember Jesus last words... "Behold, I am with the Church--that's with a big "C" remember--always, so if you need to know what the Truth is, you can find it at the Church. And by all means do NOT think for yourself about it. Dear God what kind of disaster could that cause?!?"
That and, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes to the Father except through the Church, who maintains sole possession of this way, truth and life."
It really boils my blood, to be honest.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Why did Luther exist as a force in history in the way he did? It took 500 years for him to come along. Nowhere in the history of the Church was there an example of something as radical as a Luther.
Nonsense. What about Wyclif & Hus? Just over the mountains from Luther's Saxony the kingdom of Bohemia had broken away from Rome about a century earlier - and initially at least much more bloodily than Luther's German Reformation.
A thousand years before that blood was spilled in Constantinople and half the cities of the Empier over monophysitism. Even the Emperor and the Empress fell out over it. And the supposedly monophysite churches still exist, and have tens of millions of adherents.
And they aren't part of the Church. God never promised we would not fight over the Truth, just that it would always be with us.
You said, 'nonsense' to my argument, but what you followed with proves nothing. Each of the heresies, such as the monophosytes, which resulted in an Ecumenical Council, reconciled themselves to the Church in whole or in part, and they were all arguing something distinctly less radical than what Luther said. The early heretics were trying to change the Church from within, and saying that one element of theology was being improperly understood. Luther said to read it for yourself and decide what it means.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I think some of what I am saying is new to some people, and so I can be long-winded in an effort to be understandable.
I think the usual argument regarding the supremacy of Orthodoxy is emering here; and it's not new to most of us.
Of course, some aspect of what anyone says will be new to some people..... but we could all claim that justification for long-windedness.
I wonder if you could join the call to hell with Mousethief? Would be an interesting contrast......
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
The only 'church' that can claim to consistently defend a single Truth is the only one which has ever done so. We believe that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and I would argue that this is manifestly so.
[...]
The fact that the Church's theology is unchanged should suggest to an objective observer that something is protecting it from error.
OK, I come clean here. I do not think that either the doctrine or the practice of the Orthodox churches is unchanged since the time of the Apostles. I don't think there is any serious evidence for that at all. I don't belive it is true.
If you believe that, then you have not read the writings from the early Church and are not familiar with its practice today.
quote:
And, to make matters worse, I do not think that either the doctrine or the practice of the Orthodox churches is unchanged since the time of the great councils either. And I suspect that the liturgy and practices of the Egyptian and Armenian churches - supposedly monophysite heretics - have changed about the same amount since then. Maybe less. So if I was forced to choose churches on the grounds of historical continuity with, or resemblence to, the Great Church of ancient times, I could not distinguish between the Copts or Constantinople.
Sure, if you decided to go with a splinter heresy that took a fraction of the Church with it. It's fine that you don't believe that the Church is unchanging. I will grant it in one regard: The visitation of the HS at Pentacost did not write a creed, or establish sacramental services, these things had to develop, but they were developed to an eventual consensus.
To my knowledge, no one has ever proven that the theology of the Church has changed. You keep saying it has, in spite of lots of historical evidence I have provided that it has not, so you have the burden, friend. Prove it. If you can, I will concede the argument, and with it any claim that Orthodoxy has an unchanged understanding of theology and salvation.
quote:
In fact I don't think the doctrines and practices of those churches are entirely unchanged since the time of the schism with the western European churches. Although the liturgy is perhaps less changed than in the west, I am almost willing to bet it is changed.
It has changed, insofar as most churches today practice the abbreviated form (1 1/2 hours), not the five hour service. That the Litugy has beenthe same Liturgy for 1600+ years is an historical fact.
quote:
So your argument doesn't wash. As a Christian faced with a real choice of which church to be a member of, the idea that the Orthodox have preserved the unchanged Truth throughout history doesn't help me at all. Because how do I know it is true? All I have is your word for it! And I also hear the Copts and the Romans and the Anapbaptists and the Restorationists and even some of the blunter Presbyterians telling met that it is false! How can I be sure?
