OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 07:17:23 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Christian Unity  (Read 11398 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #45 on: December 13, 2009, 09:28:18 AM »

You can't be a heretic and "right with God."

Whilst expressing neither agreement nor disagreement, I should like to make two comments:

1) First, I should like to give an illustration (preachers do this!). I am told that one test of insanity is not to know who the Prime Minister is. Thus, the day Margaret Thatcher fell from power and was replaced by a relative non-entity (politically speaking), technically a considerable number of people went mad.

2) It depends what is meant by "a heretic". It comes over as if you are placing huge emphasis on formal assent to a set of doctrines. The Athanasian Creed in my Prayer Book runs from pages 27-30. It ends with, "This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved." The trouble is, it is virtually incomprehensible.

Like the people who technically went mad after the fall of Margaret Thatcher, so it seems that a good number of people have become heretical only after certain councils or other decrees. Before that, they were deemed part of the Church; afterwards, they were deemed heretics. Did they suddenly become unsaved? (That question is asked 'tongue in cheek', but it illuminates my point.)

You just prove the point of the importance on communing with the right Church. Ariansim, for instance, was never acceptable in the Church. Nicea I did not make it unacceptable, it just made the bishops have to formally decide which side they were on. Thatcher was no longer Prime Minister, John Major was (and didn't do too bad for a high school drop out), but the average British subject still remained British.  The question would assume relevance only if Thatcher refused to step down and started a civil war.  Then you b-y well had better known who the PM was.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #46 on: December 13, 2009, 05:24:33 PM »

I seem to have made myself misunderstood. I heartily agree with the laying-on of hands, which indeed happened to me when I was appointed to a pastorate in 1983 (before shifting later to full-time Albanian work). This we practise; what I said is debatable is the unbroken succession called 'apostolic succession'. I said that this is not mentioned in scripture, nor proven historically. I am aware that it is believed as part of Holy Tradition. I have not said that such a system of church government invalidates your churches.

We do not claim that the congregational system we practise is what constitutes a valid church, though we do believe it is correct, and is a return to the NT pattern (minus, of course, the Apostles, who have forever passed from the scene); but I believe you make that claim for apostolic succession, bishops (in today's sense), priests and sacraments administered by priests.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #47 on: December 13, 2009, 05:45:10 PM »

a) All I can say is, that it seems to us that every time the Gk words for "bishop, elder, overseer" are used in Acts and in the Epistles, the reference is to a single local church. One can easily get a concordance and check that up, but I am persuaded that such is the case. A bishop did not have a wider diocese.

Yes, because the Bishop is local. Also, in the Book of Acts it was initially a one to one ratio. But as we also see in the Book of Acts (Chapter 6), the duties of the Bishop became so great, that they then ordained Deacons to administer the sacraments so the Bishops could travel and preach the Gospel. So as the Church grew, the role of the Bishop grew as well.

b) The answer to b) is really the same as my reply to a).

I find it interesting that between the two of us, you come from a sola scriptura background, yet I am the one whose posts are littered with scripture verses, yet yours are far and few in between.

c) I am glad that you can concede that you know better - but it may be that others do not know better. If inadvertently and clumsily I am giving that impression, it is better if I withdraw from the Forum. I am tempted to quote my favourite monk and write "Opto ut valeas in domino omnipotenti jugiter". It would be sincere.

I'm sorry, but I'm not fluent in Latin. Would you mind translating?

Also, I hope you don't leave, as I do enjoy your posts. (Even if I don't agree with you most of the time. Wink )

d) You are almost asking for the impossible, for my point is that your teachings are not mentioned, either affirmed or gainsaid, in most early writings, though I know you can quote Ignatius.

I asked you to use scripture or writings from the Early Church Fathers. I have provided plenty of quotes showing that our beliefs are found in scripture, so how can you claim that they are not? Furthermore, the ECF's extend beyond just Ignatius. You just choose to ignore the rest.

e) I could point to Didache 15: "You must elect for yourselves bishops and deacons." Bishops were elected by the local church, not appointed by an unbroken chain of apostolic laying-on of hands.

Our Bishops are elected and then they have the laying of hands when they are ordained. So once again, another Orthodox belief supported by scripture. How shocking.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #48 on: December 13, 2009, 06:09:03 PM »

I seem to have made myself misunderstood. I heartily agree with the laying-on of hands, which indeed happened to me when I was appointed to a pastorate in 1983 (before shifting later to full-time Albanian work). This we practise; what I said is debatable is the unbroken succession called 'apostolic succession'. I said that this is not mentioned in scripture,

Your Bible must be missing Titus and Timothy, and the account of St. Paul's ordination in Acts and the selection of St. Mathias to replace Judas. There's also the issue of being more explicit as the Apostles whom the bishops succeeded were still around while they were writing Scripture.


Quote
nor proven historically.

It is mentioned from the writers who new the Apostles onward.

Quote
I am aware that it is believed as part of Holy Tradition. I have not said that such a system of church government invalidates your churches.

LOL.  I was sooooo worred.



Quote
We do not claim that the congregational system we practise is what constitutes a valid church, though we do believe it is correct, and is a return to the NT pattern

Though it is not found in the NT


Quote
(minus, of course, the Apostles, who have forever passed from the scene); but I believe you make that claim for apostolic succession, bishops (in today's sense), priests and sacraments administered by priests.

In the narrow sense, Apostle succession flows through the line of bishops, but hanging on that is the fact that the Orthodox Church of today can point to those in every generation from the time of the Apostles to today who would be able to commune in our Church.  You cannot.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2009, 11:58:24 PM »

nor proven historically.

It is mentioned from the writers who new the Apostles onward

For example:

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about"

St. Irenaeus Against Heresies   A.D. 189
« Last Edit: December 13, 2009, 11:58:46 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,440



WWW
« Reply #50 on: December 14, 2009, 01:37:49 AM »

Quote
In the narrow sense, Apostle succession flows through the line of bishops, but hanging on that is the fact that the Orthodox Church of today can point to those in every generation from the time of the Apostles to today who would be able to commune in our Church.  You cannot.

Well, there is always Landmarkism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism  Wink
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,391


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 14, 2009, 03:55:46 AM »

I think of the Scripture where St. Paul admonishes, "As far at it depends upon you, be at peace with all men." [Romans 12:18]

Some people do not want peace or unity. Others try to establish peace and unity by compromising vital Christian doctrines. It is difficult, and I have been struggling with this in my dealings with my Fundamentalist Baptist brother-in-law.

I was wondering what others think of the famous ecumenical maxim: "In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity." This appears like a good ideal, but the problem seems to be the issue of "essentials." What are the essenstials? What do we do when Christians differ on the definition of the "essentials?"

