|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Protestantism
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I have to admit, Psyduck, that you show more alacrity for defining post-modern than I if you can so accurately dissect from it modern.....
Perhaps I should abandon the term. I was using it in it's flippant, insulting term; rather like the use of "PC" I suppose.....
My own view is that one can be committed to a community of believers, the wisdom of those older, wiser and gone before.... including tradition, the bible.... and one's own reading of the bible, and one's own judgment.
I don't suppose it is as clear cut as "The Church" and "Tradition"..... (well, clearly it isn't).... what can be said for it, is that "It's what there is".
I see indications in the bible that we should judge prophecy for ourselves.... I see indications that "Sola scriptura".... me, my Jesus and my Bible as you so eloquently put it, Mousethief....... indications that this requires interpretation and is not constant...... yet I find myself unable to believe that a single edifice, the Church, has been preserved from error.
I know I still don't get the infallible/indefectible stuff.... humour me, please..... but the history, and the present, make this a real leap of faith for me.
I once believed that the Bible was inerrant; after much mental gymnastic, I've finally given up the ghost there.... I suspect I would go through the same loop with the church were I to try and believe it.
So the mishmash of guidance I describe is what there is left; somehow trying to balance so that no one influence is relied on in totality; since no one can be relied on to be inerrant.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Psyduck ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Indeed, the fundamentalist concept of soul liberty does produce a plethora of interpretations of Scripture; however, each one is asserted vigorously to be Absolute Truth(TM), which is all very Modern - what it doesn't do is admit of any kind of relativism within that plethora which would be post-Modern, quite the opposite.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I loved Mousethief and Psyduck's posts, because they seem to me to lead inexorable, from very different POV, to this question. What is it that saves Christianity from the equal and opposite sins of unbridled individuality and monolithic, totalitarian unity? The biblical answer is koinonia. A word which in the koine means communication, communion, contribution, distribution and fellowship. There may be exceptional callings to solitude, but the vast majority of us desperately need to work out our salvation as comitted members of Christian communities. The reason is not one we find easy to admit. I think it was Jim Wallis (in his excellent book "The Call to Conversion" - about to be re-issued) who pointed out, based on his own experiences in forming Christian communities, that it is in community that we discover just how individuated, enslaved to our own needs and obsessions, we really are.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
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?
Knowledge of the Truth.
By God.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
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.
No. Postmodernists believe there is Truth. It just cannot be known by us, who can never decide which truth gets to be elected to the office of Truth™.
This Ship, as well as Protestantism as a whole, are both pretty good arguments for the postmodernists' case.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I loved Mousethief and Psyduck's posts, because they seem to me to lead inexorable, from very different POV, to this question. What is it that saves Christianity from the equal and opposite sins of unbridled individuality and monolithic, totalitarian unity? The biblical answer is koinonia. A word which in the koine means communication, communion, contribution, distribution and fellowship. There may be exceptional callings to solitude, but the vast majority of us desperately need to work out our salvation as comitted members of Christian communities. The reason is not one we find easy to admit. I think it was Jim Wallis (in his excellent book "The Call to Conversion" - about to be re-issued) who pointed out, based on his own experiences in forming Christian communities, that it is in community that we discover just how individuated, enslaved to our own needs and obsessions, we really are.
This is what I too believe.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
If you really believe that, why do you sift through theology, picking and choosing what pleases you to believe?
You're being extremely presumptuous there, and not a little rude. I do my best to find out what's true. I'd rather know the truth than something to stroke my desires anyday, and my desire tends to be to get to the bottom of things.
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
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.
No, you're still missing the point.Leo X et al were NOT sola scriptura, by any stretch of the imagination. That should be obvious since SS was a slogan of the reformers, who really didn't like them. Just because RC leadership decided to stop looking at their past, but for a little bit still read the bible fairly regularly, does not mean that it was because of the reading the bible that they erred. They dumped most of that pretty soon afterwards. One could argue that it was looking too much to themselves, when they should have been reading the bible more, that meant they went astray.
A lot of the contrasting theology that you claim to have come from the bible, I'd say hasn't done so in its entirety. A lot of the contrast is brought about by people approaching the bible with their own agendas, and people with agendas aren't going to leave Tradition alone either (do you prefer a different word to Tradition?). SS is very much less malleable than you make out.
As for Mormons, stop blaming that on protestantism, or popes, or anything. Those guys from Salt Lake City are pretty crazy (yes I did say that) and you can't do much about crazy people. You'll get them in whatever situation.
By the way, by what ticket is your church universal?
quote:
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.
So you're saying something must be true because it takes the difficult questions away? You want a clear cut, spoonfed answer about what to do, so if something provides you with that, it must be true? In that case, you have more in common with the Alabama New Testament EeVanGelical Bible church of Jesus Christ than you think.
quote:
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.
No, SQ. There are many churches out there, and sinful humans have a tendency to change things over the course of two thousand years. The burden of proof lies on you to show that your church is the one and only that hasn't change. Ken knows significantly more than I do, and I'd say I know more than most of the people I know who aren't vicars or theology graduates or whatever. As he says, examining whether the EO church has changed significantly more than the others in the past umpteen hundred years would be a near-impossible task, to do it in any meaningful depth. If he doesn't fancy the task of seriously examining your church from a thousand years ago to see if it's changed since then, why should any ordinary believer do it, let alone a non-believer?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
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?
"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"
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!
Well you may kiss icons of the present day but if you touched the tabernacle (Number 4 v15) or the ark of the covenant (2 Samuel 6 v 6&7) you would surely die. No touching far less kissing (a bit like evangelical colleges).
The second point about the ark and the tabernacle was God gave instruction how to make these objects - where in scripture does it tell us how we should design icons. Where does scipture tell us that Orthdox icons are correct and non Orthodox icons are false.
As to things like the Statue of Liberty and my photo albums - these things have no pretentions with respect to religion. Except say my photographs of Israel I have.Or the photographs of vineyards that I have been to.
I am sure when the Israelites made the golden calf they would have said that they were not worshipping the idol but were worshipping their gods through the use of an image (Exodus 32 v4)
Next time you look at an icon - tell me what the difference is between it and Psalm 115 v 4 - 8
Tell me if you see any similarities at all.
As far as I am aware it is the vast majority of protestants that have nothing to do with icons (I am prepared to be shot down on this one)
but I thought that was one of the things we protested about.
I would also say to Sophia's Questions - historical precedent does not wash (these churches that are dug up may well have been apostate for example) - if icons were so important for the Church would God not have included some direction with regards to icons. God felt it important to point the way of salvation, baptism, communion, in His word why not give a couple of verses at least to how to venerate icons.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
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.
I said: If you believe that, then you have not read the writings from the early Church and are not familiar with its practice today.
To which you replied: quote:
Which writings of the time of the Apostles that I haven't read would you recommend?
If you're concerned with checking to see if the Church's belief and practice has changed, read some things from each of the first three centuries. Here's a link to general guidance on the subject: www.ROCA.org
I said, 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.
Not such a great argument when the other side consists of all of Church history prior to 1054.
To which you replied,
quote:
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.
You're right, and I don't claim that. The entire world was Orthodox until Rome was excommunicated in 1054, East and West.
snip my next part, you replied to it with,
quote:
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.
Orthodoxy does. There are lots of bright people posting here about this, and the fact that no one has offered evidence of a change in Church theology and practice is no reflection on their intelligence or knowledge, because the information does not exist. If the OC belief and practice is not a continuation of the practices and beliefs of the earliest Christians, the evidence of it is lost to history.
You aren't born with this knowledge, so yes, it helps to believe it before you are going to do anything about it, but the first step to believing is learning about something.
I said, 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.
To which you replied,
quote:
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.
There is too much disparity of belief to argue that convincingly. Again, agreement on general Truths about Christ and our relation to him does not translate to a common understanding of the best way to walk the narrow road of salvation, our chief concern.
Thanks, Ken
--------------------
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 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.
Of course very few would say that, but the variety of their beliefs reflects that they have in fact adopted that approach.
Let's put it in perspective. What is sin? When does it occur? What effect does it have upon our salvation? How is it best avoided?
Those are rhetorical questions, asked to make a simple point: Ask Protestants those questions and you will get many different answers.
Does there exist a most complete and accurate answer to these questions? Most honest Protestants, looking around them and not wanting to think that their cousins are in error with regard to something as important as avoiding sin in this fallen world, will say that, no, there is no best or final answer to these questions.
Those Protestants who insist that there is a fixed truth about them are either defending their own understanding in the face of many others, or they have accepted the Orthodox understanding.
In what way, unless you object to what I wrote above, is the truth about sin not malleable in Protestantism?
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
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.
This only makes sense if one can provide some examples. You speak of the grand new truth of science (which is always contingent, Ultimate Truth is not) as being the fruit of Protestantism, and the truth we can all recognize as and through reason.
So let's have an example, please. Give me an example of a theological Truth that has been unearthed since the reformation, or an Orthodox truth that has been found in error. Then, if you please, explain to me how these new truths are known to be true, and who identifies them as such for us.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
I know I still don't get the infallible/indefectible stuff.... humour me, please..... but the history, and the present, make this a real leap of faith for me.
I once believed that the Bible was inerrant; after much mental gymnastic, I've finally given up the ghost there.... I suspect I would go through the same loop with the church were I to try and believe it.