I hope you're asking in earnest, because I think that any earnest, objective person, with no pre-conceived ideas about these things, and with a humble heart, can find the Truth. If people enter into the search for Truth deciding to be largely subjective - to find something that sounds good to them - that's what they will find, and many will find it satisfying. But if you are really looking for objective Truth, true whether we like it and agree or not, I think a very powerful argument can be made that Orthodoxy is closest to the Source.
I hope you will do some research, to find out for yourself if the Church has changed. People will always write their own version of history. If you read RC sources, they will claim to be the Truth from the Source onward, but they changed their creed, and more since. If you read Protestant sources, you will generally find someone arguing that the Church at some point fell into heresy, and then lay dormant until the reformation. But the 'heresy' is always that the Church does or says something that disagrees with the author's interpretation of Scripture. Not such a great argument when the other side consists of all of Church history prior to 1054.
quote:
To even be able to meaningfully assess it I'd have to know an awful lot more about the history of the church and comparitive liturgy than I do. (And I already do no more about those things than nine out of ten, if not ninety-nine out of a hundred, of my fellow Christians) And I'd probably have to learn Greek & Syriac. It would take me years if I was capable of it at all.
No, brother. All you have to do is look at some of the arguments against it. Look at where they come from and how that affects them, and be objective. If you find something that tells you that the Church has changed, in any meaningful way, please (please) share it with me and give me a chance to respond to it.
I don't care for some elements of Orthodox Theology. Some of it doesn't accord with what reason tells me. But I submit. For one, I'm not meant to understand everything. None of us can understand the Trinity. None of us can understand how the Creator did it all. Nor His nature. In fact, Scripture warns against speculating about such things. So though I cannot understand or accept it all on the level of reason, I still accept it, believing that my wisdom counts for little when compared to the consensus of the ancients about the Truth of the faith and our salvation.
That Truth has been preserved, and in Orthodoxy, you will find it, and the vehicle to a truly transforming life in Christ, if one is truly willing.
Thanks, Ken
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
.....any earnest, objective person, with no pre-conceived ideas about these things, and with a humble heart, can find the Truth.
This seems to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is not earnest, objective, or has pre-conceived ideas.
I earnestly believe in God; but I recognise that atheists/agnostics may disagree with me.... but do so in honest, objective and earnest error.
Secondly; teaching on divorce in Orthodoxy..... has this changed?
Thirdly; Hinduism has not changed appreciably in 4-5000 years. Is this a similar testament to the truth?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I think some of what I am saying is new to some people, and so I can be long-winded in an effort to be understandable.
I think the usual argument regarding the supremacy of Orthodoxy is emering here; and it's not new to most of us.
Of course, some aspect of what anyone says will be new to some people..... but we could all claim that justification for long-windedness.
I wonder if you could join the call to hell with Mousethief? Would be an interesting contrast......
If HELL is some kind of debate or challenge, just tell me if I have to do anything special. I'll go there now on another window.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
It seems to me, in a setup which was persecuted in England, full of individualism (had to be to survive the persecution), and prone to the cult of the personality coming from the individualism, the question is not why so many have come and gone, but why do any survive?
(the above came after you mentioned some long-lived Protestant churches and sects)
They survive because Christ compels us. Christ's love is preached in earnest across America and the world every Sunday in countless Churches of every stripe. Most people find it spiritually satisfying, and many are spiritually transformed in those churches.
They look across the road and seeing another Christian church with distinctly different beliefs, but they stay where they are because in both cases they are not compelled in any way to change. Both believe themselves to be 'strictly Biblical', in spite of their obvious disagreements. And they believe that the road to salvation is at least broad enough to accomodate them, and that their church knows enough about walking it for them to get by.
The various Protestant churches and long-lived denominations survive because they don't believe that there exists an arbiter of Truth, someone who can tell them what it all means.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Many of us do. We just don't believe in a single arbiter. There is a combination approach; listening to one's elders, hearing the voice of the church, reading the bible, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit..... and each one judging in his/her heart what to believe. As it is written "let the other judge".... not "let the Church judge". This appears to be the practice Paul was advocating for the church.
