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

[Guest]

I honestly don't know anything about Wilson beyond what has been shared here. Same with Albeto.

 

Given what I've seen represented of him around these parts, I'd seriously question whether he is saved.

 

His works and words don't instill much confidence.

 

What he says and does is between him and God, but I disavow most of what he has said that I've heard. His twisting of doctrine looks to me to be self serving, to put it charitably.

[JoJosMom]

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. 

 

It's probably also safe to say that, by speaking up in this thread, you have been speaking for a WHOLE lot of others who no longer bother.  Thank you.

[TechWife]

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?

 

 

Taryl, 

 

Laurie is correct.   It is comparable with the protestant doctrine of sanctification. Believers are to grow in likeness to Him, or mature in the faith. We will attain Christ-likeness in heaven. 

 

Some scriptural background (not comprehensive): 

 

Sanctification begins at regeneration ("I was sanctified"): 

1 Cor. 6:11 

Act 20:32

Romans 6:11, 14

 

Sanctification continues throughout our physical lifetime ("I am being sanctified"): 

Rom. 6:12-13, 19

2 Cor. 3:18

Col. 3:10

Heb. 12:1, 14

 

Sanctification is completed at our physical death ("I will be sanctified"): 

Heb. 12:23

Rev. 21:27

[Carol in Cal.]

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?

The point of Sola Scriptura is that if things change later on, if there are accretions that disagree with Scripture, Scripture trumps them.  The Reformation was extremely respectful of the early church as well as of the Bible. 

[Guest]

Taryl,

 

Laurie is correct. It is comparable with the protestant doctrine of sanctification. Believers are to grow in likeness to Him, or mature in the faith. We will attain Christ-likeness in heaven.

 

Some scriptural background (not comprehensive):

 

Sanctification begins at regeneration ("I was sanctified"):

1 Cor. 6:11

Act 20:32

Romans 6:11, 14

 

Sanctification continues throughout our physical lifetime ("I am being sanctified"):

Rom. 6:12-13, 19

2 Cor. 3:18

Col. 3:10

Heb. 12:1, 14

 

Sanctification is completed at our physical death ("I will be sanctified"):

Heb. 12:23

Rev. 21:27

Okay, we are on the same page on that, then. What is the differing view on total depravity of original sin? If man isn't guilty due to federal headship then why the need for salvation? This may be the area I'm confused on because I'd cite the same textual body for sanctification and agree. Sinless perfectionism is where I'd contend but that's not what it sounds like you are saying.

[ktgrok]

The explanation I read that explained it best to me is the difference between inheriting a parent's debt versus inheriting their gambling tendency. If I inherit their debt I still have to pay it off, or have osmeone pay it for me (Christ) but I don't have any moral culpability. If I inherit their gambling tendency, and I gamble myself, that's a whole other ball game and more like the western version of original sin. 

[Guest]

Okay - how can the first person pay it off? Total inability to atone for ourselves is a hallmark of a sin nature. I'd agree with the first example - my children are born with a fallen nature but they haven't committed any of their own yet. That doesn't change their fundamental nature and the consequences of it, however. But it's not like they have to atone for sins in the womb (I don't blend one can commit sin in that particular and immature state).

 

That doesn't mean they get a free pass to heaven so long as they don't begin racking up their own tally however. No debt isn't the same as righteousness.

 

Where am I misunderstanding?

[JenniferB]

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.

 

The Early Church and Orthodox Christians today believe that people are born good and we are created with the potential and ability to increase in the likeness of God, the likeness of Christ, and this is actually our purpose.  Due to the fall, death entered into the world and the fear of death is the root motivation for all sin.  Because of death, all are touched by sin in some way.  Our image of God can become sick or distorted by our free will to sin and/or walk away from Christ in our actions.  

 

Enter Jesus...When Jesus came, He joined Himself to humanity physically in the Incarnation.  By joining humanity in the Incarnation He redeemed humankind, by touching it and embodying it, and He made and continues to make it possible for us to increase in His likeness because of His Incarnation, His Resurrection, and in His Body, The Church.

 

Is everyone touched by sin in some way?  Yes.  But, does this mean that we have a sin nature, that we are born depraved or sinful?  No.  Depending on our actions, we can choose or not choose to sin.  

 

This is Christian doctrine from the Early Church, simplified so as to fit into a few sentences.  

