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

[Guest]

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.

Duh? I've reiterated this several times above. I must be communicating poorly which reinforces I need to stop and exit (but I'm putting on makeup and couldn't help myself from responding).

 

Letters and councils are important to understand in the defining of what is and isn't orthodox belief for every branch of Christianity. That doesn't actually mean that everything decided by council is correct - that's my entire point? It ultimately needs to be consistent with scripture or it is unfounded - but the councils and writings of the various early fathers are very important, and not to be ignored just because a modern bishop, pastor, or priest is telling you what to believe.

 

That's why Arius and Pelagius lost their respective debates? Their ideas didn't line up with scripture and the majority of the early bishops agreed. That doesn't mean those theological inklings don't work their way back into modern theology (especially the latter). That's why going back to the bible matters. And that it is the highest authority on itself, especially on difficult doctrines.

 

Now I'm positive we are talking past each other. These are fundamentals to how to derive a systematic theology.

[Bluegoat]

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.

 

I always feel this is similar to the question of how God can create something real but separate from himself at all, which some people in other religious traditions find difficult to credit.

 

In the synergistic view, the ability to have that real will does ultimately still come from God, in the sense that he has gifted that to us.  But it's a real gift, he really gives us that ability as our own, just as he gives us a life of our own, even though he is its source.  We aren't just extensions of his life-force somehow.

 

What I can never understand about monergism is why God is able to give us our own being, life, and soul,and those are part of our nature as individuals,  but he cannot give us the ability to make a choice for the good as part of our own nature as individuals. Isn't that the substance of free will and what makes us like God?  The ability to love and will?

 

 

 

[TechWife]

 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.

 

Protestants (at least as far as I know) do not elevate Calvin, Luther or Wycliffe. Protestants, as a group, do not elevate the teachings of any one individual over the teachings of another. You will find individuals that do so, much like you will find individuals that will elevate the teachings of Douglas Wilson over other individuals and over the Bible itself. 

 

The teachings of those you mentioned are part of our church history. But, they are not the foundation upon which faith, or even the church, is built.  That foundation is the Word of God - the Bible.  Certainly people do read and study things others have written, but those writings are evaluated in light of the Bible. If they contradict, it is assumed that the person is wrong, not the Bible. When there are things we don't understand, it is part of our faith experience - learning to trust God and His character. When two (or more) people disagree on the interpretation of scripture, is is understood that at least one party to that conversation misunderstands something. There are many potential reasons for misunderstanding.  A wise protestant will realize we are all standing "on the shoulders" of those who have gone before us, that there was a recognized process of canonization and that the people who engaged in that work under God's direction and inspiration did an amazing thing for all of us. However, it is God who gets the credit for the work, not the people. In that respect, I don't understand it when people say "we have the Church to thank for the Bible." We have God to thank for the Bible - period. It is God who works in men's lives to do His pleasure. It is God who is responsible for the preservation of Holy Scripture. He was responsible before it was written, while it was being written and He is still responsible for it today. One of the ways He has preserved it, I believe, it to make it widely available. it isn't just available to those who heard it first hand, or to those who participated in the canonization process, or to those who have a particular position, or to those who have a  certain level of education. It is available to everyone. Because God has preserved it in written form, it can also be preserved orally. One cannot read what is only spoken, but one can speak what has been written, therefore it is available to all. This is why translation work is so important, because the Bible is for all people, not just a select group of people. However, should God choose to eliminate the written Scripture from the earth, the Word will still be with us because He is the Word. He doesn't depend on any of us for His truth to be made known. 

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 

[Bluegoat]

Duh? I've reiterated this several times above. I must be communicating poorly which reinforces I need to stop and exit (but I'm putting on makeup and couldn't help myself from responding).

 

Letters and councils are important to understand in the defining of what is and isn't orthodox belief for every branch of Christianity. That doesn't actually mean that everything decided by council is correct - that's my entire point? It ultimately needs to be consistent with scripture or it is unfounded - but the councils and writings of the various early fathers are very important, and not to be ignored just because a modern bishop, pastor, or priest is telling you what to believe.

 

That's why Arius and Pelagius lost their respective debates? Their ideas didn't line up with scripture and the majority of the early bishops agreed. That doesn't mean those theological inklings don't work their way back into modern theology (especially the latter). That's why going back to the bible matters. And that it is the highest authority on itself, especially on difficult doctrines.

 

Now I'm positive we are talking past each other. These are fundamentals to how to derive a systematic theology.

Don't respond till later, you don't want to go out looking odd!

 

I would say there is definitely a communication problem, because I did not gather this from your posts at all.

 

 I would say that when we look at this model, what we are seeing is that it isn't the councils or writings of the Fathers or the liturgical texts or even Scripture that is exercising the highest authority. It is the group or community that is making the decision - always they are deciding what is the correct context, the right interpretation, and this is true from the moment the Church first existed. 

[Guest]

Protestants (at least as far as I know) do not elevate Calvin, Luther or Wycliffe. Protestants, as a group, do not elevate the teachings of any one individual over the teachings of another. You will find individuals that do so, much like you will find individuals that will elevate the teachings of Douglas Wilson over other individuals and over the Bible itself.

 

The teachings of those you mentioned are part of our church history. But, they are not the foundation upon which faith, or even the church, is built. That foundation is the Word of God - the Bible. Certainly people do read and study things others have written, but those writings are evaluated in light of the Bible. If they contradict, it is assumed that the person is wrong, not the Bible. When there are things we don't understand, it is part of our faith experience - learning to trust God and His character. When two (or more) people disagree on the interpretation of scripture, is is understood that at least one party to that conversation misunderstands something. There are many potential reasons for misunderstanding. A wise protestant will realize we are all standing "on the shoulders" of those who have gone before us, that there was a recognized process of canonization and that the people who engaged in that work under God's direction and inspiration did an amazing thing for all of us. However, it is God who gets the credit for the work, not the people. In that respect, I don't understand it when people say "we have the Church to thank for the Bible." We have God to thank for the Bible - period. It is God who works in men's lives to do His pleasure. It is God who is responsible for the preservation of Holy Scripture. He was responsible before it was written, while it was being written and He is still responsible for it today. One of the ways He has preserved it, I believe, it to make it widely available. it isn't just available to those who heard it first hand, or to those who participated in the canonization process, or to those who have a particular position, or to those who have a certain level of education. It is available to everyone. Because God has preserved it in written form, it can also be preserved orally. One cannot read what is only spoken, but one can speak what has been written, therefore it is available to all. This is why translation work is so important, because the Bible is for all people, not just a select group of people. However, should God choose to eliminate the written Scripture from the earth, the Word will still be with us because He is the Word. He doesn't depend on any of us for His truth to be made known.