The church has been involved in anti-semitism in the past, has it not? We hear about Greek versus Arab bi-partisanship..... I'm sure there are other sins..... The church of Acts was clearly riddled with error that needed correcting.
I would need good evidence to accept that the church was infallible/indefectible.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
The God-guided Church has chiefly concerned itself with preserving the Apostolic Church in purity?!? Alas, my friends, I believe we have come again upon the Circular Definition Proof (CDP, as perhaps we should begin referring to it).
Definition 1: The God-guided Church is only made up of those who have retained the Orthodox theology from the beginning.
Definition 2: Any who are said to err are excluded from the God-guided Church on the basis that the church has proclaimed that they have erred.
Conclusion: The Orthodox Church is the God-guided Church, and as such is incapable of erring.
It's a ridiculous argument. I challenge tradition and consider my own interpretations of Scripture not because I see myself as the Sole Proprietor of Truth™, but because I believe that honest dialogue between people with differing opinions will arrive more closely at the truth, taking into consideration the great history of tradition, councils and ideas, than those who simply sit and refuse to question for the sake of some false sense of continuity.
You make several points, which I will take in the order presented.
1. First, the proof. The proof, like everything else, only has meaning in light of Scripture. AISB, there is little reason to believe that the church St. Paul refers to in the Bible is a mystical/spiritual thing alone, those who 'follow Christ' to the best of their beliefs. It was then, and still is, in many of the same cities, also an earthly, physical thing. So an actual Church, with an actual history and continuity existed. And until you can show where, once a consensus was reached and then preserved, the Church has changed its theology, what you are really militating against is the consensus of the early Church. Did all agree, all the time? No, that's why there were dissidents and heresies, and councils to affirm the Truth as it had been handed down.
Further, replace the words "Orthodox Church" with "Jerusalem's Orthodox Jewish churches" fill in the rest of the proof, and you come to the same conclusion, and it is one about The Creator's abilities. Namely, that His guidance is incapable of preserving the fullness of Truth about what it takes for his most beloved ones to be with Him.
2. Your councils with your earnest Christian friends may provide great spiritual food for you, or may lead you to error, you don't know. You don't know because you are human, and a small group, if for no other reasons. If you decide to look at Scripture and your walk on the narrow path and glean what you will from it, that is your choice. But the church has battled error for two millenia, and since _their argument has not changed_ I am inclined to trust them, rather then myself.
3. You say the church has false continuity. I make the same offer I made to Ken: prove it and I will concede the argument.
I think you are looking at the Church as a monolithic, despotic institution, which crushes dissent because it serves its collective ego to do so. The Church resists heresy because it does not accord with the understanding of God's message as passed on by the Apostles. Protestants will tell us that there were oodles and oodles of copies of the new testament, more of less in its entirety, floating around in the early years of the Church. Let's say that this is true. Then, as now, we need help to understand them. This is proved by the fact that we have so many different understandings of Scripture, and in some cases those understandings affect our salvation. So then, as now, leaders who can instruct and guide would be chosen because of their fealty to God's word. And it wouldn't be God's word as we might understand it ourselves, but as understood and explained by the Apostles. The works of many souls for many decades are encapsulated in a few pages of Scripture. How much more was said? The rest of what was said was the true meat on the bones, what it all means to us.
And charged with passing that message on intact, they did so. We don't believe and do what we do out of pride or rigidness, we do and believe as we do because Christians have always done so. We don't condemn new and different beliefs because they are not thoughtful, or not interesting, but because they do not accord with the understanding of God's message as preserved from antiquity, and, as a result, can affect the only thing that ultimately concerns the Church, the salvation of its members.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
If veneration was so important in the NT church can you give me any passages in the Bible that teach us how we should carry out these acts of veneration properly? Or where the church was corrected for not carrying out veneration properly?
Andreas hasn't answered this, so I will.
