God will continue to chastise Christians who venerate icons...Douglas Wilson WOW!

[JenniferB]

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.

[Bluegoat]

 

Very often I wonder if the biggest difficulty we face in these kinds of discussions is in language... we're using the same words, but we're different, and bring different orientations and background to the conversation, and it's not clear to me that the words mean the same thing... (I felt this really acutely in that long "how do you 'decide'* what you 'know'* thread a few months back)...

 

When I first read AM's upthread remark with "the heart as little idol factory" image, I read it metaphorically, something along the lines of "we tend to elevate to a level of importance things that distract us / haul us away from our Better Selves."  My own preoccupation with electronic gizmos, for example, leapt to mind... Martha's suggestions that preoccupation with money / sex / power etc also ring true... keeping up with the neighbors, maintaining appearances, etc... that sort of thing.  And yes: such preoccupations do have power to pull me away from my putatively held values.

 

And for me, putting that observation into idolatry terms ("don't make an idol out of gold") is a powerful and succinct (albeit in my own case metaphoric) reminder that calls me back to my Better Self. Judaism (like Islam) takes the prohibition against images pretty seriously -- we do not have any equivalent to the Sistine Chapel; there is no tradition of pictorial art as instruction even in earlier eras; even our modern-day Passover books scrupulously avoid depicting even Moses, a mere mortal, lest we inadvertently 'venerate'* him.  

 

But: it's easy for modern-day Jews to take the word idol 'literally'* -- well, look around: we don't have any images, ergo, we need not worry about idolatry.  Even though there are, clearly, other distractions that exert a similar pull that take us similarly away from compassion/intention/reflection/service to others/transcendence.  For me, then, to frame that reminder in terms of idolatry is (metaphorically) helpful, because that specific word resonates with a particular meaning vested in my texts and traditions.

 

 

 

 

(BTW, to Arctic Mama: I don't mean to put words in your mouth by suggesting that you meant your comment metaphorically -- I don't know one way or another -- only that I read it that way, bringing my own background/orientation to it.)

 

* I put these words in quotes because these are the sorts of words that I wonder if we mean the same thing, as we use them.

 

Yes, as a Christian I would say it is metaphorical. It's meant to describe a psychological fact, that we mis-order things and put in first place things which should be more secondary.  Sometimes we do it on purpose, in error, and sometimes its about our unconscious assumptions, and sometimes its about our actions.  There are psychological terms to describe the same kinds of things.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

 

It's modern phrasing, but not, I think, outside of patristic language on the things that lurk in our hearts.  There is a difference between saying something is intrinsic to our nature, and that it is true to our situation.  If I said we are all subject to death, that would be true to the human situation, and we would say also that left to our own devices, that is our end, but from the perspective of an orthodox theology we wouldn't say it was part of our intrinsic nature but rather a sort of perversion of it.

[JenniferB]

^^ 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?

[Guest]

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.

So you deny that all men are born with a sin nature, then? Or am I misunderstanding your inference? Man was originally created perfect and in the image of God, but that cannot be reclaimed through any earthly means, hence the sacrifice of Christ in the work of atonement on the cross and subsequent resurrection. Scripture is crystal clear that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It likewise reiterates that sin comes from the heart of man. All sin originates in the attitudes and longings of our hearts, and manifests outwardly in our words and actions.

 

These are basic tenets of the faith. If there is a Christian who denies these basic things, I'd have to argue they weren't actually Christian. There are many secondary issues that are not salvific in nature and we can disagree, but the very substance and nature of God and his creation's relationship to him is central.

[albeto.]

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.

 

The ancient Israelites lived in a polytheistic culture, and were historically polytheistic themselves at one point. The evolution to monotheism has changed a lot of how modern people interpret the texts, but to the population living at the time these ideas were accepted, idols would have been understood to appeal to, if not somehow harness the power of the god they honored. To suggest one is making an idol of an icon is to suggest either that icon is in and of itself a god or demigod, or it distracts the believer from focusing on the god of the bible. The latter I think is AM's point, the former is maybe DW's point, or incorporates part of his belief. The latter reveals the modern interpretation of a monotheistic belief onto texts that incorporated polytheistic beliefs, the former is just awkward against modern theology.