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

I'll just shut up, do my eyeliner, and let Tech Wife do the talking. This is an excellent post :)

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Are you asking me or just quoting me because it's a convenient  way to continue the conversation? I was just quoting you. I should have been explicit there.

 

 

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.

 

The verses I quoted upthread were to show that there is in fact Scriptural context for following Tradition but there is no Scriptural support for lone interpretation of Scripture or for abandoning traditions.

 

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.

 

I can see how looking at these verses alone could lend themselves to supporting the idea that one does not need Tradition or to be taught. I would point out (not to debate with you but for the sake of discussion) the context in which these verses were written. This letter is believed to be written during a time that many people had already started making their own interpretations of the Incarnation and Resurrection and gnosticism had already begun to flourish. The gnostics were coming to the Christians and telling them that communion with God was only a spiritual experience and did not require one to keep the tradition of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The gnostics were spreading doubt among these Christians who regularly commune (receive the Holy Gifts) and have Jesus "in them." John is encouraging these remaining Christians to stay true to the Faith that has been handed down and to keep the sacraments. In these verses, St. John is telling these Christians that they do not need to fear what they already have been taught is wrong. They don't need to to be taught different ideas. They have the Truth that was imparted to them in their Chrismation.

 

 

John 16: Unless I go away, the Advocate will 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. 

Again, I am not debating you, but I would like to share the Orthodox interpretation of these verses as they are extremely dear to the Church.

 

In the text leading up to these passages, Christ is telling his disciples of the things that are to come. He tells them that they will be hated and persecuted and sent out of the synagogues and killed because He has chosen them and they are not of the world. (John15:18-25) It is clear in these passages that Christ is speaking directly to his followers. He is not speaking to anyone who happens to hear his words. He has chosen his disciples and for that, they will suffer. He continues on to tell them that it is for their benefit that He is taken up, because that is the only way that He will be able to send the Advocate or Holy Spirit. He wants them to be unafraid and to trust Him that they will not be left alone to face the hardships that they will endure in His name. They will be comforted and guided by the Holy Spirit who will "glorify [Christ], for He will take of what is [Christ's] and declare it to [the disciples]." (John 16:14-15). He goes on to foreshadow His Death, Resurrection, and Ascension and to explain to His disciples saying, "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world, you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." (John 16:33) As we read a little while later, Jesus prays for the Apostles in John 17:6-19 and then he prays for the Church, saying "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." It should be clear that Christ is talking directly to and about His Apostles in these passages and that he is indeed ordaining Apostolic succession here. He will send the Holy Spirit to His Apostles on the day of Pentecost and they in turn will baptize all nations and instruct their disciples to keep the traditions that have been given them. We simply do not read these passages to mean that anyone who happens to see these words in print at some later date will be the receivers of the Holy Spirit, but only those who have been anointed through the "chosen" or disciples themselves. 

 

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.

 

Yes. As the Apostles traveled through the region spreading the Gospel and starting churches in different lands, they would show the Jews they encountered that Jesus Christ was indeed the Messiah that was written of and prophesied about in the Scriptures. At this time, the New Testament did not exist. The Scriptures means the Septuagint or the Old Testament "translated by the Seventy." Here, they are referring to the Berean Jews as being more "fair mineded" and ready to hear the Gospel and were actually reading the passages of the Septuagint that were being cited by the Apostles to see if the texts really read the way they were being told. Not every Jew was familiar with the Scripture passages that told of the coming of the Messiah and told of His sacrifice and resurrection, but the Bereans were more willing to accept the Word as they heard it from the Apostles than the Thessalonian Jews who stirred up the crowds and were intent on harming St. Paul. This passage was used to illustrate the different temperament of the Jews in Berea as compared to Thessalonica. The Jews from Thessalonica even came to Berea to stir up the crowds, causing St. Paul to flee. 

 

(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. Your contributions are helpful. Please continue to share. I hope you don't mind that I am responding with the Orthodox interpretations as feebly as I understand them. This is not done in a spirit of debate but in a spirit of sharing. Thank you!

 

 

 

[mommaduck]

Protestants (at least as far as I know) do not elevate Calvin, Luther or Wycliffe. Protestants, as a group, do not elevate the teachings of any one individual over the teachings of another. You will find individuals that do so, much like you will find individuals that will elevate the teachings of Douglas Wilson over other individuals and over the Bible itself.

 

The teachings of those you mentioned are part of our church history. But, they are not the foundation upon which faith, or even the church, is built. That foundation is the Word of God - the Bible. Certainly people do read and study things others have written, but those writings are evaluated in light of the Bible. If they contradict, it is assumed that the person is wrong, not the Bible. When there are things we don't understand, it is part of our faith experience - learning to trust God and His character. When two (or more) people disagree on the interpretation of scripture, is is understood that at least one party to that conversation misunderstands something. There are many potential reasons for misunderstanding. A wise protestant will realize we are all standing "on the shoulders" of those who have gone before us, that there was a recognized process of canonization and that the people who engaged in that work under God's direction and inspiration did an amazing thing for all of us. However, it is God who gets the credit for the work, not the people. In that respect, I don't understand it when people say "we have the Church to thank for the Bible." We have God to thank for the Bible - period. It is God who works in men's lives to do His pleasure. It is God who is responsible for the preservation of Holy Scripture. He was responsible before it was written, while it was being written and He is still responsible for it today. One of the ways He has preserved it, I believe, it to make it widely available. it isn't just available to those who heard it first hand, or to those who participated in the canonization process, or to those who have a particular position, or to those who have a certain level of education. It is available to everyone. Because God has preserved it in written form, it can also be preserved orally. One cannot read what is only spoken, but one can speak what has been written, therefore it is available to all. This is why translation work is so important, because the Bible is for all people, not just a select group of people. However, should God choose to eliminate the written Scripture from the earth, the Word will still be with us because He is the Word. He doesn't depend on any of us for His truth to be made known.

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

I think this is the thing of it though. Reformed (and I was Reformed...was even a moderator on a very well known Reformed board) trusted that God used the Councils on certain matters (those they agree with), but not the rest (those things they disagree with). In fact, Councils will be quoted at times and then dismissed as irrelevant at other times. You are picking and choosing...God used the Council for this, but that other was just their personal, and wrong, view. Or in the view of Canon...God used the Council to give the Canon, but we don't like the Deuterocanonicals, so that wasn't God. (Even the Reformers believed that the Deuterocanonicals were to be considered of excellent reading for spiritual nourishment, even though they did not hold them as the same value as the rest of Scripture).

 

Ftr, I agree that you do present the Reformed view well.

[TechWife]

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. 

