Thread: Heresy Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025955
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Is the concept of heresy outmoded? Indeed, has it ever been more about the struggle for ecclesiastical and political power than the correction of supposed theological error?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Saying that it's all about consolidating political power is certainly a handy way to advance the viewpoint that what you believe really doesn't matter.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
It's as relevant as ever because the consequences are the same as they always were. At the holy council at Nicaea St. Nicholas slapped Arius in the face precisely because he knew what his heresy meant (even if he was wrong to do so).
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTA_BczdGZ-T1Pa2ZS3zoqllpEWxfbO9trQzN1pCNQF5t742hI7
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Saying that it's all about consolidating political power is certainly a handy way to advance the viewpoint that what you believe really doesn't matter.
This is bullshit, IMO. Heresy has often been about control. It may not always be. To point this out does not inherently endorse any particular view.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I would have thought that all the fights over heresies were to some extent about power. You would need to be more explicit in each case as to why and to what extent. Many of the people fighting them often gained nothing from winning them, nor was it obvious they ever would do.
The majority of all the heresies I can think of (the Christological ones, the trinitarian ones and some of the gnostic ones) all involve some diminution or suppression of something, whilst elevating something else that would in other contexts be unexceptional. A more accurate characterisation of heresies like that would be that it is a diminution of the truth.
That probably won't cover them all, but it looks to me like it covers the biggies.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Raising questions about heresy inevitably points to the fact that Christianity is largely about "correct belief."
Given that Christianity has now splintered into hundreds of variants or sub-sects or whatever we should call them, and that many, perhaps most (though certainly not all) of these splinter groups claim that the others are at some level "wrong," (and therefore, I assume, "heretical"), and that there is no way this side of death (nor from my PoV, after it, either) to settle the differences, I'd have to conclude not only that declarations of heresy are all about power, but about temporal, worldly power.
Frankly, to the extent that religious practice makes any sense at all, at least practice can be, well, practiced, and in just about any religion of your choice. Do the motions, say the words, perform the rituals, carry out the duties, and you can count yourself among (some group of) the faithful.
Believing the right things, though? What does that even mean? For me to pursue that further, this would have to be in Hell.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Heresy has often been about control.
This is safely vague. Can you substantiate this assertion by citing an example? And would you be prepared to defend it against objections?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Raising questions about heresy inevitably points to the fact that Christianity is largely about "correct belief."
I think instead that Christianity is much more about 'correct practice' (love your neighbour, i.e. feed them when they're hungry, etc.) springing from 'correct relationship' (love God, i.e. let him transform you into a new person by changing the way you think). We can believe exactly the right things - or at least give our assent to those things - and yet remain utterly untransformed by God's transforming power.
I think 'heresy' is a horrific word to bandy about, and if I could ban it from all theological discussion across the world, I think I would. IMO it's a word used to shut down debate and get people to stick with our side without examining closely the arguments against.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Heresy has often been about control.
This is safely vague. Can you substantiate this assertion by citing an example? And would you be prepared to defend it against objections?
Galileo. Witch trials. The Knights Templar. Joan of Arc. The various Inquisitions. The Reformation. Need more?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I don't know about heresy as a legal concept, but FWIW Ken Leech says something somewhere to the effect that one of the hallmarks of a heresy is that it tries to shut down further debate. Orthodox theology, by contrast, provides a framework within which debate can continue.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Raising questions about heresy inevitably points to the fact that Christianity is largely about "correct belief."
I think instead that Christianity is much more about 'correct practice' (love your neighbour, i.e. feed them when they're hungry, etc.) springing from 'correct relationship' (love God, i.e. let him transform you into a new person by changing the way you think). We can believe exactly the right things - or at least give our assent to those things - and yet remain utterly untransformed by God's transforming power.
Can a man have a correct relationship with his wife if he thinks she's a lawnmower?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Raising questions about heresy inevitably points to the fact that Christianity is largely about "correct belief."
I think instead that Christianity is much more about 'correct practice' (love your neighbour, i.e. feed them when they're hungry, etc.) springing from 'correct relationship' (love God, i.e. let him transform you into a new person by changing the way you think). We can believe exactly the right things - or at least give our assent to those things - and yet remain utterly untransformed by God's transforming power.
Can a man have a correct relationship with his wife if he thinks she's a lawnmower?
Perhaps not, but if he thinks his wife has brown eyes and they are in fact hazel, then I doubt it makes much difference. Heck, if his wife doesn't like the taste of green beans and he thinks she does, that's unfortunate but not a major problem.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Heresy has often been about control.
This is safely vague. Can you substantiate this assertion by citing an example? And would you be prepared to defend it against objections?
One of the most fascinating books of church history that I ever read is When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein. Rubenstein is a professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs, not a theologian. But his perspective on the conflict between Arians and Athanasians is an absolutely riveting read. If you can read about this absolutely pivotal period of Church history and come away imagining that this was not first and foremost a power struggle, you have vastly more imagination than I. We tend to paper over that fact with bromides about the Church being under the protection of the Holy Spirit, but without such magical incantations, Church history is just an open cess pool of human excess.
--Tom Clune
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Perhaps not, but if he thinks his wife has brown eyes and they are in fact hazel, then I doubt it makes much difference. Heck, if his wife doesn't like the taste of green beans and he thinks she does, that's unfortunate but not a major problem.
Thank you, Arethosemyfeet; my thoughts exactly. And nicely put, tclune!
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Perhaps not, but if he thinks his wife has brown eyes and they are in fact hazel, then I doubt it makes much difference. Heck, if his wife doesn't like the taste of green beans and he thinks she does, that's unfortunate but not a major problem.
Thank you, Arethosemyfeet; my thoughts exactly. And nicely put, tclune!
The thing is, I think the difference between Athanasian and Arian christologies is several orders of magnitude greater than the difference between blue and brown eyes.
[ 22. July 2013, 21:38: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Rubenstein is a professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs, not a theologian. But his perspective on the conflict between Arians and Athanasians is an absolutely riveting read. If you can read about this absolutely pivotal period of Church history and come away imagining that this was not first and foremost a power struggle, you have vastly more imagination than I. We tend to paper over that fact with bromides about the Church being under the protection of the Holy Spirit, but without such magical incantations, Church history is just an open cess pool of human excess.
Is Rubinstein's work primarily a work of disinterested historical discovery, or is it primarily a contribution to a power struggle? It seems to me that if a Professor of Public Affairs decides to branch into Church History then it's just possible that his primary agenda is sticking it to the Religious Right. That's a worthy motive I admit. But if someone starts researching a book outside their field of expertise with the primary aim of sticking it to the religious right that's grounds for thinking they might have decided what evidence they were going to find prior to finding it.
The claim that it's all primarily about power struggles is a claim that implicates itself.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
We are frequently reminded these days that the word 'believe' has relatively recently changed its meaning from 'to commit oneself totally' (believe – belove) to 'assent to (or credit) certain statements'.
Heresy (from Greek choosing/ a choice) became in Johnson's dictionary, 'an opinion of private men different from that of the catholick and orthodox church'.
I am a heretic because I question and explore, and find the formulations of 4th century church functionaries mainly irrelevant. But don't tell me I'm not a Christian.
GG
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Raising questions about heresy inevitably points to the fact that Christianity is largely about "correct belief."
Given that Christianity has now splintered into hundreds of variants or sub-sects or whatever we should call them, and that many, perhaps most (though certainly not all) of these splinter groups claim that the others are at some level "wrong," (and therefore, I assume, "heretical"), and that there is no way this side of death (nor from my PoV, after it, either) to settle the differences, I'd have to conclude not only that declarations of heresy are all about power, but about temporal, worldly power.
Frankly, to the extent that religious practice makes any sense at all, at least practice can be, well, practiced, and in just about any religion of your choice. Do the motions, say the words, perform the rituals, carry out the duties, and you can count yourself among (some group of) the faithful.
Believing the right things, though? What does that even mean? For me to pursue that further, this would have to be in Hell.
Another way to look at the situation is to say that the Church is diverse. They are different because they come from or are located in different cultures and express themselves differently. Diversity is a good thing. God loves and created diversity.
We can hold the same creeds and have different practice and emphasis on doctrines. Ecumenicalism or cross denominational movements are growing. The most problems with multiplication of schism is in those traditions that seek purity by cutting themselves off.
Of course we are all wrong on some level. Admitting it is an entry requirement. The Church needs to be challenged and members need to learn of each others traditions. It is a hard to avoid stepping over the line of being challenged and into division.
Practice- producing fruit of love, peace, joy etc. is as important if not more important than the minutia of doctrine. The practice of rite, ritual and other disciplines are of no benefit in themselves (to paraphrase Richard Foster, it is the benefit that they produce that we are after.
The question is one of perception: half full versus half empty. Overall I would say that Christians have far more in common than different.
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Saying that it's all about consolidating political power is certainly a handy way to advance the viewpoint that what you believe really doesn't matter.
This is bullshit, IMO. Heresy has often been about control. It may not always be. To point this out does not inherently endorse any particular view.
HERESY is about who won and who lost. The winners are orthodox. The losers are heretics.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
For those who think the definition of heresy is only ever about power, it might be worth pointing out that many anti-heretical writings pre-date the association of Christianity with any real worldly or political power. Irenaeus's Against Heresies, for example, dates from the 2nd century, when often the only power a Christian might enjoy was the power to be first in the queue to be martyred.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Saying that it's all about consolidating political power is certainly a handy way to advance the viewpoint that what you believe really doesn't matter.
This is bullshit, IMO. Heresy has often been about control. It may not always be. To point this out does not inherently endorse any particular view.
HERESY is about who won and who lost. The winners are orthodox. The losers are heretics.
Bollocks, of course, unless you really don't believe in one Apostolic and Catholic faith, in which case you might as well believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster as each belief is, no doubt, equally valid.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
AO - the thing is not that all beliefs are equally valid, but that we have no objective means of deciding for definite which one of a set of beliefs is actually correct.