You could ask where much that is done in many churches is spelled out word for word in the new Testament. We know for an archeological fact that early Christian churches adorned their walls with artwork, and that this was common throughout the history of the Church. It was many centuries before some reacted against the use of icons and artwork, and it was ultimately resolved in their favor. The reasons for this are manifold, the best one is the one that always guides the Church: The Church has always done or believed it.
Did someone start painting the walls of churches and making icons the minute Christ entered creation? No, but when some started to do so, those who objected were told the same things the Church has always said on the matter. Those answers sufficed for first century Christians, they will suffice for me.
snip
quote:
So I also see a distinct lack of images in the OT church hence why should the NT church need them?
It's not a matter of needing, nor are they necessary for our salvation. They are a beautiful glorification of God. They are a window to another world, and they depict those who should guide us, Christ, Christ and the Theotokos (she is never depicted alone, nor are the Father and the Holy Spirit depicted, we don't know what they look like), and the saints. When we look at an icon we are reminded in a direct way of the kinds of lives that others have lived in Christ, completely submitting themselves to God's will, and we are emboldened by their example, and encouraged by their love.
One of the reasons for the 2nd commandment is that God had not yet revealed Himself to mankind, so we couldn't picture him. After He did so, it is perfectly appropriate to depict him - he walked among us in physical form. And we know as we have always known that there is no element of worship involved, which is the spirit of the 2nd commandment.
quote:
Also tradition does change one church council declared the use of icons as wrong and then the next one does a complete about turn - which council should we trust. (My knowledge of ecumenical councils is limited - but I think I am right in this)
As you would guess I would say, you are indeed incorrect in this case. The council which spoke againts icons was a local or regional council, its action prompted the church-wide council, where the issue was resolved.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
No, this is the second council of Nice, the one that said: "Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols."
ETA: http://www.newadvent.com/fathers/3819.htm
In my mind we have two sides here, one is saying that these are a good way to worship God. And another that points to the Bible and says that we are not to worship things that are manmade.
A responding question is what of my brothers and sisters in Christ who are uncomfortable in the extreme with icons and wonder why people are "worshiping" pictures? Am I to just tell them that they are wrong when they are trying their best to follow the scriptures?
Please see my post previous to this one, where I talk about the why of icons. The best thing to tell your friend is that if he/she intends to become Catholic or Orthodox and they don't care for icons, they don't have to look at them. They are beautiful, so they probably eventually will look at and appreciate them, especailly when they realize no worship is involved.
To your main point, God is always pleased when his love is returned. But are we certain what he expects of us? How narrow is the road, and if the truth seems so plain and obvious, why is it narrow? God's expectations are summed up in the ten ccommandments, nos. 11 and 12 (love..God...neighbor) and the beaitudes. If a person faithfully honors them with an eye on Communion with God, they are truly living the Christian life. But it's not easy, and in its understanding of salvation and theology, in its sacraments, and the spiritual disciplines made available to believers are all a great aid and comfort, great aid is givento believers. It is also provided by the church community and one's spiritual father.
Orthodox are gladdened by any earnest worship of God, and as always believers can believe as they will, but with Orthodoxy one can rest assured that the beliefs are time-honored in the ultimate sense. And not having to figure out and decide everything allows one's focus to be on working out their salvation.
That doesn't mean one can't read, write, and speak about all of these things, as I am doing now. A life in Orthodoxy is extremely challenging and satisfying, in both regards because the truth-seeker comes to realize that they are finally sinking their teeth into Truth.
quote:
Again the text says that we are to follow the scriptures. Am I to put the teaching of the council above them? If so, then when am I supposed to know when someone is in error?
If you don't have any standard against which to measure theology, you can't know if someone is in error. So we either concede error or find a truth worth rallying around.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
[shrugs] Then why bother learning or discussing anything? Just wait and see whether one's own demonination survives - if not, you'll shift elsewhere, and if so, it's probably orthodox. This belief encourages apathy.
Do you know a lot of Orthodox people? Do they seem apathetic to you?
Be serious. Was the early church apathetic? Was the faith only worth living when heresy abounded? Does a faithful Christian lose motivation if they concede that they don't know and can't know, by themselves, all the answers?
