|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What do we mean by Protestant, or indeed Reformed?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I s'pose I'm saying that God uses 'means' and those means can and do include the various Christian traditions. How could it be otherwise?
That's what I mean by us not being disembodied spirits.
To acknowledge God working through, say, the Benedictines or the Quakers or the Orthodox or the Salvationists or whoever else isn't to deny God the glory and to idolise the means and channels instead - although it can lead to that of course.
You may as well say that it's Bibliolatrous to acknowledge that God speaks through scripture or idolatrous to suggest that he works through sacraments ... or through creation or through people or through ...
That's why I'm suggesting it's unrealistic to claim that we personally transcend traditions - because we don't, and because we each of us, in whatever way, have imbibed or drawn things from those traditions.
Years ago, before my conversion, a Baptist bloke 'witnessed' to me on a train and made me think about the claims of Christ. He didn't do that in a vacuum. He couldn't have done so if he hadn't been drawing on a Christian tradition that went back through various meanderings and permutations to the apostolic deposit ...
That isn't to claim apostolic succession for what he was doing, but all of us believe or continue to learn/develop in our faith because what other people have done and what other people have passed on.
It doesn't happen in a vacuum.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, but I s'pose what I'm saying is that we can't transcend labels whether we like it or not - there's no such thing as being above and beyond them. By historical and contextual forces we all inevitably wear some label or other.
That's different from using labels to exclude or to condemn. You can acknowledge, say, that you come from the Reformed tradition or the Eastern Orthodox tradition or the Anabaptist tradition or the Roman Catholic tradition or whatever else - without that necessarily meaning that you are wielding that label against anyone else in a condemnatory way.
All I'm saying is that it is unrealistic to claim not to belong or be influenced by some tradition or other.
I'm not claiming that I haven't been influenced by some tradition or other, nor that I transcend anything. God does, I don't. I am saying that I belong to Christ above all, including the tradition I am currently being influenced by. The only label I will wear is that which reads 'Christian'.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ideally, Raptor Eye, that would be the case ... but it's not as simple as that. I'm not saying that we should all go around saying, 'I belong to Paul, I belong to Apollos ... etc' but neither can we pretend that there aren't distinct flavours and strands within Christianity as a whole.
It sounds terribly pious to say, 'The only label I accept is Christian ...' but then we have to unpack what we mean by that and that's when labelling inevitably starts.
There's no way around that, it seems to me. Just as there's no way around tradition or Tradition. Traditions are there whether we like it or not. Labels are there whether we choose to accept them or not. Some of us will wear several labels but we don't have the luxury of being completely naked like Adam.
We aren't a disembodied faith, we are grounded in particular places and times and in particular ecclesial communities.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Jehovah's Witnesses would claim to be Christian, even though their faith and praxis differs in substantial ways from what is regarded as mainstream Trinitarian Christianity.
Are we to say that the Jehovah's Witnesses are simply another flavour of Christian?
Sure, as a 'marginal' group that derives from within the wider Christian tradition and which split off from it at some point it's going to have certain hallmarks of Christianity in its DNA ... but would we be right to label it Christian?
You see, immediately we have a labelling issue. What constitutes Christianity and what doesn't.
There's no way around that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Jehovah's Witnesses would claim to be Christian, even though their faith and praxis differs in substantial ways from what is regarded as mainstream Trinitarian Christianity.
Are we to say that the Jehovah's Witnesses are simply another flavour of Christian?
Sure, as a 'marginal' group that derives from within the wider Christian tradition and which split off from it at some point it's going to have certain hallmarks of Christianity in its DNA ... but would we be right to label it Christian?
You see, immediately we have a labelling issue. What constitutes Christianity and what doesn't.
There's no way around that.
I feel that with so much theological diversity within the historical denominations it almost seems unfair to deny JWs the label 'Christian'.
The concept of 'covering' was discussed and dismissed here a while ago, but it does seem as if highly unorthodox people are covered by virtue of belonging to the Anglican Communion, in a way that people who pursue their unorthodox beliefs in less respectable surroundings are not.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Can I point out that we have another weasel word coming up. That word is "sect". To give you some idea my father is quite happy to refer to the URC as a sect, by Max Weber's terminology most Baptist churches clearly are. However Max Weber is using it for the form of church he actually prefers/idealises. In his terminology it simply means a religious grouping that one chooses as opposed to the default one of society (which is a church).