 

Actually, Abraham was a Christian in the truest sense of the word. He didn't even have the law! He was reckoned righteous by faith. 

 

The universal church began in the time of Genesis - this is evident through reading the entire Bible, but most notably in Hebrews 11. It existed long before there was any organized Christian church (or Church, if you prefer). There are some protestants (known as dispensationalists) that believe the church began at the time of Christ. However, I can't find scriptural support for this relatively new viewpoint, whereas I find much support for the universal church beginning with the first that had faith in God. It should be noted here that I am using the common protestant definition of church: those that belong to the Lord. 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Protestants (at least as far as I know) do not elevate Calvin, Luther or Wycliffe. Protestants, as a group, do not elevate the teachings of any one individual over the teachings of another. And yet they are still following the *traditions* created by these men instead of Holy Tradition which has been passed down through Apostolic succession for 2 millennia. It does appear that they have elevated these men's ideas by choosing to follow the traditions that they instated.  You will find individuals that do so, much like you will find individuals that will elevate the teachings of Douglas Wilson over other individuals and over the Bible itself. 

 

The teachings of those you mentioned are part of our church history. But, they are not the foundation upon which faith, or even the church, is built.  That foundation is the Word of God - the Bible.  So here is a very important distinction. Do all Protestants believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Orthodox Christians maintain that Jesus Christ alone is the Word of God. The Bible contains the Revelation of God's Word from the beginning, but it is NOT the Word of God. Would you mind sharing how Protestants arrived at this conclusion that the Bible=The Word of God? If you truly only believe what is written in the Bible, where is it written that the Bible is the Word of God?

 

Certainly people do read and study things others have written, but those writings are evaluated in light of the Bible. If they contradict, it is assumed that the person is wrong, not the Bible. When there are things we don't understand, it is part of our faith experience - learning to trust God and His character. When two (or more) people disagree on the interpretation of scripture, is is understood that at least one party to that conversation misunderstands something. There are many potential reasons for misunderstanding.  A wise protestant will realize we are all standing "on the shoulders" of those who have gone before us, that there was a recognized process of canonization and that the people who engaged in that work under God's direction and inspiration did an amazing thing for all of us. However, it is God who gets the credit for the work, not the people. In that respect, I don't understand it when people say "we have the Church to thank for the Bible." We have God to thank for the Bible - period. It is God who works in men's lives to do His pleasure. It is God who is responsible for the preservation of Holy Scripture. He was responsible before it was written, while it was being written and He is still responsible for it today. One of the ways He has preserved it, I believe, it to make it widely available. it isn't just available to those who heard it first hand, or to those who participated in the canonization process, or to those who have a particular position, or to those who have a  certain level of education. It is available to everyone. Because God has preserved it in written form, it can also be preserved orally. One cannot read what is only spoken, but one can speak what has been written, therefore it is available to all. This is why translation work is so important, because the Bible is for all people, not just a select group of people. However, should God choose to eliminate the written Scripture from the earth, the Word will still be with us because He is the Word. He doesn't depend on any of us for His truth to be made known. 

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 Precisely.

 

 

[TechWife]

 

Ftr, I agree that you do present the Reformed view well.

 

Thank you, I appreciate this. But, I will say, this viewpoint isn't solely the purview of those who consider themselves to be in the reformed camp. It is a generally accepted viewpoint among all protestants. FWIW, I don't consider myself to be in that camp in the truest sense of the word. 

[TechWife]

I think this is the thing of it though. Reformed (and I was Reformed...was even a moderator on a very well known Reformed board) trusted that God used the Councils on certain matters (those they agree with), but not the rest (those things they disagree with). In fact, Councils will be quoted at times and then dismissed as irrelevant at other times. You are picking and choosing...God used the Council for this, but that other was just their personal, and wrong, view. Or in the view of Canon...God used the Council to give the Canon, but we don't like the Deuterocanonicals, so that wasn't God. (Even the Reformers believed that the Deuterocanonicals were to be considered of excellent reading for spiritual nourishment, even though they did not hold them as the same value as the rest of Scripture).

 

 

 

Oops, I should have included this in my other post. Sorry for the multiple posts on the same reply.

 

I actually am not picking and choosing. I'd actually have to study each individual council before I'd be willing to make a statement on each of them. I have done that in the past, but not recently enough that I feel comfortable addressing them either individually or as a group. My purpose here was to address canonization only.  I think, though, that it is worth noting that God uses people to accomplish His will and that His will is consistent throughout eternity. He has given us His word to use in order to help us discern what His will is. I do not believe that because one group of people understood His will and His teaching in any one matter  means that all groups of people (or individuals) will do the same on a different issue. I would put my rationale for that back to free will, somewhat, in that people still operate as individuals and are capable of believing and doing things that do not glorify Him.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Random thoughts on Tradition and tradition (not directed at anyone in particular!)

 

I don't see Tradition and Scripture in contradiction, I see them supporting one another. Yes, there are parts of Tradition that are not explicitly laid out in the Bible, but that is true for traditions found in all churches. For example--taken from churches I've attended in the past--3 or 4 praise songs, 2 or 3 worship songs, announcements, offering, sermon, altar call with the sinner's prayer (also not in the Bible.) Even churches that "don't have a tradition," well, that's a tradition too!

 

The question is...which traditions will I choose to follow, and where did they originate?

 

Fascinating discussion!

 

 

[Greta]

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.

 

TechWife, thank you for the correction and explanation. I can't claim to understand all of what you've said, but I'm working on it! :)

 

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.

That part I did understand. One of the few things! :)

[TechWife]

I'll just shut up, do my eyeliner, and let Tech Wife do the talking. This is an excellent post :)

 

Hilarious, but please do it on my behalf because I just missed my eyebrow waxing appointment because I was caught up in this thread. So if I give you, or anyone the "hairy eyeball" it is entirely unintentional! 

 

[Bluegoat]

And yet they are still following the *traditions* created by these men instead of Holy Tradition which has been passed down through Apostolic succession for 2 millennia. It does appear that they have elevated these men's ideas by choosing to follow the traditions that they instated.

 

I don't really fall into the Protestant camp as far as understanding Scripture, but I think this is  an unfair characterization.  Several people pointed out that these individuals are considered part of the tradition in Protestantism.  Just as your tradition did not stop at a particular point, there are many people we could name, from Polycarp to St Seraphim of Sarov.  There were many people within Orthdoxy who have looked at things in new ways, or addressed controversial questions, or dealt with corrupt institutions.  Traditional Protestant groups look at people like Luther or Calvin in the same way.