[JenniferB]

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.

[JenniferB]

The ancient Israelites lived in a polytheistic culture, and were historically polytheistic themselves at one point. The evolution to monotheism has changed a lot of how modern people interpret the texts, but to the population living at the time these ideas were accepted, idols would have been understood to appeal to, if not somehow harness the power of the god they honored. To suggest one is making an idol of an icon is to suggest either that icon is in and of itself a god or demigod, or it distracts the believer from focusing on the god of the bible. The latter I think is AM's point, the former is maybe DW's point, or incorporates part of his belief. The latter reveals the modern interpretation of a monotheistic belief onto texts that incorporated polytheistic beliefs, the former is just awkward against modern theology.

Yes!

[MFG]

Belief in inherent post-fall human sinfulness is not incompatible with a belief in infant or even prenatal salvation. And uncharitable assumptions about the beliefs and intentions of others is potentially hurtful no matter from which side it comes.

[Guest]

I've lost children as well, and still believe in total depravity as the condition of all men - and believe it because of the clear testament of scripture, not tradition.

 

Now, my personal interpretation based on the body of scripture and the silence on this topic: That doesn't actually translate to all babies being destined for either heaven or hell. If the Lord chose to save a people for himself before time why would that not apply to infants as well? God has the freedom to save whomever he chooses. Elect and non elect would be among infants, too.

 

Otherwise why not just kill all my children out of concern for their souls? The logic God gave me cannot square perfection before birth as being consistent with the curse upon all humans, alleviates only by the mercy of God on individual sinners whose hearts he makes new by supernatural, sovereign power.

 

I've bounced back and forth with the thought that any who die in infancy are elect, but have no proof. This is all that fits the rest of the testimony of scripture I do have that isn't inference. It's a subject demanding compassion but I cannot lie to myself and just assume my children are in heaven. But I hope in the Lord on this and all things. If he destined them as vessels for destruction or glorification I must rest in his wisdom in this. I have enough other things to trouble me to not worry too much about the people beyond my control. They're in his hand, either way.

[JenniferB]

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.

[Guest]

On a path to his likeness? This is incompatible with scripture as far as I can tell. Can you explain this more clearly? I cannot work my way to heaven. And someone who hates and rejects the revelation of God about himself is likewise not being sanctified in his image.

 

This is one of those orthodox things I can't get behind. But I'm willing to entertain that I just am not hearing the words in the way you mean them?

[EmseB]

Path to his likeness to me sounds like sanctification. But a path from where?

[Guest]

That was what I was wondering. If that is a way of discussing sanctification it has to be said we cannot achieve it on earth, a I've heard varying opinions on this from orthodoxy. But yes, "from where" is the question. Because if all men are on a path toward increasing holiness that belies much of the bible's testimony.

[ktgrok]

Just adding that the Orthodox have a VERY different view of orginal sin. They believe we are all born bearing the consequences of the first sin (death) but not the actual sin. So a very different view, without the emphasis on "sin nature". 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I don't know if this is really a compelling example.  I mean, the Israelites did a lot of things in their worship that we no longer do, blood sacrifice being the big one.  Not only do we no longer perform those rituals, but they are also considered prohibited (mainly because of Christ's completed work).

 

The things in the Ark of the Covenant were sacred because they were directly made by God Himself, right?  And the Ark was designed and dictated to Moses by God Himself.  I can definitely understand venerating something like that at the direct command of God, but I don't think there's anything similar on the earth today.

 

I strongly disagree with the bold and underlined text above. In Exodus 20, Moses receives the Ten Commandments from God where it is explicitly stated what constitutes a graven image. "⁴ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. ⁵ Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; ⁶ And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

 

As we continue through this book just a few short chapters later, God describes how to adorn holy things saying, "And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. ⁹ According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it...¹⁸ And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

¹⁹ And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.

²⁰ And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be."