As a non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Christian, I have strong convictions about the Christological doctrine of my Tewhedo Faith. But I also recognize that - IMHO - my EO brethren essentially believe the same thing that we do in regard to the nature of Our Lord. Both Churches teach that Christ is fully God and fully man without separation, division, or confusion. Therefore, I do not see this as an issue which should cause me to loook upon my EO brothers and sisters as heretics or heterodox.

I continue to emphasize to my brother-in-law that we both worship Christ, the Holy Trinity, and believe that salvation comes through the Cross and grace of Christ. But he seems to still question my "salvation." He indicates that our theological differences are too great for us to establish true Christian fellowship and friendship. I am saddened by this, and even angry. Here is someone who is a pastor preaching unOrthodox doctrines, and yet I am willing to focus on what we do share- which is Christ. I restrain my Orthodox zeal for the sake of peace and friendship with him, and yet he refuses to even entertain theological discussions when they arise. He either leaves the room or accuses me of trying to force my opinions on him. Yet, ironically, he is usually the one that initiates the discussion.

In trying to bring us closer together, I attempt to show him that I love him and desire his friendship and fellowship. I tell him that I can learn much from him, and that I think he may even be able to learn something from me. I tell him that as Christians we should sharpen one another, "as iron sharpens iron..."  

A few days ago I invited him out for coffee. We had a pleasant and honest talk about our relationship. I feel it went well, although I'm still not sure if he truly views me as a brother in Christ. I think we were both concerned that each was trying to indoctrinate the other's children. I know that I was certainly concerned, and he admitted that he felt the same way. So we promised each other that we would never attempt to do such a thing. I think we feel much better about that issue now.  

Anyway, Christian unity is sadly a difficult thing to achieve. I guess Our Lord knew that we would be challenged by this, and therefore He prayed so powerfully on our behalf. The blessing is that since He prayed for us, we can have confidence that His will shall be done. So, we just have to coninutally strive to make it a reality as much as it dependeth upon us.

This discussion board clearly discloses that Christian unity is a difficult thing to achieve. I myself am guilty of placing zeal before love, and justifying my abrasive tenor by claiming that I'm upholding the Truth. But I guess love is the greatest Truth; and therefore if I am zealous for Truth I must be zealous for love. Does that make any sense?

OK, that's my two cents. Sorry for rambling. Embarrassed


Selam
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 03:58:30 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #52 on: December 14, 2009, 06:02:29 AM »

"Opto ut valeas in domino omnipotenti jugiter".
Would you mind translating?

...Ignatius. You just choose to ignore the rest.

Think of the word valediction - "saying vale". It is used to mean "Goodbye", which is why missionaries have a valedictory service when they leave for the field. It literally means "Prosper!" So Ælfric's way of closing correspondence means "I wish that you may always prosper in the Almighty Lord." As I wrote, it would be sincere. (You may have gathered that Ælfric, novice master at Cerne Abbas, and later abbot at Eynsham, is one of my heroes of the Faith. I even have a picture (not an icon!) of him on my office wall: well, not exactly, but they fed into a computer photos of all the male faces of the area, and produced the typical male face for that place. But I'm rambling off the point now...)

I didn't ignore writers later than Ignatius. I opted for him, the Didache and Clement of Rome because they are the earliest. The longer things go on, the more they develop, which is why I made no reference to later writers.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 06:03:18 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #53 on: December 17, 2009, 08:24:00 PM »

I didn't ignore writers later than Ignatius. I opted for him, the Didache and Clement of Rome because they are the earliest. The longer things go on, the more they develop, which is why I made no reference to later writers.

I just can't help feeling like I live in backwards land now.  Or at the least the Twilight Zone!  Is someone trying to Gaslight me?Huh  What am I missing?  Does anyone else see the utter ridiculousness of this (no offense, David)?

This idea of "development" is hilarious to me (and not in a good way)!  You have such a problem with what you perceive to be development in Orthodoxy, yet the obvious development within your own faith (which strays so far from what had been believed from the beginning of Christianity as to be almost unrecognizable) you have no issues with!  We can even point to the dates and people who developed the innovations in your theology!  Yet you have such issues with Orthodoxy for what you perceive might be developments in the first 30-60 years of Christianity!  I just can't take this seriously, I'm sorry.

 Grin
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #54 on: December 18, 2009, 07:21:43 AM »

We can even point to the dates and people who developed the innovations in your theology! 

What innovations? Point to me something in my beliefs which contradicts scripture, and I shall abandon it as a mistake.

Quote
Grin

You look much nicer without the teeth.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,437



« Reply #55 on: December 18, 2009, 10:15:37 AM »

We can even point to the dates and people who developed the innovations in your theology!  

What innovations? Point to me something in my beliefs which contradicts scripture, and I shall abandon it as a mistake.



Okey dokey. What about no infant baptism? Or that the Lord's Supper is a remembrance and the bread and wine are not His Body and Blood. Or Bishops?
I could probably think of more if I were more familiar with Baptist theology, but these are the ones that come to mind.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 10:15:51 AM by katherineofdixie » Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #56 on: December 18, 2009, 10:43:58 AM »

infant baptism... the Lord's Supper... Bishops... probably think of more

The first is, on your side, an argument from silence: there is no instance of it in scripture.

The second is a matter of interpretation. I have written at length on this, but I think it was on the Private Forum, as I felt the matter is too sacred to become a matter of strife between us.

The third I wrote of either a few posts further up, or very recently on a different thread: we do believe in bishops, but we believe each bishop has authority only over one local church. Again, as with baptism, there is no example of your sort of bishop in the scriptures. You are probably including apostolic succession through the laying-on of the apostles' and thereafter of episcopal hands, which again is your way of appointing clergy and may or may not express a historical reality, but is not laid down in scripture as the permanent manner by which the clergy must be appointed.

To be honest, I guess on all these we are really back to the question of 'sola scriptura' or Holy Tradition (including scripture). Otherwise we'd go round and round in circles, me saying "the Bible means this" and you saying "No, the Bible means this." I see it as a matter of where we repose our faith: do we trust the Bible as sufficient and authoritative, or do we trust Holy Tradition (which, I know, includes the Bible)? This of course is also something we have explored together at length over the months (it is becoming years!), and neither your position nor ours can be established beyond gainsaying by philosophy or logic: it must be a matter of faith. We cannot go beyond that, but at that point some of you start calling us our own popes, because we have not rested our faith in the teachings of your Church regarding Tradition.