You don't even have to believe that the Church is inerrant to benefit from it. We aren't put to the question, we're given guidance and help of an ancient and eternally reliable nature. All one has to do is accept the objective fact that if the beliefs and practices of the earliest Christians have been faithfully preserved, it is likely in Orthodoxy.
This is a question of faith. When Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, and that a comforter (the Holy Spitit) would come to guide it, he clearly meant for it to receive divine protection and guidance. That Orthodox belief and practice, once affirned by the universal church, has not changed, should be proof to any objective observer that something aside from fallible individuals is guiding it.
(people keep saying they have a hard time believing that the Church's theology and practice haven't changed - please, please, someone give some clear evidence so we can discuss it - I maintain that it doesn't exist, and I await any answer in the offing.)
quote:
So the mishmash of guidance I describe is what there is left; somehow trying to balance so that no one influence is relied on in totality; since no one can be relied on to be inerrant.
And so we trust........... ourselves. Our own discernment. When that is set up as the judge, it acts as such. A person believes what feels right to them. All well and good, but unless Truth is malleable (please, someone, argue it is), how does this personal discernment of truth bring one to the fullness of actual Truth? And don't all people who establish their own version of truth belive it to be capital T Truth? Is it, if it differs from one person to another?
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
I said,
If you really believe that, why do you sift through theology, picking and choosing what pleases you to believe?
You replied,
quote:
You're being extremely presumptuous there, and not a little rude. I do my best to find out what's true. I'd rather know the truth than something to stroke my desires anyday, and my desire tends to be to get to the bottom of things.
Dinghy, you know I didn't mean what I said to be rude. I have never said that your search for Truth is not earnest. If I didn't believe it was earnest I would not be spending any time replying to your posts. Offense was not intended, please forgive me for any taken from my comments.
If what I said offended you, it must be untrue. Yet you didn't seem to deny it, to me it appears that you went on to affirm it. So here's another opportunity to set me straight: What are your theology and ideas about salvation based upon, if not your own choices from a number of options?
Then I argued the sola scripture made RC possible. You responded,
quote:
No, you're still missing the point.Leo X et al were NOT sola scriptura, by any stretch of the imagination. That should be obvious since SS was a slogan of the reformers, who really didn't like them. Just because RC leadership decided to stop looking at their past, but for a little bit still read the bible fairly regularly, does not mean that it was because of the reading the bible that they erred. They dumped most of that pretty soon afterwards. One could argue that it was looking too much to themselves, when they should have been reading the bible more, that meant they went astray.
You're still missing the point: When Rome's new idea about the nature of God had crept up, if they had allowed the Church to correct them - and there was no question who was correct, the original creed was affirmed by six universal councils - there would have been no Roman Catholic excommunication, no RC church, and no Protestant movement. And the whole thing was made possible by Rome's own reading and interpretation of Scripture. If the above is not accurate, please tell me in what way.
It is likely that some large split would occur - smaller ones had occurred before. But it would have had a different history than ours.
All of the heresies about God's nature that the Church defended against, all were an example of someone saying, "no, this is what Scripture really means." The earlier ones had not resulted in great damage, this one has resonated through history.
You say,
quote:
A lot of the contrasting theology that you claim to have come from the bible, I'd say hasn't done so in its entirety. A lot of the contrast is brought about by people approaching the bible with their own agendas, and people with agendas aren't going to leave Tradition alone either (do you prefer a different word to Tradition?). SS is very much less malleable than you make out.
Where are agendas manifest in Orthodoxy? Conflict exists, but Orthodox don't apply their agendas to Scripture, they accept the Church's understanding of it. And they don't preach otherwise.
Only in a world in which people can apply their own meaning to Scripture can they apply their own agenda to Scripture.
The Church's oft-stated agenda is to maintain the Apostolic understanding of the faith, and the Sacraments, for the faithful. There is such an incredible abundance of writings from the year 323 onward that it staggers the imagination. And there is unity in them. Not in every Father's understanding of every verse in Scripture, they were human, and in some cases there are a variety of useful understanding of some verses. The Church does not have a master Bible with an explanation next to each verse.
And there was disagreement. But they were minor, or abberant, or were corrected through massive effort to hold true to the understanding passed on by the ancients.
The central understanding of salvation has not changed in over 1600 years.
As to the years before those, we can be less certain. But there do exist a body of works from the early Fathers of the Church, which testified to a central unity, which was always struggling against heresy
To think that these persecuted and martyred Christians did other than their best to protect and pass on the Truth of the faith is not reasonable. Yes, they were human, but the fact that the Church has preserved it's understanding of salvation for 1600+ years as a matter of undisputable historical fact, can lead an objective person to believe that they were likewise faithful in their efforts - and guided by the Holy Spirit - in the years prior to the encapsulation of the faith in the Creed.
The Church has not changed for only one reason, and there can only be one reason: it is guided by God. Anything else would have been changed beyond recognition.
quote:
As for Mormons, stop blaming that on protestantism, or popes, or anything. Those guys from Salt Lake City are pretty crazy (yes I did say that) and you can't do much about crazy people. You'll get them in whatever situation.
I disagree - Joseph Smith the 'prophet' is only possible in a world of widely varied thought about the faith. If there was unity, he would have been, in the eyes of everyone, starting his own religion. The followers would not even call themselves Christians, or they would be inviting, from a healthy Christian society, literal excommunication. If we believe our souls eternal, we will defend the truth about our purpose and destiny.
quote:
By the way, by what ticket is your church universal?
Until 1054, all Christians on the planet were Orthodox, so for more than half of the history of the faith, it was the universal church of all Christians. It is still universal in its sacraments and theology.
I said,
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.
To which you replied,
quote:
So you're saying something must be true because it takes the difficult questions away? You want a clear cut, spoonfed answer about what to do, so if something provides you with that, it must be true? In that case, you have more in common with the Alabama New Testament EeVanGelical Bible church of Jesus Christ than you think.
The New Testament is something that you can read to someone, out loud, in an afternoon. How many afternoons did the Apostles and those they led in the faith, and those that came after them, literally a geometric progression of numbers, spend explaining Christ's message to the faithful? That understanding is what is passed on in the Church. If accepting it is being spoon-fed, I'm hungry.
I think you have a misconception about the Orthodox life. We don't sit with our hands in our laps, nodding dumbly as our spiritual fathes intone about the dogmas and doctrines of the faith. We ask why, and they answer, and we ask why to that, ans so on. They are in the position they are in because they understand the Chruch's theology and Sacrameents, and how to use them to help believers in their personal walk of salvation. There is plenty of room for new ways of thinking in Orthodoxy, such as in the ways one can reach different people and generations through the Church. You can spend your entire life writing, reading, and speaking about Christ in Orthodoxy, whether you are a priest or a lay-person, and find every moment of it immensely satisfying.
About constancy in the Church, you said,
quote:
]No, SQ. There are many churches out there, and sinful humans have a tendency to change things over the course of two thousand years. The burden of proof lies on you to show that your church is the one and only that hasn't change. Ken knows significantly more than I do, and I'd say I know more than most of the people I know who aren't vicars or theology graduates or whatever. As he says, examining whether the EO church has changed significantly more than the others in the past umpteen hundred years would be a near-impossible task, to do it in any meaningful depth. If he doesn't fancy the task of seriously examining your church from a thousand years ago to see if it's changed since then, why should any ordinary believer do it, let alone a non-believer?
You are asking me to explain every Orthodox understanding of our salvation and provide proof that each has not changed? It seems my challenge to you is much more realistic, find me just one exception. You'll find that what I have said is in accordance with what you will find in online encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia. Here's a link so you can read it for yourself: www.wikipedia.com
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
after repeating a number of arguments the iconoclasts also made, you ask,
quote:
I would also say to Sophia's Questions - historical precedent does not wash (these churches that are dug up may well have been apostate for example) - if icons were so important for the Church would God not have included some direction with regards to icons. God felt it important to point the way of salvation, baptism, communion, in His word why not give a couple of verses at least to how to venerate icons.
Baptism - it has deep meaning. Does the one doing the baptizing say anything about that deep meaning? Do the faithful play any part in their own baptism - do they acknowledge its sigificance in any what whatsoever as part of the sacramental celebration that ushers in their new life? The Bible does not tell us. But neither does it tell us not to, and what harm? Particularly if explained in a consistent way to all? It is a chance for others to see a person born anew - why hide the meaning of its significance from those present who are unbaptized?
Likewise, the Bible does not direct us as to the sacrament of marriage. We do it, but how? Clearly we are left to our own devices in some regards.
Similarly, because their use never manifest the kind of idolotry the 2nd commandment addresses, it is something that we are not told about.
That early churches used artwork is another historical fact, to believe that all of the early Churches with artwork were apostate is convenient, but not really reasonable. And their apostasy lasted centuries in many cases if it was apostasy. You'd think there would be a record of such persistent apostasy in the church, or of an early division over icons and artowrk.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
<snip>
This is a question of faith. When Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, and that a comforter (the Holy Spitit) would come to guide it, he clearly meant for it to receive divine protection and guidance. That Orthodox belief and practice, once affirned by the universal church, has not changed, should be proof to any objective observer that something aside from fallible individuals is guiding it.