Orthodox argue about scripture all the time. That's a pleasure when done in love, and it's something not lost to us.
Brother, one can live as full a life in Christ in Orthodoxy as anywhere. Apathy? Because the Truth is fixed and one accepts it? No, friend - faith, and humility, and confidence that, if one is willing, the path is lit.
[code -- but it's a lot better]
[ 04. November 2005, 15:46: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
Also tradition does change one church council declared the use of icons as wrong and then the next one does a complete about turn - which council should we trust. (My knowledge of ecumenical councils is limited - but I think I am right in this)
You are, and it's a good point. How are Councils discerned from amongst the many councils?
Councils were populated by Bishops from all over the Christian world, generally one Bishop presided over a city or a larger rural area. The first, at Nicea in 325, was attended by 318 Bishops. There were seven ecumenical coucils of the whole church, the one that dissented over icons was a smaller, regional coucil.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
There is an interesting anathema contained in the second council of Nice, which is an ecumenical council.
quote:
Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.
How do Protestants reply to this anathema?
andreas1984
I thought I would answer your question directly, my friend. I think I see the Anathema as still in operation today. In general, I dont think Protestants accept the premises of the Anathema. To illustrate I will concentrate on one feature. Tradition, and teaching about it, which is not recorded in scripture, are regarded as subject to test in scripture.
I think where the confusion arises is that this is not necessarily a "sola scriptura" position. Protestants vary a great deal on the degree to which they take Tradition and the Fathers' teaching as authoritative. (They also vary a good deal on the ways in which they treat scripture as authoritative and inspired). But it is generally true that Protestants would not take the teachings of the holy Fathers as binding for them today.
I post as someone who has found and does find great, and continuing, value in extra-canonical writings and sayings by Christians of all ages. But I tend to ask the same questions of all of them.
1. Is what is said consistent with scripture as I understand it?
2. Does is "resonate as true" in accordance with the inner witness of the Holy Spirit?
The fact that I ask those questions, reverently as well as critically, probably subjects me to the Anethema as written. I may be an offence as a result, but I'm not offended by that. I'm definitely a non-conformist Protestant, not afraid to ask questions and challenge, respectfully, received wisdom and understanding. For me, that is the real journey of submission. My current understanding, after over thirty years in the church, has been achieved, piece by piece, by approaching truth in that way, in the company of and under the authority of the Christians with whom I worship. It may be a personal understanding but it has not been reached in accordance with my own understanding at any point in time. I've submitted to things I did not agree with (and sometimes found this to be a good thing), misunderstood, made mistakes, changed my mind, changed it back again. I remain teachable. One of the meanings of disciple is simply "learner". And I expect to go on learning - until my brain gives out.
We can be a confusing lot, of course. Ask another Protestant and you may get a different answer!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
This is the kind of junk I am talking about. Preserving the Truth means simply killing, condemning or throwing out any person who disagrees with your understanding of things. Because that keeps people from falling away -- blind acceptance of unchallenged dogma, bred through fear and rigid discipline.
Friend, much of _your_ understanding of Christianity is based upon Orthodoxy's defense of it. That is true if you are remotely Catholic or remotely Protestant. To characterize that defense as if it is some miserly curmudgeon, zealously guarding what he wants to shove down everyone's throat, is dishonest unless you know nothing of the Church.
Tell me, sir, what ought the Church have done when six heresies confronted it about the very nature of our Lord and savior? Their defense of His nature conformed with the earliest understanding of it. Where they to tell people, "sure, this other understanding of our Lord and Saviour is perfectly acceptable, and thoroughly Orthodox, and it is true. Wait, maybe the traditional understanding is true. Who cares?" St. Paul talls us to guard the truth, are we to not do so because it might trample on someone's creativity? You can accept the idea that the truth (notice the small t) about our salvation is pliable, and that it's mean-spirited to want to guard the beliefs and the traditions of the progenitors of the faith but frankly, it is a strange belief. I wonder, sir, would you say the same thing about Orthodox of any other faith? Most of the Christians I know respect Orthodox Jews especially, and because of their adherence to their traditional faith, and most Christians don't see in it a desire to trample or mentally eviscerate anyone.