 

 

o here is a very important distinction. Do all Protestants believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Orthodox Christians maintain that Jesus Christ alone is the Word of God. The Bible contains the Revelation of God's Word from the beginning, but it is NOT the Word of God. Would you mind sharing how Protestants arrived at this conclusion that the Bible=The Word of God? If you truly only believe what is written in the Bible, where is it written that the Bible is the Word of God?

 

Among these traditional Protestants, no, they do not theink the Bible is the Word of God in the same way Christ is.  That would be considered bad theology.  It is something people get mixed up with though, especially if they haven't much background in theology - I think mostly because the wording can sound the same, if you can't see the "W" as opposed to the "w".  I have come across groups that actually do conflate the two, but they are generally very far out in their theology.

[mommaduck]

I was speaking in general, not you in particular. As a general rule, this is what it comes out to. How does one come to decide that they can trust the Councils on one or three matters, but not other matters, even within the same Council. If one is trusting that God is working through the Council, but not on all issues, how do you know which? Simply saying (you didn't, another did) that we would compare them to the Scriptures in the Canon, but only the parts of the Canon we accept, is contradictory, especially since it was those Councils that put the Canon together and, even then, the entire Canon they established is not being accepted. Anyhow, this might be leading into a subject that should be another thread. I need to sleep since I work tonight.

[mommaduck]

Double post

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Define "Word of God."  

 

:::runs away:::

 

I think I get why PJ wrote this. I was puzzled by it earlier on. I will ask the question I asked TechWife. Do all Protestants believe that The Bible is the Word of God? No wonder we are all talking at cross purposes! Major difference. Major. No wonder PJ ran away!  :laugh:

fixed typos

[TechWife]

Having difficulty quoting, so here is the context: 

 

I said: 

 

The teachings of those you mentioned are part of our church history. But, they are not the foundation upon which faith, or even the church, is built.  That foundation is the Word of God - the Bible.  

 

T.Wells said: 

So here is a very important distinction. Do all Protestants believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Orthodox Christians maintain that Jesus Christ alone is the Word of God. The Bible contains the Revelation of God's Word from the beginning, but it is NOT the Word of God. Would you mind sharing how Protestants arrived at this conclusion that the Bible=The Word of God? If you truly only believe what is written in the Bible, where is it written that the Bible is the Word of God?

 

It would have been much more accurate for me to  say that the Bible contains the word of God, and that the church is built on the person and work of God, including our redemption through faith in Christ. We believe the Word is God and is Jesus - as in "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." John 1:14

 

There are protestants who use the terminology that Bible=Word of God, but right now I am at a loss as to why, exactly, they do that. I think your distinction is an important one and one that I agree with. 

 

 

[TechWife]

I think I get why PJ wrote this. I was puzzled by it earlier on. I will ask the question I asked TechWife. Do all Protestants believe that The Bible is the Word of God? No wonder we are all talking at cross purposes! Major difference. Major. No wonder PJ ran away!  :laugh:

fixed typos

 

I have just discovered that I must wait two seconds between posts - I guess this goes along with the limit on "likes" somehow - quirky system! 

 

I think I answered this in your previous question, please let me know if I did not. 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

I was speaking in general, not you in particular. As a general rule, this is what it comes out to. How does one come to decide that they can trust the Councils on one or three matters, but not other matters, even within the same Council. If one is trusting that God is working through the Council, but not on all issues, how do you know which? Simply saying (you didn't, another did) that we would compare them to the Scriptures in the Canon, but only the parts of the Canon we accept, is contradictory, especially since it was those Councils that put the Canon together and, even then, the entire Canon they established is not being accepted. Anyhow, this might be leading into a subject that should be another thread. I need to sleep since I work tonight.

 

 

 

The reason which is less controversial is that many decisions by the councils weren't really theological but more pragmatic.  The reasoning for that decision may no longer really make sense.  But that it accepted everywhere as far as I know.

 

I think the best way to think about the second reason is, where would you be if it became evident to you that the hierarchy of the Church, its decision making bodies, were making some incorrect decisions.  They seemed obviously incompatible with Scripture, as well as exploitative or corrupt, and so on, and they seemed to be resistant to attempts at reform from within the Church?

 

If you were put in that position, it would call into question not only the leadership of the here and now, but the leadership of the past as well. 

 

The method the Reformers chose actually makes a lot of sense I think, which was to look at Scripture, which they were fairly sure at least had the same form as it always had, as a guide.  They also looked to some extent to their historical understanding.

 

[TechWife]

Another quoting issue, here is context: 

 

I said: 

Protestants (at least as far as I know) do not elevate Calvin, Luther or Wycliffe. Protestants, as a group, do not elevate the teachings of any one individual over the teachings of another. 

 

T. Wells responded: 

And yet they are still following the *traditions* created by these men instead of Holy Tradition which has been passed down through Apostolic succession for 2 millennia. It does appear that they have elevated these men's ideas by choosing to follow the traditions that they instated. 

 

My response to the response (how's that designation?): 

 

I am confused a bit and am thinking a clarification is in order before I go further. 

 

First, how are you defining "tradition?" Then, with your definition in mind,  what "traditions" do you see that these men created that protestants follow today? 

 

 

[Guest]

Having difficulty quoting, so here is the context:

 

I said:

 

The teachings of those you mentioned are part of our church history. But, they are not the foundation upon which faith, or even the church, is built. That foundation is the Word of God - the Bible.

 

T.Wells said:

So here is a very important distinction. Do all Protestants believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Orthodox Christians maintain that Jesus Christ alone is the Word of God. The Bible contains the Revelation of God's Word from the beginning, but it is NOT the Word of God. Would you mind sharing how Protestants arrived at this conclusion that the Bible=The Word of God? If you truly only believe what is written in the Bible, where is it written that the Bible is the Word of God?

 

It would have been much more accurate for me to say that the Bible contains the word of God, and that the church is built on the person and work of God, including our redemption through faith in Christ. We believe the Word is God and is Jesus - as in "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." John 1:14

 

There are protestants who use the terminology that Bible=Word of God, but right now I am at a loss as to why, exactly, they do that. I think your distinction is an important one and one that I agree with.

I'm eating before we run to piano but I can field that. We generally do it too indicate that we believe scripture to be inerrant, infallible, inspired revelation directly from the Holy Spirit through men. Therefore it is literally the words of God, given under inspiration.

 

But I agree that Jesus bears the specific title and position of the Word, so that could be seen as imprecise.

[Bluegoat]

 

 

There are protestants who use the terminology that Bible=Word of God, but right now I am at a loss as to why, exactly, they do that. I think your distinction is an important one and one that I agree with. 

 

There is some sense to this if you think that the words of the Bible were actually written quite directly from God's mouth.  So - the Word of God as in the logos is actually in some way related to the words in the Bible.  It makes for some interesting Christological constructs.