<snip>
I don't know whether this statement of yours is Orthodox but as a matter of interpretation, the one you have given makes very little sense. The Gates of Hell do not attack the church. They are Gates. They do not advance or retreat. They enclose Hell and imprison its inhabitants.
The original statement in Matthew 16 is a prophetic sign of final victory. The picture is of the church plundering Hell, not of Hell attempting to plunder the church. The old hymn "Hark the glad sound, the Saviour comes" makes a similar point.
"The gates of brass before Him burst
The iron fetters yield".
Your confidence that your interpretation is "clearly" what Jesus meant is misplaced. It is not clear at all that that was what he meant.
In general you seem to make your own statements with great confidence and are also confident in the way you dismiss the views of others.
Elsewhere, you also say this
quote:
So let's have an example, please. Give me an example of a theological Truth that has been unearthed since the reformation, or an Orthodox truth that has been found in error. Then, if you please, explain to me how these new truths are known to be true, and who identifies them as such for us.
We cannot, because you are enclosed in your own understanding of Truth. Truth is mediated to you on the authority of the Orthodox church. If any of us outside Orthodoxy challenge a received Truth, you can simple argue "By what authority do you say that?". And if our authority is not the Orthodox church, you can deny the truth of any such statement because it is not properly authorised. So your general position is logically circular. That does not make it wrong. It just makes it quite difficult to have any meaningful dialogue.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Sophia's Questions:
In response to your assertion that protestants can't agree on what sin is, that is because sin is manylayered, multifaceted concept. Like Jesus's atonement of mankind, that's a similar thing. It is sometimes useful to talk of sin as a disease that needs to be cured, sometimes as an addiction that needs to be broken, and sometimes as a debt we can never repay. It has elements of all of these things, and God is the only one who has the full picture of what, and how bad, it is. Just because different protestants may be using different images, doesn't mean they're in conflict.
And I repeat my assertion. Given the sinful nature of man, and his tendancy to change things over two thousand years, we should start by assuming that any construct of humanity will have changed over that period, and if you believe otherwise, it's up to you to prove it. I will not beleive something so highly improbable without the evidence presented to me. So there. And I agree with Barnabas62' last post.
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions
You don't even have to believe that the Church is inerrant to benefit from it
Then why did you say there are areas where you have problems with the church's reasoning, but submit to it? How can you do that if it's not inerrant?
Now, onto your response to my post:
I do not pick and choose what it pleases me to beleive. I search for what's true. I use all the historical and scientific evidence available to me for whatever the particular question is. You also have several options. Believing everything the EOC says is only one option, and I'd say you possibly take it because it's attractive; it's a relieving of responsibility.
Onto the subject of the Eastern/Western split and the subsequent protestant Reformation. You keep on talking about the RC being "excommunicated". As I have said before, this is one sided. I haven't looked into Catholic history, but I'm sure they make some claim about their being the ones who 'excommunicated' you. Something splitting in half, and each side anathemizing the other, does not make it obvious that one side was right. By the same token, they could say that their Tradition had remained pure, and you had gone away from it and differed, because your heretical reading of scripture (which surely was the source of your views at the time) contradicted it. As a protestant, I could say that at the Reformation, scripture had remained the same since shortly after Christ, but with their Tradition the Catholics had rejected the plain meaning of scripture, which was why we had to split. There are two sides to every story. You don't have the whole picture. And how do you know that your 'heretics'' supposed insights into what scripture "really meant" weren't good insights from unchanging scripture, and you were crippled by your staid Tradition?
quote:
Conflict exists, but Orthodox don't apply their agendas to Scripture, they accept the Church's understanding of it.
You have just shown what your agenda is, right there. It is to make Scripture support the EOC.
Oh, and I can think of two more reasons why, as you claim, your church hasn't changed. 1) you conly count the writing from 323 onwards valid, that weren't deemed 'heretical' at the time. You therefore throw out anything that didn't agree with the so called consensus, reducing the wide range of belief to a narrow one. You say that this shows how unified the church fathers were, and continue to throw out any heretics who don't agree with your selection of the church fathers' writings. And so on ad infinitum. 2) Throughout its history, the EOC has contained alot of people like you, who would prefer to abdicate responsibility to a more powerful church, rather than work things out for themselves.
quote:
Until 1054, all Christians on the planet were Orthodox
Until 1054, all Christians were Catholic. Prove otherwise. Again, it depends on viewpoint.
quote:
We don't sit with our hands in our laps, nodding dumbly as our spiritual fathes intone about the dogmas and doctrines of the faith. We ask why, and they answer, and we ask why to that, andso on
But what if you come on something, go "why?", and the answer to that is not satisfactory? As it seems to me, you accept that unsatisfactory answer, rather than going, "I don't beleive that" and working to come up with a better more correct one.
And please do not post six times in a row. Read the whole thread before replying.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I have been following this thread with interest, but I am skipping the contributions of the outrageously long and multi-posting Sophia's Questions.
Ms Questions, please cut it out.
K.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Sorry, but weren't the first Christians in the British Isles up until around the Council of Whitby actually Celtic Christians with a different date for Easter and everything?
They were put down by the incoming Catholic blokey - Augustine, wasn't 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
|
|
campchick
Apprentice
# 10521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
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.
No. Postmodernists believe there is Truth. It just cannot be known by us, who can never decide which truth gets to be elected to the office of Truth™.
This Ship, as well as Protestantism as a whole, are both pretty good arguments for the postmodernists' case.
-Digory
~As a self-professed post-modernist and pragmatist (born protestant) I find this quite fascinating. In fact, (and this may be a little off subject) I think "post-modernism" is more pervasive than most people realize. Based on work by James Fowler, Thomas Droege examines the 6 stages of Faith Development. I'll skip all 6 stages, but the final 2 resonate strongly with post-modernism...
Stage 5-"More than Just Words" People in this stage are concerned with dialogue. They are open to new ways of looking at things and to seeing other viewpoints. They are searching for deeper meaning. Their understanding of religious beliefs and of God is part of their search. (People tend to reach this stage in their adult years, if at all.)
Stage 6-"I Have A Dream" People sense a wholeness of faith and life. They have a view of what is good for all people everywhere. They act on these commitments. They will make personal sacrifices to act out their dreams. They are willing to die for their faith and beliefs.
(This stage is very rare.)
Much of what is ecompassed by these 2 stages is part of a post-modernist perspective. No, I'm not a PM expert, however, my ability to reason, through past experiences, tradition, and understanding of the scripture (Wesley's Quadrilateral) have allowed me to realize that yes, I can be a Christian and still embrace those with differing viewpoints and can even learn from them.
Ok-so, I hope this made some sense...ultimately, I think that I think the term post-modern is bandied about with little understanding of what is meant by it. Whether it concerns Truth, justice or the american way-doesn't it boil down (for any person who considers him/her self to be a Christian) to believing in Christ and loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind?
Posts: 19 | From: Virginia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Sophia's Questions:
And please do not post six times in a row. Read the whole thread before replying.
I believe SQ does this because of their earlier problems with quoting people in this topic.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry, but weren't the first Christians in the British Isles up until around the Council of Whitby actually Celtic Christians with a different date for Easter and everything?
They were put down by the incoming Catholic blokey - Augustine, wasn't it?
I believe that the first Christians in the British Isles were in a line from the Roman occupation of Britian. I don't know if that ended before or after the East/West split.
The fact is that they did have different dates for Christian holidays than the Roman Catholic Church and different practices, but whether or not they had been unchanged from that time, I don't know, but I would doubt it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Baptism - it has deep meaning. Does the one doing the baptizing say anything about that deep meaning? Do the faithful play any part in their own baptism - do they acknowledge its sigificance in any what whatsoever as part of the sacramental celebration that ushers in their new life? The Bible does not tell us. But neither does it tell us not to, and what harm? Particularly if explained in a consistent way to all? It is a chance for others to see a person born anew - why hide the meaning of its significance from those present who are unbaptized?
I think we will agree to disagree on icons - I think you trust your tradition and I will adopt a "sola scriptura" view on icons. If it helps you get closer to God then that can only be a good thing. It is just not my glass of whisky.
I am interested in your understanding of baptism as you raised this - I have interestingly no qualms about infant baptism as such (being brought up in the Church of Scotland) - what I am interested in is what happens to infants who die without being baptized? ie in my understanding of orthodoxy this means that their original sin is not absolved - quote:
Thus the Orthodox Church holds Baptism to be as necessary for infants as for adults, since they, too, are subject to Original Sin and without Baptism cannot be absolved of this sin.
see here for full article
ie what does absolution mean to the Orthodox
I also understand that this is a Russian Orthodox site and the more I understand about Orthodoxy is that there are different "flavours" from those that have ecumenical tendencies to those who are as it were "isolationist" - so I appreciate asking different strands may get different answers or is there one answer?
--------------------
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
|
|
Bonaventura
Wise Drunkard
# 1066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
I think we will agree to disagree on icons - I think you trust your tradition and I will adopt a "sola scriptura" view on icons. If it helps you get closer to God then that can only be a good thing. It is just not my glass of whisky.