That you see it of the Orthodox of your faith speaks volumes about something - you know better than I do what the motivation for your hostility is, I have no clue and would not care to guess.
quote:
I remember Jesus last words... "Behold, I am with the Church--that's with a big "C" remember--always, so if you need to know what the Truth is, you can find it at the Church. And by all means do NOT think for yourself about it. Dear God what kind of disaster could that cause?!?"
That and, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes to the Father except through the Church, who maintains sole possession of this way, truth and life."
It really boils my blood, to be honest.
-Digory
You're not thinking very deeply or charitably about it. If the creator's universe is one in which the truth is malleable, then by all means, discuss it in only the most general terms, and impart whatever meaning you like to it. Do you do this? Probably not, you probably try to be honest and careful, not interpreting things to allow you to do things that your Creator-implantd conscience tells you not to, for instance. But that malleability is acceptable is at the root of your protest against preserving the early Chistians understandings.
If the Orthordox Church has preserved the Truth as understood by the Apostles, why would you, personally, look anywhere else for it, and why would you not want to see it continue to be defended, in the event that you might one day want to know more about it? That is what we are trying to do, and have done, for nearly 2000 years. There is no power-trip in it. Read the Fathers on humility and you will see that.
_________
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
"But," the little Protestant angel with the fluffy tail sitting on my other shoulder says, "but, you have the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Read them..."
and the little Catholic angel with the spikey hair sitting next to him says - "and just to be safe be an Anglican which does have a modicum of continuity ..."
Except I suspect that you are not really a Protestant at all Ken. I should know I used to be one. Being Anglican is surely the best of both worlds?
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward::Green:
Except I suspect that you are not really a Protestant at all Ken. I should know I used to be one. Being Anglican is surely the best of both worlds?
No, being Anglican is a way of being Protestant. Which is to say "Reformed Catholic", the words meaning the same thing. The patently absurd claim that the CofE is not Protestant is not to be taken at face value - who could believe it literally? - but is a rhetorical stance within the Church of England that attemtps to make certain views of what that church is, or should be, normative. And as such is a very, very, Protestant way of behaving.
And every week I read these boards convinces me more and more of that.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward::Green:
Except I suspect that you are not really a Protestant at all Ken. I should know I used to be one. Being Anglican is surely the best of both worlds?
No, being Anglican is a way of being Protestant. Which is to say "Reformed Catholic", the words meaning the same thing. The patently absurd claim that the CofE is not Protestant is not to be taken at face value - who could believe it literally? - but is a rhetorical stance within the Church of England that attemtps to make certain views of what that church is, or should be, normative. And as such is a very, very, Protestant way of behaving.
And every week I read these boards convinces me more and more of that.
I agree that being Anglican is a way of being Protestant i.e. protesting at the errors of the Bishop of Rome and in that sense it is Reformed Catholic.
However I would like suggest that there is less to protest about these days as the Church of Rome has itself reformed since the days of Martin Luther and perhaps some of us have found that the C16th protesting reformers were not exclusively right about everything and that those who continued in the Roman church still had something to offer. I therefore remain both Catholic and Protestant but hoping that the gap may so narrow that we can be in communion with each other (also with Methodists and Lutherans etc etc)
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I come clean here. I do not think that either the doctrine or the practice of the Orthodox churches is unchanged since the time of the Apostles. I don't think there is any serious evidence for that at all. I don't belive it is true.
If you believe that, then you have not read the writings from the early Church and are not familiar with its practice today.
Which writings of the time of the Apostles that I haven't read would you recommend?
quote:
If you read RC sources, they will claim to be the Truth from the Source onward, but they changed their creed, and more since. If you read Protestant sources, you will generally find someone arguing that the Church at some point fell into heresy, and then lay dormant until the reformation. But the 'heresy' is always that the Church does or says something that disagrees with the author's interpretation of Scripture.