The modern term derogatory meaning is not implied in the original sociological use. This is important to bear in mind when you see a person using this term. You could be misunderstand their meaning. There are various developments from that simple categorisation.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
To the OP, we mean historically and geographically culturally differentiated. Like Jewish, Greek, Roman, Syriac.
We cannot possibly, in the main, retrace those steps to become what we weren't. We should retrace them to embrace them regardless.
As for JWs being heretic, that is Christian tradition. Heresy. All of it. The beliefs. Especially the unbiblical second order mandatory excluding distinctives. If a JW feeds the hungry, visits the sick, the imprisoned, widows and orphans in their affliction how unchristian are they? How heterodox?
Was Jesus a Trinitarian?
And a good Trinitarian, twice on Sunday, rich, racist, homophobic warmonger is a disciple of Jesus how ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Jehovah's Witnesses would claim to be Christian, even though their faith and praxis differs in substantial ways from what is regarded as mainstream Trinitarian Christianity.
Are we to say that the Jehovah's Witnesses are simply another flavour of Christian?
I'd answer 'No' to this but my main reason is that the JWs isolate themselves from all other Christian groups. If it wasn't for this factor, I'd be tempted (I think...) to describe them as simply another flavour of Christian, albeit highly unorthodox!
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the one hand you could accuse a group like the Vineyard, say - and I'm just using them as one example of a Protestant 'sect' even though they might wish to disavow the term - of being schismatic or going-it-alone.
You could argue that it is tacit in their approach, 'We meet separately and do things our way, therefore this implies that we believe we are doing it in a way that's closer to the NT ...'
They may not say that explicitly, but you could argue that it's implicit in their modus operandi.
Yeah, I guess... But, taking it to the extreme, aren't all groups schismatic except for either the Orthodox or Roman Catholics? Every other Christian group has splintered off from the root (institutionally speaking) for one reason or another.
I know you weren't having a go at my flavour of Christianity in particular, but Vineyard churches (AFAIK) are always happy to work with all the other mainstream churches. I can instantly think of two projects local to me where people from my church happily serve alongside folks from many other nearby churches of various kinds.
So I do appreciate what you're getting at but, unless (like some currently prolific posters) you want to see a unified worldwide church institution, I don't see what my lot are doing wrong. Of course we think we're doing (trying to do...) things in a way that God approves of, otherwise we'd (try to...) do things differently!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Jehovah's Witnesses would claim to be Christian, even though their faith and praxis differs in substantial ways from what is regarded as mainstream Trinitarian Christianity.
Are we to say that the Jehovah's Witnesses are simply another flavour of Christian?
I'd answer 'No' to this but my main reason is that the JWs isolate themselves from all other Christian groups. If it wasn't for this factor, I'd be tempted (I think...) to describe them as simply another flavour of Christian, albeit highly unorthodox!
So ecumenicalism is the sign of being Christian? That's a fairly new definition, I imagine.
I have an example of JW integration: some years ago I invited a local JW author to read some of his poems at a Methodist church concert. He did come along, after obtaining permission from JW leaders. It would be interesting to know whether there are examples of deeper cooperation, perhaps of an unofficial nature, between JW congregations and others around the world. (Unfortunately Google isn't immediately very helpful on this. Most of the articles about the JWs are by non-JWs expressing outright disapproval.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I THINK I get what South Coast Kevin is saying (please correct me if I'm wrong, SCK). It's not about ecumenicalism but a recognition of SOME orthodoxy/truth amongst particular groups. It seems to me as if JWs don't want to be recognised for orthodoxy by other churches, almost, like that would be a sign of things that to them are apostasy. Does that make any sense? I mean, going from other threads on Purg, the Eastern Orthodox church may not recognise the apostolic succession of the Anglican church but they would recognise Anglicans as Christians. I think JWs wouldn't want to be seen as fellow Christians by mainstream denominations, because to them that would be joining in with heretics.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I THINK I get what South Coast Kevin is saying (please correct me if I'm wrong, SCK). It's not about ecumenicalism but a recognition of SOME orthodoxy/truth amongst particular groups.
I'm trying to think this out for myself, really, and I don't know if I'd actually follow through with my JW-inclusivity if it were up to me. Pragmatism regarding how others would react might win the day...