Dear Dobbo
I followed your exchange with interest and has the following to add regarding Icons. The proper way to understand icons is that it is a development of second temple Jewish theology. Israelite aniconism has posed several problems for scholars as a stricit monotheism is not dependent on aniconism. However, there are daring suggestions that Israelite aniconism stems from the belief that Israel or humanity was the only true locus of the divine presence in the world. Only humanity could be said to act as an image of God. A recent Harvard dissertation has explored this theme in Ezekiel 36-7 and Genesis (with comparisons to Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah, two important anti-idolatry texts). Now living humanity could very well in some way function as a cultic "object" in the temple, which the book of Sirach provides us with some interesting clues to. With this background and in a Christian context, with a well developed notion of the communion of saints and that all live on in Christ, icons become more understandable. Icons provide for us windows into eternity to establish communion with the saints who are still connected to us through the Holy Spirit They are venerated (not worshipped) because they are examplars of a divinised humanity. Icons are venerated through material icons because we are human beings and not spirits and have need of an earthly locus. As Macquarrie has stated: "This is a sacramental world where creaturely being becomes transparent so we can see through to the God from whom all things flow."
Best,
--------------------
“I think you are all mistaken in your theological beliefs. The God or Gods of Christianity are not there, whether you call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Aunt, Uncle and Holy Cow.” -El Greco
Posts: 473 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
<snip>
This is a question of faith. When Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, and that a comforter (the Holy Spitit) would come to guide it, he clearly meant for it to receive divine protection and guidance. That Orthodox belief and practice, once affirned by the universal church, has not changed, should be proof to any objective observer that something aside from fallible individuals is guiding it.
<snip>
quote:
<Snip>
The original statement in Matthew 16 is a prophetic sign of final victory. The picture is of the church plundering Hell, not of Hell attempting to plunder the church. <snip>
I'm going to spend some time on these replies, because I sense considerable brain-power on the other end of this.
On one level your understanding mirrors the Orthodox understanding, which is that the Church would endure until the end of the age, we just disagree as to what the Church is (I suspect we both believe that anyone with an earnestly lived Christian faith is a Christian).
The Protestant idea is that there would endure to the end a body of believers who (in this answer I will make the assumption that you are coming from the traditional Prot. Perspective, PLMK if I am wrong) are known to God through their faith and love. On this we also agree.
But wouldn't you agree that it's not a very sighificant statement our Maker made, given that understanding?
He manipulated reality at will, the first, and, unto eternity, the only One to ever walk the earth and do so. (The only One ever and always because there can only be one Creator). That people would remember Him and be moved by Him and his message is to be expected. That's not a very significant statement, and, considering the context, not likely what He meant.
On the other hand, to say that the entity that He was establishing that day would endure, in continuity until the end, is saying something. And it accords with the promise, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” Every man henceforth shall know the truth – meaning, of course, only that it would be available to Him, he still must seek it.
This takes on more meaning when one considers that the ONLY logical position for the Orthodox Church to take is that it's theology is indisputably true. If it did not believe that it was preserving that original Apostolic truth, why not change doctrines, if the modern Church comes to believe they are true? The fact that it doesn't is conspicuous proof that at least the Church believes itself to be guarding Ultimate Truth. The relevant question, and one not turned away from by any serious Christian, once presented, is, "Are they?" Every serious Christian should want to know for certain, if possible, what the early Church believed.
Given that such an odd thing as the OC exists in our world, in the face of so much change and variety elsewhere, demands that the thing be studied to the best of the ability of any serious Christian. This is true if for no other reason than that fact that the Bible was written by members of the Church and compiled and defended by them.
Consider what an objective observer would do, if they entered the question with no preconceptions. If they heard something of Christ's message that encouraged humility, or repentance, and started to look at Christianity with an earnest desire to find the safest church to which to entrust their salvation, unless they are captives of modernity in every sense, they would likely look long and hard at Orthodoxy.
I said,
so let's have an example, please. Give me an example of a theological Truth that has been unearthed since the reformation, or an Orthodox truth that has been found in error. Then, if you please, explain to me how these new truths are known to be true, and who identifies them as such for us.
quote:
We cannot, because you are enclosed in your own understanding of Truth. Truth is mediated to you on the authority of the Orthodox church. If any of us outside Orthodoxy challenge a received Truth, you can simple argue "By what authority do you say that?". And if our authority is not the Orthodox church, you can deny the truth of any such statement because it is not properly authorised. So your general position is logically circular. That does not make it wrong. It just makes it quite difficult to have any meaningful dialogue.
This is a great point, if you are talking about anything relative.
If Orthodoxy started in the 6th century, and whatever existed before it was lost in the mists of history, I would have no ground to stand on when saying that the Church's beliefs and practices reflect those of the Apostolic Church (are Truth).
Nor could I do so if the Church's understanding of salvation had been changed through time. If it had, then it's just another church reading their understanding into the Bible. They are not preserving anything at that point, they are another agent of change.
Some will say that we are evolving a more saving theology, or a more ___________ (fill in the blank), but that assumes that Truth evolves, and that it was not fully disclosed by the Creator, and understood, as best as people are able, by those who heard it, and then passed it on.
That is really the crux of the discussion: what is Ultimate Truth? I maintain that the meaning of what the Creator communicated to us is known in its fullness, others, by virtue of their own set of theological beliefs, maintain that it is one of any number of things: an individual truth known only to each of us and God, an evolving Truth, or that it is relative, in most regards, through space and time. They are definitively denying the possibility that Ultimate Truth exists by having no authority to rely upon as the arbiter of Truth except for what they have decided to believe from a smörgĺsbord of churches and theological choices.
Eventually most Protestants, if they think about it enough, will realize that their beliefs do, in fact, reflect their preferences. They decide which church to attend, how long to stay with it, and how much of its dogma to accept. And their understanding of the Bible is their understanding of the Bible, nothing more. Not because of the purity of their knowledge or their faithfulness, but because of how the understanding is arrived at. The means define the end in this case. They may be relying upon the works of the Fathers, but even in that case ______each Protestant is deciding what of it is right ____. They are the arbiter of Truth.
If a Protestant reading this disagrees with that statement, ask yourself: How did I arrive at my present state of theological belief? Likely, you will answer in part, “the Bible.” But even about the most fundamental things, such as the path of salvation, there are dozens of different understandings, all held by people who proclaim them, “strictly Biblical”. You adhere to your beliefs about salvation, knowing there are others, because you have decided they are correct. But even if your foundation is a desire to emulate the early Christians, you can't be sure you are correct - the guy down the street, every bit as smart as you, says he is doing and saying what the early Christians did, and it differs from your take, in significant ways.
Many Christian truths are hard, and earnest believers who accept any 'hard' form of them (such as 'deny oneself') do so with humility. But even with the purest Christian heart, the most earnest Protestant cannot hope to discern for themselves, even with the help of others, what the early Christians believed about the Bible and about our salvation by reading the Bible. The readings differ, Ultimate Truth does not, it is whole and consistent.
Just the fact that Protestants' individual beliefs change proves that those beliefs cannot be Ultimate Truth, which is unchanging.
If one defines Ultimate Truth as the fullness of Truth about what was revealed to us about our origin, purpose, and destiny, as it was understood by the Apostles, if we were created in love, it exists. If there is such an UT, then its hallmark is consistency. Anything aside from faithful and consistent transmission of Christian truth from the beginning has to be considered, at the least, speculation. That is why I keep imploring people to offer an instance where Orthodox theology has changed since it was universally confirmed by the first universal Christian council. My hope is not that they will find something we can argue about, but that they will learn that there is nothing, and learn it for themselves. Orthodoxy has a prolific presence on the web.
In the end, the only way out of the argument for Protestants is to say that even if the OC has preserved the Apostolic faith, it's not necessary to follow any given theology, or path to salavation, much less be a member of a certain church. Faith saves and is manifest in many churches.
The last sentence is manifestly true.
Yet all Christians are Christians because they follow Christ, to varying degrees. As I noted earlier, since all agree that this is the basic path of salvation, if, as the Bible says, “few shall pass”, then few are able to walk the path. This is a sobering thing, and one that should cause any believer to seriously consider the path they are on.
I hope you will reply to some of this, I am anxious to hear your thoughts. Even if you are not personally invested in the Protestant view I would like to hear your take on it.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Eventually most Protestants, if they think about it enough, will realize that their beliefs do, in fact, reflect their preferences.
Baloney. I believe lots of things I would really rather not believe.
quote:
If a Protestant reading this disagrees with that statement, ask yourself: How did I arrive at my present state of theological belief? Likely, you will answer in part, “the Bible.”
Actually the Bible had very little to do with it.
quote:
You adhere to your beliefs about salvation, knowing there are others, because you have decided they are correct.
I am not nearly so arrogant as to have decided my beliefs are "correct." I'd be surprised to learn that having "correct" beliefs about salvation has much to do with actual salvation.
quote:
If one defines Ultimate Truth as the fullness of Truth about what was revealed to us about our origin, purpose, and destiny, as it was understood by the Apostles, if we were created in love, it exists. If there is such an UT, then its hallmark is consistency.
How dull. Why should Truth be unchanging? Why can't it be dynamic?
quote:
In the end, the only way out of the argument for Protestants is to say that even if the OC has preserved the Apostolic faith, it's not necessary to follow any given theology, or path to salavation, much less be a member of a certain church.
No, there's another way out of the argument, which is to point out that you've made some over-general and untenable claims about Protestants.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Sophies Questions
A bit of "noise" in your post but I get your general line.