And in case we don't communicate again before, let me wish you in Dixie a richly blessed Christmas and an equally blessed, and prosperous, 2010.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 10:50:21 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,437



« Reply #57 on: December 18, 2009, 11:44:13 AM »

Quote from: David Young link=topic=24785.msg387465#msg387465
Otherwise we'd go round and round in circles, me saying "the Bible means this" and you saying "No, the Bible means this." I see it as a matter of where we repose our faith: do we trust the Bible as sufficient and authoritative, or do we trust Holy Tradition (which, I know, includes the Bible)?

Yep, that's it. When sincere Christians disagree on a matter of interpretation of Scripture, how is this resolved? (The Protestant model is, of course, to form a new denomination).

Your dichotomy Bible vs. Holy Tradition is false, as I believe you see, since you understand that Holy Tradition includes the Bible. You certainly know by now, after all our conversations, that Orthodox Christians most certainly do repose our faith in the Bible.

What we do not repose our faith in is anyone's personal individual interpretation of the Bible.

OTOH, you do. Your elevate your own personal individual interpretation of Scripture and repose your faith in that. (using the general "you" and not the personal "you", you understand!)

P.S. Y'all have a Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year!
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 11:44:31 AM by katherineofdixie » Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #58 on: December 18, 2009, 12:06:07 PM »



What innovations? Point to me something in my beliefs which contradicts scripture, and I shall abandon it as a mistake.



Herein lies the problem, I believe. I can see the heretics of the first and second century making similar types of statements.  (I'm not name calling here, just using an example).  Wink They often did point to scripture in an effort to "prove" their doctrines, and to the unassuming eye, they may have made alot of sense.  (This is why JW's and the like have so much success when they go door to door; they are very well trained to twist particular verses and present their cases convincingly to those who don't know any better.)

The key problem then is interpretation and context!  The heretics were trying to interpret these scriptural passages to mean things that they didn't mean by taking them out of their proper context; that being the apostolic tradition in which the scriptures had been handed down. The early Church fathers knew better when confronted with such novel teachings; they judged rightly the absence of such notions within the tradition that had been handed down to them and subsequently rejected them. This has much to do with how the scriptural canon was formed; that is by comparing the writings against the tradition of the fathers. (It wasn't a scriptural popularity contest, as many protestants would like to believe. If that was the case, then Matthew most likely would have been the only gospel canonicized; it was by far the most read of the time, and generally considered to be the only "legitimate" gospel!)

Ok, the semi-colon party is now officially over!   laugh
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,437



« Reply #59 on: December 18, 2009, 12:13:54 PM »


The key problem then is interpretation and context!  The heretics were trying to interpret these scriptural passages to mean things that they didn't mean by taking them out of their proper context; that being the apostolic tradition in which the scriptures had been handed down. The early Church fathers knew better when confronted with such novel teachings; they judged rightly the absence of such notions within the tradition that had been handed down to them and subsequently rejected them. This has much to do with how the scriptural canon was formed; that is by comparing the writings against the tradition of the fathers. (It wasn't a scriptural popularity contest, as many protestants would like to believe. If that was the case, then Matthew most likely would have been the only gospel canonicized; it was by far the most read of the time, and generally considered to be the only "legitimate" gospel!)


Excellent!
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #60 on: December 18, 2009, 12:32:13 PM »

Your dichotomy Bible vs. Holy Tradition is false, as I believe you see, since you understand that Holy Tradition includes the Bible. ... Your elevate your own personal individual interpretation of Scripture and repose your faith in that.

Yes, I was not intending to set up a dichotomy; I realise that Holy Tradition includes the Church's interpretation of the text of scripture, which scripture you see, as we do, as divinely inspired. But I don't think I am elevating my personal opinion: there are and have been quite a lot of Protestants, going back (without that name) to before the Reformation, and I wish to ensure that my personal beliefs are in accord with the essentials of theirs. You could say it functions as our own tradition, which I suppose is broader than yours, allowing more room for variation of interpretation in what we see as non-essentials. But I am careful to remain within the parameters of that tradition, not because I am afraid to think, but because my thinking had led me to believe that therein lies security, in view of our Lord's promises to his church. When I start my own denomination (and here I write with keyboard in cheek) it will not lie outside that tradition.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 12:33:40 PM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,437



« Reply #61 on: December 18, 2009, 12:39:54 PM »

Your dichotomy Bible vs. Holy Tradition is false, as I believe you see, since you understand that Holy Tradition includes the Bible. ... Your elevate your own personal individual interpretation of Scripture and repose your faith in that.

But I don't think I am elevating my personal opinion: there are and have been quite a lot of Protestants, going back (without that name) to before the Reformation, and I wish to ensure that my personal beliefs are in accord with the essentials of theirs.
Which is why I noted that I was using "you" in a general sense, and not a personal sense. But what Protestants do you agree with? Luther? Who believed in Mary's ever-virginity and infant baptism?

Quote
You could say it functions as our own tradition, which I suppose is broader than yours, allowing more room for variation of interpretation in what we see as non-essentials.
But who decides what is essential and what is non-essential? You see, that is the same argument.

Quote
But I am careful to remain within the parameters of that tradition, not because I am afraid to think, but because my thinking had led me to believe that therein lies security, in view of our Lord's promises to his church. When I start my own denomination (and here I write with keyboard in cheek) it will not lie outside that tradition.
Why? When you are perfectly comfortable in remaining outside the parameters of a more ancient Tradition? Because of your personal and individual interpretation of Scripture.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #62 on: December 18, 2009, 12:57:07 PM »

I didn't ignore writers later than Ignatius. I opted for him, the Didache and Clement of Rome because they are the earliest. The longer things go on, the more they develop, which is why I made no reference to later writers.

I just can't help feeling like I live in backwards land now.  Or at the least the Twilight Zone!  Is someone trying to Gaslight me?Huh  What am I missing?  Does anyone else see the utter ridiculousness of this (no offense, David)?

This idea of "development" is hilarious to me (and not in a good way)!  You have such a problem with what you perceive to be development in Orthodoxy, yet the obvious development within your own faith (which strays so far from what had been believed from the beginning of Christianity as to be almost unrecognizable) you have no issues with!  We can even point to the dates and people who developed the innovations in your theology!  Yet you have such issues with Orthodoxy for what you perceive might be developments in the first 30-60 years of Christianity!  I just can't take this seriously, I'm sorry.

 Grin

Just to say hello and Merry Christmas!  Know you are busy, hope you know you are missed!

And in case we don't communicate again before, let me wish you in Dixie a richly blessed Christmas and an equally blessed, and prosperous, 2010.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

infant baptism... the Lord's Supper... Bishops... probably think of more

The first is, on your side, an argument from silence: there is no instance of it in scripture.

So you claim.

Let's cross two lines of polemics that I am sure you are familiar with, but probably haven't seen cross referenced: that of the necessity of immersion and that of infant baptism.

