Thread: Purgatory: Protestantism Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001023

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I want to use this thread so that we can all learn more about Protestantism, especially what modern Protestants believe in and what they believed in throughout their (brief) history.

So, I propose we discuss some points through this thread.

Let me start the discussion by quoting the epistle of James (2.24), where it is written
quote:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
How did the people that created Protestantism view that verse? What do modern Protestants think about it now?

[edited thread title for archiving]

[ 10. January 2006, 04:44: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
their (brief) history

Even if we don't count precursors in the 14th and 15th Centuries, and only go from Luther, we are talking almost 500 years.

And of course Protestants stand in the history of the Church, going back to Christ.

And of course Christians are inheritors of the Jewish tradition of faith going back thousands of years before that.

I wouldn't call 500 years all that brief, to be honest.

[ 29. October 2005, 09:13: Message edited by: Demas ]
 
Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
their (brief) history

Even if we don't count precursors in the 14th and 15th Centuries, and only go from Luther, we are talking almost 500 years.
As I read it, I think that's the point he was making. 500 years is a long time or a short time depending on your perspective. For someone in Greece, with as rich and extended a local history as that country and region has, 500 years is a very short period of time, as it also is in relation to this:

quote:
And of course Christians are inheritors of the Jewish tradition of faith going back thousands of years before that.
In light of that, Christianity itself is quite new, and all developments within Christianity are newer still.
 
Posted by Charis (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
How did the people that created Protestantism view that verse?

Luther didn't think much of James:

'(I)t is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works.'
 
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
An epistle of straw!
Don't you just love Martin Luther.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
I think we need to be clear what sort of "Protestantism"* we're talking about. We're also going to need some definitions of justification and sanctification as we use them, and to examine whether James used them in the same way.

From my perspective, I would take Wesley's distinction (given in his sermon on Justification by Faith, but quite possibly not original there) between justification as the moment of conversion, solely by grace (through faith) and sanctification, namely growing in holiness towards Christian Perfection, which certainly does involve works. Sometimes justification is used to cover both of these which is suspect what is meant in James' epistle.

*Protestantism is not a very useful term for defining a theological tradition. It only really says "Western Church not in communion with Rome" and can mean anything from Anglo-Catholics to Mad Fundies. If we mean a more precise tradition than that we need to be clear which one. I prefer not to call myself a Protestant for that reason - it's not very clear.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
But the point is that the history of the Protestant churches is neither longer nor shorter than that of any other churches. They were reformed, not invented, in the 16th century.

Actually if we were being really picky the institutional history of separatly organised Protestant denominations goes back over 500 years to the Hussites in the early 1400s, and before that to the teaching of Wyclif, in the late 14th century - the Moravian churches have a direct organisational continuity with them, and are in that sense the oldest Protestant denomination, formally separating from Rome in 1467.

OK, the Waldenisans are even older. But althought hey later allied themselves with the Protestants they originally had a quite seperate history and their distinctive doctrines were not really the same as the later Protestants - they really come from the same stable as the Franciscans. Peter Waldo was into holy poverty, common life. pacifism and so on.

If history repeats itself first as tragedy and then as farce the 15th century history of the Hussites should have been a lesson to the 16th & 17th centuries. What started as a movement to reform the churches based on frequent communion in both kinds was brutally persecuted by the Papacy and in less than twenty years you had vast crowds assembling on hilltops in imminent expectation of the Second Coming while their slightly more practically-minded brethren got themselves Europe's largest collection of mobile artillery and tried to institute the Rule of the Saints by fire and the sword.
 
Posted by angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
OK, the Waldenisans are even older. But althought hey later allied themselves with the Protestants they originally had a quite seperate history and their distinctive doctrines were not really the same as the later Protestants - they really come from the same stable as the Franciscans. Peter Waldo was into holy poverty, common life. pacifism and so on.

It's not too much of a tangent (is it, Hosts?) to ask Ken and/or anyone else who knows, to tell us a bit more about the Waldensians. Am I right in thinking that in modern Italy they are in some sort of partnership with the Methodists? And would that reflect their general theological/spiritual approach?
 
Posted by scoticanus (# 5140) on :
 
What I was taught in Confirmation Class about Paul vs James and Faith vs Works still seems good sense to me, and I quote it here, from C B Moss's The Christian Faith, SPCK 1964. Moss was an Anglican theologian of the Tractarian school, strong on the Scriptures and the Fathers but distinctly antipathetic to Rome. The whole of this book is to be found on line:

Project Canterbury, C B Moss, The Christian Faith

quote:
II. Apparent Difference between St. Paul and St. James

St. Paul,s doctrine of justification by faith (Rom. 3:28, 4:2) is verbally contradicted by St. James (2:14-26) who says: "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" (verse 24). (It was for this reason that Luther called the Epistle of St. James "an epistle of straw".)

The contradiction is explained by the use of the words "faith" and "works" in different senses by St. Paul and St. James.

St. Paul means by "faith" complete confidence and self-surrender to God. St. James means intellectual assent to a proposition, such as "There is one God".

St. Paul means by "works" obedience to the Jewish Law and its traditional interpretation by which, according to the Pharisees, a man might earn his salvation from God.

St. James means by "works" deeds of mercy such as, according to St. Paul, were the result of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22; Rom. 8:5).

St. Paul and St. James were dealing with different situations and with different opponents. The opponents of St. Paul held that salvation could be earned by observing the Law. The opponents of St. James held that right belief (orthodoxy) was sufficient, even if it bore no fruit in the believer's life. St. Paul taught that works without faith cannot save us; St. James, that faith without works is dead; and both appealed to the example of Abraham. The truth is that both faith and works are needed, but works are the result of faith, not a substitute for it.


 
Posted by Alliebath (# 10547) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scoticanus:
What I was taught in Confirmation Class about Paul vs James and Faith vs Works still seems good sense to me, and I quote it here, from C B Moss's The Christian Faith, SPCK 1964. Moss was an Anglican theologian of the Tractarian school, strong on the Scriptures and the Fathers but distinctly antipathetic to Rome. The whole of this book is to be found on line:

Project Canterbury, C B Moss, The Christian Faith

quote:
II. Apparent Difference between St. Paul and St. James

St. Paul,s doctrine of justification by faith (Rom. 3:28, 4:2) is verbally contradicted by St. James (2:14-26) who says: "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" (verse 24). (It was for this reason that Luther called the Epistle of St. James "an epistle of straw".)

The contradiction is explained by the use of the words "faith" and "works" in different senses by St. Paul and St. James.

St. Paul means by "faith" complete confidence and self-surrender to God. St. James means intellectual assent to a proposition, such as "There is one God".

St. Paul means by "works" obedience to the Jewish Law and its traditional interpretation by which, according to the Pharisees, a man might earn his salvation from God.

St. James means by "works" deeds of mercy such as, according to St. Paul, were the result of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22; Rom. 8:5).

St. Paul and St. James were dealing with different situations and with different opponents. The opponents of St. Paul held that salvation could be earned by observing the Law. The opponents of St. James held that right belief (orthodoxy) was sufficient, even if it bore no fruit in the believer's life. St. Paul taught that works without faith cannot save us; St. James, that faith without works is dead; and both appealed to the example of Abraham. The truth is that both faith and works are needed, but works are the result of faith, not a substitute for it.


I see a problem in always trying to reconcile such differences, as between the view of ‘James’ and Paul. I do not think this syncretistic view point is helpful, espcially on a thread alooking at Protestantism. We can just as simply define Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as exactly the same, just defining their words differently. I do think it will do.

There is more than one theological viewpoint in the NT and there has been numerous theological viewpoints within Christianity since. Let us acknowledge that they are different and that there are differences.

Can we see antecedants of Protestantism within the Lollards, the Anabaptists, the Hussites, the galicans and many other hounded and persecuted groups before the Reformation finally happened?

Is the danger now that the protestant Churches themselves need to be protested against?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Waldenses?

I think it goes like this (though I'm more up on the mediaeval then the modern history which is pretty nerdish of me...)

Waldenses were founded by Peter Waldo, a rich merchant of Lyon who wanted to give all his money to the poor etc. Very much contemporary with Franciscans & coming from same place. Main difference was that they were not celibate - there were married members and they also allowed women to preach (actually in that sort of atmosphere I doubt if "allowed" is the right word - people get moved by the Spirit and stand up in the street & start yelling). The movement was popular all over southern France & adjacent parts of Italy & so on. Basically an informal organisation of lay preachers. Their followers continued to attend their parish churches (similarities to early Methodism already apparent...)

In the eyes of the papacy they were associated with the Cathars (wrongly, as I think even the RCs now acknowledge) and became victims of the Albigensian Crusade. Many were scattered all over Europe. Others took refuge in the Alps, where they set up separate communities, with their own churches and priests. They had a high view of marriage (positive proof that they weren't Cathars) and encouraged priests and laity to marry. Their doctrines seem to have been more or less orthodox mainstream Christianity, western Catholic but not Roman. Services were in the vernacular, and they had lay preachers.

They were still persecuted in the cities but the mountain communities were ignored rather than tolerated and survived a couple of centuries. In the late 15th century violent peresecution started again and many of them were driven from their homes. This went on for nearly 200 years. They found allies in the French and Swiss Reformed churches and most of them joined them and adopted their doctrines - so nearly all the Waldenisans from the 1530s on are Calvinists. (This is the background to John Milton's famous poem On the Late Massacres in Piedmont)

Some of them survived in Italy. After Napoleon thety began to come down out of the mountains and started orgainising Protestant churches in Italy. I'm not sure on this bit but I have a vague idea (mainly from contradictory websites) that like most Protestant denominations they got more liberal and less Calvinist in the 19th century. They are now allied with the Methodists (not that there are a lot of them in Italy...) and together make up the largest homegrown Italian Protestant denomination (not that that is saying much at all - there are individual congregations in some other countries that outnumber them)

NB there are a lot of histories of them around, some on the Net, which claim more ancient origins - but this seems to be part and parcel of a later Protestant claim that there was always a proto-Protestant "resistance" to Rome - which some idiots stretch to include Montanists, Marcionites and even Cathars.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
Roughly what Scotianus said - I think I read something very similar in one of John Stott's IVP works, so Tractarians and moderately con evos in agreement on this.

When James talks about "faith" in this context, he means correct knowledge about God - something close to "doctrinal orthodoxy". Hence he can say that "the devils have faith like this - and tremble". There may be no actual commitment to God - someone with only this kind of faith merely knows about him. This sort of faith has no tendency to produce good works - hence James' concern that if someone is not doing good works, they may only have this detached, barren type of "faith".

However, when Paul talks about "faith", he means trust in God's promises - active trust like Abraham's. Such a faith will certainly result in good works, but the trust itself is the gateway for God's love to act in our lives. Hence (Romans 4) he can say that "When a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness". Paul is emphasising that trying to do "good works" without this trust in God will not be helpful.

So:

James:
- Doctrinal orthodoxy (what James calls "faith") is No Good (TM) without trusting God.
- If you do really trust God, then you will both have faith (be doctrinally orthodox) and do good works.

Paul:
- Good works are No Good (TM) unless they spring out of trusting God (what Paul calls "faith").
- If you have faith (trust God), then you will do good works (e.g. Romans 6-8)

Since trusting God (what Paul calls "faith") will tend to produce both doctrinal orthodoxy and good works, they are both a good sign and the absence of either is cause for concern - e.g. "You shall know them by their fruits".

What you should not do is try for both doctrinal orthodoxy and good works while still not trusting God. This would be No Good At All (TM).

Incidentally this distinction between "trust in God" and "right belief about God" is why I deeply dislike part of the new Common Worship baptism service:

Old service (roughly):

Q: Do you believe and trust in God the Father?
A: I believe and trust in him
Q: Do you believe and trust in God the Son?
A: I believe and trust in him
Q: Do you believe and trust in God the Holy Spirit?
A: I believe and trust in him

But in the new baptism service, the candidate replies to these questions with the words of the Apostles' Creed! You're asked a question about personal faith and you reply with a statement of doctrinal orthodoxy! Trust is not mentioned at all! It makes me think:

New service:

Q: Do you believe and trust in God the Father?
A: Well, I believe in him...

By all means include the Apostles' Creed in the service, but why oh why does it have to be at this point? A simple "YES" would be better.
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
Getting bored of spending my Saturday catching up with work e-mails so took a brief glimpse at the ship

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Roughly what Scotianus said - I think I read something very similar in one of John Stott's IVP works, so Tractarians and moderately con evos in agreement on this...........................

Exactly, which is presumably why my personal view has had to go through little change through my Stott type Evangelical youth to my current Anglo Catholic position (other views have changed e.g. re the sacraments),

The key is:
quote:
Originally posted by scoticanus:
....... The truth is that both faith and works are needed, but works are the result of faith, not a substitute for it.

I was quite surprised by
quote:
Originally posted by Alliebath:
…………..I see a problem in always trying to reconcile such differences, as between the view of ‘James’ and Paul. I do not think this syncretistic view point is helpful, especially on a thread alooking at Protestantism. We can just as simply define Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as exactly the same, just defining their words differently. I do think it will do………….

I think I can see why it would not do to simply define Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as exactly the same but my understanding is that the Reformation resulted in Protestant church and a reformed Catholic church both of which have further developed (its always my hope that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth even if the ride appears very bumpy ). As a result of this development the Lutherans and the Romans have been working on a joint understanding of the role of faith and works and there is some form of joint declaration: this article gives one analysis of the situation.
I think the article suggest that both Protestant and Catholics may have legitimate theological reservations but why would protestants need to protest against such a development ?

The OP asked especially what modern Protestants believe. It offered Justification by faith alone as one defining issue. However, is it the only or even the main characteristic ?
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
Re the tangent:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Waldenses?

..............Some of them survived in Italy. After Napoleon thety began to come down out of the mountains and started orgainising Protestant churches in Italy. I'm not sure on this bit but I have a vague idea (mainly from contradictory websites) that like most Protestant denominations they got more liberal and less Calvinist in the 19th century. They are now allied with the Methodists (not that there are a lot of them in Italy...) and together make up the largest homegrown Italian Protestant denomination (not that that is saying much at all - there are individual congregations in some other countries that outnumber them)...........

I was taught Italian by a Waldenese in Milan 89-82, he was a very interesting academic type who worshipped in the Anglican Chaplaincy in Milan from time to time for lack of a convenient alternative. I cannot remember anything that differs from what ken said and they certainly seemed more liberal than a Calvinist - - I have a vague recollection that their version of the faith was v intellectual but that might have just been the representative that I knew.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
As to the original post, I'm not sure that it's any more possible to say what "Protestants" believe than it is to say what "Christians" believe.

If you look into the history of Protestant denominations (and I don't consider myself an expert, because there is much history to know!), Luther genuinely wanted to reform the RC church and his issues were mainly theological/doctrinal; he was not looking to found a new denomination. Other Protestant reformers did consciously want to be separate from the RC church; these people had theological/doctrinal issues, but their context in time and culture also compelled them to think theologically about their ecclesiology.

As someone already said, as a Methodist, I have no problem with the Epsitle of James. But I grew up in a Lutheran denomination with strong quietist tendencies which almost made one feel guilty for trying to do any good to anyone lest one become beset with the sin of pride at trying to earn one's own salvation. I'll bet there are Protestant denominations which will inhabit different places on the spectrum between those two extremes.
 
Posted by A.F. Steve (# 9057) on :
 
A good place for information on any number of religious groups or movements is a website run by the University of Virginia:

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/profiles/listalpha.htm
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
Jesus seems to have had fairly clear ideas about works:

"Not every one that saith unto me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but every one that doeth the will of my Father, which is in heaven."

"If you love me, keep my commandments."

"The second {commandment} is like, namely this: that you shall love your neighbour as yourself."

I don't think it's possible to separate right thought from right action. I also think this is a potential red herring in distinguishing Protestant from (Roman) Catholic or (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity.

T.
 
Posted by A.F. Steve (# 9057) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Jesus seems to have had fairly clear ideas about works:

"Not every one that saith unto me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but every one that doeth the will of my Father, which is in heaven."

"If you love me, keep my commandments."

"The second {commandment} is like, namely this: that you shall love your neighbour as yourself."

I don't think it's possible to separate right thought from right action. I also think this is a potential red herring in distinguishing Protestant from (Roman) Catholic or (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity.

T.

I think you'll find that there is also considerable difference here, as Wesleyan traditions are very emphatic upon works as necessary "fruits of faith" while Lutheran circles are far less emphatic. And, Calvinist though makes works almost irrelevant, as well as the free will to engage in faith for that matter.

In fact, the Wesleyan thought regarding sanctification and the three forms of grace (Prevenient grace - freely given to all to heed the call; Justifying grace to save from damnation; Sanctifying grace to develop spiritually and approach (if never attaining) perfection) have some traits which are more comparable to Eastern Christianity than Western. I seem to recall once reading that John Wesley considered jumping ship and pursuing ordination as an Eastern Orthodox priest, but instead tried to reform the Anglican church from within.

Aside from this, the most identifying characteristics of Methodism would be the encouragement of logic and reason in all aspects of faith. This is certainly not something you will find encouraged within most Baptist churches.
 
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
quote:
An epistle of straw!
Don't you just love Martin Luther.
This was said by Luther, about James, in an early edition of his translation of the German Bible. It also needs to be said that James is still part of the German Bible, and that we have written sermons from Luther, on James. So despite personal (and early) doubts, expressed as only Luther was able, the great man thought James was in.

Actually, on OP, the best way to begin understanding Protestantism is to begin with the original Protestant, Luther, and work on from him. Man between God and the Devil by Heiko Obermann is good, but nothing beats reading Luther himself. Plenty available online, some of it brief and to to the point. Read his stuff on Romans 1; he started believing "justification by faith alone" as he taught through Psalms and Romans in his Wittenberg teaching post.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A.F. Steve:

Aside from this, the most identifying characteristics of Methodism would be the encouragement of logic and reason in all aspects of faith. This is certainly not something you will find encouraged within most Baptist churches.

The Scottish Baptist churches that I belonged to had that as essential, and so did the one I belonged to in England, which had a couple of Scottish ministers.

I would regard that as one of the most important aspects of protestantism - logic and reasoning married with faith and belief and trust in God.

One of the other aspects would be the "Protestant Work Ethic" which means always working really hard, right up to the "Sabbath" and then letting that be the day that you concentrate on not working. [Biased]

As to justification and sanctification, they both mean that you can act well in this world, because you have been transformed and redeemed and instinctively do good works as well as positively choosing to do them, avoiding temptation and obeying God's rules.

Another thing protestants do is learn bits of the bible off by heart, and learn the order of the "books of the bible" so that they can quickly find references, and again use their brains to compare and contrast and balance and marry verses and chapters, and dismiss bits they don't think fit in with reason.
 
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:

Another thing protestants do is learn bits of the bible off by heart, and learn the order of the "books of the bible" so that they can quickly find references, and again use their brains to compare and contrast and balance and marry verses and chapters, and dismiss bits they don't think fit in with reason.

I'm a Protestant but I would object to this use of reason. I would start with Scripture and insist that reason must fit in with what is found there.

ETA: Luther was scathing about this use of reason, as his debates with Erasmus show.

[ 30. October 2005, 01:03: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
 
Posted by A.F. Steve (# 9057) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
quote:
Originally posted by A.F. Steve:

Aside from this, the most identifying characteristics of Methodism would be the encouragement of logic and reason in all aspects of faith. This is certainly not something you will find encouraged within most Baptist churches.

The Scottish Baptist churches that I belonged to had that as essential, and so did the one I belonged to in England, which had a couple of Scottish ministers.

I would regard that as one of the most important aspects of protestantism - logic and reasoning married with faith and belief and trust in God.

One of the other aspects would be the "Protestant Work Ethic" which means always working really hard, right up to the "Sabbath" and then letting that be the day that you concentrate on not working. [Biased]

As to justification and sanctification, they both mean that you can act well in this world, because you have been transformed and redeemed and instinctively do good works as well as positively choosing to do them, avoiding temptation and obeying God's rules.

Another thing protestants do is learn bits of the bible off by heart, and learn the order of the "books of the bible" so that they can quickly find references, and again use their brains to compare and contrast and balance and marry verses and chapters, and dismiss bits they don't think fit in with reason.

Fair enough... In the US, however, one of the largest denominations in the US is the Southern Baptist Convention, and there is a very strong anti-intellectual element in these churches.
 
Posted by Zwingli (# 4438) on :
 
Going back to the OP, the essence of the Reformation is the understanding that it is God's grace alone by which we are saved. This is the pivotal point, the fundamental difference between Protesants and others. This leads directly to other central truths; for example, the full sufficency of Christ's sacrifice for our conversion, justification and glorification, in fact for everything to take us from death to perfect life; and that all the glory for our salvation, and for everything else, belongs to God. It also implies Protestant worship, where the ability to worship is itself given to us by God, not invented by ourselves, and where true worship is trusting upon, acting in accordance with and expressing the aforementioned teaching.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
I'm amazed the thread has got this long without anyone mentioning Augustine... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
The way I see it, if the "the essence of the Reformation is the understanding that it is God's grace alone by which we are saved", then either Protestantism isn't saying much in it's essence, since this has already been accepted by the universall church from the beginning and has been proclaimed at the council of Orange, or we end up with the heresy of Calvinism, were God is portrayed as a monster for saving some and condemning others.

So, I have to ask, when you say "by grace alone" you mean it in the orthodox context of the council of Orange, or in the context of Calvinism? And if you use it in Orange's context, then why Reformation happened and it's fruit need to exist still?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Indeed, andreas1984, ever since the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church it has become perfectly clear that this is (and actually always was) a non-issue. Unfortunately, while bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church, current re-agreement is not sufficient to unite it. The social and ecclesiastical momentum of centuries most likely cannot be reversed.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Yes, this is what I thought too, but let's see what Protestants think, because Zwingli said that we differ from Protestants on that, so there may be something I don't see.
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed, andreas1984, ever since the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church it has become perfectly clear that this is (and actually always was) a non-issue. Unfortunately, while bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church, current re-agreement is not sufficient to unite it. The social and ecclesiastical momentum of centuries most likely cannot be reversed.

What a pity that at the time of the Reformation someone in the Roman Catholic church didn't say "Hang on a second, what are we arguing about? We don't actually disagree, you know. Let's all have a nice party, maybe with some cake, and forget the whole thing."

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Real Ale Methodist (# 7390) on :
 
I strongly suspect even if there had been a party the two groups would have violently disagreed on the One True Cake; as such history would have taken its course much unchanged (except maybe fruitier).

On a less flippant note, surely the way that most people experience the differences between Catholocism and Protestantism is in the style of worship; and the importance given to certain rituals or observences. These may have some echo in doctrine - but 90% of any given congregation will only partially understand this. The question to ask to help understand other churches is "Why do you do ___?" immeadietly followed by "So why don't I/we do ___?".
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed, andreas1984, ever since the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church it has become perfectly clear that this is (and actually always was) a non-issue. Unfortunately, while bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church, current re-agreement is not sufficient to unite it. The social and ecclesiastical momentum of centuries most likely cannot be reversed.

What a pity that at the time of the Reformation someone in the Roman Catholic church didn't say "Hang on a second, what are we arguing about? We don't actually disagree, you know. Let's all have a nice party, maybe with some cake, and forget the whole thing."

[Roll Eyes]

No, no. It's the CofE that loves cake.

CofE Inquistor: "Cake or death?"
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church

Disagreement about the rightness of the sale of indulgences was bogus?
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
bogus disagreement on doctrine was sufficient to split the Western church

Disagreement about the rightness of the sale of indulgences was bogus?
What I tried to say before:
quote:
Originally posted by Merchant Trader:
The OP asked especially what modern Protestants believe. It offered Justification by faith alone' as one defining issue. However, is it the only or even the main characteristic ?

I think we have tramrailed ourselves n the 'justifcation by faith issue.There were (and are) other issues. Ruth has suggested the sale of indulgences but again this is an also an area where the Romans have been reformed too. Someone suggested styles of worship but as far as I can see a huge range of syle is allowed in both the Anglican and Roman churches and, I presume others too. My own suggestion is the question of authority - I am a three legged stool man who has problems with the idea of infalliable Papal authority. What else distinguishes Protestants?

[ 30. October 2005, 16:41: Message edited by: Merchant Trader ]
 
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Scriptural language was another area originally, which has now been changed. I would say that generally, there is a greater sacramental focus in Catholic than Protestant churches, and vice versa for a focus on teaching from the front.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
The Orthodox reject both papal infallibility and indulgences, so this is not what makes Protestantism unique. But the issue of authority is an interesting one. The Orthodox think that the Lord and the Apostles have taught the Church in all things and that the Church has kept these teachings in her life and heart. How do Protestants reply to that?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I brought up the sale of indulgences not to say that objecting to it is a unique feature of Protestantism but because IngoB had implied that there was no good reason for the Reformation to have taken place.

[clarity is good]

[ 30. October 2005, 17:51: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by A.F. Steve (# 9057) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The Orthodox reject both papal infallibility and indulgences, so this is not what makes Protestantism unique. But the issue of authority is an interesting one. The Orthodox think that the Lord and the Apostles have taught the Church in all things and that the Church has kept these teachings in her life and heart. How do Protestants reply to that?

Sola Scriptura would be another good point... Many protestant branches view the Bible as the sole authority, though Anglicanism and by extension Methodism look to tradition as authoritative as well, though not as equal with scriptures.

To great extent, Protestantism was a rejection of the corruption of the church through the dark ages. Out of desires to reform the Roman Catholic church came those who wished to restore the church to perceived New Testament Christianity. The Eastern church was seen as an apostatic, and the western church as corrupt and degraded. Thus, the desire to erase the past two millenia and start over again anew. The various churches went in all different directions from here, but a desire to cast off what was seen as a corrupt, secular remnant of the original church and restore it to its initial simplicity is Protestantism at its most basic.

The Anglican church, of course, is the result of Queen Elizabeth's search for a "middle way" between Protestants' desires to wipe the slate clean and RCs' loyalty to the rich tradition of faith. It's always appeared to be pseudo-protestant at best, leading to the jokes (at least over here) of Episcopalians being "Catholic-lite"
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
I have been loking for a signature ! - Thanks A. F. Steve
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Yes, but this is not Sola Scriptura, because one group of Christians arbitrarily chooses the Scriptures as the only authority when the Scriptures themselves speak of the rich oral tradition the Apostles gave to the Church. I think that Protestants by rejecting other sources do not uphold the Scriptures, but try to find a way to validate their opinions which are different than those the other Christians have. How do Protestants reply to that? I think that Sola Scriptura is not really helpful in order to understand Protestantism, because both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church revere Scriptures as well. For example, I note that the practices of the Orthodox are not in opposition with the Scriptures. So, in what way does the use of the Scriptures makes Protestantism unique?
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Waldensians:

Not much to add as I have forgotten most of what I know. They themselves tell the story of a trek to Geneva during one of the Persecutions and the story of the return.

Liberal maybe in the same sense the URC is liberal. Calvinism goes for extremes, either conservative or liberal, so being liberal does not remove being Calvinist! Actually its more subtle than that but I leave that up to you to work out. Unitarians and United Churches of Christ both have Calvinist roots.

Thirdly they are politically left of the communist party of Italy and very anti Roman Catholic due to the persecution they have suffered.

Jengie
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
For example, I note that the practices of the Orthodox are not in opposition with the Scriptures. So, in what way does the use of the Scriptures makes Protestantism unique?

Large numbers of people (many of them Protestants) would disagree with your first sentence.

Given two conflicting views of the meaning of scripture, you would turn to the teachings of the heirachical organisation you (from a Protestant view) mistakenly call the Church. You view the teachings of that heirachy to be trustworthy.

At the core of Protestantism is a view that human organisations are not always trustworthy in this imperfect/fallen world, and that it is thus responsibility of the individual believer, as part of the Church (ie all Christians) and in the light of God's indwelling spirit to discern right beliefs and from them right actions.

Speaking for myself, the Bible is our best and earliest witness to the Word of God, Christ. Other people will obviously go further.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:

Another thing protestants do is learn bits of the bible off by heart, and learn the order of the "books of the bible" so that they can quickly find references, and again use their brains to compare and contrast and balance and marry verses and chapters, and dismiss bits they don't think fit in with reason.

I'm a Protestant but I would object to this use of reason. I would start with Scripture and insist that reason must fit in with what is found there.

ETA: Luther was scathing about this use of reason, as his debates with Erasmus show.

I think there is a probably a biggish difference between very northern european and other ways of using and respecting reason. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, mind..." means that they respect the fact that God has given us the opportunity of thinking about beliefs, including scripture teachings. It goes on to the point where some people get unbelieving in specific places that others accept.

On a different definition/history of protestantism, one of the deepest roots (not Australian [Two face] ) is the reading and studying the bible in their own language, and not always being taught what to believe, but making their own minds up - again leading to positive and negative results in behaviour and belief.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Large numbers of people (many of them Protestants) would disagree with your first sentence.

If you are one of them, then I ask you to tell me which practices of the Orthodox Church are not in accordance to scriptures. Furthermore, if you are Protestant, I'd like to ask you on many practices God in the scriptures commands, like fasting. Do you fast? Do you magnify the Mother of God, according to the prophecy made by the Holy Spirit? I am asking because I have heard that Protestants have some reservations on these practices. I think that this thread might be a good place to clarify these things.

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Given two conflicting views of the meaning of scripture, you would turn to the teachings of the heirachical organisation

Do you have a specific example of that being the case? Or do you just speculate on how the Orthodox cope with problems? For example, I have not heard of conflicting views on the meaning of scripture inside Orthodoxy for as long I live. There are conflicts, but not on the meaning of scripture. Do you have something particular in mind?
 
Posted by ericksdahl (# 10588) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I want to use this thread so that we can all learn more about Protestantism, especially what modern Protestants believe in and what they believed in throughout their (brief) history.

So, I propose we discuss some points through this thread.

Let me start the discussion by quoting the epistle of James (2.24), where it is written
quote:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
How did the people that created Protestantism view that verse? What do modern Protestants think about it now?
I do not know if you consider me a “modern” Protestant but as a member of the original Protestants, as Lutheran, I will frame my answers.

The epistle of James was called an epistle of straw by Luther because he saw in it at first the opposite position that Paul took on justification but as time went by he did not throw it out. He kept it. He never did hold it up to be one of the major readings that theology should be formulated from. He stated that scriptures were the manger that held the infant, the Living Word. All scriptures should point to this Living Word. The gospels revealed Jesus most clearly. So he did proclaim scriptures alone but some were more important than others.
Luther points out that James did try to rise to the occasion and address those who had an intellectual ascent to the gospel of Jesus but whose faith did not change or shape their lives. James was addressing a group of dead assed, lazy Christians. Here is Luther on James, “In a word, he(James) wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.” Luther Works 35

Luther also points out that many of the acients (though I have not done enough research to know who he refers to) rejected James outright. So he is not alone in his regarding James as not as important. If traditon is important to you then Luther is not acting alone. Nothing is wrong with the idea that works are important. What is being objected to is the idea that works are the base of salvation.

Grace & Peace!
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ericksdahl:
Luther also points out that many of the acients (though I have not done enough research to know who he refers to) rejected James outright. So he is not alone in his regarding James as not as important. If traditon is important to you then Luther is not acting alone. Nothing is wrong with the idea that works are important. What is being objected to is the idea that works are the base of salvation.

Two points here. First, not putting James in the canon because they were ignorant of the epistle's existence does not mean that they rejected it. Unless you can find evidence where they specifically rejected it.

Secondly, works might not be the base of salvation, they are the base of the Judgement to come though.
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I want to use this thread so that we can all learn more about Protestantism, especially what modern Protestants believe in and what they believed in throughout their (brief) history.
...
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
How did the people that created Protestantism view that verse? What do modern Protestants think about it now?

If I might say so, I think you are asking the wrong question - if you want to understand Protestantism better.

The simple answer to your question is that the Reformers tried to wangle their way out of it. But that's inevitable because it's the one verse in the Bible that sits most uncomfortably with Protestant understanding of justification.

It's the same as the way that the second commandment is the one verse in the Bible that sits most uncomfortably with Orthodox use of images. And if I wanted to understand Orthodoxy better I would learn very little from asking how exactly they get around that prominent prohibition. I would learn a lot more by asking how they understand images, positively.

If you do want to understand Protestantism better (rather than baiting Protestants (not suggesting that that was your intention, but it is perhaps the likely result of your approach)) you would I think do better to ask how they understand Paul's teaching on justification.

After all, the fundamental problem with the verse you quote is that it directly and explicitly contradicts Paul, so every Christian tradition that does not believe the Bible contains errors has to wangle its way out of one or the other.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Hi there SteveTom!

Thanks for your comments, but I think that we have gotten past the meaning of this verse. I didn't imply that the verse is against sanctification by God's grace. I only asked on the meaning of the verse. So, in a way, I did what you propose. You are right in the approach you suggest.
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
But the issue of authority is an interesting one. The Orthodox think that the Lord and the Apostles have taught the Church in all things and that the Church has kept these teachings in her life and heart. How do Protestants reply to that?

The reformers would agree that the Lord and the apostles taught the church; in reply to the idea that the medieval church had kept these teachings, they would laugh until lager came out of their noses.

quote:
Furthermore, if you are Protestant, I'd like to ask you on many practices God in the scriptures commands, like fasting. Do you fast?
Protestants have always practised fasting (that's not to say all of them, necessarily, but in general). The difference is that they would tend to do it as an accompaniment to prayer as the need arose, rather than as a regular ritual or ascetic way of life, seeing this as the Biblical precedent.

quote:
Do you magnify the Mother of God, according to the prophecy made by the Holy Spirit?
I think most Protestants would be puzzled by the suggestion that the Bible contains a prophecy instructing readers to magnify the Mother of God.
 
Posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Furthermore, if you are Protestant, I'd like to ask you on many practices God in the scriptures commands, like fasting. Do you fast? Do you magnify the Mother of God, according to the prophecy made by the Holy Spirit? I am asking because I have heard that Protestants have some reservations on these practices. I think that this thread might be a good place to clarify these things.

Some Protestants fast, some don't. The differences seem to be whether or not the group sees fasting as an RC practice or as a biblical one.

And as to magnifying the Mother of God, most Protestants would say that such an act comes close (if not does) put Mary at the same level as Jesus and that we worship the One God, not two. And, therefore, such an act is against the first commandment of worshiping God and only God. Mary to them is important, but nothing is more important than Jesus and his word.
 
Posted by ericksdahl (# 10588) on :
 
In reply to several of andreas1984's posts
quote:
If you are one of them, then I ask you to tell me which practices of the Orthodox Church are not in accordance to scriptures. Furthermore, if you are Protestant, I'd like to ask you on many practices God in the scriptures commands, like fasting. Do you fast?

Not in order to achieve justification or sanctification but I have done so (fasted) in order to clear my mind and focus on where it is God is leading me. My stomach shows me that I need to be listening to God more  !
quote:
Do you magnify the Mother of God, according to the prophecy made by the Holy Spirit? I am asking because I have heard that Protestants have some reservations on these practices. I think that this thread might be a good place to clarify these things.

We do not pray to her or ask her to intervene for us since we go straight to her son but we do lift her up as a model of faith, as being the earthly mother of Jesus and being a vessel that God used to make himself known to us. She is an example to us of how we should react to God’s calling and how to live in faith.
quote:
Two points here. First, not putting James in the canon because they were ignorant of the epistle's existence does not mean that they rejected it. Unless you can find evidence where they specifically rejected it.
Here is apparently what Luther was using for at least part of his base for saying that the ancients rejected it. I am sure there are others but this is one I found quickly as a footnote to Luther's works.
In the earliest general history of the church, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25), the author (died ca. 339) writes, “Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude’s.” Lake, op. cit, I, 179. Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of “Disputed Books” (History, III, xxiv, 3). Lake, op. cit., I, 257. Cf. the statement by Jerome (d. 420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of authoritative status. Migne 23, 609.

quote:
Secondly, works might not be the base of salvation, they are the base of the Judgement to come though.

We are justified by Christ's finished work on the cross not our works. The finished work of Jesus on the cross makes our works possible but we are made righteous and acceptable to God by God not man. You will see our faith by our works is very true except many will try to do works to earn salvation and acceptance while their hearts will be full of evil. Jesus was very harsh against the Pharisees who paraded around their "works" while what God really wanted was their hearts.


Are you aware that in the Reformation, Luther tried to work with the Orthodox leaders but only got a lukewarm if not cold reception?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
ericksdahl

A. Eusebious talks about people not knowing James, and therefore not adding his epistle to the canon. This is why he says that the authenticity is questioned, because not all ancient authors seemed to know that epistle.

B. People that are not Christians will be judged on that day too. These people, like the rest of us, will not get judged for their faith, but from their works. Blessed are the dead for their works come with them, John wrote in Revelations.

C. If you read the correspondence between the early Protestants and the Orthodox, you will see that they did not want to work with them, but to make them accept their Confessions of Faith, and that the Orthodox were not cold, but rather warm and kind. Have you actually read the correspondence?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I'd like to thank all the people that posted so far, because I get a clearer idea about Protestantism now. I think it will be a very interesting thread.
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Eusebious talks about people not knowing James, and therefore not adding his epistle to the canon. This is why he says that the authenticity is questioned, because not all ancient authors seemed to know that epistle.

Eusebius says that the authenticity of James was questioned by many who knew of its existence - do you dispute that? He says it was "disputed, yet familiar to most". I don't think you can deny that many at the time of Eusebius knew of James, and yet questioned its place in the canon.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
"since few of the ancients quote it". They disputed the authenticity, not what the epistle actually said.
 
Posted by A.F. Steve (# 9057) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
For example, I note that the practices of the Orthodox are not in opposition with the Scriptures. So, in what way does the use of the Scriptures makes Protestantism unique?

Large numbers of people (many of them Protestants) would disagree with your first sentence.

Given two conflicting views of the meaning of scripture, you would turn to the teachings of the heirachical organisation you (from a Protestant view) mistakenly call the Church. You view the teachings of that heirachy to be trustworthy.

At the core of Protestantism is a view that human organisations are not always trustworthy in this imperfect/fallen world, and that it is thus responsibility of the individual believer, as part of the Church (ie all Christians) and in the light of God's indwelling spirit to discern right beliefs and from them right actions.

Speaking for myself, the Bible is our best and earliest witness to the Word of God, Christ. Other people will obviously go further.

But what becomes of the "rich oral tradition" when the protestant churches believe such tradition to have been hopelessly twisted and degraded? That seems to be the core of the difference: the trust placed in the transmission of such teachings. I know that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against the church," according to RC and EO teachings, but when the church is defined as the communion of all believers irrespective of human constructions, that goes out the window.

Between this Scripture-only and the idea of a "priesthood of all believers" you have the core of protestant beliefs, and the other differences are primarily differences in how to interpret the scripture.

I would also venture to guess (though I may be wrong in this regard) that the gulf between Protestants (mainstream at least) and Roman Catholics has shrunk a great deal over the centuries. Much of the resentment is gone (in the US at least, in mainline Prot. churches, Catholics are thought of as brothers in Christ, not paganistic idol-worshipers as one might have heard 200 years ago... Fundamentalists as the exception of course!) On the other end, the high level of RC corruption has been corrected, and the reforms of Vatican II also served to lessen the difference.

[ 30. October 2005, 22:19: Message edited by: A.F. Steve ]
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A.F. Steve:
I know that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against the church," according to RC and EO teachings, but when the church is defined as the communion of all believers irrespective of human constructions, that goes out the window.

Why? I don't follow this logic at all.
 
Posted by whitelaughter (# 10611) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
[QUOTE]If you are one of them, then I ask you to tell me which practices of the Orthodox Church are not in accordance to scriptures. Furthermore, if you are Protestant, I'd like to ask you on many practices God in the scriptures commands, like fasting. Do you fast? Do you magnify the Mother of God, according to the prophecy made by the Holy Spirit? I am asking because I have heard that Protestants have some reservations on these practices. I think that this thread might be a good place to clarify these things.

Fasting is good - but remember Isaiah 58.6:
"Is this not the fast which I choose,
To loosen the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the bands of the yoke,
And to let the oppressed go free
And break every yoke?"
Of course, this doesn't exclude 'normal' fasting.

'Mother'? Jesus refused to use the term about Mary, except on the cross when he told John that Mary was now his mother. The first record of anyone trying to fulfil your 'prophecy' was slapped down by Jesus himself - Luke 11.27-28
The term Mother of God is blasphemous, really. Besides, Mary was and is a devout Jewess, don't expect her to happy with anything even vaguely similar to worship. If you want to make a Jewish mother happy, go on about how wonderful her son is.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
As the creeds say, conceived of the Holy Spirit.... born of the Virgin Mary.

Mother to God, certainly. Mother of God.... I'd not say.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Some identifying points of Protestantism:

Personal salvation - ie not relying on church rites to save you. It is a personal acceptance of Christ's forgiveness through faith that brings salvation.

No need for a priest. A Protestant would assert his freedom to approach God in prayer and worship without the mediation of a priest. Even in sacramental worship there is no need for a priest.

Scripture. The Bible is the written word of God through which all further revelation is filtered. The Protestant does not discount the notion that the Holy Spirit still speaks and teaches, only that nothing he says will contradict the written revelation. Much of what protestants disagree with in the RC church is the stuff that either contradicts Scripture, goes beyond what Scripture teaches or even replaces the work of various members of the Trinity.

The veneration of Mary, her immaculate conception, her bodily assumption, her mediation, her status as co-redemptix, her status as Queen of Heaven. These are massive issues for many Protestants. Not only are they beyond and contradictory to Scripture, they are also a usurpation of the Lordship of Christ and the role of the Holy Spirit.

Ritualism etc. The Protestant sees these as unnecessary and in some cases harmful religiosity and downright superstition. Jesus railed against the Pharisees for their external trappings that became the centre of their spirituality.

The Mass. Well, it's still there in the 39 Articles: It's a blasphemy. I don't know whether I would use that term, but I would say it's not at all what the New Testament teaches about the Lord's Supper. It's divisive, it's exclusive, it robs the Holy Spirit of his divine work, it reduces the blood of Christ to mere ritual and suggests that forgiveness, salvation and sanctification is literally in the hands of a human priest.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
Hi -
RE sola scriptura and Protestant protests (hardly har har) against traditional beliefs and practices:
These are a natural part of the protestant movement, they have to be in order for Protestant churches to claim legitimacy. In order for Protestantism to have legitimacy, it _must_ believe in sola scriptura. They must be able to point to something unchanging and say, "there is Truth".
Clearly protestants don't adhere to the beliefs and practices of the early church, if they did their worship would be consistent. Because it is not, we know that they either don't know what the beliefs and practices of the early church were, or they know and choose to ignore them. Tnis in spite of the oft-stated Protestant desire to return to the early church. That so many seek that goal and find so many different destinations shows that there is no arbiter of Truth in the picture, no standard by which to judge whose interpretation of scripture is accurate, no one to speak with ancient authority regarding the practice of finding salvation on the narror path, etc.

Gregory [brick wall]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Hi -
RE sola scriptura and Protestant protests (hardly har har) against traditional beliefs and practices:
These are a natural part of the protestant movement, they have to be in order for Protestant churches to claim legitimacy. In order for Protestantism to have legitimacy, it _must_ believe in sola scriptura. They must be able to point to something unchanging and say, "there is Truth".
Clearly protestants don't adhere to the beliefs and practices of the early church, if they did their worship would be consistent. Because it is not, we know that they either don't know what the beliefs and practices of the early church were, or they know and choose to ignore them. Tnis in spite of the oft-stated Protestant desire to return to the early church. That so many seek that goal and find so many different destinations shows that there is no arbiter of Truth in the picture, no standard by which to judge whose interpretation of scripture is accurate, no one to speak with ancient authority regarding the practice of finding salvation on the narror path, etc.

Gregory [brick wall]

The fact is there is no one early church style or practice. As far as early church beliefs, well it's what's in the New testament. The desire for a return to these beliefs is basically a stripping away of those things not found in the NT as in the list I have already posted.

The fact that there are numerous styles of Protestant church has a lot to do with history, the prevailing culture at the time of their founding, and the fact that there is not one pattern of church leadership in the NT. What you will find however is a distinct lack of priests.

Which is why there are no Protestant priests.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
Hi Mudfrog -

quote:

The fact is there is no one early church style or practice. As far as early church beliefs, well it's what's in the New testament.

Evidently not, because there is little agreement. Ask 100 protestant leaders this question, and see how varied the answers are: "Christ said that the path and gate were narrow, how narrow are they, and what is the best way to find the path and remain upon it?"

The desire for a return to these beliefs is basically a stripping away of those things not found in the NT as in the list I have already posted.

In Acts, authority figures in the Church met and decided, for the Church as a whole, that Jews and gentiles would not be treated differently, and their edict was carried out. There was authority in the earliest days of the Church, and when the Apostles died they had to pass this authority on, which is why the Church exists. St. Paul's epistles, referring to an existing Church and a single truth (one that many will turn away from, "having itching ears"), were all the voice of authority of the Church speaking in an attempt to get everyone on the same page.
From there things grew organically, and universality of belief and practice were affirned in the same councils which debated and selected the books of the Bible. [brick wall]

The fact that there are numerous styles of Protestant church has a lot to do with history, the prevailing culture at the time of their founding, and the fact that there is not one pattern of church leadership in the NT. What you will find however is a distinct lack of priests.

What you will find is authority, and repeated admponitions to put pious men in positions of authority. The Bible does refer to Prebyters, and St. Clement, referred to by name by St. Paul in the Bible, referred to himself as the third Bishop of Rome. If having Bishops and priests constitutes serious error, the Church fell fast indeed.

Gregory [brick wall]

[put in quote code]

[ 31. October 2005, 15:56: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Hi Mudfrog -

Quote:
The fact is there is no one early church style or practice. As far as early church beliefs, well it's what's in the New testament.