The Catholics tell me they're right because the Magisterium tells them so.
Your lot tell me they're right because the Tradition tells them so.
The fundy prots tell me they're right because the Bible (as interpreted through documents such as the Westminster Confession and Calvin's Institutes etc. etc.) tells them so.
But these authorities are themselves arbitrarily chosen, and the beliefs that flow from acceptance of them therefore equally so.
It's not that there isn't objective truth. It's just that we have no objective means of ascertaining it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't see how there can be objective truth. How can a subjective person discover it? I think there is intersubjective truth, but note that science doesn't operate with 'truth', since it is a practical tool. It is science fan-boys who pretend that science is about truth.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Perhaps not, but if he thinks his wife has brown eyes and they are in fact hazel, then I doubt it makes much difference. Heck, if his wife doesn't like the taste of green beans and he thinks she does, that's unfortunate but not a major problem.
Thank you, Arethosemyfeet; my thoughts exactly. And nicely put, tclune!
The thing is, I think the difference between Athanasian and Arian christologies is several orders of magnitude greater than the difference between blue and brown eyes.
Okay, but, will you concede that at least the emphasis is skewed. The fact that we have Orthodox (correct belief) as the name of a major part of Christianity rather than Orthopraxy (correct action) or whatever else, that the church has a disproportional preoccupation with people believing the "right things". That the creeds were written and the councils convened to exclude purely on the basis of particular beliefs?
Jesus' emphasis seemed to be based around people Loving correctly, not Believing correctly. That's not to say that beliefs aren't important. However, was it right that for the church beliefs became the MOST important thing?
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Heresy has often been about control.
This is safely vague. Can you substantiate this assertion by citing an example? And would you be prepared to defend it against objections?
Galileo. Witch trials. The Knights Templar. Joan of Arc. The various Inquisitions. The Reformation. Need more?
The Cathars?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The fundy prots tell me they're right because the Bible (as interpreted through documents such as the Westminster Confession and Calvin's Institutes etc. etc.) tells them so.
But these authorities are themselves arbitrarily chosen, and the beliefs that flow from acceptance of them therefore equally so.
This is a little bit selling the pass. The claim that fundamentalist Protestantism of whatever flavour you prefer flows directly from accepting the Bible, (plus or minus favoured interpretative document), can be shown to be be false.
Therefore, there is at least one thing that can be known with certainty to be objectively true: namely that the beliefs of fundamentalist Protestantism do not flow directly from the Bible.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The fundy prots tell me they're right because the Bible (as interpreted through documents such as the Westminster Confession and Calvin's Institutes etc. etc.) tells them so.
But these authorities are themselves arbitrarily chosen, and the beliefs that flow from acceptance of them therefore equally so.
This is a little bit selling the pass. The claim that fundamentalist Protestantism of whatever flavour you prefer flows directly from accepting the Bible, (plus or minus favoured interpretative document), can be shown to be be false.
Therefore, there is at least one thing that can be known with certainty to be objectively true: namely that the beliefs of fundamentalist Protestantism do not flow directly from the Bible.
How odd.
Do you even know what 'Protestant fundamentalism' is?
The term comes from these 'fundamental' points of doctrine:
- The inerrancy of the Bible
- The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
- The Virgin Birth of Christ
- The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
- The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
Now you might want to quibble about the first one; you might want to argue about the last one but you can't say that they are confined to Protestantism or even evangelicalim.
I can't see how you can allege that any of them are unBiblical.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The fundy prots tell me they're right because the Bible (as interpreted through documents such as the Westminster Confession and Calvin's Institutes etc. etc.) tells them so.
But these authorities are themselves arbitrarily chosen, and the beliefs that flow from acceptance of them therefore equally so.
This is a little bit selling the pass. The claim that fundamentalist Protestantism of whatever flavour you prefer flows directly from accepting the Bible, (plus or minus favoured interpretative document), can be shown to be be false.
Therefore, there is at least one thing that can be known with certainty to be objectively true: namely that the beliefs of fundamentalist Protestantism do not flow directly from the Bible.
But it's orthogonal to the point I was making, which was that there's a grouping that claims that they're right (and everyone else wrong where the disagree with them) and that claim is based, at least in these people's minds, on a particular authority - in this case Scripture as interpreted according to an authoritative tradition.
The problem, as with the big-O Tradition and the Magisterium, is that accepting that foundational authority is itself axiomatic and subjective.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
But you don't BELIEVE in exactly the way he does, so you are obviously heretical.
Which is exactly how the word heresy has been used since it was invented: the specific belief of the person throwing the accusation is not to be questioned in any way, and any form of doubt or difference must be quashed.
The only difference from ages past is that we don't automatically kill anyone who is heretical nowadays.
It's all gone down the tubes since the time of Luther. He was protected by those nasty secularists, and didn't die conveniently. Once you let heretics loose, the whole thing goes to pot.
(sorry, slow to react. Skip back one post for context)
[ 23. July 2013, 10:18: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Bollocks, of course, unless you really don't believe in one Apostolic and Catholic faith
I believe in one Church. There are many variations of faith within it, and long may that continue. As long as we all believe different things there's at least a chance that one of us has got it right - if we all believe the same thing, the odds are we're all wrong.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Does anyone accuse anyone else of heresy these days? Yes, we all criticise each other's theology: too liberal or too fundamentalist or too non-committal, to put it extremely crudely. But does the word heresy have any currency outside of discussions like this, or gentle ribbing between friendly people of different persuasions?
I don't see how Anglicans in their broad church manner, or small denominations of relatively recent vintage, or the vast number of Protestant denominations that grudgingly or willingly tolerate ecumenical diversity, can have any truck with a word like heresy. To me, the word is of little use outside of a historical RC context.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
I've heard it from my conservative evangelical friends, though probably less often than "unorthodox" or "un-sound", which are pretty much synonyms. It'd usually be found at the same time they're talking about "bibically sound" or "bible-based" teaching.
The accusations are usually aimed at fellow protestants / evangelicals who have a different theological emphasis though, not RCs, orthodox or whoever - they're pretty much off the radar (though maybe Mormons & JWs might be described as such) - the closer people are theologically, it seems, the more likely one is to accuse the other of heresy. Hence the accusations of heresy for Rob Bell, Steve Chalke etc. from fellow evangelicals.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
goperryrevs
That's interesting. I suppose you can't accuse people of breaking away from your movement's established teachings if they never held to those teachings in the first place, but you can if it's a question of people who've moved from a shared position to a different one.
Presumably this only works in environments where people are expected to believe more or less the same thing in any case. The mainstream congregations - even the Catholics - don't really have that expectation any more, I feel. They're held together by a shared tradition, heritage, mutual respect and cultural values rather than by doctrines as such.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Yeah, as the funniest (according to Shipmates) religious joke illustrates.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
- The inerrancy of the Bible
Not in the Creed.
quote:
- The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
Not in the Creed.
quote:
- The Virgin Birth of Christ
Okay.
quote:
- The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
"Physical" not in the Creed.
quote:
- The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
Not in the Creed.
The Creed is the Contract.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't see how there can be objective truth. How can a subjective person discover it? I think there is intersubjective truth, but note that science doesn't operate with 'truth', since it is a practical tool.
I agree! However, do you agree that Science says what is true as far as they can test it at the moment, but as soon as this can be updated, that update will replace the previous theory.
quote:
It is science fan-boys who pretend that science is about truth.
On the whole, I'd rather be on the fan-boys, or of course in my case fan-girls, side of the argument. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't see how there can be objective truth. How can a subjective person discover it? I think there is intersubjective truth, but note that science doesn't operate with 'truth', since it is a practical tool.
I agree! However, do you agree that Science says what is true as far as they can test it at the moment, but as soon as this can be updated, that update will replace the previous theory.
quote:
It is science fan-boys who pretend that science is about truth.
On the whole, I'd rather be on the fan-boys, or of course in my case fan-girls, side of the argument.
No, I don't agree, and you are contradicting yourself. Science makes observations about appearances, but does not claim that these appearances are 'true' or 'real'. This is because science operates practically. The claim that appearances are 'true' or correspond to reality is not a scientific claim, not would it be a desirable one, as then science would get bogged down interminably in philosophical debate. People like Bacon freed science from this.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
- The inerrancy of the Bible
Not in the Creed.
quote:
- The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
Not in the Creed.
quote:
- The Virgin Birth of Christ
Okay.
quote:
- The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
"Physical" not in the Creed.
quote:
- The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
Not in the Creed.
The Creed is the Contract.
The Creed is meaningless if it is decontextualised. The things you mention are not in the Creed because the Creed wasn't meant to address them either because they were completely settled issues or no questions had been seriously raised over them. To try and avoid assenting to them simply because they aren't in the Creed is the worst kind of reductionist weaseling.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Heresy has often been about control.
This is safely vague. Can you substantiate this assertion by citing an example? And would you be prepared to defend it against objections?
Galileo. Witch trials. The Knights Templar. Joan of Arc. The various Inquisitions. The Reformation. Need more?
These examples are all taken from Western church history. I had thought that maybe a Roman Catholic would come along and take you to task, but it hasn't happened so far, and I don't think any conclusion can be drawn from such a non-appearance. A Protestant might conceivably want to weigh in on the Reformation.
I have my own doubts as to whether all the examples cited are cases of heresy being used as a pretext for controlling people, property or countries (I assume that is what heresy being about control means), but I do not feel qualified to defend abuses (if they are such) which have taken place in another church.