I am sure you have heard the argument around the meaning of οἶκον "household" as in baptizing a household, the usage in the NT, Septuagint, papyri, Jewish Tradition etc. for it including infant baptism. This you dismiss as an argument from silence.  The problem is that the argument around the meaning of βαπτίζω rests on the same foundation to require immersion.

Quote
The second is a matter of interpretation. I have written at length on this, but I think it was on the Private Forum, as I felt the matter is too sacred to become a matter of strife between us.

The third I wrote of either a few posts further up, or very recently on a different thread: we do believe in bishops, but we believe each bishop has authority only over one local church. Again, as with baptism, there is no example of your sort of bishop in the scriptures.

St. Paul specifially notes the St. Titus is appointing bishops in the cities of Crete, and is in charge of them.

The Church of Antioch did not go on what its local bishop had to say, but went up to Jerusalem, Antioch not yet having become Autocephalous.  As Patriarch, St. James writes in the name of his hieararchy as his successor does now in the name of the present Holy Synod.


Quote
You are probably including apostolic succession through the laying-on of the apostles' and thereafter of episcopal hands, which again is your way of appointing clergy and may or may not express a historical reality, but is not laid down in scripture as the permanent manner by which the clergy must be appointed.
No, just every time in scripture clergy, even deacons and even the laity, are appointed in scripture, it is ALWAYS by the laying on of hands.

What happen to sola scritpura?

Quote
To be honest, I guess on all these we are really back to the question of 'sola scriptura' or Holy Tradition (including scripture). Otherwise we'd go round and round in circles, me saying "the Bible means this" and you saying "No, the Bible means this." I see it as a matter of where we repose our faith: do we trust the Bible as sufficient and authoritative,


and itself directs us to tradition, e.g. I Thessalonians 3:6, II Thessalonians 2:15, I Corinthians 11:2, etc.


Quote
or do we trust Holy Tradition (which, I know, includes the Bible)? This of course is also something we have explored together at length over the months (it is becoming years!), and neither your position nor ours can be established beyond gainsaying by philosophy or logic: it must be a matter of faith. We cannot go beyond that, but at that point some of you start calling us our own popes, because we have not rested our faith in the teachings of your Church regarding Tradition.

No, you rested you faith on your own tradition, post 1517.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #63 on: December 18, 2009, 01:01:25 PM »

Your dichotomy Bible vs. Holy Tradition is false, as I believe you see, since you understand that Holy Tradition includes the Bible. ... Your elevate your own personal individual interpretation of Scripture and repose your faith in that.

Yes, I was not intending to set up a dichotomy; I realise that Holy Tradition includes the Church's interpretation of the text of scripture, which scripture you see, as we do, as divinely inspired. But I don't think I am elevating my personal opinion: there are and have been quite a lot of Protestants, going back (without that name) to before the Reformation,

that's not a really hard thing to do, as you would admit that the Vatican predates the Reformation as well.  The question is, can the Protestants trace themselves back, without trying to cherry pick, their way back to the Apostles.

Quote
and I wish to ensure that my personal beliefs are in accord with the essentials of theirs.

The Early Protestants or the Apostles?  With whom, for instance, in the 3rd century do your believes accord?


Quote
You could say it functions as our own tradition, which I suppose is broader than yours, allowing more room for variation of interpretation in what we see as non-essentials. But I am careful to remain within the parameters of that tradition, not because I am afraid to think, but because my thinking had led me to believe that therein lies security, in view of our Lord's promises to his church. When I start my own denomination (and here I write with keyboard in cheek) it will not lie outside that tradition.
...further?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #64 on: December 18, 2009, 01:12:20 PM »

David -

Luke 24:27
Where did this understanding go?
Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,375



« Reply #65 on: December 18, 2009, 01:44:38 PM »

Your dichotomy Bible vs. Holy Tradition is false, as I believe you see, since you understand that Holy Tradition includes the Bible. ... Your elevate your own personal individual interpretation of Scripture and repose your faith in that.

Yes, I was not intending to set up a dichotomy; I realise that Holy Tradition includes the Church's interpretation of the text of scripture, which scripture you see, as we do, as divinely inspired. But I don't think I am elevating my personal opinion: there are and have been quite a lot of Protestants, going back (without that name) to before the Reformation, and I wish to ensure that my personal beliefs are in accord with the essentials of theirs. You could say it functions as our own tradition, which I suppose is broader than yours, allowing more room for variation of interpretation in what we see as non-essentials. But I am careful to remain within the parameters of that tradition, not because I am afraid to think, but because my thinking had led me to believe that therein lies security, in view of our Lord's promises to his church. When I start my own denomination (and here I write with keyboard in cheek) it will not lie outside that tradition.

I would be interested in hearing what the parameters of that tradition are. Using those parameters would surly bind those in communion. Interestingly there wouldn't have to be a splintering or denominationalism if those traditions are followed. You see. Communion as we know it is based on togetherness rather than separation.  Now if Joe "fictional character" decides he doesn't like our Church and goes off to start a new one because it's wrong. It's not because he believes the same things but because he believes something different. Signaling a break from communion rather than a communal tradition.


Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #66 on: December 18, 2009, 02:19:32 PM »

I'd like to answer all these points - or I wish Cleopas would! - but of course it's a busy time: get the tree and decorate it tomorrow; preach on Sunday and have the family to meal; office on Monday; get holly and ivy on Tuesday (coupled with lunch at country pub with an 'improving book'); son arrives from York on Wednesday...

If I get time, I shall; if I don't, please be indulgent!

Meanwhile, as someone suggested on a recent post that all good Christians should use Old English, let me emphasise my wish for y'all for a glæd Geol and gesælig niw gear.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #67 on: December 19, 2009, 10:24:33 AM »

what Protestants do you agree with? Luther? Who believed in Mary's ever-virginity and infant baptism?

Wesley also believed in Mary's perpetual virginity; but we do not see it as an essential of the Christian Faith. As regards infant baptism... I think you know my views!  Wink

Quote
But who decides what is essential and what is non-essential?

A good question. Some people emphasise some doctrines more than other people emphasise them, such as predestination or believers' baptism, but there is a broad concensus among Evangelicals concerning the distinctives and essentials of the Evangelical faith.

Quote
But I am careful to remain within the parameters of that tradition, not because I am afraid to think, but because my thinking had led me to believe that therein lies security, in view of our Lord's promises to his church. When I start my own denomination (and here I write with keyboard in cheek) it will not lie outside that tradition.

Why? When you are perfectly comfortable in remaining outside the parameters of a more ancient Tradition?