 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I don't really fall into the Protestant camp as far as understanding Scripture, but I think this is  an unfair characterization.  Several people pointed out that these individuals are considered part of the tradition in Protestantism.  Just as your tradition did not stop at a particular point, there are many people we could name, from Polycarp to St Seraphim of Sarov.  There were many people within Orthdoxy who have looked at things in new ways, or addressed controversial questions, or dealt with corrupt institutions.  Traditional Protestant groups look at people like Luther or Calvin in the same way. Okay. I think I get what you are saying and I am responding that it is still *tradition* just as you stated. It is Protestant Tradition which is set apart from Holy Tradition in that no consensus among these disparate groups of individuals is necessary to become dogmatic teaching in Protestant Tradition. In Orthodoxy we all have to be of one mind on anything that can be construed as "dogmatic" theology. We must have agreement on these points. There are areas that do not fall within dogma that leave room for different interpretations. Do Protestants have a way to agree on what is dogma? Thanks!

 

I apologize for doing this "bold  blue" thing again and again, but it is the best way for me to respond in text with quotes. I hope it is not annoying to people and I apologize if it is.

 

Among these traditional Protestants, no, they do not theink the Bible is the Word of God in the same way Christ is.  That would be considered bad theology.  It is something people get mixed up with though, especially if they haven't much background in theology - I think mostly because the wording can sound the same, if you can't see the "W" as opposed to the "w".  I have come across groups that actually do conflate the two, but they are generally very far out in their theology. So, they have to concepts that are both referred to as "The Word of God." The Bible is the Word of God and Christ is The Word of God. Correct? How do they substantiate the claim that the Bible is the Word of God? Thanks again.

 

 

 

[TechWife]

Oh, my, I just realized how long I've been reading and enjoying this discussion! I must go do some other things - will check in later. Great discussion! 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I'm eating before we run to piano but I can field that. We generally do it too indicate that we believe scripture to be inerrant, infallible, inspired revelation directly from the Holy Spirit through men. Therefore it is literally the words of God.

 

But I agree that Jesus bears the specific title and position of the Word, so that could be seen as imprecise.

 

Okay. Thank you. I am sorry to keep harping on that distinction while everyone was responding to my earlier questions. Thanks again.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Another quoting issue, here is context: 

 

I said: 

Protestants (at least as far as I know) do not elevate Calvin, Luther or Wycliffe. Protestants, as a group, do not elevate the teachings of any one individual over the teachings of another. 

 

T. Wells responded: 

And yet they are still following the *traditions* created by these men instead of Holy Tradition which has been passed down through Apostolic succession for 2 millennia. It does appear that they have elevated these men's ideas by choosing to follow the traditions that they instated. 

 

My response to the response (how's that designation?): 

 

I am confused a bit and am thinking a clarification is in order before I go further. 

 

First, how are you defining "tradition?" Then, with your definition in mind,  what "traditions" do you see that these men created that protestants follow today? 

 

I'm not T. Wells, but I have a few traditions (not necessarily from your church in particular, since I don't know which church you belong to) that I wonder about:

 

*grape juice and crackers for communion

*format of services: (I mentioned this above) praise songs, worship songs, announcements, collection, sermon, altar call

*the sinner's prayer

 

Those are just a few things that gave me pause many years ago, and aren't necessarily directly from Luther, Calvin, etc.

 

[mommaduck]

The reason which is less controversial is that many decisions by the councils weren't really theological but more pragmatic. The reasoning for that decision may no longer really make sense. But that it accepted everywhere as far as I know.

 

I think the best way to think about the second reason is, where would you be if it became evident to you that the hierarchy of the Church, its decision making bodies, were making some incorrect decisions. They seemed obviously incompatible with Scripture, as well as exploitative or corrupt, and so on, and they seemed to be resistant to attempts at reform from within the Church?

 

If you were put in that position, it would call into question not only the leadership of the here and now, but the leadership of the past as well.

 

The method the Reformers chose actually makes a lot of sense I think, which was to look at Scripture, which they were fairly sure at least had the same form as it always had, as a guide. They also looked to some extent to their historical understanding.

 

Then would it not also call into question the accuracy of the Canon?

[TechWife]

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.

 

This may be where my "not firmly in the reformed camp" belief system comes in, I think. 

 

The belief is not that there is a "switch," it is simply a belief that God, because He is omniscient, knows who will believe in Him and who will not believe in Him. All still have free will and all still have the capacity to believe, but God knows that not all will believe and He knows who will and will not believe, because He knows everything. His desire is still that all will believe. However, as Paul Harvey would say, He knows "the rest of the story." 

[mommaduck]

This may be where my "not firmly in the reformed camp" belief system comes in, I think.

 

The belief is not that there is a "switch," it is simply a belief that God, because He is omniscient, knows who will believe in Him and who will not believe in Him. All still have free will and all still have the capacity to believe, but God knows that not all will believe and He knows who will and will not believe, because He knows everything. His desire is still that all will believe. However, as Paul Harvey would say, He knows "the rest of the story."

Yes, that's the view of foreknowledge rather than the view of monergistic predestination.

[JenniferB]

Duh? I've reiterated this several times above. I must be communicating poorly which reinforces I need to stop and exit (but I'm putting on makeup and couldn't help myself from responding).

 

Letters and councils are important to understand in the defining of what is and isn't orthodox belief for every branch of Christianity. That doesn't actually mean that everything decided by council is correct - that's my entire point? It ultimately needs to be consistent with scripture or it is unfounded - but the councils and writings of the various early fathers are very important, and not to be ignored just because a modern bishop, pastor, or priest is telling you what to believe.

 

That's why Arius and Pelagius lost their respective debates? Their ideas didn't line up with scripture and the majority of the early bishops agreed. That doesn't mean those theological inklings don't work their way back into modern theology (especially the latter). That's why going back to the bible matters. And that it is the highest authority on itself, especially on difficult doctrines.

 

Now I'm positive we are talking past each other. These are fundamentals to how to derive a systematic theology.

 

I know you wanted to exit, but in case you come back, or if someone else would like to answer this question, please chime in.  My question is, where in the 7 Eccumenical Council decisions was a decision made that was unBiblical or in disharmony with the Scriptures?  I'm not asking as a matter of a gotcha, I really want to know what decisions are not Scriptural and also, what those Scriptures are that are in disharmony with the council decisions.

[Guest]

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. 