Evidently not, because there is little agreement. Ask 100 protestant leaders this question, and see how varied the answers are: "Christ said that the path and gate were narrow, how narrow are they, and what is the best way to find the path and remain upon it?"

The desire for a return to these beliefs is basically a stripping away of those things not found in the NT as in the list I have already posted.

In Acts, authority figures in the Church met and decided, for the Church as a whole, that Jews and gentiles would not be treated differently, and their edict was carried out. There was authority in the earliest days of the Church, and when the Apostles died they had to pass this authority on, which is why the Church exists. St. Paul's epistles, referring to an existing Church and a single truth (one that many will turn away from, "having itching ears"), were all the voice of authority of the Church speaking in an attempt to get everyone on the same page.
From there things grew organically, and universality of belief and practice were affirned in the same councils which debated and selected the books of the Bible. [brick wall]

The fact that there are numerous styles of Protestant church has a lot to do with history, the prevailing culture at the time of their founding, and the fact that there is not one pattern of church leadership in the NT. What you will find however is a distinct lack of priests.

What you will find is authority, and repeated admponitions to put pious men in positions of authority. The Bible does refer to Prebyters, and St. Clement, referred to by name by St. Paul in the Bible, referred to himself as the third Bishop of Rome. If having Bishops and priests constitutes serious error, the Church fell fast indeed.

Gregory [brick wall]

Hmmm, just wondering whether you have actually spoken to 100 Protestants. In my Protestant opinion, if you were to ask 100 sincere Protestants what they believed you would find a remarkable unanimity in their fundamental beliefs. It is a myth that each Protestant denomination is totally different in beliefs to the others. Look, for example, at the EA statement of faith. This unites all Protestants in thast membership - even Anglicans!
The idea that only the Catholic church has an agreed set of central doctrines is incorrect.

As far as NT priesthood is concerned, I was not speaking about authority. Of course there is authority - and much of it is centralised. What I was saying is that there is no evidence of sacramental priesthood - a class of ritual-performers. The priesthood came in much later, after the NT. Apostleship, yes. Elders, yes (How many Roman Catholic churches have Apostles and Elders I wonder?). But a sacerdotal prieshood? No. Not even in the lists of offices and gifts given by Paul will you find the gift or ministry of priesthood.
 
Posted by Zealot en vacance (# 9795) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Which is why there are no Protestant priests.

Mudfrog,

But surely you recognise that all Christians hold the priestly office? It is in that sense that I understand (as a protestant) that no hierarchically ordained priest is necessary to celebrate the sacrament. If you and I were to share a meal, praying following Christ's example and engaging in godly discourse, is that not as much a Eucharist as the formal celebration in church?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Disagreement about the rightness of the sale of indulgences was bogus?

Indeed, it was. See here under "Abuses". Or perhaps more specifically see here that Tetzel's opinions on indulgences were actually heterodox and condemned by Cardinal Cajetan as late as 1517-19. I'm not doubting in the least that the Catholic Church was in dire need of internal reform back then. But I don't think it's impossible to imagine a St Martin Luther, great orthodox Augustinian reformer of the RCC, if things had gone just a bit differently at an early stage.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Which is why there are no Protestant priests.

Mudfrog,

But surely you recognise that all Christians hold the priestly office? It is in that sense that I understand (as a protestant) that no hierarchically ordained priest is necessary to celebrate the sacrament. If you and I were to share a meal, praying following Christ's example and engaging in godly discourse, is that not as much a Eucharist as the formal celebration in church?

Indeed it is sir!
And it is THIS sort of thing that I believe Jesus was referring to when he said 'Do this in remembrance of me...'
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
Hi Mudfrog,

You say,
quote:
It is a myth that each Protestant denomination is totally different in beliefs to the others. Look, for example, at the EA statement of faith. This unites all Protestants in thast membership - even Anglicans!
The idea that only the Catholic church has an agreed set of central doctrines is incorrect.

This simply isn't true, unless you are willing to point at groups like JWs, Mormons, Unitarians, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. and say, "you cannot be Christians".
As to the fundamental beliefs, this is where the rubber hits the road. If the general dogma of salvation is agreed upon and is correct, "Follow Christ", then how is it that the path is narrow? If the dogma is universal, that can't be the narrowing factor, it must be the actual walking of the path. If the road is obvious then walking it must be hard, otherwise the path and gate cannot be narrow. So, how does one walk that path?

That is the central question of our existence if you accept that Christ was a miracleworker. And to that question we would find all kinds of different answers from Protestants.

You say,
quote:
As far as NT priesthood is concerned, I was not speaking about authority. Of course there is authority - and much of it is centralised. What I was saying is that there is no evidence of sacramental priesthood - a class of ritual-performers. The priesthood came in much later, after the NT. Apostleship, yes. Elders, yes (How many Roman Catholic churches have Apostles and Elders I wonder?). But a sacerdotal prieshood? No. Not even in the lists of offices and gifts given by Paul will you find the gift or ministry of priesthood.
Nor will you find much of what is done in Christian churches throughout the world spelled out specifically in the Bible. St. Paul refers repeatedly to an existing Church, but doesn't say a lot about it's ministerial and sacramental functions. Yet Christ conferred to the Apostles the ability to remit sins, and it couldn't have been meant to die with them. They had to pass this on, and they did so in an unbroken chain of Bishops and Priests.
As you say, authority existed. When did it cease to exist, or where was it broken? Authority, particularly with history behind it, does not simply peter out, nor did it, it persisted in the Church. If that Church still exists, that authority still exists. St. Paui told believers to adhere to the Truth as understood by the Church. Nowhere is there an indication that the church would change, nor that it would be permissible for people to ignore its authority. So upon what basis to they do so?
I speak not, of course, of RC, but of Orthodoxy.

Gregory
(I have to go to bed, will see if there is a reply tomorrow.)

[put in quote code]

[ 31. October 2005, 15:58: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But I don't think it's impossible to imagine a St Martin Luther, great orthodox Augustinian reformer of the RCC, if things had gone just a bit differently at an early stage.

Now we're talking. What a shame for Roman Catholicism. But I can't really see that the key doctrine of "justification by faith alone" would've been happily accepted. It didn't easily fit into any of the medieval soteriologies, whether via moderna or via antiqua or anything else that I'm aware of.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
To Gregory.

You said:

quote:
"Hi Mudfrog,

You say,
It is a myth that each Protestant denomination is totally different in beliefs to the others. Look, for example, at the EA statement of faith. This unites all Protestants in thast membership - even Anglicans!
The idea that only the Catholic church has an agreed set of central doctrines is incorrect.

This simply isn't true, unless you are willing to point at groups like JWs, Mormons, Unitarians, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. and say, "you cannot be Christians".
As to the fundamental beliefs, this is where the rubber hits the road. If the general dogma of salvation is agreed upon and is correct, "Follow Christ", then how is it that the path is narrow? If the dogma is universal, that can't be the narrowing factor, it must be the actual walking of the path. If the road is obvious then walking it must be hard, otherwise the path and gate cannot be narrow. So, how does one walk that path?

That is the central question of our existence if you accept that Christ was a miracleworker. And to that question we would find all kinds of different answers from Protestants."

Well Sir, the fact is those groups you have mentioned are not Christians. They accept none of the creeds - Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian. They are not Trinitarian, (apart from the SDAs).

The SDAs are moving towards orthodoxy, but they do separate themselves from the rest of Protestantism by their insistance on Saturday as the Sabbath and their doctrine of Investigative Judgement where Christ apparently entered the Holy of Holies in 1844!

As far as Protestantism is concerned there is a central creed and authority is vested within church leaders who accept the Scriptures as their final authority.

And just why would you expect all sorts of different answers from Protestants to the question of the identity of Christ?

[put in quote code]

[ 31. October 2005, 15:59: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Zealot en vacance (# 9795) on :
 
I would add to Mudfrog's excellent list one more item.

We are free, and know it. Free from superstition, idolatry, spurious claims to authority, and worthless traditions; those things which obscure, distort and even flatly contradict the good news of the kingdom preached by Christ.

Regarding the falling away of the church from the apostolic teaching of the NT, the second and third chapters of Revelation, addressed to the seven churches, are a road map to the history of the church. From Ephesus, where things are still well - yet they have lost their early love - to the disaster of Laodicea - richly arrayed without in human terms, but actually impoverished - at Christ's return. And notice that this passage ends with a direct call to personal repentance.

This will undoubtedly offend, but here it is. Just as in Christ's time, when the temple worship instituted by Moses had deteriorated to a visible outward show, but was spiritually dead: so too the church has fallen away, from a good start to an empty outward show.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I am very sad but I have to rebuke those that derailed the thread into a fight of personal theological opinions. This is not in the spirit of the original post. Please refrain from posting in this thread and go somehwere else to make your wars, OK?
 
Posted by Zealot en vacance (# 9795) on :
 
Andreas,

It is war we are engaged in, and that on the highest authority! But if you do not wish me to engage in this thread just say so, and I will not participate.
 
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Gregory, just because of the existence of some bad protestants, it does not follow that Protestantism itself is worthless. Protestantism was and is a renewal of the individual relationship anyone, regardless of anything, can have with God. Some people may screw theirs up, but that doesn't detract from the value of the relationships kindled in others. You mention that a lot of church practice was not set down in the NT. That's right: and we consider the parts that weren's seen fit to be set down as generally of lesser importance, so protestant churches can do many different things in those areas, and still be united on what is more important.

And if you look around at atheists, hindus, Jainists and Pagans, I don't think the range of protestant belief looks nearly as wide as it did.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
See the mess in quotes? Mudfrog and Sophia's Questions have completely messed with the quotes. The thread has become very hard to read.

Also, this is not the place for people calling some Protestant denominations "not Christians". Go create another thread if you want to argue that. Of course, certificates of orthodoxy are not to be issued in this thread.

Zealot en vacance, you have gone too far by calling the church fallen. I come from a tradition which is very rich spiritually, and I know what the church means. If I do not go from thread to thread shouting "anathema to Luther and his followers", I think that you should do the same thing. Your superficial criticism can be refuted by many arguments, too many for you to handle. So, if you can't be kind enough not to insult us in our face, take your zeal on another thread and be critical of the church there.
 
Posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I am very sad but I have to rebuke those that derailed the thread into a fight of personal theological opinions. This is not in the spirit of the original post. Please refrain from posting in this thread and go somehwere else to make your wars, OK?

Fortunately (or unfortunately), that is part of Protestantism. You many times cannot seperate what the church teaches from personal experience and opinions.

An essential part of Protestantism is the belief in that people have the right to read the Bible and decide what to believe based on the Gift of the Holy Spirit given to them at Baptism.

So we argue, fuss, fight, and make up and split up alot. Which I know can be confusing to someone who has grown up with a central authority in their church.

The only central authority in Protestanism is the Bible and Jesus Christ. Which can lead to alot of debate about what has been said, and what it means today.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Please, stop making assumptions. There is no central authority in Orthodoxy. Why are you saying these things? Have you any knowledge on what you are talking about?

Secondly, this is not a protestant debate, so your arguments cannot be used here. This is an attempt by a non-Protestant to understand the historical developments and modern Protestants better. By confusing me, you are not going to solve the problems of your churches. So, no robust debate between Protestants is needed here!
 
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
See the mess in quotes? Mudfrog and Sophia's Questions have completely messed with the quotes. The thread has become very hard to read.

I fully agree. Could you two start using quotes properly, please?
 
Posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Please, stop making assumptions. There is no central authority in Orthodoxy. Why are you saying these things? Have you any knowledge on what you are talking about?

Secondly, this is not a protestant debate, so your arguments cannot be used here. This is an attempt by a non-Protestant to understand the historical developments and modern Protestants better. By confusing me, you are not going to solve the problems of your churches. So, no robust debate between Protestants is needed here!

But how will you understand historical developments and moder Protestants without understand that robust debate is part of who we are?
 
Posted by Ags (# 204) on :
 
andreas,
please calm down a minute. I don't think the thread has been derailed (yet!) I have been reading it with fascination. As an Anglican (CofE) I would always have described myself as Protestant- having been brought up to think that Roman Catholics were misguided at best & I'd never heard of the Orthodox Church till I came to these boards! [Hot and Hormonal] However my Prot 'label' sits a lot less securely these days, which comes mainly from working with a lot of Catholics & from reading postings by you, Josephine, Fr Gregory et al.
I think you'll find that Mudfrog is a Salvationist , therefore belonging to a Christian organisation which has neither priests nor sacraments. He's hardly going to argue in favour of them if he doesn't 'do' them in real life, is he?
As St Seraphim so wisely said, go with the robust debate. A host will soon step in if things get too personal.

And my take on the 'justification' question? By faith, of course.
But without works to show for it, a pretty meaningless justification!

Ags.
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ags:
As an Anglican (CofE) I would always have described myself as Protestant- having been brought up to think that Roman Catholics were misguided at best & I'd never heard of the Orthodox Church till I came to these boards! [Hot and Hormonal]

Out of sheer curiosity, what did you think the church in Russia was, before coming to the Ship? And didn't your CofE church ever mention other denominations?

T.
 
Posted by Ags (# 204) on :
 
I'm embarassed to say that I never gave much thought to the bearded priests in tall hats who I saw occasionally on the tv.
And I didn't say I wasn't aware of other denominations - having worshipped with the Salvation Army & the Baptists (not at the same time!) as a teenager.
But were other denominations mentioned in church? No, not at all.

Ags

[ 31. October 2005, 13:09: Message edited by: Ags ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Please, stop making assumptions. There is no central authority in Orthodoxy. Why are you saying these things? Have you any knowledge on what you are talking about?

Secondly, this is not a protestant debate, so your arguments cannot be used here. This is an attempt by a non-Protestant to understand the historical developments and modern Protestants better. By confusing me, you are not going to solve the problems of your churches. So, no robust debate between Protestants is needed here!

The thread makes this protestant wonder even harder if he really is one, I must say.

I'm not sola scriptura. I do believe the church (small c) has an inspired role in determining doctrine and practice.... I think probably protestants would generally accept this..... provided it's not "over emphasized"..... and I believe in tradition as a useful guide. Not too sure about apostolic succession.

Ultimately I think trying to place too much emphasis on any one item in the list doesn't work; be that the bible (sola scriptura), the Church (and starting to spell it with a capital C)..... or one's own direct guidaince from the Holy Spirit (various cults could be given in example here).

But I do believe in the combination of the lot; with a dose of common sense to try and work it out.

I think that is the kind of Protestantism I'd like to aim for; not throwing out babies with bath water. The fact that one doesn't regard the church as indefectable doesn't mean one regards it as worthless and one's own imaginings as definitive.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Ags (and people),

I'm sorry I was not calm. However, there is a sharp contrast between the two pages of this thread. I feel sorry that the second page does not have the clarity the first page has.

To sum up:

A. On the issue of justification there is nothing new found in Protestantism. Protestants believe in what the council of Orange declared many many centuries earlier. [i.e. that God inspires / gives birth / whatever-verb-you-want faith in each person and each one of us can either live in faith or reject it. All good things come from above, because God is the source of all gifts.] So, we are all in agreement that we are justified by faith in God.

B. Both Protestants and Roman Catholics have gone a long way since the epoch of the first Reformers. [surprisingly, the Orthodox remained the same.]

C. The scriptures are viewed highly by all traditions, so there is nothing unique in Protestantism as far as that is concerned. However, Protestants have made an arbitrary decision to put it above everything else. [I don't know what this means, since Orthodox and Roman Catholic practices do not contradict scriptures.]

D. The responsibility of the individual believer is stressed, but then again so does the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

E. There is no central authority, just like in the Orthodox Church.

F. There are many controversies and debates that lead to schisms, unline the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church.

G. Luther could judge which books are really scriptures and which aren't.

Is this a fair summary so far?

What should we do next? Any suggestions?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Mudfrog, after over 700 posts, you should know how to use UBB code for quotes. If you don't, get yourself over to the appropriate thread in the Styx and learn.

Sophia's Questions, at the top of every post there is a series of icons. If you click on the one showing paper and pencil above a particular post, you will get a "post a reply" window with the UBB code for quotes surrounding that post. You can also use the button for quote code under "Instant UBB code" below every reply window. There is a thread for practicing use of UBB code in the Styx.

RuthW
Purgatory host
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
This is an attempt by a non-Protestant to understand the historical developments and modern Protestants better.

I think, Andreas, the place to start if you want to understand Protestant ideas on justification by faith is with sin.

Luther had an overwhelming sense of his own sinfulness, of God's standard of perfection and the impossibility of meeting it. The logic of his damnation was so unassailable that he hated God for his justice.

That is why he seized so hungrily on Paul's teaching (as he understood it) that we are made righteous not by works but by faith; that righteousness is God's gift not our accomplishment; and is all about the way God sees us, not about the way we are in ourselves.

So
1) It is impossible to satisfy God with our own efforts to be perfect, because even with God's help we will fall short.
Only then do we move on to
2) The only way to be righteous in God's eyes is for Christ's righteousness to be tranferred to our account as an unmeritted gift when we believe.
3) Thus the believer, in Luther's words, is "At once righteous and a sinner"; otherwise no one is righteous.

Later Protestants might not share Luther's intense sense of personal sinfulness, but I think almost all Protestantism is based on the same idea of sin.
 
Posted by ericksdahl (# 10588) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dear Ags (and people),

I'm sorry I was not calm. However, there is a sharp contrast between the two pages of this thread. I feel sorry that the second page does not have the clarity the first page has.

To sum up:

A. On the issue of justification there is nothing new found in Protestantism. Protestants believe in what the council of Orange declared many many centuries earlier. [i.e. that God inspires / gives birth / whatever-verb-you-want faith in each person and each one of us can either live in faith or reject it. All good things come from above, because God is the source of all gifts.] So, we are all in agreement that we are justified by faith in God.


I agree with that as a Lutheran Protestant. Remember there are many shades, flavors and types of Protestants. Many will say that Lutherans are too close to Catholic for their comfort. [Frown]
quote:

B. Both Protestants and Roman Catholics have gone a long way since the epoch of the first Reformers. [surprisingly, the Orthodox remained the same.]

Because there has not been a lot of interaction between the Orthodox and the West. BTW I have read the letters that Melancthon wrote to the East. It has been a while and I was hoping to find them again and refresh my memory. As I remember (and I am fallible [Smile] ) at first there was a response from the East but there must have been an unease with Luther's ideas and there were some sticking points that could not be overcome. My impression was that it yurned yo a cold reception quickly... no doubt that is coming from a biased view.

quote:


C. The scriptures are viewed highly by all traditions, so there is nothing unique in Protestantism as far as that is concerned. However, Protestants have made an arbitrary decision to put it above everything else. [I don't know what this means, since Orthodox and Roman Catholic practices do not contradict scriptures.]


The selling of forgiveness as in indulgences contradicts scripture. I do not want to inflame so I will stop there. When Luther said sola scripture, sola grace and sola faith he was not ruling out the use of tradition. He wanted tradition to be supported by scripture. If there was a practice such as selling indulgences to work one's way out of Purgutory and have sins forgiven then that meant that scriptures ruled and that tradition was abolished.
quote:

D. The responsibility of the individual believer is stressed, but then again so does the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.


In much of Protestantism that is true. I will emphasize that as Lutherans we emphasize the idea that God does the work. It is God that makes us holy and acceptable rather than our works with God's help. We believe that man is so enslaved to sin that he cannot make any choice towards God. Any choice is a choice to sin. That is most likely distinctly a Lutheran view.
quote:


E. There is no central authority, just like in the Orthodox Church.

Agreed
quote:


F. There are many controversies and debates that lead to schisms, unlike the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church.

G. Luther could judge which books are really scriptures and which aren't.



No he kept scriptures as scriptures. He had trouble with some of them such as James and Revelation but he left them intact. He did hold that some were more important.
quote:

Is this a fair summary so far?

What should we do next? Any suggestions?


 
Posted by ericksdahl (# 10588) on :
 
SteveTom,
That is a very good explantion. Another way to say what you said about sinner and righteous is to say that we are sinners and saints at the same time.

Grace & Peace!
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear SteveTom, I'd like to ask you about sin in Protestant thinking. The way I see it, sin can have three meanings. It can mean the ontological difference between the created and the Uncreated. In this meaning, it is like "unworthiness" and not "lawlessness". It can mean the sins we do without understanding or intending to. It can also mean the sins we do on purpose.

Luther speaks of our inherent unworthiness, the sins we do without intention or the sins we do purposefully? Because if he speaks of our unworthiness, I cannot but agree with him and praise God Lord for his ineffable love. If he speaks of the sins we do without intention I cannot but agree with him, and thank God because He is faithful and forgives us for these things. But if he speaks of the sins we do purposefully, then things change for me. I will thank God for showing us repentance as a way of forgiveness, and of His ineffable love and forgiveness, but unless we repent and change our way of life, how can we be righteous? So, in what sense is Luther using the word "sin"? Is he saying that we can both sin on purpose and at the same time be righteous on account of Jesus?
 
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
Just on your points C and D andreas:

C: the central "act" of most protestant services is that of the teaching and speaking from the word, whereas the Orthodox and RC have Mass at the centre. Most protestants would say that Orthodox and RC teaching and practice does contradict the scriptures.

D: many protestants (but it does vary with the denoomination) place an emphasis on a personal relationship with God as being the foundation of faith. I have never heard Orthodox or RCs talk about it in this way.
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
A. On the issue of justification there is nothing new found in Protestantism. Protestants believe in what the council of Orange declared many many centuries earlier. So, we are all in agreement that we are justified by faith in God.

No, this is incorrect as a matter of history. Luther's understanding of justification was completely new, without any precedent at all. His understanding of Paul, that justification is a legal fiction, that we are in Charles Wesley's words "clothed in righteousness divine" without having become righteous in our conduct is not found in Augustine or anyone else before the Reformation.

quote:
C. The scriptures are viewed highly by all traditions, so there is nothing unique in Protestantism as far as that is concerned. However, Protestants have made an arbitrary decision to put it above everything else. [I don't know what this means, since Orthodox and Roman Catholic practices do not contradict scriptures.]
Orthodox and Roman Catholic interpretation of their own practices do not contradict their interpretation of the scriptures. This is not necessarily the same thing. Orthodox and Roman Catholic use of images indisputably contradict the second commandment, but you have a higher authority than the ten commandments.

quote:
D. The responsibility of the individual believer is stressed, but then again so does the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.
Individual self-determination is definitely more distinctive of Protestantism than of earlier Christianity.


quote:
F. There are many controversies and debates that lead to schisms, unlike the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church.
To be fair, as you have been stressing the novelty of Protestantism, you might compare its first 500 years to the first 500 years of Orthodoxy. Free of controversy, debate and schism? Perhaps not entirely.


quote:
G. Luther could judge which books are really scriptures and which aren't.
No, Luther's judgments on Hebrews, Revelation, James and Jude have been almost universally rejected by Protestants.
 
Posted by ericksdahl (# 10588) on :
 
[
quote:
A. On the issue of justification there is nothing new found in Protestantism. Protestants believe in what the council of Orange declared many many centuries earlier. [i.e. that God inspires / gives birth / whatever-verb-you-want faith in each person and each one of us can either live in faith or reject it. All good things come from above, because God is the source of all gifts.] So, we are all in agreement that we are justified by faith in God.


SteveTom you are correct that Luther had a completely different understanding of justification than the RC had. I am not up to date on how the Orthodox believe. Yes we as Lutherans and most other protestant believe that we are justified by faith in God. The JDDC says that we agree that we are saved by faith but I think each of us understand it differently
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Luther speaks of our inherent unworthiness, the sins we do without intention or the sins we do purposefully? Because if he speaks of our unworthiness, I cannot but agree with him and praise God Lord for his ineffable love. If he speaks of the sins we do without intention I cannot but agree with him, and thank God because He is faithful and forgives us for these things. But if he speaks of the sins we do purposefully, then things change for me. I will thank God for showing us repentance as a way of forgiveness, and of His ineffable love and forgiveness, but unless we repent and change our way of life, how can we be righteous? So, in what sense is Luther using the word "sin"? Is he saying that we can both sin on purpose and at the same time be righteous on account of Jesus?

Luther was talking about actual and deliberate sins.

But two things to understand.

1) Protestants have a broader than usual definition of sin, embracing what RCC calls concupiscence - "a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason" - and which it distinguishes from sin. So according to the reformers any greedy thought, any flash of impatience across the mind, any lustful impulse, is a deliberate sin.

They argued therefore that no believer is free of sin in this life. So yes, we sin on purpose and at the same time are righteous on account of Jesus, because otherwise no one would be righteous.

2) The reformers saw justification and sanctification as logically distinct but actually inseperable.

Justification is God choosing to look on you as righteous. This happens when we believe, without any actual righteousness of our own.

Sanctification is becoming actually holy. This happens when the Holy Spirit changes our heart, which happens when we believe. (It is a process that never comes to perfect completion in this life.)

This means that that, while we are justified in God's sight irrespective of the how sinful we are, the same Spirit that justifies us will always make us holy. As Luther puts it, We are not justified by works, but there is no justification without works.

So it is impossible to be a Christian and not to be being made holier; but it is also impossible to be a living human and completely without deliberate sins in your life.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear SteveTom,

thank you very much indeed for that post of yours. This changes things. I will have to think in depth about what you have said. I will think about it in the next few days.

This is what I think: Justification as used in Paul talks about being in communion with the living God. Righteousness is not connected to the Judgement that is to come. For me, what's important, is to be with Him now. This is what matters. Judgement is purely His. I think that it is beyond human comprehension. Therefore, I focus on now.

It seems that I disagree with Luther. I don't believe that all that are in communion with God now will be judged just on that day. And I certainly don't think that those who don't know Him, will be judged as unjust on that day.

For me, legalism has no place in my relationship with God. You say "or else, nobody would be righteous". Well, so be it. There is noone righteous, not one. I can live with that. I don't feel there is a pressure of some sort for us to become righteous. For me, what matters is my relationship with the Lord.

Thank you very much indeed for your input.

Andreas
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
quote:
And I certainly don't think that those who don't know Him, will be judged as unjust on that day.

I don't think you'll find too many Lutherans who think that either. I'm not sure where you're extrapolating that from Lutheran theology.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
It was not a comment on Lutheran theology. Besides, I hardly know it. I only expressed a thought of mine.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Mudfrog, after over 700 posts, you should know how to use UBB code for quotes. If you don't, get yourself over to the appropriate thread in the Styx and learn.

Sophia's Questions, at the top of every post there is a series of icons. If you click on the one showing paper and pencil above a particular post, you will get a "post a reply" window with the UBB code for quotes surrounding that post. You can also use the button for quote code under "Instant UBB code" below every reply window. There is a thread for practicing use of UBB code in the Styx.

RuthW
Purgatory host

Don't get sniffy.
I'm not the only one who has cut and paste on these boards. I know full well how to use the pen and pencil icon for quotes, but on the post in question I didn't want to quote the entire post.
Does it REALLY matter?
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
aside to Mudfrog... you don't have to quote the whole post even if you use the quote icon - you can just delete the bits you don't want. I do it all the time.

PS Great thread by the way Andreas. Only someone like yourself with your background could think of attempting to understand Protestantism in all its diversity in one go, but its proing very interesting to see what we do indeed see as the distinctive features of what for us is just 'normal Christianity'.

[eta PS - to make my post relevant to the thread and not just to Mudfrog!]

[ 31. October 2005, 21:44: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
proving not proing [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Someone in a previous post -- a couple of people, actually -- mentioned a certain squeamishness in self-identifying as a Protestant.

That's how I feel. I prefer to think of my tradition as catholic, evangelical and reforming . Catholic in the sense that we affirm the apostolic witness, faith statements and worship praxis of the historical Church; evangelical in the sense of proclaiming the good news of God's unqualified, redeeming, reconciling "yes!" to us in the person of Jesus Christ; and reforming because, if we find that something within the Church is impeding the Gospel message, we're called to make things right.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Does it REALLY matter?

It does if the rest of us can't tell one end of your post from the other.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
So, no robust debate between Protestants is needed here!

You don't get to dictate what other people will post in response to your OP or to other posts. Robust debate is what Purgatory is all about. If you just want treatises on Protestantism, ask for reading suggestions.

RuthW
Purgatory host
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I prefer to think of my tradition as catholic, evangelical and reforming . Catholic in the sense that we affirm the apostolic witness, faith statements and worship praxis of the historical Church; evangelical in the sense of proclaiming the good news of God's unqualified, redeeming, reconciling "yes!" to us in the person of Jesus Christ; and reforming because, if we find that something within the Church is impeding the Gospel message, we're called to make things right.

I was in that group. And nicely put.

But do we still get to be protestants on that basis?

I think I'm protestant mainly because I don't want to give a single tradition a very high authority.... but equally, I don't want to give tradition no authority.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
Ruth W - thanks for the suggestion, and any posts I make after this one I will use the UBB, but this addresses several, so I hope this isn't too irritating. In any case, I think what I say below goes to where these arguments end up, "What is Truth?" Is faith an entree of choice at a smorgasbord, or is there an Ultimate Truth about the path of salvation? And to the extent that we disagree, are the disagreements important?

Here's what hasn't been said so far that I would like to reply to:

(Let me preface my comment with: My argument is not that Protestantism is worthless, rather that it is not Truth, and when something as important as your eternal life in the balance, our first concern should be Truth.)

Dinghy sailor argues that if one looks at other religions, the variance of belief found in Protestantism isn't alarming at all.

Neither you nor Mudfoot replied to my central issue with Protestantism, that even if the central theology is correct and agreed upon by all (Christ saves, follow Him), that could not be more irrelevant to our salvation. Better someone who does not fully understand, or even misunderstands, but still walks the road, than one who is correct and yet lost, or never seeks the road.
The central issue is that although the LOT OF US are standing on the side of a road, all agreeing that, yes, that is indeed the road, we do not agree on how to get on it and keep from veering off. As I asked before, if the path is obvious (follow Christ), why is it, and the gate, narrow? If the road is obvious, walking it myust be difficult. So it's good that we all agree about the road, and even many of its signposts and features: humility, obedience, repentance and love. But knowing it without being able to navigate it is useless, except to the extent that in talking about it you bring others closer to The Creator.
It is that question, "how do I walk the road" to which you will receive so many varied answers from Protestants, and it's the central question of our existence. Christ said to deny oneself, take up one's cross, and follow after Him. Not easy. How many people are really doing it?

If one argues that even the walking of the path is agreed upon (it's clearly not), then why are the results so varied? Everything falls apart when we no longer have a Truth about the path of salvation that we can measure everything else against. Is it possible that Christ desired that we have so many different understandings about how to follow Him, many of them clearly fruitless? He imparted a Truth that would set us free, and that Truth must have been preserved, or his promise that the Church would endure was wrong.
And if we believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, in what regard is it to God's benefit to see fractures and a diffusion of different beliefs within Christianity? It is not, so part of that guidance would be in regard to the preservation of the Truth as He imparted it, both what He imparted and what it means for each of us.

In relation to this same argument, Mudfoot said that JWs, 7DAs, Mormons and Unitarians are not Christian. Well, they think they are. Scripture warns that many would fall away from the Truth, but the insidious thing about heresy is that the heretic never thinks of himseld as such. And he may believe more fervently and loyally than the rest of us, and may still walk the path. But every divorce from the Truth produces the possibility of something like the Mormons. All four of those groups are Protestant, in that they deny the RC church and the Orthodox Church. One can argue that they are further off the mark than others, but who are we to say if we, ourselves, hold that the only arbiter of truth is our own intellect and reading of Scripture?


St. Seraphim said,
quote:
An essential part of Protestantism is the belief that people have the right to read the Bible and decide what to believe based on the Gift of the Holy Spirit given to them at Baptism.
Yes, and this belief must be held by Protestants, else they can have no claim whatever to legitimacy. Having decided to ignore the reality of the historic Church, they could only claim to recreate it through faith and a diligent reading of Scripture. But this belief is not a part of any Christian dogma until Protestantism surfaced. This belief is so elastic that it allows for the likes of Joseph Smith and what's-his-name-the-JW-guy to both believe that they were moved by the spirit. Without the guidance of the Church, it is difficult to know if one is moved by the Spirit or by something nefarious. We don't know Smith's heart (he appears to have been of dubious character) so can't know if he thought he was actually moved by God or not. Likewise, whoever started up unitarianism and the other universal salvation beliefs probably also felt so moved. This idea is full of error and mischief, and has led many astray. Either The Creator was able to impart truth or he was not. One may find edification in the pages of Scripture, but unless ones reading is in accord with the Fathers of the Church and with it's dogma, what claim can it have to truth? If any, is it a higher claim than a fellow protestant with an opposite interpretation? We can spend countless lifetimes reading Scripture, but in the end, how do we know if what we have gleaned is Truth? In protestantism there is no standard of Truth, and using the Bible as 'arbiter of truth' is unworkable because doing to leads only to a multitude of 'small t' truths.

eriksdahl said
quote:
The selling of forgiveness as in indulgences contradicts scripture.
Indeed, and it took much less for the four other co-equal patriarchates to excommunicate the church at Rome for heresy.
Indulgences, papism, confessional penances, amd the entire mechanistic, legalistic salvation found in RC is not present in Orthodoxy. And as a general note that is often lost in these kinds of discussions, Orthodoxy is not about tradition and ritual first, rather it is about cultivating the divine within us, come closer to the "likeness" of God, after which we were made.

eriksdahl later said,
quote:
In much of Protestantism that is true. I will emphasize that as Lutherans we emphasize the idea that God does the work. It is God that makes us holy and acceptable rather than our works with God's help. We believe that man is so enslaved to sin that he cannot make any choice towards God. Any choice is a choice to sin. That is most likely distinctly a Lutheran view.
Yes, and prior to Luther, this was a view unknown to mankind. How is it that this central truth of our existence remained buried for so long? It concerns directly our communion with the Creator.
The answer is that it is not a truth at all, but rather one person's interpretation of scripture that others have decided, of their own accord, to accept. The Orthodox understanding of the nature of sin and how it affects our salvation has remained unchanged for more than 1500 years.

quantpole said,
quote:
C: the central "act" of most protestant services is that of the teaching and speaking from the word, whereas the Orthodox and RC have Mass at the centre. Most protestants would say that Orthodox and RC teaching and practice does contradict the scriptures.

Proptestants must argue this, they can hardly look at the Divine Liturgy, formalized by Sts. Basil and John Chrysostom in the 4th century, and practice universally week in and week out ever since, and say that it is correct worship. If it is correct, what is theirs? But Orthodox don't practice the same liturgy because it is correct, but because it is a God-pleasing worship, centered on the dispensation of Communion (to those who have made confession only). We also do it the way we do because as far as anyone can tell, it grew organically in the Church, it's what Christians have always done. That last sentence fragment sums up the justification and foundation of much of Orthodoxy, and serves as the foundation of its claim to being the "pilllar and ground (foundation) of the Truth" of which St. Paul spoke. The authority he passed on was passed on to Orthodox. There's no history of a 'power grab' in the early Church, just continuity.
Almost the entire Liturgy, by the way, is taken directly from Scripture.

Stevetom wrote,
quote:
Orthodox and Roman Catholic interpretation of their own practices do not contradict their interpretation of the scriptures. This is not necessarily the same thing. Orthodox and Roman Catholic use of images indisputably contradict the second commandment, but you have a higher authority than the ten commandments.
What you are arguing is that the issue of icons and artwork was decided incorrectly by the last Ecumenical Council, that the iconoclasts were correct. The council was in the 8th century, I believe, when the entire church was basically united in practice. (Rumblings of filloquoy(sp.?) in Spain - the precursor of Rome's excommunication - were to be heard, but there was basically unity.)
Given that we have unearthed early churches with mosaics adorning the walls, the fact that Protestants generally agree with the iconoclasts (considered so wrong by history that their very name bespeaks futility) shows clearly that they are literally deciding for themselves what God's Truth is, in this and in all other regards.
The issue of icons is much less relevant that what the argument so clearly proves.

Stevetom further wrote,
quote:
To be fair, as you have been stressing the novelty of Protestantism, you might compare its first 500 years to the first 500 years of Orthodoxy. Free of controversy, debate and schism? Perhaps not entirely.
Of course! The beliefs of the JWs are largely a recapitulation of the arian heresy, Christ as creature. Most of what divides Christians today was carefully considered and resolved by the early Church, and the important point is that through all disagreements, the Church found unity, so much so that we haven't a full council of the Church for more than 1200 years. There is no real promise of unity in Protestantism, and if there was, lots of people who think of themselves as Christians would likely be excluded. All of this is unnecessary, the Truth is known, a person only has to decide that it likely doesn't exist in their own grey matter, but rather in the real, unchanging Apostolic Church.

LutherChik said,
quote:
and reforming because, if we find that something within the Church is impeding the Gospel message, we're called to make things right.
This is not something that you will find in any Bible. Scripture tells us that when individuals err in the Church they are to be corrected, but there is never the notion that the Church will err. It cannot err if it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The constancy in the Church is a testament to this guidance.

Finally (if you read this far), regarding the Orthodox view of salvation, we believe that following Christ is difficult, and requires discpline, and is a life-long process, during which we can decide to turn away from our Creator. We have free will. We don't save ourselves through works - that would impose an obligation upon God. Rather, works are the fruit of each Christian vine, and in doing them we cultivate the foundational virtues of Christianity, without which one cannot follow Christ with any success: humility, obedience, repentance, and love.

[Smile]

{fixed quote code]

[ 02. November 2005, 16:18: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Indulgences, papism, confessional penances, amd the entire mechanistic, legalistic salvation found in RC is not present in Orthodoxy.

[tangent]I don't know where you got these ideas about the Catholic Church - but they are misconceived if not outright wrong. You have also seriously misrepresented the sacrament of reconciliation in the inaccurate term "confessional penance".

You'll find that this:
quote:
Finally (if you read this far), regarding the Orthodox view of salvation, we believe that following Christ is difficult, and requires discpline, and is a life-long process, during which we can decide to turn away from our Creator. We have free will. We don't save ourselves through works - that would impose an obligation upon God. Rather, works are the fruit of each Christian vine, and in doing them we cultivate the foundational virtues of Christianity, without which one cannot follow Christ with any success: humility, obedience, repentance, and love.
also holds true for the Catholic view of salvation.

You're free to make whatever attack on Catholicism you like - but do try to support what you say. [/tangent]

[ 01. November 2005, 05:50: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Can I ask what contributors think about the letters to the churches in Revelation?

Does anyone regard the threat by Christ to remove the lampstand as a serious one - and what does it mean?

And what about the threat by Christ to one church that he will 'spew you out of my mouth'?

Do these phrases ring alarm bells with anyone else but me, in that they speak of Christ rejecting the church that moves away from the truth?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Yes, as a Protestant moving away from the truth of the Church of Rome, I worry greatly about those scriptures.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Yes, as a Protestant moving away from the truth of the Church of Rome, I worry greatly about those scriptures.

Ha Ha! I just knew someone would say that.
But that's not why I asked the questeion - honest! [Biased]

What I was trying to suggest - and this is not necessarily the only interpretation (which is why I asked the question) - was that it IS possible for the church to be in error. It was right back in the first century. If it were not so then Christ would not have spoken to the churches in such a damning way.

"I have this against you" - is it possible that for 1500 years Christ never said this to the Roman Catholic Church and now when he says it, it's only to the Protestant churches?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I suppose this is where (I can hardly believe I'm trotting this out) indefectible rather than infallible would get brought in.

Seriously though, perhaps that is the foundation of protestantism; rather than any specific doctrine.... the idea that the church might be in error, and needs correcting from time to time. (Normally by way of schism, but let that be....)
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Indulgences, papism, confessional penances, amd the entire mechanistic, legalistic salvation found in RC is not present in Orthodoxy.

[tangent]I don't know where you got these ideas about the Catholic Church - but they are misconceived if not outright wrong. You have also seriously misrepresented the sacrament of reconciliation in the inaccurate term "confessional penance".
quote:

Brother, I am sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent.
Aside from mis-labeling penances, you didn't say how what I said was in error. If you know much about Orthodoxy, you know that it is unchanged. The same cannot be said for Roman Catholicism, and the juridical nature of many of its practices and beliefs reflect the western mindset.
Since you mention confession, am I not correct that the RC church asks believers to make specific penance for specific sins? And does this not tend to encourage, in some people, the idea that doing something specific grants one forgiveness? That may not be the _actual doctrine_, but it is how it manifests.

quote:

You'll find that this:
quote:
Finally (if you read this far), regarding the Orthodox view of salvation, we believe that following Christ is difficult, and requires discpline, and is a life-long process, during which we can decide to turn away from our Creator. We have free will. We don't save ourselves through works - that would impose an obligation upon God. Rather, works are the fruit of each Christian vine, and in doing them we cultivate the foundational virtues of Christianity, without which one cannot follow Christ with any success: humility, obedience, repentance, and love.
quote:

also holds true for the Catholic view of salvation.
quote:

In a theological sense in many respects, yes, but certainly not in all, and not much at all with regard to the spiritual growth involved in the faithful Christian life. The RC church has cut its believers off from many of the life-giving disciplines of the Church, from daily prayer to fasting. Fasting encourages the development of discipline, and encourages self-denial and an understanding of how attached we are to the things of this world. When we deny ourselves in small things such as food, it becomes easier to deal with the larger challenges of our spiritual life. As the RC church slowly relaxed the historical fasting rules to the point where they no longer exist in any meaningful sense, were they doing RC believers a service? This and other things are an example of the willingness of the RC church to change with the times. Does fasting encourage self-denial and discipline or not? If it does, as Christians have always believed, why did the RC church abandon it?

quote:

You're free to make whatever attack on Catholicism you like - but do try to support what you say. [/tangent]

quote:

Again, forgive any offense caused, please. I will await your reply.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
What I was trying to suggest - and this is not necessarily the only interpretation (which is why I asked the question) - was that it IS possible for the church to be in error. It was right back in the first century. If it were not so then Christ would not have spoken to the churches in such a damning way.
Christ's Church was established by Christ and began it's mission after being visited by the Holy Spirit on Pentacost, after Christ's ascension. So there was no New Testament Church for Christ to criticize, and any criticism from St. Paul and others was directed at small c churches, not the Church. If God is guiding it, how is it possible for the Church as a whole to be in error?

[fixed quote code]

[ 02. November 2005, 16:20: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I suppose this is where (I can hardly believe I'm trotting this out) indefectible rather than infallible would get brought in.

Seriously though, perhaps that is the foundation of protestantism; rather than any specific doctrine.... the idea that the church might be in error, and needs correcting from time to time. (Normally by way of schism, but let that be....)

Of course the church needs correcting from time to time.
St Paul, writing to Timothy said,
"All scripture is given by ispiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

This is where the Roman church was in error for so many, many years - they didn't allow the Scripture to be read or even taught. It is common knowledge that in the pre-reformation days many priests were so uneducated they could barely understand the Latin of the mass they were reciting let alone understand Christian doctrine and scriptural teaching.

Whole centuries passed where the people were not taught the truths of the Bible or even heard it read in their own language.

It is that fact perhaps above all others that brought about the reformation (which began in Luther when he read and understood the words 'the just shall live by faith).

The Reformation was simply a widespread application of the above verse from Timothy. It was intended to be a reformation of the existing church, not a total abandonment of Rome and a setting up of a rival church. The fact that Rome rejected the reformation and the Scriptural rebuke was not the fault of Mr Luther. I believe his hope was that the entire church would have been liberated from centuries of ignorance and superstition and brought back to to the witness of the Bible is the authority for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness.

As for schism; the responsibility lies with those who refuse the leading of the Spirit and will not submit to Scripture.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Of course the church needs correcting from time to time.
St Paul, writing to Timothy said,
"All scripture is given by ispiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

St. Paul was referring to individuals. You will find no place in Scripture where the Church will be said to be in error, or that it will fall away from the Truth, but there are countless references to groups and individuals doing so. The next chapter has St. Paul saying that we must exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. What doctrine? Yours? Mine? No, the Church's doctrine, a specific, definable doctrine. Why must we do so? Because in spite of our best efforts, as St. Paul says, many would fall away from the Truth. What Truth? Yours? The Pope's? Mine? St. Paul is talking about the truth being a specific thing, from which people can fall away. So what is it? It can't be our individual interpretation of scripture - that has led some to grave and obvious error, so how many smaller errors accumulate? And can they affect our salvation? Why risk it when it isn't necessary? If sola scriptura has given us everything from RC (Rome was one of five co-equal patriarchates) to Mormons, can it really be a reliable path to truth? What would an objective, outside observer say? For that matter, seeing a consistent theology and spiritual life in Orthodoxy, and new and varied approaches everywhere else, what would an objective observer say when asked, "Where has the truth about the meaning of the Bible and the path to salvation most likely been preserved?"

It's not an idle question. We believe because we all know in our hearts that we are created beings, and whether we are ready to recognize it or not, our true hearts desire is to be with our Maker. And so we set out in search of....... what? Do we make an objective search for Truth? Do we even countenance the possibility that there exists a preserved Truth about The Creator's communications with humanity?

If we don't entertain that last idea, we have decided that we are ants in a farm, or that God is less compassionate than the average one of us. Consider: Created out of love, we exist to love our Creator and one another. Would a loving Creator make it possible for the Truth about our our origin, purpose, and destiny to be known to us? Would he confront us with thoughts such as these, without making it possible to for us to know what they really mean to us, in concrete terms that truly make us responsible for our salvaton?"if thy hand offend thee (causes you to sin), cut if off", and "Narrow is the gate and narrow is the way, and few be that pass." Among many others.

One can look at those statements of The Creator's and decide the "few shall pass" means less than half. Or one can decide that 'yes, I am finally convinced that I am immortal', and begin to "work out their salvation with fear and trembling." How much more fear do we feel, when we finally take our salvation seriously, if we are unsure of the path we are walking? This is what encourages the search for Truth with a capital T.

It's no coincidence that this desire takes root and grows in the fertile soil of the foundational Christian virtue, humility.