If you have an extensive list of similar cases, of impeccable historical pedigree, occurring often enough to be labelled often, then you might be able to get away with claiming that heresy, in the Roman Catholic Church, has often been about control, or even that it was about control during a particular historical period (and maybe then for particular, historically significant reasons). I do so abominate generalisations, and I suspect that they are often about control. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
I wouldn't say that heresy is often about control. I would argue heresy is about control, full stop. It is about who is in and who is out, and who gets to make these determinations. Sounds like contol to me.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Creed is meaningless if it is decontextualised. The things you mention are not in the Creed because the Creed wasn't meant to address them either because they were completely settled issues or no questions had been seriously raised over them. To try and avoid assenting to them simply because they aren't in the Creed is the worst kind of reductionist weaseling.
The context of the Creed is the liturgy. Between them they provide an ample space in which an orthodox Christianity can flourish. The kinds of "doctrinal statement" that seek to augment the Creed and prescribe a single way of interpreting scripture or a single way of thinking of the atonement are themselves heretical because they seek to narrow that space.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa
I wouldn't say that heresy is often about control. I would argue heresy is about control, full stop. It is about who is in and who is out, and who gets to make these determinations. Sounds like contol to me.
So anything can be preached from the pulpit?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Creed is meaningless if it is decontextualised. The things you mention are not in the Creed because the Creed wasn't meant to address them either because they were completely settled issues or no questions had been seriously raised over them. To try and avoid assenting to them simply because they aren't in the Creed is the worst kind of reductionist weaseling.
The context of the Creed is the liturgy. Between them they provide an ample space in which an orthodox Christianity can flourish. The kinds of "doctrinal statement" that seek to augment the Creed and prescribe a single way of interpreting scripture or a single way of thinking of the atonement are themselves heretical because they seek to narrow that space.
I wonder if you've actually ever read the decrees and canons of the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
We are frequently reminded these days that the word 'believe' has relatively recently changed its meaning from 'to commit oneself totally' (believe – belove) to 'assent to (or credit) certain statements'.
Heresy (from Greek choosing/ a choice) became in Johnson's dictionary, 'an opinion of private men different from that of the catholick and orthodox church'.
GG
I think you'll find the word "heresy" had that meaning long before Dr Johnson.
And you're correct, to a point, about the meaning of "believe" : but belief has an object, and the total commitment you speak of above is to the revelation of God we receive from Scripture, the Creeds, and sacred tradition--not to a privately-constructed idol that gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The term comes from these 'fundamental' points of doctrine:
- The inerrancy of the Bible
- The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
- The Virgin Birth of Christ
- The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
- The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
Now you might want to quibble about the first one; you might want to argue about the last one but you can't say that they are confined to Protestantism or even evangelicalim.
I can't see how you can allege that any of them are unBiblical.
I'd certainly claim that one, two b, four b, and five it is perfectly consistent with the text of the Bible to reject those two and two half propositions.
I don't know what you mean by unbiblical. If you mean, incompatible with the text of the Bible, I wasn't saying that. If you mean that it would be incompatible with the text of the Bible to reject them, then I certainly can and do allege it.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Therefore, there is at least one thing that can be known with certainty to be objectively true: namely that the beliefs of fundamentalist Protestantism do not flow directly from the Bible.
But it's orthogonal to the point I was making, which was that there's a grouping that claims that they're right (and everyone else wrong where the disagree with them) and that claim is based, at least in these people's minds, on a particular authority - in this case Scripture as interpreted according to an authoritative tradition.
Sorry; I misquoted. The bit I was really aiming at was:
quote:
It's not that there isn't objective truth. It's just that we have no objective means of ascertaining it.
If you'd said 'no entirely objective means' I'd have agreed with you. But that's not a reason to give up. Choosing an arbitrary authority is not the only way of arguing ourselves towards the truth.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I don't know about heresy as a legal concept, but FWIW Ken Leech says something somewhere to the effect that one of the hallmarks of a heresy is that it tries to shut down further debate. Orthodox theology, by contrast, provides a framework within which debate can continue.
Here it is: quote:
…there is a creative orthodoxy which is not only compatible with, but also of necessity involves, a critical, subversive, movement of interrogation and of resistance, a continuing encounter between things new and old. Indeed orthodoxy ….is not stifling but inclusive, not fearful but risk taking, not simplistic but rooted in ambiguity and paradox. The rejection of paradox and ambiguity is the characteristic of heretics in all ages as both Irenaeus in the second century and G.K. Chesterton in the twentieth century saw. Heresy is one-dimensional, narrow, over-simplified, and boring. It is straight-line thinking, preferring a pseudo-clarity to the many-sidedness of truth, tidiness to the mess and complexity of reality. Orthodoxy by contrast is rooted and grounded in the unknowable, in the incomprehensible mystery of God.
Subversive Orthodoxy – Ken Leech pp.49-50
[ 23. July 2013, 17:30: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I wonder if you've actually ever read the decrees and canons of the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople?
Which ones? There were three Constantinoples, two Nicaeas. And an Ephesus and a Chalcedon, too. And I'm quite conversant with all of 'em, thanks very much.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I wonder if you've actually ever read the decrees and canons of the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople?
Which ones? There were three Constantinoples, two Nicaeas. And an Ephesus and a Chalcedon, too. And I'm quite conversant with all of 'em, thanks very much.
Well, seeing as the discussion had moved to the Creed the first two ecumenical councils Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). I am glad you mentioned the seventh council though because it has an interesting part in it, though no doubt you'll want to put your fingers in your ears:
"If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema."
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Nicholas´ slapping of Arius´ face was the greater heresy.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originbally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Nicholas´ slapping of Arius´ face was the greater heresy.
The Lord Jesus and The Theotokos say otherwise (scroll to the end).
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Then the Lord and the Theotokos go beyond themselves and contradict themselves. I´m sure it´s all true Isaac David, being the violence of the extra-incarnate God, but He has no sway with me unless the incarnate Son shows that He is His express image in any meaningful way that way.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
I'm not sure that makes any originbally sense to me, but I think we will have to agree to disagree. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Does anyone accuse anyone else of heresy these days? Yes, we all criticise each other's theology: too liberal or too fundamentalist or too non-committal, to put it extremely crudely. But does the word heresy have any currency outside of discussions like this, or gentle ribbing between friendly people of different persuasions?
I don't see how Anglicans in their broad church manner, or small denominations of relatively recent vintage, or the vast number of Protestant denominations that grudgingly or willingly tolerate ecumenical diversity, can have any truck with a word like heresy. To me, the word is of little use outside of a historical RC context.
How would you, anyone, describe an Anglican vicar telling his congregation that the Holy Spirit was being blocked in the spirit world from joining their church service but a triple shout-out by those present would have such power in that spirit world that the Holy Spirit would be able to get through to them.
Not an academic question - I was there - only a few weeks ago.
I'm pretty sure that, sixty years ago, that would have been considered a heresy by the wife of the then incumbent of the same church!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
ID, I fail to see what we disagree on unless you proclaim the violent loss of control of God incarnate?
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
HughWillRidme quote:
How would you, anyone, describe an Anglican vicar telling his congregation that the Holy Spirit was being blocked in the spirit world from joining their church service but a triple shout-out by those present would have such power in that spirit world that the Holy Spirit would be able to get through to them.
Potty! Bonkers! Nutty........but would not dignify it with Heresy. A matter for medics in white coats not black-hooded inquisitors!
In my book the same would go for Mormonism and similar snake-oil rubbish.
My basic problem with "heresy" is that it's been used as a means of excluding well-reasoned arguments by force (slapping!) rather than a reliance on better arguments. If I'm led to reject Arianism it's not because the stake awaits if I don't, but because I find the arguments against its position are convincing. Similarly, I might be a Chalcedonian Christian, but do I have to define the Miaphysites and Diophysites as heretics?
What further puzzles me about heresy is how it can be distinguished from disagreements with majority-held beliefs that are not regarded as heretical.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Aye, that´s not even heresy.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
How would you, anyone, describe an Anglican vicar telling his congregation that the Holy Spirit was being blocked in the spirit world from joining their church service but a triple shout-out by those present would have such power in that spirit world that the Holy Spirit would be able to get through to them.
Weird but harmless.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
If he meant it it´s not harmless Marvin The Martian. If he´s not open to questioning it´s not harmless. Like the claim from our new curate that a woman praying at the foot of the cross, in the slightly wilder and woollier service recently, saw an angel.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
What harm can it do?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Marvin t[T]he Martian. Do you mean that there is so much of this unchallengable dross in the even greater morass of irrelevant Christian parallel play, any more doesn´t matter?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
No, I mean "what harm can it do?". Who will be hurt, and in what way, by someone preaching a bunch of weird shit?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Well, some people don't agree with the idea that our actions or faith have any impact on the extent to which God can work in a certain area. Personally, I think it's a thoroughly biblical idea but I sense from previous discussions on the Ship that perhaps I'm in a minority...
Furthermore, the vicar in question was claiming some rather special knowledge as to exactly what was needed in order to release the Holy Spirit to do his work in their meeting. That's quite a bold claim...
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Harmless in itself, perhaps, but it suggests to me that the vicar in question really needs help- pastoral and perhaps psychiatric.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
South Coast Kevin quote:
Furthermore, the vicar in question was claiming some rather special knowledge as to exactly what was needed in order to release the Holy Spirit to do his work in their meeting. That's quite a bold claim...
Setting aside a full-blown charge of heresy, I agree that something should be done about this. Perhaps the vicar might be invited to explain herself to her bishop, who would probably have to point out to her the implications of her position. If her explanation is coherent, it would be fascinating to know what it was. She might, of course, be a mystic. In which case she could be invited to become an anchorite or something. It may well be the case that she should be relieved of her present station as her theology would appear to be outside the generous boundaries of the C of E. None of this requires her to be branded as a heretic. She can be regarded as Christian but not an appropriate advocate for the C of E version.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
With a bit of luck, the words 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' will soon be associated only with their use in history, not be considered useful today.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
With a bit of luck, the words 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' will soon be associated only with their use in history, not be considered useful today.
That will only happen once our Lord returns. Until then they are quite relevant.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
With a bit of luck, the words 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' will soon be associated only with their use in history, not be considered useful today.