 

Are we to believe that God was wrong when he orders believers to make the images of cherubim? Are not cherubim heavenly creatures? Why is God telling us to do something he just commanded us not to do? In the 2nd Commandment, God is talking about making idols of things both seen and unseen. He is telling us not to worship and bow down before idols that are patterned after anything seen in the heavens above or on the earth or even in the sea. This was a common practice at that time. People worshiped statues of things found in nature and they called them gods.

 

 

Bezaleel was filled with the Holy Spirit in the building of the Ark of the Covenant. God did not build it. Please see Exodus 31 and 37 some of which I am quoting here:

 

 

 

Exodus 31King James Version (KJV)

31 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

² See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah:

³ And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,

⁴ To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass,

⁵ And in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship.

⁶ And I, behold, I have given with him Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan: and in the hearts of all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom, that they may make all that I have commanded thee;

⁷ The tabernacle of the congregation, and the ark of the testimony, and the mercy seat that is thereupon, and all the furniture of the tabernacle,

⁸ And the table and his furniture, and the pure candlestick with all his furniture, and the altar of incense,

⁹ And the altar of burnt offering with all his furniture, and the laver and his foot,

¹⁰ And the cloths of service, and the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, to minister in the priest's office,

¹¹ And the anointing oil, and sweet incense for the holy place: according to all that I have commanded thee shall they do.

Exodus 37King James Version (KJV)

37 And Bezaleel made the ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half was the length of it, and a cubit and a half the breadth of it, and a cubit and a half the height of it:

² And he overlaid it with pure gold within and without, and made a crown of gold to it round about.

 

 

 

One thing I find so fascinating about the Eastern Orthodox Church is that our worship style and practices are an extension of and patterned after that of the ancient Israelites and these forms under Christianity have been endowed with new meaning under the New Covenant with Christ as the Bridegroom. In every Orthodox Christian temple, one will find many of the elements depicted in Exodus 25-31 in addition to visually stunning iconography (please note the ending is "graphy" from "graphe" meaning "writing" because icons tell a story) colorfully adorning the church's interior. Every Eastern Orthodox Christian since Christ ended his earthly ministry has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Chrismation which represents Pentecost, making us all evangelists and participants of the royal priesthood (1Peter2:9) and for the past 2000 years we have continued to stand, to bow, and make prostrations during worship, we have continued to burn incense, anoint with oil, chant, and sing the Psalms, beautifully adorn holy places and holy things with visual depictions of the Word of God and we will continue to do so.

 

For more information about the Orthodox patterns of worship versus the contemporary form, I recommend this article.

 

edited for typo

[Mrs. A]

EO Christians do not believe in total depravity.That is a reformed doctrine. The difference comes from our understanding of the nature of sin. 

[Laurie4b]

^^ 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?

 

That's the way I read the statement, as about our propensity for temptation in that direction. 

[Guest]

EO Christians do not believe in total depravity.That is a reformed doctrine. The difference comes from our understanding of the nature of sin.

I didn't want to put words in your mouth. Thanks for clarfifying. Where is the scripture to support your perspective on this? I honestly can't see it anywhere, but I'm sure your church has some evidence they use.

[Laurie4b]

So you deny that all men are born with a sin nature, then? Or am I misunderstanding your inference? Man was originally created perfect and in the image of God, but that cannot be reclaimed through any earthly means, hence the sacrifice of Christ in the work of atonement on the cross and subsequent resurrection. Scripture is crystal clear that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It likewise reiterates that sin comes from the heart of man. All sin originates in the attitudes and longings of our hearts, and manifests outwardly in our words and actions.

 

These are basic tenets of the faith. If there is a Christian who denies these basic things, I'd have to argue they weren't actually Christian. There are many secondary issues that are not salvific in nature and we can disagree, but the very substance and nature of God and his creation's relationship to him is central.

 

Here is an article that explains the differences between the EO view and the western Christian view and how historically the divergence came about .  http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin

 

I am not EO, FWIW, but have learned a lot from the women on this board who are.  

 

The leap to "I'd have to argue that they weren't actually Christian" is really unnecessary, certainly before you've understood the point of view. 