Firstly, on the issue of protection, the Biblical source for that is to found in John's gospel (the "last night" discourse on the Holy Spirit and the long prayer of John 17.) Also in the last verse of Matthew's gospel. It is not to be found in Matthew 16. My point was simply that your protection thesis quoted the wrong biblical source. Actually I was a little amused at the idea of the Gates of Hell "attacking"!
I'm glad you got my point re your challenge to Protestants to challenge. Here is the part of your reply that seems to me to be the crux of your position.
quote:
That is really the crux of the discussion: what is Ultimate Truth? I maintain that the meaning of what the Creator communicated to us is known in its fullness, others, by virtue of their own set of theological beliefs, maintain that it is one of any number of things: an individual truth known only to each of us and God, an evolving Truth, or that it is relative, in most regards, through space and time. They are definitively denying the possibility that Ultimate Truth exists by having no authority to rely upon as the arbiter of Truth except for what they have decided to believe from a smörgĺsbord of churches and theological choices.
Eventually most Protestants, if they think about it enough, will realize that their beliefs do, in fact, reflect their preferences. They decide which church to attend, how long to stay with it, and how much of its dogma to accept. And their understanding of the Bible is their understanding of the Bible, nothing more. Not because of the purity of their knowledge or their faithfulness, but because of how the understanding is arrived at. The means define the end in this case. They may be relying upon the works of the Fathers, but even in that case ______each Protestant is deciding what of it is right ____. They are the arbiter of Truth.
What you have done is to assume a general understanding amongst Protestants on the basis that they do not accept, as the source of prime authority, the authority which you accept - and as a result, their faith must be individualistic. That is illogical. It is common ground amongst all the Christian families that faith is to be worked out in communities. In an earlier post on this thread, I said this. quote:
I loved Mousethief and Psyduck's posts, because they seem to me to lead inexorable, from very different POV, to this question. What is it that saves Christianity from the equal and opposite sins of unbridled individuality and monolithic, totalitarian unity? The biblical answer is koinonia. A word which in the koine means communication, communion, contribution, distribution and fellowship. There may be exceptional callings to solitude, but the vast majority of us desperately need to work out our salvation as comitted members of Christian communities. The reason is not one we find easy to admit. I think it was Jim Wallis (in his excellent book "The Call to Conversion" - about to be re-issued) who pointed out, based on his own experiences in forming Christian communities, that it is in community that we discover just how individuated, enslaved to our own needs and obsessions, we really are.
So your belief that Protestantism in necessarily individualistic is unfounded. The issue is the extent to which we are becoming more Christ-like within these communities. That is crucially dependent on the extent to which koinonia is a reality in our midst. Do we communicate? Do we share communion? Are we generous in our contribution? Do we distribute generously, not just within our community but within the wider world? Are our relationships with God and one another a living reality, not just some surface association? All this is this work of the Holy Spirit, who convicts us of sin, reveals Jesus, teaches and reminds us of all things.
So we claim Jesus as Lord and seek to live under his Lordship now. And we do not claim (at least most of us!) that this corporate approach to faith is limited to our own understanding of how Christ should be grown in us.
For me, the diversity of Christian understanding and families is not a relativising thing. Protestants are in themselves diverse. Diversity is first and foremost a sign of rejoicing, that there are others responding to the "high calling". In a world where every snowflake is different, diversity is built into creation and it is certainly built into human beings.
It is second, a source of pain that our diversity leads to disunity and conflict. I join with Jesus in the long prayer, that "we might all be one". This is not just some end time reality for me. But I hope for a greater one-ness now. It's one of the reasons I post on these boards. Another is that, in the 8 months or so I have been doing this, I have actually learned a great deal from others - and have a better understanding of other Christian families than I did.
Of course I accept that from your POV we are not properly authorised in any of this. We are "bastard children". Well, maybe we are. But that does not prevent us from being children of God. And recognising that you are too.
I hope this response is of some value to you.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
PS
Sorry Sophia's Questions - I got your name wrong. Too busy checking the rest of the post to spot it!
--------------------
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
|
|
Dobbo
Shipmate
# 5850
|
Posted
Interestingly enough Jesus himself condemned tradition (of the pharisees). Mark 7 v 8,9,13
quote:
v13
nullifying the word of God for your tradition which you handed down. And many such other similar things you do.
I see where Christ placed tradition with respect to the word of God.
quote:
Sophias Questions
what is sin
Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.
per Westminster Confession of Faith (if The Duchess can quote the WCoF I can)
That is to say falling short of the Law or breaking the Law.
A couple of other thoughts I would throw into the melting pot -
Which came first the redemptive work of Christ or the Church? On that basis which should come first in our understanding? How do we define the other, with respect to which came first.
I believe Constantine made the state religion Christianity. At which point I am sure multitudes of pagans were drafted into the church, bringing with them some of their ceremonies and practices. So how can we trust what is true after that point? (Especially mindful of what Jesus said, with respect to traditions of men as mentioned at the top of my post.)
I ask again what is absolution and what happens to those infants that die and have not been baptized?
--------------------
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
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I have been following this thread with interest, but I am skipping the contributions of the outrageously long and multi-posting Sophia's Questions.
Ms Questions, please cut it out.
K.
I will cut down the length of my responses, and try to focus on what is most important. I'm glad you're finding the other side of the argument intertesting.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Putting all protestants together as a group, then finding multiplicity of answers, and taking that as evidence of post-modern/disbelief in absolute truth is nonsense.
An atheist may as well put all christians together in a group (including Orthodox), find multiplicity of belief, and then declare christians do not believe in absolute truth.
A variation on a line I've often heard.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Good point, mdijon.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
You say sin is many-layered and so it is hard to define. True, but about many fundamentals PRs disagree, and if one is to fight something, “know your enemy”. And there'd be lots of disagreement about what's most important about sin – how to avoid it.
Then,
quote:
And I repeat my assertion. Given the sinful nature of man, and his tendancy to change things over two thousand years, we should start by assuming that any construct of humanity will have changed over that period
We both agree that if the Church is a human construct, it would change. No doubt about it. If you think it guided by the Holy Spirit, it's not hard to believe it could be unchanged. I'm not aware, in fact, of any Christian sect which does not believe that there is a spiritual or God-led aspect to the Church, whatever their conception of 'the church' is. Given that intercession, consistency somewhere is to be expected unless Truth evolves.
That assumes the OC is consistent, as to that,
This is a link to a well – written and pretty typical article about the unchanging nature of the church, in case you think my explanation of it is 'unique' in any way. fatheralexander.org]fatheralexander.org
That's an Orthodox author, so you might expect he would argue what he does, so here is a google search response for: "orthodox theology" unchanged, 1040 returns. [url= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22orthodox+theology%22+unchanged]Google[/url]
Here's the google response for "orthodox theology has changed", 8 resturns. [url= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22orthodox+theology+has+changed%22]Google[/url]
There is nothing returned for "orthodox catholicism has changed", nor "orthodox Christianity has changed", no return for “belief”, none for “creed”, “liturgy”, “communion”, “sacraments (have)”. Granted I'm asking for a specific phrase, but it's a pretty basic one you would expect to be returned from some source, somewhere if it was a fact. Nor is there any google response to: "orthodox Christianity changed".
I said,
You don't even have to believe that the Church is inerrant to benefit from it
quote:
Then why did you say there are areas where you have problems with the church's reasoning, but submit to it? How can you do that if it's not inerrant?
I submit to it because I think it _is_ inerrant. Come on – who is more likely to understand and be right about some theological question, me, or the consensus of hundreds of saints and the Church? Especially since there is ample evidense that their belief mirrors that of the earliest Christians of which we have record who wrote about what the Christian community of the time believed _about_ the Gospel.
quote:
I do not pick and choose what it pleases me to beleive. I search for what's true. I use all the historical and scientific evidence available to me for whatever the particular question is.
And based upon your best reasoning, reading, and analysis, your understanding of theology becomes Truth. To you. But if it's not Truth to someone else who arrives at their beliefs in the same manner, in what sense are these two beliefs anything but competing opinions?
quote:
You also have several options. Believing everything the EOC says is only one option, and I'd say you possibly take it because it's attractive; it's a relieving of responsibility.
My responsibility is my salvation and the salvation of my wife and two daughters. Then there are a reinforcing set of responsibilities which arise from trying to live a Christian life in earnest. My responsibility is not to develop my own understanding of Scripture and theology.
Snip quote:
You keep on talking about the RC being "excommunicated". As I have said before, this is one sided. I haven't looked into Catholic history, but I'm sure they make some claim about their being the ones who 'excommunicated' you. Something splitting in half, and each side anathemizing the other, does not make it obvious that one side was right.
Of course they say that, but they were one of five patriarchates – Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople and Alexandria. They manifestly changed their creed, look it up anywhere if you don't believe me. And their ongoing changes (Papacy, inculgences, etc.) show a changing organization. In contrast to the google cites above, a search for the specific phrase, "the roman catholic church changed" gives 456 returns.
Snip
I said, Conflict exists, but Orthodox don't apply their agendas to Scripture, they accept the Church's understanding of it.
quote:
You have just shown what your agenda is, right there. It is to make Scripture support the EOC.
The EOC believes what it does because those beliefs are supported by Scripture, in the eyes of the Church. Everything is based upon scripture. Likewise with PR, though their understanding of it is varied and changes.