**
That millions of committed Protestants are earnest believers cannot be doubted. I rejoice when I see one of them baptized into Orthodoxy. It doesn't mean an end to the study of Scripture, but rather an opening of the doors to another world, the world of the Church Fathers, past and present, and also to the full understanding of Scripture as elucidated in their library of works, hundreds of thousands of pages. Their world is one of unity of thought and action, and they are always looking back to the beginning for guidance. In the writings of 4th century fathers, the time of the Apostles was referred to as the time of the "Ancients", or "in antiquity".
The entire aim of the Apostolic Church, from the beginning, has been the un-erring preservation of the Truth of the faith, and its life-giving Sacraments, for the faithful.
I make the next statements and insert the smilies with a spirit of friendly humor, having argued this all before:
All of the churches established by St. Paul are (or were, before being destroyed in war) Orthodox. [brick wall]
Orthodoxy has been the faith in the cradle of Christianity since the beginning. [brick wall] [brick wall] Think about it.

[fixed code]

[ 02. November 2005, 16:21: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Stevetom wrote:
quote:

Orthodox and Roman Catholic use of images indisputably contradict the second commandment, but you have a higher authority than the ten commandments.

What you are arguing is that the issue of icons and artwork was decided incorrectly by the last Ecumenical Council, that the iconoclasts were correct.
Absolutely not. I never said the worship of images was wrong.

My point was:
1) The second commandment forbids the use of images.
2) Catholics, Orthodox, (and many Protestants) use images.
Therefore
3) Catholics, Orthodox, (and many Protestants) do not follow the second commandment.

In exactly the same way, almost no Christians obey the commandment about the Sabbath. For this they have explicit sanction in the NT. Image worship has the sanction of tradition.

I make no comment about the rightness or wrongness of either. I'm just saying just that when Andreas says there is no difference between Orthodox and Protestant attitudes to the Bible because Orthodox practice does not contravene the Bible, one would be using quite peculiar definitions of all of those words for his statement to be true.
 
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
Sophia's questions: to do quotes only press the button once - the text should go between the 2 brackets.
 
Posted by whitelaughter (# 10611) on :
 
Yes, the basic definition of a Protestant is one who claims that the Bible is the only or at least primary source of authority. (From the Latin Protestari - to bear witness for).
Inherited traditions would be nice, but what are the odds? Play a game of Chinese whispers, and you'll realise how unlikely it is that any inherited traditions are even vaguely the same as what Christ and his apostles taught. Now, you could argue that the traditions are miraculously protected. I have no objections to miracles! In a religion that teaches that Christ rose from the dead, that's not unreasonable. However, there's no way this can have happened, at least in Western Europe. Firstly, the numerous contradictions between the Bible and Rome's traditions & teachings. Secondly, Rome's traditions and teachings keep changing.
I had the dubious honour of being called (to my face) a bastard by RC clergy as a child. Why? Mixed marriage, RC mother/Presp father in a (horror) Protestant church. Nope, my parents weren't married, they were living in sin! Within a few years, Vatican II had changed all that. Later, as a (quite obnoxious) teenager I had great fun baiting Roman catholics by asking them what the 2nd commandment was - and enjoying the shock on their faces when I showed them what the Bible actually said. Nowadays most RCs acknowledge the existence of the 2nd commandment (although I haven't seen a new catechism, so I don't know whether it has made it into official doctrine yet).
This isn't new. Huss got burnt at the stake for believing communion should be given in both kinds - which is now standard.
Of course, there are many other churches. The Orthodox have already been mentioned; then there's the Copts, Syriacs, Armenians, Nestorians, Ethiopians, Thomasites etc. If one of the Eastern churches claimed that something they did was a tradition handed down from the time of the apostles, I would have to acknowledge the claim as possible. However, since I *know* that the Bible (and the Didache etc) has survived since the time of the early church, I would want to check the tradition against scripture - if it contradicts scripture, it must be a case of Chinese whispers; if it agrees, then they've either kept true to the faith or repented of mistakes.
If it isn't either confirmed or denied by scripture - that'd be a doozy! If something like that was shown to me, I'd want to check their other beliefs: if they've managed to keep most of their beliefs in line with scripture then yes, I'd have to say that the balance of evidence was on the side of the tradition.
However, until such a tradition presents itself, it's all academic, yes? So where is the problem with relying solely on scripture?
 
Posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
(Let me preface my comment with: My argument is not that Protestantism is worthless, rather that it is not Truth, and when something as important as your eternal life in the balance, our first concern should be Truth.)

St. Seraphim said,
quote:

An essential part of Protestantism is the belief that people have the right to read the Bible and decide what to believe based on the Gift of the Holy Spirit given to them at Baptism.
quote:

Yes, and this belief must be held by Protestants, else they can have no claim whatever to legitimacy. Having decided to ignore the reality of the historic Church, they could only claim to recreate it through faith and a diligent reading of Scripture. But this belief is not a part of any Christian dogma until Protestantism surfaced. This belief is so elastic that it allows for the likes of Joseph Smith and what's-his-name-the-JW-guy to both believe that they were moved by the spirit. Without the guidance of the Church, it is difficult to know if one is moved by the Spirit or by something nefarious. We don't know Smith's heart (he appears to have been of dubious character) so can't know if he thought he was actually moved by God or not. Likewise, whoever started up unitarianism and the other universal salvation beliefs probably also felt so moved. This idea is full of error and mischief, and has led many astray. Either The Creator was able to impart truth or he was not. One may find edification in the pages of Scripture, but unless ones reading is in accord with the Fathers of the Church and with it's dogma, what claim can it have to truth? If any, is it a higher claim than a fellow protestant with an opposite interpretation? We can spend countless lifetimes reading Scripture, but in the end, how do we know if what we have gleaned is Truth? In protestantism there is no standard of Truth, and using the Bible as 'arbiter of truth' is unworkable because doing to leads only to a multitude of 'small t' truths.

[Smile]

What I said was scripture was essential for a Protestant, not that it was the only thing. In fact many Protestant churches do use tradtion (ok, maybe only 100 years of it [Biased] ) to back up what they read and interpret in the Bible.

And such a view does lead to there being all sort of odd, if not heretical practices being used. But history has shown that the same thing did occur in the RC church. (Something that I personally don't believe is happening today IMHO).

As far as there being only one road to Christ, I've always had problems with that view. There may be only one road for me, but that road may be different for someone else.

Can you tell me that if you and I were to both, say, go to Jerusalem we would take the same route? Probably not. Are there routes that we both could take that wouldn't be direct, but would get us there eventually? And there are routes that I know I could take and become good and lost. What is important is for me to keep my eyes on where I am going and if I become lost to seek directions and sometimes I only know I'm lost when someone asks me why I'm not going the right way (ask my husband on that one!)
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
This issue is ultimately about epistemology and the knowability of Absolute Truth. Protestants, either consciously or unconsciously give a nod at least to the role of some kind of church tradition but insist that this must be subordinate to Scripture. All well and good, but that begs the question "Scripture as interpreted how and by whom?"

Mudfrog, what does your interpretation of Jesus' rebuke to the Revelation churches say about His earlier statement of "I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail" (Matt 16:18)? Given your interpretation, should He not have rather said "I will build my Church, but it will be pretty much messed up for 1400 of its first 1500 years until some obscure friar called Luther will come along to put it all right again and then the gates of Hades will not prevail against it which is rather bad news for all the people who will try to be Christians in the meantime but stuff them, they don't count, that's why it will be called the Dark Ages"?

[ 01. November 2005, 10:53: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 
Couldn't it be that the interpretation of Scripture is somehow linked to the covenant of grace? What I mean is that God will attend his word with eternal truth when and where there are people in receipt of his covenant faithfulness. After all, the interpratation of Scripture is impossible without the tri-une indwelling of God at a corporate level. Now of course just what that corpus looks like and where that corpus is located is another discussion. But I'd be inclined to say that the corpus unto which God's covenant faithfulness causes him to attend his word with truth are the elect of God. In other words, the communion of saints throughout time, or those known fully to Christ alone. I can see no reason whatsoever why those 'elect' have been both within and without the institutional visible church since the very beginning.
 
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Hi again, Sophia's Questions. I'll try to answer yours.

quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions
truly make us responsible for our salvaton?

Can we really be responsible for our own salvation, though? This protestant would say that we are saved soley by grace, so whatever choices we make, the ultimate responsibility for us being in Heaven rests with Jesus on the cross, for the free gift of salvation that God offers. Yes, we may have the responsibility to take that gift, but whether or not we choose to take it still depends on whether or not God offers it in the first place.

quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Rome was one of five co-equal patriarchates

That's a very Orthodox view. Try telling a Roman that.

quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
If sola scriptura has given us everything from RC <slight snip> to Mormons

But Rome has its Tradition and infallibility, and Mormons have their book of Mormon and golden specs. Neither of those groups is sola scriptura.


To attempt an answer to your response to Quantpole, I'd ask what liturgy the Church used before the 4th century, before Sts Basil & John's day? Does God actually care about what precise liturgy we use, anyway? I for one really don't see why He should care whether we sing Kyrie e Leison, Depths of Mercy or Shine Jesus Shine, whether we use Eucharistic prayer A, B or C (I'm sure they all say the same thing) or whether we pronounce "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" or "Dying you destroyed our death, Rising you restored our life, Lord Jesus come in glory". They all say much the same thing. Should He not be pleased? Graham Kendrick is a part of the ongoing tradition of British hymnwriters, his talents grew organically within the church as much as anyone else's.


I must admit that your response to my post confused me rather, so if you could post it again more succinctly I'd be gratified. I'll try to answer it as well as I can, though.

You said:

quote:
[qb] even if the central theology is correct and agreed upon by all (Christ saves, follow Him), that could not be more irrelevant to our salvation. Better someone who does not fully understand, or even misunderstands, but still walks the road, than one who is correct and yet lost, or never seeks the road.
The basic message I get here is that though we may know we have to follow Christ, protestants are not doing so, for some reason. Why do you see us as not doing so? What is the fault? If salvation is by faith, surely putting our trust in Jesus is enough, as he will then work on our hearts and show us how to follow him? Plus, we have the scriptures that we are sure haven't changed since, ooh, about 100AD to guide us on our way, and Christian friends to help us. Is not being in the Orthodox church enough to count us as "not on the road"? Looking back at what Jesus told His disciples then, from documents that are of verifiable age, He never mentioned a church of any name, but he did give instructions on how to follow Him. If I can use these to do so separately from Orthodoxy, surely that shows that Orthodoxy is not a requirement for "following the road", and so you shouldn't disqualify the protestants who are acting like you but merely not part of your church as "standing by the side of the road"?

quote:
if the path is obvious (follow Christ), why is it, and the gate, narrow
Because as you said, truly loving our neighbour, giving up some of our pleasures for him, (and not smacking my little brother round the face when he's annoying, and forgivign the guy who recently ran into me in his car) is hard to do. The gate is narrow because Satan still exists in the world, and he won't let temptation go away. We have all the information we need to follow God, it's just the willpower and strength that's lacking. If we really ask Him for help, He'll provide us with all that we need, it's just that for most people, we don't even really want to be made pure, it's too painful.

In your second paragraph, you talk about Truth alot. Why is it capitalised, may I ask? Is it because you believe the remaining patriachates to hold the one, unerring truth? How can you be so sure? When did God promise that? You said it was impossible for the whole church to err, but looking at the bible, it has already happened. Take Jesus, for example. I can remember possibly two pharissees who were not against him, and the establishment of Judaism had him murdered. So much for the preservation of Truth. Less than a century later, Paul wrote, when he wrote to "the church in Corinth" and John wrote, when he wrote to the seven churches, not to "yeah, the methodist church, just up the road from St Mark's" but to the church in it's entirety in one place. That was an age without fast transport, and most people would never stray far from their home town. THe churches he wrote to were the entire Christian life to most of the people involved. That was the entire church faltering. In Germany in Luther's day, how many people would ever get as far as Greece? Catholicism WAS The Church.

I could be a protestant living by myself on a desert island. All that is required is me and God. You seem to be saying that an organised church structure, well, one particular church structure, is required. Is God really mean enough to deny Himself to people who for insurmountable reasons can't be part of any structure?

Oh, and JWs are as far from my beleifs as they are from yours. Muslims aren't Orthodox either, but that doesn't make them protestant.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
This issue is ultimately about epistemology and the knowability of Absolute Truth. Protestants, either consciously or unconsciously give a nod at least to the role of some kind of church tradition but insist that this must be subordinate to Scripture. All well and good, but that begs the question "Scripture as interpreted how and by whom?"

Mudfrog, what does your interpretation of Jesus' rebuke to the Revelation churches say about His earlier statement of "I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail" (Matt 16:18)? Given your interpretation, should He not have rather said "I will build my Church, but it will be pretty much messed up for 1400 of its first 1500 years until some obscure friar called Luther will come along to put it all right again and then the gates of Hades will not prevail against it which is rather bad news for all the people who will try to be Christians in the meantime but stuff them, they don't count, that's why it will be called the Dark Ages"?

I think Jesus was talking about final scenario stuff - as in 'the Church triumphant'.

When Jesus spoke about the church on earth, he was not guaranteeing an indestructable, infallible or impervious to error group. If he did, what would you have said to the churches in Asia Minor that no longer exist?

The fact is that, through all its years of error, weakness, schism, faithlessness, triumph, success, reformation and renewal, the Church, the Body of Christ has done remarkably well to preserve the Gospel message and maintain the cause of Christ.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Ah, but there be the rub; your words "I think"; who are you and who am I to be able to say that that is what that particular Scripture means?
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ah, but there be the rub; your words "I think"; who are you and who am I to be able to say that that is what that particular Scripture means?

Ah but those who have a conditional interpretation live with humility of "I think" and can listen to others. Those who have an authority, tend to like things cut and dried, and find listening to others difficult. That authority may be the pope or John Calvin, I do not care, the claim leads to spurious certainty and a lack of willingness to carry on the search for meaning from scripture.

Jengie
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A.F. Steve:
Given two conflicting views of the meaning of scripture, you would turn to the teachings of the heirachical organisation you (from a Protestant view) mistakenly call the Church. You view the teachings of that heirachy to be trustworthy.

At the core of Protestantism is a view that human organisations are not always trustworthy in this imperfect/fallen world, and that it is thus responsibility of the individual believer, as part of the Church (ie all Christians) and in the light of God's indwelling spirit to discern right beliefs and from them right actions.

Yes, that seems right.

There is also the very strong Protestant tradition ( [Biased] ) that "the Bible is its own interpreter". In other words, that seeing as the whole thing is God's book and God does not self-contradict, the whpole Bible is telling different parts of the same story. So when there is some doubt or dispute it it legitimate - neccessary - to back up opinion from many parts of Scripture.

Of course this can lead to using dozens of isolated phrases taken out of context from all over the Bible to illustrate or reinforce sme point. (But if it was good enough for the apostle Paul its good enough for us...)

Its not that Protestants think that the Bible is some sort of embodiment of divity, a Christian Koran, (OK - to be honest some do - very few, but there are people who conflate the Bible as the word of God with Jesus as the uncreated word - but its not common). It is that we recognise that churches and traditions disagree with each other. And so obviously we cannot totally trust any of them without some sort of backup from God. When there are two, or twenty, traditions; six, or sixty, churches; all claiming slightly different things you need some measuring stick to compare them to. Scripture seemed to the Reformers to be a more direct line to Jesus Christ, a closer witness, sidestepping centuries of "Chinese whipsers", revealing the truth of God unsullied by warring and corrupt heirarchy.

In the historical circumstances of the Reformation it could hardly have been otherwise. The Christian church had been fighting itself (literally) for centuries. No sooner had the Avignon "captivity" ended than the great Schism began, and that followed by the persecution and (rather successful) rebellion of the Hussites (in which God showed himself to favour John Ziska's artillery above the Duke of Austria's catholic cavalry). The Pope of the time was selling indulgences not only to fit out St Peter's or the Sistine, but also to pay for his wars - wars in which he rode out armed. Where else were the reformers to turn but Scripture?
 
Posted by ericksdahl (# 10588) on :
 
[
quote:
The selling of forgiveness as in indulgences contradicts scripture.
quote:


Indeed, and it took much less for the four other co-equal patriarchates to excommunicate the church at Rome for heresy.
Indulgences, papism, confessional penances, amd the entire mechanistic, legalistic salvation found in RC is not present in Orthodoxy. And as a general note that is often lost in these kinds of discussions, Orthodoxy is not about tradition and ritual first, rather it is about cultivating the divine within us, come closer to the "likeness" of God, after which we were made.



I was not referring to the Orthodox. I was pointing out what I was familiar with and that was a practice that Rome had. However, now you have shown where someone in the church can go astray and you have excommunicated that body from your church so it is possible for what is called church to stray or lose the truth… is that what I hear you telling me?

quote:
eriksdahl later said,
quote:


In much of Protestantism that is true. I will emphasize that as Lutherans we emphasize the idea that God does the work. It is God that makes us holy and acceptable rather than our works with God's help. We believe that man is so enslaved to sin that he cannot make any choice towards God. Any choice is a choice to sin. That is most likely distinctly a Lutheran view.
quote:


Yes, and prior to Luther, this was a view unknown to mankind. How is it that this central truth of our existence remained buried for so long? It concerns directly our communion with the Creator.
The answer is that it is not a truth at all, but rather one person's interpretation of scripture that others have decided, of their own accord, to accept. The Orthodox understanding of the nature of sin and how it affects our salvation has remained unchanged for more than 1500 years.

This was not a view unknown to man but it is a view that is drawn from scriptures that are 2,000 years old. Older than the 1500 years you give as being important. These are views that Paul gave in scriptures. Why do you only claim 1500 years when Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago? Did it take 500 years to develop something that was there earlier? Who decided that was the truth? Apparently man or the church is imperfect also and sometimes truths are covered up or lost until a fresh look once again uncovers what is so clear when is read again. You see you have shown me that the “church” can err by the fact that you have told me that the Orthodox excommunicated the church of Rome. Is it possible that in those 500 years it took for your church to come up with the “truth” that a man decided that your view was the truth? Hmmm…. How do you know that you have the truth?

I am not about to tell you that my brand of Protestantism is error free. It is not. We are an imperfect people who are part of an imperfect organization (church) who worship a perfect God. If you are happy thinking that you have the only view that has credibility then you will be walking a long, lonely road. If you are able to see others of us who have differing theologies than you do as being brothers, you will find that road a lot less lonely. I come away perhaps wrongly with the impression that you have your theological nose in the air… too good to see us under the same cross. Am I in error? I need to know. If so I do most humbly apologize for this impression.

Grace & Peace!
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mudfrog, what does your interpretation of Jesus' rebuke to the Revelation churches say about His earlier statement of "I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail" (Matt 16:18)? Given your interpretation, should He not have rather said "I will build my Church, but it will be pretty much messed up for 1400 of its first 1500 years...

One hears this verse a lot in these discussions, and great deal of weight is put on a literalistic, dare I say fundamentalist prooftexting interpretation of it.

But was Jesus, or Matthew, intending these words to be any more absolute a contract than, say Genesis 13:15 - "All the land that you see I will give to you and your seed forever". According to the prophets this turned out to be a lot more conditional than it sounds, and the faithless nation was expelled from the land.

In the same way the Lord makes an "everlasting covenant" with Abraham and his seed, and with the generation of Moses: "You are my people and I will be your God "; but then tells Hosea "They are not my people and I am not their God".

When you see the conditional way the prophets interpreted the covenant they lived under, are you sure this verse will bear the weight you put on it?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
And if we believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, in what regard is it to God's benefit to see fractures and a diffusion of different beliefs within Christianity? It is not, so part of that guidance would be in regard to the preservation of the Truth as He imparted it, both what He imparted and what it means for each of us.

And yes we have that guidance - most obviously in Scriptures [Biased] They are the fence that marks the edges of the narrow road. So we shoudl have an eye for them when the teachings of men lead us off the road.

quote:

In relation to this same argument, Mudfoot said that JWs, 7DAs, Mormons and Unitarians are not Christian. Well, they think they are. Scripture warns that many would fall away from the Truth, but the insidious thing about heresy is that the heretic never thinks of himself as such. And he may believe more fervently and loyally than the rest of us, and may still walk the path. But every divorce from the Truth produces the possibility of something like the Mormons.

Nothing's gained by mincing words. The teachings of the JWs (& at least some Unitarians - its hard to be sure what they believe because one meets so few of them) are clearly Christian, but Christian heretics. Disbeleiving the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. As such they have less in common with most mainstream Protestant teaching than that does with Roman Catholics or the Orthodox. Their origins lie in Protestant christianity but htey have diverged very far from it. Seventh Day Adventists are a Protestant church, yes. They have some teachings the rest of use find weird or heretical but I don't think they belong in the same company as the others you mention. The Mormons, whatever they say about themselves, are not recognisably a Christian church. Their teachings are no more Christian than those of the Muslims. In fact less, Christianity and Islam agree with each other on more things than they agree with Islam.

quote:

All four of those groups are Protestant, in that they deny the RC church and the Orthodox Church.

So did the Copts and the Nestorians. Would you call them Protestant?

OK, the origins of JWs are within Protestantism and their practices are in many wasy like those of Protestant churches, so yes, they are culturally Protestant. But the origial Arians were culturally Orthodox. Would it be fair to blame today's Orthodox for their errors?

I'm not so sure about the Mormons - I suspect that many of the original Mormons came from a Roman Catholic background though I am not sure - at any rate both their doctrine and practices were totally unlike those of Christian churches from very early on in their history. Whatever Christian influences there were on the founders of that religion makes little difference now they have dverged so far. The historical background of the birth of Islam is in the encounter between Syrian Christianity (Orthodox Christianity?) and Arab paganism. But that doesn't mean that it woudl be right to say that Father Gregory's church has Muslim doctrines (or vice versa)

quote:

Having decided to ignore the reality of the historic Church, they could only claim to recreate it through faith and a diligent reading of Scripture. But this belief is not a part of any Christian dogma until Protestantism surfaced. This belief is so elastic that it allows for the likes of Joseph Smith and what's-his-name-the-JW-guy to both believe that they were moved by the spirit. Without the guidance of the Church, it is difficult to know if one is moved by the Spirit or by something nefarious. We don't know Smith's heart (he appears to have been of dubious character) so can't know if he thought he was actually moved by God or not. Likewise, whoever started up unitarianism and the other universal salvation beliefs probably also felt so moved.

Quite the opposite. Centering our faith and practice around the reading and teaching of Scripture can actually us from wandering far from God's guidance by chasing after the heretical innovations of preachers and teachers - whether Protestant or Orthodox or Roman.


quote:

This is not something that you will find in any Bible. Scripture tells us that when individuals err in the Church they are to be corrected, but there is never the notion that the Church will err. It cannot err if it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The constancy in the Church is a testament to this guidance.

But as you said it is the small-c individual churches that have gone wrong from time to time, not the Church of God, the Bride of Christ. And those small-c churches that err include Orthodox as well as as Protestant churches.
 
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Ken's post reminded me of something I was going to say, which he's basically said. When SC mentioned the unerring, Spirit-guided church, how can you be sure that was referring to any church that is in any way visible. Could it be that the 'Church with a big C' is actually the body of all believers on Earth, the invisible church, as such? And then, yes, churches within that can err, including the EO, but that great invisible body of believers, containing Prot, Cath, EO and who knows what will prevail. Could it be that protestantism was and is the guidance of the Spirit helping the Church to survive as the manmade structures of human churches crumbled and went off the rails?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
[cross-posted with Dinghy Sailor]

A mild aside. Protestant Christians are here criticised for using the Bible to judge the teachings of churches rather than the other way round. It is said that we shoudl follow the traditions or the church in reading the Bible.

But which traditions of the church? Or the traditions of which churches? Andreas and the other Orthodox here would (I expect) be sorrowful that most of the churches that used to be Orthodox now aren't. (Which they blatantly aren't because most of them are Roman Catholic or Protestant)

But if someone is looking for guidance now, how do they know in which of these sundered churches it is best to be found? The Catholic Orthodox church split in two, East from West. How can a Christian now know which one best passes on the teachings? The west split into Roman and Reformed. How does today's Christian tell which is the good guy and which the bad? The Protestants at least have a coherent answer to this question - the Church is Christ's, the Bible is a record of eyewitnesses to the saving events of God's intervention in the history of the Jews and of the life of Jesus Christ, so we can see which of the competing churches most matches that Bible. It might not be a true answer but its at least internally self-consistent.

If we were folowing Sophia's principle that the Spirit cannot allow the whole church to err, and if we were to say that that must be the case for the visible church here on Earth, that might lead us to Rome, as the largest of the competing denominations. After all, what kind of a God would abandon half or three-quarters or more of his people and only give the guidance and protection of the Spirit to a tiny minority?

Some Orthodox would claim that the Eastern church continued as it had been after the schism, and the Western changed. Just as some Roman Catholics claim that Rome continued on unchanged through the Reformation and the Protestants altered and innovated.

But that doesn't work at all. First, you'd have to be a pretty seriously well-educated ancient historian to satisfy yoourself that the eastern churches didn't change. Which brings private judgement back into it. And if you look you can find plenty of historians (not all of them Roman Catholics) who claim that it has changed. And many more who would claim that the united national church of the Roman Empire was in fact very different from the early church, itself very different from the apostolic churches. How is the seeker to know that the changes in church practice in 1500 or 1000 are less important than those in 500, or 150, or 50? How far back should we look? If we look far enough back we can always find something very different from a modern Orthodox church worship.

And then you'll hear some very low-church Protestant voices saying that their church is more like the early church than the more liturgical churches are. Encultured to modern conditions of course. The minister may wear a shirt and tie rather than robes. But then he probably drives a car rather than a camel. That is all unimportant. The underlying reality of it, the important relationships between Christian and Christian and between Christians and Christ are, they would say, better instantiated in their churches than in ritualistic ones.

Most of the very few people I have known who have converted from Protestant to Orthodox have said something like "it felt right" or "it was like coming home" or "there was an atmosphere of holiness" or "I could be at peace there". All wonderful things - but surely that is subjectng the churches to the individual judgement of the emotions? Without Scripture to back it up we'd all be doing whatever felt most comfortable to us (or maybe we'd alll be Pentecostalists...)

So the (traditional!) Protestant claim is that the study of scripture is exactly what guards us from following our individual whims (or cultural, or collective ones) and gives us some confidence that we are in that great tradition of the Church of Jesus Christ.

[ 01. November 2005, 14:54: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How does today's Christian tell which is the good guy and which the bad? The Protestants at least have a coherent answer to this question - the Church is Christ's, the Bible is a record of eyewitnesses to the saving events of God's intervention in the history of the Jews and of the life of Jesus Christ, so we can see which of the competing churches most matches that Bible.

But how? And whose interpretation of the Bible?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How does today's Christian tell which is the good guy and which the bad? The Protestants at least have a coherent answer to this question - the Church is Christ's, the Bible is a record of eyewitnesses to the saving events of God's intervention in the history of the Jews and of the life of Jesus Christ, so we can see which of the competing churches most matches that Bible.

But how? And whose interpretation of the Bible?
A lot of the Bible doesn't need interpreting.
(Granted that a significant amount does).
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Without interpretation, it's just squiggles on paper.
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A lot of the Bible doesn't need interpreting.
(Granted that a significant amount does).

Can you cite three consecutive verses that require no interpretation of any sort, then?

And how have you chosen which translation to use?

T.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Without interpretation, it's just squiggles on paper.

Surely that should be, "Without reading lessons it's just squiggles on paper."

There is an awful lot in the Gospels that is self-evident.

[ 01. November 2005, 15:14: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
A quite fascinating thread. Pity I didn't get involved sooner.

Definitions, definitions. Nobody has defined what the hell they even mean by "Protestant" and that fact alone has caused roughly 30% of the arguments on this thread. (More like 32% with a +/- 3% margin of error, of course.)

Mudfrog (or Mudfoot as he's been called here) defines Protestantism as inclusive only of Churches which accept certain creeds. This makes it easy to then assert that all Protestants believe similar things, like creeds. Circular definition and proof. I love it.

I grew up as a Northern Baptist in Pennsylvania, later spent some time as a member of a Christian & Missionary Alliance church even deeper in Pennsylvania while attending Penn State (go Lions), and have since ended up at one of those undefined, uncategorized "Non-Denominational" churches ("Our church is completely different from all of you because it's exactly the same as all the other ones that are different...").

To me, growing up, Protestant meant non-Catholic. There was some vague notion of the word "Anglican" but it seemed antiquated, and Orthodox was never even heard of (didn't really understand them until college). And for that matter, Protestant was basically synonymous with "Christian" since a common question heard throughout my life was "Are they Christian or Catholic?" American church-life can be interesting in these ways.

I don't really have a good answer for this. What IS a Protestant, really? Part of the definition has to include the fact that when Luther somewhat unwittingly "broke away," he must have had no idea what chain he'd started. Andreas, you can assert that the Orthodox church has no central authority, but does any Orthodox ever wonder if s/he is really a part of the Orthodox church or not? There's a well-enough defined set of beliefs/doctrines/statements/etc. that you ascribe to. With Protestantism, it's different.

My question, then, is this: Are there a set of beliefs that we can point to that would categorize you necessarily from one group to another? Meaning, if you didn't know a person's faith heritage, but you were given a list of their beliefs or actions or church traditions, etc., could you point out, "Ah! There you go, this one's a Catholic," or "Ohhh well look at that right there, this one's a Protestant!" quite easily? What would these tell-tale defining characteristics be (no matter how vague they'd have to be)?

-Digory
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Without interpretation, it's just squiggles on paper.

Surely that should be, "Without reading lessons it's just squiggles on paper."

There is an awful lot in the Gospels that is self-evident.

Evidence, evidence. Karl's point is that the simple understanding of language is a form of interpretation. Mine is that you're making assertions without examples. I'd like to see responses on both counts, thanks.

T.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Reading is one part of interpretation, Mudfrog.

Processing the words in the brain is the a second.

Deciding to intepret the semantic meaning of the words as if they had just been delivered in a clearly didactic, simple, statement of fact manner, is then an interpretation, albeit one that many people mysteriously don't consider to be interpretation.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I am not going to post three verses because I recognise and understand that everything in the Bible can benefit from interpretation but I would assert that it doesn't all need interpreting.

You can read the synoptic Gospels at face value and understand the narrative enough to be able to believe.

The wonderful thing about the Bible is that you can read it on different levels.

And isn't interpretation different to explanation?

For example, there are a lot of asides in the synoptics that Matthew or Luke put in to 'explain' what's going on, (this was done to fulfil, etc...) but John is very much an interpreter of the events.
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Without interpretation, it's just squiggles on paper.

Surely that should be, "Without reading lessons it's just squiggles on paper."

There is an awful lot in the Gospels that is self-evident.

I would hope we wouldn't have to actually go through with this exercise, but surely you can see that any of us could request one passage (3 to 4 verses) of any Gospel that is self-evident, and upon your response, show the differing interpretations.


-Digory


[Edited to decrease my jerk-ness. Apologies.]
[Cross-posted with many others, I think.]

[ 01. November 2005, 15:24: Message edited by: professorkirke ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:

Mudfrog (or Mudfoot as he's been called here) defines Protestantism as inclusive only of Churches which accept certain creeds. This makes it easy to then assert that all Protestants believe similar things, like creeds. Circular definition and proof. I love it.


Good point! Like the argument that I've oft-heard which goes "Isn't it amazing that all evangelicals despite being from different denominations all believe the same things about the primacy of Scripture, penal substitutionary atonement etc because they just follow Scripture"...which is rather like saying "Isn't it amazing that all men called Bob are also called Robert"
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:


You can read the synoptic Gospels at face value and understand the narrative enough to be able to believe.

Reading at "face value" is a form of interpretation, Mudfrog.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

You can read the synoptic Gospels at face value and understand the narrative enough to be able to believe.


OK, my Muddy friend, how do you deal with this quote from Ron Sider, taken from Evangelism and Social Action [note to Hosts - if I err in posting this, please forgive and delete [Biased] ):-

“Social activists quote Luke 4:16ff to prove that faithful Christians, like Jesus, must meet the physical needs of the poor, blind, lame and oppressed. Charismatics quote Luke 4:16ff to demonstrate faithful Christians, like Jesus, should be “filled with the power of the Spirit” and therefore perform miraculous signs and wonders. Proponents of world evangelisation cite Luke 4:16ff…to show that faithful Christians, like Jesus, will present Good News to those who have not yet heard. Tragically, each group sometimes ignores or even rejects the concerns of others. The different interpretations of specific texts, of course, result from fundamentally divergent understandings of the kingdom. Medieval Catholicism, on the one hand, tended to identify the kingdom with the institutional, visible church. Modern social activists, on the other hand, have viewed the kingdom largely as a social-economic-political reality that beings can create through politics – whether democratic politics in the social gospel movement or Marxist revolution in some liberation theology. Many 20th century evangelicals understand the kingdom largely as an inner spiritual reality in the souls of believers…Other conservative Christians (in the dispensationalist tradition of Darby and the Scofield Reference Bible) have seen the kingdom as entirely future.”

So which meaning do you go for and why? (And that's just a few verses)
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Without interpretation, it's just squiggles on paper.

Surely that should be, "Without reading lessons it's just squiggles on paper."

There is an awful lot in the Gospels that is self-evident.

I would hope we wouldn't have to actually go through with this exercise, but surely you can see that any of us could request one passage (3 to 4 verses) of any Gospel that is self-evident, and upon your response, show the differing interpretations.

Needs no interpretation?!? Watch out for naivete, Muddy. It stings.

-Digory

What am saying is that the narrative accounts of the Gospels could BENEFIT from interpretation for edification, deeper study, etc; but they don't NEED interpretation to be understood.

EG, the healing of blind Bartimaeus. It's an event, a healing. It happened.

Now, you can explain it - give background, look up Greek words, etc, etc.

Then you can interpret it, allegorise it, spiritualize it, personalize it.

But that interpretation is not necessary to understand that Jesus healed a blind man.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

You can read the synoptic Gospels at face value and understand the narrative enough to be able to believe.


OK, my Muddy friend, how do you deal with this quote from Ron Sider, taken from Evangelism and Social Action [note to Hosts - if I err in posting this, please forgive and delete [Biased] ):-

“Social activists quote Luke 4:16ff to prove that faithful Christians, like Jesus, must meet the physical needs of the poor, blind, lame and oppressed. Charismatics quote Luke 4:16ff to demonstrate faithful Christians, like Jesus, should be “filled with the power of the Spirit” and therefore perform miraculous signs and wonders. Proponents of world evangelisation cite Luke 4:16ff…to show that faithful Christians, like Jesus, will present Good News to those who have not yet heard. Tragically, each group sometimes ignores or even rejects the concerns of others. The different interpretations of specific texts, of course, result from fundamentally divergent understandings of the kingdom. Medieval Catholicism, on the one hand, tended to identify the kingdom with the institutional, visible church. Modern social activists, on the other hand, have viewed the kingdom largely as a social-economic-political reality that beings can create through politics – whether democratic politics in the social gospel movement or Marxist revolution in some liberation theology. Many 20th century evangelicals understand the kingdom largely as an inner spiritual reality in the souls of believers…Other conservative Christians (in the dispensationalist tradition of Darby and the Scofield Reference Bible) have seen the kingdom as entirely future.”

So which meaning do you go for and why? (And that's just a few verses)

I don't accept the opinion of the writer you have quoted.

And you have taken a pice of Scripture that does need some unpacking. It's not narrative. The narrative bit is the account of Jesus going to the synagogue, reading the scroll and then applying the words to himself. The Protestant - even the uneducated one - would then look at the Gospel narrative, read Christ's words, watch his actions and understand that the teachings and miracles of Jesus were the 'how' he fulfilled the Scripture he read.

Sometimes you can over interpret something.

[ 01. November 2005, 15:34: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
Just to make sure you notice my edit of the original post, and my deletion of certain words/phrases. Unfortunately they still ended up in your quote.

Like I said, apologies!

-Digory
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
OK Mudfrog, you have yet another interpretation of the passage - QED. But why and how do you hold to your particular interpretation?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK Mudfrog, you have yet another interpretation of the passage - QED. But why and how do you hold to your particular interpretation?

Duh! Because it's the obvious one and isn't obscured by theology and left wing socio-babble.

The obvious interpretation of a passage is usually the right one.

I fail to see how anyone can read the passage you quoted and not see how easy it is to say "Christ read a passage about the Good News, applied it to himself and then fulfilled it as demonstrated in the rest of the Gospel."

As I said, sometimes you can ubscure the simple meaning by interpreting it too much - and in a way that was never intended.

An example of this was how the Church has interpreted the parables. There is only one meaning to each parable and it's a broad brush stroke; but the church has often allegorised absolutely every detail ad infinitum so it's way above the original meaning. It's ridiculous and often obscures the simple meaning Jesus was intending.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
(a) why is it 'obvious'?
(b) how do we apply it today?
(c) why should I trust your so-called 'obvious' interpretation over any other?
 
Posted by Petaflop (# 9804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So the (traditional!) Protestant claim is that the study of scripture is exactly what guards us from following our individual whims (or cultural, or collective ones) and gives us some confidence that we are in that great tradition of the Church of Jesus Christ.

The problem is that the traditional protestant claim leads to a wide variety of substantially different conclusions.

The introductorary essay (J. Rogerson, I think, or maybe J. Barton) I've read on biblical interpretation (and so this might not reflect the balance of opinion in the field) was arguing that Luther's move to examine the Bible on its own terms, rather than on the basis of church tradition, was the forerunner of the liberal school of biblical interpreation, and that his conclusions were correspondingly radical.

The roots of the evangelical school appear in the later stages of the reformation, and involve the imposition of a new, albeit slimmed down, layer of tradition, dictating what is scripture and how it is to be interpreted, in particular various stronger theories of inspiration. With a certain amount of special pleading, the Bible can be interpreted from this viewpoint.

The liberal school by contrast tried to look at the Bible without first chosing a method of interpretation (indeed more recently going so far as to learn from interpreters from outside Christianity), and found a rather different document - a heteredox document largely recording people's often contradictory stories about and experiences of God, rather than a divine dictation or book of theology.

So, you have two very different strands, both claiming to be protestant, but with very different views of scripture.

Which of these is a more accurate reflection of Protestantism? I'm not sure that has an answer. It may be possible to say which of these is closer to Luther's ideas. (But I'd want to read a lot more before drawing a firm conclusion).
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK Mudfrog, you have yet another interpretation of the passage - QED. But why and how do you hold to your particular interpretation?

Duh! Because it's the obvious one and isn't obscured by theology and left wing socio-babble.
Of course, that opinion is down to how you've interpreted the non-Biblical text quoted. If theology obscures, it's not doing its job. 'Left wing socio-babble' is just a critical boo-word for stuff you (centre-right? not sure) disagree with.

quote:
The obvious interpretation of a passage is usually the right one.
This is a doubly circular definition, since neither 'obvious' nor 'right' is easy to define. Often, people will say that an interpretation is right because it is obvious - as you seem to be doing. Conversely, people with a specific preconception of a text's meaning may assert that it is obvious, where others would differ. (The 'on this rock...' passage quoted in this thread is a good example of that.)

quote:
I fail to see how anyone can read the passage you quoted and not see how easy it is to say "Christ read a passage about the Good News, applied it to himself and then fulfilled it as demonstrated in the rest of the Gospel."
But this depends on your interpretation of the passage in Isaiah, because what Jesus' act of interpreting that passage in terms of his own life and ministry means depends on what you think the prophet meant - and what you think Jesus thought he meant. That's really a highly ironic choice of passage.

quote:
As I said, sometimes you can obscure the simple meaning by interpreting it too much - and in a way that was never intended.
Many Jewish scholars hold that that's what Christians have done with the passage 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive...', yet every Advent and Christmas we're told that our version is both obvious and true.

quote:
An example of this was how the Church has interpreted the parables. There is only one meaning to each parable and it's a broad brush stroke; but the church has often allegorised absolutely every detail ad infinitum so it's way above the original meaning. It's ridiculous and often obscures the simple meaning Jesus was intending.
So what about the (possibly interpolated) interpretation of the parable of the sower? A school of thought holds that the original intention of that parable was less complex and allegorical, and more like that of the parable of the mustard seed, which follows it.

T.
 
Posted by Petaflop (# 9804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
EG, the healing of blind Bartimaeus. It's an event, a healing. It happened.

No, even in this one sentence you've performed several interpretative steps. Two major ones include the examination of genre and context. You have decided that this is a piece of narrative. It's not a parable, it's not a song, or a liturgy, or a theodicy, or a drama, or myth, or apocolypse , or prophecy - all of these demand different interpretations. If we go back a few lines, we don't find an introduction saying 'Peter told them a story', for example.

Now for this passage, I agree with you assignment of genre. However I suspect that we would find large chunks of the old testament on which the people here would make decidedly different judgements of genre.
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mudfrog, what does your interpretation of Jesus' rebuke to the Revelation churches say about His earlier statement of "I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail" (Matt 16:18)?

In fact the more I think about it, the more spurious this prooftexting seems.

There is nothing in these words by way of everlasting covenant.
Perhaps they promise that in the 250 years of Roman persecution ahead the movement would not be destroyed. Possibly even that if the movement ever went off the rails it would be restored or rise up again.

But that, throughout the millennia, there will forever be organisation in institutional continuity with the first church, and that it will be the same church of Jesus despite all corruption, crimes against humanity and the utter moral degradation of its leaders - that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So which meaning do you go for and why? (And that's just a few verses)

All of them. And a lot more. An eternal an omniscient God can easily arrange for one sentence to mean different but appropriate things to millions of readers [Biased]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
(a) why is it 'obvious'?
(b) how do we apply it today?
(c) why should I trust your so-called 'obvious' interpretation over any other?

I can ask the same questions about the teachings of any Catholic or Orthodox tradition. At least I know that (more or less) we're all dealing with the same written Gospel (give or take a variant reading here or there).
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK Mudfrog, you have yet another interpretation of the passage - QED. But why and how do you hold to your particular interpretation?

Duh! Because it's the obvious one and isn't obscured by theology and left wing socio-babble.
That is very funny.

So when you say the Bible doesn't need interpreting you mean that when there are differences in interpretation yours is right.

Every Protestant is their own Pope.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Sophia's Questions posted, way back when:
quote:
This is not something that you will find in any Bible. Scripture tells us that when individuals err in the Church they are to be corrected, but there is never the notion that the Church will err. It cannot err if it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The constancy in the Church is a testament to this guidance.

I'm wondering what constancy you're referring to, especially since over the years the RCC has adopted many of Luther's suggested reforms. [Biased]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mudfrog, what does your interpretation of Jesus' rebuke to the Revelation churches say about His earlier statement of "I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail" (Matt 16:18)?

In fact the more I think about it, the more spurious this prooftexting seems.

There is nothing in these words by way of everlasting covenant.
Perhaps they promise that in the 250 years of Roman persecution ahead the movement would not be destroyed. Possibly even that if the movement ever went off the rails it would be restored or rise up again.

But that, throughout the millennia, there will forever be organisation in institutional continuity with the first church, and that it will be the same church of Jesus despite all corruption, crimes against humanity and the utter moral degradation of its leaders - that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

Indeed - the stuff I have read - and not all of it evangelical - holds that Jesus was simply referring to Peter and the disciples. This group was the 'church' (chosen/called out ones - ekklesia) that he was referring to; and whilst Peter was given the keys (to be used in association with the other disciples, not on his own) there is no hint of a succession that would ensure that Peter's authority would pass down unhindered, unblemished and unassailed into a future worldwide denomination.

Note that it was James who leads the jerusalem church, not Peter.

Note also that it is the Apostles' teaching that is followed in Acts 2, not Peter's alone.
 
Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
(Let me preface my comment with: My argument is not that Protestantism is worthless, rather that it is not Truth, and when something as important as your eternal life in the balance, our first concern should be Truth.)

Neither you nor Mudfoot replied to my central issue with Protestantism, that even if the central theology is correct and agreed upon by all (Christ saves, follow Him), that could not be more irrelevant to our salvation.

Well, then I'm afraid we can have no mutual understanding. The most important thing to Christ as he stated was to love God and to love your neighbor. All the Prophets and the law could be summed up in this. Have you ever considered that perhaps you are deviating from Christ's commands, according to his word?

quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Either The Creator was able to impart truth or he was not. One may find edification in the pages of Scripture, but unless ones reading is in accord with the Fathers of the Church and with it's dogma, what claim can it have to truth? If any, is it a higher claim than a fellow protestant with an opposite interpretation? We can spend countless lifetimes reading Scripture, but in the end, how do we know if what we have gleaned is Truth? (italics mine, js)

I believe in a God who raised man from the dead, I believe in a God who spoke and bang the universe started to unravel, I believe in God whose main premise is that he loves people, I believe in a God that is intelligible, I believe in a God that wants to speak to us, I believe in a God who likes love stories, and surely if this God touched lepers and spoke to outcasts and shared Truth, likewise I put my trust in Him and I don't have to be afraid of error not because I'm perfect or have perfect revelation. But I'm not afraid to make mistakes because the God who made the Universe is capable enough to help me. If you have any questions, you can ask him about that.


quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Finally (if you read this far), regarding the Orthodox view of salvation, we believe that following Christ is difficult, and requires discpline, and is a life-long process, during which we can decide to turn away from our Creator. We have free will. We don't save ourselves through works - that would impose an obligation upon God. Rather, works are the fruit of each Christian vine, and in doing them we cultivate the foundational virtues of Christianity, without which one cannot follow Christ with any success: humility, obedience, repentance, and love.

[Smile]

Well, I'm glad that God has shown us the same things. [Smile]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Let me just clarify.

Some passages of Scripture NEED interpretation because they are so dense and mystifying - and these interpretations are just myriad with no real right or wrong - Revelation for example.

