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

[albeto.]

I most emphatically disagree with your charge here:  I was filled with hubris when I thought that I myself could figure out on my own what was true, what had been right from the beginning, what God meant in the scriptures.  It was a major comeuppance for me to acknowledge this and it rocked my world.  

 

Did you mean to imply anyone who has considered orthodoxy and rejected it does so because of hubris? Or did you mean to imply that each person determines for themselves what is the truth of the matter? 

 

Or could this emotional discomfort you report be explained by the difficulty in changing your mind? I think many people, when they come to the realization the ideas they assumed to be true and the people they assumed to be correct are no longer considered trustworthy, discover this betrayal "rocks their world." That's not evidence the new decision is accurate, it's just evidence of how strongly a belief influenced a person. 

 

For me it came down to who I would trust to be my teacher.  It was pretty clear that I was pretty smart and worked pretty dang hard to figure things out and I cared a lot about it...and in the end, I had to realize that I was standing smack dab in the middle of Hubris and that something had to change.

 

It came down to figuring out who I would trust to be my teacher.  And one thing was for sure:  it wasn't me.  

 

I mentioned this concept earlier, the idea that faith is essentially deciding who to trust. Essentially, any "assurance" is not in the faith itself, but in the person offering the explanation. 

[Laurie4b]

I do not know enough about protestant doctrines to understand why some protestants adhere so strongly to their Traditions which appear to have been born of a single man's understanding while completely dismissing Holy Tradition and it's teachings that were born of concensus that was achieved over many years of discussion among hundreds and sometimes thousands of bishops. Why do the ideas of people like Calvin or Luther trump those of centuries of Christians working in unison? Why do they dismiss the fact that the Bible as we know it today is a product of Holy Tradition? Will a protestant please help me understand this? Why are Calvin or Luther or Wycliffe elevated to such grand heights while the Holy Apostles and the discipleship inherited directly from them spurned? I'm asking this with all sincerity. Thank you.

 

I come out of the evangelical tradition, but have a great respect for the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions, so I will give it a shot from my perspective which is much more ecumenical (seeing the truth in each position) than hardcore Protestant./evangelical. In fact, I believe that you have identified a weakness of the Protestant branch of the faith. (I also think the Protestant church has some strengths. I wish that we could agree on enough to be unified and to benefit from one another's strengths and correct our own blindspots.) 

 

I think that you are absolutely right that Protestants have tradition and are guided by it; however, I think most truly don't recognize it. Some traditions of Protestants also have a tendency not to notice that someone is interpreting scripture every time it is read, whether the interpreter is oneself or a particular tradition. A passage is read and the meaning seems quite clear. ( I hope I don't create a rabbit trail by saying this but it is on my mind right now and I think it's a good analogy. So if my analogy bugs someone, please ignore it or I'd be glad to participate in a spin-off thread!) Imo, it's similar to how white people in the US don't see our whiteness. There is white culture as people of color are well aware, but many white people are not. There is a white mindset, but to most white people all that just seems "normal" ie like everyone is  like that . It is totally unconscious. I think many Protestants aren't aware of the layer of interpretation that goes into any reading of scripture and which is informed by their traditions. Being invisible to them, it seems as if it is not there at all. Does that make some sense? So for many Protestants, what Calvin or Luther did was to correctly read scripture. Since the assumption is that scripture should trump the traditions of men, if one believes that Calvin or Luther was correctly reading scripture, then one doesn't believe one is following "tradition"--- just the plain meaning of scripture. I think also for many Protestants, the way the canon was decided is kind of blurred over. It's not really thought about. It's just there to be read.  Protestants also put a higher value on individual conscience/responsibility of the believer to correctly discern the truth. 

[Guest]

It's not just you - that's why I keep asking questions. I know my impressions of EO and my own scriptural support for my position, but trying to get my arms around it from a follower's perspective has proven difficult. I think it's important to do so that we aren't just interpreting the data through our own lens but sometimes just defining terms and understanding that when we say things we aren't hearing the actual meaning the other person is trying to impart can be a big challenge!

 

Really leaving now! :rofl:

 

I'll attach my response to your questions about scriptural references to this post because I can't find the one I *meant* to attach it to.  Le sigh.  Stupid World Series Distractions.  

 

It occurred to me that it is very likely that we have exactly the same scriptural references for what we believe.  The difference will not be in a verse or two, but in the collection of the verses, and that is more than I can handle in a discussion board post.  It’s a tapestry, and we are looking at a thread. 

 

However, I would like to take a look at a thread we are talking about and see if I can show a little bit about what I mean about how we are using the same verses and coming to different conclusions because we are looking at a different tapestry.  So it will be pretty useless for me to cite verses as a proof-texting way of looking at things. 

 

If anyone wants to have a look at the whole tapestry, I recommend Frederica Mathewes-Green’s book, Welcome to the Orthodox Church.  Her writing is accessible and interesting. 

 

But let me make a simple example to show how the lens changes the picture.

 

In the West, mostly due to Anselm in the 11^th Century, the doctrine of substituionary atonement is introduced, where Christ dies for our sins and takes all the punishment on Himself; atonement is not *absent* from the East, but it is not the main point at ALL.  The point in the EAST is multifaceted, and has much more to do with the defeat of death, the result of sin, than of payment of a debt. 

I was raised Methodist, took a brief foray as a Baptist in college and settled into Presbyterianism for the first 14/2/34 years of my life.  So I’m kind of familiar with this; I meant something by it all the way through.  Now I am Orthodox. So let me take a look at

Genesis 3:9

Then:  (God with hands on his hips)  ADAM, WHERE ARE YOU?????

Now:  (God with his hands on his head) Adam, where ARE you?

 

Genesis 3:11

Then:  (God with hands on His hips)  HAVE YOU EATEN OF THE TREE I FORBADE YOU?

Now:  (God with His hands uplifted)  Have you eaten of the tree I forbade you?

 

Genesis 3:13

Then:  (God with His hands on His hips, leaning forward)  WHAT HAVE YOU DONE???!!!

Now:  (God with His head in His hands)  What have you *done*?

 

I am fully aware that the stage directions are not in the Scriptures—neither of them, the Then or the Now.  But as I am constrained by quoting as directly as possible from the Scriptures, I use that device to show how differently the exact words can be said.  The “Then†shows God as a judge, offended by our sin, and leads to (and perhaps even derives from) the substitionary atonement theology.  The “Now†shows God as the lover of mankind who sees a broken relationship and grieves the loss and the consequences.  So the same words portray two very different Divine Persons.

I’m really struggling with how to put this next part (no doubt in some part because my dh is telling me why one World Series team should win against another and he’s getting *really technical*)…but maybe part of the reason I’m struggling is because…it’s technical.  :0)  We can’t just pull out a verse and make it say what it wants…it has to fit in a picture. 

 

To me, the picture (in this example) makes better sense in the “now†version, because in the rest of the text, God created mankind in His image, and called them good, and walked in the cool of the garden with them.  This is a relationship of love…and when a love relationship is broken, it is sorrow, not judgment, that ensues.  Other parts of the Scriptures teach us that God is the same yesterday, today and forever.  So if this is true, how can our actions, sin, *change* Him?  And if the Trinity is unified and undivided, how can God’s holiness be so offended by our sin that He can’t even look on us, yet Jesus can assume our human flesh and come among us and die for us?  Is that not disuniting of the Trinity?

 

These are the things that led me to seeing these Scriptures (and others) through an Orthodox lens.  It was a sea change for me…and this little bit is not the only bit.  I am trying to respond to your question about “tell me the Scripture verses†and to explain how it is very likely the same verses you have that support your position…but why we differ in the end. 

 

If any of my words have sounded harsh, I ask your forbearance and forgiveness.  I’m not in the best circumstances for being clear or for being as irenic as I wish to be.  I have been Orthodox for 8 years; I was MethoBapTerian for 50…so who am I to stand in a place of judgment?  I hope it comes across as an explanation and that it made 4 seconds worth of sense as a response to your question.  :0)

And I’m still a little miffed at cyberspace for stealing my 45-minute response, which was, no-doubt, perfect.  Bwahahaha.  

[Guest]

Did you mean to imply anyone who has considered orthodoxy and rejected it does so because of hubris? Or did you mean to imply that each person determines for themselves what is the truth of the matter? 