Fundamentally, I want to say that I'd work on a Christian project with anyone who shared that project's goals. I'm very reluctant to judge whether a group's beliefs are so heretical that I wouldn't consider serving alongside people from that group, or involving them in the decision-making, planning etc. of the work. If they can get on board with the project then great, let's work together. I think.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ideally, Raptor Eye, that would be the case ... but it's not as simple as that. I'm not saying that we should all go around saying, 'I belong to Paul, I belong to Apollos ... etc' but neither can we pretend that there aren't distinct flavours and strands within Christianity as a whole.
It sounds terribly pious to say, 'The only label I accept is Christian ...' but then we have to unpack what we mean by that and that's when labelling inevitably starts.
There's no way around that, it seems to me. Just as there's no way around tradition or Tradition. Traditions are there whether we like it or not. Labels are there whether we choose to accept them or not. Some of us will wear several labels but we don't have the luxury of being completely naked like Adam.
We aren't a disembodied faith, we are grounded in particular places and times and in particular ecclesial communities.
I don't think we're far from each other, Gamaliel, and I know that labels are inevitable to some extent, but I think that they should be used and interpreted with great caution as they hold the potential to incite idolatry, prejudice, judgementalism and schism all of which easily lead to hatred and strife.
We may be grounded in particular ecclesial communities with their own special characteristics, but it's important that we remember that we belong primarily to Christ and that we listen for his voice above all the sounds made by elders and echoes of past theologians, in co-operation with our fellow Christians.
To follow on with later points made, we all draw a line of validity so that the people our side are fellow Christians, while those on the other side are not. Some believe only those of their own denomination are Christian, some see only Trinitarians as Christian, others are so liberal that they think that anyone acting kindly is a Christian. Is it really for anyone other than Christ himself to judge?
Would any of us refuse to work on a church project with someone else based on their theological outlook? I'd like to think not, but I clearly remember someone refusing to countenance a volunteer as she didn't regularly attend any church...... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I'm not advocating dismissing people and so on ...
All I'm saying is that God uses 'means' and uses people and it's inevitable that those people will have some label or other. If you lived in Ethiopia, unless you joined some imported Western group you'd probably either be Muslim or Ethiopian Orthodox.
Same if you were living in medieval Western Europe ... you wouldn't have had much choice other than be a Roman Catholic.
I'm also using the term sect in the Max Weber sense and as Jengie Jon's Dad uses it. I don't have any issue regarding the URC or Baptist churches as being sects in the non-derogatory sense ... but simply as churches to which people, by and large, how chosen to belong to.
One could argue - and I would at times - that largely convert Orthodox parishes here in the US and over in the US are sociologically a form of sect too ... insofar that most people there have chosen to belong to them rather than being 'cradle' in the way that many if not most Orthodox are in Greece, the Balkans, Russia etc.
I would argue that a Church can be Church (capital C) in one part of the world and sociologically speaking a sect in another.
Hope that clarifies things.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Would any of us refuse to work on a church project with someone else based on their theological outlook? I'd like to think not, but I clearly remember someone refusing to countenance a volunteer as she didn't regularly attend any church......
I think this partly depends on the identity that the volunteer work is running under. If a project is being named and funded as a Baptist project, and undertaken as a result of an evangelistic understanding of mission, it would be awkward if several of the participants were majorly in disagreement with Baptist teachings.
An ecumenical project would be a different matter. And some church projects are expressly designed to encourage community participation, so it wouldn't matter who turned up.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
An ecumenical project would be a different matter. And some church projects are expressly designed to encourage community participation, so it wouldn't matter who turned up.
What I had in mind with my 'Hmm, I think I'd probably include groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses' was things like town-wide mission activities under a 'Churches Together' umbrella. That sort of thing. And my inclination would be to include any group that (a) called themselves Christian, and (b) wanted to get involved on a cross-church basis (i.e. without wanting to turn it into 'their show'.
I should repeat that this is all hypothetical, at least at the moment, as I'm not in any kind of leadership position. Who knows how my views would change if I actually had to make decisions of this nature?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I certainly wouldn't include JWs in a town-wide Churches Together initiative. I would certainly include JWs in any joint initiative of other local, regional or national interest - such as a Foodbank or other relief effort, activism in the light of a proposed detrimental development of some kind etc.
Does that mean that I believe that individual JWs aren't capable of greater morality/self-discipline/neighbourliness and so on and so forth than individual Trinitarian believers? You bet it does.
I had some very gracious interaction with a very gracious JW lady when I was delivering leaflets for our church's Easter services. She made it clear where she stood but made no effort to diss me, the church or anyone else.
