Jump to content

Menu

JenniferB

Members
  • Posts

    2,970
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JenniferB

  1. Yes please, I would like to know what study of Scripture could lead you to disagree with councils 5-7. Below are the main points concluded in councils 5-7: 5. Constantinople II 553 Reconfirmed the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ 6. Constantinople III 680 Affirmed the True Humanity of Jesus by insisting upon the reality of His human will and action 7. Nicea II 787 Affirmed the propriety of icons as genuine expressions of the Christian Faith ^^ Copied from: http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/sources-of-christian-doctrine/the-councils
  2. I know you wanted to exit, but in case you come back, or if someone else would like to answer this question, please chime in. My question is, where in the 7 Eccumenical Council decisions was a decision made that was unBiblical or in disharmony with the Scriptures? I'm not asking as a matter of a gotcha, I really want to know what decisions are not Scriptural and also, what those Scriptures are that are in disharmony with the council decisions.
  3. Modern, I mean 1,500+ AD translations, are different than early 300's (I mean to say the original Greek translation). Conveniently, the key verses we wrestle over are different. When coupled with early interpretation they can be the difference between modern thought and ancient thought, the difference between Protestant theology and Orthodox theology.
  4. Same for an EO. There are some questionable historical evidences that I sort of put on the "not so significant" burner because I look at the big picture. I like to zoom out...
  5. Sticking just to Orthodox Christian history only, since that is part of the holistic method of discerning truth we were discussing, our history is not just written, it's lived. We can read that icons have been venerated from the beginning of the faith but that's not all, we know they were because of living history. It's passed down from generation to generation. Grandma remembers her grandma and back and back. It's also part of the big picture...many layers of an onion so to speak.
  6. Yes, it's the chicken or the egg. Which came first? Which came from which? Reinforcing what you said...If you understand / study Church history you will see that it was the Apostles and their disciples who came first and they implemented practices layer upon layer as well as doctrine. It was refined generation after generation by holy men - in agreement - there were votes. There were many writings floating around, some became part of the lectionary, Scriptures read during the services according to the calendar, the lectionary came before the "canon" or Bible. The lectionary was in use in services, some "churches" meaning the united Church, but in different places used different Scriptures on different days. Then there was a need for uniformity. Attempts at uniformity created what we know today as the Bible. These attempts were handled in Councils, holy men in agreement making decisions, the votes win out, one vote per Bishop (elder) of their "church" or area of the united Church. So, to say the Bible is the starting point is not historically accurate. It's the Early Church practice that is the starting point, followed by the Lectionary, followed by Councils, followed by decisions made to create the Bible. Jesus saves. I took your statement as a valid weakness in our history as well as today. But, it does have it's place in the history between East and West. There were some bad times there. Wouldn't it be great if we could unite? For a very early catechism, there is are the catechetical lectures of St. Cyril. These were written around the time that the Lectionary needed to be standardized (300's ish) and the first meetings took place to decide "what is Scripture," i.e. the Bible was being formed. I would be weary of any catechism that was very new, such as from the almost 1,700's because there were already many innovations in the church by that time, hence the need for a Reformation and Counter Reformation. I would think that any catechism that new would be tainted by those innovations in one way or another. I haven't read them myself, but I hear they are very good. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3101.htm No, as far as Orthodox methods, as I said, they are holistic. I know you said, "whatever that means," several times, and it seems that you are still equating our holistic method with one that is fragmented: searching texts, study, and prayer. I didn't even mention study and prayer in our method, those can be subjective. Our method includes a living history of practice, continuity from the beginning of Christianity, councils and cannons (these aren't just texts, these meetings really took place and established doctrine which was lived out in the lives of Christians), etc. People need to be saved from sin and death. We are saved by sin because we are able to be forgiven, cleansed, renewed, and we are given the Holy Spirit to become in the likeness of Christ, if we choose to participate. We are saved from death, because Christ conquered death by death and he bestows resurrection to all: the results of the experience will vary depending on what is done in this life...a life in Christ or not. More later when I have more references and info to share.
  7. The Early Church and Orthodox Christians today believe that people are born good and we are created with the potential and ability to increase in the likeness of God, the likeness of Christ, and this is actually our purpose. Due to the fall, death entered into the world and the fear of death is the root motivation for all sin. Because of death, all are touched by sin in some way. Our image of God can become sick or distorted by our free will to sin and/or walk away from Christ in our actions. Enter Jesus...When Jesus came, He joined Himself to humanity physically in the Incarnation. By joining humanity in the Incarnation He redeemed humankind, by touching it and embodying it, and He made and continues to make it possible for us to increase in His likeness because of His Incarnation, His Resurrection, and in His Body, The Church. Is everyone touched by sin in some way? Yes. But, does this mean that we have a sin nature, that we are born depraved or sinful? No. Depending on our actions, we can choose or not choose to sin. This is Christian doctrine from the Early Church, simplified so as to fit into a few sentences. When I have more time I may be able to contribute more with Early Church references. Not to "proof text" but as an added help to understand what the doctrine of the Early Church is, as it has gone askew in certain circles since the Early times. For anyone who wants to study the Early Church doctrine, it's very accessible with free online documents, more than you could ever read in a lifetime. Let me know via PM if links are wanted.
  8. ^^ oops, I meant to say "hurtful" not "sinful." I was on my phone, I think it auto corrected.
  9. Is it hurtful to say that Christian doctrine says that we are made in the image of God and on a path to His likeness? If I said something sinful, please correct me specifically. Unless you were not speaking to me.