 

When I have more time I may be able to contribute more with Early Church references.  Not to "proof text" but as an added help to understand what the doctrine of the Early Church is, as it has gone askew in certain circles since the Early times.  

 

For anyone who wants to study the Early Church doctrine, it's very accessible with free online documents, more than you could ever read in a lifetime.  Let me know via PM if links are wanted.

[Guest]

Ah ha. Well I'm all on board with Katie but totally disagree with you on multiple points, Jennifer - but you communicated quite clearly and cogently :). I'm even more interested in scripture on these doctrine now - where does one get the idea that man is good from birth from scripture? When do these distortions of our souls (image of God?) happen? Can we become sinless and perfect prior to death in your view?

 

Did Jesus redeem all humankind or just some?

 

 

I think we are getting somewhere :)

[TechWife]

The explanation I read that explained it best to me is the difference between inheriting a parent's debt versus inheriting their gambling tendency. If I inherit their debt I still have to pay it off, or have osmeone pay it for me (Christ) but I don't have any moral culpability. If I inherit their gambling tendency, and I gamble myself, that's a whole other ball game and more like the western version of original sin. 

 

I might be throwing a wrench in this, I'm not sure. I must admit I'm not tracking with the distinction between the two perspectives. 

 

From a protestant viewpoint: The gambling tendency, without the actual gambling, is the sin nature. It is the sin nature that we inherit, not the original sin (disobedience). The sin nature in and of itself is what requires Christ's redeeming work on the cross and his subsequent resurrection. Our sin nature is such that we lack the ability to be spiritually good in and of ourselves - we cannot do this apart from the work of Christ. We are also unable to do any physical good on our own that pleases God. It is our inability to be spiritually good and do good that pleases God that requires our redemption. 

 

So, would the EO position be that the actual gambling must be done in order to require Christ's redemption? 

[Mrs. A]

Genesis 1:26 and 1:31 

 

God created man in His image and likeness and said that everything He had made was very good. So right away we see man as very good, by nature. He was created good. This does not change even after the fall. If it did change, and man's nature has somehow become depraved then we have a big problem when it comes to the incarnation of Christ. Because we believe that God became man, yet remained sinless, then he cannot have taken on an inherently sinful nature and have remained sinless. 

 

Ack! Crazy kids! Will try to come back later  :gnorsi:

[ktgrok]

I might be throwing a wrench in this, I'm not sure. I must admit I'm not tracking with the distinction between the two perspectives. 

 

From a protestant viewpoint: The gambling tendency, without the actual gambling, is the sin nature. It is the sin nature that we inherit, not the original sin (disobedience). The sin nature in and of itself is what requires Christ's redeeming work on the cross and his subsequent resurrection. Our sin nature is such that we lack the ability to be spiritually good in and of ourselves - we cannot do this apart from the work of Christ. We are also unable to do any physical good on our own that pleases God. It is our inability to be spiritually good and do good that pleases God that requires our redemption. 

 

So, would the EO position be that the actual gambling must be done in order to require Christ's redemption? 

 

No, the EO position is that mankind didn't inherit a gambling tendency at all. We did however, inherit a large gambling debt (death). Christ pays that debt for us, on the cross. Any gambling we do is on our own, and because of free will, not a gambling (sin) nature. 

[Laurie4b]

Okay, we are on the same page on that, then. What is the differing view on total depravity of original sin? If man isn't guilty due to federal headship then why the need for salvation? This may be the area I'm confused on because I'd cite the same textual body for sanctification and agree. Sinless perfectionism is where I'd contend but that's not what it sounds like you are saying.

 

 

 

Let's move the differing beliefs in ancestral vs original sin out of the equation. Maybe we could even suppose theoretically that Adam didn't sin, so take him out of the equation, too. This is all theoretical to make a point.

 

That would leave us with the present and with ourselves. I will speak for myself: I have certainly sinned! Would not the fact that I have sinned require a means of salvation for me and for anyone else who would acknowledge the same? 

[meena]

It's probably also safe to say that, by speaking up in this thread, you have been speaking for a WHOLE lot of others who no longer bother. Thank you.

This. I would love to be able to freely discuss faith issues without them being veered off into debate territory as they commonly are. I'm not saying this as someone who wants to silent certain viewpoints, but rather as someone who doesn't have the time or attention span to follow a thread down the debate rabbit trail. There are times and venues for debate, but there are times to allow like minded people to talk amongst themselves without need for defense or justification.