 

Or could this emotional discomfort you report be explained by the difficulty in changing your mind? I think many people, when they come to the realization the ideas they assumed to be true and the people they assumed to be correct are no longer considered trustworthy, discover this betrayal "rocks their world." That's not evidence the new decision is accurate, it's just evidence of how strongly a belief influenced a person. 

 

 

I mentioned this concept earlier, the idea that faith is essentially deciding who to trust. Essentially, any "assurance" is not in the faith itself, but in the person offering the explanation. 

 

Please do not project onto me emotional discomfort.  

As for the hubris claim, I was rejecting your assertion that the poster was full of hubris for claiming to be satisfied that the truth was found in what The Church teaches.  Hubris is found it thinking one has it all figured out all by themselves.  That is not what the poster was claiming; in fact, her claim was the opposite--that she could NOT figure it out, and had in humility accepted the teaching of others.  

[albeto.]

Please do not project onto me emotional discomfort.  

As for the hubris claim, I was rejecting your assertion that the poster was full of hubris for claiming to be satisfied that the truth was found in what The Church teaches.  Hubris is found it thinking one has it all figured out all by themselves.  That is not what the poster was claiming; in fact, her claim was the opposite--that she could NOT figure it out, and had in humility accepted the teaching of others.  

 

You said the change "rocked your world." The natural interpretation of that phrase is emotional distress in some measure. Whether the poster is full of hubris or not I cannot say, but the argument presented is. The argument wasn't only that the truth is found in your church, the argument includes (at least implies) that those who are aware of the teaching of the church but reject it are not considering information holistically, that is to say, they are neglecting information, as the truth is found only in your church. Your comment implies one who knows and rejects it may do so because of pride (citing yourself as an example). Hubris refers to extreme self-confidence, arrogance, or pride, not figuring something out independently. My contention is that accepting the teaching of others doesn't have anything to do with humility, it has to do with arguments that resonate with personal experience. 

[Guest]

You said the change "rocked your world." The natural interpretation of that phrase is emotional distress in some measure. Whether the poster is full of hubris or not I cannot say, but the argument presented is. The argument wasn't only that the truth is found in your church, the argument includes (at least implies) that those who are aware of the teaching of the church but reject it are not considering information holistically, that is to say, they are neglecting information, as the truth is found only in your church. Your comment implies one who knows and rejects it may do so because of pride (citing yourself as an example). Hubris refers to extreme self-confidence, arrogance, or pride, not figuring something out independently. My contention is that accepting the teaching of others doesn't have anything to do with humility, it has to do with arguments that resonate with personal experience. 

 

Whether another person rejects or accepts the Orthodox Faith is not a reason for me to judge them in any way.  That rejection or acceptance is not my business.  My business is to attend to my own repentance.  I post here because people have questions about Orthodoxy or Christianity in general.  But if I judge their response, God help me.  I have no self-confidence...I used to...in my ability to figure anything out.  I disagree with your assessment of humility, but it is possible that it is because i have not expressed my understanding of it.  Accepting the teaching of others *because you know you are not capable of determining truth on your own* is pretty humbling, especially for me.  Because I used to think I could.  

 

ETA:  It is very likely that I used the phrase "rocked my world" in a way that it should not have been used.  I intended to convey that I got a whole new lens for viewing the world, a whole new way of looking at Truth...and myself...not that I was emotionally upset.  I'm probably too old to be using phrases that I didn't grow up with like "rocked my world" and thinking that I understand how younger people use the phrases.  

 

[Guest]

I'll attach my response to your questions about scriptural references to this post because I can't find the one I *meant* to attach it to. Le sigh. Stupid World Series Distractions.

 

It occurred to me that it is very likely that we have exactly the same scriptural references for what we believe. The difference will not be in a verse or two, but in the collection of the verses, and that is more than I can handle in a discussion board post. It’s a tapestry, and we are looking at a thread.

 

However, I would like to take a look at a thread we are talking about and see if I can show a little bit about what I mean about how we are using the same verses and coming to different conclusions because we are looking at a different tapestry. So it will be pretty useless for me to cite verses as a proof-texting way of looking at things.

 

If anyone wants to have a look at the whole tapestry, I recommend Frederica Mathewes-Green’s book, Welcome to the Orthodox Church. Her writing is accessible and interesting.

 

But let me make a simple example to show how the lens changes the picture.

 

In the West, mostly due to Anselm in the 11^th Century, the doctrine of substituionary atonement is introduced, where Christ dies for our sins and takes all the punishment on Himself; atonement is not *absent* from the East, but it is not the main point at ALL. The point in the EAST is multifaceted, and has much more to do with the defeat of death, the result of sin, than of payment of a debt.

I was raised Methodist, took a brief foray as a Baptist in college and settled into Presbyterianism for the first 14/2/34 years of my life. So I’m kind of familiar with this; I meant something by it all the way through. Now I am Orthodox. So let me take a look at

Genesis 3:9

Then: (God with hands on his hips) ADAM, WHERE ARE YOU?????

Now: (God with his hands on his head) Adam, where ARE you?

 

Genesis 3:11

Then: (God with hands on His hips) HAVE YOU EATEN OF THE TREE I FORBADE YOU?

Now: (God with His hands uplifted) Have you eaten of the tree I forbade you?

 

Genesis 3:13

Then: (God with His hands on His hips, leaning forward) WHAT HAVE YOU DONE???!!!

Now: (God with His head in His hands) What have you *done*?

 

I am fully aware that the stage directions are not in the Scriptures—neither of them, the Then or the Now. But as I am constrained by quoting as directly as possible from the Scriptures, I use that device to show how differently the exact words can be said. The “Then†shows God as a judge, offended by our sin, and leads to (and perhaps even derives from) the substitionary atonement theology. The “Now†shows God as the lover of mankind who sees a broken relationship and grieves the loss and the consequences. So the same words portray two very different Divine Persons.

I’m really struggling with how to put this next part (no doubt in some part because my dh is telling me why one World Series team should win against another and he’s getting *really technical*)…but maybe part of the reason I’m struggling is because…it’s technical. :0) We can’t just pull out a verse and make it say what it wants…it has to fit in a picture.

 

To me, the picture (in this example) makes better sense in the “now†version, because in the rest of the text, God created mankind in His image, and called them good, and walked in the cool of the garden with them. This is a relationship of love…and when a love relationship is broken, it is sorrow, not judgment, that ensues. Other parts of the Scriptures teach us that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. So if this is true, how can our actions, sin, *change* Him? And if the Trinity is unified and undivided, how can God’s holiness be so offended by our sin that He can’t even look on us, yet Jesus can assume our human flesh and come among us and die for us? Is that not disuniting of the Trinity?

 

These are the things that led me to seeing these Scriptures (and others) through an Orthodox lens. It was a sea change for me…and this little bit is not the only bit. I am trying to respond to your question about “tell me the Scripture verses†and to explain how it is very likely the same verses you have that support your position…but why we differ in the end.

 

If any of my words have sounded harsh, I ask your forbearance and forgiveness. I’m not in the best circumstances for being clear or for being as irenic as I wish to be. I have been Orthodox for 8 years; I was MethoBapTerian for 50…so who am I to stand in a place of judgment? I hope it comes across as an explanation and that it made 4 seconds worth of sense as a response to your question. :0)

And I’m still a little miffed at cyberspace for stealing my 45-minute response, which was, no-doubt, perfect. Bwahahaha.

I absolutely hate it when the computer says my responses. I track what you're getting at and would say simply that I cannot see biblical support for the creation of that body of belief, but all the same I understand it exists. I didn't develop my theology from studying a reformer - I studied scripture and went to mainstream American bible churches and discovered my theology lined up with that view. I take a dim view of tradition because I've seem far too many abuses of it where it is believed for its own sake and in spite of scriptural evidence directly contradicting it.

 

I'm really struggling to understand the appeal of orthodoxy outside of the security of uniformity. These differences strike me as so *wrong* at their core. I imagine you felt the same way when you confronted orthodoxy and looked back on the teachings you grew up with! This street goes both ways, doesn't it?

 

I am going to google the author you mentioned and see what pops up and if I have time to read the full work - things are crazy right now. But I see what you're saying and appreciate the detailed response. These aren't differences that are bridgable but I think we can respectfully disagree without asserting one side is more or less Christian.