Do atheists believe in 'luck'?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
How would you, anyone, describe an Anglican vicar telling his congregation that the Holy Spirit was being blocked in the spirit world from joining their church service but a triple shout-out by those present would have such power in that spirit world that the Holy Spirit would be able to get through to them.
Not an academic question - I was there - only a few weeks ago.
I'm pretty sure that, sixty years ago, that would have been considered a heresy by the wife of the then incumbent of the same church!
Many would disapprove of this man's theology, but Anglicans disapprove of each other's theology quite often, so it seems. That in itself is hardly enough to justify bandying about the word 'heresy', is it? If it were then the CofE would have to be described as one big den of competing heresies!
By the way, did the vicar give a reason as to why the Holy Spirit was being 'blocked in the spirit world'?
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Many apologies, got the sex of the vicar wrong in my previous post. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
That's a modern heresy!
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
the CofE would have to be described as one big den of competing heresies!
What a marvellous idea! It would certainly save the trouble of compiling a list.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, some people don't agree with the idea that our actions or faith have any impact on the extent to which God can work in a certain area. Personally, I think it's a thoroughly biblical idea but I sense from previous discussions on the Ship that perhaps I'm in a minority...
That's as maybe, but disagreeing with something someone says isn't the same as being harmed by it. Martin's assertion was that it's harmful, and I'm still waiting for any explanation or justification of that claim.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Good point, MtM; I forgot to speculate on the harm such a belief might cause. I think it was Gamaliel in particular who took great exception to my suggestion that Christians have some influence over what and how God works in any given situation. Maybe he'll explain why he thinks it's a dangerous viewpoint. In the meantime, I'll have a go...
I suppose it puts a lot of power and responsibility onto our plates as Christians, saying that God intervenes only to the extent that his people trust and have faith in him. Critics would perhaps say that it elevates us to equality with or even superiority over God, to say that he is somehow limited by us. It's a controversial viewpoint which, if incorrect, gives a highly distorted picture of our relationship with God.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It's a controversial viewpoint which, if incorrect, gives a highly distorted picture of our relationship with God.
And that is harmful because...?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
OK Marvin the Martian. Om projecting obviously. I feel harmed. I see harm. The absence of strong benevolence is harmful. Not neutral. Christians doing weird shit is shitty. Is substituting shit for benevolent strength. That´s some opportunity cost. Is failing to be Christian. To be evangelistic, inclusive, sound, healing, helpful, sacrificial, open, transparent, accountable. It´s succeeding at being toxic, closed, weird, uneverything in the previous sentence.
It´s epistemologically the equivalent of walling your co-delusionsists in and the Holy Spirit out.
I´ll tell you if I was right about your response.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That will only happen once our Lord returns. Until then they are quite relevant.
Is there not just an element of dout in your mind; even just the most miniscule of doubts; about whether this will ever happen? Do you agree that it would defy every understanding of physics, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Do atheists believe in 'luck'?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I cannot speak for every atheist of course, but the ones I know know for certain that anything that happens which seems to be lucky is entirely due to random chance, however widely we may fling around the word luck!
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
It's not just weird shit. The idea that the Holy Spirit is 'blocked' in the spirit world and needs to be 'rescued' by some activity of the congregation sounds like a pagan import and pretty close to magic.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
What has physics etc. got to do with it?
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
South Coast Kevin quote:
I suppose it puts a lot of power and responsibility onto our plates as Christians, saying that God intervenes only to the extent that his people trust and have faith in him. Critics would perhaps say that it elevates us to equality with or even superiority over God, to say that he is somehow limited by us. It's a controversial viewpoint which, if incorrect, gives a highly distorted picture of our relationship with God.
Isn't the point that both positions are controversial, and both have been and continue to be held by Christians? The problem, however, cannot be resolved satisfactorily by one side having the power to designate the other heretical, thereby closing down what ought to be a continuing discussion.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
OK Marvin the Martian. Om projecting obviously. I feel harmed. I see harm. The absence of strong benevolence is harmful. Not neutral. Christians doing weird shit is shitty. Is substituting shit for benevolent strength. That´s some opportunity cost. Is failing to be Christian. To be evangelistic, inclusive, sound, healing, helpful, sacrificial, open, transparent, accountable. It´s succeeding at being toxic, closed, weird, uneverything in the previous sentence.
I just don't see it. Sure, it's weird and bizarre and maybe even paganistic as Isaac David asserts, but it's not hurting anyone so what's the frigging problem?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I don't think it's necessarily hurting anyone in itself, but to me it poses some very big questions about whether this character is actually fit- principally, I mean psychologically- for the duties of a parish priest. Frankly, I'd say that someone who comes out with this kind of thing needs at least a good long rest and possibly psychiatric treatment. This is in the interests of his parishioners as much as it is in his own interest.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I was right.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I was right.
I'm sure you were, but that's hardly advancing the conversation is it?
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I was right.
I suspected you would be.
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
It's not just weird shit. The idea that the Holy Spirit is 'blocked' in the spirit world and needs to be 'rescued' by some activity of the congregation sounds like a pagan import and pretty close to magic.
What sort of paganism do you think it's imported from, Isaac, or are you just using the term perjoratively? It sounds to me like the sort of thing that I've always imagined goes on in those sort of churches.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
both. Well, the conversation is at an impasse. But the metanarrative? You won´t see it MtM and I can´t possibly make you.
And Isaac David, I feel I may be smiling in to the abyss here. Is it smiling back?
[ 24. July 2013, 15:30: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Isn't the point that both positions are controversial, and both have been and continue to be held by Christians? The problem, however, cannot be resolved satisfactorily by one side having the power to designate the other heretical, thereby closing down what ought to be a continuing discussion.
I agree, Kwesi. With any doctrinal / practical issue, we may agree or disagree (perhaps strongly) with the position someone is espousing. That's fine, let's have the discussion. But let's have the discussion without using terms like heresy, which (ISTM) simply serve to close down conversation and put people beyond the pale of permitted viewpoints.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
both. Well, the conversation is at an impasse. But the metanarrative? You won´t see it MtM and I can´t possibly make you.
Look, it's really simple. All you need to do is state the effect such preaching has, and why that effect is harmful.
That you are apparently unable to do so without blathering on about irrelevant stuff like "metanarratives" suggests that you don't have a leg to stand on.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Isn't the point that both positions are controversial, and both have been and continue to be held by Christians? The problem, however, cannot be resolved satisfactorily by one side having the power to designate the other heretical, thereby closing down what ought to be a continuing discussion.
I agree, Kwesi. With any doctrinal / practical issue, we may agree or disagree (perhaps strongly) with the position someone is espousing. That's fine, let's have the discussion. But let's have the discussion without using terms like heresy, which (ISTM) simply serve to close down conversation and put people beyond the pale of permitted viewpoints.
The thing is, given your view here, how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance? A council was convened, the orthodox and apostolic faith was set forth, and Arius was cut off before he could infect the whole body. End off: If you're with Arius then you're cut off. This is dogmatic theology in action, but it of course requires a belief that the Church is a visible body guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Frankly, I'd say that someone who comes out with this kind of thing needs at least a good long rest and possibly psychiatric treatment. This is in the interests of his parishioners as much as it is in his own interest.
Recommending psychiatric treatment makes all this sound much scarier than it probably is, although I quite agree that it throws up a lot of questions.
As a mere layperson, I'd guess that few of us in mainstream church pews hear as many sermons, sing as many hymns, read as many books or spend as much time reflecting on the Holy Spirit as we do regarding the Father and the Son. The assumption seems to be that the Holy Spirit is always around, chugging away like a machine, not requiring as much attention as the Father and the Son.
This kind of 'heresy' is tolerated. But is it more tolerable than the idea that the work of the Spirit is sometimes hindered by negative forces? I don't know why the vicar would've felt so down about his own church service, and to understand why we'd need to hear about the recent history of this church. But Christians do sometimes talk about the Spirit being present in a situation in a very powerful way - and the flip side of this must be that sometimes the Spirit is absent, or at least very weak.
I'm intrigued by the idea that making a lot of noise would bring the Holy Spirit through such a blockage. Maybe the vicar's request was for worshipful intensity rather than mere cacophony. It's not unusual for clergymen to take lacklustre singing and responses as a sign that 'the message' isn't getting through. If the vicar believes that the message needs to be inspired by the Holy Spirit then a lack of engagement from the congregation must undermine his/her sense that this inspiration has actually taken place.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Positively legless me, MtM.
If good isn´t done, then harm is.
Unless that vicar´s tongue was manifestly, known to be in his cheek, he´s away with the fairies. Peddling snake oil as on God-TV and worse, believing it. That is bad. Evil. Most things are. Broken. Corrupt. A lie. I´m sick of stuff masquerading as definitive Christianity that has nothing to do with loving mercy.
And where that conversation cannot be held. That´s the killer. That´s how treason prospers. Like here it suddenly strangely seems. It´s obvious that that vicar, if so painted, is wrong. Nuts. Pathetic. A maimed wolf in sheep´s clothing. Deluded.
Heretical.
And if he were mine I´d probably love him as I do mine, who isn´t that bad by a country mile but still is on the spectrum with an angel being seen at the foot of the cross recently and two people having the same ´word´ which validates everything.
This is part of the storm of chaff which is driving me to want to go and say ´Pater noster, qui es in caelis ...´ in my own chapel.
I used to think that I was missing something in Evangelicalism, as I did when married for 26 years to an undiagnosed bipolar partner, that the fault, the blindspot was mine. I didn´t know how right I was!
Delusion is not harmless. Christianity is awash with it. Always has been. I watched the Life of Brian again two nights ago. One of the most positively Christian films ever made. The only thing debatable about it (how I hate that concept) is the excellent gospel of Brian: we don´t need anyone telling us what to do, just work it out for ourselves.
Well I must go and do the dinner: "You´ve had all day to rant and now it´s my turn.".