 

On this board in the past it was my understanding that threads labeled "CC" were for like minded discussion. Not "like minded" in a JAWM sense, but more that it's understood that certain elements of discussion are not up for debate in that certain thread. If someone wanted to pluck an idea from that thread and debate it, they could make a spinoff thread and debate/discuss there without the "CC" designation.

[EmseB]

Genesis 1:26 and 1:31 

 

God created man in His image and likeness and said that everything He had made was very good. So right away we see man as very good, by nature. He was created good. This does not change even after the fall. If it did change, and man's nature has somehow become depraved then we have a big problem when it comes to the incarnation of Christ. Because we believe that God became man, yet remained sinless, then he cannot have taken on an inherently sinful nature and have remained sinless. 

 

 

 

But that's the whole point.  That's what The Fall is -- it's short for the fall of man.  Not just a man, but mankind.  So they/we needed a savior and redemption.  Christ was fully man and fully God and did not sin.  It's because of this fully God/fully man dichotomy that he remained sinless.  He is the only one among men that could take on flesh and remain sinless.

 

If we could all just "be good" without him then why the need for Christ?  Is there a need for Christ?

 

So for EO, what is the significance of Adam's actions?  The fall in the garden isn't a pivotal point for humanity?

[HRAAB]

No, the EO position is that mankind didn't inherit a gambling tendency at all. We did however, inherit a large gambling debt (death). Christ pays that debt for us, on the cross. Any gambling we do is on our own, and because of free will, not a gambling (sin) nature.

So where does our tendency to sin come from if we don't suffer from a fallen nature due to original sin and God created us good, which didn't change due to Adam's fall? According to EO beliefs? I know you're not EO so maybe someone else would want to chime in?

[ktgrok]

 

 

If we could all just "be good" without him then why the need for Christ?  Is there a need for Christ?

 

So for EO, what is the significance of Adam's actions?  The fall in the garden isn't a pivotal point for humanity?

 

My understanding is that the need is because we did inherit death. Adam brought death to humanity, but his sin is his own, as our own sins are our own. 

[Guest]

So...

 

If this is the case why wouldn't the children of Adam and Eve be allowed to return to the garden? One could argue this is extremely unjust.

 

If that is the big difference I can see the gulf in these discussions. I cannot see biblical salvation without federal headship (in Adam we fell, in Christ we are redeemed) and cannot understand the ignoring of the curse pronouncement in Genesis, but I get what you're saying even if I cannot see it in the text.

 

It would make a robust debate topic in a formal setting, that's for sure.

[HRAAB]

And while I'm at it, according to EO beliefs, Jesus died to overcome death (spiritual death?) but not in atonement for sin? But spiritual death is due to sin. I'm feeling mentally dense right now. ..

[Guest]

Enlightening discussion, ladies! I have to get some RL stuff done but I'll check back in later and see what has transpired.

[Guest]

And while I'm at it, according to EO beliefs, Jesus died to overcome death (spiritual death?) but not in atonement for sin? But spiritual death is due to sin. I'm feeling mentally dense right now. ..

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:

[JenniferB]

 

 

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). 

 

Yes, it's the chicken or the egg.  Which came first?  Which came from which?  Reinforcing what you said...If you understand / study Church history you will see that it was the Apostles and their disciples who came first and they implemented practices layer upon layer as well as doctrine.  It was refined generation after generation by holy men - in agreement - there were votes.  There were many writings floating around, some became part of the lectionary, Scriptures read during the services according to the calendar, the lectionary came before the "canon" or Bible.  The lectionary was in use in services, some "churches" meaning the united Church, but in different places used different Scriptures on different days.  Then there was a need for uniformity.  Attempts at uniformity created what we know today as the Bible.  These attempts were handled in Councils, holy men in agreement making decisions, the votes win out, one vote per Bishop (elder) of their "church" or area of the united Church.  So, to say the Bible is the starting point is not historically accurate.  It's the Early Church practice that is the starting point, followed by the Lectionary, followed by Councils, followed by decisions made to create the Bible. 

 

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 :)

 

Jesus saves.

 

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.

 

I took your statement as a valid weakness in our history as well as today.  But, it does have it's place in the history between East and West.  There were some bad times there.  Wouldn't it be great if we could unite?

 

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.