Some passages of Scripture NEED interpretation because they might be hard to follow or they are highly theological - the Epistle to the Romans, for example.

Some passages BENEFIT from interpretation because the surface reading, whilst not rocket science, are obviously 1st Century Jewish and without interpretation the truth is lost on western 21st Century minds.

Some passages BENEFIT from interpretation just by way of explanation and interest.

Some passages - mainly historical narrative - CAN be interpreted to give a spiritual meaning. ie, what does this passage mean to me?

Some passages - historical narrative - don't NEED interpretation because they are history - however, an interpretation CAN add to the adequate surface meaning and shed extra light.

Some passages are interpreted by their own context and are explained right there and then. The interpretation is there for all to see - Blessed are the peacemakers for example - it's so obvious.
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Some passages - historical narrative - don't NEED interpretation because they are history - however, an interpretation CAN add to the adequate surface meaning and shed extra light.

Some passages are interpreted by their own context and are explained right there and then. The interpretation is there for all to see - Blessed are the peacemakers for example - it's so obvious.

I don't you're going to get many takers for this view, MF. But can we perhaps all agree that, whether right or wrong, the issue is a sidetrack to this thread.

We were talking about differences in doctrine, practice etc. between Protestants and others. These differences are based on Bible passages about justification, salvation, communion, worship, etc., not about the healing of Bartemaus.

Accepting, for the sake of argument, that the passages you talk about do not require interpretation, it's the ones that do require interpretation that divide the churches, so perhaps we could talk about those on this thread; and if people want to talk about epistemology start a new one for that.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Let me just clarify. Some passages of Scripture NEED interpretation [...] Some passages BENEFIT from interpretation [...] Some passages - mainly historical narrative - CAN be interpreted to give a spiritual meaning [...] Some passages - historical narrative - don't NEED interpretation because they are history

But surely it is obvious to everyone here participating in this almost non-argument that we are (deliberatly) using the word "interpretation" in different ways? (And its a bit of sixth-form philosophy that no-one can ever be sure they really know what someone else meant by anything they said or wrote)

There is the totally neccessary interpretation that goes with understanding any language or symbolic system. Including what the church says as well as what the Bible does. This is the "interpretation" that leads to what you might call the brain-dead literal meaning.

Then the "interpretation" of colloquialism and context and so on leading to what you might call the "face value" meaning.

Then there is the "interpretation" of tone and connotation and implication that we can't get away from in any human language.

Then there is the "interpretation" second and third order symbolisms, of allegory and metaphor and numerology and all those ways of talking that really are found in the Bible. Then the "intepretation" of context and genre.

Then the "intepretation" of trying to work out what the passage meant to the original hearers or readers (do people in theological colleges still go on about "hermeneutics" all the time?) which has to take into account all the stuff that's gone before.

Then the "intepretation" of working out what it means to me, now (which is a totally valid thing to be working out if you beleive Scripture inspired by God

And all that is before you get into the the allegorical and anagogical and teleological "intepretations" beleoived of the churches in some times and places.

Then the "intepretation" of all that as implemented anmd read into our lives and outr churches.

I agree with you in that the first two or three - maybe three or four - of these layers of "interpretation" are, for many of the books of the Bible, things that you'd expect well-intentioned readers to agree on. But the last two or three might be validly different for different readers. And there is plenty of debatable territory in the middle.

If course exactly the same applies to the teachings of any church The first few of those layers of "intepretation" are employed in understanding any language, whether its a sermon in church, or a liturgy, or a hymn, or a posting on the Ship of Fools.

And its no get-out to say that the practice and worship of churches bears their doctrine more than any more apparent teaching. An ritual or an icon or a stained glass window all need "reading" - and are in symbol systems that are less natural to most people than language of words.

quote:

Blessed are the peacemakers for example - it's so obvious.

If only it was [Frown] We've had people on these very boards claiming scriptural justification for the unprovoked invasion of other countries. And others who are complete pacifists and say it is wrong even to defend your own country.
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by A.F. Steve:
Given two conflicting views of the meaning of scripture, you would turn to the teachings of the heirachical organisation you (from a Protestant view) mistakenly call the Church. You view the teachings of that heirachy to be trustworthy.

At the core of Protestantism is a view that human organisations are not always trustworthy in this imperfect/fallen world, and that it is thus responsibility of the individual believer, as part of the Church (ie all Christians) and in the light of God's indwelling spirit to discern right beliefs and from them right actions.

Yes, that seems right.

Just to clarify - that quote is from a post of mine addressing A. F. Steve, not from A.F.Steve himself, who I think would disagree with it.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
My point was:
1) The second commandment forbids the use of images.
2) Catholics, Orthodox, (and many Protestants) use images.
Therefore
3) Catholics, Orthodox, (and many Protestants) do not follow the second commandment.

In exactly the same way, almost no Christians obey the commandment about the Sabbath. For this they have explicit sanction in the NT. Image worship has the sanction of tradition.

I make no comment about the rightness or wrongness of either. I'm just saying just that when Andreas says there is no difference between Orthodox and Protestant attitudes to the Bible because Orthodox practice does not contravene the Bible, one would be using quite peculiar definitions of all of those words for his statement to be true.

Your characterization of the use of icons, artwork, etc. as "image worship" is the same argument used by the defeated iconoclasts, and it is grossly inaccurate. If the Church thought that the use of icons encouraged believers to be put anything ahead of God, the Church would not use icons. If you want to know about them please ask, I would be glad to tell you what I know.

One thing that must be said is that the use of artwork, and later smaller, portable pieces of artwork (icons) has apparently been a part of the Church from the beginning, so if it is "wrong" scripturally, it would be news to the early Christians. To think that these often persecuted and martyred people were so weak in their faith that they created idols to worship, which is what the commandment forbids, is illogical and (unintentionally) disrespectful of them. The Bible doesn't tell us a lot about the means of worship in the early Church, so what we can glean from history helps in many cases, and we know that the early Church did not hesitate to adorn their churches with artwork.

[fixed quote code]

[ 02. November 2005, 16:22: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
If one of the Eastern churches claimed that something they did was a tradition handed down from the time of the apostles, I would have to acknowledge the claim as possible. However, since I *know* that the Bible (and the Didache etc) has survived since the time of the early church, I would want to check the tradition against scripture -
What makes you think that your feeble mind - or my feeble mind - can understand scripture better than the concensus of the first millenium of Christianity? Why would any single individual look at the universal understanding of the faith from the first millenium of Christianity and think that any thought they might have would compare to the wisdom of that consensus? That question demands an answer.

[fixed quote code]

[ 02. November 2005, 16:23: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
(Let me preface my comment with: My argument is not that Protestantism is worthless, rather that it is not Truth, and when something as important as your eternal life in the balance, our first concern should be Truth.)

St. Seraphim said,
quote:
An essential part of Protestantism is the belief that people have the right to read the Bible and decide what to believe based on the Gift of the Holy Spirit given to them at Baptism.
Yes, and this belief must be held by Protestants, else they can have no claim whatever to legitimacy. Having decided to ignore the reality of the historic Church, they could only claim to recreate it through faith and a diligent reading of Scripture. But this belief is not a part of any Christian dogma until Protestantism surfaced. This belief is so elastic that it allows for the likes of Joseph Smith and what's-his-name-the-JW-guy to both believe that they were moved by the spirit. Without the guidance of the Church, it is difficult to know if one is moved by the Spirit or by something nefarious. We don't know Smith's heart (he appears to have been of dubious character) so can't know if he thought he was actually moved by God or not. Likewise, whoever started up unitarianism and the other universal salvation beliefs probably also felt so moved. This idea is full of error and mischief, and has led many astray. Either The Creator was able to impart truth or he was not. One may find edification in the pages of Scripture, but unless ones reading is in accord with the Fathers of the Church and with it's dogma, what claim can it have to truth? If any, is it a higher claim than a fellow protestant with an opposite interpretation? We can spend countless lifetimes reading Scripture, but in the end, how do we know if what we have gleaned is Truth? In protestantism there is no standard of Truth, and using the Bible as 'arbiter of truth' is unworkable because doing to leads only to a multitude of 'small t' truths.

[Smile]


What I said was scripture was essential for a Protestant, not that it was the only thing. In fact many Protestant churches do use tradtion (ok, maybe only 100 years of it [Biased] ) to back up what they read and interpret in the Bible.
quote:
I didn't mean to infer that you rely upon the Bible only. All churches have traditions, and St. Paul told us to hold fast to them.
And such a view does lead to there being all sort of odd, if not heretical practices being used. But history has shown that the same thing did occur in the RC church. (Something that I personally don't believe is happening today IMHO).
quote:
Not sure what you meant by the last bit. Yes, you are correct, sola scriptura has led to all manner of error. Now, can truth beget error? Things breed true over time, error begets error, truth begets truth.
If there is such a thing as an arbiter of truth, a church who really understands the Bible because their earliest members heard about it from the lips of the Master, and passed it on intact, then we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians. A bold statement, but consider it: What was the genesis of the excommunication of the church at Rome in 1054? SS. A group of people picking up the Bible and deciding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the The Father _and_ the Son, in direct conflict with the universal Christian Creed, and insisting on telling believers about their new belief. Does it affect our salvation? Likely not. So why the fuss? Why did the Church lop off one of its limbs? Because allowing error to persist in the Church means that everything is open to error. The Truth, in the view of the Church, is sacred and inviolable.
The Church at Rome was also becoming attached to the idea that the pope was able to discern and explain biblical truth with God's help (the Bishop of Rome was called 'pope' for centuries before the RC excommunication, but it was a name only). This obviously opened up a giant pandora's box, and militated against the understanding of the Church, which is that the concensus of the councils of the Church and the consensus of the saints should guide us always.
The whole episode is a crying shame (literally), and led directly to Protestantism. But consider this: Even with the RC changes right from the get-go, RC theology and tradition and worship was satisfying and authentic enough that it took nearly half a millenium before changes came. To my mind, this speaks to the authenticity of Orthodoxy - its vestige carried believers along for nearly 500 years.

As far as there being only one road to Christ, I've always had problems with that view. There may be only one road for me, but that road may be different for someone else.

Perhaps this is a matter of semantics. Surely we will all have a different journey if we decide to follow Christ. But the road is the same. The contours, the signposts, the difficulties, the destination. The Creator would not leave it up to each of us to figure it out for ourselves. The road and the walking of it must be known to us if we are the creations of a loving God.
Can you tell me that if you and I were to both, say, go to Jerusalem we would take the same route? Probably not. Are there routes that we both could take that wouldn't be direct, but would get us there eventually?

This kind of thinking is not fruitful. How can a narrow road be compared to a variety of circuitous routes? It also reduces the object of our existence - salvation - to just another destination. It is the only destination worth reaching, and as I noted in an earlier post, if we were truly convinced that we are immortal and that our life in Christ can be prone to error (look around), then we would be earnestly searching for truth, and would not rest with a "road" to salvation until we were certain that we were right.
quote:
And there are routes that I know I could take and become good and lost. What is important is for me to keep my eyes on where I am going and if I become lost to seek directions and sometimes I only know I'm lost when someone asks me why I'm not going the right way (ask my husband on that one!)
Ask any wife and I'm sure she will have even more examples of their husbands being hopelessly lost!I'm one, and I generally have no idea where we're going, where we parked, why we're there or when we're going to be done.

[Merciful God, I hope I've edited the rogue UBB right, including editing out the multiple repetitions of text. I aplogise if I've managed to attribute words to the wrong person. Sophia's Questions - you might want to go to the "practice your UBB" thread in the Styx and have a go there.]

[ 02. November 2005, 05:31: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Couldn't it be that the interpretation of Scripture is somehow linked to the covenant of grace? What I mean is that God will attend his word with eternal truth when and where there are people in receipt of his covenant faithfulness. After all, the interpratation of Scripture is impossible without the tri-une indwelling of God at a corporate level. Now of course just what that corpus looks like and where that corpus is located is another discussion. But I'd be inclined to say that the corpus unto which God's covenant faithfulness causes him to attend his word with truth are the elect of God. In other words, the communion of saints throughout time, or those known fully to Christ alone. I can see no reason whatsoever why those 'elect' have been both within and without the institutional visible church since the very beginning.

The Church believes that it is possible to attain salvation outside of the Church, but maintains that it is unwise to seek it there, and given the importance of it, should always be sought where we know that grace exists, in the historical Church. Orthodox would generally not argue that we know where grace does not exist, rather that we know where, for a certainty, it does exist.

[edited rogue UBB code]

[ 02. November 2005, 05:33: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
Hi Dinghy -

quote:
Can we really be responsible for our own salvation, though? This protestant would say that we are saved soley by grace, so whatever choices we make, the ultimate responsibility for us being in Heaven rests with Jesus on the cross, for the free gift of salvation that God offers. Yes, we may have the responsibility to take that gift, but whether or not we choose to take it still depends on whether or not God offers it in the first place.
It is a gift insofar as we can never earn or deserve it, but we are still called work out our salvation with fear and trembling. If someone is really prepared to do that, and even makes a good start at it, does that not constitute genuine faith? If so, why persevere? If salvation is then assured, why not enjoy the rest of your time here to the fullest?
Now, to that you would surely say that once someone finds that faith, where they earnestly begin to change their lives, to repent, their love of God will be growing, and to return to a life apart from him would be unthinkable. True, in some cases. But we see in our own lives how our faithfulness can wax and wane, and with the certainty of salvation, when it is easier to do the easy or pleasurable thing, we will be more inclined to do so than we will if we earnestly believe we must, as a condition of our salvation, be constantly working it out.
Beyond that, "packaging" the idea of eternal communion with the Godhead with words like "free" and "Jesus is 'responsible'" for our salvation does believers a great disservice. Christ is the vehicle, we are the responsible party. His hands are always extended, His love for us is boundless, He will help us in whatever ways are conducive to our spiritual growth, but to say that we are not primarily responsible is a very dangerous idea, encouraging believers to abandon responsibility, which is always hard to bear. We will often use whatever excuse we can find to avoid it, especially when we don't consider the results to be damning. [/b]

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions: Rome was one of five co-equal patriarchates
That's a very Orthodox view. Try telling a Roman that.
It's a fact of history - none of the Patriarchates held sway over the others.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
If sola scriptura has given us everything from RC <slight snip> to Mormons

But Rome has its Tradition and infallibility, and Mormons have their book of Mormon and golden specs. Neither of those groups is sola scriptura.
The point is that SS makes all of them possible. See my post a few back RE its role in the RC excommunication. And do you think it is an accident that Smith lived and developed his doctrine in protestant America in 1820 instead of in Constantinople in 820? SS is the foundation of every Christian heresy - every divergence of significance from the always understood Truth was based upon some group's reading of the Bible. The Arians thought Christ a created being, based upon their understanding of the Bible, and they were corrected and reconciled by the first Ecumenical Council in 325. For heresy to exist in the world, it must be measured against something unchanging. The only unchanging thing in Christianity is the Bible and the Orthodox Church's understanding of it. Everyone else's ideas about it are evolving. Truth does not evolve. It is expressed in different ways in different times, but its characteristics and substance never change.

quote:
To attempt an answer to your response to Quantpole, I'd ask what liturgy the Church used before the 4th century, before Sts Basil & John's day? Does God actually care about what precise liturgy we use, anyway? I for one really don't see why He should care whether we sing Kyrie e Leison, Depths of Mercy or Shine Jesus Shine, whether we use Eucharistic prayer A, B or C (I'm sure they all say the same thing) or whether we pronounce "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" or "Dying you destroyed our death, Rising you restored our life, Lord Jesus come in glory". They all say much the same thing. Should He not be pleased? Graham Kendrick is a part of the ongoing tradition of British hymnwriters, his talents grew organically within the church as much as anyone else's.
An excellent point. God is surely pleased when one of His beloved creations shows their love for Him. That is why He made us. The point about the Orhodox liturgy that I was making is that it is yet another proof of the unchanging nature of the Church. That the Church practiced different forms of the liturgy (and still does today on certain days of the year) is true, and is a testament to your argument.
But we know from History that the central 'service' of the early Christians was the service celebrating the Sacrament of Holy Communion. The Divine Litugy is followed universally because it is exceptional in every regard, and there is no reason to change what works.

quote:
I must admit that your response to my post confused me rather, so if you could post it again more succinctly I'd be gratified. I'll try to answer it as well as I can, though.
If I haven't cleared it up since PLMK where you're confused.

quote:
quote:

SQ had said,
quote:
even if the central theology is correct and agreed upon by all (Christ saves, follow Him), that could not be more irrelevant to our salvation. Better someone who does not fully understand, or even misunderstands, but still walks the road, than one who is correct and yet lost, or never seeks the road.
Now you say (still not sure of the system, but I opened a can of worms, and haven't made it to styx for training, sorry)

The basic message I get here is that though we may know we have to follow Christ, protestants are not doing so, for some reason. Why do you see us as not doing so? What is the fault?
How many people do you know who are earnestly following Christ? We're told to resist sin unto blood. Do we? I'm not saying that Protestants can't or don't in some cases follow Christ (nor do all Orthodox do so). Rather, that because the road was described as being narrow, and because it is difficult to follow Christ, why would one allow their own opinions to affect it in any way?
That is what SS encourages. AISB (that's "as I said before" - used to refer to something discussed at greater length before - is there another acronym or can I get something started here?) we don't say salvation is impossible outside the Church, but that it is difficult enough inside the Church that being outside of it, and it's Sacraments, makes no sense, once knows of the Church's existence.

quote:
If salvation is by faith, surely putting our trust in Jesus is enough, as he will then work on our hearts and show us how to follow him?
He told us how to follow Him, and he said Himself that it is difficult. That's why we need the best help we can find to encourage our spiritual growth.

quote:
Plus, we have the scriptures that we are sure haven't changed since, ooh, about 100AD to guide us on our way, and Christian friends to help us. Is not being in the Orthodox church enough to count us as "not on the road"? Looking back at what Jesus told His disciples then, from documents that are of verifiable age, He never mentioned a church of any name, but he did give instructions on how to follow Him. If I can use these to do so separately from Orthodoxy, surely that shows that Orthodoxy is not a requirement for "following the road", and so you shouldn't disqualify the protestants who are acting like you but merely not part of your church as "standing by the side of the road"?
That was said in a general sense, of all Christians. Much of what I said above applies here, but two additional points should be addressed.
First, RE the establishment of a specific Church: It is clear from Scripture that in some regard, however one defines it, Christ entrusted the apostles to preserve and spread the truth. At the same time, he spoke words which people interpret in different ways, but that the Church, and the RC Church, have always believed confers upon the Church that he was establishing that poower to act as an intermediary for the forgivness of sins, and the power to leave them unforgiven if a sinner is clearly unrepentant. Christ did this in order to encourage repentance and hope. AISB, this power was entrusted to future generations by the Apostles, and it happend inside of something that, a generation later, St. Paul would call "the church". That one church has always existed, and has always been brutally persecuted, first by the pagans, later by modern day pagans, the Communists. Every other Christian group is "outside" of this one unchanging entity.

I said,
quote:
if the path is obvious (follow Christ), why is it, and the gate, narrow
you replied
quote:
Because as you said, truly loving our neighbour, giving up some of our pleasures for him, (and not smacking my little brother round the face when he's annoying, and forgivign the guy who recently ran into me in his car) is hard to do. The gate is narrow because Satan still exists in the world, and he won't let temptation go away. We have all the information we need to follow God,
How can someone say that when they see the diffusion of belief around them, about walking the path and everything else related to our salvation?
quote:
it's just the willpower and strength that's lacking. If we really ask Him for help, He'll provide us with all that we need, it's just that for most people, we don't even really want to be made pure, it's too painful.

What is lacking is not willpower, but what is indicated in your next sentence, humility. I maintain that a central element of that humility is that we can't know the answers ourselves based upon our intellect. Something much firmer and concrete than our squishy brains is necessary.

quote:
In your second paragraph, you talk about Truth alot. Why is it capitalised, may I ask?
It's capitalized (great question) because, like God, it is singular. By definition. It is the only thing that is not contingent upon something else being true.

quote:
Is it because you believe the remaining patriachates to hold the one, unerring truth? How can you be so sure? When did God promise that? You said it was impossible for the whole church to err, but looking at the bible, it has already happened. Take Jesus, for example. I can remember possibly two pharissees who were not against him, and the establishment of Judaism had him murdered. So much for the preservation of Truth. Less than a century later, Paul wrote, when he wrote to "the church in Corinth" and John wrote, when he wrote to the seven churches, not to "yeah, the methodist church, just up the road from St Mark's" but to the church in it's entirety in one place. That was an age without fast transport, and most people would never stray far from their home town. THe churches he wrote to were the entire Christian life to most of the people involved. That was the entire church faltering. In Germany in Luther's day, how many people would ever get as far as Greece? Catholicism WAS The Church.

'Small c' churches did and do err, the 'big C' Church does not becuase it is guided by the Holy Spirit. But let me answer your central point. If we assume that the Creator could impart preservable Truth in all of its fullness (words on a page do not suffice to convey truth if they are interpreted in various ways), then that Truth has been preserved, as promised: "Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free." If the Truth, by nature, is singular and unchanging, then to find it with any hope of certainty one would look for something unchanging. The Truth can be expressed in any number of beautiful ways, but if it changes or differs from what it has always been, it is no longer the 'Truth in itself' that Christians are called to accept as an article of faith.
Second, that Truth can be very broadly defined as "believe in" or "follow" Christ, the central element of it, the Truth in general. But from there we have all kinds of different ideas about HOW to do so. The Bible places great emphasis on self-denial as a central part of Christian life. How? Why? Can we encourage it? What's the best way? How about humility> What does it really mean? Repentance? The Bible also places great emphasis on spiritual growth. How? The answers to all of these questions is the fullness of Truth.

If someone chooses to believe that they know as much of the Truth as they need to know, or even all of it, I would suggest that while their knowledge may be extraordinary, their humility is not. Nor, unless they have broken their backs studying theology, are they very serious about finding the Truth - they start with the erroneous assumption that they can figure it out for themselves.

quote:
I could be a protestant living by myself on a desert island. All that is required is me and God. You seem to be saying that an organised church structure, well, one particular church structure, is required. Is God really mean enough to deny Himself to people who for insurmountable reasons can't be part of any structure?

Where the Creator dispenses grace is His choice, being an Orthodox Christian does not insure it. We hope in earnest that God's grace will extend to _every person_, through all time. Eternal suffering is inconceivable for even the most wicked (but we do believe in it). But given the tenuous nature of our immortal existence (few shall pass), it's best, when we are not marooned on desert islands, especially when we live in an age when communication like this is possible, to look at our options.

quote:
Oh, and JWs are as far from my beleifs as they are from yours. Muslims aren't Orthodox either, but that doesn't make them protestant.
They seem to protest a lot.

[fixed code - I hope]

[ 02. November 2005, 16:41: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
When Jesus spoke about the church on earth, he was not guaranteeing an indestructable, infallible or impervious to error group. If he did, what would you have said to the churches in Asia Minor that no longer exist?
again, small c churches. The central trunk of Orthodoxy is both unchanging and eternal.
How can you say that Christ cannot impart Truth, and that the Holy Spirit cannot guide us in preserving it? That the Truth has been preserved throughout the Christian world is true in only a general sense. If you think otherwise, why do we not have a consistent answer to a question as basic as, "what is sin and how is it best avoided?" Don't bother to answer, your answer will be no closer to Truth than what I would come up with through my own reading of Scripture. No, the Truth in full, which may or may not be necessary for salvation (we'd better know) has not been widely preserved. It cannot have been, because millions of believers think, in spite of their neighbor thinking differently, that their mind is the source of truth. Who isn't guided by the Holy Spirit, you or your neighbor who disagrees with you about something central to our salvation?

quote:
The fact is that, through all its years of error, weakness, schism, faithlessness, triumph, success, reformation and renewal, the Church, the Body of Christ has done remarkably well to preserve the Gospel message and maintain the cause of Christ.
Your argument assumes that the Church is a purely physical thing. Christ entered the physical world as a physical being, in order to restore it, and humanity to communion with God. Throughout the first millenium, the Church was something concrete and physiscal that anyone could point to and say, 'that is Christ's church'. The Protestant idea that the Church is a spiritual entity only is made necessary by Protestantism, and was unknown to Christianity until Protestantism's inception.

[fixed code]

[ 02. November 2005, 16:42: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
I wrote,
Indeed, and it took much less for the four other co-equal patriarchates to excommunicate the church at Rome for heresy.
Indulgences, papism, confessional penances, amd the entire mechanistic, legalistic salvation found in RC is not present in Orthodoxy. And as a general note that is often lost in these kinds of discussions, Orthodoxy is not about tradition and ritual first, rather it is about cultivating the divine within us, come closer to the "likeness" of God, after which we were made.

To which you replied,
quote:

I was not referring to the Orthodox. I was pointing out what I was familiar with and that was a practice that Rome had. However, now you have shown where someone in the church can go astray and you have excommunicated that body from your church so it is possible for what is called church to stray or lose the truth… is that what I hear you telling me?
quote:

Holy cow, I just looked at what I posted tonight and it's a bunch of boards in a row. I guess no one is insane enough to be up this late.

AISB, every instance of falling away was a small c church, even, in comnparison to the Church as a whole, RC. The Churck has never fallen away from itself or its beliefs. That's why I can defend it so easily. You may decide it's irrelevant to your salvation, but you can't deny its existence, it's claim to an adherence to Truth trumps all others.


quote:
eriksdahl later said,
quote:


In much of Protestantism that is true. I will emphasize that as Lutherans we emphasize the idea that God does the work. It is God that makes us holy and acceptable rather than our works with God's help. We believe that man is so enslaved to sin that he cannot make any choice towards God. Any choice is a choice to sin. That is most likely distinctly a Lutheran view.
quote:


Yes, and prior to Luther, this was a view unknown to mankind. How is it that this central truth of our existence remained buried for so long? It concerns directly our communion with the Creator.
The answer is that it is not a truth at all, but rather one person's interpretation of scripture that others have decided, of their own accord, to accept. The Orthodox understanding of the nature of sin and how it affects our salvation has remained unchanged for more than 1500 years.

This was not a view unknown to man but it is a view that is drawn from scriptures that are 2,000 years old. Older than the 1500 years you give as being important. These are views that Paul gave in scriptures. Why do you only claim 1500 years when Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago? Did it take 500 years to develop something that was there earlier? Who decided that was the truth? Apparently man or the church is imperfect also and sometimes truths are covered up or lost until a fresh look once again uncovers what is so clear when is read again. You see you have shown me that the “church” can err by the fact that you have told me that the Orthodox excommunicated the church of Rome. Is it possible that in those 500 years it took for your church to come up with the “truth” that a man decided that your view was the truth? Hmmm…. How do you know that you have the truth?

I am not about to tell you that my brand of Protestantism is error free. It is not. We are an imperfect people who are part of an imperfect organization (church) who worship a perfect God. If you are happy thinking that you have the only view that has credibility then you will be walking a long, lonely road. If you are able to see others of us who have differing theologies than you do as being brothers, you will find that road a lot less lonely. I come away perhaps wrongly with the impression that you have your theological nose in the air… too good to see us under the same cross. Am I in error? I need to know. If so I do most humbly apologize for this impression.

Grace & Peace! [/QB][/QUOTE]

Grace and peace be with you as well, brother. My ego is not involved in this, but clearly I did not leave you with that impression. Please forgive my pride.
My proper approach is humility - you are my brother, even if we do not agree on the path of salvation. My greatest desire is to to defeat you, or impose my beliefs upon you, but to encourage you to explore the possibility that there is a capital T Truth (much is said about this above).
I wasn't born into Orthodoxy, I accepted it because I realized that if there is a reliable Christian Truth, Orthodoxy knows it. I could have chosen any other church, but once I learned about Orthodoxy I knew that doing so would be self-indulgent, I would be serving myself, rather than honoring what I believe to the Truth. Once I learned enough about it, it became unavoidable.

 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Sophia's Questions

Welcome to SofF and I hope you find these boards helpful and illuminating. In that spirit, may I offer you a bit of advice?

In common with lots of others, I suspect, I would be grateful if you would take the trouble to learn how to enter quotations properly in the messages you post. Duo Seraphim has already asked you nicely and, in an attempt to make your messages intelligible, has spent what I imagine is a significant amount of time editing them. That is hardly fair on him. Unintelligibly posted messages - or ones which are difficult to read - are not fair on the rest of us - and defeat your desire to communicate effectively, which is hardly in your best interests either.

I am sure your opinions on Protestantism are worth reading - but it is very difficult to be sure!

You will find the Practice Thread in The Styx. It is the first thread on that board. There are examples there of all the main facilities.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
I said,
quote:

In relation to this same argument, Mudfoot said that JWs, 7DAs, Mormons and Unitarians are not Christian. Well, they think they are. Scripture warns that many would fall away from the Truth, but the insidious thing about heresy is that the heretic never thinks of himself as such. And he may believe more fervently and loyally than the rest of us, and may still walk the path. But every divorce from the Truth produces the possibility of something like the Mormons.

to which you said,

quote:
Nothing's gained by mincing words. The teachings of the JWs (& at least some Unitarians - its hard to be sure what they believe because one meets so few of them) are clearly Christian, but Christian heretics. Disbeleiving the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. As such they have less in common with most mainstream Protestant teaching than that does with Roman Catholics or the Orthodox. Their origins lie in Protestant christianity but htey have diverged very far from it. Seventh Day Adventists are a Protestant church, yes. They have some teachings the rest of use find weird or heretical but I don't think they belong in the same company as the others you mention. The Mormons, whatever they say about themselves, are not recognisably a Christian church. Their teachings are no more Christian than those of the Muslims. In fact less, Christianity and Islam agree with each other on more things than they agree with Islam.
I agree with you substantially here. And what makes the existence of JWs possible? Sola scriptura. They believe they are Christian, that they are following the Bible, and that all of their beliefs are """ Strictly Biblical ***.

We were told to expect this, but it is still agonizing to see it.
How are you, Ken, going to convince a JW that his ideas are incorrect? Upon what Truth will you base your arguments? You and he are arguing Bible verses, which you can both do until you are hoarse, and will budge the other nary an inch, because you know that at bottom there is nothing more compelling to your opponent's beliefs than his own faith in the rightness of them. Orthodoxy destroys one's vestiges of uncertainty about one's relation to their Creator. If a person belongs to a Church outside of the only one with continuity going back to Christ and they believe that they know the Truth with any certainty, their faith is supported only by their conviction, bolstered by their spiritual successes. The same person, with the same earnestness toward the faith, does not have to place faith in his own intellect to find Truth. That doesn't mean we are dumb animals led by the nose, we still ask questions, but we know there are answers that are definitive. So the same person will grow more in Orthodoxy, even if nothing changed aside from the introduction of the Sacraments and the various spiritual disciplines. And that person will think themselves more sinful than they did when entering Orthodoxy, they will, if they are growing, be humbled, and realize more clearly how pervasive sin is, and how dependant we are upon grace given in answer to prayer to overcome it.

quote:

All four of those groups are Protestant, in that they deny the RC church and the Orthodox Church.

So did the Copts and the Nestorians. Would you call them Protestant?
quote:
OK, the origins of JWs are within Protestantism and their practices are in many wasy like those of Protestant churches, so yes, they are culturally Protestant. But the origial Arians were culturally Orthodox. Would it be fair to blame today's Orthodox for their errors?
You can't blame those who adhere to the truth for the willful falling away from it by others. Yes, the existence of Truth and the Orthodox Church established to guard it until the end of the age does, SINGULARLY, make the existence of heresy a possibility.
Could the JWs and the rest have developed absent the Protestant rerormation and/or the RC excommunication? I guess anything is possible, but it seems less likely in a world where one central Christian Truth - in its fullness - is understood by all, as was the case in the first millenium. Some Christian churches divorced themselves before Rome did, but the core remained intact. Most early heretics submitted with varying degrees of humility to the authority of the Church. Not for more than a thousand years did a really significant break happen, and it was over the nature of the 'manifestation' (for lack of a better term) of the Holy Spirit, a differentiation which makes today's differences look vast in comparison.

I'm not so sure about the Mormons - I suspect that many of the original Mormons came from a Roman Catholic background though I am not sure - at any rate both their doctrine and practices were totally unlike those of Christian churches from very early on in their history. Whatever Christian influences there were on the founders of that religion makes little difference now they have dverged so far. The historical background of the birth of Islam is in the encounter between Syrian Christianity (Orthodox Christianity?) and Arab paganism. But that doesn't mean that it woudl be right to say that Father Gregory's church has Muslim doctrines (or vice versa)

quote:
quote:

Having decided to ignore the reality of the historic Church, they could only claim to recreate it through faith and a diligent reading of Scripture. But this belief is not a part of any Christian dogma until Protestantism surfaced. This belief is so elastic that it allows for the likes of Joseph Smith and what's-his-name-the-JW-guy to both believe that they were moved by the spirit. Without the guidance of the Church, it is difficult to know if one is moved by the Spirit or by something nefarious. We don't know Smith's heart (he appears to have been of dubious character) so can't know if he thought he was actually moved by God or not. Likewise, whoever started up unitarianism and the other universal salvation beliefs probably also felt so moved.

Quite the opposite. Centering our faith and practice around the reading and teaching of Scripture can actually us from wandering far from God's guidance by chasing after the heretical innovations of preachers and teachers - whether Protestant or Orthodox or Roman.

Every innovation, and every radical, errant preacher has its genesis in the same place, someone reading it and deciding that they know Truth.

quote:
quote:

This is not something that you will find in any Bible. Scripture tells us that when individuals err in the Church they are to be corrected, but there is never the notion that the Church will err. It cannot err if it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The constancy in the Church is a testament to this guidance.

But as you said it is the small-c individual churches that have gone wrong from time to time, not the Church of God, the Bride of Christ. And those small-c churches that err include Orthodox as well as as Protestant churches. [/QB]
Lots of small c Orthodox churches - meaning not branches of Orthodoxy, but actual churches or jurisdictions have erred. The large C Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

[Fixed rogue UBB]

[ 03. November 2005, 01:19: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Ken's post reminded me of something I was going to say, which he's basically said. When SC mentioned the unerring, Spirit-guided church, how can you be sure that was referring to any church that is in any way visible. Could it be that the 'Church with a big C' is actually the body of all believers on Earth, the invisible church, as such? And then, yes, churches within that can err, including the EO, but that great invisible body of believers, containing Prot, Cath, EO and who knows what will prevail. Could it be that protestantism was and is the guidance of the Spirit helping the Church to survive as the manmade structures of human churches crumbled and went off the rails?

If so, fullness of Truth is unavailable to us, because we cannot agree upon it. And the Bible refers to the Church as glorious plant grown from a mustard seed, there is no mention of death, or derailment, or rebirth. Christ's Truth, once imparted, is with us forever and is accessible to us forever.

[fixed code]

[ 03. November 2005, 01:14: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Ken's post reminded me of something I was going to say, which he's basically said. When SC mentioned the unerring, Spirit-guided church, how can you be sure that was referring to any church that is in any way visible. Could it be that the 'Church with a big C' is actually the body of all believers on Earth, the invisible church, as such? And then, yes, churches within that can err, including the EO, but that great invisible body of believers, containing Prot, Cath, EO and who knows what will prevail. Could it be that protestantism was and is the guidance of the Spirit helping the Church to survive as the manmade structures of human churches crumbled and went off the rails?

If so, fullness of Truth is unavailable to us, because we cannot agree upon it. And the Bible refers to the Church as glorious plant grown from a mustard seed, there is no mention of death, or derailment, or rebirth. Christ's Truth, once imparted, is with us forever and is accessible to us forever.
But Jesus also spoke about fruitless branches being cut off.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
(Let me preface my comment with: My argument is not that Protestantism is worthless, rather that it is not Truth, and when something as important as your eternal life in the balance, our first concern should be Truth.)

Neither you nor Mudfoot replied to my central issue with Protestantism, that even if the central theology is correct and agreed upon by all (Christ saves, follow Him), that could not be more irrelevant to our salvation.

Well, then I'm afraid we can have no mutual understanding. The most important thing to Christ as he stated was to love God and to love your neighbor. All the Prophets and the law could be summed up in this. Have you ever considered that perhaps you are deviating from Christ's commands, according to his word?
If you are saying that I am being cruel, forgive whatever offense I made, please. If you are saying that I am deviating from that is expected of me by my Creator, perhaps, but if our concern is the fullness of Truth, I don't err in where I find it. My claim of being correct (to the limited extent of my knowledge) about theological things is not based upon my intellect, it is based upon humble submission to the Truth of the communications from the Creator, as understood by the ever present OC, some of which I wish were not true, oy vey.


quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Either The Creator was able to impart truth or he was not. One may find edification in the pages of Scripture, but unless ones reading is in accord with the Fathers of the Church and with it's dogma, what claim can it have to truth? If any, is it a higher claim than a fellow protestant with an opposite interpretation? We can spend countless lifetimes reading Scripture, but in the end, how do we know if what we have gleaned is Truth?(italics mine, js)

I believe in a God who raised man from the dead, I believe in a God who spoke and bang the universe started to unravel, I believe in God whose main premise is that he loves people, I believe in a God that is intelligible, I believe in a God that wants to speak to us, I believe in a God who likes love stories, and surely if this God touched lepers and spoke to outcasts and shared Truth, likewise I put my trust in Him and I don't have to be afraid of error not because I'm perfect or have perfect revelation. But I'm not afraid to make mistakes because the God who made the Universe is capable enough to help me. If you have any questions, you can ask him about that.
I agree with every word you said above. Error does not damn us unless it impinges on our salvation, and that is what must concern us. The appeal of Orthodoxy in this regard is not in minutiae and detail about services, it is in its Sacraments, its disciplines, it's moving understanding our our loving God, and in the confidence born of both faith and knowledge, that we are part of something everlasting in the truest sense of the word.
Your words paint you as a loving and feeling person, can you find salvation outside of Orthodoxy? Sure, but unless the same people who have been believing and doing and living the same Truth since the beginning are likely to be of greater aid to you in your spiritual growth than someone who deviates from the one and only consistent understanding of Truth in significant ways.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Finally (if you read this far), regarding the Orthodox view of salvation, we believe that following Christ is difficult, and requires discpline, and is a life-long process, during which we can decide to turn away from our Creator. We have free will. We don't save ourselves through works - that would impose an obligation upon God. Rather, works are the fruit of each Christian vine, and in doing them we cultivate the foundational virtues of Christianity, without which one cannot follow Christ with any success: humility, obedience, repentance, and love.

[Smile]

Well, I'm glad that God has shown us the same things. [Smile]
Wonderful! If you were here I would hug you.
[fixed rogue UBB code]

[ 03. November 2005, 01:08: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Your characterization of the use of icons, artwork, etc. as "image worship" is the same argument used by the defeated iconoclasts, and it is grossly inaccurate. If the Church thought that the use of icons encouraged believers to be put anything ahead of God, the Church would not use icons. If you want to know about them please ask, I would be glad to tell you what I know.

I hope you're going to learn how to post on a bulletin board very quickly because your failure to do so makes your vast posts completely unintelligible.

This one is intelligible, and utterly devoid of reason.

You quote my entire post - where the hell in there do I say that "the use of icons is image worship"?

Where do I say it is wrong?

You are responding entirely to things I never said, and ignoring what I did say.

What I said could not possibly be said more clearly, so I'll just say it again:
The second commandment forbids the use of images.
Catholics, Orthodox, (and many Protestants) use images.
Christians have an authority higher than the Ten Commandments.

If you are able to read that and respond to what it says, please do so.

If not there's no need to continue here, because failure to grasp the basic elements of rational conversation is your cause's worst advertisement, and doesn't do much for the rest of us either.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sophia's Questions

Welcome to SofF and I hope you find these boards helpful and illuminating. In that spirit, may I offer you a bit of advice?

In common with lots of others, I suspect, I would be grateful if you would take the trouble to learn how to enter quotations properly in the messages you post. Duo Seraphim has already asked you nicely and, in an attempt to make your messages intelligible, has spent what I imagine is a significant amount of time editing them. That is hardly fair on him. Unintelligibly posted messages - or ones which are difficult to read - are not fair on the rest of us - and defeat your desire to communicate effectively, which is hardly in your best interests either.

I am sure your opinions on Protestantism are worth reading - but it is very difficult to be sure!

You will find the Practice Thread in The Styx. It is the first thread on that board. There are examples there of all the main facilities.

I don't know if these later ones are intelligible or not, I won't post anything else until I figure it out. Thanks for the - again kindly delivered - advice, and my thanks to Seraphim for cleaning up after me.
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
That's more like it.
 
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Okay, I'll deal with more issues later, but right now I have to go out, so I've only got two things to say:

quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions
we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians

Have you ever heard of a guy called Leo X? Tell me that.

Secondly, Sophia, you'll notice when you post messages that there is a button saying, "Preview Post" beside the one that says, "Add reply". If you press this, you can see what your post will look like, but can still do things to it. It would be helpful if you used this to see if you've made any mistakes. Thanks.
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
Not to pile on more of the same exact sentiments ad nauseum, but in a slightly different vein, I'd like to say that I AM interested in what you've had to say, SQ, but I haven't quite been able to follow and don't exactly feel inclined to decipher it out.

From what I gather, you are saying that simply reading scripture on your own and trying to determine it's truth is the cause of all individual church's errors, but that trusting in the Church and its tradition is the only way to avoid the heresies inherent to individual scriptural interpretations, etc.

Is that correct? If not could you point out how I've misrepresented you in 50 words or less?

-Digory
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Sophy's Questions:

PLEASE LEARN TO USE THE CODING!!! (yes, I'm yelling)

I tried, and failed, to fix the code on several posts so that people reading them could work out what you were saying and who you were replying to. This is past being funny, and while you are still an apprentice, it's time to take a pause and visit the practice thread in the STyx and figure out how to use code.

As well, there is a custom that (barring accidents or second thoughts) posters don't post more than one or two at a time. That's why you will sometimes see an apology in a post for having posted three times in a row. Three is a lot. But four or five in a row suggests you are not taking the time to sit back and think of how to make your points effectively.

And a word of advice -- most people will simply not read posts as long as some of the ones you have produced.

John Holding
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
andreas1984, You started this OP on the premise of:
quote:
I want to use this thread so that we can all learn more about Protestantism, especially what modern Protestants believe in and what they believed in throughout their (brief) history.
Would you mind if I asked you...what is your goal?
Why do you want to learn more about what Protestants believe? Do you have a inner spiritual battle? Or do you simply think we are so far-gone wrong that you want to study us?

I ask as somebody who is struggling with my own belief system right now - I may be a Calvinist Reform-leaning Christian - but I am open minded to respect others traditions and learn from them. I do not feel fit to contribute to these threads right now that you started but I am enjoying the replies. (SteveTom, I usually hate this emoticon...but I will use it for your replies on this...well done. Patience of saint. [Overused] )

I would like an answer to this if you are able to. You have started a series of threads digging into Luther's Children and so I am curious.

It was my birthday on Halloween and I will say "Birthday Power!" if that will persuade you. [Biased]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear duchess

Happy Birthday!

These threads are the result of something Trisagion said a few months ago. He said that I don't know much about Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, and I shouldn't be quick to judge (or words to that extent). I think he is right. This is why I started these threads, to get to know Protestants and Protestantism more. I want to get a better understanding because of a hope I have. I hope that the things we have in common are far more important than the things that keep us apart.

In the past few days I learned that Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestants share an understanding that all good things come from above, and that man cannot achieve anything good on his own. This basic agreement, from my point of view, is fundamental. It is also shocking, because of all the prejudice hundreds of years created. It seemed as if we differed on that important issues, but it turned out that appearances were indeed deceptive.

Andreas
 
Posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Not sure what you meant by the last bit. Yes, you are correct, sola scriptura has led to all manner of error. Now, can truth beget error? Things breed true over time, error begets error, truth begets truth.
If there is such a thing as an arbiter of truth, a church who really understands the Bible because their earliest members heard about it from the lips of the Master, and passed it on intact, then we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians. A bold statement, but consider it: What was the genesis of the excommunication of the church at Rome in 1054? SS. A group of people picking up the Bible and deciding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the The Father _and_ the Son, in direct conflict with the universal Christian Creed, and insisting on telling believers about their new belief. Does it affect our salvation? Likely not. So why the fuss? Why did the Church lop off one of its limbs? Because allowing error to persist in the Church means that everything is open to error. The Truth, in the view of the Church, is sacred and inviolable.
The Church at Rome was also becoming attached to the idea that the pope was able to discern and explain biblical truth with God's help (the Bishop of Rome was called 'pope' for centuries before the RC excommunication, but it was a name only). This obviously opened up a giant pandora's box, and militated against the understanding of the Church, which is that the concensus of the councils of the Church and the consensus of the saints should guide us always.
The whole episode is a crying shame (literally), and led directly to Protestantism. But consider this: Even with the RC changes right from the get-go, RC theology and tradition and worship was satisfying and authentic enough that it took nearly half a millenium before changes came. To my mind, this speaks to the authenticity of Orthodoxy - its vestige carried believers along for nearly 500 years.