  10. I felt it leaned more on the "by nature" side because it was implied that all hearts are little idol factories. If it were a statement of common temptation it would be better stated, "My heart is an idol factory and I fight this temptation all the time. I think many people do." Or something like that. I have 10 or so years of personal history in a group which taught that we are born or even in the womb utterly depraved and I just get the heebie geebies when I hear stuff like that because we lost a baby in the womb and I know he is not utterly depraved and he's with God in the comfort of His love and mercy. For this reason I admit that I'm overly sensitive and on a personal mission to dispel this idea. ^^I should say I believe he's with God.
  11. ^^ true. So do you think the statement is more about how we may or may not be tempted or about how all human beings were made?
  12. For the record, I don't see the "hearts are little idol factories" comment as being traditionally Christian. I think that idea comes from some innovation that came much later in history where the idea is that human beings are born utterly depraved. In traditional Christianity, human beings are born with the image of God, and are on a path to perfect the likeness of God, with the element of free will that individuals do not have to walk this path, and many don't wish to. I reject the statement that our hearts are little idol factories. I don't think it's a Christian idea. I think it's fair to say that we can be tempted toward idolatry, but I don't think it's fair to say that our hearts are automatically like this.
  13. I answered that above. "Graven" image is a poor translation. The Greek word means "idol." A better English translation would be, "thou shalt not make for yourself an *idol*." Orthodox Christians don't make idols.
  14. The problem that the commandment corrected was not in eliminating images in the place of worship and prayer, because God instructed the Hebrews to include images on the tapestries inside the Tabernacle and golden cherubim in the most holy place. From what I've read / studied, idolatry would include a belief that the deity was somehow inside or possessing or attached to the idol, not a mere representation but worthy of worship somehow. I am open to correction though. I am studying ancient cultures and I'm fascinated to learn more about their practices, so please share if you have resources.
  15. Idolatry is the worship of an idol or a physical object as a representation of a god. So, unless one believes the icon itself is a god, it's not idolatry. Idolatry is not subjective. One would either believe that the icon was a god (God forbid), or not. In Orthodoxy I have not met anyone who thinks the icon is a god.
  16. No, "graven image", is the KJV translation and doesn't give the whole picture / idea. The more correct English translation is "Thou shalt not make to yourself an idol." The Greek word "eidolon" means idol. The word "idolatry" comes from "eidolon." Icons are not idols. In ancient times the problem that the commandment corrected was the practice of idol worship which included the belief that the idol itself was a god and the worship of it. The commandment was to correct this practice and eliminate it from the Hebrew people because it was a problem.
  17. No, I said "we Christians" to refer to the question and "we Orthodox" to refer to my answer. I answered with my/Orthodox method, which won't be the same as other methods Which I stated from the beginning that I realize. I would be happy to hear how other Christians come to the conclusion that Wilson is either a) wrong or b) not wrong. I can't answer for other methods of discerning truth I can only answer for my method of discerning truth I am extremely interested in hearing other methods this fascinates me. This is precisely the reason I thought it was a good question to begin with. I thought we would be hearing and reading about different methods of why Doug Wilson is either right or wrong.
  18. I'm curious about voting this thread 1 star. Is it the tone, the way it went off course, the subject, DW and his antics? I would agree that it's not a great thread, but 1 star? We have some pretty good conversation going about an interesting topic. Just curious...
  19. Yes, that's the point of the question, or so I thought. Wilson is a Christian, so how do we other (Christians) know he's wrong since he's presumably following the Holy Spirit and the Bible, etc.? I answered by saying that we, Orthodox Christians, know because Wilson has made statements contrary to historical practice, councils, cannons, and the basic beliefs of the first 1,000 years of united, ecumenical Christianity, meaning that the practice of veneration of icons was acceptable to Christians of East and West, continuously and holistically through history. He is wrong because he has stated an innovation, meaning a new invention to the faith that is not accepted by the councils of Bishops.
  20. And another thing...you don't win an argument or make conversational progress by saying, "you didn't answer my question." Or something like, "if we keep arguing I will win and you will loose because you will claim faith in the end, and clearly that equals loosing." That is not a valid argument.
  21. albeto., again you said that explaining my methods doesn't answer your question. I read your question and you asked how we Christians can know he's wrong. We are talking about Christian theology here about icons and it can be measured. It's historical. We know his theology is wrong because we can measure theology by history. What did historical Christianity say about icons? It says we can and should venerate them. This is history and its measurable. Just say you don't like or agree with this method rather than saying I didn't answer the question.
  22. I don't think it has to do with thinking. Worship should include devotion to glorify the other with services, songs, sacrifices (incense, gifts), prayers and petitions, worshipping postures, and actions like these not just thinking. It seems to me like thinking is the least one can do to worship and doesn't qualify in and of itself as worship.
  23. I like you too, and your questions. Would it be fair to request of you that after taking some thoughtful time into a response and answering a question or questions to the best of my ability that I could ask you to refrain from saying that I didn't answer your question? Or if I didn't answer but you can see I put a fair effort into it, that maybe you rephrase the question or be more specific as to how I didn't answer it? That would make the convo more interesting and engaging for me anyway. I do put thought and effort into my answers, I think. I'm sure I could do more, but you know, I only have so much free time to engage like this, which I enjoy doing. I agree that these convos are good for the nous, as long as the nous remains calm and free from offense, in which I have. The reason I posted in the first place, in case it's of interest, is that I was curious to know if you all think DW has moved to a more extreme position and if so, is he retaining readers and followers. Is his opinion about Eastern Christians popular among his of similar theology? Is he more extreme or average of that sect? Would others of his persuasion read that and think, "yeah he's probably right, God is chastising the Eastern Christians. We better stay away from them, lest we be chastised."
×
×
  • Create New...