 

I also have some good discussion points to posit for the next encounter with the enthusiastic coworker, that might help the two parties stop talking past one another.

[Guest]

Oh, and for what it is worth, I am fully on board with Now God in your description, which is why I believe what I do. Funny how that goes. There are very, very few circumstances outlined in scripture where any member of the Godhead would be described as truly angry. He is loving and just throughout the witness of scripture, old to new, and infinitely merciful on both Israel and the Gentiles.

 

As you said we may both have the exact same verses for our differing arguments. And our experience informs our interpretation of scripture and how we 'hear' verses. This makes quality, contextual biblical meditation and study needful and challenging, both.

[Guest]

I also have some good discussion points to posit for the next encounter with the enthusiastic coworker, that might help the two parties stop talking past one another.

 

You might be surprised how much of it comes down to defining terms.  Seriously.  :0)  

 

Salvation.

Conversion.

Tradition.

The Word of God.

 

And a bunch of others.  But it is worth the time to do so, because it is certainly a waste of time to talk past one another.  

[Guest]

Oh, and for what it is worth, I am fully on board with Now God in your description, which is why I believe what I do. Funny how that goes. There are very, very few circumstances outlined in scripture where any member of the Godhead would be described as truly angry. He is loving and just throughout the witness of scripture, old to new, and infinitely merciful on both Israel and the Gentiles.

 

Lucky me!

 

 

I totally get that.  I was completely in that frame all of my life.  Always.  That was part of what ultimately created the cognitive dissonance.  But I really do understand what you are saying, and I am so glad that you know God as loving.  

[Guest]

Haha, I edited that, sorry I wasn't quicker! I hope it didn't come across as flip to you, because I really didn't mean it that way :). The sarcasm was relating to the true challenge of handling the word of God rightly!

[Guest]

Haha, I edited that, sorry I wasn't quicker! I hope it didn't come across as flip to you, because I really didn't mean it that way :). The sarcasm was relating to the true challenge of handling the word of God rightly!

 

Define "Word of God."  

 

:::runs away:::

[milovany]

You said the change "rocked your world." The natural interpretation of that phrase is emotional distress in some measure....

 

ETA:  It is very likely that I used the phrase "rocked my world" in a way that it should not have been used.  I intended to convey that I got a whole new lens for viewing the world, a whole new way of looking at Truth...and myself...not that I was emotionally upset ...

 

The night I -- a very active evangelical pray-the-prayer-and-be-saved Christian at the time -- came home from the thrift store with a book about a black Pentecostal preacher's conversion to the Roman Catholic church, I showed my husband and asked if I could read it.  It was said in jest, I didn't need his permission to read it.  But the story the book purported to tell was so surprising to me (someone converting away from evangelism to Catholicism instead of the other way around) that I had to show it to my husband when I got home. His reply was pretty much what I expected, "What?  Why?" and my reply was "What if it rocks our world?!"  It did rock our world and I don't mean in an emotionally distressing way.  I mean in the way Patty Joanna describes in the quoted post above.

 

 

I'm really struggling to understand the appeal of orthodoxy outside of the security of uniformity. These differences strike me as so *wrong* at their core.....

 

This is hard for me to understand. The disappointed judge God ("before") who needs to punish his child is more appealing to you than the loving, tenderhearted ("after") one who's heart is breaking and who wants to gently guide?  Maybe I'm reading what you wrote here incorrectly and I'm happy to be corrected! 

[Guest]

But see, I have never gotten that God from scripture, and I'm as reformed as they come. It isn't a given that a Protestant believer who holds to federal headship, total depravity, unmerited grace, etc, must be believing and loving an apparently angry or judgmental God. That is not what any church I have *ever* attended has taught, nor what I have gleaned from years of bible study and commentary/Christian exhortations. I can listen to "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and hear only pleading and entreating with love and gentleness for all mankind to believed the word of the Lord.

 

The Before God you describe isn't somehow a given in every faith tradition but the teachings of orthodoxy. At all. That was what I was trying to express. I can see God as the just judge of the universe and long suffering, merciful, holy, and infinitely loving.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I come out of the evangelical tradition, but have a great respect for the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions, so I will give it a shot from my perspective which is much more ecumenical (seeing the truth in each position) than hardcore Protestant./evangelical. In fact, I believe that you have identified a weakness of the Protestant branch of the faith. (I also think the Protestant church has some strengths. I wish that we could agree on enough to be unified and to benefit from one another's strengths and correct our own blindspots.) 

 

I think that you are absolutely right that Protestants have tradition and are guided by it; however, I think most truly don't recognize it. Some traditions of Protestants also have a tendency not to notice that someone is interpreting scripture every time it is read, whether the interpreter is oneself or a particular tradition. A passage is read and the meaning seems quite clear. ( I hope I don't create a rabbit trail by saying this but it is on my mind right now and I think it's a good analogy. So if my analogy bugs someone, please ignore it or I'd be glad to participate in a spin-off thread!) Imo, it's similar to how white people in the US don't see our whiteness. There is white culture as people of color are well aware, but many white people are not. There is a white mindset, but to most white people all that just seems "normal" ie like everyone is  like that . It is totally unconscious. I think many Protestants aren't aware of the layer of interpretation that goes into any reading of scripture and which is informed by their traditions. Being invisible to them, it seems as if it is not there at all. Does that make some sense? So for many Protestants, what Calvin or Luther did was to correctly read scripture. Since the assumption is that scripture should trump the traditions of men, if one believes that Calvin or Luther was correctly reading scripture, then one doesn't believe one is following "tradition"--- just the plain meaning of scripture. I think also for many Protestants, the way the canon was decided is kind of blurred over. It's not really thought about. It's just there to be read.  Protestants also put a higher value on individual conscience/responsibility of the believer to correctly discern the truth. 

 

Thanks for giving this a whirl, Laurie4b! I actually really appreciated the parallel you drew between this kind of lack of awareness and racial awareness.

 

My next question would be, where in the Bible does it say that John Calvin, Marin Luther, John Wycliffe, or any other reformer would *correctly* interpret the Bible? How would they know the proper way to interpret the Bible if it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible how to know? There isn't a single verse that says one should only rely on personal interpretation of the Scriptures anywhere in the Scriptures. In fact the opposite is stated.

 

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2Thes.2:15)

 

"Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2)

 

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

[milovany]

Thank you, Taryl!  That helped a lot. 

[Guest]

That's exactly it. Scripture is the tool that interprets scripture, first and foremost. If one's own preferential understanding conflicts with something else in the canon of the bible it is they who are wrong, not the word. Believe it or not someone can indeed come to an understanding of doctrine that lines up with the reformers without having read them. It is not as through they came to their own doctrines from thin air, either. But we also all have influences and need to identify them to be able to take them into consideration when exegeting the bible. Assuming one is entirely unbiased is a big pothole.

 

As much as it depends on us we need to handle scripture rightly, reading and rereading it against itself first and foremost, then against the historical context of the original audience, then against trusted commentary and resources to aid in clarity of interpretation, and finally against the breadth of study engaged in by the church from the earliest sources onward. That's the order I believe is most likely to filter out my own biases and ignorance and desires for understanding and reveal what God is actually saying, instead of just what I want him to say or an comfortable with.

[Guest]

Thank you, Taryl! That helped a lot.

:). We probably aren't going to agree, but I do hope we are all hearing what is being said and understanding what each other means, instead of what we think one another means!

[TianXiaXueXiao]

That's exactly it. Please forgive me. What is exactly it? I am not following you.

 

Scripture is the tool that interprets scripture, first and foremost. Can you please unpack this statement a little more? I do not understand how this is true for you.

 

If one's own preferential understanding conflicts with something else in the canon of the bible it is they who are wrong, not the word. Believe it or not someone can indeed come to an understanding of doctrine that lines up with the reformers without having read them. It is not as through they came to their own doctrines from thin air, either. True. Would you agree that they came to these doctrines via the route of an alternate tradition? Tradition means that which is handed down. New traditions are being created all the time. Calvin started the tradition known as Calvinism. Luther started the tradition known as the Lutheran church.

 

But we also all have influences and need to identify them to be able to take them into consideration when exegeting the bible. What are your influences i.e. traditions? Who do you ascribe greater authority to in guiding your chosen path?

