|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Heresy
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Surely if a doctrine cannot be demonstrated either from scripture, from clear universal acclamation by the early church or by rational argument,
Why does it have to be the early church? What's so great about them that makes them so much more likely to be in tune with the Holy Spirit than us?
Doesn't continuity mean anything to you?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Surely if a doctrine cannot be demonstrated either from scripture, from clear universal acclamation by the early church or by rational argument,
Why does it have to be the early church? What's so great about them that makes them so much more likely to be in tune with the Holy Spirit than us?
We know from scripture that the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, and not only that they knew Jesus in a way we cannot hope to in this life. If the whole of the early church, following the Apostles' teaching and inspiration, held a doctrine to be true, then that is worthy of notice.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Doesn't continuity mean anything to you?
Not particularly. And certainly not when it's continuing an error or preventing new revelation.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
We know from scripture that the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, and not only that they knew Jesus in a way we cannot hope to in this life. If the whole of the early church, following the Apostles' teaching and inspiration, held a doctrine to be true, then that is worthy of notice.
I'm not so sure. The Apostles got stuff wrong all the time even when Jesus was right there next to them. Is it really so crazy to think that they may have gone on getting things wrong once Jesus wasn't there to correct them any more? And they were just as susceptible to "the spirit of the age" as we are, but because they came first there wasn't anything to compare them to.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
"If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema."
Oh yes, "unwritten tradition". The Church's equivalent of "Oh look, I've found this really ancient document ... careful, the ink might not be quite dry."
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
We know from scripture that the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, and not only that they knew Jesus in a way we cannot hope to in this life. If the whole of the early church, following the Apostles' teaching and inspiration, held a doctrine to be true, then that is worthy of notice.
I'm not so sure. The Apostles got stuff wrong all the time even when Jesus was right there next to them. Is it really so crazy to think that they may have gone on getting things wrong once Jesus wasn't there to correct them any more? And they were just as susceptible to "the spirit of the age" as we are, but because they came first there wasn't anything to compare them to.
I didn't say we should follow it all blindly, but ditching something the early church agreed on (I don't just mean what one Apostle wrote or said but things that were universally held to be true) should not be done without very good reason and lengthy consideration.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance? A council was convened, the orthodox and apostolic faith was set forth, and Arius was cut off before he could infect the whole body.
Well, what they did do started us on a path that, if we follow in their footsteps ends up with each of us in a church of one.
If what you say is true, then it suggests that the Holy Spirit was working through top-down authority-based control. I suspect that's not how he works, and it was actually simply man trying to do the Holy Spirit's work for him, best intentions or not.
Anathema has never solved anything. It's just a temporary plaster that quickly peels off. We have more disagreement over more theologies now than ever before. Each time they declared an anathema another controversy came up, and they had to declare another. And then sometimes another council declared that council anathema. Orthodoxy is defined by the winners, who then humiliated and persecuted the losers. I see little of the Holy Spirit's work in that.
That's not to say that the musings, theologies and philosophies of the early theologians aren't incredibly important and valuable. Just that when they took things into their own hands and made theology about exclusivity, they were utterly and tragically wrong. Christ is inclusive.
Intellectually I agree with the Nicholases and the Cyrils, but that doesn't stop the Ariuses and Nestoriuses being equally my siblings in Christ, and in terms of conduct and character, which I suspect Jesus is much more bothered about than correct belief, I have more sympathy with the latter than the former.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Did you hear that? It's St. Nicholas turning in is grave.
"With what songs of hymnody shall we praise the holy hierarch, the opponent of impiety and champion of piety, the leader, great ally and teacher, who putteth to shame all the infamous, the destroyer of Arius and his minions? For his sake hath Christ, Who hath great mercy, cast down the arrogance of the enemy."
The Triumph of Orthodoxy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_Orthodoxy
[ 25. July 2013, 12:31: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
What sort of paganism do you think it's imported from, Isaac, or are you just using the term perjoratively?