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The thing is, given your view here, how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance? A council was convened, the orthodox and apostolic faith was set forth, and Arius was cut off before he could infect the whole body...
They did what they thought best at the time, obviously. But then we are stuck with the consequences today. Perhaps we need to rehabilitate Arius.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The thing is, given your view here, how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance? A council was convened, the orthodox and apostolic faith was set forth, and Arius was cut off before he could infect the whole body...
They did what they thought best at the time, obviously. But then we are stuck with the consequences today. Perhaps we need to rehabilitate Arius.
Eh? Or maybe, just maybe, this was the work of the Holy Spirit working through the Church. Truth and life instead of untruth and death. This is why St. Nicholas slapped Arius.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
...how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance?
I'm not really sure. It's just that to 'cut [him] off before he could infect the whole body' feels wrong to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
This is dogmatic theology in action, but it of course requires a belief that the Church is a visible body guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.
A belief which, as you may have picked up from our previous discussions, I manifestly do not share! IMO the church is the intangible, invisible communion of all Jesus' followers, and whatever the exact nature of the Holy Spirit's guiding work, it does not preserve the Church, any one denomination, or any specific Christian from all error.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The thing is, given your view here, how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance? A council was convened, the orthodox and apostolic faith was set forth, and Arius was cut off before he could infect the whole body. End off: If you're with Arius then you're cut off. This is dogmatic theology in action, but it of course requires a belief that the Church is a visible body guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.
Surely if a doctrine cannot be demonstrated either from scripture, from clear universal acclamation by the early church or by rational argument, then perhaps it is justifiable to call that doctrine into question. If, on the other hand, one or more of those three is possible then it should be perfectly possible for the most holy people and able theologians of a generation achieve such a demonstration.
Given that the church is protected by the Holy Spirit, it follows that if the doctrine wins out, it is either correct or God considers the answer to not be something we need overly concern ourselves with.
[ 24. July 2013, 18:26: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The thing is, given your view here, how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance? A council was convened, the orthodox and apostolic faith was set forth, and Arius was cut off before he could infect the whole body. End off: If you're with Arius then you're cut off. This is dogmatic theology in action, but it of course requires a belief that the Church is a visible body guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.
Surely if a doctrine cannot be demonstrated either from scripture, from clear universal acclamation by the early church or by rational argument, then perhaps it is justifiable to call that doctrine into question. If, on the other hand, one or more of those three is possible then it should be perfectly possible for the most holy people and able theologians of a generation achieve such a demonstration.
Given that the church is protected by the Holy Spirit, it follows that if the doctrine wins out, it is either correct or God considers the answer to not be something we need overly concern ourselves with.
Of course it must be demonstrable from the sacred scriptures, tradition and the holy fathers, and the holy councils always point that out. It is then by the fruits that it is judged to be ecumenical, having been received by the whole Church.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
What sort of paganism do you think it's imported from, Isaac, or are you just using the term perjoratively?
Generically. Like an incantation to spring Persephone from the Underworld, for example.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If good isn´t done, then harm is.
Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. I am not doing good to anyone in Nepal right now, but neither am I harming them in any way.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Surely if a doctrine cannot be demonstrated either from scripture, from clear universal acclamation by the early church or by rational argument,
Why does it have to be the early church? What's so great about them that makes them so much more likely to be in tune with the Holy Spirit than us?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Category error. Absolute category error.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Surely if a doctrine cannot be demonstrated either from scripture, from clear universal acclamation by the early church or by rational argument,
Why does it have to be the early church? What's so great about them that makes them so much more likely to be in tune with the Holy Spirit than us?
Doesn't continuity mean anything to you?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Surely if a doctrine cannot be demonstrated either from scripture, from clear universal acclamation by the early church or by rational argument,
Why does it have to be the early church? What's so great about them that makes them so much more likely to be in tune with the Holy Spirit than us?
We know from scripture that the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, and not only that they knew Jesus in a way we cannot hope to in this life. If the whole of the early church, following the Apostles' teaching and inspiration, held a doctrine to be true, then that is worthy of notice.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Doesn't continuity mean anything to you?
Not particularly. And certainly not when it's continuing an error or preventing new revelation.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
We know from scripture that the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, and not only that they knew Jesus in a way we cannot hope to in this life. If the whole of the early church, following the Apostles' teaching and inspiration, held a doctrine to be true, then that is worthy of notice.
I'm not so sure. The Apostles got stuff wrong all the time even when Jesus was right there next to them. Is it really so crazy to think that they may have gone on getting things wrong once Jesus wasn't there to correct them any more? And they were just as susceptible to "the spirit of the age" as we are, but because they came first there wasn't anything to compare them to.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
"If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema."
Oh yes, "unwritten tradition". The Church's equivalent of "Oh look, I've found this really ancient document ... careful, the ink might not be quite dry."
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
We know from scripture that the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, and not only that they knew Jesus in a way we cannot hope to in this life. If the whole of the early church, following the Apostles' teaching and inspiration, held a doctrine to be true, then that is worthy of notice.
I'm not so sure. The Apostles got stuff wrong all the time even when Jesus was right there next to them. Is it really so crazy to think that they may have gone on getting things wrong once Jesus wasn't there to correct them any more? And they were just as susceptible to "the spirit of the age" as we are, but because they came first there wasn't anything to compare them to.
I didn't say we should follow it all blindly, but ditching something the early church agreed on (I don't just mean what one Apostle wrote or said but things that were universally held to be true) should not be done without very good reason and lengthy consideration.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance? A council was convened, the orthodox and apostolic faith was set forth, and Arius was cut off before he could infect the whole body.
Well, what they did do started us on a path that, if we follow in their footsteps ends up with each of us in a church of one.
If what you say is true, then it suggests that the Holy Spirit was working through top-down authority-based control. I suspect that's not how he works, and it was actually simply man trying to do the Holy Spirit's work for him, best intentions or not.
Anathema has never solved anything. It's just a temporary plaster that quickly peels off. We have more disagreement over more theologies now than ever before. Each time they declared an anathema another controversy came up, and they had to declare another. And then sometimes another council declared that council anathema. Orthodoxy is defined by the winners, who then humiliated and persecuted the losers. I see little of the Holy Spirit's work in that.
That's not to say that the musings, theologies and philosophies of the early theologians aren't incredibly important and valuable. Just that when they took things into their own hands and made theology about exclusivity, they were utterly and tragically wrong. Christ is inclusive.
Intellectually I agree with the Nicholases and the Cyrils, but that doesn't stop the Ariuses and Nestoriuses being equally my siblings in Christ, and in terms of conduct and character, which I suspect Jesus is much more bothered about than correct belief, I have more sympathy with the latter than the former.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Did you hear that? It's St. Nicholas turning in is grave.
"With what songs of hymnody shall we praise the holy hierarch, the opponent of impiety and champion of piety, the leader, great ally and teacher, who putteth to shame all the infamous, the destroyer of Arius and his minions? For his sake hath Christ, Who hath great mercy, cast down the arrogance of the enemy."
The Triumph of Orthodoxy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_Orthodoxy
[ 25. July 2013, 12:31: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
What sort of paganism do you think it's imported from, Isaac, or are you just using the term perjoratively?
Generically. Like an incantation to spring Persephone from the Underworld, for example.
Thanks for comments one and all - I, an atheist, was unsure as to whether the situation reminded me more of The Rite of AshkEnte (substituting "Holy Spirit" for "Death" of course) or a poorly remembered teenage reading of books by Dennis Wheatley
The question of "what harm can it do" has been concerning me - I think my answer has to be - if any possibility of harm is restricted to the individual then any harm is probably already done. If however the individual has a position of authority and an apparently officially approved power base from which to influence others the potential for harm needs to be assessed by someone more knowledgeable and more capable than I.
As a result of your comments, and the context which I deliberately omitted, I will pass my observation on at diocesan level and, assuming they are not already aware, hope that they can discretely ascertain whether any action is needed.
Thanks again
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Did you hear that? It's St. Nicholas turning in is grave.
I'm thinking that a good few centuries of resting in the arms of Christ has chilled him out a bit, but whatever...
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance? A council was convened, the orthodox and apostolic faith was set forth, and Arius was cut off before he could infect the whole body.
Well, what they did do started us on a path that, if we follow in their footsteps ends up with each of us in a church of one.
I would say the historical evidence suggests that that was more likely to be the result of The Reformation than The First Ecumenical Council.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Did you hear that? It's St. Nicholas turning in is grave.
I'm thinking that a good few centuries of resting in the arms of Christ has chilled him out a bit, but whatever...
As long as he keeps bringing presents on December 5th, I'm ok
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
On second thoughts there is nothing heretical about a Christian using violence on an enemy. My apologies. Nicholas was perfectly orthodox, orthopractic.
And he was charismatic with it! Result!
[ 25. July 2013, 15:13: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
I would say the historical evidence suggests that that was more likely to be the result of The Reformation than The First Ecumenical Council.
I'd probably say both.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
HughWillRidmee
It will be interesting to hear what the response is if you receive one.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
Today's heresy is tomorrow's orthodoxy, it seems to me.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'd probably say both.
I look forward to reading your argument.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
It's exactly the same principle of dividing and excluding due to belief, which is what I meant about starting a trajectory, of which the great schism (and the minor schisms) and the reformation were a natural consequence. ISTM that it's an exponential process.
I can see how the creeds are unifying, and how that's a good thing. But the creeds were written to exclude. Often with very specific wording to make that very clear. It seems to me that when Catholics and Orthodox point the finger at Protestants for dividing the church, there are fingers pointing back in history at themselves.
Perhaps it's the case that exclusion is a necessary consequence of unification (that when we unite, others are necessarily excluded). I just have this inkling that the Church is meant to be different, that we should be united in Love, and that Love is somehow inclusive of all, especially our fellow followers of Christ, even if we disagree over some doctrines.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa
I wouldn't say that heresy is often about control. I would argue heresy is about control, full stop. It is about who is in and who is out, and who gets to make these determinations. Sounds like contol to me.