 

My experience with Christ is vastly different from what your experience is, at least according to the picture you paint here.  I'm not quite sure how the conversation went from choosing who will be one's teacher to being emotionally repressed, even a victim of Stockholm Syndrome.  Or that the basic assumption is that the gamble is all about getting something later for giving up something now.  It feels very much like we are talking past each other, or assuming an interest that doesn't exist (on both parts) and that's fruitless.  I never saw what was deleted as "personal attack", but the last thing I want to do is to be involved in a conversation that elicits that response from someone.  So maybe we had just better call it a day.  There are others better equipped than I to respond to the questions you pose.

 

Kind regards,

Patty Joanna

[TechWife]

I'm not T. Wells, but I have a few traditions (not necessarily from your church in particular, since I don't know which church you belong to) that I wonder about:

 

*grape juice and crackers for communion

*format of services: (I mentioned this above) praise songs, worship songs, announcements, collection, sermon, altar call

*the sinner's prayer

 

Those are just a few things that gave me pause many years ago, and aren't necessarily directly from Luther, Calvin, etc.

 

 

All of these are traditions of practice in some (not all) protestant churches. None of them are rooted in scripture that I have read and understood. 

 

However, the traditions do not have any authority in and of themselves, they are not sacred. We do not look to them for a definitive answer on the way things should be done. If they were to cease in practice today it would have no eternal effect on the faith of individuals. Just because one local church does things in a particular way doesn't mean another local church can't do them differently or that they always have to be done. I do want to clarify that is the use of grape juice and crackers in place of wine and bread tha I am addressing, not the practice of participating in communion itself. 

 

This is one of the reasons I am asking for some clarification on how EO people are using the word "tradition."    I think there may be a distinction between the tradition of practice (how things are done) and the tradition of belief (seeing a previous interpretation as authoritative in matters of faith) - weird wording, I know, but I can't figure out how else to word it. There is probably a better way to say it, but I'm not sure. I have more to learn about how others are using the word. In my former Catholic days, tradition was presented to me personally as "You don't have to worry about that, dear, tradition says xyz, therefore it is true/right." I don't purport to say that is how the Catholic church handles questions as a whole, but it is how my personal questions about faith were answered. Tradition was the Authority and was not to be questioned, even if only to try to understand what the basis of the Tradition was. 

[Bluegoat]

Okay. I think I get what you are saying and I am responding that it is still *tradition* just as you stated. It is Protestant Tradition which is set apart from Holy Tradition in that no consensus among these disparate groups of individuals is necessary to become dogmatic teaching in Protestant Tradition. In Orthodoxy we all have to be of one mind on anything that can be construed as "dogmatic" theology. We must have agreement on these points. There are areas that do not fall within dogma that leave room for different interpretations. Do Protestants have a way to agree on what is dogma? Thanks!

 

I apologize for doing this "bold  blue" thing again and again, but it is the best way for me to respond in text with quotes. I hope it is not annoying to people and I apologize if it is.

 

You can't think of all Protestantism as one thing - there is no "Protestant Tradition" in that sense.  To imagine that Lutherans and Baptists would share a Tradition is a bit like assuming that The EO and the OO, or the EO and Catholics, have the same tradition.  There are family resemblances, and you could tease out the relationships historically, but they are different.

 

From the standpoint of a Lutheran or Presbyterian, within their own tradition, looking back, they would see the same kind of consensus on dogmatic teachings that you see in Orthodox tradition.  Their ideas about what ought to be dogmatic might be of course be different. (But, even within Orthodoxy, there are many people who on one or several questions disagreed with the weight of tradition.  It's the whole that is really important.)

 

As far as how Protestants agree - it will depend a lot on which group you mean.  Often there is a council of some kind, possibly of all members but often of people who are elders, who tend to be elected among eligible people in the congregation.  These may represent the group at a higher level - typically, the higher the level of the issue, the higher it will go for decision making.  Some groups devolve decision making much further down than others, Baptists for example.  Non-denominational groups are the extreme and usually operate only within a single church.  Others like Lutherans are quite hierarchical and may even have priests and bishops.

 

As far as actually making the decision - groups like Baptists tend to stick very closely to what they consider Scriptural evidence.  I can't say much about that beyond that, but as you say there is obviously a tradition of interpretation they are working within, whether or not it is acknowledged.  A group like the Lutherans explicitly uses a Tradition - they are what is what is called Confessional - they have many of the fundamental understandings of Lutheran doctrine explicitly written out in documents that date from the early days of Lutheranism.  These, along with Scripture, are paramount, but they also will lean heavily on things like historical context.  (Quite a lot of the older Protestant groups are confessional, they came into being at a time when writing things down exactally was very popular.)  Always, though, decisions and practices are at the last held up against Scripture to discern whether they pass the test.  If not, they won't be considered doctrine.

 

Anglicans are considered Protestant by some - they have a collegial organization much like your Church does.  Controversies are decided at the appropriate level.  The paradigm for decision making is considered to be Tradition, Scripture, Reason - as a three-legged stool.  This system has had problems in recent years, though I think more due to execution than the form of the system itself, in particular changes in the understanding and content of Tradition.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Another quoting issue, here is context: 

 

I said: 

Protestants (at least as far as I know) do not elevate Calvin, Luther or Wycliffe. Protestants, as a group, do not elevate the teachings of any one individual over the teachings of another. 

 

T. Wells responded: 

And yet they are still following the *traditions* created by these men instead of Holy Tradition which has been passed down through Apostolic succession for 2 millennia. It does appear that they have elevated these men's ideas by choosing to follow the traditions that they instated. 

 

My response to the response (how's that designation?): 

 

I am confused a bit and am thinking a clarification is in order before I go further. 

 

First, how are you defining "tradition?" Then, with your definition in mind,  what "traditions" do you see that these men created that protestants follow today? 

 

My internet connection is very slow to load and reload so I am just now seeing your post.

 

Tradition means "that which has been handed down." The early reformers started the tradition of dismissing and deviating away from "Holy Tradition." According to Orthodox Wiki, Holy Tradition "is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction." 

 

The tradition of relying on the Holy Spirit outside of Holy Tradition for Scriptural interpretation is chief among the traditions started by the reformers. Any of the Five Solas doctrines would be considered traditions that were created by the reformers and are carried on by Protestants who follow those principles. The tradition of iconoclasm as practiced by Protestants was instated by Reformers. The tradition of non-liturgical worship as practiced by Protestants in a newer innovation that has become commonplace across many protestant groups. These are now traditions that many if not most protestants follow and they all deviate from Holy Tradition as defined above.

 

Does that make sense?

fixed typos

[TechWife]

Oh, my, I just realized how long I've been reading and enjoying this discussion! I must go do some other things - will check in later. Great discussion! 

 

This time for sure! 

[Bluegoat]

Then would it not also call into question the accuracy of the Canon?