Generically. Like an incantation to spring Persephone from the Underworld, for example.
Thanks for comments one and all - I, an atheist, was unsure as to whether the situation reminded me more of The Rite of AshkEnte (substituting "Holy Spirit" for "Death" of course) or a poorly remembered teenage reading of books by Dennis Wheatley
The question of "what harm can it do" has been concerning me - I think my answer has to be - if any possibility of harm is restricted to the individual then any harm is probably already done. If however the individual has a position of authority and an apparently officially approved power base from which to influence others the potential for harm needs to be assessed by someone more knowledgeable and more capable than I.
As a result of your comments, and the context which I deliberately omitted, I will pass my observation on at diocesan level and, assuming they are not already aware, hope that they can discretely ascertain whether any action is needed.
Thanks again
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Did you hear that? It's St. Nicholas turning in is grave.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) I'm thinking that a good few centuries of resting in the arms of Christ has chilled him out a bit, but whatever...
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance? A council was convened, the orthodox and apostolic faith was set forth, and Arius was cut off before he could infect the whole body.
Well, what they did do started us on a path that, if we follow in their footsteps ends up with each of us in a church of one.
I would say the historical evidence suggests that that was more likely to be the result of The Reformation than The First Ecumenical Council.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Did you hear that? It's St. Nicholas turning in is grave.
I'm thinking that a good few centuries of resting in the arms of Christ has chilled him out a bit, but whatever...
As long as he keeps bringing presents on December 5th, I'm ok ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
On second thoughts there is nothing heretical about a Christian using violence on an enemy. My apologies. Nicholas was perfectly orthodox, orthopractic.
And he was charismatic with it! Result!
[ 25. July 2013, 15:13: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
I would say the historical evidence suggests that that was more likely to be the result of The Reformation than The First Ecumenical Council.
I'd probably say both.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
HughWillRidmee
It will be interesting to hear what the response is if you receive one.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Today's heresy is tomorrow's orthodoxy, it seems to me.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'd probably say both.
I look forward to reading your argument.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
It's exactly the same principle of dividing and excluding due to belief, which is what I meant about starting a trajectory, of which the great schism (and the minor schisms) and the reformation were a natural consequence. ISTM that it's an exponential process.
I can see how the creeds are unifying, and how that's a good thing. But the creeds were written to exclude. Often with very specific wording to make that very clear. It seems to me that when Catholics and Orthodox point the finger at Protestants for dividing the church, there are fingers pointing back in history at themselves.
Perhaps it's the case that exclusion is a necessary consequence of unification (that when we unite, others are necessarily excluded). I just have this inkling that the Church is meant to be different, that we should be united in Love, and that Love is somehow inclusive of all, especially our fellow followers of Christ, even if we disagree over some doctrines.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa
I wouldn't say that heresy is often about control. I would argue heresy is about control, full stop. It is about who is in and who is out, and who gets to make these determinations. Sounds like contol to me.
So anything can be preached from the pulpit?
What in the statement has anything to do with preaching the Word and its application?
"Heresy" is proclaimed when the speaker feels threatened by an idea he doesn't like, often one which threatens his standing or position. Hence Erasmus' comment about Luther attacking "the Pope's crown and the monks' bellies"
There never was anything heretical about having the Bible written in the vernacular.
Just as there is not necessarily anything heretical about a rewrite of the Prayer Book. But change one word, and see how fast the accusation of heresy arrives! Usually from someone who wants to maintain a position of (self-defined) power in that congregation/denom.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Careful ´aitch Bee, you might a smack in the mouth with Jesus´ full approval of course.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Today's heresy is tomorrow's orthodoxy, it seems to me.
In some cases that may be true. But here we are 1800 years later, and most of the Church still rejects the idea that the Son was created by the Father at some point in history.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Today's heresy is tomorrow's orthodoxy, it seems to me.
That is certainly true of TEC.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What in the statement has anything to do with preaching the Word and its application?