So anything can be preached from the pulpit?
What in the statement has anything to do with preaching the Word and its application?
"Heresy" is proclaimed when the speaker feels threatened by an idea he doesn't like, often one which threatens his standing or position. Hence Erasmus' comment about Luther attacking "the Pope's crown and the monks' bellies"
There never was anything heretical about having the Bible written in the vernacular.
Just as there is not necessarily anything heretical about a rewrite of the Prayer Book. But change one word, and see how fast the accusation of heresy arrives! Usually from someone who wants to maintain a position of (self-defined) power in that congregation/denom.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Careful ´aitch Bee, you might a smack in the mouth with Jesus´ full approval of course.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Today's heresy is tomorrow's orthodoxy, it seems to me.
In some cases that may be true. But here we are 1800 years later, and most of the Church still rejects the idea that the Son was created by the Father at some point in history.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Today's heresy is tomorrow's orthodoxy, it seems to me.
That is certainly true of TEC.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What in the statement has anything to do with preaching the Word and its application?
If you want to know what I have up my sleeve (apart from an arm which Martin thinks I might use to wield a hefty smack), you could always try answering the question on Caissa's behalf.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It's exactly the same principle of dividing and excluding...
ISTM your argument doesn't really address the point you made earlier, that the trajectory would lead to everyone occupying a church of one.
The evidence of the New Testament would suggest that there were disputes about doctrine from the very beginnings of the church, evidence which can be found in the letters of the Apostles Peter, Paul and John. As described in the Book of Acts, those same Apostles were present when the church in Jerusalem met to resolve the question of whether Gentiles who joined the church should be circumcised, as certain teachers maintained.
The later Ecumenical Councils were following the same principle, of the church leadership meeting to resolve doctrinal disputes when they arose. Yes, there were schisms along the way, but the church didn't splinter into thousands of factions. Hence my point that meeting in council didn't, historically, lead down the path you suggested. Contrast that with the situation since the Reformation, when councils were abandoned in favour of secular magistrates maintaining doctrinal oversight. This ultimately failed, so that we have a situation where there are now more splits than one might see in a whole season at the Folies Bergère!
quote:
I just have this inkling that the Church is meant to be different, that we should be united in Love, and that Love is somehow inclusive of all
I agree that we should be united in Love, but what do those same Apostles say who were at the Council in Jerusalem? Paul wrote about Love in 1 Corintians 13, but he also warned, in the Book of Acts, and in his letters, that false teachers would arise. Peter wrote that we 'should love one another fervently with a pure heart' in his first letter (1 Peter 1:22), but also, in his second letter, that 'there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies' (2 Peter 2:1). And John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, who tells us that 'God is Love', also says that 'many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist' (2 John 7). Were they wrong?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Unless that vicar´s tongue was manifestly, known to be in his cheek, he´s away with the fairies. Peddling snake oil as on God-TV and worse, believing it. That is bad. Evil. Most things are. Broken. Corrupt. A lie. I´m sick of stuff masquerading as definitive Christianity that has nothing to do with loving mercy.
'Definitive Christianity'? The point of one of my earlier posts is that in the modern age there's no such thing as 'definitive Christianity.' That's why there's no such thing as heresy. There are too many schools of thought for the notion to make much sense.
Do congregations swallow every comment, every sermon that they get from the pulpit? Really? In my experience, ministers and preachers are inclined to complain that their congregations don't listen to them. But that could just be a Methodist problem - I have no idea if Anglican priests say the same thing, nor even if they have the same hopeless expectations!
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The point of one of my earlier posts is that in the modern age there's no such thing as 'definitive Christianity.' That's why there's no such thing as heresy.
How does the fact that everybody disagrees about the truth entail that error does not exist?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Isaac David, it guarantees it. As the Bible itself does and testifies. That´s how it, like everything else, works. By being inadequate, insufficient, partial, uncertain, irreconcilable. It´s great isn´t it! Really. I mean it´s positively amusing.
And you wouldn´t hurt a fly.
The ancient heresies of Judaization, compromise with Caesar, gnosticism let alone all the denials of persons of the Trinity or their attributes centred around Jesus are alive and well.
Christianity is rife with heresy, is defined by heresy in every mandatory denominational distinctive compared with the custom and practice of its purported founder.
We are united in heresy and can make no progress until we embrace that.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
We? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Aye Isaac David. The we that we don´t acknowledge, the we that we deny in our heresies, our comfortable hostility.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
ISTM your argument doesn't really address the point you made earlier, that the trajectory would lead to everyone occupying a church of one.
It's the principle of separating ourselves according to doctrine. No two people share exactly the same beliefs. We split our church in two, one half believing one thing, the other half believing something different, then find that our new half is split over some other issue, and so on. Because we all differ over something, the logical conclusion is that we end up in churches of one.
Of course in practice that doesn't happen. In our churches at some point we realise that despite our different theologies, we have to stick together, or we choose some specific belief over which we can mostly agree to unite around. But, had we taken that stance from the start, then we wouldn't have split in the first place.
I just don't think that unity should depend on consistency of doctrine, but on the fact that we're followers of Christ.
I agree that it's been a lot worse since the reformation, and I admire the Orthodox, Catholic (and Anglican) churches for remaining united despite the doctrinal differences within the churches (though perhaps it's easier for that unity to exist when there's an "other" to be united against). But it still feels like that unity is dependent on doctrinal agreement over incidentals. So if someone in one of those churches disagrees with some official teaching about sex, morality, or even whether Christ had one or two natures, then they don't feel united with the rest of the body of Christ, if the message they receive is that unity is defined by conformity. Then they end up leaving, or becoming only vaguely associated with their church.
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Were they wrong?
It depends what we're talking about, and how you define false teachers. If it's about disagreeing about some philosophical or doctrinal nuance, then no way.
For me a false teacher is someone who enslaves, deceives and manipulates. The issue isn't so much the content of their doctrine, but their motives behind their teaching. TV evangelists who con people out of money, charismatic leaders who manipulate vulnerable people and abuse them psychologically, sexually, spiritually, emotionally - those are the kind of false teachers that I think Peter and John are talking about - the 'false shepherds' of Ezekiel 34.
People like Arius or Nestorius, as far as I know, weren't like that. They were genuinely and honestly trying to work out their faith according to their conscience. Now, I don't agree with either of their conclusions, but that doesn't mean that I think it was right that they were chucked out of the church, with their beliefs declared anathema. The solution should have been dialogue. You can have an ecumenical council and debate and even a conclusion without anyone being declared a heretic. The council still could have decided that the official church teaching was that of Athanasius, but continued to allow Arius to be part of the church (but perhaps not a bishop).
And after that, things only got worse. You didn't just get chucked out of the church for believing the wrong thing, you got killed for it.
None of us can choose to change our beliefs. We can pretend to, but that's just self-deception. But when we enter into dialogue with each other, then we find our beliefs moulded, tempered, strengthened, and then, over time, they can change. If we trust in the Holy Spirit, that the way of Christ really is the truth, then we should trust that process. Excluding others because of intellectual disagreement just seems to be fear of man.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
For me a false teacher is someone who enslaves, deceives and manipulates. The issue isn't so much the content of their doctrine, but their motives behind their teaching. TV evangelists who con people out of money, charismatic leaders who manipulate vulnerable people and abuse them psychologically, sexually, spiritually, emotionally - those are the kind of false teachers that I think Peter and John are talking about - the 'false shepherds' of Ezekiel 34.
People like Arius or Nestorius, as far as I know, weren't like that. They were genuinely and honestly trying to work out their faith according to their conscience... You can have an ecumenical council and debate and even a conclusion without anyone being declared a heretic.
Spot on, goperryrevs.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
I think the problem is with people who think that wrong belief = damnation. Such people are incapable of tolerating any suggestion that their beliefs are wrong and cling to them as if their very souls depended on it - which, of course, they think they do.
It's a trait commonly associated with fundamentalist protestant believers - "every word of the Bible has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?", but it's also true of the more fundamentalist catholic believers - "every dogma of the Church has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?". In both cases there can be no hint of change allowed, because change implies that the previous belief was wrong and that in turn implies that the believer's salvation may not be assured.
It's basically a fear of uncertainty. Terrible thing, that.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Benedict XVI coined the right phrase for the above: the dictatorship relativism. And indeed it's true, the result being that the faith means nothing. Just reading the New Testament shows that such an approach is false.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Just reading the New Testament shows that such an approach is false.
Citation needed please.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Try our Lord's discourse to the Apostles in the Gospel of St. John for a start. Or there is one of the epistles where the Apostle refers to the Church as the pillar of truth. There's a couple to chew on.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yet Christians have always been relativists, haven't they? They abandoned the ban on usury, they gave up owning slaves, they stopped treating women as property (well, some of them did), they began to get divorced in droves.
OK, you could argue that they are all wrong, and they have abandoned the one true path. Good luck.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And indeed it's true, the result being that the faith means nothing.
Rubbish. It just means that the faith's meaning isn't restricted to one narrow fundamentalist definition to which everyone has to subscribe.
God is bigger than that.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Try our Lord's discourse to the Apostles in the Gospel of St. John for a start. Or there is one of the epistles where the Apostle refers to the Church as the pillar of truth. There's a couple to chew on.
Come on, chapter and verse, my friend!
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Try our Lord's discourse to the Apostles in the Gospel of St. John for a start. Or there is one of the epistles where the Apostle refers to the Church as the pillar of truth. There's a couple to chew on.
Here the Lord is referring to the Church. Not your church, not my church, but the Church; what could be termed His Church.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Try our Lord's discourse to the Apostles in the Gospel of St. John for a start. Or there is one of the epistles where the Apostle refers to the Church as the pillar of truth. There's a couple to chew on.