 

As much as it depends on us we need to handle scripture rightly, reading and rereading it against itself first and foremost, then against the historical context of the original audience, then against trusted commentary and resources to aid in clarity of interpretation, and finally against the breadth of study engaged in by the church from the earliest sources onward. This is the definition of Holy Tradition which you have been saying you don't trust across many pages of this thread. Am I missing something?

 

That's the order I believe is most likely to filter out my own biases and ignorance and desires for understanding and reveal what God is actually saying, instead of just what I want him to say or an comfortable with.

Edited for typos.

[JenniferB]

That's exactly it. Scripture is the tool that interprets scripture, first and foremost. If one's own preferential understanding conflicts with something else in the canon of the bible it is they who are wrong, not the word. Believe it or not someone can indeed come to an understanding of doctrine that lines up with the reformers without having read them. It is not as through they came to their own doctrines from thin air, either. But we also all have influences and need to identify them to be able to take them into consideration when exegeting the bible. Assuming one is entirely unbiased is a big pothole.

 

As much as it depends on us we need to handle scripture rightly, reading and rereading it against itself first and foremost, then against the historical context of the original audience, then against trusted commentary and resources to aid in clarity of interpretation, and finally against the breadth of study engaged in by the church from the earliest sources onward. That's the order I believe is most likely to filter out my own biases and ignorance and desires for understanding and reveal what God is actually saying, instead of just what I want him to say or an comfortable with.

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.

[Mrs. A]

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.

 

 

I didn't have time to come back last night, but I've been thinking about it and ^^ this^^ is exactly what I wanted to say. We will continue to talk past each other because we are not really speaking the same language as it were. Orthodox Christians do not use scripture to interpret scripture. We read it in light of the understanding of the context which has been passed down over the centuries. And it's important to recognize that reading in English, coming from a modern context is very different than reading it in Greek within the context of the Church's mind. We can talk about sin all we want, but if (for example - not putting words in anyone's mouth, just generalizing) you see the word "sin" and read it as "law breaking" while we see the word "sin" and read it as "missing the mark", then we're just not going to get very far. 

[milovany]

[Quoting Arctic Mama]

As much as it depends on us we need to handle scripture rightly, reading and rereading it against itself first and foremost, then against the historical context of the original audience, then against trusted commentary and resources to aid in clarity of interpretation, and finally against the breadth of study engaged in by the church from the earliest sources onward.

 

This is the definition of Holy Tradition which you have been saying you don't trust across many pages of this thread. Am I missing something?

 

[Red lettering added by me for emphasis.] 

 

Just thought it an insight / question worth repeating.

[Bluegoat]

Ahh yes. Those pesky uncharitable assumptions again.

 

I don't think that is an assumption.  It happens a lot, and not necessarily by jerks either, people who are well meaning do it as well.

 

Which isn't to say it is never the case that something was more of an issue in the western church.  The Reformation clearly was a response to particularly western church issues, including political ones, just as one example.

 

But there is a tendency among a substantial group to apply it inappropriately, or use it as a way to create an unnecessary division, and it is off-putting to people.

 

I get the sense though that a lot of it is something that came up in the 20th century, and I think its often just people repeating a simple solution they have heard.  It's a common enough human problem, whatever form it takes.

[HRAAB]

Define "Word of God."

 

:::runs away:::

Jesus Christ.

 

I'm an outsider looking in as I went through a total deconstruction of my faith a number of years ago. I have no desire to argue whatsoever, just understand. I read an article on Ancestral Sin a number of years ago but it was just a cursory reading and obviously one quick reading doesn't give any type of deep understanding. I appreciate your time in answering questions. Your explanation of God responding to Adam's sin (now God) is the same I would have given, and in all honesty, caused a disconnect for me. But then, many things caused a disconnect. :)

 

Could one of you Orthodox ladies take a minute to address the idea of a 'fallen nature' which I take Orthodox don't believe? And if this is true, how do you explain humanity's proclivity to sin?

[HRAAB]

Define "Word of God."

 

:::runs away:::

Jesus Christ.

 

I'm an outsider looking in as I went through a total deconstruction of my faith a number of years ago. I have no desire to argue whatsoever, just understand. I read an article on Ancestral Sin a number of years ago but it was just a cursory reading and obviously one quick reading doesn't give any type of deep understanding. I appreciate your time in answering questions. Your explanation of God responding to Adam's sin (now God) is the same I would have given, and in all honesty, caused a disconnect for me. But then, many things caused a disconnect. :)

 

Could one of you Orthodox ladies take a minute to address the idea of a 'fallen nature' which I take Orthodox don't believe? And if this is true, how do you explain humanity's proclivity to sin?

[Bluegoat]

 lol, well that's me ruined for thoughtful conversation - I didn't get much education  in philosophy OR science. Quite a lot in religion, which is why I'm totally on the EO side of any icon discussion :)

 

But I will valiantly attempt to answer, despite my uneducated ignorance...bear with me. 

 

Yes, there is a scientific explanation for things like empathy and altruism aka morality that is sufficient - meaning that one does not have to have recourse to God to explain why people value some behaviours more highly than others.

 

I don't see anyone ( albeto ) saying science can explain everything. Potentially ? Perhaps. I tend to think that if we could jump into a time machine, we'd see that at any point in the future science could explain more and more. Everything ? In an infinite universe ? Probably beyond our brain capacity, even if we do continue to evolve.

 

To leap from that to 'what is out there that is currently unknowable must be the Christian God of the Bible' is as uneducated and ignorant as anything I might have to say or think on the matter.

 

I think its fine for people to have subjective experiences of the great unknown, tell themselves stories about it that make sense to them - but to have the hubris to insist that it is the Truth ?  That the space in their heart falls to the dogs without the Christian god in pride of place is fine. That mine does the same ? Pride and delusion.

 

I'll just say at the beginning that it isn't that anyone things we ever will explain everything by science - i think everyone but crackpots thinks as you do that we could never hold onto it all, and realistically many things we will never have a chance to examine.  But theoretically, if we are materialists who think everything could be observable if we had the right kind of bodies or equipment, science as a method could tell us about anything.  That is what science is at its most basic, the investigation of the observable material world.  Materialists take as their a priori assumption that everything that exists is material and (potentially) observable.  Which is why many materialists (though by no means all) tend to treat science as the means to truth. 

 

The question in this case is whether a materialist concept sufficiently explains morality, and along with that does it explain what we think about morality consistently and coherently.

 

I agree with you that the scientific explanation is sufficient to explain the biological aspect of people, why we might feel all kinds of emotions.  But that isn't really what the argument is getting at - everyone agrees that normal people have a sense of right behavior, even some other animals do.

 

The deeper question is - when people think there is such a thing as right and wrong, or good and evil, even if they don't agree on how to define those things, are they correct?  Is it just an instinct designed to aid survival, or is there something more?

 

One way to think of this is what is the "good" in an evolutionary system?  It's passing on one's DNA, essentially - anything that allows a creature to do that is good.  We have all kinds of instincts to that end, including things like love, altruism, and cooperation.  We also have other instincts to that end, like the desire for retribution which is an important part of the human social dynamic that helps us cooperate and have group cohesion.  Aggression can also help groups be successful in propagating their DNA, as can sexual violence, the will to power, greed, and so on.  From the perspective of successfully passing on as much DNA as possible, all of these are necessary and important, and all can lead to good strategies for dominance. 

 

We can see all of these have been at times ways that human societies have flourished - a group comes in and wipes out and violently oppresses their neighbours, takes over their resources.  One genetic group is wiped out, and another expands.  We see it in animal, plant populations as well, and of course we don't make any moral statements about it then, because it is just nature, using different strategies.

 

There are a few people who look at the human populations in the same way, just as nature doing her work.  They would not see any real difference between the population that was successful due to cooperation and one that was successful due to aggression.  That is, IMO, a pretty consistent way to approach it.

 

But most people would not say that - they would say that, totally apart from their success from an evolutionary perspective, some behaviors are morally wrong.  It isn't just that they are arguing that X is not going to be as good a strategy for evolutionary dominance, they are saying that even if it was the best, it would not be right to do it - there is some other standard that needs to be adhered to, which is in some sense logically higher than our purely biological tendencies.