My belief is that Truth is Jesus. Everything else is subject to error of one kind or another. We can do our best to avoid error and seek Truth, but error happens. If error did not happen then there would have been no purpose for Truth to come and walk among us. The Church does try and attempt to keep the Truth as free from error as possible, but we are all human and we all fail. Only one human has not erred or failed and that is the one who I put my trust in not the people or organizations (no matter how well meaning they are)of this world.

quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions: Perhaps this is a matter of semantics. Surely we will all have a different journey if we decide to follow Christ. But the road is the same. The contours, the signposts, the difficulties, the destination. The Creator would not leave it up to each of us to figure it out for ourselves. The road and the walking of it must be known to us if we are the creations of a loving God...This kind of thinking is not fruitful. How can a narrow road be compared to a variety of circuitous routes? It also reduces the object of our existence - salvation - to just another destination. It is the only destination worth reaching, and as I noted in an earlier post, if we were truly convinced that we are immortal and that our life in Christ can be prone to error (look around), then we would be earnestly searching for truth, and would not rest with a "road" to salvation until we were certain that we were right.
I believe that the purpose of my life is being able to be with Jesus and my Heavenly Father in Heaven. There is only one way to set myself on the path to Heaven (by accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and trusting in his mercy), but the route which I travel is the one that He and I have found, are on, and will find in the future. If I am lost, then my seeking Him and His Truth will bring me back onto the path. If it appears that my path is not the straightest, it may be so that I might meet people and help people along their way to Heaven and Him. To me all that matters is that I find my way Home, not how long it takes or how many pit stops and scenic tours I take along the way. What does matter to me is that I make it. I know that I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I don't know if these later ones are intelligible or not, I won't post anything else until I figure it out. Thanks for the - again kindly delivered - advice, and my thanks to Seraphim for cleaning up after me.

Thank you for this, Sophia's Questions - that's very much appreciated.

Welcome to the Ship!

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
 
Posted by whitelaughter (# 10611) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
What makes you think that your feeble mind - or my feeble mind - can understand scripture better than the concensus of the first millenium of Christianity? Why would any single individual look at the universal understanding of the faith from the first millenium of Christianity and think that any thought they might have would compare to the wisdom of that consensus? That question demands an answer.

[fixed quote code] [/QB]

That's actually a very good question!
Most importantly - I don't believe that I can reliably interpret scripture. Given that I can see other people making obviously stupid mistakes, and the doctrine of original sin excludes my own perfection, it is prudent to assume that I am misinterpreting scripture. Not could be - am.
However - how is blindly following another human going to solve that problem? It merely means that *they* make mistakes, and then I have to interpret what they say - adding another layer of error. It's like copying a cassette tape repeatedly - each copy will be worse. By going to the original, I delete 2000 years worth of stuff ups.
Of course, correction is necessary. If 'every Protestant is their own Pope', how have we managed to hang together in denominations for 4 centuries? The glory goes to God, who arranged for Scripture to be very clear (given the subject matter).

The consensus of the first millenium? No such animal.
There is a consensus in the early church. I've read many of the writings of the church fathers. Clement's plea to the Corinthians inspires awe: his humility, love and holiness shine through every word. I am grateful to my RC friend who passed on the claim that Clement claimed to rule the church, without him I might never have known about Clement. But having read the letter, I know that Clement didn't claim to rule the church, didn't even claim to oversee all of Rome. Similarly, Ignatius of Antioch (although a nutter)wrote letters which are very edifying - and once again the claims (and quotes!) supporting Rome domination simply aren't there. Any time someone claims that so-and-so supported Rome's authority, demand to see the text. I've *never* known the claim to be true.
There is another 'consensus' later on, based on the Donation of Constantine. This blatant forgery was accepted as genuine by Rome for a millennia, and books that disproved it were banned. Finally, Rome now acknowledges it as a forgery. That's good, but if the denomination has been lying and/or gullible for most of it's history, why should anyone believe anything just because Rome says so?
 
Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
Whitelaughter...Sophia's Q is an Orthodox, not an Roman Catholic. So, he probably wouldn't follow Rome's way.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
But Jesus also spoke about fruitless branches being cut off. [/QB]
Yes, and from what? If we say, 'from the Bible', then when two groups disagree on what the Bible means, which one has fallen away from the Truth, and how can we know?
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:

You quote my entire post - where the hell in there do I say that "the use of icons is image worship"?

Where do I say it is wrong?

You are responding entirely to things I never said, and ignoring what I did say.

What I said could not possibly be said more clearly, so I'll just say it again:
The second commandment forbids the use of images.
Catholics, Orthodox, (and many Protestants) use images.
Christians have an authority higher than the Ten Commandments.

If you are able to read that and respond to what it says, please do so.

Excuse me, Tom. I see now that you are apparently saying Christ repudiated this commandment and icons are now allowed. I took your first comment to mean that it was incorrect to use them, according to the 2nd commandment, and my comment about image worship was made not quoting you, but in reference to the resistance to icons.

As to your point - And if I don't have it this time you are a whole lot deeper than I am -

The Church believes that the Decalogue is still in force, there is no need for the intermediation of God with God, or a changing of His 'mind' or 'disposition' to make the use of Icons proper, it is proper and conforming to the 2nd commandment. And AISB, with the exception of a stretch of dispute in the latter part of the first millenium and Protestantism, Christians have always accepted the use of icons.

The only way for your argument to make any theological sense is if you are arguing what you never mention, but what some do in support of icons: Christ's entry into creation as a physical being restored grace to matter, and so removed some kind of stigma attached to matter. I take no position on this, I don't know enough about it. But if true, it could make your argument true.

Thanks for your patience with my earlier incompetent posts. I should have taken the time to learn to do it properly. To all I caused frustration, I am sorry.
 
Posted by whitelaughter (# 10611) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Whitelaughter...Sophia's Q is an Orthodox, not an Roman Catholic. So, he probably wouldn't follow Rome's way.

Interesting! What level of authority does the Orthodox church claim in doctrinal disputes? I was under the impression that they felt that a church council was required to make such decisions.
Given the national divisions of the Orthodox churches, I'm somewhat surprised that England didn't go Orthodox. I'd love to see more dialogue between Protestants and Orthodox! It'd be bound to turn up interesting stuff.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Okay, I'll deal with more issues later, but right now I have to go out, so I've only got two things to say:

quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions
we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians

Have you ever heard of a guy called Leo X? Tell me that.

He excommunicated Luther. Why did Luther exist as a force in history in the way he did? It took 500 years for him to come along. Nowhere in the history of the Church was there an example of something as radical as a Luther. Every other excommunication, or theological dispute that required the resolution of a universal council of Bishops was more subtle, in most obvious ways, than the heresy addressed and corrected by the Church, always in light of it's consistent understanding of scripture.
The Church attempted to get Rome to see the error of their ways. But _their reading of scripture_ told them something that directly contradicted the Creed, which was encapsulated in 325 and affirmed by all seven universal councils. RC made Luther possible, and sola scripture made the RCC possible.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:

From what I gather, you are saying that simply reading scripture on your own and trying to determine it's truth is the cause of all individual church's errors, but that trusting in the Church and its tradition is the only way to avoid the heresies inherent to individual scriptural interpretations, etc.

Is that correct? If not could you point out how I've misrepresented you in 50 words or less?

-Digory

That's right, trusting in the Church's understanding both of theology and the path of salvation.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
[qb] Not sure what you meant by the last bit. Yes, you are correct, sola scriptura has led to all manner of error. Now, can truth beget error? Things breed true over time, error begets error, truth begets truth.
If there is such a thing as an arbiter of truth, a church who really understands the Bible because their earliest members heard about it from the lips of the Master, and passed it on intact, then we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians. A bold statement, but consider it: What was the genesis of the excommunication of the church at Rome in 1054? SS. A group of people picking up the Bible and deciding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the The Father _and_ the Son, in direct conflict with the universal Christian Creed, and insisting on telling believers about their new belief. Does it affect our salvation? Likely not. So why the fuss? Why did the Church lop off one of its limbs? Because allowing error to persist in the Church means that everything is open to error. The Truth, in the view of the Church, is sacred and inviolable.
The Church at Rome was also becoming attached to the idea that the pope was able to discern and explain biblical truth with God's help (the Bishop of Rome was called 'pope' for centuries before the RC excommunication, but it was a name only). This obviously opened up a giant pandora's box, and militated against the understanding of the Church, which is that the concensus of the councils of the Church and the consensus of the saints should guide us always.
The whole episode is a crying shame (literally), and led directly to Protestantism. But consider this: Even with the RC changes right from the get-go, RC theology and tradition and worship was satisfying and authentic enough that it took nearly half a millenium before changes came. To my mind, this speaks to the authenticity of Orthodoxy - its vestige carried believers along for nearly 500 years.

My belief is that Truth is Jesus. Everything else is subject to error of one kind or another. We can do our best to avoid error and seek Truth, but error happens. If error did not happen then there would have been no purpose for Truth to come and walk among us. The Church does try and attempt to keep the Truth as free from error as possible, but we are all human and we all fail. Only one human has not erred or failed and that is the one who I put my trust in not the people or organizations (no matter how well meaning they are)of this world.
What you are relying upon is your understanding of Jesus. As are the universal salvationists, and the annhilists, and the JWs.
The only 'church' that can claim to consistently defend a single Truth is the only one which has ever done so. We believe that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and I would argue that this is manifestly so. Consider the supposedly inviolable American Constitution. People poured out rivers of blood, sweat, and tears in an effor to secure self-governance, and established a governing document which today has been twisted beyond recognition in many cases. That's less than 200 years later, with some of the most brilliant minds and strong hearts defending it. The fact that the Church's theology is unchanged should suggest to an objective observer that something is protecting it from error.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
quote:



I believe that the purpose of my life is being able to be with Jesus and my Heavenly Father in Heaven. There is only one way to set myself on the path to Heaven (by accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and trusting in his mercy), but the route which I travel is the one that He and I have found, are on, and will find in the future. If I am lost, then my seeking Him and His Truth will bring me back onto the path. If it appears that my path is not the straightest, it may be so that I might meet people and help people along their way to Heaven and Him. To me all that matters is that I find my way Home, not how long it takes or how many pit stops and scenic tours I take along the way. What does matter to me is that I make it. I know that I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
All of our strivings after Christ are crooked, all but the most Christlike are as toddlers, walking on unsteady feet. Even the saints we can only see as little ones, their arms outstretched, their tiny strides urgent and firm.
Brother, I don't mean to denigrate your life in Christ. I seek only to get you to confront the possibility that there is an existing truth about how we are best able to follow Christ.
Consider: If you were to visit a foreign land which knew nothing of Christianity, and you gave Bibles to 1000 people, and isolated them for a week, after that week many would say that it was a wonderful story with a somewhat confusing ending, or ask if the sequel is out, or ask if it is the basis of a religion, and, if so, what can we tell them about it? I suppose that it's possible that a few of the readers would already be on a spiritual journey, and all of them may lead unerringly to communion with God through faith. But I would wager that it would be a small number.

I would also wager that your walk is not based upon your own reading of Scripture alone, you didn't pick up a Bible and try to figure it all out for yourself - your presence here testifies to that. So what do you rely upon? You read something affecting, something that resonates, and you incorporate it into your Christian worldview. But though it may come from outside of your mind, your mind is still the arbiter of truth.
That's an uncertain foundation for the discernment of truth. If you think otherwise, you are either speaking from pride, or from the lofty heights of knowledge that most can only gaze upon from afar.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by whitelaughter:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
What makes you think that your feeble mind - or my feeble mind - can understand scripture better than the concensus of the first millenium of Christianity? Why would any single individual look at the universal understanding of the faith from the first millenium of Christianity and think that any thought they might have would compare to the wisdom of that consensus? That question demands an answer.

[fixed quote code]

That's actually a very good question!
Most importantly - I don't believe that I can reliably interpret scripture. Given that I can see other people making obviously stupid mistakes, and the doctrine of original sin excludes my own perfection, it is prudent to assume that I am misinterpreting scripture. Not could be - am.
However - how is blindly following another human going to solve that problem? It merely means that *they* make mistakes, and then I have to interpret what they say - adding another layer of error. It's like copying a cassette tape repeatedly - each copy will be worse. By going to the original, I delete 2000 years worth of stuff ups.

Let's cut to the chase: find me a reference in Scripture where the entirety of the Apostolic Church erred, or was said to be capable of erring, not in its parts, in its small c churches, and in the views of many of its members, but in its entirety.
Your view of interpretation is refreshing coming from a Protestant standpoint, that when we rely upon ourselves, we err, but that does not extrapolate to the God-guided Church, which has chiefly concerned itself with preserving the Apostolic Church in purity, defending against _wrong_ interpretations of Scripture.
When we submit to the authority of the Church, we are not acknowledging the truth as delivered by one man or even a council, but the consensus of the faith from the beginning, punctuated and beautifully elucidated in the writings of the hundreds of holy Fathers of the Church, many of whom died martyrs, most of the rest died as saints, someone whose humility, love, and loving obedience are so evident that they are manifestly Christlike.

quote:
Of course, correction is necessary. If 'every Protestant is their own Pope', how have we managed to hang together in denominations for 4 centuries? The glory goes to God, who arranged for Scripture to be very clear (given the subject matter).

The consensus of the first millenium? No such animal.
There is a consensus in the early church. I've read many of the writings of the church fathers. Clement's plea to the Corinthians inspires awe: his humility, love and holiness shine through every word. I am grateful to my RC friend who passed on the claim that Clement claimed to rule the church, without him I might never have known about Clement. But having read the letter, I know that Clement didn't claim to rule the church, didn't even claim to oversee all of Rome. Similarly, Ignatius of Antioch (although a nutter)wrote letters which are very edifying - and once again the claims (and quotes!) supporting Rome domination simply aren't there. Any time someone claims that so-and-so supported Rome's authority, demand to see the text. I've *never* known the claim to be true.
There is another 'consensus' later on, based on the Donation of Constantine. This blatant forgery was accepted as genuine by Rome for a millennia, and books that disproved it were banned. Finally, Rome now acknowledges it as a forgery. That's good, but if the denomination has been lying and/or gullible for most of it's history, why should anyone believe anything just because Rome says so? [/QB]

I'm sorry, I thought I'd made it clear that I'm Orthodox. I agree that many things pertaining to the RCC are riddled with error.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by whitelaughter:
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Whitelaughter...Sophia's Q is an Orthodox, not an Roman Catholic. So, he probably wouldn't follow Rome's way.

Interesting! What level of authority does the Orthodox church claim in doctrinal disputes? I was under the impression that they felt that a church council was required to make such decisions.
Given the national divisions of the Orthodox churches, I'm somewhat surprised that England didn't go Orthodox. I'd love to see more dialogue between Protestants and Orthodox! It'd be bound to turn up interesting stuff.

The church doesn't recognize the ecumenical movement, claiming sole posession of authority as passed on by the Apostles. The national churches are to mostly a reflecion of cultural desires and language differences, we all profess the same Creed, follow the same liturgy and share the same Communion cup.
I know that the Anglican Church has been faithful in many regards to their faith, and it is close to Orthodoxy in many ways, an eventual communion would be a blessing to all.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Is it safe to come out now .....

andreas1984

It was good to see your recent post. This has been a very interesting thread to review (particularly when it has concentrated on your theme) and I'm not sure I want to add anything to the exchanges. A thought which did occur to me is that you may be able to supplement your increased understanding by doing some background reading. I observed in the other thread that protestantism is pretty kaleidoscopic, often self-contradictory in its different manifestations, pretty hard to "pin down". So there may be a bit of value in a bit of background reading - if you've got the time.
 
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Hi again SQ.

I'll answer some of your points. Not all of them, as then this debate would be far too hard to do in one thread, and I think that we actually agree more than first appearences show regarding justification, for instance.

As I said before, when John wrote to the churches in Laodicea and Sardis (Revelation 3) they weren't merely 'local' churches that were erring. They weren't a body of believers that, though they may err, could be corrected by looking at the other body of beleivers just up the road. They were the only church that anyone without significant time and money would ever see, in that century. It didn't matter one jot that another church in Athens or wherever was doing fine, because any normal poor person from Laodicea would never ever have travelled to Athens. As far as they were concerned, they were the whole church. They were erring.

You missed my point about Leo X, I beleive, or else you're trying some form of logical coverup (by the way, yes, that's the right guy). Leo X denied the existence of God, but sold forgiveness from him. I can find neither of those supported in the bible. John XII engaged in devil worship and turned the Vatican into a brothel. I can find support for neither of these in the bible. THese guys, as far as it appears to me, were most definitely not sola scriptura. This is not a chance to advertise how great Orthodoxy is. It is not a chance to denigrate either the RCC (and that isn't my intention in this post, either) or protestants. This is not an opportunity to go off on a tangent, or talk about Martin Luther, or anything like that. Please tell me, in simple, logical steps, why Leo and John's many crimes were the result of sola scriptura.

Regarding your gedankexperiment about giving 1000 island dwellers bibles, of course only a few of them would come back to you with anything even resembling Christianity. Only a few people in the world, relatively speaking, are Christians. The road is narrow. The bible contains a lot to digest, and not everyone's prepared to take that step.

Finally, you still haven't answered a point I made a while ago. You say that the whole church cannot err. Let's say that's true for a minute. If the church is not any human construct, not any local church (and yes, that includes a church with the adjective "Eastern" before its name) but the worldwide, invisible communion of believers. How can you know that protestantism itself is actually the process by which not-the-whole-church errs? What if both the RC and EO are in error, and protestantism is the faithful remainder by which the church does not wholly fall? You say God promised that the whole, global church would never fall, but then apply that to one part of Christendom, rather than the whole of it. Why?

One last thing. As I write this, you posted six times before me, and you have been informed before that that's bad manners. Please work out what you want to say, all of it, before you post, so your multiple posts don't take up the entire page.
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
What makes you think that your feeble mind - or my feeble mind - can understand scripture better than the concensus of the first millenium of Christianity? Why would any single individual look at the universal understanding of the faith from the first millenium of Christianity and think that any thought they might have would compare to the wisdom of that consensus? That question demands an answer.

And here are two:

1. The Protestant reformers never saw themselves as coming up with the true interpretation of the Bible for the first time. They believed they were restoring the faith of the Fathers and the Scriptures, after centuries of corruption by the medieval RCC.

2. Consensus? My head's reeling. Would that be the Monophysite consensus? The Nestorian consensus? The Paulician consensus? The gnostic consensus? The Donatist consensus? The chalcedonian consensus? The Origenist consensus? The Macedonian consensus? The Arian consensus? The semi-Arian consensus? The Aetian consensus? The Marcionite consensus? The Montanist consensus? The Ebionite consensus?....
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
quote:
But Jesus also spoke about fruitless branches being cut off.

Yes, and from what? If we say, 'from the Bible', then when two groups disagree on what the Bible means, which one has fallen away from the Truth, and how can we know? [/QB]
Read the Bible:

"I am the real vine, and my Father is the gardener. He breaks off every branch in me that does not bear fruit, and he prunes every branch that does bear fruit, so that it will be clean and bear more fruit."
Jesus, quoted in John 15 v1,2

You can be cut off from Christ and be no longer a part of his life/body.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
[qb] Not sure what you meant by the last bit. Yes, you are correct, sola scriptura has led to all manner of error. Now, can truth beget error? Things breed true over time, error begets error, truth begets truth.
If there is such a thing as an arbiter of truth, a church who really understands the Bible because their earliest members heard about it from the lips of the Master, and passed it on intact, then we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians. A bold statement, but consider it: What was the genesis of the excommunication of the church at Rome in 1054? SS. A group of people picking up the Bible and deciding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the The Father _and_ the Son, in direct conflict with the universal Christian Creed, and insisting on telling believers about their new belief. Does it affect our salvation? Likely not. So why the fuss? Why did the Church lop off one of its limbs? Because allowing error to persist in the Church means that everything is open to error. The Truth, in the view of the Church, is sacred and inviolable.
The Church at Rome was also becoming attached to the idea that the pope was able to discern and explain biblical truth with God's help (the Bishop of Rome was called 'pope' for centuries before the RC excommunication, but it was a name only). This obviously opened up a giant pandora's box, and militated against the understanding of the Church, which is that the concensus of the councils of the Church and the consensus of the saints should guide us always.
The whole episode is a crying shame (literally), and led directly to Protestantism. But consider this: Even with the RC changes right from the get-go, RC theology and tradition and worship was satisfying and authentic enough that it took nearly half a millenium before changes came. To my mind, this speaks to the authenticity of Orthodoxy - its vestige carried believers along for nearly 500 years.

My belief is that Truth is Jesus. Everything else is subject to error of one kind or another. We can do our best to avoid error and seek Truth, but error happens. If error did not happen then there would have been no purpose for Truth to come and walk among us. The Church does try and attempt to keep the Truth as free from error as possible, but we are all human and we all fail. Only one human has not erred or failed and that is the one who I put my trust in not the people or organizations (no matter how well meaning they are)of this world.
What you are relying upon is your understanding of Jesus. As are the universal salvationists, and the annhilists, and the JWs.
The only 'church' that can claim to consistently defend a single Truth is the only one which has ever done so. We believe that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and I would argue that this is manifestly so. Consider the supposedly inviolable American Constitution. People poured out rivers of blood, sweat, and tears in an effor to secure self-governance, and established a governing document which today has been twisted beyond recognition in many cases. That's less than 200 years later, with some of the most brilliant minds and strong hearts defending it. The fact that the Church's theology is unchanged should suggest to an objective observer that something is protecting it from error.

Of course the theology of the church hasn't changed. Martin Luther didn't want to change the Biblical foundation of the creeds, he wanted to remove the overgrown weeds from the Truth so that it could be seen again.

Catholicism was (still is?) to the Gospel as Pharisaism was to the Torah. The Papacy added and added to the Gospel message so that it was obscured.

This encrustation didn't stop at the Reformation either: what about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. These are modern doctrines from the 19th and 20th centuries.
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
Mudfrog, have you any idea what a pain in the tits it is to have to scroll through 700 words of quote to get to your 5-sentence reply?

If you want people to read the quote you're replying to, edit it drastcially. If not, don't post it. Please.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
Mudfrog, have you any idea what a pain in the tits it is to have to scroll through 700 words of quote to get to your 5-sentence reply?

If you want people to read the quote you're replying to, edit it drastcially. If not, don't post it. Please.

Sorry, I forgot to do the editing.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Why did Luther exist as a force in history in the way he did? It took 500 years for him to come along. Nowhere in the history of the Church was there an example of something as radical as a Luther.

Nonsense. What about Wyclif & Hus? Just over the mountains from Luther's Saxony the kingdom of Bohemia had broken away from Rome about a century earlier - and initially at least much more bloodily than Luther's German Reformation.

A thousand years before that blood was spilled in Constantinople and half the cities of the Empier over monophysitism. Even the Emperor and the Empress fell out over it. And the supposedly monophysite churches still exist, and have tens of millions of adherents.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
The only 'church' that can claim to consistently defend a single Truth is the only one which has ever done so. We believe that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and I would argue that this is manifestly so.

[...]

The fact that the Church's theology is unchanged should suggest to an objective observer that something is protecting it from error.

OK, I come clean here. I do not think that either the doctrine or the practice of the Orthodox churches is unchanged since the time of the Apostles. I don't think there is any serious evidence for that at all. I don't belive it is true.

And, to make matters worse, I do not think that either the doctrine or the practice of the Orthodox churches is unchanged since the time of the great councils either. And I suspect that the liturgy and practices of the Egyptian and Armenian churches - supposedly monophysite heretics - have changed about the same amount since then. Maybe less. So if I was forced to choose churches on the grounds of historical continuity with, or resemblence to, the Great Church of ancient times, I could not distinguish between the Copts or Constantinople.

In fact I don't think the doctrines and practices of those churches are entirely unchanged since the time of the schism with the western European churches. Although the liturgy is perhaps less changed than in the west, I am almost willing to bet it is changed.

So your argument doesn't wash. As a Christian faced with a real choice of which church to be a member of, the idea that the Orthodox have preserved the unchanged Truth throughout history doesn't help me at all. Because how do I know it is true? All I have is your word for it! And I also hear the Copts and the Romans and the Anapbaptists and the Restorationists and even some of the blunter Presbyterians telling met that it is false! How can I be sure?

To even be able to meaningfully assess it I'd have to know an awful lot more about the history of the church and comparitive liturgy than I do. (And I already do no more about those things than nine out of ten, if not ninety-nine out of a hundred, of my fellow Christians) And I'd probably have to learn Greek & Syriac. It would take me years if I was capable of it at all.

"But," the little Protestant angel with the fluffy tail sitting on my other shoulder says, "but, you have the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Read them..."
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Why did Luther exist as a force in history in the way he did? It took 500 years for him to come along. Nowhere in the history of the Church was there an example of something as radical as a Luther.

Nonsense. What about Wyclif & Hus? Just over the mountains from Luther's Saxony the kingdom of Bohemia had broken away from Rome about a century earlier - and initially at least much more bloodily than Luther's German Reformation.
Not to mention the Waldenses who predate Hus and Wycliffe by a couple of centuries

quote:
A thousand years before that blood was spilled in Constantinople and half the cities of the Empier over monophysitism. Even the Emperor and the Empress fell out over it. And the supposedly monophysite churches still exist, and have tens of millions of adherents.
I think that was Justinian and Theodora wasn't it?
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Emperor Justinian was Orthodox.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Yes, and Theodora his wife was Monophysite...which I think is the point to which Ken was alluding
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by whitelaughter:
The term Mother of God is blasphemous, really.

On the contrary, the Word was made flesh, therefore the Virgin is indeed the Mother of God. She did not give birth to a man, but to God Who was made man.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by whitelaughter:
[Of course, correction is necessary. If 'every Protestant is their own Pope', how have we managed to hang together in denominations for 4 centuries?

Er...we haven't - witness the plethora of Protestant denominations.

quote:
The glory goes to God, who arranged for Scripture to be very clear (given the subject matter).
Ah, someone else who asserts that Scripture is 'clear'. How come then we don't agree on what it means? What do you mean by 'clear'?

And your statement about 'Mother of God' is a denial of Christ's divine nature.

[ 03. November 2005, 15:08: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:

And your statement about 'Mother of God' is a denial of Christ's divine nature.

Indeed, as one who respects Mary but doesn't revere her, I have no problem whatsoever with the term 'theotokos' (God bearer) because it was given to Mary not as a status for her, but as an affirmation that Jesus, her child, was God.

As Gabriel said: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore also, that Holy One, who is to be born will be called the Son of God."
Luke 2 v 35

[code]

[ 03. November 2005, 15:56: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Indeed. Theotokos was originally a Christological rather than a Mariological statement and I believe came to the fore in the Nestorian controversy of the early 5th century
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Just to point out that Protestantism does not have a catholic Ecclesiology. Even if Protestants had never argued there would be a multiplicity of denominations. The historic argument in Protestantism is whether it is possible to have an ecclesiology outwith the local congregation. Some accept that it is possible up to the nation state and others do not. That is why there is the Church of Scotland, the United Reformed Church and the Presbyterian Church of Wales. It is also why there is a Baptist Union and a Congregational Union. Note the change in nouns, the Unions are unions of local churches.


To measure sucess you need to measure the continuity of local witness and that in places does go back over 400 years (Anyone for Gainsbourgh URC or John Bunyan Memorial Baptist Church?) Why should these local congregations survive so long if there was not something there greater than any individual? The finance for both these chapels came from their attenders pockets, and though I grant they have had inspired ministers, it is a good minister indeed who can inspire a congregation to give when he has been dead several hundred years!

It seems to me, in a setup which was persecuted in England, full of individualism (had to be to survive the persecution), and prone to the cult of the personality coming from the individualism, the question is not why so many have come and gone, but why do any survive?

Jengie
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
There is an interesting anathema contained in the second council of Nice, which is an ecumenical council.

quote:
Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.
How do Protestants reply to this anathema?
 
Posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
There is an interesting anathema contained in the second council of Nice, which is an ecumenical council.

quote:
Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.
How do Protestants reply to this anathema?
If you are talking about the "rabid funamentalist" Protestants that I grew up with, the answer is simple. The truth that they follow was the one that Jesus taught and has remained in the church since that time. They may have been an underground movement that did not register in history, but they are the traditonal church.

Now in reality, I do try to follow the teachings of the Council of Nice which I would understand that to be what they are talking about. There is no mention in that quote of future councils or teaching of the church. They ask that I hold to the teaching of the past, not of future councils.

Also in there is the comment that if it is in the New and Old Testaments, then I should follow that practice. Which leads me back to my own reading of the Bible and how the Holy Spirit wishes me to apply it to my life.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
No, this is the second council of Nice, the one that said: "Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols."

ETA: http://www.newadvent.com/fathers/3819.htm

[ 03. November 2005, 17:57: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Find me a reference in Scripture where the entirety of the Apostolic Church erred, or was said to be capable of erring....

<snip>

....when we rely upon ourselves, we err, but that does not extrapolate to the God-guided Church, which has chiefly concerned itself with preserving the Apostolic Church in purity, defending against _wrong_ interpretations of Scripture.

When we submit to the authority of the Church, we are not acknowledging the truth as delivered by one man or even a council, but the consensus of the faith from the beginning, punctuated and beautifully elucidated in the writings of the hundreds of holy Fathers of the Church, many of whom died martyrs, most of the rest died as saints, someone whose humility, love, and loving obedience are so evident that they are manifestly Christlike.

It's all very noble and beautiful to talk about the holy Fathers, who died martyrs, filled with humility, love and loving obedience. No disrespect meant to the deep, important tradition, but this reverence that we hold for these matters doesn't, however, make them necessarily true.

The God-guided Church has chiefly concerned itself with preserving the Apostolic Church in purity?!? Alas, my friends, I believe we have come again upon the Circular Definition Proof (CDP, as perhaps we should begin referring to it).


Definition 1: The God-guided Church is only made up of those who have retained the Orthodox theology from the beginning.

Definition 2: Any who are said to err are excluded from the God-guided Church on the basis that the church has proclaimed that they have erred.

Conclusion: The Orthodox Church is the God-guided Church, and as such is incapable of erring.


It's a ridiculous argument. I challenge tradition and consider my own interpretations of Scripture not because I see myself as the Sole Proprietor of Truth™, but because I believe that honest dialogue between people with differing opinions will arrive more closely at the truth, taking into consideration the great history of tradition, councils and ideas, than those who simply sit and refuse to question for the sake of some false sense of continuity.

Why else are we here on this confounded Ship?


-Digory
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Andreas1984:

Well I could perhaps suggest you read chapter 11 of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion
quote:

IMPIETY OF ATTRIBUTING A VISIBLE FORM TO GOD.—THE SETTING UP OF IDOLS A
DEFECTION FROM THE TRUE GOD.

There are three leading divisions in this chapter. The first contains ...

The concluding part contains a refutation of the
second Council of Nice, which very absurdly contends for images in opposition to divine truth, and even to the disparagement of the Christian name.

Not that it will be the line that all Protestants take, but that Calvin will take a line that clearly addresses that Council and gives a clear statement of where he is coming from. Remember too that this book is written against persecution, there was a price of Calvin's head and its intended circulation was amongst the Protestants in France.

Jengie
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I don't think that this document is helpful. In fact, I think that it would have been better for him if he had not spoken thus.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Why?

Jengie
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I have read it, in another translation and I still want to know the Why. The advantage of my translations is I have foot notes, the quotes he made are genuine though the attributation to John the Eastern Prelate is not.

So the Why stands?

Is someone who does not worship pictures worse than an idolator? For that is what the council concluded.

Jengie
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Indeed, heresy is worse than ignorance of truth.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
And it's not worship. Greek latrevein means to recognize someone as God. We don't confess icons to be God. Worship is not the verb to be used.
 
Posted by Dobbo (# 5850) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
And it's not worship. Greek latrevein means to recognize someone as God. We don't confess icons to be God. Worship is not the verb to be used.

If veneration was so important in the NT church can you give me any passages in the Bible that teach us how we should carry out these acts of veneration properly? Or where the church was corrected for not carrying out veneration properly?

As a protestant I see much of the worship today related back to the OT church (Acts 7 v 38) - longer tradition than even the Orthodox church
For circumcision - I see baptism
For passover a meal that also incorporates a sacrafice of atonement - I see the Lord's Table
So I also see a distinct lack of images in the OT church hence why should the NT church need them?


Also tradition does change one church council declared the use of icons as wrong and then the next one does a complete about turn - which council should we trust. (My knowledge of ecumenical councils is limited - but I think I am right in this)
 
Posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
No, this is the second council of Nice, the one that said: "Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols."

ETA: http://www.newadvent.com/fathers/3819.htm

In my mind we have two sides here, one is saying that these are a good way to worship God. And another that points to the Bible and says that we are not to worship things that are manmade.

A responding question is what of my brothers and sisters in Christ who are uncomfortable in the extreme with icons and wonder why people are "worshiping" pictures? Am I to just tell them that they are wrong when they are trying their best to follow the scriptures?

Again the text says that we are to follow the scriptures. Am I to put the teaching of the council above them? If so, then when am I supposed to know when someone is in error?

I personally don't have a problem with other people using icons. I personally just can't see the purpose in them when I can just talk to God directly. But if that's what someone needs, then that is fine with me.
 
Posted by whitelaughter (# 10611) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
again, small c churches. The central trunk of Orthodoxy is both unchanging and eternal.

[shrugs] Then why bother learning or discussing anything? Just wait and see whether one's own demonination survives - if not, you'll shift elsewhere, and if so, it's probably orthodox. This belief encourages apathy.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
Also tradition does change one church council declared the use of icons as wrong and then the next one does a complete about turn - which council should we trust. (My knowledge of ecumenical councils is limited - but I think I am right in this)

You are, and it's a good point. How are Councils discerned from amongst the many councils?
 
Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :
 
Work commitments do not permit me much time for discussion - but somethings to consider:

quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:

So I also see a distinct lack of images in the OT church hence why should the NT church need them?
[/QB]

"Exodus 26:1. In God's commands to Moses concerning the tabernacle, given just a few chapters after the giving of the Ten Commandments, is this instruction: "Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twisted linen and blue and purple and scarlet; you shall make them with cherubim, the work of a skillful workman." A similar command with respect to the Ark of the Covenant instructed Moses to have two cherubim of hammered gold at the ends of the mercy seat. God said, "And there I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel" (Exodus 25:22)...
From the very earliest years of the Church, Christians used such symbols as the cross, the fish, the peacock, the shepherd, and the dove." from "No Graven Image"

The Second Commandment:
" You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Exodus 20:4,5)."

Time to tear up the family photo album! Not to mention knock down the Statue of Liberty and all those other statues around of politicians!

What you say! God doesn'r prohibit these images - just the 'worshipping' of them. Well, do the Orthodox worship images? If you kiss a photo of a a family member are you worshipping the photo, or expressing affection for the family member? In the act of doing so, are you making the photo - or even the person depicted in the photo - an idol to replace God? I think not.


More on Icons

I realise that for many Protestants - especially of a Calvinist or Presbytarian persuasion - I may as well be an alien from outer space talking about icons in Church, and it may really sound like a foreign language!
(Anecdotally - I remember from when I lived on Patmos, once, while in the cave of the Apocalypse, an American - I guess Protestant - was shouting loudly about the 'desecration' of the site of the Revelation, he was complaining about the 'pagan practice' of icons and threatened to rip them all out, he seemed so mad (annoyed) that he nearly did so. The monks were quite calm with him - but you could see that their vocation outraged him too!) I understand that some people feel particularly passionate about this. However, I have seen many Anglican Churches with icons in them (and most seem to have stain glass windows et. and even a few of the Smells and Bells ones with statues - which are - incidentally - banned in Orthodoxy). The Difference in the OT between Worship and Veneration
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Hi again SQ.

I'll answer some of your points. Not all of them, as then this debate would be far too hard to do in one thread, and I think that we actually agree more than first appearences show regarding justification, for instance.

As I said before, when John wrote to the churches in Laodicea and Sardis (Revelation 3) they weren't merely 'local' churches that were erring. They weren't a body of believers that, though they may err, could be corrected by looking at the other body of beleivers just up the road. They were the only church that anyone without significant time and money would ever see, in that century. It didn't matter one jot that another church in Athens or wherever was doing fine, because any normal poor person from Laodicea would never ever have travelled to Athens. As far as they were concerned, they were the whole church. They were erring.

Hi Dinghy - I don't know if you've read my comments about the small vs the large C churches. That small churches will err is a given. Christ never promised that individuals - even those with leadership entrusted to them - would not err. But if the Church itself was prone to error, it would no longer exist in anything like its early form.
That errant small c churches could affect some believers for their entire lifetimes shows the danger of heresy.
When St. Paul addressed these churches, what was he was correcting? He was correcting individuals for deciding that the faith, in some way, meant something other than what had been taught by Christ and the Apostles.
When St. Paul wrote his corrective letters, he was speaking for the Church, with authority, and he was defending a single truth as understood by the Church.

quote:
You missed my point about Leo X, I beleive, or else you're trying some form of logical coverup


that's logically inconceivable.

quote:
(by the way, yes, that's the right guy). Leo X denied the existence of God, but sold forgiveness from him. I can find neither of those supported in the bible. John XII engaged in devil worship and turned the Vatican into a brothel. I can find support for neither of these in the bible. THese guys, as far as it appears to me, were most definitely not sola scriptura. This is not a chance to advertise how great Orthodoxy is. It is not a chance to denigrate either the RCC (and that isn't my intention in this post, either) or protestants. This is not an opportunity to go off on a tangent, or talk about Martin Luther, or anything like that. Please tell me, in simple, logical steps, why Leo and John's many crimes were the result of sola scriptura.


short version:
Popes read bible, decide to ignore Church theology, start their own religion, leads to Protestantism, that splinters to what we have today where Mormons will argue ceaselessly that they are Christians. Whether they are or are not is not the point, the point is that pliable theology makes them possible.

explanation:
Go back and look at the first step. There's nothing wrong with reading the Bible, we do, it is the foundation of the faith, and on average probably 2/3 or more of any given service in the ORthodox Church consists of readings from Scripture. The error is in deciding for yourself what it means. That's what the first seven councils addressed, and those committing heresy came back to the fold, some disgruntled for sure, but back into a unified and universal Church and theology. Rome, on the other hand, decided to start their own Church. That's what happens when you read the Bible and find, in your reading, something that you believe is being misinterpreted, and believe it is significnt enough to start telling people about it.
This _had to happen_ for Rome to be excommunicated. And Rome supported their new idea about the very nature of the Creator using the Bible to support them. They twisted some of the tiny bit He's made known to us about Him, a sacred and precious knowledge just in the fact that it relates to Him and was revealed by Him, and they did it with the Bible.
And a new Church was born, with it a new and - for the first time - pliable theology.

So SS is where RC came from, and their further SS errors begat Protestantism, a healthy reaction to a theological world turned upside down, but a misguided one, because it is self-guided.
RC and Protestants both adhere to the same __foundational__ belief: We can decide for ourselves what the Creator's dcommunication means to us.


quote:
Regarding your gedankexperiment about giving 1000 island dwellers bibles, of course only a few of them would come back to you with anything even resembling Christianity. Only a few people in the world, relatively speaking, are Christians. The road is narrow. The bible contains a lot to digest, and not everyone's prepared to take that step.


If you really believe that, why do you sift through theology, picking and choosing what pleases you to believe? IF someone believes themselves to be immortal, but that their immortal state is contingent upon what they do in the next decades, they would be prudent to rely upon something aside from their own intellect when deciding what to believe about The Creator's expectations.

quote:
Finally, you still haven't answered a point I made a while ago. You say that the whole church cannot err. Let's say that's true for a minute. If the church is not any human construct, not any local church (and yes, that includes a church with the adjective "Eastern" before its name) but the worldwide, invisible communion of believers. How can you know that protestantism itself is actually the process by which not-the-whole-church errs? What if both the RC and EO are in error, and protestantism is the faithful remainder by which the church does not wholly fall? You say God promised that the whole, global church would never fall, but then apply that to one part of Christendom, rather than the whole of it. Why?


There are a slew of reasons why the idea of the Church as the entirety of believers is an impossiblity. The most obvious answer is that it provides no consistent answer about how to walk the narrow road. So it cannot contain the Truth about salvation on the narrow road because that Truth cannot be objectively identified. Here's another: This idea of a corporate church was unknown prior to Protestantism. If this is the proper understanding of what the Church is, that's a pretty significant thing, with all manner of obvious implications, so it's probably something that would not have remained completely hidden for the first 1500 years of the faith.

When St. Paul said that people would fall away from the church, he might have suspected that those people would continue to call themselves Christians. After all, the fact that you believe earnestly enough to be part of the faith, and then, likely with no small degee of pain, break away from its teachings, you aren't likely to tale up satanism. Paul saw how different understandings of Christ's message were being preached in his day, and tried to correct it and reconcile those who were astray fully back to the flock.
Now, if the body of general believers is what Christ was talking about, who has fallen away? Can we call anyone who calls themselves a Christian and tries in earnest to follow Christ, based upon what their life has led them to believe, with a pure heart, a non-Christian?

We don't. (except for Mormons). All who follow Christ in earnest are Christians. But we pray, daily, for their reconciliation with the Apostolic Church and its full understanding of theology and salvation. Many Protestant churches are trying, with great faith, to recreate the Apostolic Church. They can't, but they don't have to, it still exists, and it is open to all willing to be educated and then baptized into the Church.

quote:
One last thing. As I write this, you posted six times before me, and you have been informed before that that's bad manners. Please work out what you want to say, all of it, before you post, so your multiple posts don't take up the entire page.
I'm sorry, I think some of what I am saying is new to some people, and so I can be long-winded in an effort to be understandable. As for the multiple posts, I'm tied up until midnight eastern USA time, and I think there are fewer people posting. I'm answering every post in order, and posting as soon as the answer is done, sometimes an hour or more after starting. Should I be doing it in some other way?
Thanks for the great arguments, Dinghy.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
What makes you think that your feeble mind - or my feeble mind - can understand scripture better than the concensus of the first millenium of Christianity? Why would any single individual look at the universal understanding of the faith from the first millenium of Christianity and think that any thought they might have would compare to the wisdom of that consensus? That question demands an answer.

And here are two:

1. The Protestant reformers never saw themselves as coming up with the true interpretation of the Bible for the first time. They believed they were restoring the faith of the Fathers and the Scriptures, after centuries of corruption by the medieval RCC.

Of course that's what they intended, and if you believe that 'the faith of the Fathers and the Scriptures' is open to wide interpretation, they were successful beyond what they would have thought possible.

2. Consensus? My head's reeling. Would that be the Monophysite consensus? The Nestorian consensus? The Paulician consensus? The gnostic consensus? The Donatist consensus? The chalcedonian consensus? The Origenist consensus? The Macedonian consensus? The Arian consensus? The semi-Arian consensus? The Aetian consensus? The Marcionite consensus? The Montanist consensus? The Ebionite consensus?.... [/QB][/QUOTE]

I don't know if this is a serious question of not. In what way are any of the above anything more than the beliefs of a splinter or strayed flock? They were in consensus within their own heresy?
If you're looking for consensus, look to the theology to which the Arians, Nestorians, Montanist and others reconciled themselves after the issue was decided by a universal council of Bishops representing the entirety of the Christian world.
Or look to the Nicean/Constantinoplian(?) Creed and its 1600 year history.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE]
Of course the theology of the church hasn't changed. Martin Luther didn't want to change the Biblical foundation of the creeds, he wanted to remove the overgrown weeds from the Truth so that it could be seen again.

Then you made some points about Roman Catholic "encrustation", with which I agree (I'm Orthodox, not RC).
I'll answer both things at once. I don't believe that the RC church is an evil institution. Barnacled, yes, and errant, but not evil. From their inception onward, the average RC priest has earnestly believed that they were responsible for the salvation of their flock and tried their best to that end. Likewise, though power can breed corruption, the leadership was chosen for their fealty and piety, was benevolent, and had every intention of preserving the Truth intact. Yet relying upon their own interpretation of the bible, having set themselves up as the arbiters of its meaning, they bred error after error.
This in spite of the fact that they started with the fullness of understanding of the universal Apostolic Church, as well as having Bibles.
To argue that Protestants haven't similarly erred is preposterous unless Truth is relative. If you think that any of the Catholic interpretations of the Bible - that's what their innovations and errors were - are dangerous to a person's salvation, given that they arose from people reading the Bible - and the Fathers - in earnest, how can you be sure that some of your beliefs are not similarly in error?
The best you can do is argue that your understanding is correct. Try arguing Bible verses with a sharp Unitarian or JW. But both of you can look outside yourselves for Truth, and when you do, the one unchanged theology in the one unchanged Christian Church are waiting with love.
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
2. Consensus? My head's reeling. Would that be the Monophysite consensus? The Nestorian consensus? The Paulician consensus? The gnostic consensus? The Donatist consensus? The chalcedonian consensus? The Origenist consensus? The Macedonian consensus? The Arian consensus? The semi-Arian consensus? The Aetian consensus? The Marcionite consensus? The Montanist consensus? The Ebionite consensus?....

I don't know if this is a serious question of not. In what way are any of the above anything more than the beliefs of a splinter or strayed flock? They were in consensus within their own heresy?
If you're looking for consensus, look to the theology to which the Arians, Nestorians, Montanist and others reconciled themselves after the issue was decided by a universal council of Bishops representing the entirety of the Christian world.
Or look to the Nicean/Constantinoplian(?) Creed and its 1600 year history. [/QB]

This is the kind of junk I am talking about. Preserving the Truth means simply killing, condemning or throwing out any person who disagrees with your understanding of things. Because that keeps people from falling away -- blind acceptance of unchallenged dogma, bred through fear and rigid discipline.

I remember Jesus last words... "Behold, I am with the Church--that's with a big "C" remember--always, so if you need to know what the Truth is, you can find it at the Church. And by all means do NOT think for yourself about it. Dear God what kind of disaster could that cause?!?"

That and, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes to the Father except through the Church, who maintains sole possession of this way, truth and life."


It really boils my blood, to be honest.

-Digory
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Why did Luther exist as a force in history in the way he did? It took 500 years for him to come along. Nowhere in the history of the Church was there an example of something as radical as a Luther.

Nonsense. What about Wyclif & Hus? Just over the mountains from Luther's Saxony the kingdom of Bohemia had broken away from Rome about a century earlier - and initially at least much more bloodily than Luther's German Reformation.

A thousand years before that blood was spilled in Constantinople and half the cities of the Empier over monophysitism. Even the Emperor and the Empress fell out over it. And the supposedly monophysite churches still exist, and have tens of millions of adherents.