Probably for the same reason as you remain in the more ancient one: you believe it to be true. We believe of course that our faith is not a cluster of innovations, but a reversion to the NT faith and practice. There is greater leeway for variation within Protestantism than in Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 10:28:17 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #68 on: December 19, 2009, 10:37:07 AM »

Let's cross two lines of polemics ...: that of the necessity of immersion and that of infant baptism.

Good point. The mode of baptism (sprinkling, affusion, immersion) and the proper recipients of it (infants/believers) are separate issues. In re the mode, the people in the NT went down into the water, and the symbolism is that of burial.

Quote
I am sure you have heard the argument around the meaning of οἶκον "household"

Many times; but that the households who were baptised contained infants is surmise on your part, not stated. Many households only contain members old enough to believe in Christ.

Quote
St. Paul specifially notes the St. Titus is appointing bishops in the cities of Crete, and is in charge of them.

The Church of Antioch did not go on what its local bishop had to say, but went up to Jerusalem, Antioch not yet having become Autocephalous.  As Patriarch, St. James writes in the name of his hieararchy as his successor does now in the name of the present Holy Synod.

The apostolic age has been succeeded by something different: whether by apostolic succession and your kind of bishop, or whether by autonomous local churches ruled by local elders ('bishops') in a fellowship of equality, is the point at issue.

Quote
No, you rested you faith on your own tradition, post 1517.

Believing it to be a return to the beliefs of the apostolic age (with the apostles gone, of course).]
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #69 on: December 19, 2009, 10:42:31 AM »

The question is, can the Protestants trace themselves back, without trying to cherry pick, their way back to the Apostles.


No, that is not the question. Rather it is is, Is unbroken historical continuity of any importance one way or the other?

Quote
and I wish to ensure that my personal beliefs are in accord with the essentials of theirs.

The Early Protestants or the Apostles?  With whom, for instance, in the 3rd century do your believes accord?

The early (and later) Protestants aimed to return to the beliefs of the apostles, so there is no dichotomoy. In re the 3rd century, I fear I have not read very much from that period. I've sort-of jumped from Irenæus and Justyn to Athanasius and Chrysostom.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 10:43:59 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #70 on: December 19, 2009, 10:46:06 AM »

Luke 24:27
Where did this understanding go?

Not sure I understand the question. Can you unpack it a bit? Sorry.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #71 on: December 19, 2009, 10:54:02 AM »

I would be interested in hearing what the parameters of that tradition are.

Not fobbing you off here, but thinking the question opens up too vast an area for me to address here: there are books on Evengelical identity, and plenty of statements of faith issued by inter-denominational Evangelical groups (fellowships of churches, missionary societies, etc). It is fairly easy to find this out, and if you wish I'll hunt down a few of them for you.

Quote
Now if Joe "fictional character" decides he doesn't like our Church and goes off to start a new one because it's wrong. It's not because he believes the same things but because he believes something different. Signaling a break from communion rather than a communal tradition.

I think you've got it back to front. Joe probably believes passionately in the faith and practice of the denomination he is splitting off from, and sees it as having apostasised to a greater or lesser extent; so he sets up a new fellowship aiming to revert to what went before, not to strike out on a new path. Did not (for instance) Wesley aim only to bring the Church of England to a sincerity and commitment of faith and practice such as its documents set out? And when the Wesleyans cooled off, or were perceived as doing so, did not the Primitive Methodists aim only to return to the spirit and faith of Wesley? It's not usually starting something new, but rather aiming to return to what was lost. Those who start something new are probably usually heretics with defective views of the person and/or work of Christ, the Trinity, and other central matters.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #72 on: December 19, 2009, 03:17:34 PM »

David - Luke 24:27
Where did this understanding go?
Ok.  " And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was said in all the scriptures concerning Himself "
With this scripture we can see that Christ revealed the Prophecy, as fulfilled in Him, to the Apostles. This is the knowledge from whence Holy Tradition came. Now the interpretation of Scripture is Handed down from God, Himself. This is the very Gospel, before being written, which was the foundation of the scriptures.
Do you think this is handed down through the Holy Spirit to the minds of men, to just anyone who believes in the Trinity? If so, Why then, are there so many churches which fall into heresy by interpreting scripture differently. These heretics of the early church used the scripture to attempt proving their point. Yet it was the consensus of the church, based on tradition, which held true the faith during these moments.
The Bible has many verses throughout which coincide with the concept of Holy Tradition. You ask why Holy Apostolic Succession is important. This is why. Without it, interpretation is left in the hands of men, which confuses the very teaching of Christ and Salvation through Him.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 03:22:05 PM by simplygermain » Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #73 on: December 19, 2009, 04:48:35 PM »

Let's cross two lines of polemics ...: that of the necessity of immersion and that of infant baptism.

Good point. The mode of baptism (sprinkling, affusion, immersion) and the proper recipients of it (infants/believers) are separate issues. In re the mode, the people in the NT went down into the water, and the symbolism is that of burial.

Ah, the problem is that I have been to the Holy Land, and you couldn't be immersed in most places (in fact, all places, except for the Jordan) even if you laid down flat in the 'river' (creek actually matches the reality more).

As for symbolism, burial is not the only one: no one got their feet wet while crossing the Red Sea but passed through it, nor did those in Noah's Ark, though they are also the symbolism of baptism. I Corin. 10:2, I Peter 3:20.

If being baptised into Christ's death was literal, as is argued, then every baptism would be a drowning. Shocked

Then there's the problem that the Didache specifically excludes your necessity of submersion, and at the earliest date.

Quote
Quote
I am sure you have heard the argument around the meaning of οἶκον "household"

Many times; but that the households who were baptised contained infants is surmise on your part, not stated. Many households only contain members old enough to believe in Christ.

Only surmise on your part that going into water must mean submersion: only in the story at the Jordan, can it mean that, and in the case of the baptism of St. Paul, for instance, it most certainly does not.  Not only because St. Ananias' house has no facility capable of that, but the fact that households of the time (and I've been to thousands) didn't except for the very wealthiest, and even then it was unusual.

The term οἶκον is a term of art: it had a legal/canonical meaning which included children.  Even if no household baptized in the NT had children "below age," that wouldn't change the fact that this "of age" requirement has no basis in the thinking of the time.  When a man, for instance, converted to Judaism, all his household of whatever age was circumcized and baptized in a mikvah.  The default definition of οἶκον includes babes, and hence the burden lies on the Apostles and scripture, and hence you, to demonstrate otherwise.  Not to get political, but your argument ressembles that of the advocates of gay marriage: whereas the case law etc up until the modern age shows that the definition of marriage presupposes a man and a women.  Otherwise we would find arguments, as we do, over polygamy, remarriage of the divorced and widowed, and the status of couples without children.  The definition of marriage including two people of the same sex is a modern novelty, although homosexual couples are known throughout history to Antiquity.