[milovany]

I didn't want to put words in your mouth. Thanks for clarfifying. Where is the scripture to support your perspective on this? I honestly can't see it anywhere, but I'm sure your church has some evidence they use.

 

Taryl, I'm working right now so can't give the complete answer, but it'd be important to note that historically speaking, the Christian church didn't believe in or teach the notion of total depravity for the first 1500 years of the Church.  It only came in at the reformation which was in response to issues with the (western) Roman Catholic Church.  As the (eastern) Orthodox church, we didn't have a "dog in that fight" so to speak, so we just continued with the same faith that existed since the beginning.  So it's hard for us to fathom something being called "basic" when it didn't exist at all during the entire of the history of the church to that point (and still doesn't exist in most of it).

[Guest]

Just adding that the Orthodox have a VERY different view of orginal sin. They believe we are all born bearing the consequences of the first sin (death) but not the actual sin. So a very different view, without the emphasis on "sin nature".

I confess I actually am aware of this, but I didn't want to put words in anyone's mouths. I keep hoping for some evidence of why this view persists beyond tradition. It's one of the reasons I have a very hard time getting behind the catechisms of the EO church. I see this as clearly and utterly contrary to scripture and haven't seen anything to the contrary, unfortunately. But I also haven't studied the church as in depth as the adherents so I'm willing to accept additional information and take it under consideration.

[EmseB]

Again, I do think the form of worship in the OT is significantly different than that of the New Testament. So telling me that because the Israelites worshipped a certain way means that's how I should worship now doesn't make sense (to me) as a justification for any given practice. Does it mean I think God was wrong when He prescribed those things? No. But I do think a lot of those things were done away with after the cross.

 

Also to be clear, I have never thought that God built the Ark of the Covenant. However, a quick read this morning still leads me to believe he wrote the second set of tablets.

[Guest]

Taryl, I'm working right now so can't give the complete answer, but it'd be important to note that historically speaking, the Christian church didn't believe in or teach the notion of total depravity for the first 1500 years of the Church. It only came in at the reformation which was in response to issues with the Roman Catholic Church. As the Orthodox church, we didn't have a "dog in that fight" so to speak, so we just continued with the same faith that existed since the beginning. So it's hard for us to fathom something being called "basic" when it didn't exist at all during the entire of the history of the church to that point (and still doesn't exist in most of it).

There is support for total depravity back in the early church - but as with many doctrines it comes from church fathers who, depending on which correspondence in which decade of their life can be found supporting multiple positions.

 

I didn't personally glean my doctrine from commentaries and The Institutes. I gleaned it from the critical study of scripture read in a consistent, plain way. I'm not asking for evidence from tradition, I'm asking where in the bible the teaching comes from. I can't see it or I'd believe that and not the full expression of fallenness in Adam.

 

That is why I don't belong to a denomination. I don't believe in being locked into a creed or doctrine that that bible doesn't support and too many denominations and groups have tradition to fall back on even in a paucity of evidence. I'm not that kind of believer.

[Laurie4b]

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.

 

 

On a path to his likeness? This is incompatible with scripture as far as I can tell. Can you explain this more clearly? I cannot work my way to heaven. And someone who hates and rejects the revelation of God about himself is likewise not being sanctified in his image.

 

This is one of those orthodox things I can't get behind. But I'm willing to entertain that I just am not hearing the words in the way you mean them?

 

 Rom 8:29, 2 Cor 3:18,  Col 3:5-10. The last 3 passages talk about us growing in the image or likeness of God, depending on your translation. Those are all about the path we are on in the here and now. There is of course the culmination: 1 John 3:2. Do you interpret these passages as working one's way to heaven?  Do you not think that a goal in this life is to grow in the likeness of Christ? I'm confused by your equating "path to his likeness" as "working one's way to heaven." 

 

Who are you referring to when you say someone who hates and rejects the revelation of God?

[ktgrok]

I didn't personally glean my doctrine from commentaries and The Institutes. I gleaned it from the critical study of scripture read in a consistent, plain way. I'm not asking for evidence from tradition, I'm asking where in the bible the teaching comes from. 