If you want to know what I have up my sleeve (apart from an arm which Martin thinks I might use to wield a hefty smack), you could always try answering the question on Caissa's behalf.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It's exactly the same principle of dividing and excluding...
ISTM your argument doesn't really address the point you made earlier, that the trajectory would lead to everyone occupying a church of one.
The evidence of the New Testament would suggest that there were disputes about doctrine from the very beginnings of the church, evidence which can be found in the letters of the Apostles Peter, Paul and John. As described in the Book of Acts, those same Apostles were present when the church in Jerusalem met to resolve the question of whether Gentiles who joined the church should be circumcised, as certain teachers maintained.
The later Ecumenical Councils were following the same principle, of the church leadership meeting to resolve doctrinal disputes when they arose. Yes, there were schisms along the way, but the church didn't splinter into thousands of factions. Hence my point that meeting in council didn't, historically, lead down the path you suggested. Contrast that with the situation since the Reformation, when councils were abandoned in favour of secular magistrates maintaining doctrinal oversight. This ultimately failed, so that we have a situation where there are now more splits than one might see in a whole season at the Folies Bergère!
quote:
I just have this inkling that the Church is meant to be different, that we should be united in Love, and that Love is somehow inclusive of all
I agree that we should be united in Love, but what do those same Apostles say who were at the Council in Jerusalem? Paul wrote about Love in 1 Corintians 13, but he also warned, in the Book of Acts, and in his letters, that false teachers would arise. Peter wrote that we 'should love one another fervently with a pure heart' in his first letter (1 Peter 1:22), but also, in his second letter, that 'there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies' (2 Peter 2:1). And John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, who tells us that 'God is Love', also says that 'many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist' (2 John 7). Were they wrong?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Unless that vicar´s tongue was manifestly, known to be in his cheek, he´s away with the fairies. Peddling snake oil as on God-TV and worse, believing it. That is bad. Evil. Most things are. Broken. Corrupt. A lie. I´m sick of stuff masquerading as definitive Christianity that has nothing to do with loving mercy.
'Definitive Christianity'? The point of one of my earlier posts is that in the modern age there's no such thing as 'definitive Christianity.' That's why there's no such thing as heresy. There are too many schools of thought for the notion to make much sense.
Do congregations swallow every comment, every sermon that they get from the pulpit? Really? In my experience, ministers and preachers are inclined to complain that their congregations don't listen to them. But that could just be a Methodist problem - I have no idea if Anglican priests say the same thing, nor even if they have the same hopeless expectations!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The point of one of my earlier posts is that in the modern age there's no such thing as 'definitive Christianity.' That's why there's no such thing as heresy.
How does the fact that everybody disagrees about the truth entail that error does not exist?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Isaac David, it guarantees it. As the Bible itself does and testifies. That´s how it, like everything else, works. By being inadequate, insufficient, partial, uncertain, irreconcilable. It´s great isn´t it! Really. I mean it´s positively amusing.
And you wouldn´t hurt a fly.
The ancient heresies of Judaization, compromise with Caesar, gnosticism let alone all the denials of persons of the Trinity or their attributes centred around Jesus are alive and well.
Christianity is rife with heresy, is defined by heresy in every mandatory denominational distinctive compared with the custom and practice of its purported founder.
We are united in heresy and can make no progress until we embrace that.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
We? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye Isaac David. The we that we don´t acknowledge, the we that we deny in our heresies, our comfortable hostility.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
ISTM your argument doesn't really address the point you made earlier, that the trajectory would lead to everyone occupying a church of one.
It's the principle of separating ourselves according to doctrine. No two people share exactly the same beliefs. We split our church in two, one half believing one thing, the other half believing something different, then find that our new half is split over some other issue, and so on. Because we all differ over something, the logical conclusion is that we end up in churches of one.
Of course in practice that doesn't happen. In our churches at some point we realise that despite our different theologies, we have to stick together, or we choose some specific belief over which we can mostly agree to unite around. But, had we taken that stance from the start, then we wouldn't have split in the first place.