Quote
Quote
St. Paul specifially notes the St. Titus is appointing bishops in the cities of Crete, and is in charge of them.

The Church of Antioch did not go on what its local bishop had to say, but went up to Jerusalem, Antioch not yet having become Autocephalous.  As Patriarch, St. James writes in the name of his hieararchy as his successor does now in the name of the present Holy Synod.

The apostolic age has been succeeded by something different: whether by apostolic succession and your kind of bishop, or whether by autonomous local churches ruled by local elders ('bishops') in a fellowship of equality, is the point at issue.

Well since the apostolic succession differs only in that bishops who have succeeded the Apostles, and not the Apostles themselves, constitute it, and we see no congregationalism (none that is praised, see Corinthians) in the NT, point scored.

Quote
No, you rested you faith on your own tradition, post 1517.

Believing it to be a return to the beliefs of the apostolic age (with the apostles gone, of course).]
[/quote]


διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.
ܝܘܡܬܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܫܘܠܡܗ ܕܥܠܡܐ ܐܡܝܢ ܟܠܗܘܢ  ܐܠܦܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܕܢܛܪܘܢ ܟܠ ܡܐ ܕܦܩܕܬܟܘܢ ܘܗܐ ܐܢܐ ܥܡܟܘܢ 
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 04:49:49 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #74 on: December 19, 2009, 07:31:47 PM »

The question is, can the Protestants trace themselves back, without trying to cherry pick, their way back to the Apostles.


No, that is not the question. Rather it is is, Is unbroken historical continuity of any importance one way or the other?
Yep.

"I tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts Me, and whoever accepts Me accepts the One who sent Me."  John 13:20

"These twelve did Jesus send forth, having given command to them, saying...'Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you all the days, to the very end of the age" Mat. 10:5, 28:19-20.

"We understand that some men from here have troubled you and upset you with their teaching, but we did not send them!" Acts 15:24

"Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?" Acts 19:15.

Quote
and I wish to ensure that my personal beliefs are in accord with the essentials of theirs.

The Early Protestants or the Apostles?  With whom, for instance, in the 3rd century do your believes accord?[/quote]

The early (and later) Protestants aimed to return to the beliefs of the apostles, so there is no dichotomoy. In re the 3rd century, I fear I have not read very much from that period. I've sort-of jumped from Irenæus and Justyn to Athanasius and Chrysostom.[/quote]
None of whose beliefs accord with yours.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #75 on: December 19, 2009, 07:38:20 PM »

I would be interested in hearing what the parameters of that tradition are.

Not fobbing you off here, but thinking the question opens up too vast an area for me to address here: there are books on Evengelical identity, and plenty of statements of faith issued by inter-denominational Evangelical groups (fellowships of churches, missionary societies, etc). It is fairly easy to find this out, and if you wish I'll hunt down a few of them for you.

Quote
Now if Joe "fictional character" decides he doesn't like our Church and goes off to start a new one because it's wrong. It's not because he believes the same things but because he believes something different. Signaling a break from communion rather than a communal tradition.

I think you've got it back to front. Joe probably believes passionately in the faith and practice of the denomination he is splitting off from, and sees it as having apostasised to a greater or lesser extent; so he sets up a new fellowship aiming to revert to what went before, not to strike out on a new path. Did not (for instance) Wesley aim only to bring the Church of England to a sincerity and commitment of faith and practice such as its documents set out? And when the Wesleyans cooled off, or were perceived as doing so, did not the Primitive Methodists aim only to return to the spirit and faith of Wesley? It's not usually starting something new, but rather aiming to return to what was lost. Those who start something new are probably usually heretics with defective views of the person and/or work of Christ, the Trinity, and other central matters.

And the Protestants are different how?

I propose that the earliest sect that we can point to that could come within the parameters of Evangelical beliefs would be the Waldensians.  But that only takes us to the 12th century, already over a millenium too late for the True Church.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #76 on: December 21, 2009, 11:11:40 AM »

I have been to the Holy Land, and you couldn't be immersed in most places

As for symbolism, burial is not the only

I am ready to concede that the mode is possibly less important than the question of the proper recipients of the rite. Baptism does symbolise burial (hence immersion), but it also symbolises washing, which - without being flippant - might point in the direction of affusion of even sprinkling these days, now that we have showers! I don't think you can say we are wrong to immerse. I - nay, we - certainly prefer immersion because of the heavy weight placed on the symbolism of burial and rising. Nonetheless, if someone insists on practising affusion or sprinkling, I am less inclined to strive with him than I would if he were baptising the wrong people.

In re "the wrong people", whether baptism symbolises burial, washing or anything else in the NT, it seems to us that it is always linked, joined, accompanied with faith in the 'illuminand'. I actually doubt that you can easily say we are wrong to baptise believers, and not their infants.

However - and here is the mystery or challenge to me - it seems that the huge majority of men God has mightily used in the past have been pædobaptists (though he has mercifully been pleased to bless Baptists also): as far as I know, Waldo and his associates, Hus, Wycliffe, the Puritans, Wesley, Whitefield, the 19th century movements in Britain (Presbyterian in Wales, Methodist in England) have all been pædobaptists. How do we cope with that? All I can do is be apophatic about it: I don't know. I might suggest that God, who requires believers to be baptised, is at liberty to break his own rules, but he not given us the same liberty. If the best is the baptism of believers, we must practise it, and leave the rest to the grace of God.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 11:12:36 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #77 on: December 21, 2009, 11:21:38 AM »

>from Irenæus and Justyn to Athanasius and Chrysostom.
>None of whose beliefs accord with yours.

I think you have gone a bit too far outside the truth in asserting that. In the many many pages of Chrysostom (on Matthew) and Athanasius (on The Incarnation) that I have read there is very little indeed that I would wish to alter. I grant there are some areas of divergence of belief between them and today's Evangelicals, but very far indeed from "none of whose beliefs accord with yours".

Of Irenæus and Justyn I have read less, though the whole of "On the Apostolic Preaching".

But in all, though we would differ from the increasingly literal interpretation of "This is my body... blood" and from the developing forms of church government, and would perhaps give a stronger weight to innate sinfulness than Athanasius, I do not feel that these are men whose beliefs coincide in no place with mine. Rather, the area of common ground is vast.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #78 on: December 21, 2009, 11:28:42 AM »

>Those who start something new are probably usually heretics with defective views of the person and/or work of Christ, the Trinity, and other central matters.

>And the Protestants are different how? I propose that the earliest sect that we can point to that could come within the parameters of Evangelical beliefs would be the Waldensians.  But that only takes us to the 12th century, already over a millenium too late for the True Church.