 

Whereas, others of us would say, if you trust the bible, then you DO trust Tradition, as Tradition is where your Bible comes from. It can't be seen apart from that. If you do trust the Bible to be true, then you must trust the Church who put it together. If you don't trust them, how can you trust the Bible they put together? That's how an Orthodox or Roman Catholic would look at it (and how I look at it), so to them your question doesn't even make sense. Not saying you don't make sense, but it's such a different paradigm it's hard to even discuss. Again, NOT putting you down in any way. (I have 3 sick kids and haven't slept in a week..so I feel I'm not being very clear). 

[Carol in Cal.]

Taryl, I'm working right now so can't give the complete answer, but it'd be important to note that historically speaking, the Christian church didn't believe in or teach the notion of total depravity for the first 1500 years of the Church.  It only came in at the reformation which was in response to issues with the (western) Roman Catholic Church.  As the (eastern) Orthodox church, we didn't have a "dog in that fight" so to speak, so we just continued with the same faith that existed since the beginning.  So it's hard for us to fathom something being called "basic" when it didn't exist at all during the entire of the history of the church to that point (and still doesn't exist in most of it).

I'm not even sure if it's that early.

It's the Reformed view, not the Reformation view.

Lutherans hold to the catholic doctrine of original sin.

[Carol in Cal.]

Again, I do think the form of worship in the OT is significantly different than that of the New Testament. So telling me that because the Israelites worshipped a certain way means that's how I should worship now doesn't make sense (to me) as a justification for any given practice. Does it mean I think God was wrong when He prescribed those things? No. But I do think a lot of those things were done away with after the cross.

 

Also to be clear, I have never thought that God built the Ark of the Covenant. However, a quick read this morning still leads me to believe he wrote the second set of tablets.

There is a lot of continuity between OT in worship, the main difference being that the typology that was fulfilled in Christ was done away with.

 

But synagogue worship carried over quite a bit into the Christian church year--major festivals were at similar times (one and arguably two even carried over the same name) and some of the Bible readings were the same.  As a liturgical Christian, it is fascinating to read, for instance, "The Ladies' Auxiliary" by Tova Mirvis, which is framed in the Jewish festival year, or the nonfiction "Seasons of Our Joy", and map the contents to the church year.

[milovany]

Agreeing with Katie.  The question doesn't make sense (to Orthodox -- or Catholic -- ears) because Holy Tradition existed long before the Bible did. Through Holy Tradition, the church grew and flourished, martyrs lived and died, and councils were held where doctrines were agreed upon (or thrown out).  Then came the Bible from this same church.  So if it's in the Bible, it has to line up with church practice and teaching or they wouldn't have included it.  For example, some people think the Bible doesn't teach the Real Presence (of Christ) in the communion elements and say that the Bible teaches instead that the bread and wine are symbolic.  But the church (men) that put the Bible together and canonized it definitely did believe in the Real Presence -- so any Scriptures used to defend the symbolic theology aren't being used correctly.

 

I'm not denying that you might be able to find the occasional writing of some early church writers who might have mentioned something akin to total depravity; but it was not the official teaching of the church as a whole.  It's an accretion that I just cannot get behind.  The parable of the prodigal son is a BIG scripture teaching that shows a gracious return to God s available for any who would return (not just a select pre-chosen group).  We also read, in another place, "Come to Me, all ... "   It's definitely there both in church tradition and Scripture. 

[Violet Crown]

When I was looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, one of the more offputting things I encountered was the tendency to dismiss real or apparent historical deviations from standard Orthodox theology as "contamination from the Catholic West."

 

Yes, you will see Orthodox icons with God the Father in it. From what I understand that is something that is due to Catholic influence, but it is not actually approved of by any Orthodox groups. There is a Greek Orthodox church in my hometown that depicts God the Father up on the iconostasis (the wall up at the front of the church) . When I asked the priest about it, he admitted that it was not right, but it was made back in the early twentieth century by Greek immigrants that had been influenced by Catholic styles of paintings and removing the icon now would cause too much controversy because it had been there for decades and the descendants of the man who made it were still going to that church.