Come on, chapter and verse, my friend!
You don't know those scriptures? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It's hard work quoting on a mobile phone. Nevermind, I'm home now so I can use my laptop.
"The Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you."
"When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth."
"Behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Try our Lord's discourse to the Apostles in the Gospel of St. John for a start. Or there is one of the epistles where the Apostle refers to the Church as the pillar of truth. There's a couple to chew on.
Here the Lord is referring to the Church. Not your church, not my church, but the Church; what could be termed His Church.
Need we go there? You know what I believe.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
"The Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you."
"When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth."
"Behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
Okay, thanks a lot. I meant chapter and verse reference, but quoting the passages is fine (as long as you've quoted them accurately ).
But see, 'all truth' here can't quite mean literally 'all truth', can it? The Spirit of Truth has come and yet Christians are not omniscient. So we have to do some interpreting of exactly what Jesus meant in these passages. Now, Christians may disagree as to the best interpretation but a 'plain, literal reading of the text' (which might be the preferable reading, especially for some) is simply not possible, ISTM.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think the problem is with people who think that wrong belief = damnation. Such people are incapable of tolerating any suggestion that their beliefs are wrong and cling to them as if their very souls depended on it - which, of course, they think they do.
It's a trait commonly associated with fundamentalist protestant believers - "every word of the Bible has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?", but it's also true of the more fundamentalist catholic believers - "every dogma of the Church has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?". In both cases there can be no hint of change allowed, because change implies that the previous belief was wrong and that in turn implies that the believer's salvation may not be assured.
It's basically a fear of uncertainty. Terrible thing, that.
I don't think this is a 'problem'. If this is what people believe, then they go and form their own church of like-minded people, and all is well. People who disagree with the theology can leave - surely that's the whole point of Protestantism?
There's the argument that for people who've been raised in the church cocoon for all of their lives, being driven out or choosing to go is a horrible experience akin to being cast out into the dark void. I do understand this. But I can't see any real solution if we believe in religious freedom. The transition from childhood to adulthood can be treacherous for all kinds of people, but in the Western world we generally believe that children have to develop a separate identity from their parents, and this includes the potential for developing a completely different religious identity. Western literature, history and mythology are full of examples of young people who go against the will of their parents; it's what we do (at least in our fantasies), and we take the consequences.
You could say that 'heresy' is embedded in the culture!
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think the problem is with people who think that wrong belief = damnation. Such people are incapable of tolerating any suggestion that their beliefs are wrong and cling to them as if their very souls depended on it - which, of course, they think they do.
It's a trait commonly associated with fundamentalist protestant believers - "every word of the Bible has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?", but it's also true of the more fundamentalist catholic believers - "every dogma of the Church has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?". In both cases there can be no hint of change allowed, because change implies that the previous belief was wrong and that in turn implies that the believer's salvation may not be assured.
It's basically a fear of uncertainty. Terrible thing, that.
The Ad Hominem game is a competition without any winners, least of all the truth, so there's no point playing it.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
For me a false teacher is someone who enslaves, deceives and manipulates. The issue isn't so much the content of their doctrine, but their motives behind their teaching.
I don't think this does justice to what the Apostles say. Paul's chief targets in some of his letters are the so-called Judaizers, who taught that Gentiles who joined the church should submit to the Law of Moses and be circumcised. Paul's concern is with teaching the true doctrine of salvation: that we are saved by faith, not works of the Mosaic Law. This may be an echo of Jesus' warning to his disciples to beware the leaven, or doctrine, of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:5-12).
John's concern, OTOH, is with the identity of Christ:
quote:
For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
2 John 7-11 (NKJV)
Again, this calls to mind John's Gospel, with its Prologue and the 'I Am' discourses.
In the Fourth Century, Athanasius responded to the doctrine of Arius by bringing the concerns of Paul and John together, affirming that our salvation and the identity of Christ are intimately tied up with each other. If Christ is not God, but a created being, then He cannot save us, an insight which the Pharisees had utterly failed to understand when they had complained about Jesus' healing of a paralytic that only God could forgive sins (Mark 2:3-7).
quote:
I just don't think that unity should depend on consistency of doctrine, but on the fact that we're followers of Christ.
I suggest that John, Paul and Athanasius are telling us that this is a false dilemma, and that our unity depends on the fact that we are followers of the same Christ, and that, by implication, there are false Christs whose followers we should not join with (cf Matthew 24:23; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15).
In the Synoptic Gospels, we also read how Jesus asked his disciples who people thought He was. He then went on to ask them who they thought He was, to which Peter confessed, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:13-16). Would Jesus ask this question if it were not important?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Would Jesus ask this question if it were not important?
Would He command the disciples to tell nobody else that He was the Christ if it was?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think the problem is with people who think that wrong belief = damnation. Such people are incapable of tolerating any suggestion that their beliefs are wrong and cling to them as if their very souls depended on it - which, of course, they think they do.
It's a trait commonly associated with fundamentalist protestant believers - "every word of the Bible has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?", but it's also true of the more fundamentalist catholic believers - "every dogma of the Church has to be True or how can we be assured of salvation?". In both cases there can be no hint of change allowed, because change implies that the previous belief was wrong and that in turn implies that the believer's salvation may not be assured.
It's basically a fear of uncertainty. Terrible thing, that.
But Marvin, that can cut both ways. You could just as easily be characterized as fetishizing your uncertainty so as to build up a self-narrative of yourself as the Fearless Freethinker Who Is Troubled Not By Not Knowing.
Which I'm sure you would agree is presumptuous and unfair. Armchair psychologizing is bullshit, and both sides of this argument should refrain.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Heresy is only meaningful if right and wrong correlate with good and evil.
But the history of belief is dominantly ... that you are wrong therefore you are evil. And I am good because I´m right.
Die heretic (regardless of how good you do, how kind, how irenic, how tolerant).
So what New Testament heresies are there? Apostolic: Gnosticism, Judaization and sacrificing to the God-Emperor on market day.
Post-apostolic ecumenical: all the others.
Any that Jesus pointed at?
Wasn´t He the heretic?
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Would He command the disciples to tell nobody else that He was the Christ if it was [important]?
We can speculate on why Jesus didn't want anyone else to know at the time, but it can't have been a command for all time, since Peter revealed it to the crowds in Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts 2:36).
I think it is significant that it was Jesus who asked the question of his disciples, and not the other way round, as this suggests that He considered it important that the disciples knew Who He was. I think it is also significant that this incident was followed soon after by the Transfiguration, because of the way it deepened what had already been revealed.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I would have thought that anyone suggesting that a claim of messiahship in first century Judaism was unimportant (as opposed to right or wrong) would be laughed out of town. This was a time of eschatological fervour, when God would show his mighty arm against the hated invaders. Think armed insurrection. I'm not sure you need to be a mind reader to understand why Jesus would not want such identity claims to be made public at that time.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Die heretic
I still think the history of killing heretics should be subjected to closer examination before accepting the assumption that the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy inevitably leads to killing. Otherwise, ISTM that we should just take the next logical step and accept that all religious distinctions inexorably lead to violence, as many atheists assert. Doesn't the logic of 'inclusivity' entail that we should abolish the church?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Us and them always leads to violence. Inclusion means I include you, as you are, from my strong benevolent faith position.
Jesus´.
Abolishing the church is weak benevolence, more useless than hostility strong or weak.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Abolishing the church is weak benevolence
The church wouldn't be abolished as a philanthropic institution, but as a worshiping community.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Us and them always leads to violence. Inclusion means I include you, as you are, from my strong benevolent faith position.
Yes, you and I can be different, as long as the difference is not the defining factor of our interactions.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Die heretic
I still think the history of killing heretics should be subjected to closer examination before accepting the assumption that the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy inevitably leads to killing. Otherwise, ISTM that we should just take the next logical step and accept that all religious distinctions inexorably lead to violence, as many atheists assert. Doesn't the logic of 'inclusivity' entail that we should abolish the church?
Afraid I haven't had time to read the rest of the thread yet, so this may have been already covered. 'Heresy' is a religious term for something that can happen to any group when a view contrary to orthodoxy appears.
The problem arises when the dissent is seen as a threat. A group threatened from without is likely to demand conformity (disobeying an officer in battle, questioning a ship's captain are dangerous heresies). Or the threat may be to the group's leadership and control of the group (the Cathars? Luther etc), finally an heresy can be used to create scapegoats with the side effect of unifying the rest of the group (the Jews in Nazi Germany).
None of these are necessarily religious issues. Religious heresy differs in what may be seen as at stake (no pun intended!). If I refuse to join a Trade Union I might be cold shouldered, ostracised or even assaulted - what is at stake is the reduced power employees would have without unanimity. But churches may argue that what is at stake are things of inestimable value - e.g. the souls of believers who are 'corrupted' by heresiachs. For extreme danger, extreme sanction is allowed. It's a sort of reverse Pascal's wager. And totalitarian regimes may accuse dissidents of crimes against the state or corrupting the glorious revolution - for which any sanction may be applied.
As an atheist I'm grateful that churches no longer have the power to force me to claim I believe things that I don't or can't. But I don't doubt that other forces might try to impose their views upon me. The greatest fear should always be those who think they know your soul/nature/character better than you do and believe they can re-make you in their image. As, I think, Isaiah Berlin said, "There are few more chilling phrases than, One day you will thank us for this".
Without the power to coerce, groups just break into ever smaller parts. Which weakens them, somewhat justifying the leadership's fear of the effects of heresy.
"I could never divide my self from any man upon the difference of an opinion, or be angry with his judgement for not agreeing with me in which perhaps within a few days I should dissent from my self." Thomas Browne again. So sometimes I just keep my thoughts to myself, and as Browne says, I later find I was wrong.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
'Heresy' is a religious term for something that can happen to any group when a view contrary to orthodoxy appears...