I just don't think that unity should depend on consistency of doctrine, but on the fact that we're followers of Christ.
I agree that it's been a lot worse since the reformation, and I admire the Orthodox, Catholic (and Anglican) churches for remaining united despite the doctrinal differences within the churches (though perhaps it's easier for that unity to exist when there's an "other" to be united against). But it still feels like that unity is dependent on doctrinal agreement over incidentals. So if someone in one of those churches disagrees with some official teaching about sex, morality, or even whether Christ had one or two natures, then they don't feel united with the rest of the body of Christ, if the message they receive is that unity is defined by conformity. Then they end up leaving, or becoming only vaguely associated with their church.
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Were they wrong?
It depends what we're talking about, and how you define false teachers. If it's about disagreeing about some philosophical or doctrinal nuance, then no way.
For me a false teacher is someone who enslaves, deceives and manipulates. The issue isn't so much the content of their doctrine, but their motives behind their teaching. TV evangelists who con people out of money, charismatic leaders who manipulate vulnerable people and abuse them psychologically, sexually, spiritually, emotionally - those are the kind of false teachers that I think Peter and John are talking about - the 'false shepherds' of Ezekiel 34.
People like Arius or Nestorius, as far as I know, weren't like that. They were genuinely and honestly trying to work out their faith according to their conscience. Now, I don't agree with either of their conclusions, but that doesn't mean that I think it was right that they were chucked out of the church, with their beliefs declared anathema. The solution should have been dialogue. You can have an ecumenical council and debate and even a conclusion without anyone being declared a heretic. The council still could have decided that the official church teaching was that of Athanasius, but continued to allow Arius to be part of the church (but perhaps not a bishop).
And after that, things only got worse. You didn't just get chucked out of the church for believing the wrong thing, you got killed for it.
None of us can choose to change our beliefs. We can pretend to, but that's just self-deception. But when we enter into dialogue with each other, then we find our beliefs moulded, tempered, strengthened, and then, over time, they can change. If we trust in the Holy Spirit, that the way of Christ really is the truth, then we should trust that process. Excluding others because of intellectual disagreement just seems to be fear of man.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
For me a false teacher is someone who enslaves, deceives and manipulates. The issue isn't so much the content of their doctrine, but their motives behind their teaching. TV evangelists who con people out of money, charismatic leaders who manipulate vulnerable people and abuse them psychologically, sexually, spiritually, emotionally - those are the kind of false teachers that I think Peter and John are talking about - the 'false shepherds' of Ezekiel 34.
People like Arius or Nestorius, as far as I know, weren't like that. They were genuinely and honestly trying to work out their faith according to their conscience... You can have an ecumenical council and debate and even a conclusion without anyone being declared a heretic.
Spot on, goperryrevs.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I think the problem is with people who think that wrong belief = damnation. Such people are incapable of tolerating any suggestion that their beliefs are wrong and cling to them as if their very souls depended on it - which, of course, they think they do.
It's a trait commonly associated with fundamentalist protestant believers - "every word of the Bible has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?", but it's also true of the more fundamentalist catholic believers - "every dogma of the Church has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?". In both cases there can be no hint of change allowed, because change implies that the previous belief was wrong and that in turn implies that the believer's salvation may not be assured.
It's basically a fear of uncertainty. Terrible thing, that.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Benedict XVI coined the right phrase for the above: the dictatorship relativism. And indeed it's true, the result being that the faith means nothing. Just reading the New Testament shows that such an approach is false.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Just reading the New Testament shows that such an approach is false.
Citation needed please. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Try our Lord's discourse to the Apostles in the Gospel of St. John for a start. Or there is one of the epistles where the Apostle refers to the Church as the pillar of truth. There's a couple to chew on.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yet Christians have always been relativists, haven't they? They abandoned the ban on usury, they gave up owning slaves, they stopped treating women as property (well, some of them did), they began to get divorced in droves.