 

Potentially, yes, they shortened it, after all.

 

Which in a way makes sense, because they knew that Scripture has always been understood hierarchically, and the canon had fuzzy edges, so if you are going to make Scripture the center of your system, you want to make those lines as clean as possible.

 

I think in modern times, we look at some Protestant groups and they seem naive about this.  But the Reformers weren't - they knew quite well that the canon was set by the community, and that the system depended on the Holy Spirit working through the community.  But the Scriptures seemed much less likely to be unconsciously changed or purposefully manipulated without others realizing what was going on, which they saw as a problem with relying only on the hierarchy.

 

Personally, I would tend to argue that this was actually a problem with the centralization of power and loss of a collegial model, and excessive clericalism.  I think they saw that aspect as well and tried to reform it, but I think it must have been a pretty daunting task.

[Guest]

All of these are traditions of practice in some (not all) protestant churches. None of them are rooted in scripture that I have read and understood. 

 

However, the traditions do not have any authority in and of themselves, they are not sacred. We do not look to them for a definitive answer on the way things should be done. If they were to cease in practice today it would have no eternal effect on the faith of individuals. Just because one local church does things in a particular way doesn't mean another local church can't do them differently or that they always have to be done. I do want to clarify that is the use of grape juice and crackers in place of wine and bread tha I am addressing, not the practice of participating in communion itself. 

 

This is one of the reasons I am asking for some clarification on how EO people are using the word "tradition."    I think there may be a distinction between the tradition of practice (how things are done) and the tradition of belief (seeing a previous interpretation as authoritative in matters of faith) - weird wording, I know, but I can't figure out how else to word it. There is probably a better way to say it, but I'm not sure. I have more to learn about how others are using the word. In my former Catholic days, tradition was presented to me personally as "You don't have to worry about that, dear, tradition says xyz, therefore it is true/right." I don't purport to say that is how the Catholic church handles questions as a whole, but it is how my personal questions about faith were answered. Tradition was the Authority and was not to be questioned, even if only to try to understand what the basis of the Tradition was. 

 

Dear TechWife,

 

I would not have been happy with that answer re: Tradition, either!  

 

In Orthodoxy, tradition is "that which has been handed down from one to the next in faithful apostolic teaching."  

 

Before I go any further, I would like to point out that there are "Big T" and "Little t" traditions.  Dogma (defined as "that which must be believed") is Big T.  The Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed covers most of the Big T traditions.  An example of a "little t" would be, oh, say, headcoverings for women.  Some parishes do, some don't.  Some feel VERY STRONGLY about their position...but that doesn't make it a Big T.  In some parishes, after the faithful partake of communion, there will be both blessed wine and blessed bread to make sure that the eucharistic gifts are fully consumed.  But some parishes (gasp) will have only the blessed bread!  Little t.  But wine, water, leavened bread--BigT--because of what they teach us about Christ and for other reasons. 

 

The other thing I want to say about Tradition as it relates to Theology in the Orthodox Church is that the Orthodox do theology in a different way from the West.  In my background, we had catechisms that explained and expounded upon all the points of dogma and doctrine until the puzzle was completed,all the pieces interconnected.  Orthodox theology is more like building a fence around a set of teachings...kind of like, "stay within these bounds--but there's room for flexibility within them" at least on some issues.  People hold different theological positions on things within those boundaries, but they are recognized as opinions, and therefore "little t."  

 

I was thinking about this earlier today and if I can still remember to do so, I will try to post about the Washing Machine.  :0)  It's an analogy I'm working on.  Of course it will fail because that's what analogies do, but it might help.  

 

I'm not 100% sure of myself on this statement that I'm about to make, but I will throw it out there and see what other EO posters have to say to correct or affirm me--either is welcome.  Here goes:  I'm pretty sure that Orthodoxy is incompatible with Systematic Theology.  There.  

 

:::going to Costco somebody pinch me:::

[Bluegoat]

 

So, they have to concepts that are both referred to as "The Word of God." The Bible is the Word of God and Christ is The Word of God. Correct? How do they substantiate the claim that the Bible is the Word of God? Thanks again.

 

As far as this goes, often, it isn't really done in a conscious way.  It's just an error that people make.  The idea that the Bible is "the word of God" is really just saying it is special revelation, in a way that other texts aren't.  But there are some people who think of the Bible as almost literally being written by God controlling a writer's hand or whispering in his ear.  So, it seems to make sense that it is God's word in some special way, different and more powerful than our words.

 

A lot of people don't have any experience with the idea of the logos, so they have an unclear idea about what it means to say Christ is the Word of God.

 

There are lots of people in all faith traditions that don't have the opportunity to learn much about theology.

 

 

[mommaduck]

 

The other thing I want to say about Tradition as it relates to Theology in the Orthodox Church is that the Orthodox do theology in a different way from the West. In my background, we had catechisms that explained and expounded upon all the points of dogma and doctrine until the puzzle was completed,all the pieces interconnected. Orthodox theology is more like building a fence around a set of teachings...kind of like, "stay within these bounds--but there's room for flexibility within them" at least on some issues. People hold different theological positions on things within those boundaries, but they are recognized as opinions, and therefore "little t."

 

This is why I was also curious about what catechism the Greek EO coworker of Arctic Mama's was using, because there really isn't any in the sense that there is with the various Reformed and Catholics.

[HRAAB]

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...?)

 

Neither my brain nor my internet connection (which is being really wonky right now) will let me keep up with this conversation, but I wanted to thank you for your response along with the links Mrs. A posted.  Also, it reminded me of an activity I did with my girls many years ago.  We were talking about being created in the image of God, and we ended up making a mirror out of tin foil which presented a rather distorted image.  We were created in the image of God but it's been messed up.  I never aligned with 'total depravity', but I'm beginning to see that I didn't understand that either.  Interesting conversation.

[Mrs. A]

It's nice of you to take the time to talk with me

I like that you said this. I've always noticed how you are respectful of others in conversations (here and in other threads) and I do always look forward to reading your thoughts when I see that you've posted in a thread. That's all. Totally off topic but I just wanted to let you know. :)

[Guest]

I know you wanted to exit, but in case you come back, or if someone else would like to answer this question, please chime in. My question is, where in the 7 Eccumenical Council decisions was a decision made that was unBiblical or in disharmony with the Scriptures? I'm not asking as a matter of a gotcha, I really want to know what decisions are not Scriptural and also, what those Scriptures are that are in disharmony with the council decisions.

I have agreement and disagreement with several of the councils, and it is such a vast topic that it is beyond the scope of this discussion to handle rightly. I'm on board with the first four councils. I have neither time or inclination to touch any of them with a ten foot pole in an open public forum. If there is a particular doctrine you'd like my opinion on I'll give it, though :)

[Bluegoat]

It's nice of you to take the time to talk with me. 