And they aren't part of the Church. God never promised we would not fight over the Truth, just that it would always be with us.
You said, 'nonsense' to my argument, but what you followed with proves nothing. Each of the heresies, such as the monophosytes, which resulted in an Ecumenical Council, reconciled themselves to the Church in whole or in part, and they were all arguing something distinctly less radical than what Luther said. The early heretics were trying to change the Church from within, and saying that one element of theology was being improperly understood. Luther said to read it for yourself and decide what it means.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I think some of what I am saying is new to some people, and so I can be long-winded in an effort to be understandable.

I think the usual argument regarding the supremacy of Orthodoxy is emering here; and it's not new to most of us.

Of course, some aspect of what anyone says will be new to some people..... but we could all claim that justification for long-windedness.

I wonder if you could join the call to hell with Mousethief? Would be an interesting contrast......
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
The only 'church' that can claim to consistently defend a single Truth is the only one which has ever done so. We believe that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and I would argue that this is manifestly so.

[...]

The fact that the Church's theology is unchanged should suggest to an objective observer that something is protecting it from error.

OK, I come clean here. I do not think that either the doctrine or the practice of the Orthodox churches is unchanged since the time of the Apostles. I don't think there is any serious evidence for that at all. I don't belive it is true.
If you believe that, then you have not read the writings from the early Church and are not familiar with its practice today.

quote:
And, to make matters worse, I do not think that either the doctrine or the practice of the Orthodox churches is unchanged since the time of the great councils either. And I suspect that the liturgy and practices of the Egyptian and Armenian churches - supposedly monophysite heretics - have changed about the same amount since then. Maybe less. So if I was forced to choose churches on the grounds of historical continuity with, or resemblence to, the Great Church of ancient times, I could not distinguish between the Copts or Constantinople.

Sure, if you decided to go with a splinter heresy that took a fraction of the Church with it. It's fine that you don't believe that the Church is unchanging. I will grant it in one regard: The visitation of the HS at Pentacost did not write a creed, or establish sacramental services, these things had to develop, but they were developed to an eventual consensus.
To my knowledge, no one has ever proven that the theology of the Church has changed. You keep saying it has, in spite of lots of historical evidence I have provided that it has not, so you have the burden, friend. Prove it. If you can, I will concede the argument, and with it any claim that Orthodoxy has an unchanged understanding of theology and salvation.

quote:
In fact I don't think the doctrines and practices of those churches are entirely unchanged since the time of the schism with the western European churches. Although the liturgy is perhaps less changed than in the west, I am almost willing to bet it is changed.

It has changed, insofar as most churches today practice the abbreviated form (1 1/2 hours), not the five hour service. That the Litugy has beenthe same Liturgy for 1600+ years is an historical fact.

quote:
So your argument doesn't wash. As a Christian faced with a real choice of which church to be a member of, the idea that the Orthodox have preserved the unchanged Truth throughout history doesn't help me at all. Because how do I know it is true? All I have is your word for it! And I also hear the Copts and the Romans and the Anapbaptists and the Restorationists and even some of the blunter Presbyterians telling met that it is false! How can I be sure?

I hope you're asking in earnest, because I think that any earnest, objective person, with no pre-conceived ideas about these things, and with a humble heart, can find the Truth. If people enter into the search for Truth deciding to be largely subjective - to find something that sounds good to them - that's what they will find, and many will find it satisfying. But if you are really looking for objective Truth, true whether we like it and agree or not, I think a very powerful argument can be made that Orthodoxy is closest to the Source.
I hope you will do some research, to find out for yourself if the Church has changed. People will always write their own version of history. If you read RC sources, they will claim to be the Truth from the Source onward, but they changed their creed, and more since. If you read Protestant sources, you will generally find someone arguing that the Church at some point fell into heresy, and then lay dormant until the reformation. But the 'heresy' is always that the Church does or says something that disagrees with the author's interpretation of Scripture. Not such a great argument when the other side consists of all of Church history prior to 1054.

quote:
To even be able to meaningfully assess it I'd have to know an awful lot more about the history of the church and comparitive liturgy than I do. (And I already do no more about those things than nine out of ten, if not ninety-nine out of a hundred, of my fellow Christians) And I'd probably have to learn Greek & Syriac. It would take me years if I was capable of it at all.

No, brother. All you have to do is look at some of the arguments against it. Look at where they come from and how that affects them, and be objective. If you find something that tells you that the Church has changed, in any meaningful way, please (please) share it with me and give me a chance to respond to it.
I don't care for some elements of Orthodox Theology. Some of it doesn't accord with what reason tells me. But I submit. For one, I'm not meant to understand everything. None of us can understand the Trinity. None of us can understand how the Creator did it all. Nor His nature. In fact, Scripture warns against speculating about such things. So though I cannot understand or accept it all on the level of reason, I still accept it, believing that my wisdom counts for little when compared to the consensus of the ancients about the Truth of the faith and our salvation.
That Truth has been preserved, and in Orthodoxy, you will find it, and the vehicle to a truly transforming life in Christ, if one is truly willing.
Thanks, Ken
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
.....any earnest, objective person, with no pre-conceived ideas about these things, and with a humble heart, can find the Truth.

This seems to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is not earnest, objective, or has pre-conceived ideas.

I earnestly believe in God; but I recognise that atheists/agnostics may disagree with me.... but do so in honest, objective and earnest error.

Secondly; teaching on divorce in Orthodoxy..... has this changed?

Thirdly; Hinduism has not changed appreciably in 4-5000 years. Is this a similar testament to the truth?
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I think some of what I am saying is new to some people, and so I can be long-winded in an effort to be understandable.

I think the usual argument regarding the supremacy of Orthodoxy is emering here; and it's not new to most of us.

Of course, some aspect of what anyone says will be new to some people..... but we could all claim that justification for long-windedness.

I wonder if you could join the call to hell with Mousethief? Would be an interesting contrast......

If HELL is some kind of debate or challenge, just tell me if I have to do anything special. I'll go there now on another window.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
It seems to me, in a setup which was persecuted in England, full of individualism (had to be to survive the persecution), and prone to the cult of the personality coming from the individualism, the question is not why so many have come and gone, but why do any survive?

(the above came after you mentioned some long-lived Protestant churches and sects)

They survive because Christ compels us. Christ's love is preached in earnest across America and the world every Sunday in countless Churches of every stripe. Most people find it spiritually satisfying, and many are spiritually transformed in those churches.
They look across the road and seeing another Christian church with distinctly different beliefs, but they stay where they are because in both cases they are not compelled in any way to change. Both believe themselves to be 'strictly Biblical', in spite of their obvious disagreements. And they believe that the road to salvation is at least broad enough to accomodate them, and that their church knows enough about walking it for them to get by.
The various Protestant churches and long-lived denominations survive because they don't believe that there exists an arbiter of Truth, someone who can tell them what it all means.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Many of us do. We just don't believe in a single arbiter. There is a combination approach; listening to one's elders, hearing the voice of the church, reading the bible, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit..... and each one judging in his/her heart what to believe. As it is written "let the other judge".... not "let the Church judge". This appears to be the practice Paul was advocating for the church.

The church has been involved in anti-semitism in the past, has it not? We hear about Greek versus Arab bi-partisanship..... I'm sure there are other sins..... The church of Acts was clearly riddled with error that needed correcting.

I would need good evidence to accept that the church was infallible/indefectible.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
The God-guided Church has chiefly concerned itself with preserving the Apostolic Church in purity?!? Alas, my friends, I believe we have come again upon the Circular Definition Proof (CDP, as perhaps we should begin referring to it).


Definition 1: The God-guided Church is only made up of those who have retained the Orthodox theology from the beginning.

Definition 2: Any who are said to err are excluded from the God-guided Church on the basis that the church has proclaimed that they have erred.

Conclusion: The Orthodox Church is the God-guided Church, and as such is incapable of erring.


It's a ridiculous argument. I challenge tradition and consider my own interpretations of Scripture not because I see myself as the Sole Proprietor of Truth™, but because I believe that honest dialogue between people with differing opinions will arrive more closely at the truth, taking into consideration the great history of tradition, councils and ideas, than those who simply sit and refuse to question for the sake of some false sense of continuity.

You make several points, which I will take in the order presented.
1. First, the proof. The proof, like everything else, only has meaning in light of Scripture. AISB, there is little reason to believe that the church St. Paul refers to in the Bible is a mystical/spiritual thing alone, those who 'follow Christ' to the best of their beliefs. It was then, and still is, in many of the same cities, also an earthly, physical thing. So an actual Church, with an actual history and continuity existed. And until you can show where, once a consensus was reached and then preserved, the Church has changed its theology, what you are really militating against is the consensus of the early Church. Did all agree, all the time? No, that's why there were dissidents and heresies, and councils to affirm the Truth as it had been handed down.
Further, replace the words "Orthodox Church" with "Jerusalem's Orthodox Jewish churches" fill in the rest of the proof, and you come to the same conclusion, and it is one about The Creator's abilities. Namely, that His guidance is incapable of preserving the fullness of Truth about what it takes for his most beloved ones to be with Him.

2. Your councils with your earnest Christian friends may provide great spiritual food for you, or may lead you to error, you don't know. You don't know because you are human, and a small group, if for no other reasons. If you decide to look at Scripture and your walk on the narrow path and glean what you will from it, that is your choice. But the church has battled error for two millenia, and since _their argument has not changed_ I am inclined to trust them, rather then myself.

3. You say the church has false continuity. I make the same offer I made to Ken: prove it and I will concede the argument.

I think you are looking at the Church as a monolithic, despotic institution, which crushes dissent because it serves its collective ego to do so. The Church resists heresy because it does not accord with the understanding of God's message as passed on by the Apostles. Protestants will tell us that there were oodles and oodles of copies of the new testament, more of less in its entirety, floating around in the early years of the Church. Let's say that this is true. Then, as now, we need help to understand them. This is proved by the fact that we have so many different understandings of Scripture, and in some cases those understandings affect our salvation. So then, as now, leaders who can instruct and guide would be chosen because of their fealty to God's word. And it wouldn't be God's word as we might understand it ourselves, but as understood and explained by the Apostles. The works of many souls for many decades are encapsulated in a few pages of Scripture. How much more was said? The rest of what was said was the true meat on the bones, what it all means to us.
And charged with passing that message on intact, they did so. We don't believe and do what we do out of pride or rigidness, we do and believe as we do because Christians have always done so. We don't condemn new and different beliefs because they are not thoughtful, or not interesting, but because they do not accord with the understanding of God's message as preserved from antiquity, and, as a result, can affect the only thing that ultimately concerns the Church, the salvation of its members.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
If veneration was so important in the NT church can you give me any passages in the Bible that teach us how we should carry out these acts of veneration properly? Or where the church was corrected for not carrying out veneration properly?

Andreas hasn't answered this, so I will.
You could ask where much that is done in many churches is spelled out word for word in the new Testament. We know for an archeological fact that early Christian churches adorned their walls with artwork, and that this was common throughout the history of the Church. It was many centuries before some reacted against the use of icons and artwork, and it was ultimately resolved in their favor. The reasons for this are manifold, the best one is the one that always guides the Church: The Church has always done or believed it.
Did someone start painting the walls of churches and making icons the minute Christ entered creation? No, but when some started to do so, those who objected were told the same things the Church has always said on the matter. Those answers sufficed for first century Christians, they will suffice for me.


snip

quote:
So I also see a distinct lack of images in the OT church hence why should the NT church need them?

It's not a matter of needing, nor are they necessary for our salvation. They are a beautiful glorification of God. They are a window to another world, and they depict those who should guide us, Christ, Christ and the Theotokos (she is never depicted alone, nor are the Father and the Holy Spirit depicted, we don't know what they look like), and the saints. When we look at an icon we are reminded in a direct way of the kinds of lives that others have lived in Christ, completely submitting themselves to God's will, and we are emboldened by their example, and encouraged by their love.

One of the reasons for the 2nd commandment is that God had not yet revealed Himself to mankind, so we couldn't picture him. After He did so, it is perfectly appropriate to depict him - he walked among us in physical form. And we know as we have always known that there is no element of worship involved, which is the spirit of the 2nd commandment.


quote:
Also tradition does change one church council declared the use of icons as wrong and then the next one does a complete about turn - which council should we trust. (My knowledge of ecumenical councils is limited - but I think I am right in this)

As you would guess I would say, you are indeed incorrect in this case. The council which spoke againts icons was a local or regional council, its action prompted the church-wide council, where the issue was resolved.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
No, this is the second council of Nice, the one that said: "Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols."

ETA: http://www.newadvent.com/fathers/3819.htm

In my mind we have two sides here, one is saying that these are a good way to worship God. And another that points to the Bible and says that we are not to worship things that are manmade.

A responding question is what of my brothers and sisters in Christ who are uncomfortable in the extreme with icons and wonder why people are "worshiping" pictures? Am I to just tell them that they are wrong when they are trying their best to follow the scriptures?

Please see my post previous to this one, where I talk about the why of icons. The best thing to tell your friend is that if he/she intends to become Catholic or Orthodox and they don't care for icons, they don't have to look at them. They are beautiful, so they probably eventually will look at and appreciate them, especailly when they realize no worship is involved.

To your main point, God is always pleased when his love is returned. But are we certain what he expects of us? How narrow is the road, and if the truth seems so plain and obvious, why is it narrow? God's expectations are summed up in the ten ccommandments, nos. 11 and 12 (love..God...neighbor) and the beaitudes. If a person faithfully honors them with an eye on Communion with God, they are truly living the Christian life. But it's not easy, and in its understanding of salvation and theology, in its sacraments, and the spiritual disciplines made available to believers are all a great aid and comfort, great aid is givento believers. It is also provided by the church community and one's spiritual father.
Orthodox are gladdened by any earnest worship of God, and as always believers can believe as they will, but with Orthodoxy one can rest assured that the beliefs are time-honored in the ultimate sense. And not having to figure out and decide everything allows one's focus to be on working out their salvation.

That doesn't mean one can't read, write, and speak about all of these things, as I am doing now. A life in Orthodoxy is extremely challenging and satisfying, in both regards because the truth-seeker comes to realize that they are finally sinking their teeth into Truth.

quote:
Again the text says that we are to follow the scriptures. Am I to put the teaching of the council above them? If so, then when am I supposed to know when someone is in error?

If you don't have any standard against which to measure theology, you can't know if someone is in error. So we either concede error or find a truth worth rallying around.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
[shrugs] Then why bother learning or discussing anything? Just wait and see whether one's own demonination survives - if not, you'll shift elsewhere, and if so, it's probably orthodox. This belief encourages apathy.

Do you know a lot of Orthodox people? Do they seem apathetic to you?
Be serious. Was the early church apathetic? Was the faith only worth living when heresy abounded? Does a faithful Christian lose motivation if they concede that they don't know and can't know, by themselves, all the answers?
Orthodox argue about scripture all the time. That's a pleasure when done in love, and it's something not lost to us.
Brother, one can live as full a life in Christ in Orthodoxy as anywhere. Apathy? Because the Truth is fixed and one accepts it? No, friend - faith, and humility, and confidence that, if one is willing, the path is lit.

[code -- but it's a lot better]

[ 04. November 2005, 15:46: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbo:
Also tradition does change one church council declared the use of icons as wrong and then the next one does a complete about turn - which council should we trust. (My knowledge of ecumenical councils is limited - but I think I am right in this)

You are, and it's a good point. How are Councils discerned from amongst the many councils?
Councils were populated by Bishops from all over the Christian world, generally one Bishop presided over a city or a larger rural area. The first, at Nicea in 325, was attended by 318 Bishops. There were seven ecumenical coucils of the whole church, the one that dissented over icons was a smaller, regional coucil.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
There is an interesting anathema contained in the second council of Nice, which is an ecumenical council.

quote:
Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.
How do Protestants reply to this anathema?
andreas1984

I thought I would answer your question directly, my friend. I think I see the Anathema as still in operation today. In general, I dont think Protestants accept the premises of the Anathema. To illustrate I will concentrate on one feature. Tradition, and teaching about it, which is not recorded in scripture, are regarded as subject to test in scripture.

I think where the confusion arises is that this is not necessarily a "sola scriptura" position. Protestants vary a great deal on the degree to which they take Tradition and the Fathers' teaching as authoritative. (They also vary a good deal on the ways in which they treat scripture as authoritative and inspired). But it is generally true that Protestants would not take the teachings of the holy Fathers as binding for them today.

I post as someone who has found and does find great, and continuing, value in extra-canonical writings and sayings by Christians of all ages. But I tend to ask the same questions of all of them.

1. Is what is said consistent with scripture as I understand it?

2. Does is "resonate as true" in accordance with the inner witness of the Holy Spirit?

The fact that I ask those questions, reverently as well as critically, probably subjects me to the Anethema as written. I may be an offence as a result, but I'm not offended by that. I'm definitely a non-conformist Protestant, not afraid to ask questions and challenge, respectfully, received wisdom and understanding. For me, that is the real journey of submission. My current understanding, after over thirty years in the church, has been achieved, piece by piece, by approaching truth in that way, in the company of and under the authority of the Christians with whom I worship. It may be a personal understanding but it has not been reached in accordance with my own understanding at any point in time. I've submitted to things I did not agree with (and sometimes found this to be a good thing), misunderstood, made mistakes, changed my mind, changed it back again. I remain teachable. One of the meanings of disciple is simply "learner". And I expect to go on learning - until my brain gives out.

We can be a confusing lot, of course. Ask another Protestant and you may get a different answer!
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
This is the kind of junk I am talking about. Preserving the Truth means simply killing, condemning or throwing out any person who disagrees with your understanding of things. Because that keeps people from falling away -- blind acceptance of unchallenged dogma, bred through fear and rigid discipline.


Friend, much of _your_ understanding of Christianity is based upon Orthodoxy's defense of it. That is true if you are remotely Catholic or remotely Protestant. To characterize that defense as if it is some miserly curmudgeon, zealously guarding what he wants to shove down everyone's throat, is dishonest unless you know nothing of the Church.
Tell me, sir, what ought the Church have done when six heresies confronted it about the very nature of our Lord and savior? Their defense of His nature conformed with the earliest understanding of it. Where they to tell people, "sure, this other understanding of our Lord and Saviour is perfectly acceptable, and thoroughly Orthodox, and it is true. Wait, maybe the traditional understanding is true. Who cares?" St. Paul talls us to guard the truth, are we to not do so because it might trample on someone's creativity? You can accept the idea that the truth (notice the small t) about our salvation is pliable, and that it's mean-spirited to want to guard the beliefs and the traditions of the progenitors of the faith but frankly, it is a strange belief. I wonder, sir, would you say the same thing about Orthodox of any other faith? Most of the Christians I know respect Orthodox Jews especially, and because of their adherence to their traditional faith, and most Christians don't see in it a desire to trample or mentally eviscerate anyone.

That you see it of the Orthodox of your faith speaks volumes about something - you know better than I do what the motivation for your hostility is, I have no clue and would not care to guess.

quote:
I remember Jesus last words... "Behold, I am with the Church--that's with a big "C" remember--always, so if you need to know what the Truth is, you can find it at the Church. And by all means do NOT think for yourself about it. Dear God what kind of disaster could that cause?!?"

That and, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes to the Father except through the Church, who maintains sole possession of this way, truth and life."


It really boils my blood, to be honest.

-Digory

You're not thinking very deeply or charitably about it. If the creator's universe is one in which the truth is malleable, then by all means, discuss it in only the most general terms, and impart whatever meaning you like to it. Do you do this? Probably not, you probably try to be honest and careful, not interpreting things to allow you to do things that your Creator-implantd conscience tells you not to, for instance. But that malleability is acceptable is at the root of your protest against preserving the early Chistians understandings.

If the Orthordox Church has preserved the Truth as understood by the Apostles, why would you, personally, look anywhere else for it, and why would you not want to see it continue to be defended, in the event that you might one day want to know more about it? That is what we are trying to do, and have done, for nearly 2000 years. There is no power-trip in it. Read the Fathers on humility and you will see that.

_________
 
Posted by Edward::Green (# 46) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

"But," the little Protestant angel with the fluffy tail sitting on my other shoulder says, "but, you have the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Read them..."

and the little Catholic angel with the spikey hair sitting next to him says - "and just to be safe be an Anglican which does have a modicum of continuity ..."

Except I suspect that you are not really a Protestant at all Ken. I should know I used to be one. Being Anglican is surely the best of both worlds?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Edward::Green:
Except I suspect that you are not really a Protestant at all Ken. I should know I used to be one. Being Anglican is surely the best of both worlds?

No, being Anglican is a way of being Protestant. Which is to say "Reformed Catholic", the words meaning the same thing. The patently absurd claim that the CofE is not Protestant is not to be taken at face value - who could believe it literally? - but is a rhetorical stance within the Church of England that attemtps to make certain views of what that church is, or should be, normative. And as such is a very, very, Protestant way of behaving.

And every week I read these boards convinces me more and more of that.
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward::Green:
Except I suspect that you are not really a Protestant at all Ken. I should know I used to be one. Being Anglican is surely the best of both worlds?

No, being Anglican is a way of being Protestant. Which is to say "Reformed Catholic", the words meaning the same thing. The patently absurd claim that the CofE is not Protestant is not to be taken at face value - who could believe it literally? - but is a rhetorical stance within the Church of England that attemtps to make certain views of what that church is, or should be, normative. And as such is a very, very, Protestant way of behaving.

And every week I read these boards convinces me more and more of that.

I agree that being Anglican is a way of being Protestant i.e. protesting at the errors of the Bishop of Rome and in that sense it is Reformed Catholic.

However I would like suggest that there is less to protest about these days as the Church of Rome has itself reformed since the days of Martin Luther and perhaps some of us have found that the C16th protesting reformers were not exclusively right about everything and that those who continued in the Roman church still had something to offer. I therefore remain both Catholic and Protestant but hoping that the gap may so narrow that we can be in communion with each other (also with Methodists and Lutherans etc etc)
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I come clean here. I do not think that either the doctrine or the practice of the Orthodox churches is unchanged since the time of the Apostles. I don't think there is any serious evidence for that at all. I don't belive it is true.

If you believe that, then you have not read the writings from the early Church and are not familiar with its practice today.

Which writings of the time of the Apostles that I haven't read would you recommend?

quote:

If you read RC sources, they will claim to be the Truth from the Source onward, but they changed their creed, and more since. If you read Protestant sources, you will generally find someone arguing that the Church at some point fell into heresy, and then lay dormant until the reformation. But the 'heresy' is always that the Church does or says something that disagrees with the author's interpretation of Scripture.

[QUOTE][QB]
Not such a great argument when the other side consists of all of Church history prior to 1054.

Are you claiming that the western European churches were not Orthodox before 1054? When do you think they ceased to be Orthodox then? Were they ever Orthodox in your view?

If you think they were Orthodox before 1054 (or at any other time) then you cannot say that your side inlcudes "all of Church history prior to 1054" because their side also includes at least some of it. That shared history with the Roman Catholics - also shared with Moravians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists and all the rest of them - includes just about all the major theological doctrines of Christianity.

quote:

All you have to do is look at some of the arguments against it. Look at where they come from and how that affects them, and be objective. If you find something that tells you that the Church has changed, in any meaningful way, please (please) share it with me and give me a chance to respond to it.

What you are saying only makes sense if you already believe that one group of churches is really somehow The Church and all the rest are fakes. But it cannot possibly help someone who does not believe that come to that belief. How could it? Pretty obviously the Church now has many, many instances on earth, all worshipping differently from each other. So at the very least almost all of them nmust have changed their practice. None of them seem to resemble the earliest churches very closely.

quote:

I don't care for some elements of Orthodox Theology. Some of it doesn't accord with what reason tells me. But I submit. For one, I'm not meant to understand everything. None of us can understand the Trinity. None of us can understand how the Creator did it all. Nor His nature.

All those truths are held in common by (nearly) all Christians. Protestants as much as Orthodox. So believing them, or submitting to them, is no reason for someone to join one church rather than another.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Not all protestants believe in a post-modern, malleable truth, believe what suits you approach.

Probably very few do.

Yet there seems an implication that rejecting the one true church as arbiter of truth implies as much. It doesn't.

Yet the ultimate outcome of the "just me and Jaysus and the Bahbull" approach ("soul competency" is one term for this, I think?) seems to be a situation in which there are as many theologies as there are theologians, which does seem (to this very jaded observer) to be as close to post-modernism as makes no never-mind. If every individual is capable of discerning the truth, then what criteria will be used to tell any given individual that what they've discerned is not, in fact, the truth? And by whom?
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Mousethief:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mdijon:
Not all protestants believe in a post-modern, malleable truth, believe what suits you approach.

Probably very few do.

Yet there seems an implication that rejecting the one true church as arbiter of truth implies as much. It doesn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet the ultimate outcome of the "just me and Jaysus and the Bahbull" approach ("soul competency" is one term for this, I think?) seems to be a situation in which there are as many theologies as there are theologians, which does seem (to this very jaded observer) to be as close to post-modernism as makes no never-mind. If every individual is capable of discerning the truth, then what criteria will be used to tell any given individual that what they've discerned is not, in fact, the truth? And by whom?

Respectfully, guys, I think you're both wrong about postmodernism. Protestantism is about rejecting traditional religious authority (and authorities) in the name of Truth. And Truth is actually as modern a concept as you could wish for. Capital-T Truth is the way things are, which can be grasped by reason, and used to subvert traditional authority. Protestantism began by setting the Truth over against the Church (where premodern European culture had lined them up, because the latter was the source of knowledge about the former), then was driven to look for the Truth in the Bible to set over against the (traditional - but basically human, and therefore not guaranteed True) Church. Then, of course, liberal Protestantism, in perhaps its greatest religious achievement, turned its critical arsenal on its own Truth, and liberated science from religious authority, whereupon Science became Truth. Mousethief - you're really close to the heart, not of the postmodern, but of the modern, when you say
quote:
If every individual is capable of discerning the truth, then what criteria will be used to tell any given individual that what they've discerned is not, in fact, the truth? And by whom?
What happens in the postmodern is that people stop caring about the truth, and stop fighting about it - because they don't believe that there is Truth any more. There is absolutely nothing postmodern about Protestantism - which is why postmodern Protestant churches are divesting themselves of all that made them modern - often without realizing it.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Psyduck [Overused] 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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
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
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
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.

[Overused] This is what I too believe.
 
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Dobbo (# 5850) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by campchick (# 10521) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov (# 5452) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dobbo (# 5850) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Bonaventura (# 1066) on :
 
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,
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
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 smörgåsbord 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.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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 smörgåsbord 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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
PS

Sorry Sophia's Questions - I got your name wrong. Too busy checking the rest of the post to spot it!
 
Posted by Dobbo (# 5850) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Good point, mdijon.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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......
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
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 smörgåsbord 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
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
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
 
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
I don't have the time to continue this argument right now. What a pty. It's been nice discussing with you guys.
Dinghy
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
[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?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
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
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.....
 
Posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov (# 5452) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:

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.

Hi Barnabas,
It would be easier to answer the above if you had replied to one of my questions: Do you agree with my definition of Ultimate Truth as being the Christian faith and life as understood by the Apostles?

I haven't conceded the argument about Protestants choosing the various elements of their faith and Christian life because it is manifestly true. There are dozens of kinds of both preached with regularity, and the answers to fundamental questions are answered differently, so there is much on the table from which to choose. And that is what happens, choices are made because they answer the perceived needs of the chooser.
If you are saying that because such truths as 'Christ saves, but our active participation in our salvation is necessary' are generally held shows a lack of choosing, in cases such as these there are no other choices if one is to be considered a Christian.
In regards to any issue where there is disagreement, Protestants manifestly choose what to believe for themselves from among the differing ideas. How is this not a factual statement?


quote:

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.

Dobbo and I exchanged some posts about this. Bishop Kallistos' statement is not a definition. The same book likely contains one.
I think all Christians agree that the original sin of Adam and Eve was the cause of our fall. But you won't find Ware saying anything about us carrying a damning load of original sin. He refers above only to the first, or 'original' sin.


quote:

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.

The above is written obliquity. Hardly har har. I had to look it up, good stuff.

quote:

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.

'Hate the sin, love the sinner'
Three comments on the above.
First, I think we have fundamental agreement here. We both agree that the essence of sin is turning away from God, abandoning Christ's example of complete submission to the will of the Father.
Second, you say that sin is missing the mark, but then, later, you say that the understanding of what things are sinful differs - i.e. the mark is in some regards a floating target, and correction is to be discouraged.
Certainly, some sins are clear and understood by all. But many are increasingly blurry, for example, homosexuality. Not only have many faiths accepted homosexual clergy, but the prevailing social attitude - where stodgy ideas about sin get in the way of 'reality' (or whatever) - shows that many people now believe that this behavior is not sinful. (one of my best friends is a transexual, I am not a 'gay-basher', the above is not meant to anger, just to depict reality.)
Now, is there a truth about this behavior? Christians who are in the grip of this compulsion have always been with us. (The Church encourages celibacy, encouraged, if necessary by extreme asceticism.) Evidently many Protestants and sects believe that the truth about this sin is evolving, and they use scripture to back up their assertions, since everyone does their best to be, 'strictly biblical'. This is the pass to which sola scriptura brings us: That millions of Christians now believe that this is no longer a sin, and that the universal Christian condemnation of it until very recently means nothing, they were all wrong about Scripture from the point of view of those with the new belief. Millions of Christians so believe.
Third, note that you begin your definition by saying, 'so I think I see sin...'. Does this concede that you have decided for yourself, from arguments and options, what to believe about it, as a guiding principle in your life? If so, how does this not help to affirm my claim that Protestants decide what they will believe about theology? Your belief may be right, and may be well-sourced in Christianity, but in the end it is your decision.

Consider, as a side note, that by saying that you cannot define what are and are not sins with any specificity, you are conceding that you cannot know the Creator's full expectations of us, which are both active and restrictive in nature.

quote:

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.

Since I figured I would agree with your definition of what sin is on the first level (missing the mark) I was chiefly concerned in defining it in terms of the salvific effect it has upon us. We agree here, so I'll move on to the 'when' question.

quote:
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".

I'll get to the meat of this in a minute, but first I want to observe here that (though I don't know if you are saying this) there are no such things as lost battles with Sin in either regard they can be considered. Resistance is an active step in overcoming sin, so when we battle sin, we are making some small part, at least, of the effort asked of us. It is infinitely better to resist even slightly than to simply indulge oneself, for only in resistance is there the possibility to turn away from it. Nor can our ongoing battles with particularly enslaving sins ever be considered by the believer to be a lost battle in the overall sense, we are called to battle sin unto blood and until death.


quote:
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.

Unconscious sins are just that, but must still be identified and fought, especially since they are more likely to become an ingrained behavior if one ignores or downplays them. This is is an instance where a full understanding of what thoughts and behaviors and actually sinful can be particularly helpful.

You didn't say exactly when sin occurs, but since you don't speak of multiple sins, I will assume that your understanding differs from the Orthodox understanding, which is:

In the continuum of time between not thinking about sinning and committing the act itself, sin does not occur when the idea flashes into our head. We are being properly obedient when we banish the thought before we actually consider doing it. We live in a world awash in sin, and though one can find a degree of enlightenment where one rarely thinks of sin in any way, the fathers of the Church concurred that it was something that stays with all men all of their lives because of our fallen nature.
Sin first occurs when, after the idea enters our mind, we stop and consider it. Should we do it? In so doing, we have consciously put our will ahead of God's will, we know His answer to the question. But pride compels all of us to put ourselves ahead of God, and so we decide that we will make the decision. And it is in the 'hmmm' moment of contemplation that all 'manifest' or 'active' sins are born.
So with every 'action' of sin there is first the sin of pride. The manifestation of the sin in question is a second sin, if it occurs.

(A thought many may have when first considering this idea is that it can encourage despondency: “Well, I've already sinned by embracing my own will instead of God's, might as well so all the way.” It is true that this can happen, but when the believer first makes a stand, in spite of having considered it, the next time the idea enters his head, he can say, “I won't think about this, praise God, it no longer has any power over me.”)

This is a particularly powerful understanding of sin because in encourage believers to avoid the active contemplation of sinning. With practice and if done in earnest, this understanding, applied in any Christian's life, can make a difference in the battle with sin.


This is part and parcel of what I have been getting at in our communications. There is a best answer to these questions, one that makes the most difference in our salvation, and it is found in the understanding of the faith that was held by the Apostles. Their written record of what Christ told them and did, as St. John says, is a tiny fraction of the whole. What was their understanding of Christ's message?

In regard to that, which should be the concern of any thoughtful Christian, you didn't answer when I asked if you believe it possible that the Apostolic understanding has been preserved. I wish you would answer that. And if you believe it impossible, please say why.

My thanks again for your thoughtful reply. I have enjoyed talking with you immensely.
SQ
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I haven't conceded the argument about Protestants choosing the various elements of their faith and Christian life because it is manifestly true. There are dozens of kinds of both preached with regularity, and the answers to fundamental questions are answered differently, so there is much on the table from which to choose. And that is what happens, choices are made because they answer the perceived needs of the chooser.
If you are saying that because such truths as 'Christ saves, but our active participation in our salvation is necessary' are generally held shows a lack of choosing, in cases such as these there are no other choices if one is to be considered a Christian.
In regards to any issue where there is disagreement, Protestants manifestly choose what to believe for themselves from among the differing ideas. How is this not a factual statement?

It's not a factual statement because there are so many Protestants who do not do this. The reasoning of your argument is contradicted by the real practice of many Protestants. It would help a lot if you would stop trying to use phrases as "manifestly true" to bolster your argument. You're making claims about what Protestants do without substantiating them with concrete evidence, and doing this to an audience in which there are Protestants who know they themselves are not doing what you say they do.

Just because there are lots of different Protestant denominations doesn't mean Protestants choose individual beliefs for themselves any more than other Christians do. Beliefs come all packaged together in Protestant churches just as much as they do in other churches. If one is a Mennonite, there is a whole Mennonite package to sign up for, just as there is for Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox Christians. My parents did not choose their Baptist church because it suits them; it in fact does not suit them very well or meet their "perceived needs" in a lot of ways. They are in that church because they are as convinced about the rightness of that church as you are about the rightness of your church.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
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.
Digory,
If you want to read the above as patronizing you can do so, that was not my intent and I think you are choosing to do so. This is a subject that stirs emotions because it addresses the very basis of our beliefs, so things can easily be taken out of context. I think the answer was in response to Ken's argument that the OC must have changed.

As for being called to hell, I will go anywhere that I can defend the faith as understood by the Church, so call away.

quote:
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.

True. And it is possible that Christ did not work miracles, it may have been a joint fabrication on the part of the Jews and 'Christians' – that is what many post-modernist non-Christians believe, saying that the Bible is a fabrication. Many early works of other Church fathers exist, and they are recognized as authentic by the same people who determined which of the letters attributed to NT writers were legitimate and would be included in the Bible. And they testify to a consistency in the understanding of Christian theology and living.
That is the history of it. To believe otherwise is literally to believe in a conspiracy encompassing all of Christianity, for there is no record of it. Even Christianity's opponents are silent about the conspiracy. It's a fantastic idea that defies belief.

quote:
That being said, what exactly are you using as your Guide to the Early Church -- with which to compare the EOC to?

There is no guide to compare it to, the EOC understanding is the same understanding as the early Church, so it is the guide. I see that you offer some examples below of possible contrast with Scripture.

quote:

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?

Yes, insofar as monasticism is considered the highest spiritual calling. For those of us who live in the world, the Church would encourage this in a case where the struggling Christian was otherwise enslaved to wealth and material things. In such a case, drastic action is necessary to save the believer, for they are manifestly putting something besides God at the center of their life.

quote:
Does the Orthodox Church, as a formal practice, meet together daily for breaking of bread and prayer?

Yes, in communities with monasteries or cathedrals the Divine Liturgy (the celebration of the Sacramental Mystery of Communion) happens daily.

quote:
Does the Orthodox Church, as a formal practice, require all of its members to share all of their possessions with all other members?

We are encouraged to tithe, but no, we are not communal in that regard, except in the ideal of monasticism, which is, again, the highest calling for a man or a woman.

quote:
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.

If so, there isn't any evidence that the wealth-sharing practice was widely done outside of monastic communities, so though it is indeed the ideal, the Church through time has evidently understood that it was too much to demand of every believer.

I think you may interpret some of what I say to be patronizing because I talk about it as if it is categorical, the one Truth. And though I believe this is true because (to the best of my understanding) it accords with the Apostolic understanding of the Church, it is no way a source of pride for me, my acceptance is more in the spirit of humble submission to a Truth greater than I can understand, let alone discern or formulate. That my words can be strident is proof of my lack of control over my passions at times, but they truly are never meant to offend.
SQ

[fixed code]

[ 08. November 2005, 06:05: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
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.

Hi SSoS,

I would encourage you to consider again how you ended up where you are. I'm sure you're where you are because you believe that you are drawing closer to God, and that your life is fundamentally changing. This is possible in any Christian church because all love is the central virtue of the faith. But again, we don't know if the relationship with God that seems right to us is what is actually expected of us.

If that particular piece of knowledge is available to us in Truth, it should be the object of every Christian's greatest desire. For unless one is truly confident, especially in the midst of different understandings, about what is expected, how can one go about properly fulfilling those expectations?
Our desire, in regard to what to believe, should be to believe not what accords with our thoughts and predispositions. Our desire, just as in every other aspect of our lives, should be to live in accord with what is expected of us by God, in this case, to believe what He expects us to believe. St. Paul told us to hold to the teaching of the Church. Does the Church still exist? Only if it is in fact guided by God.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Sophia's Questions

When I posted re Original Sin from Kallistos Ware, I was answering your question. I know that the Orthodox position on original sin is neither Augustinian nor Calvinist. Nor is mine. I think you should have given me the credit for reading around the source I chose, particularly since I mentioned your very point in a PM to you. Perhaps we can settle on this? Kallistos Ware's statement re original sin provides us with a good model for what sin is. It did not change my own understanding as I demonstrated from "the centre of SIN is I". I think your criticism was nit-picking.

I think your responses demonstrate that you simply have a problem with the diversity and variation which is an inevitable feature of the 2,000 year history of the church. My approach is a recognition that we all came from the same root and to look for common ground.

None of us were around at the time of the Great Schism or the Reformation. We have received our understanding and experiences of Christianity where we have found them. More precisely, where they have found us. If, despite this, we have common ground on Truth, it must be that Jesus is God's Living Word to us. We acknowledge him to be what, according to John, he called himself. The Way, the Truth and the Life.

I acknowledge my indebtedness to the teaching of the Apostles. But they are not the source of Ultimate Truth. Let me capitalise for clarity. They knew Him, they loved Him, and they point to Him. That is what I believe about Ultimate Truth. What you appear to believe is that our access to that Ultimate Truth must be the way you say. Respectfully, I disagree. I know Jesus is more accessible than you think. I would not be surprised if he is more accessible than I think.

This old prayer against presumption, not one that I normally use (my local church is not very liturgical) probably expresses my feelings following this dialogue.

The prayer of humble access
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
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?

Hi Ken -

I appreciate your addressing this issue of change head-on.
I can't answer about women Prophets, but there are hundreds of female saints.

With regard to what you have written, I can't claim that things are exactly as they were in the year 100 as they are now. For one thing, things were done differently in different places. And much of it was kept secret from outsiders, so there is less record than there might be except inside the Church. My claim is that the Church preserved what was understood by the Apostles about what is important: the demands of salvation, and a proper understanding of our relation to God, or theology.
When I say that the practices of the Chruch have not changed, it is not meant to say that the Divine Liturgy is exactly the same Communion ceremony that was practiced in all places in the year 100. Though all places evidently celebrated the Sacrament, it was not with uniformity, it could not have been, the Church was still largely underground, and communication was limited.
Once uniformity in such things was possible (with adoption of Christianity by Rome) uniformity of practice (as well as belief) did happen, as evidenced by the same liturgy and creed, and the repeated defenses of the _meaning_ of the faith against various heresies. The defense mounted was never, "we reject your new idea because we don't agree with it", 'new ideas' about theology were dismissed because they did not accord with the Apostolic tradition.

If one chose to reject Orthodoxy because most Churches celebrate the shortened (1 1/2-2 hour) Divine Liturgy rather than the five hour Liturgy that was traditionally generally followed (most of it standing), one could certainly do so.
Likewise, if one believed, by some kind of survey of the best historical record, that the hierarchical structure of the church has changed compared to the average first century organization, one could do so, or perhpas their rules for celibacy with priests, and the like. These are canons of the Church, rules for its internal governance. They will change, for instance, when men started curling their hair and beards in the 1st millenium (600-700 I think) some priests did so. The Church responded to the practice in the last ecumenical council by directing priests not to cut their hair or beards, much less curl them. Is this a change? Yes. Is it what we are talking about if this discussion has any meaning? No.
We're talking about our understanding of what it means to be a Christian, about the sacraments, about theology, the things that will matter in the end. And that has not changed.
 
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
So it's the Orthodox theology that has been unchanged? I think there is much evidence to suggest that theology has not remained static (otherwise there would have been no theologians since 100AD). Or is your point that Orthodox theology has been developed on some sort of firm basis, with the Holy Spirit guarding against heresy along the way?

PS referring to Christian denominations as sects is not a good way to earn respect.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
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

Hi Digory,
You say that you are unconcerned with continuity with something 1900 years old. What? Our understanding of salvation, our understanding of theology, or something else? I don't really care (see above post) if my marriage ceremocy mirrored the sacrament from the year 125. But I do want to know - for certain, if possible - what those people and the Apostles who taught them thought about what is important, which is what I have maintained is unchanged.
Do you care to know, if it is possible to know for sure, what they thought about such things?

If it is not possible to know, I will ask what I asked Barnabas: Why?
SQ
[fixed code]

[ 08. November 2005, 08:11: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
Hi RuthW,

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I haven't conceded the argument about Protestants choosing the various elements of their faith and Christian life because it is manifestly true. snip
In regards to any issue where there is disagreement, Protestants manifestly choose what to believe for themselves from among the differing ideas. How is this not a factual statement?
quote:
It's not a factual statement because there are so many Protestants who do not do this. The reasoning of your argument is contradicted by the real practice of many Protestants.
Snip

Cradle Baptists, or Calvinists, or any other, may or may not choose to stay with that faith. Regardless what they do, it is a decision from among choices. The fact that they believe earnestly in it, and were compelled by it does not remove that fact. And the fact that people change churches and denominations shows that their understanding of what is right, if encapsulated in the dogma of their church, is also prone to change. It may be true to them, but if for even them it changes, how can it be capital T Truth?
They may decide to accept the entire theology that comes with their church, but you will often (perhaps generally, if my experience is typical) find that they disagree with something the church does or believes, and, as opposed to Orthodox, will often say that the church is wrong about it. There is no submission to a definitive truth that stays unchanged about theology and salvation. Some of the options do involve submission in entirety to the particular sect in question, but it can still only be considered submission to one possible explanation among many, with no claim to being the Ultimate Truth that should concern us.


Maybe I can better understand where you are coming from if you'd tell me a few things.
Do you believe that the truth about our salvation evolves, or differs from person to person and epoch to epoch? If so, is this because that truth is general enough that it's pretty hard to get it wrong?
Do you believe that the understanding of such things as sin (what it is and what things are sins) changes with time? If so, is it because God has changed the way he thinks about those things, or because we have done so? If you said "no" to the first question (perhaps after considering the second question) in what way can the Protestant churches which argue the homosexuality is not a sin be defending Christian Truth in fullness?

Do you believe that there is a common Apostolic understanding of the message they heard from Christ, or do you believe that they were in dispute? (not in specific instances, but in the faith)?
If it's important to know what they thought about Christ's message spoken directly to them, do you think it's is conceivable that this Apostolic understanding of The Creator's message could have been preserved intact for 30 years (the remainder of their lifetimes)? What about 100 years? At some point do you think it's possible that, especially given the relentless repetition of the notion that preserving this Truth was their greatest charge, the Truth could be widely enough understood that additions to it or subtractions from it could be easily identified as such?
Do you give any credence to the idea that the Holy Spirit could guide the church in both protection and understanding? If the latter, why would be in the interest of the Spirit to have our understanding change with time, and why would He encourage it? (that questions may be rendered irrelevant if you think the truth too general to get wrong if one makes an effort).

Snip
quote:
They are in that church because they are as convinced about the rightness of that church as you are about the rightness of your church.

I guess this hinges on the nature of Apostolic truth, which all Christian churches seek. If it varies, then your folks are right to be Baptists because they think it's right. If the truth varies, they are just as right as anyone else who is a member of a different church with different beliefs, because there is no "right" and "wrong" about theological and salvation questions and principles, within the range of Christian belief in the various churches.

I believe that this Truth does not vary, and that it is known and knowable to us if we are children of a loving God. And it will be accessible and knowable, in fullness, not in disparate and changing parts, until we all meet our Maker.
SQ
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
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.

Er...you can't evolve and not change. SQ's contention appears to be that the EOC is unchanged from that of the 1st century
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I guess this hinges on the nature of Apostolic truth, which all Christian churches seek. If it varies, then your folks are right to be Baptists because they think it's right. If the truth varies, they are just as right as anyone else who is a member of a different church with different beliefs, because there is no "right" and "wrong"

Run that by me again ?

You're saying that someone who believes the proposition "God wants me to be a Baptist", or "the teachings of the Baptist church are true", can only be morally right to act on that belief if there is no such thing as right and wrong anyway ?

The logic of that proposition is not immediately apparent.

The question "how do you believe that people should act if they don't share your belief system ?" seems to admit of two possible answers.

One along the lines of "they should acquire my belief-system as soon as possible".

And one along the lines of "they should follow such partial and imperfect light as God has granted them, and seek for more", or in other words "they should do what they believe to be right but at the same time give due regard to the possibility that they might be wrong."

Seems to me that if two people hold different religious views (and I suggest that it is an easily observable fact that people do hold different religious views), then for them each to go around saying to each other "you must acquire my belief-system as soon as possible" is not very constructive. Which leads me to prefer the other answer.