I hope you'll check out the article link above, it has loads of citations from Scripture.
quote:
Oh, and I can think of two more reasons why, as you claim, your church hasn't changed. 1) you conly count the writing from 323 onwards valid, that weren't deemed 'heretical' at the time. You therefore throw out anything that didn't agree with the so called consensus, reducing the wide range of belief to a narrow one. You say that this shows how unified the church fathers were, and continue to throw out any heretics who don't agree with your selection of the church fathers' writings. And so on ad infinitum.
The alternative is constantly evolving truth, i.e., no Ultimate Truth about Christ and the Christian life.
It took some time for consensus to develop, but all of the early writings of which I am aware all point to a central defense, as Paul anchored in his day, fighting heresy against the basic understanding of the faith as passed down.
Lay out a better scenario for me. What you are arguing is for first century “oral scriptura” (most couldn't read) where people decide what to believe about what they hear and preach salvation accordingly.
Our understanding of Christ's nature _and how it relates to our salvation_ was defended by the central church six times against people with “different views”. That understanding is common to most Christians today. Where would we be under your system?
quote:
2) Throughout its history, the EOC has contained alot of people like you, who would prefer to abdicate responsibility to a more powerful church, rather than work things out for themselves.
I only left this in so anyone reading this wouldn't think I ignored your 2nd argument. You already made it above.
Snip me quote:
Until 1054, all Christians were Catholic. Prove otherwise. Again, it depends on viewpoint.
“Catholic” as it was applied and understood by the Church referred mainly to the universality of belief in the Church. The Church is commonly referred to as the “Orthodox Chrirstian” Church as well. That RC is a different church is clear to just about everyone on earth. Sure they claim to be the original and only adherents to Apostolic Tradition and understanding, but I've addressed that claim in many posts, they change, and their practice and understanding of the faith changes.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
quote:
I think we will agree to disagree on icons - I think you trust your tradition and I will adopt a "sola scriptura" view on icons. If it helps you get closer to God then that can only be a good thing. It is just not my glass of whisky.
I suggest less drinking of whisky and more looking at icons. Here's mud in your eye.
quote:
I am interested in your understanding of baptism as you raised this - I have interestingly no qualms about infant baptism as such (being brought up in the Church of Scotland) - what I am interested in is what happens to infants who die without being baptized? ie in my understanding of orthodoxy this means that their original sin is not absolved - quote:
Thus the Orthodox Church holds Baptism to be as necessary for infants as for adults, since they, too, are subject to Original Sin and without Baptism cannot be absolved of this sin.
see here for full article
ie what does absolution mean to the Orthodox
Hi Dobbo - Here's what I found in an encylopedia.
"The liturgy of baptism in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition makes clear reference to baptism as not only a symbolic burial and resurrection, but an actual supernatural transformation... Thus baptism is literally and symbolically not only cleansing, but also dying and rising again with Jesus. Orthodox believe this so strongly that nothing in the persons life prior to baptism counts including marriage. Married converts to Orthodoxy must get re-married after they are baptized... Catholics believe that baptism is necessary for the remission of the guilt of original sin, and for that reason infant baptism is a common practice for them."
That's in complete accord with my general understanding. With infants, because we believe the Holy Spirit literally enters a person upon baptism, we baptize infants.
With regard to baptism wiping out original sin, I was surprised when I read that, and I think it is in error. (I'll ask my Priest). I did some checking, and found what I suspected: The Orthodox view is not of a burden of original sin that, un-absolved, in an of itself damns a person. We inherit an inclination to sin because of our fallen nature. Babies are innocent of any sin that affects salvation. In fact, the Church encourages all children to take communion, and until the age of 7 they do so without having to make confession first (a testament to their innocence). It would be pretty entertaining to hear a 3-year-old's confession, though.
RE absolution in general, God forgives sins, but He passed the ability to absolve them to the Apostles, who presumably passed it on to the rest of the church leaders. The power to absolve sins doesn't seem to be something that was transmitted to all believers.
Absolution encourages repentance and hope, and it follows the former, and also follows spiritual counsel from your spiritual father.
quote:
I also understand that this is a Russian Orthodox site and the more I understand about Orthodoxy is that there are different "flavours" from those that have ecumenical tendencies to those who are as it were "isolationist" - so I appreciate asking different strands may get different answers or is there one answer?
The understanding I outlined above is correct as far as I can find, I think the writer of this article is mistaken – I'll show it to my priest. The different “national” churches generally govern their own affairs, but they are united in communion and in belief.
Those who have a presence in the ecumenical movement would generally say they are there not to reach a concurrence with other sects, but to bear witness to Orthodoxy as the original Church.
You'll find all kinds of variety of belief about different ideas in Orthodoxy, for instance, many believe in a creator caused, but then natural evolution, while others believe in another scenario. Likewise you'll find a variety of beliefs about all kinds of theological subjects from person to person. But Church-wide, there is unanimity in belief and practice on the Church level, and unity in sacramental services, saints' days where we celebrate the lives of saints, and the liturgical calendar, which insures that a sermon about the same verses is preached to all of those of the 200 million Orthodox Christians who make it to church any given Sunday.
Likewise there is common belief and practice about the Christian life; based upon centuries of experience we believe that there are principles to follow and things to do which aid our salvation, and there is wide agreement about them (though certainly not all O.C.s follow them all!)
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Eventually most Protestants, if they think about it enough, will realize that their beliefs do, in fact, reflect their preferences.
quote:
Baloney. I believe lots of things I would really rather not believe.
Me too, like 'hell exists'. I said earlier that all earnest Christians have to accept some truths they don't like at first (such as self-denial).
The real point I have argued in many places, so instead of rehashing it, let me ask you:
If two Christians have a different belief about the same subject or question, how can they not be said to have 'chosen' their beliefs? That there are two different, earnestly held-beliefs shows that there are at least two options for them to choose from.
snip
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
You adhere to your beliefs about salvation, knowing there are others, because you have decided they are correct.
. quote:
I am not nearly so arrogant as to have decided my beliefs are "correct." I'd be surprised to learn that having "correct" beliefs about salvation has much to do with actual salvation.
I have always maintained that salvation is dependant upon us working it out, deciding to live the life asked of us by the Savior. If one does that with beliefs that don't accord with the Orthodox Church's, that is to the glory of God, not the the glory of anyone's understanding of salvation, except insofar as that understanding helped their salvation - in that case it is truly glorious!
But why take chances with salvation? It's literally the only game in town, everything else is, in the long run, irrelevant.
I believe very strongly that the Christian life is a struggle (if you want to assign a more liberal meaning to the manifold phrases such as “take up your cross” you can, but one wonders how much your walk under the Cross will resemble Christ's.) And because it's a struggle, the time we spend trying to find the Apostolic meaning of things is wasted if one can simply find it by reading a Dogmatic Theological work of the Church. That time can be spent in working out our salvation, with the ages-old guidance and understanding of it found in the Church, and in bringing others to the faith, as I, in my rather heavy-handed way, could be accused of trying to do now.
Snip me about unchanging nature of Truth, Ruth replies,
quote:
How dull. Why should Truth be unchanging? Why can't it be dynamic?
It's great fun to believe whatever you like, but
if it's changing and dynamic, it's not Truth, it's just an understanding. If the current 'truth' changes tomorrow, how is it Truth? And if it is changing, how can we ever know it in full?
I believe that the fullness of Truth has to have been imparted to us. Why would the Creator, given his manifest love for mankind, have withheld elements of the Truth about our salvation? He spent years speaking, and the new Testament reads in less than a day. There are 8700 hours in a year. How many hours did the Savior spend explaining the not-always simple truth of the faith to the Apostles? If they understood it they probably tried to pass it on.
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
In the end, the only way out of the argument for Protestants is to say that even if the OC has preserved the Apostolic faith, it's not necessary to follow any given theology, or path to salavation, much less be a member of a certain church.
quote:
No, there's another way out of the argument, which is to point out that you've made some over-general and untenable claims about Protestants.
If you'd like to give another example I'd appreciate it.
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I believe I gave such an example above.
Oh the irony of it all; to think, Mousethief, that you were called to hell over the brevity of your posts......
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think I did as well. If you assert that, of necessity, protestants are individualistic in their faith as you did here
quote:
They may be relying upon the works of the Fathers, but even in that case ______each Protestant is deciding what of it is right ____. They are the arbiter of Truth.
and I give you an argument which demonstrates this is not so, then you have the options of counter-argument or withdrawal.
Anyway, this is an example of what I consider to be a generalised overstatement (to put it at its mildest). Do you want to counter the arguments against it - or withdraw, or modify the statement? The choice is yours.
--------------------
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
Originally posted by Barnabas62: snip,
quote:
Actually I was a little amused at the idea of the Gates of Hell "attacking"!
Me too, attacking atop stumpy little legs.
quote:
snip Here is the part of your reply that seems to me to be the crux of your position.
Originally posted by SQ:
That is really the crux of the discussion: what is Ultimate Truth? I maintain that the meaning of what the Creator communicated to us is known in its fullness, others, by virtue of their own set of theological beliefs, maintain that it is one of any number of things: an individual truth known only to each of us and God, an evolving Truth, or that it is relative, in most regards, through space and time. They are definitively denying the possibility that Ultimate Truth exists by having no authority to rely upon as the arbiter of Truth except for what they have decided to believe from a smörgĺsbord of churches and theological choices.