 

When we look at it as individuals experience it, is the way we can decide on a rational basis to ignore one biological impulse in favour of another, not just because we think it will be more successful to do so, but even when we think it will be less successful.  On an individual basis I think we can sometimes believe that we are just choosing a strategy that will in the long term be better for everyone.  But that does not hold true when we look at it on the level of populations, we have all of these impulses because they can all be successful, depending on the circumstances (and probably because in most populations it will be best to use all of them from time to time.)

 

When it comes down to it, very few people look at a genocide, or the extreme control of women in some societies, or live vivisection, and just see it is an alternate path to success, a different set of instincts being expressed.  Our revulsion isn't just physiological or even psychological, we see it as a matter of principle.  Even people who will say that morality is based in evolution will often be very vocal about what they consider immoral actions.  They arent arguing that wife rape should be illegal just because they think it will make for more successful propagation of DNA, nor are they saying it just because it might be a problem for propagating their own DNA - their objection is not that it is a bad move from a biological perspective. 

 

What more can be said about that principle is getting into difficult territory, but it seems to suggest a moral truth that exists at least in some form that is not accessible to observation - we won't see it somehow in examining evolution or in looking at the behavior of hydrogen atoms.  Not just because we haven't figured out how yet - if you tried to create a test to establish the existence of good and evil a scientist would thing you were a fool, its a kind of catagory error.  There is, it seems, something apart from physical nature, or in it but not physically instantiated in any way apart from our perception of its existence. 

 

It creates a paradox, which is a very interesting thing in philosophy.  Something that is in nature somehow, since we have access to it, but also somehow outside of it.  We could of course just let go of the idea that our own dominant instincts, or any set of instincts, are more correct than any other unless they lead to extinguishing of genetic material, in which case they will be gone anyway, but in my experience few people wish to do that.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mrs. A]

Jesus Christ.

 

I'm an outsider looking in as I went through a total deconstruction of my faith a number of years ago. I have no desire to argue whatsoever, just understand. I read an article on Ancestral Sin a number of years ago but it was just a cursory reading and obviously one quick reading doesn't give any type of deep understanding. I appreciate your time in answering questions. Your explanation of God responding to Adam's sin (now God) is the same I would have given, and in all honesty, caused a disconnect for me. But then, many things caused a disconnect. :)

 

Could one of you Orthodox ladies take a minute to address the idea of a 'fallen nature' which I take Orthodox don't believe? And if this is true, how do you explain humanity's proclivity to sin?

 

 

Perhaps this blog post will be helpful. Here's a snippet: 

 

 

 

Although the Orthodox Church does teach that humanity is damaged by sin, our depravity is not total, consummate, or inherent to human nature—we retain our reason and free will (Imago Dei). The personal consequences for moral deviation are spiritual death and physical death, but the universal consequences for humanity are physical death, disease, and difficult labor. Death is the consequence of breaking communion with God, not a judgment, because created beings cannot continue to exist without God. Since Adam and Eve are linked to humanity, and humanity is linked to creation, all of nature is subjected to the same death and corruption. We inherited a cosmos where sickness and death reign. As Metropolitan Kallistos Ware put it, “Even though we are not guilty of the sins of others, yet we are somehow always involved.â€

 

 

 

And from this post

 

The presence of evil is sometimes apparent, and Orthodoxy acknowledges this. However, instead of stating that the wickedness of this life is reflective of man’s inner state, Orthodoxy would affirm that we are subject to a fallen world penetrated by death and evil. Therefore, it is our duty and calling to subjugate evil to the victory of Christ. And because Orthodoxy doesn’t affirm inherent wickedness in man, it is understood that whenever we sin, it is not because we have no choice in the matter, but rather because we have succumbed to the evil that lurks around us. While mankind is born pure and innocent, humans must exist in the fallen world, and are therefore subjected to a propensity toward sin

 

[Bluegoat]

Thanks for giving this a whirl, Laurie4b! I actually really appreciated the parallel you drew between this kind of lack of awareness and racial awareness.

 

My next question would be, where in the Bible does it say that John Calvin, Marin Luther, John Wycliffe, or any other reformer would *correctly* interpret the Bible? How would they know the proper way to interpret the Bible if it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible how to know? There isn't a single verse that says one should only rely on personal interpretation of the Scriptures anywhere in the Scriptures. In fact the opposite is stated.

 

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2Thes.2:15)

 

"Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2)

 

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

 

It doesn't say that those people know the correct way to interpret the Bible. 

 

A good place to start is to realize that the changes the early Protestants made to looking at Scripture were actually quite minor.  The idea of individualistic readings came later in history, and are still not what those kinds of groups like the Lutherans believe.  I would say that in many ways, the approach of Catholicism and Orthodoxy is much closer to those methods than some modern Protestant methods are.

 

Those earlier groups all had a fairly robust understanding of the Church, with a big C.  The community of faith, the Church, was what had the authority to interpret Scripture, not any particular individual.  Someone like Luther was important as a member of the Church, just like any other Father.  Today, though Lutherans take Luther very seriously, there are many other important Lutheran theologians, and it is the consensus of Lutheran teaching that is important.  Lutherans also have Tradition, some of it quite explicit, in documents that outlined quite clearly what the community understood about the meaning of the Faith.  The community also defines who counts as a member of the community for these purposes, just as is the case in your church.

 

So from a Lutheran perspective, everything from the early Church is (mostly) still valid, but the tradition carries on within a defined community which constitutes the Church, that is the Lutheran community.  (Lutherans sometimes call themselves evangelical Catholics which I think is quite revealing.)

 

hat changed however is also important - during the Reformation, many people among what you might call the intelligensia came to think there were serious problems in particular teachings of the Church. There were many attempts at internal reform, which in a community of that kind should have happened, at least to some extent, but for a variety of reasons it didn't, and in some ways things became worse.  These practices were defended on the grounds that they were tradition, and done by the consensus of the Church as defined by the Church hierarchy.

 

Eventually this ed to splits and revolution, and while they maintained the concept of the community of believers, they came to the conclusion that the hierarchy of the Church in the bishops and priests was not completely protected from doctrinal error, and that what seemed to be Tradition was not always correct.  Potentially, this could even have applied to things from further back than their current problems.  This created a huge problem - what had gone wrong? what would be the ground of faith?  How to decide when the community had it right, and when they didn't? 

 

The answer they came to was not to throw out tradition or the interpretation of the community, but rather they decided to look at Scripture, which seemed like something solid.  They were not naive about it - they understood that it could be interpreted an infinite number of ways and that the community and tradition was necessary.  But where before Scripture and tradition had been seen as side by side or a unity, they made them a hierarchy.  All things in the Church would be normed against Scripture, and traditions that were not found in Scripture would be kept, but they made a distinction that they were not necessary for the Church to tell people they needed to believe, they were adiaphora.

 

They also tended to de-emphasize the primacy of the hierarchy, and emphasis that all members should be participating in the community life of the Church, so that is where a lot of the emphasis on individuals reading the Bible came from - if you hadn't, you could not be a contributor to that mutual discernment.  That is also why liturgy in vernacular languages became important.

[albeto.]

Whether another person rejects or accepts the Orthodox Faith is not a reason for me to judge them in any way.  That rejection or acceptance is not my business.  My business is to attend to my own repentance.  I post here because people have questions about Orthodoxy or Christianity in general.  But if I judge their response, God help me.  I have no self-confidence...I used to...in my ability to figure anything out.  I disagree with your assessment of humility, but it is possible that it is because i have not expressed my understanding of it.  Accepting the teaching of others *because you know you are not capable of determining truth on your own* is pretty humbling, especially for me.  Because I used to think I could.  

 

ETA:  It is very likely that I used the phrase "rocked my world" in a way that it should not have been used.  I intended to convey that I got a whole new lens for viewing the world, a whole new way of looking at Truth...and myself...not that I was emotionally upset.  I'm probably too old to be using phrases that I didn't grow up with like "rocked my world" and thinking that I understand how younger people use the phrases.  

 

I'm confused. We're not judging people, we're judging arguments, aren't we? Aren't we judging Wilson's argument? And the one Arctic Mom offered (now refined, and thanks :)), and the Orthodox theology argument? Isn't that all we're doing? Judging them and finding them to be credible or not, based on information we do know? And isn't that why we ask for clarification, so we can get more information to make a more intelligent judgment? I judge Wilson's argument to be mis-informative, inspired by fear, fueled by a false hope (false because he's assuming things to be true despite evidence to the contrary), and ultimately it functions to stir up more fear and hatred. I can't judge him as a person, but only because I don't have enough information (or any). I think one need not fear judgement, even xians. The founding documents of your religion encourage you to judge, only with a "righteous judgement" (which refers to being in line with the mind and will of the god of the bible, not necessarily moral or ethical by any other standards, but I digress). 