[MFG]

When I was looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, one of the more offputting things I encountered was the tendency to dismiss real or apparent historical deviations from standard Orthodox theology as "contamination from the Catholic West."

 

 

Ahh yes. Those pesky uncharitable assumptions again.

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that the originally Reformation (not Reformed) concept of Sola Scripture is misinterpreted by some offshoots of the Reformed to imply 'me and my Bible in a room'.  Sola Scriptura is not that.  Rather, it is that where councils or other church authorities actually disagree with the Bible, the Bible trumps them.  IOW, it is the norming norm. 

 

If you read Concordia, for instance, you see citations of the church fathers and early interpretations all through it.

 

However, the other side to this is that the New Testament was written and in use far before it was canonized.  The frequent argument that anchors it to the canonization process as if it started there is not correct.  Instead, basically the church assembly at the time of canonization looked at which books were in common use as Scripture, and recognized the ones that were used widely and clearly had very early roots as such.  There were some that everyone used and attested to and were very early, written by those who saw Jesus and their direct conversants.  Then there were some that were questioned by some of the churches but used by others--those are set apart to some extent, in the way that they are used doctrinally.  This was always the case.  So the Bible existed before the canon--the canon recognized this gift from God, it did not create it.

[JenniferB]

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.

 

^^ oops, I meant to say "hurtful" not "sinful."  I was on my phone, I think it auto corrected.

[Guest]

Whereas, others of us would say, if you trust the bible, then you DO trust Tradition, as Tradition is where your Bible comes from. It can't be seen apart from that. If you do trust the Bible to be true, then you must trust the Church who put it together. If you don't trust them, how can you trust the Bible they put together? That's how an Orthodox or Roman Catholic would look at it (and how I look at it), so to them your question doesn't even make sense. Not saying you don't make sense, but it's such a different paradigm it's hard to even discuss. Again, NOT putting you down in any way. (I have 3 sick kids and haven't slept in a week..so I feel I'm not being very clear).

Tradition doesn't save. The gospel saves. If tradition isn't lining up with the gospel, something is wrong. And just because an error has been codified and repeated for centuries doesn't make it true - it isn't as though the early church was in solidarity on many of these concepts and that was that. Godly men can disagree, but it isn't by their own authorities and traditions that they validate and prove what they claim, but by the word of God. Any tradition that is good and true will be built firmly upon the bible. So that is what I'm asking for regarding man's nature and sin.

 

I think we can still agree to disagree on these things, but if one of the EO ladies has actual scripture to back up their assertion of traditional views on the nature of sin, I'd really love to see it :)

[Carol in Cal.]

Agreeing with Katie.  The question doesn't make sense (to Orthodox -- or Catholic -- ears) because Holy Tradition existed long before the Bible did. Through Holy Tradition, the church grew and flourished, martyrs lived and died, and councils were held where doctrines were agreed upon (or thrown out).  Then came the Bible from this same church.  So if it's in the Bible, it has to line up with church practice and teaching or they wouldn't have included it.  For example, some people think the Bible doesn't teach the Real Presence (of Christ) in the communion elements and say that the Bible teaches instead that the bread and wine are symbolic.  But the church (men) that put the Bible together and canonized it definitely did believe in the Real Presence -- so any Scriptures used to defend the symbolic theology aren't being used correctly.

 

I'm not denying that you might be able to find the occasional writing of some early church writers who might have mentioned something akin to total depravity; but it was not the official teaching of the church as a whole.  It's an accretion that I just cannot get behind.  The parable of the prodigal son is a BIG scripture teaching that shows a gracious return to God s available for any who would return (not just a select pre-chosen group).  We also read, in another place, "Come to Me, all ... "   It's definitely there both in church tradition and Scripture. 

I agree with you, but you are talking about predestination here, not total depravity.  It's a different Reformed novelty.

[ktgrok]

  So the Bible existed before the canon--the canon recognized this gift from God, it did not create it.

 

Right but we (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) believe that the Church wouldn't have included anything in the Canon that went against what the Church was teaching, what the Church believed. So the idea that there are things in the Bible that go against Church teaching doesn't make sense to us. If it went against what they thought and taught, why would they include it in the cannon?