I found myself wishing that many more mainstream Christians would take a leaf out of her book.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, I worded that badly ... what I meant was that I DO believe that individuals from 'marginal' groups like the JWs and Mormons are capable of behaving in far more Christ-like and godly ways than 'conventional' or mainstream Trinitarian believers.
Of course I do.
My brother is very impressed by the behaviour and witness of a Christadelphian in his work-place, for instance. Everything I know about this bloke tells me that he's on the ball in almost every respect.
Just because someone belongs to a group that is considered 'marginal' or heretical doesn't mean that they've got horns coming out of their heads.
Equally, just because someone belongs to a mainstream Church or denomination doesn't mean that they don't ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
RCs, Orthodox and anyone else I know of who claim that their Church is the Original and Best aren't saying that only their own adherents will be saved or can be considered Christians. They may have done so at one time - certainly the RC Church once taught that - but they don't know. You may find individuals within each of these Churches who still believe that, but it certainly wouldn't represent the prevailing view within each body.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Re Churches Together, my understanding is that participant groups need to be able to assent to a set of common beliefs. I know of an Anglican vicar, now the chairperson of my local CT network, who is insistent that the Apostolic/Jesus Name Pentecostals couldn't or shouldn't be part of such a grouping, since they have a different understanding of the Trinity. Of course, they may not want to be part of CT in the first place. But if they're not there, how can they be influenced? Ecumenicalism tends to rub the hard edges off religious groups....
My view, as I've said above, is that plenty of contemporary 'mainstream' Christians muddy the waters by holding radical theological views, so it's perhaps a bit rich of them to accuse others of 'heresy'. (I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the Virgin Birth is an optional element of Trinitarian theology!) Is there such a thing as heresy in today's postmodern, pluralist, tolerant Christian context?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Svit - perhaps you'd like to start by explaining why the Virgin Birth is essential to Trinitarian theology in the first place, because I manage to believe in the latter whilst being decidedly woolly on the former.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
The Virgin Birth, or more properly virgin conception I suppose, is all to do with the nature of Christ though. If He was conceived in the normal way, then there is nothing particularly special about Him. He has a human father and human mother, well, welcome to the human race, Jesus. But He is both Man (with a human mother to show for it) and God (the nature of His conception was divine). And if that's preposterous, why is the Trinity less so?
Not wanting to be flippant, but I have felt for years that if one can accept the outrageous doctrine of the Incarnation, then everything else in the Christian faith is something of a piece of cake ...
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The Virgin Birth, or more properly virgin conception I suppose, is all to do with the nature of Christ though. If He was conceived in the normal way, then there is nothing particularly special about Him. He has a human father and human mother, well, welcome to the human race, Jesus. But He is both Man (with a human mother to show for it) and God (the nature of His conception was divine). And if that's preposterous, why is the Trinity less so?
Not wanting to be flippant, but I have felt for years that if one can accept the outrageous doctrine of the Incarnation, then everything else in the Christian faith is something of a piece of cake ...
I think I'd be less suspicious of the virgin birth were it not for the fact that it can be seen quite readily as an attempt to show that Christ's birth fulfils a prophesy, the details of which (i.e. the Virgin) may well be a mistranslation.
I really don't get why the presence of a bog standard normal second set of chromosomes from a male gamete should be a barrier to the second person of the Trinity becoming a human being any more than the first set from a female gamete. To me the significance is that he was born of woman, not that he was specifically born of a virgin. Indeed, it does answer an otherwise vexed question of where Jesus' paternal chromosomes came from; he could hardly have been haploid or a clone - for one thing he'd be female.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The Virgin Birth, or more properly virgin conception I suppose, is all to do with the nature of Christ though. If He was conceived in the normal way, then there is nothing particularly special about Him. He has a human father and human mother, well, welcome to the human race, Jesus. But He is both Man (with a human mother to show for it) and God (the nature of His conception was divine). And if that's preposterous, why is the Trinity less so?
Not wanting to be flippant, but I have felt for years that if one can accept the outrageous doctrine of the Incarnation, then everything else in the Christian faith is something of a piece of cake ...
I think I'd be less suspicious of the virgin birth were it not for the fact that it can be seen quite readily as an attempt to show that Christ's birth fulfils a prophesy, the details of which (i.e. the Virgin) may well be a mistranslation.
I really don't get why the presence of a bog standard normal second set of chromosomes from a male gamete should be a barrier to the second person of the Trinity becoming a human being any more than the first set from a female gamete. To me the significance is that he was born of woman, not that he was specifically born of a virgin. Indeed, it does answer an otherwise vexed question of where Jesus' paternal chromosomes came from; he could hardly have been haploid or a clone - for one thing he'd be female.