 

For a very early catechism, there is are the catechetical lectures of St. Cyril.  These were written around the time that the Lectionary needed to be standardized (300's ish) and the first meetings took place to decide "what is Scripture," i.e. the Bible was being formed.

 

I would be weary of any catechism that was very new, such as from the almost 1,700's because there were already many innovations in the church by that time, hence the need for a Reformation and Counter Reformation.  I would think that any catechism that new would be tainted by those innovations in one way or another.

 

I haven't read them myself, but I hear they are very good.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3101.htm

 

 

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. 

 

No, as far as Orthodox methods, as I said, they are holistic.  I know you said, "whatever that means," several times, and it seems that you are still equating our holistic method with one that is fragmented:  searching texts, study, and prayer.  I didn't even mention study and prayer in our method, those can be subjective.  Our method includes a living history of practice, continuity from the beginning of Christianity, councils and cannons (these aren't just texts, these meetings really took place and established doctrine which was lived out in the lives of Christians), etc.

 

Okay, we are on the same page on that, then. What is the differing view on total depravity of original sin? If man isn't guilty due to federal headship then why the need for salvation? This may be the area I'm confused on because I'd cite the same textual body for sanctification and agree. Sinless perfectionism is where I'd contend but that's not what it sounds like you are saying.

 

People need to be saved from sin and death.  We are saved by sin because we are able to be forgiven, cleansed, renewed, and we are given the Holy Spirit to become in the likeness of Christ, if we choose to participate.  We are saved from death, because Christ conquered death by death and he bestows resurrection to all:  the results of the experience will vary depending on what is done in this life...a life in Christ or not.

 

Ah ha. Well I'm all on board with Katie but totally disagree with you on multiple points, Jennifer - but you communicated quite clearly and cogently :). I'm even more interested in scripture on these doctrine now - where does one get the idea that man is good from birth from scripture? When do these distortions of our souls (image of God?) happen? Can we become sinless and perfect prior to death in your view?

 

Did Jesus redeem all humankind or just some?

 

 

I think we are getting somewhere :)

 

More later when I have more references and info to share.

[mommaduck]

Those that are against iconography: how do you view St. Luke? Do you agree with his Gospel being part of Scripture or so you dismiss it? Do you believe he was a Christian or an idolator?

[mommaduck]

Ftr, I'm disturbed that someone feels the need to "confront" an EO coworker with a catechism from their own church, that the EO coworker doesn't hold to. Honestly, this would have me approaching management about harassment as it's inappropriate proselytizing in the workplace.

[Guest]

Jennifer, when I say the gospel saves, I mean the testimony of Jesus as foretold in the Old Testament, fulfilled in his birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. Jesus does save. We have to be careful to not define him differently than he did, himself. Tradition, if it is disagreeing with the person or work of Jesus as represented in scripture, would be the loser. It sounds like we are in full agreement on this point :)

 

Will deal with the rest later, thanks for your responses!

 

Ftr, I'm disturbed that someone feels the need to "confront" an EO coworker with a catechism from their own church, that the EO coworker doesn't hold to. Honestly, this would have me approaching management about harassment as it's inappropriate proselytizing in the workplace.

Just saw this. Who on earth said anyone was being confronted? If I said that above, I meant that we pulled up his own cited catechism to help clarify the discussion he was having with us (a member of my family).

 

*He* was trying to convert a family member to EO and kept engaging on the subject, and the family member found it attractive but was confused on some points. Coworker, when an EO catechism was brought forward, wasn't able to answer any of these points.

 

Why would my family complain to the management? They are work friends and both parties assented to the discussion? We weren't being harassed by this guy just wanting to parse out the differences between his faith and ours and why we wouldn't want to give his church a try? It's been difficult to get over the linguistic differences as I mentioned above.

 

Jumping to conclusions that we were the ones doing any sort of discussing of religion at work is annoying. It was the exact opposite, and nobody involved felt it was an HR issue to have lunchtime conversations on theology. Coworker cannot understand why family member, who is a devout believer, wouldn't find more comfort or consistency in the EO church. It is an interesting perspective.

[ktgrok]

Again, I would say that if you find a place where scripture looks to contradict Tradition, you are misunderstanding scripture, because the Church wouldn't have included anything that went against Church teachings. 

 

But we would all agree that Jesus himself is who saves :)

 

also, I'm not EO, I'm Catholic, so if I mess something up, I apologize!  

[Guest]

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.