[albeto.]

For the record, despite being annoyed by threads being derailed by the same questions/statements over and over again (reminds of "one time, at Band Camp....") I have nothing against people who are agnostic, atheist, etc. My husband is not Xian, my son is not a Xian, 90 percent of my friends are agnostic or atheist, my first husband was a Buddhist, etc etc. Not an issue for me. My annoyance was not in the subject, but in the repetitiveness. Maybe I'm sensitive after living with an Aspie...they can be pretty darned repetitive. 

 

I find it interesting that for all the frustration from that these questions that come up "over and over again," so much so that they are considered annoying and derailing, it doesn't occur to certain people that these questions are in response to declarations that are made "over and over again." Historically, these declarations are expected to be respected, maybe politely disagreed with (or not so politely, as Wilson illustrates), but the real "offense" is in challenging their authority and value at the very root. It's okay to challenge it to a point - that point being mutual agreement that believing a claim by faith is a good and noble thing, if that claim falls within certain xian parameters - but not okay to challenge it all the way. Critical thinking is allowed only so far before name calling (from simple troll, to minions of satan, to pigs before which one's pearls ought not be thrown, and now to non-compliant, naughty children). Apparently i's only annoying to point out the faulty logic or historical arguments, but not annoying to continually make them, assume they're shared by the population at large, or offer them even when not asked. 

[albeto.]

And someone who hates and rejects the revelation of God about himself is likewise not being sanctified in his image.

 

Whew.

 

^_^

[Mrs. A]

Tradition doesn't save. The gospel saves. If tradition isn't lining up with the gospel, something is wrong. And just because an error has been codified and repeated for centuries doesn't make it true - it isn't as though the early church was in solidarity on many of these concepts and that was that. Godly men can disagree, but it isn't by their own authorities and traditions that they validate and prove what they claim, but by the word of God. Any tradition that is good and true will be built firmly upon the bible. So that is what I'm asking for regarding man's nature and sin.

 

I think we can still agree to disagree on these things, but if one of the EO ladies has actual scripture to back up their assertion of traditional views on the nature of sin, I'd really love to see it :)

 

 

EO Tradition always lines up with the gospel. 

 

Just to clarify before I go citing references - you're looking for scripture that affirms the EO view of sin or are you looking for its view on the nature of man? Or both? 

[ktgrok]

 Nailed it.

 

Two thousand years of robust Christian assertion and cultural appropriation but a few posts on a message board ? Cardinal sin of rudeness. 

If some of your friends like to share cake recipes, and you find cake to be unhealthy, you might sya, the first itme you heard them talking about it, "Oh, but why cake? Don't you know it's unhealthy?" But if you kept saying it to them over and over for years, every time they swapped cake recipes, it would be rude. They aren't forcing you to eat cake. If they interupt YOUR conversation about how cake is unhealthy to give cake recipes, I'd consider that equally rude. 

[Violet Crown]

Ahh yes. Those pesky uncharitable assumptions again.

Am I being uncharitable? Very possibly; and I don't want to imply that December is in general laying blame for occasional Orthodox historical inconsistency at the feet of the West, or really doing anything but passing along an explanation she's been given. But it was something that I encountered, it seemed, not infrequently; and it seemed unnecessary given the obvious and innocent fact of human variation over much time and geography.

 

In further reparation I want to observe that I wouldn't have been looking into Orthodoxy were it not extremely attractive.

[Guest]

EO Tradition always lines up with the gospel.

 

Just to clarify before I go citing references - you're looking for scripture that affirms the EO view of sin or are you looking for its view on the nature of man? Or both?

Well they are intrinsically connected as far as I'd define them - so both? But if you assert man is born without a sin nature or can attain perfection in Christ before death, I'd love to see some verses. I am firmly behind total depravitt because that is the testimony of the gospel every which way I turn it - federal headship in Adam, redemption through Christ. I can't see another view holding water when I read scripture, so I'm interested if you have one.