I'm not a Baptist. But I can respect and look up to those who try both to be good Baptists and to be open to the possibility that they might be wrong.

Without indulging in any subjectivism about "truth varying".

Best wishes,

Russ
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Dear Sophia's Questions,

I'm not sure how to make this any clearer.

I do not believe in relativism of truth, and am resolutely not post-modern in approach. (Even if this is based on a faulty understanding of what post-modernism is about, Psyduck).

Nevertheless, after prayer, discussion, consideration, communion .... all motivated on what is right, what is testable, what is true....... not on "what works for me" or "what I like" ..... I have, horror of horrors, felt the Protestant tradition most faithfull to the truth. (Note again, the truth.... not a truth).

Others may disagree with me. This is fine. I may turn out to be wrong. This isn't quite so fine, but I'm prepared for it, as far as one can be.

I am a protestant. There is one truth. (One faith, one baptism etc. etc.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
mdijon

Nice try. I think the gist of the reply is fairly predictable by now. Something along the lines that you confirm Sophia's Questions' asserion that we choose, individually, what we believe ....

It's hard to combat this sort of argument, once the degree of openness on an issue becomes clear. I'm afraid that to SQ we're all in error .....

Such a shame. I thought Russ's post was really good but unless he's Orthodox, he's wrong as well.

Think I'll head off to the Circus and play Goodric's new game. And leave Ultimate Truth to those who clearly know what they are talking about. I suppose there are no Orthodox guidelines about Four Truths and a Lie, are there?
 
Posted by whitelaughter (# 10611) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
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.

Oh, come on! Surely you've heard of at least one of: the Nestorians, Thomasites, Armenians, Syriacs, Copts, the Ethiopian church, the Celtic church, (plus whatever the guys in Cyrenaica called themselves, ditto the Sudan). And those are just the independent churches I can think of off hand.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
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.

Er...you can't evolve and not change. SQ's contention appears to be that the EOC is unchanged from that of the 1st century
We've already covered this. SQ's contention is untenable and I don't share it. See above.
 
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by whitelaughter:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
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.

Oh, come on! Surely you've heard of at least one of: the Nestorians, Thomasites, Armenians, Syriacs, Copts, the Ethiopian church, the Celtic church, (plus whatever the guys in Cyrenaica called themselves, ditto the Sudan). And those are just the independent churches I can think of off hand.
But they weren't Orthodox, so they don't count as proper christians, so they can't be measured in the "number of Christians who weren't Orthodox". I love that argument.

//Yeah, I know I said I was out of here.
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
If you want to read the above as patronizing you can do so, that was not my intent and I think you are choosing to do so. This is a subject that stirs emotions because it addresses the very basis of our beliefs, so things can easily be taken out of context. I think the answer was in response to Ken's argument that the OC must have changed.

As for being called to hell, I will go anywhere that I can defend the faith as understood by the Church, so call away.

I believe you have misread my previous posts. I am not incredibly emotional about this topic--in fact I find a lot about Orthodoxy to be fascinatingly illuminating. I am emotional about the way you believe yourself to have the Ultimate Truth. That kind of attitude makes me physically ill.

I don't have any intention to "call you to Hell"--it's not my way. I enjoy the discussion, but whether or not you intend it, you patronize everyone who disagrees with you when you proclaim to them that they are obviously and clearly wrong.

quote:
...it is possible that Christ did not work miracles, it may have been a joint fabrication on the part of the Jews and 'Christians' – that is what many post-modernist non-Christians believe, saying that the Bible is a fabrication. Many early works of other Church fathers exist, and they are recognized as authentic by the same people who determined which of the letters attributed to NT writers were legitimate and would be included in the Bible. And they testify to a consistency in the understanding of Christian theology and living.
That is the history of it. To believe otherwise is literally to believe in a conspiracy encompassing all of Christianity, for there is no record of it. Even Christianity's opponents are silent about the conspiracy. It's a fantastic idea that defies belief. [/qb]

This makes no sense. Throwing out a long-winded response filled with platitudes, confidently-stated "truths," and gibberish won't make people concede your point.

quote:

quote:
That being said, what exactly are you using as your Guide to the Early Church -- with which to compare the EOC to?

There is no guide to compare it to, the EOC understanding is the same understanding as the early Church, so it is the guide.
And here we all can plainly see it. The EOC's theology and major tenets of belief have not changed since the earliest church. How do we know what the earliest church believed? By looking at the Orthodox church, of course.

It's so obvious now.

quote:

quote:
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.

If so, there isn't any evidence that the wealth-sharing practice was widely done outside of monastic communities, so though it is indeed the ideal, the Church through time has evidently understood that it was too much to demand of every believer.
Too much to demand of every believer, so they changed the belief that everyone should do it, right? But they were guided by the Holy Spirit, so that change was acceptable.


You act like you didn't choose your church, only Catholics and Protestants did.


Regards,
Digory
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
But they weren't Orthodox, so they don't count as proper christians, so they can't be measured in the "number of Christians who weren't Orthodox". I love that argument.

//Yeah, I know I said I was out of here.

I knew you would stick around, because you're in the Stick Around Group. If you hadn't stuck around, you wouldn't have been in the Stick Around Group, and I'd have also known that. It's all so plain and simple.

(Glad to have you still here.)

-Digory
 
Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
Hey, I gave up on page four.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I can hear myself think again.

Thank you for your contribution MT - for those of us on the outside, it's easy to get misled into thinking an er.... shall we say, strongly expressed view is normative for a particular tradition or group.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sophia's Questions,

snip Kallistos Ware's statement re original sin provides us with a good model for what sin is. It did not change my own understanding as I demonstrated from "the centre of SIN is I". I think your criticism was nit-picking.

Forgive me, brother – you were beyond me on this one, I thought you posted his comment in RE to an earlier discussion on original sin (as a damning burden). I see what you are saying now, that in his description of the first (or original) sin he does indeed get to the heart of sin.

quote:
I think your responses demonstrate that you simply have a problem with the diversity and variation which is an inevitable feature of the 2,000 year history of the church. My approach is a recognition that we all came from the same root and to look for common ground.

Others, if we are honest, would likely also have a problem with it, given their constant harping about heresy and truth, many of them wrote the letters in the Bible.
Yes, splintering, diversity of belief, practice, and opinion were all to be expected and the Bible predicted them and warned against them repeatedly. I see you get to the meat of this below so I will wait.

quote:
snip
I acknowledge my indebtedness to the teaching of the Apostles. But they are not the source of Ultimate Truth. Let me capitalise for clarity. They knew Him, they loved Him, and they point to Him. That is what I believe about Ultimate Truth. What you appear to believe is that our access to that Ultimate Truth must be the way you say. Respectfully, I disagree. I know Jesus is more accessible than you think. I would not be surprised if he is more accessible than I think.

This really isn't about Christ's accessibility, I have said repeatedly that people find Christ if they want to, and they see His love, literally, whenever they see love.
This is not first about accessibility, it is about expectations, and meeting them. And we are told that in the meeting of them, we can ultimately find access heretofore unknown to us; a person can even - and neither you nor I have ever met such a person- while still captive in this hard, physical world, find perfect love of God, casting out all fear. Fear of every earthly thing, and fear of our Maker, having long ago abandoned any vestige of that fear which is for all earnest Christians, “the beginning of wisdom.” A state of theosis in which one no longer fears even hell (separation from the Creator) because the mutual love that is shared is so deep and constant that they can never imagine being apart from it.

This is the earthly state to which we are all called, and reaching it means walking a road open to every person.


I think we may have hit a brick wall on this. I'll send you a brief email with a suggestion of a way out of this dead end. That is what it is, for the two notions of Truth cannot be reconciled, one is fixed and defined, the other evolving and interpretive. (I don't mean your personal theology, but the varied, changing, and ever new ones in the world outside of Orthodoxy.)


quote:
This old prayer against presumption, not one that I normally use (my local church is not very liturgical) probably expresses my feelings following this dialogue.

The prayer of humble access

I read the prayer, it is a good one. I am not sure what context it has here, except insofar as presumption in general is concerned. I took it at first to mean that you approach Christ's table with greater humility than ever. I can't think you mean to say that I am presenting a case that I, or other Orthodox (those earnestly trying to follow Christ, at least) think ourselves righteous, or more righteous than anyone else. It is an unavoidable axiom that the more righteous one actually becomes, the less righteous one sees themselves as being.

Our conviction is not based upon our own reason, it is based upon the fact of the ageless, changeless Church. That is what I am defending, not anything that I can begin to feel prideful about, I am blessed by the much greater efforts of our forefathers. As a (I hope) rational person, I can't see feeling righteous or prideful about something for which we can take no credit.
If my spiritual father reads any of this and corrects my understanding of something, I will humbly submit, and endeavor to understand more, lest I lead someone astray in their search for Truth. My only feelings will be embarrassment for inaccurately representing the Church, and prayer that it does not lead to any mischief. If that happens I will put up a post about it.


I'm a convert to Orthodoxy from protestantism, so I, too, made a choice about theology and a life in Christ in a church, but in so doing it was a choice to submit. If Truth – in the only way it matters to us, theology and salvation – does not change, then our arguments about it are futile – they don't change it, and we are still bound by it. So why argue about it? That is time wasted that could be spent working out our salvation with fear and trembling (do we tremble in the face of relative truth?) or trying to bring others to an understanding of the unchanging Truth. In so doing, we can use whatever powers of reason and communication we have, God willing, to do effectively what we were charged to do among our fellow children.

The only presumption we make is that St. Paul's Church was indeed guided by the Holy Spirit and still exists in a meaningful way: in continuity of belief.
If there is no continuity of belief somewhere going back to the Apostles, then Truth is small t truth, arguable and relative. For if it changed, what is right? We can use reason and a feeling of guidance from above, but that path is varied and often twisting, so cannot be Truth in any meaningful sense of the word if Truth is in any way specific.

That one might presume Truth and expectations to not be specific (as in the evolving 'understandings' of sin) seems to me the very height of presumption, particularly in light of the Bible's repeated reference to it as something to be safeguarded. How does one safeguard relative truth?

Orthodoxy is not a stifling faith. The only freedom you have in the faith that I do not have is in deciding what to believe about it. Though I don't have that freedom, because my study is of an understood and beautifully communicated meaning that is not changing, it is possible that I will come to a deeper understanding of the theology and the fundamental aspects of the Christian life than will someone who has to search out each truth for themselves before getting down to understanding it in a meaningful way. Even if one accepts a particular church's dogma lock, stock, and barrel, their ultimate understanding then changes with the Church's understanding, which, to begin with, may or may not be the Truth. How can we be sure with any certainty? (I'm not talking about different understandings of various verses, but basic things such as the foundational Christian virtues. What are they? What do they have to do with our salvation, with becoming more like our Maker? How can we cultivate them in our lives?)


This one may be at an end. If so, it was my great pleasure communicating with you. I wish you all the best, and hope to see you again. If you do want to reply to any of the above I would welcome it.
SQ
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I'll send you a brief email with a suggestion of a way out of this dead end.

So there's a brief, pithy, two or three liner that will sort all this out but you've left it out of the 30 or so multiple paragraph posts above?

Amazing.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
So it's the Orthodox theology that has been unchanged? I think there is much evidence to suggest that theology has not remained static (otherwise there would have been no theologians since 100AD). Or is your point that Orthodox theology has been developed on some sort of firm basis, with the Holy Spirit guarding against heresy along the way?



Hi Quantpole (love to hear the derivation of that),
What I mean is a consistent understanding. Just as we have disagreements today about Christ's message, they have always existed. Those beliefs were examined, if one believes the writers did what they said they intended to do, in light of what has always been understood by the authority of the Church. Just as St. Paul referred to the Church as the guardian of Truth, so did St. Iraeneus in his treatise from 175, "Against
Heresies". In these and in the writings of all of the fathers of the Church of which I am aware, there is constant admonition to follow the Church in it's submission to 'the ancients', or what was believed, 'in antiquity'.

So there is good evidence that from the beginning there was an understanding of Christ's message and meaning that was safeguarded with fervor.
AISB, once it became possible, the faith was universalized, in belief and practice. This was most clearly evident in the 4th century adoptions of the Creed and the Divine Liturgy.
At some point, unless there is no fixed truth around which we can rally, it had to be encapsulated. It was done in the only way that makes any sense, through a universal council of bishops, the representatives of all the Christian communities on the planet. Since then (381 to put a date on it, the adoption of the Nicean/Contantinplitan Creed), I can find no evidence of a change in Church theology, and I have looked in great earnest.
Orthodox are willing apologists for the faith, and will often reference objections raised by other faiths. I've read a lot of apologetics on the Church's faithful and consistent understanding of the Apostolic faith, and I have never read one which says anything to the effect, "_________ will argue that the OC changed it's beliefs about______, but.....".
SQ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
SQ

Thanks for most of that. I wasn't getting at you - the problem is that you were getting to me. The prayer reminds me that the temptation to be self righteous is always present in me.

It does appear from your posts that you have a blind spot. I do not have the freedom you think I have, simply because I am a protestant. I am a man under authority. Which authority is under Divine Authority. We simply disagree about the legitimacy of the authority I am under, and its understanding of the Divine Authority which it is under. You are free to question those legitimacies. To lump all protestants together as individualised consumers of the beliefs of their choices is offensive. You are pre-judging us. It is a very short journey from pre-judgement to prejudice.

I really must stop this until you show some signs of seeing the point that I and several others have made. [brick wall]
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I guess this hinges on the nature of Apostolic truth, which all Christian churches seek. If it varies, then your folks are right to be Baptists because they think it's right. If the truth varies, they are just as right as anyone else who is a member of a different church with different beliefs, because there is no "right" and "wrong"

then posted by Russ:
quote:

Run that by me again ?
You're saying that someone who believes the proposition "God wants me to be a Baptist", or "the teachings of the Baptist church are true", can only be morally right to act on that belief if there is no such thing as right and wrong anyway ?

The logic of that proposition is not immediately apparent.
The question "how do you believe that people should act if they don't share your belief system ?" seems to admit of two possible answers.
One along the lines of "they should acquire my belief-system as soon as possible".
And one along the lines of "they should follow such partial and imperfect light as God has granted them, and seek for more", or in other words "they should do what they believe to be right but at the same time give due regard to the possibility that they might be wrong."

Seems to me that if two people hold different religious views (and I suggest that it is an easily observable fact that people do hold different religious views), then for them each to go around saying to each other "you must acquire my belief-system as soon as possible" is not very constructive. Which leads me to prefer the other answer.

Hi Russ (old salt!),
Well put, and entirely the right (not to mention charitable and humble view) to have, again, if Apostolic Truth has not been preserved. If their understanding of our salvation has been preserved, why is that not the Truth around which we should rally?
As an old salt who has probably heard this general argument before, have you heard someone say something that leads you to believe the OC has changed it's understanding at some point, once affirmed in universality by the first Ecumenical Council?

I agree with what you say if one is trying to convince someone that their personal understanding of Scripture or the faith, or one of any number of denominations has the answers. My argument is about a Truth that goes beyond denominations, it, and the Church, are 'pre-denominational'. And it's not mine, or Luther's, or Calvin's understanding, it is an understanding based upon remarkable consistency and valor in defense of Truth against untruth, maintained in a 'pre-denominational' form for at least 673 years in world-wide Christian universality: from 381 to 1054, the year of the birth of the first denomination.

quote:

I'm not a Baptist. But I can respect and look up to those who try both to be good Baptists and to be open to the possibility that they might be wrong.

Without indulging in any subjectivism about "truth varying".

In what way, if you can to explain it, because I haven't heard an explanation yet,
1.Can something be said to be true if it is one belief among many about that thing? (Except in a personal sense, and do we find Truth in our person?)
2.Does anything in your reading of the Bible or any other sources from early Christianity lead you to believe that they thought Truth evolves and differs? Our understanding of it may be made more perfect with wisdom and beautiful exposition about it, but can you provide an example of anyone writing in the first 1000 years of Christianity who says the Truth about salvation evolves or differs from person to person? (People can choose to have differing beliefs, but we are all captives of Truth if it exists.)

Enough worm can opening.
Best wishes,

SQ
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by whitelaughter:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
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.

Oh, come on! Surely you've heard of at least one of: the Nestorians, Thomasites, Armenians, Syriacs, Copts, the Ethiopian church, the Celtic church, (plus whatever the guys in Cyrenaica called themselves, ditto the Sudan). And those are just the independent churches I can think of off hand.
You're right! Since I am not willing to say that any person doing their best to follow Christ is not a Christian, I of course extend the same sentiment to Copts, Celts, etc. In my zealousness to defend the universality of the Church I frankly forgot about them.
All will say exactly what they must say in order to believe, themselves, that they are the Apostolic Church. But they can have no claim to any 'catholicity'.
Even after great internal struggles such as the ones that triggered the ecumenical councils, many of those who had promoted the heresy reconciled themselves to the Church. And though these other groups existed, it was the OC that was nearly universal, from Kamchatka to Normandy.
Thanks for calling me on this, I'll remember it.
SQ
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Dear Sophia's Questions,

I'm not sure how to make this any clearer.

I do not believe in relativism of truth, and am resolutely not post-modern in approach. (Even if this is based on a faulty understanding of what post-modernism is about, Psyduck).



Hi Midjohn - I sincerely believe that you believe to the core of your being that what you are saying is accurate, and that you earnestly believe that what you believe is true, the fullness of Truth as you can understand it at present. That is differnt from a fullness of understanding about our relation to God and our salvation. That fullness, if it exists, would represent a higher order of truth, not limited by what each of us accepts or comprehends, it is not limited in any regard, it's source is the Creator of all, and it is the one thing that is true in and of itself, not contingent upon anything.
That you have a desire to know Truth is the foundation for salvation, because that is the one truth that eventually becomes front and center in the mind of any believer. But if you are willing to admit that there are various, valid truths, you aren't yet looking for Ultimate Truth. By 'valid', as I've said repeatedly, I don't mean of no value, only 'valid' in comparison with the fullness of Truth about salvation.
What other important things about our own lives do we not want to know the full truth about?

I've answered a number of posts about the nature of Truth, and I'm at a loss of what to add that won't be tedious in this format. But perhaps you might find compelling or convincing something in another format. So I have posted an essay about this question of Truth, the first few pages concern it's nature directly. I hope you will check it out, it's titled, The Ultimate Truth
I hope you'll look at it and let me know if it makes any sense to you.
SQ
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
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.

Er...you can't evolve and not change. SQ's contention appears to be that the EOC is unchanged from that of the 1st century
We've already covered this. SQ's contention is untenable and I don't share it. See above.
Mousethief - Does anything aI wrote in the posts above clarify what I am contending? If not, what part of what I am saying is inaccurate?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
SQ, it seems you've shifted positions. Before, I thought you were saying Protestants did not have a regard for truth; but were deciding on the basis of what seemed best for them, or seemed to suit them.

Now you admit I might be in honest error. (Progress of a sort.)
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I believe you have misread my previous posts. I am not incredibly emotional about this topic--in fact I find a lot about Orthodoxy to be fascinatingly illuminating. I am emotional about the way you believe yourself to have the Ultimate Truth. That kind of attitude makes me physically ill.

Digory,

I don't 'believe myself” to have the Truth, for one, my understanding of it is limited. For another, it is not 'mine' except to the extent that I have decided to submit to it.

How conceited would any person be if they referred to something they came up with themselves as Truth with a capital T? I have never done so, your misinterpretation is in spite of much that I have said to the contrary. I don't have pride bound up in this, nor honor, the Church is mine to defend but not by any virtue of my own. The source of Truth is beyond me. And believing 'that' it is true does me little good, I have to humbly follow it if any spiritual transformation is to occur. If you still think that I am coming from a position of pride, please tell me why you believe that, in light of what I said above.
If you don't think that the source of my conviction is pride, in what other instances does non-prideful defense of something greater than oneself make you ill?
If you can't think of any, why in this case?

I've faithfully answered every question and comment you have sent my way, I'd like these answered, please.

quote:
I don't have any intention to "call you to Hell"--it's not my way. I enjoy the discussion, but whether or not you intend it, you patronize everyone who disagrees with you when you proclaim to them that they are obviously and clearly wrong.

I don't know how I have failed, in spite of repeated attempts, to make this clear: To the extent that anyone is 'wrong', it is in saying that their church, one among many different ones that have no continuous claim to Apostolic Truth, does in fact understand it in its fullness. The question then becomes, 'on what basis do you make that claim?' With the OC we find a serious claim to having preserved that understanding.

To the extent that any Christian believes and lives anything conducive to their salvation, that is to their obvious benefit and to the glory of God, so cannot be 'wrong'.
But simply put, as in anything important that affects us profoundly, we should want to know the full truth about it, as best we are able, and if someone does not examine this - by all appearances legitimate, historically established claim - to the Truth, about that which they say is at the foundation of their life, they are chiefly motivated by something other than a desire to know the Apostolic understanding. I cannot fathom why that would be the case for any Christian.


Originally posted by SQ
quote:
...it is possible that Christ did not work miracles, it may have been a joint fabrication on the part of the Jews and 'Christians' – that is what many post-modernist non-Christians believe, saying that the Bible is a fabrication. Many early works of other Church fathers exist, and they are recognized as authentic by the same people who determined which of the letters attributed to NT writers were legitimate and would be included in the Bible. And they testify to a consistency in the understanding of Christian theology and living.
That is the history of it. To believe otherwise is literally to believe in a conspiracy encompassing all of Christianity, for there is no record of it. Even Christianity's opponents are silent about the conspiracy. It's a fantastic idea that defies belief.

quote:
This makes no sense. Throwing out a long-winded response filled with platitudes, confidently-stated "truths," and gibberish won't make people concede your point.

It makes perfect sense. When you say something “makes no sense” at least take a second to say why.
There exists no other history of things, so to deny what history exists (which is fairly extensive) requires one to believe that the history they are reading is a lie. The works that all talk about defending a Truth, as understood to be embodied and defended by a Church identified by St. Paul in 66, St. Clement in 96, St. Iraneus in 175 and all the rest, have to have been willfully fabricated, and the alternative histories destroyed, in order to deny the abundant written testimnony.
Did the Church come off it's apostolic moorings? If so, the history of it is buried, lost to us compleltely. If it in fact happend, if they started spinning our new theologies and understandings, how is that possible that no evidence of it exists?
Don't say that I keep making that claim, get in your chair and look it up. I provided some links that support what I am saying and links to google searches which showed that no one is saying the contrary, on this post, at the top.

Originally SQ
quote:
There is no guide to compare it to, the EOC understanding is the same understanding as the early Church, so it is the guide.
quote:
And here we all can plainly see it. The EOC's theology and major tenets of belief have not changed since the earliest church. How do we know what the earliest church believed? By looking at the Orthodox church, of course.

It's so obvious now.

Your mockery wounds you. What other sources are there? Tell me the names of the documents to which we should all look to learn about the Apostolic church, outside the Bible. The Bible only tells us about a short period of it, and doesn't come close to telling us all that the Apostles were told and believed about the contents of the NT. Are there none that are legitimate because they are all Orthodox? Should we rely instead on the writings of the Nestorians to find an understanding of salvation? What does one do when one reads the writings of the fathers of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, and finds that they have great unanimity, which persists in the Church's understanding?
The only reliable guide to the Apostolic tradiion is the OC. If you don't think continuity and consistency = reliability, in what other cases is this not true with regard to any knowledge, once it is known?
Why would the fact that the understanding is fixed and constant repel anyone? Does that not speak to it's authenticity, and sufficiency? You can find elements of Apostolic Truth in every Church, but it is there in Protestant Churches as a matter of discernment, a means I think less reliable than preservation.

Side question: Do you believe that the theology of Orthodox Jews could have remained unchanged for any 1700 year stretch?

quote:

(about not being communal in wealth)
Too much to demand of every believer, so they changed the belief that everyone should do it, right? But they were guided by the Holy Spirit, so that change was acceptable.

No, as I said, it is the ideal, as in monasticism. The church does not reject its value in the least, we have monasteries, we actually incorporate this belief into the life of the Church in its ABSOLUTE FULLNESS: Christian community where all live in a common vow of poverty and chastity, for life. How is this manifest in your Church? Where do those who literally desire to divorce themselves from the things of this world, as the Creator said was the ideal, go to rest their hearts full of humility and thirsting for complete obedience?
As to all Orthodox doing it it was done in some places, but not in most, (of which there exists any record) and you won't find the Fathers telling anyone they have to do this to find salvation. Since there isn't evidence that it was expected of all Christians, ever, but is instead an ideal, the Church does not expect it of all believers.
I would like to hear now how your Church incorporates this ideal into its life in the way Christ seems to have meant, and if it doesn't, why it doesn't.

It seems to me that you have taken some liberties with my motives, I'd like some answers where I requested them, if you would be so kind.
SQ
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
Originally posted by barnabas62
quote:
SQ,

It does appear from your posts that you have a blind spot. I do not have the freedom you think I have, simply because I am a protestant. I am a man under authority. Which authority is under Divine Authority. We simply disagree about the legitimacy of the authority I am under, and its understanding of the Divine Authority which it is under. You are free to question those legitimacies. To lump all protestants together as individualised consumers of the beliefs of their choices is offensive. You are pre-judging us. It is a very short journey from pre-judgement to prejudice.

Hi Barnabas,

(I will take a liberty here and say that Barnabas is on vacation, and asked me to respond to this, but likely would be off the site for a week. So if you see no response from him it's not because he's punted. He's visiting his family, for his granddaughter's first birthday! Please pray for their safe passage.)

We've come to the same conclusion about the other's view – I had reached it in the last post, if you recall, saying we had likely hit a wall. I think be both perceive that to be a blind spot in the other. Both are completely intertwined, so
wall or no wall, I think we can figure this out. It's a bit hairy and confused now, so I'm going to see first where we agree.
1.We agree that, at bottom, we all choose our faith. Me as well, I have chosen to be a Christian and Orthodox. Those who are faithful to their cradle church choose to remain so.
2.We agree that it is possible to submit oneself completely to a 'truth' of one kind or another, be it Anglican, RC, Pentacostal, Orthodox, etc. Not everyone picks and chooses what to believe about each theological issue, and in some cases accept completely what was handed down by the earlier generations in their church.

When I say that Protestants choose what to believe, in spite of the above, it is true in both a corporate and an individual way. And I don't mean in a squabbling way as in dueling Bible verses that we insist we understand correctly, but in relation to the MEANING of truth. It's NATURE – not necessarily its substance or content, but that as well by extension.
I believe complete submission to the faith as understood by the church one attends is the exception to the rule in most Protestant faiths. I know many Protestants and don't know a one who accepts, without exception, the dogmas of their church unless they give such things little thought, in which case their theology is likely to be different from their church's because it is undeveloped and they likely don't really understand what the church's beliefs are. That person is one who may love their neighbor, and go to Church regularly, and try live a humble life in Christ, but wouldn't be interested in participating in this forum. Here, we are after are the results of vigorous pursuit of Truth.

Perhaps it would be helpful if we had a common understanding of Truth. I have defined it as the Apostolic understanding of Christ's teaching.
If we are immortal and if communion with our Creator is contingent upon us acting upon Christ's message, then the knowledge of both the nature of that message and what makes it most possible for a person to adhere to it constitute the entirety of Truth, in the ultimate sense.
This, I believe, would be a pretty common Christian understanding of Truth.

All other truths aside from this are contingent, and ultimately, all others truths are irrelevant to us, because none affect us unto eternity as does this one.
Let me know if you don't agree with the above.


If one accepts that as truth, several things should be noted.

First, not trying to understand it in its fullness or not believing it exists in its fullness does not invalidate what part of it a person does understand and incorporate into their lives. A person can understand much of the Apostolic tradition and be dead in Christ. Likewise one can understand little of it and live a life governed by love, which, because of the nature of love, will be a life in accordance with God's commandments.

Second, though the above is possible, it is difficult under any circumstances, even with God's help. This is so because of our fallen nature and inclination to sin. Obedience to the will of the Father was a struggle even, at times, for the saints, St. Paul and every other one. That it is difficult is particularly true in light of the times in which we live, where enslavement to sin satiates us as never before. If someone is a slave to any of the compulsions which ensnare us – self-image, drugs, pornography, gambling, sex, food, etc. - they are living in the age of ultimate fulfillment of their compulsions and urges. (and the wire-heads are coming)

Third, if we should choose to take up the path of submission to God and self-denial, especially when self-indulgence has never been more fulfilling, we do so because we believe it is crucial to our salvation. Why else choose that difficult path?


So we set off with a common goal, and in the face of great adversity. The first step in that journey, ideally, is a consideration of the nature of the knowledge we have decided to make the center of our existence.

Not its specifics, it's nature. This is the foundation of our brick wall.

Let's consider it in a new way. Perhaps the only way to look at this objectively is from the position of an outsider, ideally one who has lived with a different religion and has decided at last to accept the reality of Christ.
Let's further consider that we are speaking of an intelligent individual who grapples with things before accepting them, and one who has decided to consider the nature of Christian truth before deciding what church to join. There are the shoes, please occupy them if you will!

Our new friend in Christ will hopefully come to the conclusion that the truth that matters is that related to her salvation, her understanding and living of it. We can be hopeful that she will conclude that the words which left Christ's lips as he explained his message to his followers, both those recorded in the Bible and the rest of what He said, which was thousands of times more (irrespective of whether this can be known to us now, I'm not headed there.)
So our friend can conclude that Ultimate Truth existed for some time, the reality of a loving Creator was proved by his revelation of His expectations of us. The fullness of his message to the Apostles is the fullness of the truth about our salvation in large part because so much of it had to be in answer to the questions, “Why, Master?” and, “How, Master?”
Our friend will hopefully find that the Apostles understanding was a union in most regards, so their common understanding, representing the understanding of our salvation, was something they could collectively defend and propagate.
Then she will hopefully study the scriptural understanding of the nature of Christian truth. If she looks for a reference to an evolving, or changing, or relative truth, she will not find it in the pages of Scripture.
What she will find are a number of things to encourage her hope that ultimate truth once existed.
1.It is repeatedly referred to in terms of a common understanding of the believers who wrote the Bible. Errant churches and theologians existed, but there was a shared notion that their errors could be known, because they could be measured against a shared understanding of Truth.
2.It is referred to in salvific terms, as the foundation of it, the very basis of faith. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free,”
3.It is referred to as a fixed thing, a measuring stick. Consider 2nd Timothy ch. 4, and see if our friend would conclude that the truth is fixed thing, against which to compare everything:
1
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
quick
2
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.


With this foundation of understanding of truth, she will begin to look for Apostolic truth.

What will she do? If she considers it a fixed thing, as the Apostles understood it, she will look for it in that form. Let's assume she finds herself away from her native land, say in Scotland, in the 19th century. She may or may not have access to a library of sermons written by the early fathers, or access to much of the history of Christianity. But she knows that one island over, strident theological disputes exist, so obviously there is no concurrence around her about Apostolic truth, or even that it is a fixed thing. People may appear to be be personally convinced that the doctrine they accept and exhort “with all longsuffering”, as directed, is the fullness of truth, but basic humility compels them to accept that there are fundamental aspects of it which others do not accept as true, or important, or relevant to our salvation, or conducive to it.

She may decide she has no choice but to submit with faith to a church that seems to comport with.......

What? From what foundation does she make these decision, even if they are decision to submit? __There has to be a criteria, or viewpoint from which they are made__. This criteria may be what seems right to her, or she may decide to accept the word of someone she trusts and go with that. In any case, even in submission she is forced to choose between competing versions of truth, and forced to choose how to work out her salvation for herself, even if it is to trust.

She now realizes that though her search for the fullness of Apostolic Truth can continue, it will never be realized in anything like it's fullness because she simply does not have reliable access to it in fullness.
There is nothing to which she can submit in totality, she is now constantly faced with choices. Her church is one among many. Does she choose to submit, powerless to know the Truth herself, in hope that her faith will lead her through any errors or deficiencies in the life her church asks of her? Perhaps, and in so doing she has made a choice about what to believe about her salvation: that it is enough (she hopes, being humble and not presuming anything of her Maker) to submit to ____ church in humility, perhaps thinking that there is no better choice.
She may also decide to examine the church's teaching in light of her own understanding of Scripture and other reading. Even if the end she comes to through such a search and reading is something she sees only as an understanding, and possibly in error, will it guide her? That is another choice she makes. And if she decides to take the corrective route, she will be making countless choices. She may make each with fear and trembling, but they are choices nonetheless.
Even if she hopes that the Apostolic Truth still exists, she will not presume to think she has found it or can find it, if for no other reason that the world is full of people with no better claim to knowing Apostolic Truth, all insisting they know it.

Many around her will confess with humility that they really aren't sure what Apostolic Truth is, but they are sure that their ancestors were motivated by love, and so acted in faith in trying to discern what it is, in hopes of God's infinite mercy. That is the humble Protestant's condition in a nutshell, and one, given their understanding of truth as being somewhat relevant ___by virtue only of the position in which they find themselves____ in the generally protestant world they live in, where other faiths are often considered valid, and in the eyes of some Christians, equally valid. Much more so other Christian denominations. She is literally forced to choose between competing understandings of Apostolic Truth, and recognizes with humility that she will never have access to the fullness of that Ultimate Truth. She is forced to accept relative truth, and so, to choose.
This situation further confuses her search for Truth when her church changes its doctrines. In that case, if the church changes she has to choose what to do about it and what to believe about the change – they can accept it as right or question it, since days or years ago the church said something different. Again, she is forced to choose.


I believe that the above is not my interpretation of what happens in such a case, but the actuality of it. I have not boxed her into any corners, she has choices to make by virtue of situation, not because I say she has to make them. If she DOES NOT make them, she has not taken the next step in the faith, becoming part of a Christian community.


But if she lives in the age of the internet, our friend can find good reason to believe that the fullness of apostolic truth, as apparently promised in Scripture and by all of the writers of the first millenium of Christianity, repeatedly referring to their desire to preserve the Truth and its understanding.
Yes, she still makes a choice if she chooses to be baptized into the Orthodox Church, but if made in the spirit it is expected, it is a choice to submit to a greater truth that can make a legitimate claim to being the original Truth.
And it obviates the choices she would otherwise have to make for herself about theology and salvation. The burden of making these choices must weigh on any fervent concerned about ultimate truth but forced by their situation to make them. It is enough to need to pray for forgiveness and mercy, lo that we are forced as well to pray that we understand what Christ told us in the way He intended it be understood.
With Orthodoxy, her choice is to accept a different species of truth, to be able to say with some confidence that the understanding of the men who were blessed to sit at His feet has been preserved in full, as He apparently desired it would be. The history of the Church attests to preservation and continuity, so in a way she is electing to make no further choices but to submit to the apparent reality that that preservation has been faithful, and in earnest. Also, because of the unchanging nature of it as understood by the Church, given that the Church is full of fallible people, some with agendas, we can conclude without much difficulty that the Church likely has been guided by the Holy Spirit in preserving it, else it would have mutated by now.
And with nearly 2000 years of continuity behind it, she can rest assured that her children and grandchildren will never have to look elsewhere for Truth, it will continue to be preserved. The can study Truth at great length, they can write and speak about it in new and innovative ways that appeal to the minds of different generations, the Church continues to produce theologians, and saints. But they don't have to worry about finding it for themselves

So my chief objection with the Protestant worldview is that it does not pursue what most Christians through history have believed in, a fixed truth, Indeed it does not believe in one by its very nature, nor manifest one in reality. ALL are faithfully seeking to follow Christ, but all have to concede that they don't know and can't know the full Apostolic Truth, unless they go to the well. And once learning about Orthodoxy and its claim to preserved Truth, which has as firm a foundation as much of what is regularly accepted as historical fact, Protestants will resist the idea of the Church because of the climate they have lived in and the way they have come to think about Truth. Once they get past the idea that they can know it themselves, the idea that someone else claims to know it really raises their hackles. in whatever form it is presented. That's why this forum is filled with many folks who are humbly saying they are not sure of the truth, and one who is saying he is. I hope, at least, that to those who have so written, I have convinced you that I don't speak from personal or even Church pride. The spirit of the Church is, first and foremost, humility. Part of that humility is submission to the preserved understanding of Truth, and, hence, defense of it.


The wife is cracking down, I'm not punting, but I'm frankly a bit overwhelmed by sheer volume. I have an obligation to answer these posts, to defend the faith, and to be faithful in answering all who have spent their valuable time writing.
I'm one person answering many, so the next time someone feels a compulsion to complain about successive posts, please consider that. If you don't like it, no one is holding a gun to your head.


The issue of the nature and understanding of Truth, our stumbling block here, brings much of this discussion to an impasse. I will continue to defend my understanding of it against any new arguments and in answer to any questions, but I can't add much more in reference to the arguments people have already made that I haven't already said, or that is not communicated better in this essay.


To anyone posting to me, I appreciate your time, whether it is spent in inquiry or in fervent battle against what you see as spiritually dangerous, or anything in between.
SQ
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
And you were saying that I make long posts [Big Grin]
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Sophia, I think you are seeing things from an intellectual's point of view. Since truth is not to be learnt and acknowledged but to be experienced and lived, what happens with these people who sincerely experience things and feel that Orthodoxy's teachings are wrong? For example, there are many here on Ship that think that the Church's stance on e.g. homosexuality or masturbation is wrong. They think so not because they have chose to have an opinion on the matter, but because their personal experience gives them this understanding. Are you saying that these people are not to trust their personal experience and submit to Orthodox teachings? Are you saying that the Orthodox experience is more full than theirs? How do you reply to that?
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
And you were saying that I make long posts [Big Grin]

You've grown to fit the culture of the boards quite well since your arrival, andreas1984. I'm holding out similar hopes for this more recent arrival.
 
Posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:

<Big Snip>
Perhaps it would be helpful if we had a common understanding of Truth. I have defined it as the Apostolic understanding of Christ's teaching.
If we are immortal and if communion with our Creator is contingent upon us acting upon Christ's message, then the knowledge of both the nature of that message and what makes it most possible for a person to adhere to it constitute the entirety of Truth, in the ultimate sense.
This, I believe, would be a pretty common Christian understanding of Truth.
<Another Big Snip>
SQ

Except that is not how I define Truth. Truth is Jesus. Not the teachings of the Church (any Church), or the teachings of the Apostles. Truth is becoming one with the mind of Christ. Something that I simply don't believe is possible on this plane of existance. The only way that I will know truth is by traveling to Heavenly Jerusalem.

I know that there are people who have come close to this ideal in this world (saints for example), but even they would say that they do not know perfectly the mind of Christ.

So then how can I seriously take any claim of a church that says that they have the truth? In my mind they can't, because having the truth means that they have become one with Jesus, something that is not possible on Earth.
 
Posted by dinghy sailor (# 8507) on :
 
SQ, that post was 3087 words long. For the benefit of the people who are actually still reading this thread properly, maybe you could make things a little shorter?

And as St S said, truth is what Jesus aactually said, not what any church says Jesus said.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
So my chief objection with the Protestant worldview is that it does not pursue what most Christians through history have believed in, a fixed truth,

However many times you say this, it will still not be true. Many Protestants are in fact doing their best to pursue a fixed truth. They think it exists and that with God's grace they can know it, at least as much of it as they need to know in this life. Your repeated claims that Protestants do not submit to a whole theology are also contradicted by the real submission of millions of Protestants. You may not have done so when you were a Protestant, but that doesn't mean no Protestants do.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I definitely did when I was a Protestant. Of course it led me to Orthodoxy so maybe I'm not the best example.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dear Sophia, I think you are seeing things from an intellectual's point of view. Since truth is not to be learnt and acknowledged but to be experienced and lived, what happens with these people who sincerely experience things and feel that Orthodoxy's teachings are wrong? For example, there are many here on Ship that think that the Church's stance on e.g. homosexuality or masturbation is wrong. They think so not because they have chose to have an opinion on the matter, but because their personal experience gives them this understanding. Are you saying that these people are not to trust their personal experience and submit to Orthodox teachings? Are you saying that the Orthodox experience is more full than theirs? How do you reply to that?

Hi Andreas – Obviously I disagree with the premise that Truth is found by each of us through our experience. ___________ is found that way (meaning? Fulfillment? I don't know, but it's not Truth unless by accidental concurrence.) Truth is of a higher order and derives from the Highest Source.
Am I reading you correctly? Are you saying that any part about our salvation is something that we define in any regard for ourselves, after we have experiences in life? If so, do you know of a Biblical foundation for that belief? I can see you saying that we live out our understanding of salvation (if we are committed). But can one say that we can in some way define the parameters of what is necessary from us to find salvation?

By defining even some of the terms of our own salvation, we would be presuming to define God's expectations of us. And in some cases we are saying that we are somehow special, exempt from some of the rules that Christians everywhere have historically understood apply to them. We're not. God's view of what corrupts and diminishes us does not change and never will.

The above certainly applies in the cases of homosexuality and self-abuse, something I have struggled with. There were times when I figured God could not possibly 'hold it against me', the compulsion was so strong. Yet we are called to struggle, to resist sin unto blood, and repent in tears. Do we do this? Perhaps sometimes.
What diminishes us is not that we feel compulsions, but that we surrender to them. Far from denying ourselves, as we are called to do, we deny God. Father John the Short (4th century) puts these things in the proper Christian perspective: “Having let go of a light burden, namely, self-reproach, we have taken up the heaviest, namely, self-justification.”
This eats at our hearts and our conscience, discouraging our full participation in a life in Christ, because we know that the life is founded, in part, on a lie. It's the same in any loving relationship: How do we feel when we 'hide' something from our spouses that we know we should not be doing? The existence of that thing in the relationship pollutes it. So it is with our relationship with God, we can hide nothing from him, even the fact that we are merely pretending that everything is all right between us.
We can surround ourselves with people and arguments to the contrary, but we know the truth about such things in our hearts. The same can be said of adultery, no less a sin than homosexuality. Poison is introduced into something holy, the marriage sacrament.

Some will say that they simply know that they are gay. They have never felt an attraction to the opposite sex, and have always felt one for their sex. This is undoubtedly true, and represents a very heavy cross to bear.


The other element of your post concerns the emotional aspect of our life in Christ. That people in all churches have transforming experiences is true, but these experiences have little to do, in general, with the beliefs and practices of the Church (except as support and as the center of loving Christian community), nor do they generally have to do with a person's own theology. They originate and manifest in love, which is why they move us and encourage us in the faith. If a person is already close to God, they don't lose their love of God or any of his love for them if they change their church.

It is a blessing whenever we share love with God, but the experience is an element of our salvation (the center of it), and is sufficient in and of itself. It cannot lead to truthful revelations about God's expectations of us, those are fixed if He is a loving God.
SQ
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
<Big Snip>
Perhaps it would be helpful if we had a common understanding of Truth. I have defined it as the Apostolic understanding of Christ's teaching.
If we are immortal and if communion with our Creator is contingent upon us acting upon Christ's message, then the knowledge of both the nature of that message and what makes it most possible for a person to adhere to it constitute the entirety of Truth, in the ultimate sense.
This, I believe, would be a pretty common Christian understanding of Truth.
Another Big Snip>

[QUOTE]Except that is not how I define Truth. Truth is Jesus. Not the teachings of the Church (any Church), or the teachings of the Apostles. Truth is becoming one with the mind of Christ. Something that I simply don't believe is possible on this plane of existance. The only way that I will know truth is by traveling to Heavenly Jerusalem.
I know that there are people who have come close to this ideal in this world (saints for example), but even they would say that they do not know perfectly the mind of Christ.
So then how can I seriously take any claim of a church that says that they have the truth? In my mind they can't, because having the truth means that they have become one with Jesus, something that is not possible on Earth.

Hi St. SS,

We are manifestly not talking about the fullness of truth about the nature and essence of the Triune God, nor communinon with His essence. Even His nature we cannot explain in words and CANNOT understand, even after we see Him. The Church submits to many gaps in revealed knowledgs. We don't understand how or why some things happen, or why they are true. I would not trust any Church claiming to know the essence of the Creator.
We are talking about what matters to us, here and now, and that is how we find our way to our Maker. There is a truth about it that existed on this planet, if only for the fraction of a second that His words hung in the air. How long that Truth lasted is a good question.


To say that one is guided by 'Jesus' is redundant if one is talking to Christians. We are each guided by an understanding of Jesus, and if one says otherwise, at this point in the discussion, I will frankly be amazed unless they are speaking in a mystical/spiritual sense only, because we are _clearly_ guided by a different Christ in different churches, they are one in faith and love perhaps, but manifestly _not_ in their understanding of Christ, his expectations, and our part in our salvation. So yes, Truth is Jesus, and so is unchanging, but what guides us is our understanding of it, even if that is simple acceptance of church dogmas. To say that we are all guided by the same Jesus is hokum, many of us can identify whole denominations which consider themselves Christian but are, in our opinoins, peddling spiritual poison. If we are not guided by the same understanding of Jesus, we are not guided by the same understanding of Truth, it is accepted as, to some degree, relative.


I answered a number of questions about Orthodoxy's adherence to various things found in scripture. So let me take a turn at that and ask you (or anyone else who would care to answer): Does your church encourage believers to fast? If so, in what way, and why does your church encourage it?
If your church does not encourage it, do you know why they don't?
SQ
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
So my chief objection with the Protestant worldview is that it does not pursue what most Christians through history have believed in, a fixed truth,

However many times you say this, it will still not be true. Many Protestants are in fact doing their best to pursue a fixed truth. They think it exists and that with God's grace they can know it, at least as much of it as they need to know in this life. Your repeated claims that Protestants do not submit to a whole theology are also contradicted by the real submission of millions of Protestants. You may not have done so when you were a Protestant, but that doesn't mean no Protestants do.
Hi Ruth,
I have said repeatedly that many earnest Protestants are looking for Truth. And also that some submit in whole to a Church's dogmas.
My argument that Protestants don't pursue a fixed truth is accurate because they consider truth in the same way you do, something that can be better understood, and well enough for salvation. If there exists a fixed truth about theology and salvation, they believe, we cannot know it in fullness, objectively.