 

I understand what you mean by "rocked your world," and can understand how my comments would be irrelevant. Although, I have to wonder why there would be no emotional distress at the conclusion that something one believed it and used as a kind of foundation for navigating the world (even if just casually) turned out to have been wrong. I understand the hope in the alternative, but at some point, one faces the potential loss of assurance, potential loss of hope, and that's generally unsettling in some measure. I understand we're all different, though. I'm just explaining my response, but I understand it's irrelevant to your experience. 

 

[DELETED CONTENT]

 

The idea that one should embrace emotional oppression so deeply that they don't even respect themselves (again, divorced from the object of respect) is no different to brainwashing in any way I can see. To identify the oppressor as the object of hope strikes me as a perfect example of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

The problem with this is twofold, as I see it. The first is that it leaves one vulnerable to control and abuse. The second is keeping in mind with one's emotional and physical well-being Monica and I spoke about earlier. Self esteem is integral to emotional well-being. To lack that (again, divorced from the one towards whom all esteem is given) is to deny a potential positive and healthy experience. I understand the brain's pleasure receptors are most active in anticipation of a reward, rather than at obtaining the reward. I suspect this is one way in which religion can be a lifelong pursuit. The reward is always out of reach, the hope is that after one draws their last breath, real life begins. I find it sad to see people deny their well being for a lifetime for such a gamble (that of all the religious beliefs to embrace, theirs is right). I know from experience how compelling this hope is, and one of the earlier videos linked explains why it's so hard to break free. Religion utilizes so many natural processes. It can be hard to break out. Even kids who reject the faith of their parents can't break away from the general idea that there exists a great reward after one dies. No one coming back to refute it naturally fuels the imagination. Living in a culture in which these assumptions are not only pervasive, but to question them is met with hostility, also contributes to the force of the belief on the imagination.

 

And really, isn't this exactly what Wilson is doing? He's encouraging people, albeit through misinformation and emotional manipulation, to deny certain pleasures (ie, those associated with Orthodoxy or respect for Putin) in hopes that his particular gamble pays off. We don't have to judge him to judge the gamble. But if we judge him, I think we can judge him to have been a victim of earlier emotional and intellectual oppressors as well. When he was most intellectually and emotionally vulnerable, these current thoughts of his became his source of hope, and look where it took him. He's a fear-monger, a pitiful man who was once a victim, and from the ashes of his self esteem rose a victor, or a bully, however one might interpret it. 

Edited October 28, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
This crossed the line into personal attack.

[Laurie4b]

Thanks for giving this a whirl, Laurie4b! I actually really appreciated the parallel you drew between this kind of lack of awareness and racial awareness.

 

My next question would be, where in the Bible does it say that John Calvin, Marin Luther, John Wycliffe, or any other reformer would *correctly* interpret the Bible? How would they know the proper way to interpret the Bible if it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible how to know? There isn't a single verse that says one should only rely on personal interpretation of the Scriptures anywhere in the Scriptures. In fact the opposite is stated.

 

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2Thes.2:15)

 

"Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2)

 

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

 

Are you asking me or just quoting me because it's a convenient  way to continue the conversation?

 

I am aware of those verses and believe they give Protestants something to think about--at least to stop a "traditions of men" as a showstopper.

 

And I want to reiterate that I respect tradition. The Catholic church claims the same appeal to tradition, however, and there are some differences between the two traditions as well as similarities. As others have said, the Reformers were not indifferent to the early church fathers either. The Reformers believed they were restoring things to where they were at the beginning. 

 

 Those verses quoted above don't necessarily say that tradition is the way to  interpret scripture. I agree with you that they could encompass that, but they could also refer to traditions not written down, such as the specific practices of the liturgy, etc.

 

 

As to your question as to how from the Bible Protestants believe any person can sit down with a Bible and interpret it correctly. It is because Protestants believe the Holy Spirit within can guide them to the truth.

 

 

For instance, 1 John 2:

26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

 

John 16: Unless I go away, the Advocatewill not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

12 â€œI have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. 

Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (People who were not yet converted or possibly just converted were commended for searching the scripture to see if the apostle's message was true. That implies that they would be able to interpret it as a confirmation or not of what Paul was teaching.) 

 

I want to be very clear that I have zero desire to debate. I respect your tradition and think you make good points that are worth Protestants mulling over and taking seriously.  I am explaining a Protestant point of view. If you are interested in debate, I will bow out. If you are genuinely puzzled about how another Christian tradition arrives at its conclusions, I would be glad to continue to contribute. 

[Greta]

I want to be very clear that I have zero desire to debate. I respect your tradition and think you make good points that are worth Protestants mulling over and taking seriously. I am explaining a Protestant point of view. If you are interested in debate, I will bow out. If you are genuinely puzzled about how another Christian tradition arrives at its conclusions, I would be glad to continue to contribute.

I just wanted to thank you for your post, because I did find it very interesting and helpful. As someone who was raised Jehovah's Witness, then was atheist/Buddhist for most of my adult life, and then became EO Christian about 5 years ago, I find these discussions fascinating. Having never been in a mainstream Protestant church, I'm not always familiar with the whys and wherefores of Protestant belief, nor am I well versed in the differences between RC and EO either. So I appreciate the opportunity to learn.

[Greta]

Could one of you Orthodox ladies take a minute to address the idea of a 'fallen nature' which I take Orthodox don't believe? And if this is true, how do you explain humanity's proclivity to sin?

We do believe in the fall, and in a tendency toward sin, or a vulnerability to it. I hope I am chosing the right words here, and I trust that one of the other wiser and more knowledgeable Orthodox ladies will jump in here and help me if I'm getting this wrong! I think that the difference we are talking about here is one of degree. Forgive me if this analogy is overly simplistic, but the way I heard it described once is that we Orthodox believe that the image of God in which we were created got damaged or obscured by the fall, like a picture where the ink got smudged. But the basic image is still there, and it's still discernable. We can choose whether to "clean up" that image and make it closer to the original, or to give in to our sins and obscure the image further.

 

I think that Roman Catholics and many Protestants would agree with this, yes? I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the difference in viewpoint really comes in with those churches in the Clavinist/Reformed tradition. I'm not sure, and I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, but "total depravity" to me sounds like the fall completely obliterated the image (any image of God could certainly not be totally depraved, right?). So my impression is that the Reformed churches view the fall as causing damage on a different scale than what the Christian east would claim, total destruction rather than mere damage. Is that correct? (Help...?)

[Georgiana Daniels]

The problem with interpreting Scripture on our own is that as modern-day Christians, we do not have the advantage of context that the early Christians had. We are so removed from their culture and time, that we can't rightly understand Scripture the way it was intended simply by ourselves. Phrases, idioms, etc aren't something we'll be familiar with unless we have "help," so to speak. If it was as simple as the Holy Spirit guiding each person into the truth, we wouldn't have 2398746329 denominations. I used to read commentaries on Scripture by contemporary authors, and eventually I wondered why I wasn't reading commentary by people who were part of the culture and time (early Church fathers.)

 

Another point to keep in mind is God condescends to be described in human language so we might have a shot at knowing Him. But let's get real about this: as vast and amazing as the Bible is (and I spend MUCH of my time reading and studying), human words cannot contain the sheer awesomeness of God, Creator of the universe.

[Georgiana Daniels]

As for finding humility and realizing "I'm not the ultimate authority" -- I have found the same thing. It would be arrogant for me (speaking for myself) to think I could, even with God's help, find all the answers on my own. BTDT. To lose confidence in myself is to find more confidence in Christ, and yes, in His Church. To gain humility is a GOOD thing. :thumbup1:

[Bluegoat]

We do believe in the fall, and in a tendency toward sin, or a vulnerability to it. I hope I am chosing the right words here, and I trust that one of the other wiser and more knowledgeable Orthodox ladies will jump in here and help me if I'm getting this wrong! I think that the difference we are talking about here is one of degree. Forgive me if this analogy is overly simplistic, but the way I heard it described once is that we Orthodox believe that the image of God in which we were created got damaged or obscured by the fall, like a picture where the ink got smudged. But the basic image is still there, and it's still discernable. We can choose whether to "clean up" that image and make it closer to the original, or to give in to our sins and obscure the image further.