Ah, Found it. By enthusiastic, I meant the guy was trying to convince us to try out EO - he was rather evangelical about it :lol:

[mommaduck]

Jennifer, when I say the gospel saves, I mean the testimony of Jesus as foretold in the Old Testament, fulfilled in his birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. Jesus does save. We have to be careful to not define him differently than he did, himself. Tradition, if it is disagreeing with the person or work of Jesus as represented in scripture, would be the loser. It sounds like we are in full agreement on this point :)

 

Will deal with the rest later, thanks for your responses!

 

 

Just saw this. Who on earth said anyone was being confronted? *He* was trying to convert a family member to EO and kept engaging on the subject, and the family member found it attractive but was confused on some points. Coworker, when an EO catechism was brought forward, was f able to answer any of these points.

 

Why would my family complain to the management? They are work friends and both parties assented to the discussion? We weren't being harassed by this guy just wanting to parse out the differences between his faith and ours and why we wouldn't want to give his church a try? It's been difficult to get over the linguistic differences as I mentioned above.

 

Jumping to conclusions that we were the ones doing any sort of discussing of religion at work is annoying. It was the exact opposite, and nobody involved felt it was an HR issue to have lunchtime conversations on theology. Coworker cannot understand why family member, who is a devout believer, wouldn't find more comfort or consistency in the EO church. It is an interesting perspective.

You used the word "confronted". It seemed to be implied that you were confronting them with your catechism. My apologies if I read that wrong. It came off as "we're trying to save him!" I'd be curious what catechism he's using.

[Guest]

 Personally, I think social groups are the place to have those 'safe' discussions with only like minded individuals. YMMV.

 

 

...which is why I am taking my responses to the EO discussion group.  I think there are people who are genuinely interested and all are welcome to take a look at the Exploring Orthodox Christianity (but you can't post unless you sign up).  

 

To tell the truth, I am chary of putting the treasures of my heart in a place where they will be mocked.  

 

In addition, it is easier for me to stay focused on the social group.  

 

I'm not "taking my ball and going home."  I'm just not a confrontational person.  :0)

[ktgrok]

The problem is, the social groups don't allow for all different denominations to chat about issues between our faith traditions. The main forum does. And those of no faith are welcome to discuss too. The point was that derailing a discussion into something else, on a regular basis, is not really appropriate. That's what spin off threads are for. Now and then, sure, it happens accidentally. But this often isn't an accident. 

 

i'm not a memeber of the EO social group, as I'm of a different tradition, and now I miss out on  the discussion. That's unfortunate. 

[Laurie4b]

 Personally, I think social groups are the place to have those 'safe' discussions with only like minded individuals. YMMV.

 

On the other hand, most of us wouldn't know we were interested in some new ideas that are being discussed in a social group if they were not discussed on the board in general. I would think that would be a loss to all of us. 

[mommaduck]

Katie, actually, our group is open. We aren't EO Only ;) But I do understand.

[December]

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. 

 

So how do you approach the study of history then?  Historian A says such and such a view of history is correct; Historian B disagrees and says this other view is the correct one.  They both use similar methods to reach their conclusions.  Do we throw our hands in the air and say, "History is a waste of time.  There is no way to even begin to evaluate their claims objectively since they both rely on historical texts to reach their conclusions so they must both be wrong?"

[TianXiaXueXiao]

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.

[milovany]

We have to be careful to not define him differently than he did, himself....

 

I think we also have to be just as careful not to disrupt the unity of the Trinity by having Christ and the Father working different purposes (one the wronged judge and one the redeemer/savior from the wronged judge's judgment).  To EO, that's what's happening with pure atonement theology. 

[JenniferB]

So how do you approach the study of history then? Historian A says such and such a view of history is correct; Historian B disagrees and says this other view is the correct one. They both use similar methods to reach their conclusions. Do we throw our hands in the air and say, "History is a waste of time. There is no way to even begin to evaluate their claims objectively since they both rely on historical texts to reach their conclusions so they must both be wrong?"

Sticking just to Orthodox Christian history only, since that is part of the holistic method of discerning truth we were discussing, our history is not just written, it's lived. We can read that icons have been venerated from the beginning of the faith but that's not all, we know they were because of living history. It's passed down from generation to generation. Grandma remembers her grandma and back and back. It's also part of the big picture...many layers of an onion so to speak.