OK, you could argue that they are all wrong, and they have abandoned the one true path. Good luck.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And indeed it's true, the result being that the faith means nothing.
Rubbish. It just means that the faith's meaning isn't restricted to one narrow fundamentalist definition to which everyone has to subscribe.
God is bigger than that.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Try our Lord's discourse to the Apostles in the Gospel of St. John for a start. Or there is one of the epistles where the Apostle refers to the Church as the pillar of truth. There's a couple to chew on.
Come on, chapter and verse, my friend!
--------------------
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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Try our Lord's discourse to the Apostles in the Gospel of St. John for a start. Or there is one of the epistles where the Apostle refers to the Church as the pillar of truth. There's a couple to chew on.
Here the Lord is referring to the Church. Not your church, not my church, but the Church; what could be termed His Church.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Try our Lord's discourse to the Apostles in the Gospel of St. John for a start. Or there is one of the epistles where the Apostle refers to the Church as the pillar of truth. There's a couple to chew on.
Come on, chapter and verse, my friend!
You don't know those scriptures? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) It's hard work quoting on a mobile phone. Nevermind, I'm home now so I can use my laptop.
"The Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you."
"When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth."
"Behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Try our Lord's discourse to the Apostles in the Gospel of St. John for a start. Or there is one of the epistles where the Apostle refers to the Church as the pillar of truth. There's a couple to chew on.
Here the Lord is referring to the Church. Not your church, not my church, but the Church; what could be termed His Church.
Need we go there? You know what I believe.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
"The Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you."
"When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth."
"Behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
Okay, thanks a lot. I meant chapter and verse reference, but quoting the passages is fine (as long as you've quoted them accurately ).
But see, 'all truth' here can't quite mean literally 'all truth', can it? The Spirit of Truth has come and yet Christians are not omniscient. So we have to do some interpreting of exactly what Jesus meant in these passages. Now, Christians may disagree as to the best interpretation but a 'plain, literal reading of the text' (which might be the preferable reading, especially for some) is simply not possible, ISTM.
--------------------
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 Marvin the Martian:
I think the problem is with people who think that wrong belief = damnation. Such people are incapable of tolerating any suggestion that their beliefs are wrong and cling to them as if their very souls depended on it - which, of course, they think they do.
It's a trait commonly associated with fundamentalist protestant believers - "every word of the Bible has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?", but it's also true of the more fundamentalist catholic believers - "every dogma of the Church has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?". In both cases there can be no hint of change allowed, because change implies that the previous belief was wrong and that in turn implies that the believer's salvation may not be assured.
It's basically a fear of uncertainty. Terrible thing, that.
I don't think this is a 'problem'. If this is what people believe, then they go and form their own church of like-minded people, and all is well. People who disagree with the theology can leave - surely that's the whole point of Protestantism?
There's the argument that for people who've been raised in the church cocoon for all of their lives, being driven out or choosing to go is a horrible experience akin to being cast out into the dark void. I do understand this. But I can't see any real solution if we believe in religious freedom. The transition from childhood to adulthood can be treacherous for all kinds of people, but in the Western world we generally believe that children have to develop a separate identity from their parents, and this includes the potential for developing a completely different religious identity. Western literature, history and mythology are full of examples of young people who go against the will of their parents; it's what we do (at least in our fantasies), and we take the consequences.
You could say that 'heresy' is embedded in the culture!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think the problem is with people who think that wrong belief = damnation. Such people are incapable of tolerating any suggestion that their beliefs are wrong and cling to them as if their very souls depended on it - which, of course, they think they do.
It's a trait commonly associated with fundamentalist protestant believers - "every word of the Bible has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?", but it's also true of the more fundamentalist catholic believers - "every dogma of the Church has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?". In both cases there can be no hint of change allowed, because change implies that the previous belief was wrong and that in turn implies that the believer's salvation may not be assured.
It's basically a fear of uncertainty. Terrible thing, that.