Ruth, reason tells me to expect universal salvation. But I don't believe in it because something very different was revealed to us. We all hope that what we understand about our salvation is sufficient, with faith and diligence, to lead us to our maker. (If a person does not believe they are walking a saving path and they are doing nothing about it, they are not convinced of their immortality.)
I'm inclined to think, considering the great power we are all given by our maker, that He has great expectations of us, and that we narrow their possible scope and significance at our peril. So though I may be able to understand much about salvation for myself, I'm not willing to take chances by not seeking the fullest possible understanding of it (for example, what is meant by self denial, and are there ways to encourage its development?)
If we earnestly hope for salvation, we will hope to find the Truth, to the extent that it is available to us. To categorically say that the OC cannot have preserved truth seems to limit God's power, and so the OC's claim to having preserved an unchanged truth, which appears to accord with history, is something that should be examined, as the church should be examined, by any Christian earnestly seeking truth.
In so doing, if the criteria for judging it is, “does it agree with my theology” one is likely to find much that is pleasing, and much that they disagree with, and so they may reject the Church on that account. If that is a person's inclination, it is my hope that they will at least endeavor to learn more before doing so, and that they consider what it is they are really looking for, in turning away.
SQ
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I think you have a too high opinion of Orthodoxy and a too low opinion of Protestants.

It is a total myth to say that all Protestants believe different things. It's a myth to say they don't gather around the central Truth of Christ and his word. It's a total and breathtakingly arrogant thing to say that unless one accepts Orthodox dogma one has little concept of the Truth.

Give one example - if you can - of a fundamental doctrinal truth that is interpreted many, many different and contradictory ways by Protestantism.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Ms Questions,

Please, oh please, go easy on the mega-overkill triple-posting mayhem. How many time do people need to ask?

K.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
This;

quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
....I sincerely believe that you believe to the core of your being that what you are saying is accurate, and that you earnestly believe that what you believe is true, the fullness of Truth as you can understand it at present.

and this;

quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
So my chief objection with the Protestant worldview is that it does not pursue what most Christians through history have believed in, a fixed truth

Seem contradictory to me.

It seems to me that you think "choosing what to believe" and "not pursuing fixed truth" is an appropriate label for people who describe themselves; "after prayer, discussion, consideration, communion .... all motivated on what is right, what is testable, what is true....... I have felt the Protestant tradition most faithfull to the truth. (Note again, the truth.... not a truth)."

It seems to me that anything other than belief in whichever flavour of Orthodoxy you favour is not seeking after truth, and is deciding for oneself.

However, you have also decided to choose to believe the church to be infallible. To choose to believe that direct, unbroken, unreformed Apostolic succession is above all. To make a judgement that the Church has not changed (with which many of your brethren disagree).... and that that judgement is an absolute arbiter of the true church.

How are these not choices?
 
Posted by Dobbo (# 5850) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quantpole:
PS referring to Christian denominations as sects is not a good way to earn respect.

Do not be hard on SQ - that is probably what is being preached from orthodox pulpits (see article below) and as the Orthodox Church are sole proprietors of the Ultimate Truth ™ (in its fullness) ie Jesus Christ, it must be true. No thought is actually required by the congregations, because the orthodox church is protected from heresy so everything it says is accurate . It simply is a no brainer.

Sorry Mudfrog you will feature on their next hit list as well


quote:
Iakovos, the archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America since 1959, has issued an interfaith marriage encyclical labeling Assemblies of God and Pentecostal adherents "not of the Christian tradition." ....

Efthimiou says some charismatic and holiness groups are cultic because of "incoherent theology" and "failure to baptize in the name of the Trinity." .....


He says Iakovos is preparing a second encyclical that will expound on the first. Other groups will be added to the exclusion list, he says, including branches of the Church of God and the Salvation Army.



Christianity Today - Archbishop Calls Pentecostals Non-Christian
 
Posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:

We are talking about what matters to us, here and now, and that is how we find our way to our Maker. There is a truth about it that existed on this planet, if only for the fraction of a second that His words hung in the air. How long that Truth lasted is a good question.

This is where you and I disagree. You seem to be stating to me that Jesus set up a church with dogmas and rules to follow. That I find to be untrue. Jesus gave us a way to live, not a church. The Church (of which I mean ALL Christians; Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant and anyone else) is a way to preserve his spirit on this Earth so that others can find him. Not dogmas or rituals.

I keep seeing you thinking of Jesus as a set of rules and regulations that we have to follow. I keep seeing Jesus as a person with thoughts, feelings, and most definately love for people who are outside of society.
quote:

I answered a number of questions about Orthodoxy's adherence to various things found in scripture. So let me take a turn at that and ask you (or anyone else who would care to answer): Does your church encourage believers to fast? If so, in what way, and why does your church encourage it?
If your church does not encourage it, do you know why they don't?
SQ

If by fasting you mean avoidance of either certain foods or giving up things that mean something to us, but are not needed for life, then yes.

Those things can be blocks to us finding our way to Jesus, and therefore are things that need to be removed.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
If we earnestly hope for salvation, we will hope to find the Truth, to the extent that it is available to us. To categorically say that the OC cannot have preserved truth seems to limit God's power, and so the OC's claim to having preserved an unchanged truth, which appears to accord with history, is something that should be examined, as the church should be examined, by any Christian earnestly seeking truth.
In so doing, if the criteria for judging it is, “does it agree with my theology” one is likely to find much that is pleasing, and much that they disagree with, and so they may reject the Church on that account. If that is a person's inclination, it is my hope that they will at least endeavor to learn more before doing so, and that they consider what it is they are really looking for, in turning away.

All the claims you make for Orthodoxy are claims that some Protestants make for their churches, and on pretty much the same grounds (the Holy Spirit guides the church). My parents believe they are in possession of the fullest Truth available in this life.

I am hereby withdrawing from this thread. I'm tired of your disrespect for millions of other Christians.
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I believe you have misread my previous posts. I am not incredibly emotional about this topic--in fact I find a lot about Orthodoxy to be fascinatingly illuminating. I am emotional about the way you believe yourself to have the Ultimate Truth. That kind of attitude makes me physically ill.

Digory,

I don't 'believe myself” to have the Truth, for one, my understanding of it is limited. For another, it is not 'mine' except to the extent that I have decided to submit to it.

So you have decided to submit to this Truth, because in your opinion, it’s the Ultimate Truth. And those of us who have not decided to submit to this Truth are fundamentally wrong in our understanding of the true nature of God, etc. In other words, you believe yourself to have the Ultimate Truth.

quote:
The source of Truth is beyond me. And believing 'that' it is true does me little good, I have to humbly follow it if any spiritual transformation is to occur. If you still think that I am coming from a position of pride, please tell me why you believe that, in light of what I said above.
If you don't think that the source of my conviction is pride, in what other instances does non-prideful defense of something greater than oneself make you ill?
If you can't think of any, why in this case?

I don’t accuse you of being prideful. I don’t even know you—any heightened emotions were directed at your thoughts and things you’ve said and not you personally. I don’t judge you and I recognize that, thankfully, you don’t presume to judge me either. I’m thankful for that.

My ill feelings come from the things I will explain below, and I see no reason to elaborate on them here.

quote:

But simply put, as in anything important that affects us profoundly, we should want to know the full truth about it, as best we are able, and if someone does not examine this - by all appearances legitimate, historically established claim - to the Truth, about that which they say is at the foundation of their life, they are chiefly motivated by something other than a desire to know the Apostolic understanding. I cannot fathom why that would be the case for any Christian.

“…chiefly motivated by something other than a desire to know the Apostolic understanding…”

That’s me to a T. I honestly do not care how the Apostles understood the gospel, except in that it may aid me in not making the same mistakes they made (see Peter’s misunderstandings of Jewish law, James and John’s desire to keep Christianity only amongst Jews, Paul and Barnabas’ disagreement, etc) and their illuminations on how to think about some of the lessons Jesus taught. I respect them highly, but I don’t claim that their understanding is my final aim. I think our final aim can be much higher than that, in the Real Truth of Christ, and he’s promised to leave his Spirit here, available to all of us, to aid us along in that pursuit.

quote:

There exists no other history of things, so to deny what history exists (which is fairly extensive) requires one to believe that the history they are reading is a lie. The works that all talk about defending a Truth, as understood to be embodied and defended by a Church identified by St. Paul in 66, St. Clement in 96, St. Iraneus in 175 and all the rest, have to have been willfully fabricated, and the alternative histories destroyed, in order to deny the abundant written testimony.
Did the Church come off its apostolic moorings? If so, the history of it is buried, lost to us completely. If it in fact happened, if they started spinning our new theologies and understandings, how is that possible that no evidence of it exists?

To utterly deny that history is written by the victors, and to throw away the notion that things could have been fabricated and other understandings destroyed through history, would be rather naïve. I don’t necessarily believe that it happened this way, but I acknowledge the possibility to exist.

quote:


quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
And here we all can plainly see it. The EOC's theology and major tenets of belief have not changed since the earliest church. How do we know what the earliest church believed? By looking at the Orthodox church, of course.

It's so obvious now.

The only reliable guide to the Apostolic tradition is the OC. If you don't think continuity and consistency = reliability, in what other cases is this not true with regard to any knowledge, once it is known?
The point is that you can’t use your own evidence to prove your evidence. If you want to say that the EOC is the only reliable guide to the Apostolic tradition, fine. You cannot then make the jump to assert that the Apostolic tradition, as described by the EOC, is the only reliable guide to Jesus’ teachings. Of course, you can SAY it. You just can’t prove it like I think you’d like to.

quote:

Side question: Do you believe that the theology of Orthodox Jews could have remained unchanged for any 1700 year stretch?

Well, I could easily prove that it has. I could say that the only reliable guide we have to how Orthodox Judaism was 1700 years ago is the Orthodox Jewish temple down the street from where I live. If I go down there, I then make a comparison. I compare today’s Temple practices/beliefs to the practices/beliefs of 1700 years ago. But I don’t have anything to tell me about 1700 years ago except today’s practices/beliefs. So the comparison becomes:

Is today’s church exactly like today’s church? The answer is always yes.

quote:


How is this manifest in your Church? Where do those who literally desire to divorce themselves from the things of this world, as the Creator said was the ideal, go to rest their hearts full of humility and thirsting for complete obedience?
As to all Orthodox doing it it was done in some places, but not in most, (of which there exists any record) and you won't find the Fathers telling anyone they have to do this to find salvation. Since there isn't evidence that it was expected of all Christians, ever, but is instead an ideal, the Church does not expect it of all believers.
I would like to hear now how your Church incorporates this ideal into its life in the way Christ seems to have meant, and if it doesn't, why it doesn't.

It doesn’t, but then again, it doesn’t proclaim that it must. Like I’ve said before, I don’t believe that my church has to be similar to some church 1700 years ago in order for it to maintain some sort of authority. I believe that standing on the shoulders of the Fathers and the Apostles helps us to see better, and to continue to yearn after the revelations of God through his Spirit which he left for us.

There is a multitude of churches. There is a multitude of people. It fits perfectly for me.

(Not because Truth is changing or relative. But because our understanding of Truth is always flawed, and because our relationship to Truth will depend on who we are and where we’ve come from. It seems as though you have confused your church’s understanding of Truth with the Fullness of Truth as it exists in Christ.)


Regards,
Digory
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think you have a too high opinion of Orthodoxy and a too low opinion of Protestants.
It is a total myth to say that all Protestants believe different things. It's a myth to say they don't gather around the central Truth of Christ and his word. It's a total and breathtakingly arrogant thing to say that unless one accepts Orthodox dogma one has little concept of the Truth.
Give one example - if you can - of a fundamental doctrinal truth that is interpreted many, many different and contradictory ways by Protestantism.

Hi Mudfrog,

I don't think that you nor any of the other people here have 'little concept' - for all I know you know much more about it than do I. That is not the point. The point is where the understanding is rooted. Does it matter where the roots are, or how deep they go? It seems it does if a consistent understanding is desired. See list below.

Your last comment is the bottom line of the entire debate. If there are no differences in the essential elements of the faith, then perhaps church theology and the rest of it are irrelevant. Obviously I would argue that the OC's understanding is radically different than any Protestant understanding, but your question is specific to protestants.
So here's a few ways in which Protestant groups differ, in ways that may or may not have any affect on their members' salvation:
1.Symbolism – many groups think that some of the fundamental elements of the faith, such as the sacraments, are real, some think them symbolic.
2.Some rely upon ancient sources for guidance, some equate anything between _______ (some date after Christ's ascension) and 1520 to be essentially ________ (irrelevant, controlling, dictatorial in its consistency, whatever).
3.Some believe that once a person has been saved, they will always be saved. Others believe a person can lose God's grace.
4.Some (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) demand spiritual discipline of their members (proselytizing in that case), others don't.
5.Some understanding their church's belief to be the fullness of truth about their salvation some admit it's an uncertain thing.
6.Some accept an evolving understanding of sin, others do not.
7.Some tell believers to submit to the church's understanding of theology, others encourage innovation.
8.Some believe the truth about the path of salvation is evolving, some believe it fixed. Some say that it is different for each person – not the experience, but the expectations they are meant to meet.

You might say that none of those could have any impact on our salvation. If you do it would be presumptuous – you can't be sure, and many people would argue otherwise.
Of course you could say that there is a general consensus about most of them, and that any denominations which differ are marginal. But the Protestant progenitors (people such as Calvin, Luther, and C.T. Russell - the JW founder) all arrived at their understanding in a similar way: an earnest study of scripture, and prayer. So that argument dissolves either into dueling interpretations, or a numbers argument – there are more _________ than Jws, so they must be wrong.
SQ
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:

This,
quote:

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions: I sincerely believe that you believe to the core of your being that what you are saying is accurate, and that you earnestly believe that what you believe is true, the fullness of Truth as you can understand it at present.

and this;

quote:

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions: So my chief objection with the Protestant worldview is that it does not pursue what most Christians through history have believed in, a fixed truth.

Seem contradictory to me.

Hi Mdijon,
You describe how you ascertain truth as follows, "after prayer, discussion, consideration, communion .... all motivated on what is right, what is testable, what is true......”
It does not require prayer to ascertain the fundamental truth about the faith (Christ saves, follow Him). So what you are praying for with regard to theology must be a more specific understanding than that. How do you suppose the 'once saved, always saved' believers arrived at their theology? It is in direct and radical opposition to other Protestant understandings. Do you think they were any less prayerful, or any less earnest, or any less faithful than you?
FIXED truth means that there is an answer, in finality, to the question. If people come to contradictory conclusions through prayer (and all the rest you mentioned), unless we are prepared to judge the hearts and the faithfulness of others, we must accept that it is not fixed truth that is being found, but rather an understanding.

I'm not going to respond to some of this that repeats what we've discussed and focus on what is new.

quote:

It seems to me that anything other than belief in whichever flavour of Orthodoxy you favour is not seeking after truth, and is deciding for oneself.

Though people decide (by categorical necessity, even if they are cradle) amongst demoninations in Protestantism, were I to characterize that as not being interested in truth I would be judging their intentions. They believe they are finding truth as best they are able. My argument is that they can find it in fullness, and there is good reason to believe, given the consistency, that it's correct. What a person does with that knowledge is up to them.

I can tell you this much. If I were to learn tomorrow that a huge library, full of materials dating from the 1st through the 4th centuries had been found, I would want to know what was in it, so that I could learn what the early Christians believed about their salvation.

quote:
However, you have also decided to choose to believe the church to be infallible. To choose to believe that direct, unbroken, unreformed Apostolic succession is above all.

Importantly: If we can't identify fixed Truth, and those with radical views believe the foundation of them to be grace-filled, prayerful contemplation, how do we correct them? Lots of folks here seem to think the JWs are way off the mark. Try correcting one. You can't. They see saving things in their church, and they see their membership, unlike anyone except the mormons, living their faith through proselytizing. You can't convince them because you come from no firmer foundation than they do: your post-15th century church's understanding, one among many.
Without something fixed to measure it against, truth is what we make of it to the extent that it is malleable at all, and modern Christianity attests to significant malleability. The Apostolic understanding serves as the only rational measuring stick against which to compare other understandings.

quote:
To make a judgement that the Church has not changed (with which many of your brethren disagree).... and that that judgement is an absolute arbiter of the true church.
How are these not choices?

MJ, I have been imploring others here for days to offer some examples of how Orthodoxy has changed its theology, and nothing has come my way. I have provided evidence of the other side.

Yes, deciding to believe that the Church is infallible is a choice (That is, the Church as a whole; not every priest, bishop, church, or even diocese is always right – witness the earlier discussion on original sin referencing the Australian site, which seemed to say that the Orthodox and RC understandings are the same. I checked with my priest, and the site is wrong, I'll be contacting them).
But accepting it is not a leap of faith, except where it already exists, in God. We don't trust the Church because of the brilliance of its bishops, or because of its wealth of knowledge. In the first millenium almost all Christians trusted it because it was simply the Church, there was nothing else down the road. Today we trust it because in spite of all the change around it, the Church is not affected by the times. It's unchanging nature and consistent understanding tell us that something greater than men is guiding it. Ultimately, it is that guidance in which we have placed our faith and made our choice.
SQ

(St. S.o.S: this post is proof of miracles, it may actually be proper UBB use. You are a patient fellow.)
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
Originally posted by Dobbo regarding my reference to denominations as sects, a habit I am trying to break.
quote:
Do not be hard on SQ - that is probably what is being preached from orthodox pulpits (see article below) and as the Orthodox Church are sole proprietors of the Ultimate Truth ™ (in its fullness) ie Jesus Christ, it must be true. No thought is actually required by the congregations, because the orthodox church is protected from heresy so everything it says is accurate . It simply is a no brainer.



Hi Dobbo,
Then you go on to cite a bishop of the Greek church who has said that snake handling and poison drinking are more cultish than they are part of the Christian tradition.
Whether he is correct or not, he is speaking not for the Church as a whole, and anything he says is tempered by the Church's prayers for mercy for every faithful person.
No Orthodox priest would say that the Pentecostal church is 'Christ's Church' because – you guessed it – the Church is both spiritual and manifest, and always has been.
If you think that the faith need only be understood so generally that there is no room for excluding anyone who, “saith, lord, lord”, then why are you here, or interested in anything but general truth? If no deeper or purer understanding of salvation and Christian life to that end exists conspicuously, and is in any case unnecessary, then any time you spend here is time wasted, it should be spent on your knees in repentance and prayer, and on working out your salvation with fear and trembling. Because everyone here already agrees on the general truth. If that is all that is necessary, a lot of the discussion on this site is in no way beneficial to us in regard to salvation. Anything aside from ___how to live it___ is hot air.
I maintain that this understanding, in light of St. Paul's prayerful tears that the Truth be adhered to, is 'strictly un-Biblical'.

And if one presumes that only a general truth need be understood, and that only a life inside some general and wide parameters need be lived in order to follow Christ, that is a presumption with potentially eternal implications, so is not one to make lightly
SQ
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:
quote:

This is where you and I disagree. You seem to be stating to me that Jesus set up a church with dogmas and rules to follow. That I find to be untrue. Jesus gave us a way to live, not a church. The Church (of which I mean ALL Christians; Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant and anyone else) is a way to preserve his spirit on this Earth so that others can find him. Not dogmas or rituals.

I keep seeing you thinking of Jesus as a set of rules and regulations that we have to follow. I keep seeing Jesus as a person with thoughts, feelings, and most definately love for people who are outside of society.

Hi SsoS,

I see where you are coming from.
I think the source of your feelings may lie in part in the natural reaction to someone doggedly insisting that they know the Truth about what everyone is arguing about. That kind of mindset is often accompanied by a bureaucratic zeal of 'rightness' and 'wrongness', all neatly laid out in triplicate.

That's not what the Church seeks to safeguard. That the Church has fixed dogma is a given, it's name derives from the greek word for 'correct', or 'straight'. If something is correct you don't change it.
Canons guide the Church's internal affairs and the life of believers- – to the extent believers live according to them. And they are of both an administrative nature and a salvific nature. And can be contained in a small book.
Consider something as simple as the canon against Priests cutting their hair and beards. It's not an arbitrary thing – the priest serves, in all ways, as an example to the flock and an example of a life in Christ. When a priest takes pains with his appearance, particularly in an effort to keep up with 'the times', he is saying by doing so that it is important, and even those who have manifestly committed their life to their Master cannot be expected to resist earthly lures and snares. More on this below RE fasting.

Regarding the general point about the importance of being 'doctrinaire', which can lead one to a loveless view of Christ, I will say this: There are people in the OC to which the details of worship and the like, the things about the Church which are not generally important to salvation, take on an immense importance. Some have even broken from the Church because it is not sufficiently doctrinaire. This is always to be lamented, and because Orthodox have a fixed set of ideas about all aspects of the Christian life, it is a trap into which Orthodox may seem more likely to blunder. I can't say what the percentage of Orthodox are who are not living a fruitful life in Christ, but that life is manifestly what the Church encourages. To the extent that the Church tells believers to do things such as fasting, it is not to satisfy the Church, but to encourage a life in Christ.
That the Church provides specific tools for salvation (which are in fact conducive to spiritual growth) and encourages believers to use them is not to satisfy any urge to follow rules. In fact, with something such as fasting, it is better not to do it if doing it encourages pride. Everything is considered in light of salvation, the ultimate end of everyone, and the aim of the Church.
Beyond that, I can only ask you to trust me when I say that the life of the Church is not one of staid submission, it is a vibrant, yet humble and hopeful live of love. Nor is it a Church of exclusion. In regard to my friend, I checked, and as I knew I would find, the Church baptizes post-operative transsexuals.
As to the room in the Church for theology and a vibrant intellectual life in Christ: I will spend the non-arthritic years of my life writing about Christ and how the Church understands Him and our relation to Him. They will be arguments in accordance with the Church's understanding because I am not interested in starting my own Church. But they will be my words, the thoughts will have my heart and mind behind them, and writing them will give me every bit as much pleasure as would speculating about the Truth. I will also speak about it, and with conviction. Everything in the intellectual life in Christ is available to one in the Church except invention of new theology.

I asked about your Church's beliefs and practice RE fasting, you said what most Protestants I've met have said,
quote:


If by fasting you mean avoidance of either certain foods or giving up things that mean something to us, but are not needed for life, then yes.

Those things can be blocks to us finding our way to Jesus, and therefore are things that need to be removed.

It is what I meant in a general sense, but I'd guess that in your church, after that general guidance, believers are left on their own as to what to do, perhaps with some suggestions of what to give up, often around Easter.
Orthodox are encourage to follow the fasting as spelled out on the liturgical calendar, which amounts to about half the year. The fast is every Wednesday and Friday, and around a number of feasts of the year, and we fast from all meat aside from shellfish, and all dairy products. And, ideally, from sex.
The purpose of the fast is manifold, in part we do it because Christ expected it by telling us what not to do when we fast, and because the Apostles did it.
They did it, the Church believes, because when we are able to deny our passions in small things, it becomes easier to do so in the things that affect our salvation, and in practice that seems to be true. Fasting also shows us how attached we are to the things of this world, and also encourages us to be thankful for the good things God has given us here, the tiny foretaste of what He has for us. The prayer over the meaty, cheesy meal following the seven week Easter fast is one said in earnest, as are the prayers of thanks to God for one's spouse.

Here is an article that addresses all aspects of fasting, including traditional Protestant objections to the Orthodox Church's practice of it: fasting

SQ
 
Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
SQ, I think you are building a straw-man about fasting. I love fasting and I'm not even Orthodox. I think you'll find it hard to find around here those that disagree about the importance of fasting (except, of course, Gordon Cheng who would argue that it is legalism - but he's busy so no worries, mate).
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

All the claims you make for Orthodoxy are claims that some Protestants make for their churches, and on pretty much the same grounds (the Holy Spirit guides the church). My parents believe they are in possession of the fullest Truth available in this life.

I am hereby withdrawing from this thread. I'm tired of your disrespect for millions of other Christians.

I'm sorry to see you go, Ruth. And I'm sorry that I have done such a poor job in defense of my faith that you consider what I am saying to be relentless disrespect of other Christians.
SQ
 
Posted by sanc (# 6355) on :
 
quote:
by Sophia's Questions

But the Protestant progenitors (people such as Calvin, Luther, and C.T. Russell - the JW founder) all arrived at their understanding in a similar way: an earnest study of scripture, and prayer. So that argument dissolves either into dueling interpretations, or a numbers argument... so they must be wrong.

We can't say they must be wrong. What will become of the expressed command to test all spirits? We can rather say with certainty that they can't all be right.

Reading your posts, I come to this understanding: There is an ultimate truth, since protestants differ considerably in what they believe to be true, there's no truth in them. And since the OC has consistently for centuries adhered to a set of doctrines traceable to the apostles, ultimate truth can only reside with them.

I think this simplification is flawed. Protestantism in the first place contests such claim (that the OC is consistent with what the apostles have to say).

I think GOD's church cannot be walled by the exclusiveness of orthodoxy or heresy. These are human constructs. When JESUS was here on earth, the Jews were having competing sects, (eg. pharisee, sadduces, etc.) but nowhere did HE concern HIMSELF with labeling whose orthodox or not. Instead HE dwelt on persons and motives. Far it be that GOD will judge mankind depending on whether they're orthodox or not.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
SQ.

I think you have too much to say on a subject that really isn't an issue in ecumenical circles. The fact that in the West the Orthodox church hardly figures might tell you that Orthodoxy is an irrelevance. If it were the main repository of ruth don't you think that God would have made sure there was at least one Orthodox church in most towns? I can't even tell you where there is one - or even where there was one in all the many towns I have lived in.

You are simply WRONG (yes I shouted) about the Orthodox church. It is NOT (shouting again) the sole owner of the Truth. It is NOT infallible, beyond error, and you or your Patriarchs or Metropolitans or whomever have NO right whatever to make statements about other Trinitarian churches - be they Protestant or Catholic, Pentecostal or liturgical - that put them outside the fold.

It is attitudes like yours that have done so much damage to the worldwide church and to the effectiveness of her witness in the modern times.

Spirit of Christ?
I don't think so.
 
Posted by Jonathan the Free (# 10612) on :
 
I think there is a good point there.

If the Eastern Orthodox Church believes it alone is TRUTH and the Western Catholic / Anglican Church is FALSE, then does it not have a duty to plant churches in the West ?

I live in London and there is not an orthodox church that I know about for several miles. Most of the orthodox churches that do exist are so dominated by the social activities for emigres from their own nation state that a native English person would feel rather unwelcome.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
[QUOTE] (big snip)So you have decided to submit to this Truth, because in your opinion, it’s the Ultimate Truth. And those of us who have not decided to submit to this Truth are fundamentally wrong in our understanding of the true nature of God, etc. In other words, you believe yourself to have the Ultimate Truth.

Digory,
My understanding of theology is limited. But I can point to Truth, and access it, and try to live the life it speaks about.
As to anyone else being fundamentally incorrect, that's depends upon the situation. If one endeavors to follow Christ's words but never really engages in self-denial, how successful will they be? Their appetites will likely govern much of their life. So if it is a wrong understanding about something fundamental like humility, or obedience, or self-denial, and how to encourage them, then yes, it could be called 'fundamentally wrong' because it is injurious to, or unhelpful to, our salvation.
And yes, there are wrong understandings of all theological matters and everything related to our life in Christ, otherwise the word 'heresy' has no meaning whatever.

A side note: Are Protestants heretics? You might find some uncharitable Orthodox who would say that. But I would not do so. For one, I see the spirit of love and charity in Protestant communities. Were they generally unloving and uncharitable, by calling themselves Christian they would be slandering all faithful believers, and thus should be called heretics. That is not the case, and your hearts are pure, you are all my brothers and sisters in Christ, and were any of you with me I would treat you as such, and greet you with a kiss.
But more importantly, heresy does not mean what it once did, when the Apostolic Understanding was still basically universally held to be the unvarying Truth, an objective fact that one's family passed down, along with the Church. Today, with a much broader understanding of the faith being the norm, to call someone a heretic is unprofitable for all.

You then made some very conciliatory statements, which I thank you for, and which helped to assure me that you don't think my intentions to be impure.

It's late and I can't get this Ubb correct, probably, sorry. I said,
quote:

But simply put, as in anything important that affects us profoundly, we should want to know the full truth about it, as best we are able, and if someone does not examine this - by all appearances legitimate, historically established claim - to the Truth, about that which they say is at the foundation of their life, they are chiefly motivated by something other than a desire to know the Apostolic understanding. I cannot fathom why that would be the case for any Christian.

quote:
“…chiefly motivated by something other than a desire to know the Apostolic understanding…”

That’s me to a T. I honestly do not care how the Apostles understood the gospel, except in that it may aid me in not making the same mistakes they made ...snip I respect them...snip
I think our final aim can be much higher than that, in the Real Truth of Christ, and he’s promised to leave his Spirit here, available to all of us, to aid us along in that pursuit.

Digory, I would like to think that in that pursuit you will be chiefly guided by Scripture. If you consult it as you walk your road, why would you not consult it before you step onto the road?
Specifically, I would be interested in your Scriptural foundation for the following:
1.Where does Scripture say that there is a higher understanding of the truth available to us than that understood by the ones who kissed His feet and ate with Him?
2.Where does Scripture say that the life in Christ is one in which we find differing ideas of truth?
3.Where does it say that we are to seek truth outside the Church and it's understanding? There's a potent critique of sola scriptura, if that's the way you might choose to go, here, about halfway through under the subhead 'The Repository of Truth'
4.Where does Scripture tell us that it is acceptable for the understanding of theology and salvation to differ from person to person? Their life in Christ will differ, but where are we told to think different things about the foundation of it?


I said,
quote:

There exists no other history of things, so to deny what history exists (which is fairly extensive) requires one to believe that the history they are reading is a lie. The works that all talk about defending a Truth, as understood to be embodied and defended by a Church identified by St. Paul in 66, St. Clement in 96, St. Iraneus in 175 and all the rest, have to have been willfully fabricated, and the alternative histories destroyed, in order to deny the abundant written testimony.
Did the Church come off its apostolic moorings? If so, the history of it is buried, lost to us completely. If it in fact happened, if they started spinning our new theologies and understandings, how is that possible that no evidence of it exists?

your reply
quote:
To utterly deny that history is written by the victors, and to throw away the notion that things could have been fabricated and other understandings destroyed through history, would be rather naïve. I don’t necessarily believe that it happened this way, but I acknowledge the possibility to exist.


Sure, I do as well. But History written by victors is generally accompanied by history written by losers, and in this case, what there is of it is pretty minimal – if it was a world-wide document and memory scrub it was pretty effective. It also requires us to think the Orthodox Jews are in on it, they've lived alongside the OC for 2000 years. They're silent about it if there is an alternate history.


About the adherence to Apostolic Truth you say,
quote:


The point is that you can’t use your own evidence to prove your evidence. If you want to say that the EOC is the only reliable guide to the Apostolic tradition, fine. You cannot then make the jump to assert that the Apostolic tradition, as described by the EOC, is the only reliable guide to Jesus’ teachings. Of course, you can SAY it. You just can’t prove it like I think you’d like to.



No, with finality, nothing is provable. Even our existence – the pantheists may be right, we may be instances of 'the infinite dreamer, dreaming finite dreams'. Can we prove that does not describe reality? No, we cannot.
We live with faith that reality is as it was described by the only one who ever walked the Earth and demonstrated the powers of the Creator, both calling matter into existence from nothing and imbuing dead matter – dead people, and dead cells inside people, with life. Christ compels us with his divinity, his humanity, His humility, and His love. And we accept them on faith, we cannot even prove that He existed.
So we use our best powers of reason to conclude that He probably did in part because our Grandparents say so, as did theirs, and so on back. And the document upon which we rely, The New Testament, was compiled by an Orthodox Church about which there exists extensive historical evidence – tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands of pages) of writings, pre-dating the compilation of the Bible. More, likely, than exist about any other institution from that time on earth. And though some disagreements existed, they attest to a general unanimity of belief about Christ and salvation dating back to Christ. The form of the liturgy may be varied until universalized, but the Truth is as He spoke it, and then explained it, at length.

To think that the Church did not at least do their best is to see people saying, “in spite of my grand-pappy having heard it explained by Peter, I'm going to propagate a different understanding to serve my gigantic ego, or because my 'life in Christ' is so feeble that I don't care enough to learn it properly and pass it on. Hang on a sec, someone's here...................... I have to go, they want to feed me to a lion. Glory to God!”
They died in martyrdom and lived in persecution, yet their steadfastness in all other regards did not extend to a preservation of the understanding of Christ's message, which was explained to them by those they trusted, starting from the earliest age. This is what must be believed to think that the Apostolic understanding was not preserved.
They did preserve it, with faith.
It frankly amazes me that you concede that possibility, yet may be wed to a worldview that tells you that you can find a deeper understanding of Christianity than they had. Scant writings exist from the Apostles themselves, but hundreds of thousands of pages of writings exist from early Christians, many of them saints. You're going to find a deeper understanding than theirs?

Digory, you are conceding in the most explicit terms the mindset I have been most uncharitable about: the individual as the arbiter of Truth.
If you can't defend the foundations of it Biblically, perhaps you'd like to tell me, using reason, how you expect to find this ultimate understanding that exceeds that of the Apostles themselves.

I said,
quote:

Side question: Do you believe that the theology of Orthodox Jews could have remained unchanged for any 1700 year stretch?

quote:
Well, I could easily prove that it has. I could say that the only reliable guide we have to how Orthodox Judaism was 1700 years ago is the Orthodox Jewish temple down the street from where I live. If I go down there, I then make a comparison. I compare today’s Temple practices/beliefs to the practices/beliefs of 1700 years ago. But I don’t have anything to tell me about 1700 years ago except today’s practices/beliefs. So the comparison becomes:

Is today’s church exactly like today’s church? The answer is always yes.



So your epistemological problem with it is that there is no other history of the Church and no other history of a preserved Apostolic understanding of the faith?
If in your example you return from the Temple and find from a search of the internet that what you were told is the only history of things, would you be more likely to accept it?
For that matter, do you believe that the Bible is remotely accurate? If that was preserved faithfully and you believe it to be an historical document, why not the massive proliferation of writings in the 4th century which predate the Bible's 'finalization' and attest to consistency from the time of 'the ancients'?


About divorcing oneself from the things of this world, as in monasticism – which was in answer to his question of whether the Church as a whole practices wealth sharing – I asked what provisions his church makes for those who would choose the monastic path which most seems to mirror the ideal described in Scripture, PK said,
quote:
It doesn’t, but then again, it doesn’t proclaim that it must. Like I’ve said before, I don’t believe that my church has to be similar to some church 1700 years ago in order for it to maintain some sort of authority.



The fact the the OC makes provision for it, though they don't ask it of anyone, is a testament to their faithfulness to Scripture.

quote:

There is a multitude of churches. There is a multitude of people. It fits perfectly for me.
(Not because Truth is changing or relative. But because our understanding of Truth is always flawed, and because our relationship to Truth will depend on who we are and where we’ve come from. It seems as though you have confused your church’s understanding of Truth with the Fullness of Truth as it exists in Christ.)

That fullness as you see it manifests in many different understandings of the nature of our life in Christ and our salvation. They may all have elements of truth, but if they are different, unless the truth of all these things is very general, they are not Capital T truth. A loving Creator would not burden us with the responsibility of finding the Truth for ourselves, He has made it possible that it be made known to us through all time, so that we can get on about what we are really here to do, become more like our Maker.
Regards,
SQ

I won't be around for a few days. My best wishes to all.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
*yawn*

[Snore]

[Disappointed]
 
Posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally from Sophia’s Questions:

1.Symbolism – many groups think that some of the fundamental elements of the faith, such as the sacraments, are real, some think them symbolic.
2.Some rely upon ancient sources for guidance, some equate anything between _______ (some date after Christ's ascension) and 1520 to be essentially ________ (irrelevant, controlling, dictatorial in its consistency, whatever).
3.Some believe that once a person has been saved, they will always be saved. Others believe a person can lose God's grace.
4.Some (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) demand spiritual discipline of their members (proselytizing in that case), others don't.
5.Some understanding their church's belief to be the fullness of truth about their salvation some admit it's an uncertain thing.
6.Some accept an evolving understanding of sin, others do not.
7.Some tell believers to submit to the church's understanding of theology, others encourage innovation.
8.Some believe the truth about the path of salvation is evolving, some believe it fixed. Some say that it is different for each person – not the experience, but the expectations they are meant to meet.

I’m having trouble seeing how this is fundamental to whom God and Jesus are/is. Maybe if you can show me where in the Niece Creed (which I take as the foundation of all Christian belief – either form BTW so don’t feel constrained to either use the Western or Orthodox form) where any of this is it could help.

quote:
It is what I meant in a general sense, but I'd guess that in your church, after that general guidance, believers are left on their own as to what to do, perhaps with some suggestions of what to give up, often around Easter.


My denomination is the Episcopal Church of the United State of America. That church does give suggestions of things to give up (or do) in regards to fasting in Lent.

However, I was raised in a family which goes to many different churches (Southern Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal) so that I have a tendency to talk to people outside of the Protestant faith in generalities.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church both give guidelines as to when to fast and what to do. The Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal are more general about when and how to fast. They all are looking more at Lent however, but they don’t limit fasting to just the times of Lent (or Advent), but when the believer feels that they need to spend some time getting closer to God.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Sophia's Questions:
Maybe I can better understand where you are coming from if you'd tell me a few things.

quote:

Do you believe that the truth about our salvation evolves

No

quote:

or differs from person to person

No

quote:

and epoch to epoch?

Probably not but I'm not sure. Some very clever Christians say it does - or at least did BC.

quote:

Do you believe that the understanding of such things as sin (what it is and what things are sins) changes with time?

Yes, obviously.

quote:

If so, is it because God has changed the way he thinks about those things, or because we have done so?

The latter.

quote:

Do you believe that there is a common Apostolic understanding of the message they heard from Christ, or do you believe that they were in dispute? (not in specific instances, but in the faith)?

Mostly in agreement but often in dispute. We know they were, tradition and the New Testament record some of their disagreements.

quote:

If it's important to know what they thought about Christ's message spoken directly to them, do you think it's is conceivable that this Apostolic understanding of The Creator's message could have been preserved intact for 30 years (the remainder of their lifetimes)? What about 100 years?

Of course. And most obviously preserved in the New Testament, the bulk of which (maybe all) was written within the lifetimes of the Apostles.

quote:

At some point do you think it's possible that, especially given the relentless repetition of the notion that preserving this Truth was their greatest charge, the Truth could be widely enough understood that additions to it or subtractions from it could be easily identified as such?

No, not "easily", because humans are not easily capable of that sort of understanding.

quote:

Do you give any credence to the idea that the Holy Spirit could guide the church in both protection and understanding?

Yes of course.

quote:

If the latter, why would be in the interest of the Spirit to have our understanding change with time, and why would He encourage it?

I'm not sure that She does. I think the basis of the faith has remained the same. And is shared by all the churches - not just your one. We have in common what is essential, what differs is mostly (perhaps all) local or indifferent.

quote:

I believe that this Truth does not vary, and that it is known and knowable to us if we are children of a loving God.

Yes of course. But even so there are other things that churches do or teach that are not part of this "Truth" and often either inimical to it or irrelevant to it. All churches have erred, including both yours and mine.

quote:

And it will be accessible and knowable, in fullness, not in disparate and changing parts, until we all meet our Maker.

No! Not at all. It is not all accessible to us and even if it was we'd not be capable of appreciating it. Are we better accquantained with Jesus than John the Apostle? Then - in the presence of God - we will know as we are known. Do we know more than Paul? Now we "see through a glass darkly". Even Jesus himself was ignorant of some things the Father keeps to himself.
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Are Protestants heretics? You might find some uncharitable Orthodox who would say that. But I would not do so. For one, I see the spirit of love and charity in Protestant communities. Were they generally unloving and uncharitable, by calling themselves Christian they would be slandering all faithful believers, and thus should be called heretics. That is not the case, and your hearts are pure, you are all my brothers and sisters in Christ, and were any of you with me I would treat you as such, and greet you with a kiss.

I feel the same for you. Thanks for taking the time to share this—I think it’s very important.

quote:
1.Where does Scripture say that there is a higher understanding of the truth available to us than that understood by the ones who kissed His feet and ate with Him?
2.Where does Scripture say that the life in Christ is one in which we find differing ideas of truth?
3.Where does it say that we are to seek truth outside the Church and it's understanding? There's a potent critique of sola scriptura, if that's the way you might choose to go, here, about halfway through under the subhead 'The Repository of Truth'
4.Where does Scripture tell us that it is acceptable for the understanding of theology and salvation to differ from person to person? Their life in Christ will differ, but where are we told to think different things about the foundation of it?

I’m not sola scriptura. I’m not sola tradition. I’m not sola Church. I’m not sola personal preference. I just desire to be sola God. I believe his Spirit is here with me, to guide me. I believe that I kiss his feet and eat with him and so do you, whenever you serve people around you or eat with good friends. Scripture doesn’t say that there will be differing ideas of truth. It’s just a fact—if two people read the same thing, they’ll come to different understandings of what it means. I simply don’t believe that the Apostles had it perfectly correct—but their understanding aids our own, just in the same way that we all aid each other.

quote:
Scant writings exist from the Apostles themselves, but hundreds of thousands of pages of writings exist from early Christians, many of them saints. You're going to find a deeper understanding than theirs?
I think they would encourage the idea themselves. To think that people had simply stopped searching and testing and settled for the understandings they themselves came to after only a few years would be very discouraging for them who tried to encourage the pursuit of truth and understanding.


quote:
Digory, you are conceding in the most explicit terms the mindset I have been most uncharitable about: the individual as the arbiter of Truth.
If you can't defend the foundations of it Biblically, perhaps you'd like to tell me, using reason, how you expect to find this ultimate understanding that exceeds that of the Apostles themselves.

Truth exists and is unchanging and unrelative.
We choose which understanding of Truth we will accept as true.

We ALL do.

quote:
A loving Creator would not burden us with the responsibility of finding the Truth for ourselves, He has made it possible that it be made known to us through all time, so that we can get on about what we are really here to do, become more like our Maker.

Jesus himself spoke in parables, leaving his listeners to figure it out for themselves what he meant. They must’ve had hundreds of different understandings of his cryptic stories and anecdotes, yet there was no place to go and check which understanding was correct.

I believe that we are most like our Maker when we pursue and wrestle with our understanding of him, and begin to allow him to reveal himself to us as he wishes to do.

-Digory
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'm withdrawing from the thread, guys, for the same reason as Ruth. Plus it's just so exhausting sifting through the SQ posts looking for wheat amongst the chaff. At my age, you need to know your limits.

andreas1984, my friend, by comparison your posts are models of conciseness and precision. SQ, you should listen to your wife.

(Heads for darkened room. Maybe I need Psyduck's missing Babel fish? Grandchildren are so much more fun ...)
 
Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 
Posted by Sopha's Questions:
quote:
...everyone here already agrees on the general truth.
Not true.
 
Posted by Dobbo (# 5850) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:


Hi Dobbo,
Then you go on to cite a bishop of the Greek church

The article actually mentions the Archbishop of North and South America representing over 2 million Orthodox

I am at least prepared to give the person his place in the heirarchy despite his statements

quote:
who has said that snake handling and poison drinking are more cultish than they are part of the Christian tradition.
So I take it Paul falls into the cult category as well (Acts 28)
quote:


No Orthodox priest would say that the Pentecostal church is 'Christ's Church' because – you guessed it – the Church is both spiritual and manifest, and always has been.

But as I aluded to earlier the Church is defined by Christ's redemptive work (ie without His death there would be no church) and as such it is made up of a redeemed people rather than an institutionalised organisation.

quote:
If you think that the faith need only be understood so generally that there is no room for excluding anyone who, “saith, lord, lord”, then why are you here, or interested in anything but general truth? If no deeper or purer understanding of salvation and Christian life to that end exists conspicuously, and is in any case unnecessary, then any time you spend here is time wasted, it should be spent on your knees in repentance and prayer, and on working out your salvation with fear and trembling. Because everyone here already agrees on the general truth. If that is all that is necessary, a lot of the discussion on this site is in no way beneficial to us in regard to salvation. Anything aside from ___how to live it___ is hot air.

I am here because I learn from people that post - I do not have to go back to a priest to check out what I am entitled to post (with respect to you and baptism), Which you never truly answered - at least I know where protestants and Roman Catholics believe with respect to children that die without being baptized are. You did not state the Orthodox position.

I think it is you who wastes your time as if you believe have the fulness of truth then there is no point in being here - because if you are just wanting to get converts to the Orthodox faith then you are breaking one of the commandments.

It is interesting that you do not seem to want to learn from others so much so that people like Ruth and Barnabas decide to withdraw from the discussion.


My issue is how church has any influence over salvation - "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" Romans 9 v 15 - Salvation is of the Lord and no earthly organisation has a monopoly on it.
 
Posted by Sophia's Questions (# 10624) on :
 
St. S of S,

Thanks for your guidance here, and for your friendly (and gentle) suggestions about UBB. And thanks to everyone else as well, this is a thoughtful forum.

I don't think I can add anything else to this discussion than I've said already, or that can't be said better by someone else.
With that in mind, here is a link to Our Life in Christ, an Orthodox radio ministry. They have shows archived, and the subject of each show is listed. You can burn them to CD, each show is about 40 minutes. There are about 50 shows in the archive.

Here is a link to a site with articles on pretty much everything related to Orthodox Christianity, fatheralexander.org

And if anyone writing or reading has any questions about the faith they can contact Fr. John McCuen, my spiritual father, at holy_archangels@cox.net

Peace be with you,
SQ
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Why do I feel as if one of Jehovah's witnesses has just walked away from my door?
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
I feel a sort of unsettled loss...


No wait, that was just indigestion.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0