[milovany]

So how do you approach the study of history then?  Historian A says such and such a view of history is correct; Historian B disagrees and says this other view is the correct one.  They both use similar methods to reach their conclusions.  Do we throw our hands in the air and say, "History is a waste of time.  There is no way to even begin to evaluate their claims objectively since they both rely on historical texts to reach their conclusions so they must both be wrong?"

 

Exactly.  Someone is right ... history did happen a certain way.  I actually got part of my push into Orthodoxy here on the Chat board, from secular people.  In talking about the Christian church, more than one, in a relatively short period of time, said something to the effect of "If any church has a valid claim to being the historical church, it's the Orthodox Church."  When I started seriously inquiring into the Orthodox faith, that stuck with me so I delved into that thought and what was meant by it.  Moving forward from Pentecost on, it seemed pretty clear to me that Orthodoxy is the faith of the original church -- the faith Christ taught the Holy Apostles and the faith they passed on to their disciples.  Not to say there are no other Christians or churches out there, no not at all, but there is an original, pure church because the Bible (and Holy Tradition!) says that the church would never end. If it ended right after the age of the apostles, Christ did a pretty crummy job of choosing and teaching the Apostles. 

[Guest]

 Personally, I think social groups are the place to have those 'safe' discussions with only like minded individuals. YMMV.

 

Sadie, I had decided before I read your post here that I would take my responses to the Exploring Orthodoxy social group.  

 

But I am honestly a little bit put off by this post because so many people have posted things like, 

 

"It's easy to put someone on ignore."

"Threads go down different rabbit trails; that's the way of a discussion board."

"If you don't like the direction a thread is going, don't read it."

"If you don't like what someone has to say (repeatedly), then don't go there."

 

So now, I don't get the "take it to a social group."   I don't see anyone *driving* this thread in an EO direction; it's just the way the discussion has gone.

 

As I have pointed out in about 35 threads, I am not a confrontational person, so this is *very brave* of me to post this.  LOL  

 

But I am still going to make my posts on the social group, as I had decided before your post.  My point is that I don't understand why the discrepancy with "open discussion" defenses as stated above.

[albeto.]

So how do you approach the study of history then?  Historian A says such and such a view of history is correct; Historian B disagrees and says this other view is the correct one.  They both use similar methods to reach their conclusions.  Do we throw our hands in the air and say, "History is a waste of time.  There is no way to even begin to evaluate their claims objectively since they both rely on historical texts to reach their conclusions so they must both be wrong?"

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Why not evaluate historical claims objectively? 

[JenniferB]

We can all respond in our own comfort zone. I'm fine responding here.

[Onceuponatime]

So how do you approach the study of history then? Historian A says such and such a view of history is correct; Historian B disagrees and says this other view is the correct one. They both use similar methods to reach their conclusions. Do we throw our hands in the air and say, "History is a waste of time. There is no way to even begin to evaluate their claims objectively since they both rely on historical texts to reach their conclusions so they must both be wrong?"

We do what everyone does, we either prefer one explanation over another or say "How interesting, I wonder what really happened." When there is no objective explanation, speculation within the available evidence is permissible, but not certitude. We don't say they must both be wrong because we don't know that either. For an atheist, not knowing the answer to a historical question is not a tragedy. Our well being doesn't ride on getting the answer right.

[JenniferB]

For an atheist, not knowing the answer to a historical question is not a tragedy. Our well being doesn't ride on getting the answer right.

Same for an EO. There are some questionable historical evidences that I sort of put on the "not so significant" burner because I look at the big picture. I like to zoom out...

[milovany]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Why not evaluate historical claims objectively? 

 

I took it as a rhetorical question. 

[Guest]

I read multiple histories of the same time frame.  It's interesting, and you see how each party views the world from its own lens.  

 

I learned this from my then-6yo who already understood that perspective accounts for a lot of what we see.  History "class" in our homeschool was *very interesting!"

 

The most boring history I have ever read (from any particular POV) is that which is written to try to prove a predetermined point of view.  I think the same can be said for other subject areas.

 

[albeto.]

I took it as a rhetorical question. 

 

I know my brain is simply constipated here, but I'm not sure what point she's making, even rhetorically. 

[mommaduck]

Those that are against iconography: how do you view St. Luke? Do you agree with his Gospel being part of Scripture or so you dismiss it? Do you believe he was a Christian or an idolator?

Bumping, because I noticed that the post I made right after was responded to, but this one, more to the subject line, was not.