...churches may argue that what is at stake are things of inestimable value - e.g. the souls of believers who are 'corrupted' by heresiachs. For extreme danger, extreme sanction is allowed. It's a sort of reverse Pascal's wager.
Seems to me that the other difference in the religious context is the lack of observable evidence to justify any sanction.
Doctors have professional bodies, and can be struck off for misconduct. Like other professions, these bodies can be very conservative. But I'd suggest that in most cases there's a fairly clear difference between malpractice and holding ideas which go against the conventional wisdom.
There's a wide measure of agreement that the public should be protected against maverick doctors who - however well-meaningly - continue to prescribe worthless remedies. But a doctor who successfully cures patients with an unorthodox approach is rightly tolerated, however much tut-tutting he provokes from his more traditionally-schooled colleagues.
(when the system works, that is - there may be individual cases where it doesn')
My point is that there doesn't seem to be a comparable distinction in the religious sphere. Theology is not a science - conformity with tradition in one way or another seems to be the only yardstick. The only way to justify a change from the received tradition is with reference to an earlier tradition. Fallen conservative human fear of change and genuine protection from quackery look exactly the same.
Unless of course someone here knows different....
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Russ quote:
Theology is not a science - conformity with tradition in one way or another seems to be the only yardstick. The only way to justify a change from the received tradition is with reference to an earlier tradition.
While one would agree that theology mostly seems constrained by parameters established in the past, especially for European Christians in the determinations of Nicaea and Chalcedon, even at the time those boundaries were not universally accepted. Furthermore, although theology may not now be regarded as a science, (at one time it was regarded as the queen of the sciences), it might be regarded as a social science to the extent its ideas reflect a human interaction between revelation and tradition on the one hand with reason and knowledge on the other, not to mention changing cultural understandings in the meaning of words and phrases. So, while accepting a conservative bias in mainstream theology, it is, perhaps, more malleable and open to development than might seem apparent. Theological findings are less set in stone and more contested than it might appear. In that context “heresy” is a product of finding a balance between revelation and tradition with reason and knowledge.
The problem with heresy is perhaps less its relation to theology than its relation to organised religion. Anathemas, excommunications, losses of membership etc., for holding wrong ideas are undertaken by organisations seeking to protect their cohesion and power, rather than theologians in (often heated) debate. One cannot, for example, not be amused by Popes and Constantinople Patriarchs excommunicating each other. I would not, however, wish to dismiss these actions as “merely” cynical, even if at times they are risible and harmful, because different churches have done much to preserve important doctrines. The danger arises when a single church claims a monopoly of theological insight and is in a position of power to impose its view and close down contrary opinions not simply on its own adherents but on other Christians and even non-believers. Religious pluralism is vital, enabling dissidents in one denomination to join one in which their views are regarded, shall we say, as orthodox.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
[theology] might be regarded as a social science to the extent its ideas reflect a human interaction between revelation and tradition on the one hand with reason and knowledge on the other, not to mention changing cultural understandings in the meaning of words and phrases.
In the 4th century, Evagrius of Pontus wrote, "If you are a theologian, you will pray truly. And if you pray truly, you are a theologian."
I wonder when it was we began to abandon the notion that theology was the work of the Holy Spirit? How did it, instead, become the work of interpreting texts? And how was tradition turned into a kind of institutional memory? Whatever the answer, it doesn't really surprise me that we have become agnostic about the possibility of knowing any truth.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Isaac David quote:
I wonder when it was we began to abandon the notion that theology was the work of the Holy Spirit? How did it, instead, become the work of interpreting texts? And how was tradition turned into a kind of institutional memory?
I’m not sure your assertion is correct. Is it not the case there have been theologians throughout the Christian era who have been and continue to be inspired by the Holy Spirit? You have, however identified a problem, namely, the reluctance of established church authorities to recognise that fact, because for their hierarchies to admit that the Holy Spirit continues to reveals truths about God in this manner questions their own claims to be the custodians and arbiters in matters of faith and discipline. It is much safer for the theologian to add footnotes than to run the risk of creative thinking, of being dismissed as heretic.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Is it not the case there have been theologians throughout the Christian era who have been and continue to be inspired by the Holy Spirit? You have, however identified a problem, namely, the reluctance of established church authorities to recognise that fact, because for their hierarchies to admit that the Holy Spirit continues to reveals truths about God in this manner questions their own claims to be the custodians and arbiters in matters of faith and discipline.
I’m sure your assertion is not correct. You have identified a problem I was not talking about and couched it in words I would not have used. I was simply objecting to the implication in your previous post that theology is chiefly an intellectual activity involving the study and interpretation of texts using scientific methods.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Isaac David quote:
I was simply objecting to the implication in your previous post that theology is chiefly an intellectual activity involving the study and interpretation of texts using scientific methods.
That is not the impression I intended to give and find it difficult to see why I gave that impression. I intended to suggest that theological formulations are the product of four elements: revelation, tradition, reason and knowledge.
My misunderstanding of your remarks would seem to be that your reference to "we" * was to my singular self, which admittedly changes the meaning of your observation.
* I wonder when it was we began to abandon the notion that theology was the work of the Holy Spirit? How did it, instead, become the work of interpreting texts? And how was tradition turned into a kind of institutional memory?
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
My misunderstanding of your remarks would seem to be that your reference to "we" was to my singular self, which admittedly changes the meaning of your observation.
The "we" was a reference to Christians collectively. Some may be more guilty than others of turning theology into a human construction.
quote:
I intended to suggest that theological formulations are the product of four elements: revelation, tradition, reason and knowledge.
But this is problematic. Is revelation ongoing, or is it embodied in some body of texts (e.g. Scripture)? Whose tradition? And if multiple traditions are meant, what do we do when they disagree? What is the relationship between reason and the first two elements? By knowledge do you mean science? Again, how does this relate to the other elements? If reason or knowledge predominate in the relationship, then we may have the emergence of precisely the notion of theology as a 'scientific' academic pursuit I mentioned, even if that was not your intention.
Worse, the very idea that 'theological formulations are the product of four elements', itself implies the construction of a 'scientific' theological method. The problem isn't the elements per se; academic theology may be useful for applying existing theological formulations to new problems, which is one reason why academic theologians in all church traditions study Scripture and tradition, and use insights from other disciplines, such as history, philosophy, linguistics, etc, in their work. The problem is that dogmatic theology, as found in Scripture, or in the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, doesn't always seem to work in that way. For example, take Peter's declaration of who Jesus is in Matthew's Gospel, which I mentioned earlier:
quote:
[Jesus] said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."
Matthew 16:15-17 (NKJV)
Similarly, St Paul writes the following in his letter to the Galatians:
quote:
I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:11-12 (NKJV)
While these two quotations, by themselves, prove very little about the work of later theologians, I suggest they are indicative of how revelation is the essential element of real theology, and that the attempt to construct a systematic theological method is really the construction of a Procustean bed. The theological insights of Saints and Church Fathers can be surprising and counter-intuitive, and even seemingly irrational and hard to understand, not because God is capricious and chaotic, but because the underlying 'logic' of revelation can be inscrutable. (See Isaiah 55:8-9; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25).
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Isaac David, I entirely agree with you that my take on what constitutes theology is problematic, and that it is difficult to judge what weight be given to the different elements, which might vary depending on the question being considered. We are not given certainty: one person’s dogmatic belief might be another’s heresy. Even the more conservative approaches of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism disagree on a number of important matters, do they not? Regarding the revelation of the gospels I suspect you and I would be largely in agreement, but we might find ourselves in conflict with Rome over control of the keys. I agree with you that Paul had things directly revealed to him, but is not the same true of all who “pray truly” and receive guidance from the Holy Spirit?
What concerns me is that we should respect the integrity of searches for God, and in the Christian context to recognise that our differences of background, personality and experiences are likely to lead to nuances of understanding of the faith that affirm St Paul’s conclusion that “we see through a glass darkly”.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I am not sure there is a real difference here; either revelation or the quadrilateral.
Theology may be "built up" via the quadrilateral. On the other hand that which comes via revelation needs to be tested against the quadrilateral.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
Kwesi, I think we have to distinguish the theological response from the pastoral one. Speaking from an Orthodox perspective, I would say that the Church has to be able to defend the truth (orthodoxy) and oppose falsehood (heresy). Dialogue with Arianism (pace goperryrevs) is not an option. Dialogue with false teachers within the Church is not an option (though I am all well too aware of disagreements within Orthodoxy about who some of the contemporary false teachers are!). Relations with the non-Orthodox and people with other beliefs should be different. Sometimes it is a question of respectfully pointing out error and sometimes accepting that words will not help. It requires discernment; for many in a pastoral role this is a matter of experience, for Saints and Elders it is a rare charism, but such people are hard to identify and find while they are alive!
While it is a good principle that each person should be absolutely free and that no-one should be compelled, we should not forget that St Paul was ambushed by Jesus on the road to Damascus, and that some Saints have lived among pagans and destroyed their idols. That is, while I should abide by the principle in my dealings with other, the Holy Spirit, acting alone or through God's chosen servants, is also free and may act in the best interests of a person (C.S. Lewis was right to say that Aslan was not a tame lion).
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
I think we have to distinguish the theological response from the pastoral one.
It occurs to me that I should qualify this by saying that an appropriate theological response is a pastoral response.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
Seems to me that "false teachers" come in three varieties.
There are the bad, the ones claiming "The Lord says this" while knowing perfectly well that what they're saying is their own idea to further their own agenda.
There are the mad, who know not what they do.
And there are the simply misguided, honest Christians like you and me who make sense of their experience and the tradition they've received as best they can, and sometimes get it wrong from sheer human fallibility.
Seems to me that condemnation and coercion should be reserved for the first category, and that patiently reasoning them out of it is the appropriate approach for the third category.
Otherwise "false teachers" is just an all-too-human way of trying to weasel out of our obligation to treat others as we would like to be treated.
Best wishes,
Russ
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0