How do we differ from those we deem heretics? The main area of dogma of which I was thinking is the Person of Christ, in which I believe we entirely adhere to the ancient Creeds; his work as Creator, Redeemer, Judge etc; and his virgin birth, perfect life, real death, bodily resurrection, and promised second coming in glory. The heretical sects do not hold all these truths.

You may well be right in saying that the Waldenses are the earliest documented 'Protestant' church. How long they existed before they appeared in the pages of extant historical writings, we cannot know. But as I have urged before, conformity of belief and practice is what we seek, not outward historical continuity.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,437



« Reply #79 on: December 21, 2009, 12:21:53 PM »

I don't think you can say we are wrong to immerse.
How could we say that you are wrong, when the Orthodox practice (where water is available and it is possible - see the Didache) is immersion.

Quote
However - and here is the mystery or challenge to me - it seems that the huge majority of men God has mightily used in the past have been pædobaptists (though he has mercifully been pleased to bless Baptists also): as far as I know, Waldo and his associates, Hus, Wycliffe, the Puritans, Wesley, Whitefield, the 19th century movements in Britain (Presbyterian in Wales, Methodist in England) have all been pædobaptists. How do we cope with that? All I can do is be apophatic about it: I don't know. I might suggest that God, who requires believers to be baptised, is at liberty to break his own rules, but he not given us the same liberty. If the best is the baptism of believers, we must practise it, and leave the rest to the grace of God.


David, to honor the spirit of the season, I will only reply to this truly amazing interpretation of history with the word "Nonsense!" instead of the word I really want to use.

Actually, I'll add another word:
Luther.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #80 on: December 21, 2009, 01:07:57 PM »

I have been to the Holy Land, and you couldn't be immersed in most places

As for symbolism, burial is not the only

I am ready to concede that the mode is possibly less important than the question of the proper recipients of the rite. Baptism does symbolise burial (hence immersion), but it also symbolises washing, which - without being flippant - might point in the direction of affusion of even sprinkling these days, now that we have showers! I don't think you can say we are wrong to immerse. I - nay, we - certainly prefer immersion because of the heavy weight placed on the symbolism of burial and rising. Nonetheless, if someone insists on practising affusion or sprinkling, I am less inclined to strive with him than I would if he were baptising the wrong people.

In re "the wrong people", whether baptism symbolises burial, washing or anything else in the NT, it seems to us that it is always linked, joined, accompanied with faith in the 'illuminand'. I actually doubt that you can easily say we are wrong to baptise believers, and not their infants.

I would say it is as wrong to baptize believers (barring special circumstances, such as intermarriage on conversion, etc.) who do not bring their children with them as it would be to baptize "believers" in a adulterous relationship they refuse to give up.  Refusal to bring the children God gave them into the Faith raises questions about their own faith.


Quote
However - and here is the mystery or challenge to me - it seems that the huge majority of men God has mightily used in the past have been pædobaptists (though he has mercifully been pleased to bless Baptists also): as far as I know, Waldo and his associates, Hus, Wycliffe, the Puritans, Wesley, Whitefield, the 19th century movements in Britain (Presbyterian in Wales, Methodist in England) have all been pædobaptists. How do we cope with that? All I can do is be apophatic about it: I don't know. I might suggest that God, who requires believers to be baptised, is at liberty to break his own rules, but he not given us the same liberty. If the best is the baptism of believers, we must practise it, and leave the rest to the grace of God.
While God is not bound by sacraments, we and His Church are.  If one was to claim that he was ordained by God, and not the bishop, we must reject that as we did Montanus.  Similarly the unbaptized we must baptize "Go ye therefore....."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #81 on: December 21, 2009, 01:14:24 PM »

>from Irenæus and Justyn to Athanasius and Chrysostom.
>None of whose beliefs accord with yours.

I think you have gone a bit too far outside the truth in asserting that. In the many many pages of Chrysostom (on Matthew) and Athanasius (on The Incarnation) that I have read there is very little indeed that I would wish to alter. I grant there are some areas of divergence of belief between them and today's Evangelicals, but very far indeed from "none of whose beliefs accord with yours".

While there is leaway on theoloumena, the bottom line is that they would not commune in your church, and they would not commune you.


Quote
Of Irenæus and Justyn I have read less, though the whole of "On the Apostolic Preaching".

But in all, though we would differ from the increasingly literal interpretation of "This is my body... blood" and from the developing forms of church government, and would perhaps give a stronger weight to innate sinfulness than Athanasius, I do not feel that these are men whose beliefs coincide in no place with mine. Rather, the area of common ground is vast.
As the Fathers said, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios is one letter, the difference between salvation and damnation.

You would also differ in thinking that the "literal" Real Presence and Apostolic Succession were "non-essentials."  Muslims' beliefs coincide in saying Jesus is the Christ, and no matter how vast the common ground, there's that deep chasm between us over the Son of God.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #82 on: December 21, 2009, 01:17:24 PM »

>Those who start something new are probably usually heretics with defective views of the person and/or work of Christ, the Trinity, and other central matters.

>And the Protestants are different how? I propose that the earliest sect that we can point to that could come within the parameters of Evangelical beliefs would be the Waldensians.  But that only takes us to the 12th century, already over a millenium too late for the True Church.

How do we differ from those we deem heretics? The main area of dogma of which I was thinking is the Person of Christ, in which I believe we entirely adhere to the ancient Creeds; his work as Creator, Redeemer, Judge etc; and his virgin birth, perfect life, real death, bodily resurrection, and promised second coming in glory. The heretical sects do not hold all these truths.

Nestorian and Monophysites heretics in ancient times made the same claims.  I don't see many in Baptist circles refering to the Mother of God, nor venerating icons.

Quote
You may well be right in saying that the Waldenses are the earliest documented 'Protestant' church. How long they existed before they appeared in the pages of extant historical writings, we cannot know. But as I have urged before, conformity of belief and practice is what we seek, not outward historical continuity.
The latter is the proof of the former.  They do not exist seperately. To say otherwise is fantasy.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #83 on: December 21, 2009, 05:34:14 PM »

I will only reply to this truly amazing interpretation of history with the word "Nonsense!"

If what I wrote is nonsense, then surely you must be saying that God has never blessed any would-be Christian body or movement outside of Orthodoxy. Maybe that is what you are saying. For I wrote that God seems abundantly willing to bless people who err from the truth in some regards. If such an idea is nonsense - that is, if the only thing that makes sense is to say that God blesses only those who err in no regards at all - then (from your own point of view) you must be saying he never blesses, nor ever has blessed, or worked among, people outside Orthodoxy.