[albeto.]

No, as far as Orthodox methods, as I said, they are holistic.  I know you said, "whatever that means," several times, and it seems that you are still equating our holistic method with one that is fragmented:  searching texts, study, and prayer.  I didn't even mention study and prayer in our method, those can be subjective.  Our method includes a living history of practice, continuity from the beginning of Christianity, councils and cannons (these aren't just texts, these meetings really took place and established doctrine which was lived out in the lives of Christians), etc.

 

Just to be clear, I know you didn't mention study and prayer in your method. I mentioned that. I did so because they are part of the process. If we focus only on searching texts, recognizing the reference of certain interpretations in historical rituals (ie, the sacraments as understood by orthodox or catholic traditions), then we still get stuck with regards to which interpretations can be assured to be more accurate against the mind and will of the god of the bible. As history shows, communities and individuals faced prosecution for deviation from orthodox or catholic interpretation, from excommunication to burning at the stake. This does not tell us the orthodox or catholic interpretation was "right," only that it was tolerated by those with the power to inflict punishment and provide rewards. 

 

So how does one decide which rituals were the accurate ones, which concepts were righteous, without an objective resource? By way of example, the councils and cannons and authors of authority ("fathers") contain things that are dismissed as being no longer indicative of the mind and will of the god of the bible (I'm thinking specifically of the antisemitism contained therein). I submit this judgement is done by virtue of holding any given idea accountable to the [continually evolving] moral code accepted by society. As this moral code continually rejects conserving old ways, and embraces a more liberal point of view (I'm talking over large periods of time, decades and centuries not one year to the next), I think we can see the religious sources are valued only insofar as they are acceptable by the population in general, lest they become irrelevant and dismissed altogether.

 

 

 

tl;dr: Your "continuity from the beginning" reflects the history of the legally accepted religious practices, not the accuracy of the theology against the mind and will of the god of the bible. To suggest others (such as Arctic Mama) are ignoring history is the mark of hubris, as it implies your church's history is the only one that has value or importance.

[Guest]

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 :)

 

 

I just lost 45 minutes of writing.  

Stupid cyberspace.  I'll try again.

[Guest]

tl;dr: Your "continuity from the beginning" reflects the history of the legally accepted religious practices, not the accuracy of the theology against the mind and will of the god of the bible. To suggest others (such as Arctic Mama) are ignoring history is the mark of hubris, as it implies your church's history is the only one that has value or importance.

 

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.  

 

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.  

[milovany]

I know my brain is simply constipated here, but I'm not sure what point she's making, even rhetorically. 

 

Well, heaven and the world both know I'm not a scholar by any means, but she said, "Do we throw our hands in the air and say, "History is a waste of time. There is no way to even begin to evaluate their claims objectively since they both rely on historical texts to reach their conclusions so they must both be wrong?" and I took it to mean, "History is not a waste of time.  We can evaluate claims objectively and come to a right understanding of the basics of what really happened."  We can firmly know quite a lot about history.  We know that Egypt had a boy king named Tutankhamun, that early Christians worshiped in the catacombs, that Jeanne d'Arc was burned at the stake, that David Livingston explored Africa, that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in World War II, etc. For me, there's a lot of stuff like that in studying church history and you can follow that "really happened" trail forward from Pentecost to find the early church still in existence today.  (I prefer moving forward from then rather than sitting here in the 21st century trying to figure out from my own understanding what really happened; I fully realize the mileage of others may vary.)

 

ETA -

And yes to Patty Joanna's post above.  It was humiliating to realize that I had very few answers even though I'd spent years fabricating lots of them based on my study and understanding of the Scriptures.  It's humility-inducing to stand in the church and say, "What I believe about this has been wrong. I'm going to have to change what I believe, even though I thought I knew what was real, because the Church (that has existed from the beginning) doesn't teach what I believed." 

 

It's no secret that the Orthodox Church sees itself as the original church (just like the Catholic Church sees itself in that position), so when that's implied or stated implicitly, it understandably can feel offensive to some.  We do tend to try to word things well and make it not a matter of pride, but just a matter of fact, especially here at WTM among fellow friends and homeschoolers. Unfortunately, I've seen forums where this is not the case. Most of us here I think try not to believe or say that there are no other Christians out there -- (in other words, if you're not Orthodox, you're not a true Christian).  I know I was a Christian before I was Orthodox.