 

I think that Roman Catholics and many Protestants would agree with this, yes? I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the difference in viewpoint really comes in with those churches in the Clavinist/Reformed tradition. I'm not sure, and I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, but "total depravity" to me sounds like the fall completely obliterated the image (any image of God could certainly not be totally depraved, right?). So my impression is that the Reformed churches view the fall as causing damage on a different scale than what the Christian east would claim, total destruction rather than mere damage. Is that correct? (Help...?)

 

The differences among Orthodox, Catholics, and Lutherans on this are, as you say, pretty small.  To outsiders I think almost non-existant sometimes.  The language used also tends to be different.

 

Typically Orthodox commentators tend to describe ancestral sin as being almost extrernal to individuals, and systematic, though they would say it is physically expressed as well.  Catholics will often talk about it as a sort of stain on the soul.  And Lutherans tend to talk about it being actually distorted.

 

Luther tended to say that Christ covers our sins or our souls that are sinful - like snow on a dungheap was his famous description.  But then he also talked about sanctification as well which is very similar to theosis, so as I understand it the snow business really applied to justification.  (Orthdoxy doesn't talk about a distinction between the two particularly, but I think Catholicism heads in that direction.)

 

All of these groups though seem to think that God created all these people for Heaven, whereas the Reformed position says that some were intended for Hell from the beginning.  That makes it a lot more tricky to talk about whether those souls were by nature good.

[Greta]

The differences among Orthodox, Catholics, and Lutherans on this are, as you say, pretty small. To outsiders I think almost non-existant sometimes. The language used also tends to be different.

 

Typically Orthodox commentators tend to describe ancestral sin as being almost extrernal to individuals, and systematic, though they would say it is physically expressed as well. Catholics will often talk about it as a sort of stain on the soul. And Lutherans tend to talk about it being actually distorted.

 

Luther tended to say that Christ covers our sins or our souls that are sinful - like snow on a dungheap was his famous description. But then he also talked about sanctification as well which is very similar to theosis, so as I understand it the snow business really applied to justification. (Orthdoxy doesn't talk about a distinction between the two particularly, but I think Catholicism heads in that direction.)

 

All of these groups though seem to think that God created all these people for Heaven, whereas the Reformed position says that some were intended for Hell from the beginning. That makes it a lot more tricky to talk about whether those souls were by nature good.

Thank you for this! I appreciate the help. :-)

[Guest]

Georgiana - Well to answer that we aren't off on our own in a cave with a bible. But the starting point IS the bible, not tradition or what someone else tells us - we are each individually accountable for knowing the full counsel of God that he has provided us in scripture (and if we want to argue canon that's another thread).

 

An answer to a question isn't "because traditions of the church dictate it" but "because the word of God indicates it in these passages, and this is how it fits into systematic theology: ________".

 

I do not reject the body of believers globally - quite the opposite. And have spent a fair chunk of time studying the early church and textual transmission, as well as the formation of several key dogmas. I sit under the preaching of trained doctors of theology from excellent schools. I listen to apologetics, research things I have questions about, and am under the discipleship of other believers.

 

Context and study from the believers throughout time to now is crucial to Christian knowledge and growing in service and love of the communal body of Christ globally. But the starting point and foundation of all must be the word of God, not the traditions of man (even those 'based' on it). If proper justification cannot be given from scripture alone, it is suspect. The body of theological knowledge espoused by faithful Christians throughout the ages matters very much but it isn't infallible or perfect and godly men have had bitter disagreement on certain points. Those points matter and each believer needs to decide for themselves what fits a consistent, God honoring reading of scripture most, when both sides have a compelling argument and neither can be definitely proven wrong.

 

Scripture is where it begins. Traditions, even those built firmly on the bible, are not a substitute for study and meditation upon the word of the Lord. That is the source of knowledge, not oral tradition, ceremonies, iconography, Saints, whatever.

 

This may be one of the bigger gulfs between our beliefs. But that's what I stand on. Not alone with my bible and my interpretation but always returning to scripture and verifying things by the word, searching it, and checking with other believers both alive and long dead that I am handling and understanding the word rightly and not just reading out of the text what I want to hear (eisegesis).

[Georgiana Daniels]

Many parts of the Bible came from oral tradition before they were written down :001_smile:

 

 

[ktgrok]

Right. that's the gulf. The idea that things start with the Bible skips over much of the Church's history. It starts with Jesus, and he was before what we know of as the Bible. His Church predates the Bible. If things had to start with the bible, then those who were Christian before there was a Bible would have been in big trouble!!!  Peter didn't have the Bible. And yet he was a Christian. 

[Guest]

You're missing my point. I'm done stating and restating it. Refer to any number of Protestant canons on the inspiration of scripture if you have more questions. The gospels and most epistles were set remarkably early in church history, based on those we possess today. We don't have to wonder what the very early church was teaching - there is a wealth of evidence on many of the central doctrines of the faith. Not to mention the availability of the Septuagint. We know what John or Paul studied, it's not some mystery passed on only in oral tradition.

[Laurie4b]

We do believe in the fall, and in a tendency toward sin, or a vulnerability to it. I hope I am chosing the right words here, and I trust that one of the other wiser and more knowledgeable Orthodox ladies will jump in here and help me if I'm getting this wrong! I think that the difference we are talking about here is one of degree. Forgive me if this analogy is overly simplistic, but the way I heard it described once is that we Orthodox believe that the image of God in which we were created got damaged or obscured by the fall, like a picture where the ink got smudged. But the basic image is still there, and it's still discernable. We can choose whether to "clean up" that image and make it closer to the original, or to give in to our sins and obscure the image further.

 

I think that Roman Catholics and many Protestants would agree with this, yes? I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the difference in viewpoint really comes in with those churches in the Clavinist/Reformed tradition. I'm not sure, and I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, but "total depravity" to me sounds like the fall completely obliterated the image (any image of God could certainly not be totally depraved, right?). So my impression is that the Reformed churches view the fall as causing damage on a different scale than what the Christian east would claim, total destruction rather than mere damage. Is that correct? (Help...?)

 

I have always understood things pretty similarly to how you described them in terms of bearing the image of God. That the image of God remained is to me clear from Scripture (since as a Protestant, that is my go-to. ;) ) For instance, in James 3: With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. 10 Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be.

 

Many Protestants would likely differ with the "We can choose whether to "clean it up," and might want to clearly assert that it is God who does the "cleaning up." (which is probably complementary to what you are saying anyway, but the phrasing would arouse counterpoint.)  

 

I don't think that the concept of total depravity necessarily negates that there is some vestige of the image of God in each person. 

[mommaduck]

AM, so, where did Scripture come from? Where did the canon come from? What did the people who decided the canon believe and teach? What did the people do before the canon? Kinda debunks Sola Scripture.

 

You still never answered my question about St. Luke.

[Bluegoat]

You're missing my point. I'm done stating and restating it. Refer to any number of Protestant canons on the inspiration of scripture if you have more questions. The gospels and most epistles were set remarkably early in church history, based on those we possess today. We don't have to wonder what the very early church was teaching - there is a wealth of evidence on many of the central doctrines of the faith. Not to mention the availability of the Septuagint. We know what John or Paul studied, it's not some mystery passed on only in oral tradition.

 

I don't believe people are saying its a mystery.  Just that it is a product of the believers.  Not just the canon, or even deciding what to read during the liturgy.  But the  actual words were written down by the people in the church, as letters or stories about what happened or whatever.

 

It's always been a communal exercise to decide what it means.  That is what Tradition is in the church, essentially, it is that history of the community and how they understood the faith.  Chesterton described it once as the democracy of the dead - it is the way Christians in the past tell us what their searching of the Scriptures and activity in the community meant. 

 

The Orthodox view of sin for example, made total sense to those people in light of Scripture.  They were not somehow less knowledgeable or having less faith, than any of us.  If anything, they may have had more insight into the worldview of those who wrote the Scriptures.  They did not think they were allowed to contradict Scripture or the faith in their views. Their ideas about what was compatible with Scripture are not likely to be more far out than anyone's in the 21st century would be. 