 

We are dealing with an enthusiastic EO coworker in real life and this is one of those areas we seem to be speaking different languages. And when confronting him with catechisms from the church as asking for a defense he hasn't been able to give one. But the man isn't particularly erudite, either, unlike most hive mamas.

 

This is the catechism we have been reading:

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/catechis.html

 

And I personally agree with the Westminster Larger catechism and 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

[December]

 

I submit, they all do the exact same thing you do, which is why the question isn't really answered. There is no assurance, there is only assumption. 

 

No, they don't all use the same process as the Orthodox do.  For instance, the church I grew up in believed that "true" Christianity disappeared from the historical record some time not long after the death of the apostles, not to be discovered again until the twentieth century.  So they absolutely would not look to two thousand years of Church teaching, tradition, canons, etc as the Orthodox would do to determine whether Wilson's comments were true or not.  

[albeto.]

Idk. Turn the other cheek ?

 

Pray for the fruits of the holy spirit (Galatians 5:22)? Pray for the god of one's choosing to change the heathen's heart? Pray for said god or demigod to chop off her fingers in some bizarre homeschooling accident so she can't type any more? Stop asserting certain things are true when they defy logic, conflict with evidence, and are not accepted by everyone? Refrain from making certain declarations in public? So many options from which to choose.

[MFG]

Am I being uncharitable? Very possibly; and I don't want to imply that December is in general laying blame for occasional Orthodox historical inconsistency at the feet of the West, or really doing anything but passing along an explanation she's been given. But it was something that I encountered, it seemed, not infrequently; and it seemed unnecessary given the obvious and innocent fact of human variation over much time and geography.

 

In further reparation I want to observe that I wouldn't have been looking into Orthodoxy were it not extremely attractive.

Sorry I was not clear. I agree with you.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[albeto.]

No, they don't all use the same process as the Orthodox do.  For instance, the church I grew up in believed that "true" Christianity disappeared from the historical record some time not long after the death of the apostles, not to be discovered again until the twentieth century.  So they absolutely would not look to two thousand years of Church teaching, tradition, canons, etc as the Orthodox would do to determine whether Wilson's comments were true or not.  

 

I'm reading the exchange between AM and Jennifer (and others on each side), and find the same process being utilized. Reading of the texts, study, prayer. The question about which texts, which studies, which apologists, which theological arguments are appropriate or valuable can only be answered subjectively (I dare say, inspired by reading of the texts, more study, and prayer). One finds a particular angle that seems to resonate with their personal history, their temperament, the information with which they are already familiar. So in my opinion, it's the same process even if the results are different. It also explains why a single denomination has a different theology throughout time and in different places across the globe. 

[unsinkable]

The same can be said of those who don't like to read the heart is an idol-maker (or what ever the phrase was. It sure was tizzy-inducing!). They can ignore it or put the writer on ignore or just keep on keepin on with life.

[Guest]

The ignore feature is a beautiful thing :D

 

It also makes reading threads to much faster, depending on the subject :lol:

[ktgrok]

Idk. Turn the other cheek ?

 

Since when are Christians supposed to be hung up on party etiquette ?

 

You are missing the larger point albeto made.

 

Given that I've been on the boards for years now, and this is the first time I've mentioned this issue, I can say I've turned the other cheek. And probably should have again, except it seems like maybe, if people speak up and say something it will stop happening. 

 

I got her point. I've heard her point so many times I could probably post FOR her, lol. That is MY point. That saying the same thing over and over to people who are not interested is, for lack of a better term, rude. I don't like religious people coming to my door to convert me and I don't like atheists coming into a conversation about Christianity to point out how wrong Christianity is. 

[Guest]

I think what can get lost in these discussions, too, is that there are far more similarities among Christians of varying stripes than differences. I consider this an in house debate/discussion, because much of the fundamental substance remains consistent. The differences matter and are good to discuss, but it doesn't mean at the end of the day that our faith and worldview aren't more similar than different by a wide measure.

 

Parsing things out is a good and needful thing, because ignorance breeds division faster than anything! But at the end of the day I consider this a good topic and very valuable to hear from those who believe in it. I think one can and should deal critically with their assumptions but not forget Christian love and likeminded was when all is said and done :)