The Ad Hominem game is a competition without any winners, least of all the truth, so there's no point playing it.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
For me a false teacher is someone who enslaves, deceives and manipulates. The issue isn't so much the content of their doctrine, but their motives behind their teaching.
I don't think this does justice to what the Apostles say. Paul's chief targets in some of his letters are the so-called Judaizers, who taught that Gentiles who joined the church should submit to the Law of Moses and be circumcised. Paul's concern is with teaching the true doctrine of salvation: that we are saved by faith, not works of the Mosaic Law. This may be an echo of Jesus' warning to his disciples to beware the leaven, or doctrine, of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:5-12).
John's concern, OTOH, is with the identity of Christ:
quote:
For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
2 John 7-11 (NKJV)
Again, this calls to mind John's Gospel, with its Prologue and the 'I Am' discourses.
In the Fourth Century, Athanasius responded to the doctrine of Arius by bringing the concerns of Paul and John together, affirming that our salvation and the identity of Christ are intimately tied up with each other. If Christ is not God, but a created being, then He cannot save us, an insight which the Pharisees had utterly failed to understand when they had complained about Jesus' healing of a paralytic that only God could forgive sins (Mark 2:3-7).
quote:
I just don't think that unity should depend on consistency of doctrine, but on the fact that we're followers of Christ.
I suggest that John, Paul and Athanasius are telling us that this is a false dilemma, and that our unity depends on the fact that we are followers of the same Christ, and that, by implication, there are false Christs whose followers we should not join with (cf Matthew 24:23; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15).
In the Synoptic Gospels, we also read how Jesus asked his disciples who people thought He was. He then went on to ask them who they thought He was, to which Peter confessed, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:13-16). Would Jesus ask this question if it were not important?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Would Jesus ask this question if it were not important?
Would He command the disciples to tell nobody else that He was the Christ if it was?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think the problem is with people who think that wrong belief = damnation. Such people are incapable of tolerating any suggestion that their beliefs are wrong and cling to them as if their very souls depended on it - which, of course, they think they do.
It's a trait commonly associated with fundamentalist protestant believers - "every word of the Bible has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?", but it's also true of the more fundamentalist catholic believers - "every dogma of the Church has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?". In both cases there can be no hint of change allowed, because change implies that the previous belief was wrong and that in turn implies that the believer's salvation may not be assured.
It's basically a fear of uncertainty. Terrible thing, that.
But Marvin, that can cut both ways. You could just as easily be characterized as fetishizing your uncertainty so as to build up a self-narrative of yourself as the Fearless Freethinker Who Is Troubled Not By Not Knowing.
Which I'm sure you would agree is presumptuous and unfair. Armchair psychologizing is bullshit, and both sides of this argument should refrain.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Heresy is only meaningful if right and wrong correlate with good and evil.
But the history of belief is dominantly ... that you are wrong therefore you are evil. And I am good because I´m right.
Die heretic (regardless of how good you do, how kind, how irenic, how tolerant).
So what New Testament heresies are there? Apostolic: Gnosticism, Judaization and sacrificing to the God-Emperor on market day.
Post-apostolic ecumenical: all the others.
Any that Jesus pointed at?
Wasn´t He the heretic?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Would He command the disciples to tell nobody else that He was the Christ if it was [important]?
We can speculate on why Jesus didn't want anyone else to know at the time, but it can't have been a command for all time, since Peter revealed it to the crowds in Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts 2:36).
I think it is significant that it was Jesus who asked the question of his disciples, and not the other way round, as this suggests that He considered it important that the disciples knew Who He was. I think it is also significant that this incident was followed soon after by the Transfiguration, because of the way it deepened what had already been revealed.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I would have thought that anyone suggesting that a claim of messiahship in first century Judaism was unimportant (as opposed to right or wrong) would be laughed out of town. This was a time of eschatological fervour, when God would show his mighty arm against the hated invaders. Think armed insurrection. I'm not sure you need to be a mind reader to understand why Jesus would not want such identity claims to be made public at that time.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