Eventually most Protestants, if they think about it enough, will realize that their beliefs do, in fact, reflect their preferences. They decide which church to attend, how long to stay with it, and how much of its dogma to accept. And their understanding of the Bible is their understanding of the Bible, nothing more. Not because of the purity of their knowledge or their faithfulness, but because of how the understanding is arrived at. The means define the end in this case. They may be relying upon the works of the Fathers, but even in that case ______each Protestant is deciding what of it is right ____. They are the arbiter of Truth.
quote:
What you have done is to assume a general understanding amongst Protestants on the basis that they do not accept, as the source of prime authority, the authority which you accept - and as a result, their faith must be individualistic. That is illogical. It is common ground amongst all the Christian families that faith is to be worked out in communities.
I'm going to snip you here because I agree with what you say, in general. That was not my point – it is irrelevant the source of their beliefs, if they are not in accord with those closest to Christ, they
1. Cannot be Ultimate Truth – that is, the purity of the Creator's message
2.Are the result of what they have chosen to believe about early Christian belief, from a number of options.
You don't address my suggestion that Ultimate Truth = the fullness of Truth about our salvation as understood and passed on by the Apostles.
First, do you take issue with that understanding?
Second, do you believe it possible that with guidance from above, it could be preserved?
quote:
So your belief that Protestantism in necessarily individualistic is unfounded. The issue is the extent to which we are becoming more Christ-like within these communities. That is crucially dependent on the extent to which koinonia is a reality in our midst. Do we communicate? Do we share communion? Are we generous in our contribution? Do we distribute generously, not just within our community but within the wider world? Are our relationships with God and one another a living reality, not just some surface association? All this is this work of the Holy Spirit, who convicts us of sin, reveals Jesus, teaches and reminds us of all things.
We can do nothing of our own accord, so your statement is true, and well put. As I've said, individual believers can find salvation in many situations. That has never been an issue. And the Church believes that those ignorant of the faith will be judged based upon their adherence to their God-implanted conscience.
If one's concern is to find a satisfying relationship with our Lord and Master that gives them a feeling of purpose and manifests in change in their life, for the good, that is possible in any Christian Church. Fundamentally, all Christian sects believe in a loving God, and that belief is reflected in the love in their communities and in changed lives; love moves the world, and is the reason it exists.
But is the life that results the life Christ expects of us? He saves us, but we have to struggle. To what degree? How narrow is the road, and is a lack of struggle (as one might expect if one is honest with themselves) the reason “few shall pass?”
I maintain that Christ has expectations of us. What are they? Is there a proper understanding of that they are? Once that is found, is there a best way to find communion with our Maker?
We believe that there are real, final answers to these questions, the central questions of our life. They were known to the Apostles, passed on faithfully, and written about at great length by the holy fathers of the Church. It is conceivable that they changed the Apostles understandings and teachings, but if they did, it was with general unanimity, so must have been history's greatest conspiracy of which there is no record. The testimony to authenticity and consistency is wide and deep.
quote:
So we claim Jesus as Lord and seek to live under his Lordship now. And we do not claim (at least most of us!) that this corporate approach to faith is limited to our own understanding of how Christ should be grown in us.
I recognize an adherence to church tradition, even if not ancient, is the standard with most Christians. For one thing, most believers don't communicate about it as we are doing, they are content to trust their leaders in most regards. But unless it's a cradle religion, Protestants choose their church because ____________ (fill in the blank with something important to the person in question).
If you talk with many Orthodox converts, you will find many will say that they did not choose the Church, rather, once they learned of it and studied it, they felt they had no other choice.
quote:
For me, the diversity of Christian understanding and families is not a relativising thing. Protestants are in themselves diverse. Diversity is first and foremost a sign of rejoicing, that there are others responding to the "high calling". In a world where every snowflake is different, diversity is built into creation and it is certainly built into human beings.
Certainly. But unless the Truth about our salvation is very general, this is the one place where diversity can be dangerous to us spiritually.
Do most Christians celebrate the fact that many of their brethren adhere to the J.W. and universalist traditions? Most would say that those beliefs could well be dangerous to one's salvation. What others beliefs are? Can we know with any confidence?
Let's try an objective experiment. Let's contrast your understanding of sin with the Orthodox one, and see if we can reach some agreement regarding which is most likely, if followed faithfully by a believer, to positively affect their spiritual transformation.
In two regards: nature and occurrence.
I'll give the Orthodox view of the nature of sin, (it will be brief! This is one thing that has to be understandable to all!), and you can offer yours.
Then, if you would offer your belief as to when sin occurs, I will offer the Orthodox view. By this I do not mean such as, “when we hurt others”, or “when we are prideful”. I mean that in the continuum between the second before someone (for instance) first entertains the flash of thought about gossiping about someone, to the point where the words have left their mouth, when does sin occur?
First, the Orthodox understanding of sin: Sin is anything that separates us from the Creator by diminishing our likeness to Him. God does not turn away from us, his love is constant, instead, we turn from him in disobedience.
Please reply to that with your basid understanding of sin, and then offer your answer to the 'when' of sin.
Back to where this post left off:
quote:
It is second, a source of pain that our diversity leads to disunity and conflict. I join with Jesus in the long prayer, that "we might all be one". This is not just some end time reality for me. But I hope for a greater one-ness now. It's one of the reasons I post on these boards. Another is that, in the 8 months or so I have been doing this, I have actually learned a great deal from others - and have a better understanding of other Christian families than I did.
We hope that we will all be one as well, united under what we believe is still the Apostolic Church.
I take it then, that you do dismiss the possibility that the Apostolic understanding has been preserved? If you think it possible it has been preserved (not that it might be findable with inquiry, but that it has been preserved), why is it not there that we should seek oneness?
Many of the apostles and those they trusted to carry on after them did so unto a bloody death in glory. We know they lived lives in Christ, and we have the writings of many martyrs, who all lived every day able to point at something specific and say, “that is Christ's Church.”
If you don't believe it possible that it has been preserved, doesn't that seem to limit God's power? He did promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church, which St. Paul called the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
quote:
Of course I accept that from your POV we are not properly authorised in any of this. We are "bastard children". Well, maybe we are. But that does not prevent us from being children of God. And recognising that you are too.
No child is a bastard! Much less our fellow children in Christ. This is not about being “right” for the sake of being right, it is about being right for the only reason that matters, for the sake of our salvation. Because to presume that Christ's 'narrow road' means anything but that, is, I am sure you will agree, to make the ultimate presumption.
It is not about rules – except to the extent that they affect our salvation. And rules are always gentle guidance, we are not the modern inquisition, believers are left to do as they will, and the fruits of what they do are generally evident in their lives. The Orthodox life breeds true – when one follows it one finds spiritual transformation, and of a kind that we believe the Apostles had in mind.
I look forward to hearing from you, esp. with regard to the sin questions.
Many thanks for your reply.
SQ
--------------------
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 Barnabas62:
PS
Sorry Sophia's Questions - I got your name wrong. Too busy checking the rest of the post to spot it!
no problem! Let me know if you want to start the sin discussion in a new thread, I polluted this one pretty badly with my earliest posts, which I made without being conscientious enough to take the time to learn the code.
--------------------
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:
Interestingly enough Jesus himself condemned tradition (of the pharisees). Mark 7 v 8,9,13
quote:
v13
nullifying the word of God for your tradition which you handed down. And many such other similar things you do.
I see where Christ placed tradition with respect to the word of God.
As you might guess, the Church has an answer to this. I don't know if there is more, but it's at least this much. First, St. Paul manifestly charged believers with handing down the truth, and second, Christ was making a specific condemnation, that of the lifeless faith of the Pharisees. You won't find him saying that what He taught should not be passed on. The NT's early distribution and use is a matter of debate, but as a matter of historical record, we find the first agreeing references to the entirety of the books of the NT in the writings of two fathers from the year 318, and the NT was finalized by the Church in 425(?). So believers often had nothing but oral tradition to rely upon.
If this is mentioned in the context of fixed traditions being stifling by nature, that's another question, LMK.
Originally Sophias Questions questions asked,
what is sin?
quote:
Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.
per Westminster Confession of Faith (if The Duchess can quote the WCoF I can)
That is to say falling short of the Law or breaking the Law.
I don't know the Duchess, but I'll comply.
I hope you'll follow the argument with Barnabas about sin.
quote:
A couple of other thoughts I would throw into the melting pot -
Which came first the redemptive work of Christ or the Church? On that basis which should come first in our understanding? How do we define the other, with respect to which came first.
This is what the Church would likely reply: The redemptive work of Christ came first, and is the foundation of the Church, and the Church is the vehicle of salvation in Christ.
quote:
I believe Constantine made the state religion Christianity. At which point I am sure multitudes of pagans were drafted into the church, bringing with them some of their ceremonies and practices. So how can we trust what is true after that point? (Especially mindful of what Jesus said, with respect to traditions of men as mentioned at the top of my post.)