[QUOTE][QB]
Not such a great argument when the other side consists of all of Church history prior to 1054.
Are you claiming that the western European churches were not Orthodox before 1054? When do you think they ceased to be Orthodox then? Were they ever Orthodox in your view?
If you think they were Orthodox before 1054 (or at any other time) then you cannot say that your side inlcudes "all of Church history prior to 1054" because their side also includes at least some of it. That shared history with the Roman Catholics - also shared with Moravians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists and all the rest of them - includes just about all the major theological doctrines of Christianity.
quote:
All you have to do is look at some of the arguments against it. Look at where they come from and how that affects them, and be objective. If you find something that tells you that the Church has changed, in any meaningful way, please (please) share it with me and give me a chance to respond to it.
What you are saying only makes sense if you already believe that one group of churches is really somehow The Church and all the rest are fakes. But it cannot possibly help someone who does not believe that come to that belief. How could it? Pretty obviously the Church now has many, many instances on earth, all worshipping differently from each other. So at the very least almost all of them nmust have changed their practice. None of them seem to resemble the earliest churches very closely.
quote:
I don't care for some elements of Orthodox Theology. Some of it doesn't accord with what reason tells me. But I submit. For one, I'm not meant to understand everything. None of us can understand the Trinity. None of us can understand how the Creator did it all. Nor His nature.
All those truths are held in common by (nearly) all Christians. Protestants as much as Orthodox. So believing them, or submitting to them, is no reason for someone to join one church rather than another.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Not all protestants believe in a post-modern, malleable truth, believe what suits you approach.
Probably very few do.
Yet there seems an implication that rejecting the one true church as arbiter of truth implies as much. It doesn't.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Not all protestants believe in a post-modern, malleable truth, believe what suits you approach.
Probably very few do.
Yet there seems an implication that rejecting the one true church as arbiter of truth implies as much. It doesn't.
Yet the ultimate outcome of the "just me and Jaysus and the Bahbull" approach ("soul competency" is one term for this, I think?) seems to be a situation in which there are as many theologies as there are theologians, which does seem (to this very jaded observer) to be as close to post-modernism as makes no never-mind. If every individual is capable of discerning the truth, then what criteria will be used to tell any given individual that what they've discerned is not, in fact, the truth? And by whom?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Mousethief: quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mdijon:
Not all protestants believe in a post-modern, malleable truth, believe what suits you approach.
Probably very few do.
Yet there seems an implication that rejecting the one true church as arbiter of truth implies as much. It doesn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet the ultimate outcome of the "just me and Jaysus and the Bahbull" approach ("soul competency" is one term for this, I think?) seems to be a situation in which there are as many theologies as there are theologians, which does seem (to this very jaded observer) to be as close to post-modernism as makes no never-mind. If every individual is capable of discerning the truth, then what criteria will be used to tell any given individual that what they've discerned is not, in fact, the truth? And by whom?
Respectfully, guys, I think you're both wrong about postmodernism. Protestantism is about rejecting traditional religious authority (and authorities) in the name of Truth. And Truth is actually as modern a concept as you could wish for. Capital-T Truth is the way things are, which can be grasped by reason, and used to subvert traditional authority. Protestantism began by setting the Truth over against the Church (where premodern European culture had lined them up, because the latter was the source of knowledge about the former), then was driven to look for the Truth in the Bible to set over against the (traditional - but basically human, and therefore not guaranteed True) Church. Then, of course, liberal Protestantism, in perhaps its greatest religious achievement, turned its critical arsenal on its own Truth, and liberated science from religious authority, whereupon Science became Truth. Mousethief - you're really close to the heart, not of the postmodern, but of the modern, when you say quote:
If every individual is capable of discerning the truth, then what criteria will be used to tell any given individual that what they've discerned is not, in fact, the truth? And by whom?
What happens in the postmodern is that people stop caring about the truth, and stop fighting about it - because they don't believe that there is Truth any more. There is absolutely nothing postmodern about Protestantism - which is why postmodern Protestant churches are divesting themselves of all that made them modern - often without realizing it.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