Hegel has so much to answer for.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Svit - perhaps you'd like to start by explaining why the Virgin Birth is essential to Trinitarian theology in the first place, because I manage to believe in the latter whilst being decidedly woolly on the former.
Basically, if all elements of the Trinity are meant to be cosubstantial or 'of the same essence', then how can the Father and the Spirit be supernatural, but the Son not? The 'God made flesh' thing surely only works if Jesus was actually God's supernatural Son. Or is it a case of 'ye are all gods'?
Note that I'm not a theologian, and the Trinity is routinely described as a difficult thing for the layperson to understand. It's unsurprising that some people don't take to it, for one reason or another.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Svit - perhaps you'd like to start by explaining why the Virgin Birth is essential to Trinitarian theology in the first place, because I manage to believe in the latter whilst being decidedly woolly on the former.
Basically, if all elements of the Trinity are meant to be cosubstantial or 'of the same essence', then how can the Father and the Spirit be supernatural, but the Son not? The 'God made flesh' thing surely only works if Jesus was actually God's supernatural Son. Or is it a case of 'ye are all gods'?
Note that I'm not a theologian, and the Trinity is routinely described as a difficult thing for the layperson to understand. It's unsurprising that some people don't take to it, for one reason or another.
I do not find it necessary for there to be a missing human physical father for God to be Jesus' supernatural father. Not at all.
I have no problem with the Trinity. I am, however, decidedly unconvinced on the historicity of the virgin birth story.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Basically, if all elements of the Trinity are meant to be cosubstantial or 'of the same essence', then how can the Father and the Spirit be supernatural, but the Son not? The 'God made flesh' thing surely only works if Jesus was actually God's supernatural Son.
No. Orthodox doctrine is that Jesus is a normal man, born and developed in the usual way, not some sort of avatar inserted into the world by God.
There is no obvious reason that a virgin conception is neccessary for that.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
No. Orthodox doctrine is that Jesus is a normal man, born and developed in the usual way, not some sort of avatar inserted into the world by God.
There is no obvious reason that a virgin conception is neccessary for that.
That's orthodox?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Yes, of course its orthodox! And even Orthodox. Jesus is of the same human nature as the rest of us. He wasn't made of some special Godstuff, wasn't some kind of supernatural manifestation. Its in the Chalcedonian Definition. To say anything different risks wandering into Monopyhsitism on the one hand or Docetism on the other.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
No. Orthodox doctrine is that Jesus is a normal man, born and developed in the usual way, not some sort of avatar inserted into the world by God.
There is no obvious reason that a virgin conception is neccessary for that.
That's orthodox?
Yes. That's orthodox. And the Virgin Birth is also orthodox. But there's no way to make the Virgin Birth important for the Incarnation without heading deep into heretical territory.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, of course its orthodox! And even Orthodox. Jesus is of the same human nature as the rest of us. He wasn't made of some special Godstuff, wasn't some kind of supernatural manifestation. Its in the Chalcedonian Definition. To say anything different risks wandering into Monopyhsitism on the one hand or Docetism on the other.
I may be misunderstanding you Ken, but you seem to be saying that Jesus, in his nature, is not divine - just a man and no more.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
No, no more than Athanasius or the Councils! The opposite view is the one they condemned as Monophytism. (And which the Egyptians and Ethiopians and Armenians now claim they never really held)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, of course its orthodox! ...He wasn't made of some special Godstuff...
??? ...being of one substance with the Father... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I may be misunderstanding you Ken, but you seem to be saying that Jesus, in his nature, is not divine - just a man and no more.
Bzzt - monophysitism. You say, "Jesus, in his nature, is", implying that Jesus has only one nature. Hence: mono - one, physis - nature. Orthodox Christian doctrine is that Jesus has two natures. In one of his natures Jesus is indeed just a man and no more. In his other nature Jesus is God.
If we leave the philosophical theology to one side, the take home is that God became an ordinary human being just like all of us. Not a demigod. Not a half-God half-man hybrid. God became an ordinary human being.
eta: 'of one substance with the Father' does not mean Jesus is made out of the same stuff as the Father. God is not made out of any kind of stuff. Substance here is used in the original philosophical sense, to mean a particular entity with its own individual existence.
[ 05. April 2013, 22:15: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