 

I still think you fail to make the distinction between evolution as explanation and evolution as moral ground. The videos albeto linked a few pages back address the issue of why, from an evolutionary pov, we are not all running around killing each other but prize co-operation and altruism. 

 

I don't see a paradox. There are many aspects to our behaviour and cognition that we have only partial or no conscious access to. 

 

I don't follow your leap to the suggestion of (an inaccessible) moral Truth. In the historical record, it's virtually impossible to establish even one truth that has been accepted by all and endured. Our truths change as we change. 

 

I might be prepared to accept the suggestion of multiple moral truths, influenced by evolution and by culture, themselves evolving as individuals and societies do :)

 

But we are running around and killing each other.  It can be a very successful strategy to propagate your DNA.  Both cooperation and aggression are good strategies, and that is why we find all of those instincts present within us.  Kill the men, rape the women, and bring the children back as slaves is pretty darn effective, and it is everywhere in history.  Typically instincts work best for quite small social groups - a clan or tribe, people we are probably related to.  Modern social organization is too new to be accounted for in our instinctual responses.  We favour our own DNA  and will cultivate that of those who could help us - the DNA of some person we are in competition with is more effectively removed.

 

I don't think I used the word inaccessible for moral good, as clearly we can access it in some way.  I said it can't be the product of our biology, if we think that it can criticize our rank our biological impulses on moral grounds.  If our biology tells us what is good, then there is no moral force to an argument of cooperation over domination, for example.  The rich exploiting the poor might be unwise, we might not like it if we were poor, but it is nothing to get irate about, it is simply an apparently successful survival strategy.  We might recognize that our particular biological make-up gives us a feeling of discomfort about it, but being intelligent we would also realize that other people find it satisfying.

 

It would really be no different than observing the social behavior of other animals that live in groups.

 

The paradox is not that we do not have access to parts of ourselves.  It is that we claim an objective measure when we seem to be entirely subjective beings.  We can recognize it as an illusion and then indulge it in ourselves, always keeping in mind others might choose to indulge a different set of instincts, or recognize it as an illusion and reject it and see all behavior as without moral consequence.  But if we want to maintain that some things really are wrong, we are stuck with an objective measure.

 

I don't think the idea of one or several truths is really an issue.  We understand intuitivly why all the laws of physics cannot be contradictory, and that really they must all be related as a whole.  The same is true of the rules of logic, and the same would be true of moral truths.  Most of the time though we experience these from a subjective viewpoint, so they seem to have many forms. 

[Btervet]

I don't think I used the word inaccessible for moral good, as clearly we can access it in some way.  I said it can't be the product of our biology, if we think that it can criticize our rank our biological impulses on moral grounds.  If our biology tells us what is good, then there is no moral force to an argument of cooperation over domination, for example.  The rich exploiting the poor might be unwise, we might not like it if we were poor, but it is nothing to get irate about, it is simply an apparently successful survival strategy.  We might recognize that our particular biological make-up gives us a feeling of discomfort about it, but being intelligent we would also realize that other people find it satisfying.

 

....

 

I don't think the idea of one or several truths is really an issue.  We understand intuitivly why all the laws of physics cannot be contradictory, and that really they must all be related as a whole.  The same is true of the rules of logic, and the same would be true of moral truths.  Most of the time though we experience these from a subjective viewpoint, so they seem to have many forms. 

 

I don't want to speak for others, but I believe this is a misrepresentation of the idea that our morals are a product of biology.

 

Biology doesn't tell us what is good - as if there was a Good out there that biology clued us in on.

 

Biology, via evolution, created a brain that was able to create complex ideals such as good and evil. Those brains formed in social beings, so the ideals are shared among cultures. But different cultures, and different people with different brains, can certainly find different rules for morality.

 

All the people I know who don't look to a higher power to help them determine what is right or moral understand that our brains have created the concept of good and moral. It isn't as though evolution was all "Hey, lets let the humans start to see the big good/evil chart" but rather as a byproduct of evolution we have brains that can formulate these ideas. Evolution is an explanation as to how we can create morals, it is not the rule book. It is even entirely possible that the morals we humans have created may be counterproductive to our evolutionary success.

 

At least that is how this secular humanist understands things. I don't see why there can't be different moral truths, as the whole is full of people with different brains and cultures with different values and traditions. (I am not implying that I value all traditions equally, just that obviously the world does include many varieties.)

[JenniferB]

I have agreement and disagreement with several of the councils, and it is such a vast topic that it is beyond the scope of this discussion to handle rightly. I'm on board with the first four councils. I have neither time or inclination to touch any of them with a ten foot pole in an open public forum. If there is a particular doctrine you'd like my opinion on I'll give it, though :)

Yes please, I would like to know what study of Scripture could lead you to disagree with councils 5-7. Below are the main points concluded in councils 5-7:

 

5. Constantinople II 553 Reconfirmed the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ

 

6. Constantinople III 680 Affirmed the True Humanity of Jesus by insisting upon the reality of His human will and action

 

7. Nicea II 787 Affirmed the propriety of icons as genuine expressions of the Christian Faith

 

^^ Copied from: http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/sources-of-christian-doctrine/the-councils

[Guest]

Nope. Not getting into the councils, as I already said. Nice try though :)

 

It sounds like we are done here, then.

 

(I'll assent to the fifth and sixth in how they modify and compliment the first four, and no further. Those were dealing with specific regional politics and have zero interest for me in this forum. The seventh I am strongly opposed, as this thread has dealt with. I won't go so far as to completely condemn the practice as heretical, as I can see a case for certain individual practitioners not moving into idolatry in the observation, but that's as far as I can go in good conscience.)

[JenniferB]

We generally do it too indicate that we believe scripture to be inerrant, infallible, inspired revelation directly from the Holy Spirit through men. Therefore it is literally the words of God, given under inspiration.

I am starting a whole new spin off thread to discuss the Bible.

 

Please join in if in your free will this is something you are compelled to do.

 

I invite everyone who contributed (or lurked) here to continue the convo in a new thread dedicated to the discussion of the Bible.

[JenniferB]

Nope. Not getting into the councils, as I already said. Nice try though :)

 

It sounds like we are done here, then.

I'm sorry you got me wrong here. I'm not "trying" anything. I was taking you up on your offer, copied here:

 

"If there is a particular doctrine you'd like my opinion on I'll give it, though :)"

 

If you changed your mind, that's ok. I can live with that. Though I was looking forward to your articulate Scripture based response, as offered. :(

 

Oh well. Moving on...