[Guest]

Canon is another debate and one I'm not having here. Protestants and EO don't agree on canon, to put it lightly. And tradition isn't a substitute for scripture, even the early church was transmitting and passing around a surprising number of the very same books we include in our bibles today. Some of the contested books, like those written during the inter-testamental period, or those like James and Jude, are for a different discussion.

 

I understand transmission - right down to scribal errors and substitutions in certain manuscripts. It *still* doesn't come down to believing a doctrine without understanding and being able to defend it from the actual word of God. That is a bridge I cannot cross.

 

This isn't discussing so much as debating at this point and I don't have the time or desire to do it, especially given how much time I spent on here yesterday. Take care.

[Greta]

Many Protestants would likely differ with the "We can choose whether to "clean it up," and might want to clearly assert that it is God who does the "cleaning up." (which is probably complementary to what you are saying anyway, but the phrasing would arouse counterpoint.)

Oops, yes, I didn't do a great job of thinking through my analogy there. I certainly agree with you that the glory and the gratitude for all the cleaning up belong entirely to God. It is not something that can do on our own, we cannot hope to accomplish it without his help. But I do believe that he gives us a choice in the matter. We have to approach Him and say, "Lord, please help me get myself cleaned up." Or we can walk away from Him and let the image get further sullied. Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt there, and understanding what I meant despite what I actually said! :)

 

I don't think that the concept of total depravity necessarily negates that there is some vestige of the image of God in each person.

I will certainly defer to your judgment on that, since I am not very familiar with the doctrine in question.

[TechWife]

We do believe in the fall, and in a tendency toward sin, or a vulnerability to it. I hope I am chosing the right words here, and I trust that one of the other wiser and more knowledgeable Orthodox ladies will jump in here and help me if I'm getting this wrong! I think that the difference we are talking about here is one of degree. Forgive me if this analogy is overly simplistic, but the way I heard it described once is that we Orthodox believe that the image of God in which we were created got damaged or obscured by the fall, like a picture where the ink got smudged. But the basic image is still there, and it's still discernable. We can choose whether to "clean up" that image and make it closer to the original, or to give in to our sins and obscure the image further.

 

I think that Roman Catholics and many Protestants would agree with this, yes? I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the difference in viewpoint really comes in with those churches in the Clavinist/Reformed tradition. I'm not sure, and I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, but "total depravity" to me sounds like the fall completely obliterated the image (any image of God could certainly not be totally depraved, right?). So my impression is that the Reformed churches view the fall as causing damage on a different scale than what the Christian east would claim, total destruction rather than mere damage. Is that correct? (Help...?)

 

This is an incorrect understanding of what "total depravity" means. Total depravity means, apart from Christ's redemptive work that reconciles us to God, man can do nothing to make himself righteous. In other words, there are no actions/good deeds that one can do in order to gain the approval of God.  Prior to the point of belief, man's acts are rooted in sinful desires, not in a desire to please and glorify God. It is this sinful desire, this heart attitude, if you will, that separates us from God, even if/when we do good things.  It is our heart, not our actions, that God is primarily concerned with because without the heart, the actions do not glorify Him. Actions that glorify Him take place only in a regenerated spirit/heart. 

 

Protestants do believe that all of mankind bears the image of God. We can choose what we believe (free will) and within that belief we can still make individual choices (free will does not disappear with faith in God through Christ). It is in the individual choices where we allow Christ to continue His work of sanctification in us, which brings us closer to His likeness. Our individual choices are to be made with the desire to glorify God in all that we do. In some sense, it is the motive that matters. The motive isn't to "be more like Christ," but to glorify God. In order to do so, we must consider our own desires to be secondary to God's desires. The process of spiritual change that must occur in us in order for us to do this is how God continually sanctifies us. As we glorify God, we will become more like Him. We will not attain a complete likeness until heaven. 

 

You may already know this, but I'll say it for the sake of those who don't: not all protestants fall under the label "reformed." Also, the event/movement known as the "reformation" and "reformed theology" are not the same thing. 

[Bluegoat]

Canon is another debate and one I'm not having here. Protestants and EO don't agree on canon, to put it lightly. And tradition isn't a substitute for scripture, even the early church was transmitting and passing around a surprising number of the very same books we include in our bibles today. Some of the contested books, like those written during the inter-testamental period, or those like James and Jude, are for a different discussion.

 

I understand transmission - right down to scribal errors and substitutions in certain manuscripts. It *still* doesn't come down to believing a doctrine without understanding and being able to defend it from the actual word of God. That is a bridge I cannot cross.

 

This isn't discussing so much as debating at this point and I don't have the time or desire to do it, especially given how much time I spent on here yesterday. Take care.

 

I think people are confused, because no one things that these documents weren't around from quite early, or that anyone was accepting things that were contrary to Scripture.

 

The question is, when there was a disagreement about something important to the faith, how was it worked out?  Clearly if there was a disagreement, there was either more than one way of interpreting the Scripture, or it was something not explicitly addressed. 

 

The answer is that they sat down and discussed it together.  They didn't do things that they thought were out of line with Scripture - they knew the people that wrote the Scriptures, the apostles, some of them knew Jesus.  They did things in line with their knowledge from all of these sources. 

[mommaduck]

Canon is another debate and one I'm not having here. Protestants and EO don't agree on canon, to put it lightly. And tradition isn't a substitute for scripture, even the early church was transmitting and passing around a surprising number of the very same books we include in our bibles today. Some of the contested books, like those written during the inter-testamental period, or those like James and Jude, are for a different discussion.

 

I understand transmission - right down to scribal errors and substitutions in certain manuscripts. It *still* doesn't come down to believing a doctrine without understanding and being able to defend it from the actual word of God. That is a bridge I cannot cross.

 

This isn't discussing so much as debating at this point and I don't have the time or desire to do it, especially given how much time I spent on here yesterday. Take care.

No, they were questions for further discussion. Funny thing is, I've not been the one doing much of the posting, but I ask a question, its repeatedly ignored, and then you tell me I'm debating for asking? This was more of a "I'm dismissing you".

[albeto.]

Or maybe he's a master manipulator who doesn't believe a word out of his own mouth but deliberately uses the vocabulary of Christianity, which he knows many people will find familiar and compelling, to build his following.

 

I don't think we really have evidence one way or the other.

 

Good point. It's not unusual for this career, and religion provides an ideal audience for manipulation. But then, this could be said for many clergy members:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/01/05/the-top-10-jobs-that-attract-psychopaths/

[mommaduck]

This is an incorrect understanding of what "total depravity" means. Total depravity means, apart from Christ's redemptive work that reconciles us to God, man can do nothing to make himself righteous. In other words, there are no actions/good deeds that one can do in order to gain the approval of God. Prior to the point of belief, man's acts are rooted in sinful desires, not in a desire to please and glorify God. It is this sinful desire, this heart attitude, if you will, that separates us from God, even if/when we do good things. It is our heart, not our actions, that God is primarily concerned with because without the heart, the actions do not glorify Him. Actions that glorify Him take place only in a regenerated spirit/heart.

 

Protestants do believe that all of mankind bears the image of God. We can choose what we believe (free will) and within that belief we can still make individual choices (free will does not disappear with faith in God through Christ). It is in the individual choices where we allow Christ to continue His work of sanctification in us, which brings us closer to His likeness. Our individual choices are to be made with the desire to glorify God in all that we do. In some sense, it is the motive that matters. The motive isn't to "be more like Christ," but to glorify God. In order to do so, we must consider our own desires to be secondary to God's desires. The process of spiritual change that must occur in us in order for us to do this is how God continually sanctifies us. As we glorify God, we will become more like Him. We will not attain a complete likeness until heaven.

 

You may already know this, but I'll say it for the sake of those who don't: not all protestants fall under the label "reformed." Also, the event/movement known as the "reformation" and "reformed theology" are not the same thing.

It should be added that Reformed believe in me monergism, where Orthodox believe in synergism. Basically, God alone creates belief in certain, chosen people (and not in others). Even the act of faith and belief is an act of God, not the free will of the person. Orthodoxy rejects this view. Orthodoxy views man as capable of seeking out and having an ingrained ability to believe and have faith and that that is in ALL mankind, not just certain individuals that God flips a switch in. More that God created us this way and instilled it as part of it nature and that He has given us the free will to choose our seek Him out.