I'm sure you are right, there is evidence of it, for instance, with the gnostics, who had a pagan belief about the nature of matter. The question is whether these beliefs affected the Church. For this we have only what was left to us in the writings of the early leaders (and in a few cases, lay people) of the Church. And there we don't find evidence of theological pollution. Remember, just prior to this it was still the Church of the Christian martyrs, who we have to hope understood the meaning of living a life in Christ. With the Church ascendant and protected by the state, they may still have been pressured to incorporate pagan elements, but likely they would want to persevere in the original understanding of the faith. This seems to accord with history (both positively and also by virtue of a lack of evidence to the contrary) and it was what all of them kept saying, over and over, ad infinitum, was their goal.
quote:
I ask again what is absolution and what happens to those infants that die and have not been baptized?
We are not certain what happens to infants when they die, because Scripture does not enlighten us specifically. We do not believe they suffer because of a load of original sin, that does not comport in any way with a loving God. Babes are innocents, and (though they are universally little rascals) they are pure of anything for which a loving Creator would hold them accountable. So we must assume that children are with God if they die as little ones.
SQ
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
I don't have the time to continue this argument right now. What a pty. It's been nice discussing with you guys.
Dinghy
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sophia's Questions
Shipmate
# 10624
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdijon:
[QB] I believe I gave such an example above.
Then I guess you aren't going to address my reply?
--------------------
I don't mean to offend.
Posts: 85 | From: AZ | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Sophia's Questions
I'm still not quite sure about the specific point I raised. Whether you want to withdraw your generalised criticisms of all protestants as being, individuall, arbiters of Truth. On that specific issue, I read you as having made a concession or two. I think it would help if you would concede your over-statement, even just as a piece of rhetorical overkill. Please reconsider.
Here are some comments on your suggested "sin experiment."
I have in my possession Kallistos Ware's book "The Orthodox Way" which contains, inter-alia, this observation on sin.
" ...nothing compelled man to sin. Eve was tempted by the 'serpent' but she was free to reject his suggestions. Her and Adam's original sin consisted in a conscious act of disobedience, a deliberate rejection of God's love, a freely chosen turning from God to self."
Given that I believe we all share that original sin, I think Kallistos Ware's definition is very good. In the church where I worship regularly, it tends to get put this way. "The centre of SIN is 'I'."
Literally, the NT Greek HARMARTIA means a missing of the mark. A reasonable summary would be that sin is the most comprehensive term for moral obliquity.
So I think I see sin essentially as an autonomous assertion of self. That is the first cause. This act of rebellion leads in turn to many "missings of the mark", many acts of moral turpitude. We call these sins and, as a matter of fact, have differences of opinion about both lists of sins and whether they have been committed. On this issue, judgementalism is discouraged.
I think the definition you provided mixes in Orthodox understandings of image and likeness and is more a consequential definition, rather than a first principle. So I prefer Kallistos Ware's definition to yours - and assume it is Orthodox.
From the Sermon on the Mount, I conclude that sin - understood as rebellion - occurs first in the mind, somewhere around the point of assertion of autonomy. When it moves from an original notion to a firm wish, or desire. There is some muddiness at that point about the difference between sin and temptation. It is not sinful to struggle before submitting, else Christ sinned at Gethsemane (which I do not believe).
Habitual sinful behaviour may be unthinking, not obviously a result of conscious assertion of self on each occasion, but a result of a previous "lost battle".
There are also the issues of ignorance or incompetence, on which I have no clearly worked out theology, other than a general belief that we are saved by Grace, through Faith, and it is a gift of God.
You said other things on which I might comment at some stage - but for now I'll stick. It's worth adding that I'm neither a trained theologian nor an ordained minister. The above is a "school of hard knocks" understanding.
--------------------
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
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
I had been finding this thread fairly interesting, but given SQ's inability even to use the 'reply with quote' button correctly, and her refusal to stop posting several long, consecutive posts at once, it's become entirely unreadable. It also appears to be a thread about alleged Orthodox unique superiority, rather than a discussion of Andreas' original questions on Protestantism.
SQ: You asked a little further back what 'hell' is. Please read the FAQ and the SoF Ten Commandments.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Then I guess you aren't going to address my reply?
Perhaps you could link the relevant post.
Or give the post and line number.
Otherwise I may struggle a little.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
There are lots of bright people posting here about this, and the fact that no one has offered evidence of a change in Church theology and practice is no reflection on their intelligence or knowledge, because the information does not exist. If the OC belief and practice is not a continuation of the practices and beliefs of the earliest Christians, the evidence of it is lost to history.
You aren't born with this knowledge, so yes, it helps to believe it before you are going to do anything about it, but the first step to believing is learning about something.
Your tone is extremely patronizing. Putting that disclaimer in your sig doesn't give you permission to write however you like, and it's going to get you called to Hell.
You keep asking for evidence of a change in Church theology. Perhaps the evidence doesn't exist. Perhaps. Please produce evidence for me that you and I have never watched the same television show at the same time. Or evidence that the lunch you eat today has not been spit in by someone else. Produce EVIDENCE that none of the books in my library have ever been touched by a German named Frank.
My point is purposefully ridiculous. Yes, perhaps it is "easier" to produce one exception, but the fact that the information needed to point out this exception is inaccessible does not designate that the exception does not exist.
That being said, what exactly are you using as your Guide to the Early Church -- with which to compare the EOC to?
Does the Orthodox Church, as a practice, encourage its members to sell all of their land and their house and donate all of the proceeds to the church to be distributed to those who are in need?
Does the Orthodox Church, as a formal practice, meet together daily for breaking of bread and prayer?
Does the Orthodox Church, as a formal practice, require all of its members to share all of their possessions with all other members?
To compare a church to the church of the Apostles, you'd think you'd have to demonstrate all of these practices. Take a look at Acts 2.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
In fairness, Digory, we really don't know if those practices were widespread; or if they were instituted in particular situations; or even if they were attempted in error. There's little evidence for them being a formal practice of the early church; if indeed, there ever was such a thing.
But I think I probably share with you an instinctive gut feeling that it can't be true; that the orthodox church can't really have been unchanged in every detail of theology during that time..... but I suspect this is the eye of the beholder. What you and I see as emergence of creeds, teaching on divorce, changing liturgy, rise and fall of anti-semitism.... another would see as the crystalisation of oral truths, development of pastoral practice, development of worship forms with rock steady theological underpinning, and a demonstration of the indefectibility of the Church as a whole while a subset of those in error are corrected.
But I know so little of the real history, I await my betters to fill in the details.....
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
From Sophia's Questions:
I recognize an adherence to church tradition, even if not ancient, is the standard with most Christians. For one thing, most believers don't communicate about it as we are doing, they are content to trust their leaders in most regards. But unless it's a cradle religion, Protestants choose their church because ____________ (fill in the blank with something important to the person in question).
If you talk with many Orthodox converts, you will find many will say that they did not choose the Church, rather, once they learned of it and studied it, they felt they had no other choice.
Then for someone like me, is not finding a church that honestly listens to me and helps me find my path to Christ not important?
That's why I am where I am. For me my church is where I have to be, I have no other choice.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Does the Orthodox Church, as a formal practice, meet together daily for breaking of bread and prayer?
Indeed.
To disprove SQ's contention that one particular denomination has never changed and all the rest have all we need to show is that the early church had any practices no longer followed.
Which is pretty easy really. For example, I believe the Orthodox Church has the 3-fold orders of bishops, priests & deacons, orgainised around territorial dicoceses? (Well, supposedly, in most of the world of course they are organised around ethnic dioceses with Russians, Serbs, Greeks, Arabs et.c going to doifferent churches)
Now its quite clear that that was not the system in the very earliest church, when the first apostles were still living. But its also pretty clear that it did not come about everywhere even in the second or third generations of Christians - in some places and times bishops were the same as priests, the overseer and the elder were the same person. In others the presbyter was the representative and agent of the bishop, and appointed by the bishop. In others the elders were selected by the people of the church they served.
Deacons were a quite different set of people. There were also other orders and ministries, such as prophets and pastors - who may or may not have been the same as the elders. Is that still the case in the Orthodox church?
Apostles and bishops were free to marry. Is that still the case in the Orthodox church?
Women were (unarguably) sometimes prophets, at least sometimes deacons (almost certainly) and quite probably elders (evidence very disputed on this). Is that still the case in the Orthodox church?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What's your point, ken? That institutions evolve? Duh. Who would deny that? But the Reformation wasn't a natural evolution, it was (in many instances) a clean break with the past. The two don't really compare.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
What's your point, ken? That institutions evolve? Duh. Who would deny that?.
Sophia's Questions who contends both that the current pratcice of some churches is unchanged since the days of the Apostles; and that therefore all Christians should be a member of one of those churches.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
In fairness, Digory, we really don't know if those practices were widespread; or if they were instituted in particular situations; or even if they were attempted in error. There's little evidence for them being a formal practice of the early church; if indeed, there ever was such a thing.
I agree, M. The point then being that I don't really care if a church that emerged at one point or another is exactly the same as it was 1,900 years ago. That doesn't make it right, true, or give it a monopoly on Truth. It was developed by humans, and it was already, even at that point, at odds with some of the practices of the earliest churches found in Acts.
So was the church described in Acts erring since it was not in line with the current (which equals the original) Orthodox teachings and practices?
-Digory
PS Not speaking out against you, Mdijon--I understood your point. Just doing a bit of "fleshing out the argument" at your suggestion. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