Even so, that is not non sense. I do not believe it is true, but it is at least a falsehood that makes sense.

Am I not saying the same as ialmisry, that we must be bound by the sacraments but God is not bound by them? Ialmisry has a different view of the sacraments from ours, but are not he and I saying the same thing? Namely, that is, that God has shown himself willing to work savingly among people whose view of the sacraments is erroneous. I am saying that baptism ought to be applied, by immersion, only to believers - but that (1) God is willing to work outside those parameters and (2) that does not give me liberty to do so. That may be true or false - but it is not nonsense.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #84 on: December 21, 2009, 05:39:18 PM »

the bottom line is that they would not commune in your church, and they would not commune you.

No, that is not the bottom line: the bottom line is: Is Christ present at your Eucharist? Is he present at ours? If, in mercy, he is present at both, then whether the Fathers would have admitted me to their Table, or deigned to come to ours, is not the bottom line. But if Christ is not present, then - to borrow a phrase elsewhence - we are of all men most miserable.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,437



« Reply #85 on: December 21, 2009, 05:56:50 PM »

I will only reply to this truly amazing interpretation of history with the word "Nonsense!"

If what I wrote is nonsense, then surely you must be saying that God has never blessed any would-be Christian body or movement outside of Orthodoxy. Maybe that is what you are saying. For I wrote that God seems abundantly willing to bless people who err from the truth in some regards. If such an idea is nonsense - that is, if the only thing that makes sense is to say that God blesses only those who err in no regards at all - then (from your own point of view) you must be saying he never blesses, nor ever has blessed, or worked among, people outside Orthodoxy.

Even so, that is not non sense. I do not believe it is true, but it is at least a falsehood that makes sense.

Am I not saying the same as ialmisry, that we must be bound by the sacraments but God is not bound by them? Ialmisry has a different view of the sacraments from ours, but are not he and I saying the same thing? Namely, that is, that God has shown himself willing to work savingly among people whose view of the sacraments is erroneous. I am saying that baptism ought to be applied, by immersion, only to believers - but that (1) God is willing to work outside those parameters and (2) that does not give me liberty to do so. That may be true or false - but it is not nonsense.

What's nonsense is that you choose to ignore the "huge majority of men God has mightily used in the past have been pædobaptists...as far as I know, Waldo and his associates, Hus, Wycliffe, the Puritans, Wesley, Whitefield, the 19th century movements in Britain (Presbyterian in Wales, Methodist in England) have all been pædobaptists. "

And Luther as well, Doesn't this give you a clue?

God can most certainly, and does, work outside our parameters. But He is God - and we are not.

We cannot say - it's not up to us - whether or not Christ is present in your memorial service but as I understand Baptist theology, you are the ones who believe that it is merely a memorial service and that He may be in some sense present but certainly not His Body and Blood. So it is you who are doing the separating not us.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,290


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #86 on: December 21, 2009, 05:59:32 PM »

If what I wrote is nonsense, then surely you must be saying that God has never blessed any would-be Christian body or movement outside of Orthodoxy

It is not for us to say what God may bless. But The Church is One just like God is One. If you stand outside of it, you are making a mistake.  Good luck.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 06:01:18 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #87 on: December 21, 2009, 06:07:54 PM »

I will only reply to this truly amazing interpretation of history with the word "Nonsense!"

If what I wrote is nonsense, then surely you must be saying that God has never blessed any would-be Christian body or movement outside of Orthodoxy. Maybe that is what you are saying. For I wrote that God seems abundantly willing to bless people who err from the truth in some regards. If such an idea is nonsense - that is, if the only thing that makes sense is to say that God blesses only those who err in no regards at all - then (from your own point of view) you must be saying he never blesses, nor ever has blessed, or worked among, people outside Orthodoxy.

Blessed in what sense?  The Muslim is better off than the pagan or the atheist, but the difference between the Muslim and the Orthodox.

Quote
Even so, that is not non sense. I do not believe it is true, but it is at least a falsehood that makes sense.

Am I not saying the same as ialmisry, that we must be bound by the sacraments but God is not bound by them? Ialmisry has a different view of the sacraments from ours, but are not he and I saying the same thing? Namely, that is, that God has shown himself willing to work savingly among people whose view of the sacraments is erroneous. I am saying that baptism ought to be applied, by immersion, only to believers - but that (1) God is willing to work outside those parameters and (2) that does not give me liberty to do so. That may be true or false - but it is not nonsense.

you are leaving out (3): because of (2), we can identify the continuous link to Christ and His Apostles where we have the assurance of those parameters within we KNOW He works.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #88 on: December 21, 2009, 06:10:39 PM »

the bottom line is that they would not commune in your church, and they would not commune you.

No, that is not the bottom line: the bottom line is: Is Christ present at your Eucharist? Is he present at ours? If, in mercy, he is present at both, then whether the Fathers would have admitted me to their Table, or deigned to come to ours, is not the bottom line. But if Christ is not present, then - to borrow a phrase elsewhence - we are of all men most miserable.
They would not commune in your church because of the lack of assurance that Chris was present in your Eucharist, and they would not commune you because they knew with assurance that Christ was present in our (theirs and ours in the present day Orthodox Church) Eucharist.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,844


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #89 on: December 21, 2009, 06:17:20 PM »

What's nonsense is that you choose to ignore the "huge majority of men God has mightily used in the past have been pædobaptists...

I'm not ignoring them, I'm saying there is mystery here. Is not the savouring of, and space for, mystery one of the strong points of Orthodoxy, in contrast with western Christianity which likes all questions answered and no loose ends? Do you not make a point of delighting in apophatic theology?  So why is it nonsense when I say that there is a mystery, a riddle, an unanswered paradox, in my faith? Would you really prefer me to say I have all the answers, and have no questions left?

Quote
God can most certainly, and does, work outside our parameters. But He is God - and we are not.

Which is what I am saying.

Quote
We cannot say ... whether or not Christ is present in your memorial service but as I understand Baptist theology, you are the ones who believe that it is merely a memorial service

There are Protestants who hold that view. It is usually ascribed to Zwingli rather than to Baptists, though many Baptists hold it too. The Baptist Confession of Faith states:

The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine...  Worthy receivers ... also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance.

Now I realise this is short of what you believe: but it is also a good deal more than "merely a memorial service".

Quote
He may be in some sense present but certainly not His Body and Blood.

Now I think you are going beyond what is possible. You are saying that Christ is present in his body and blood only if people have the correct dogma regarding the Supper, regardless of their true repentance for sin, and their true faith in the ransom paid at Calvary on which they meditate at the Supper. Can you really be sure that Christ would withhold his presence, simply because it was mistakenly understood? It is you who call the Supper the Holy Mysteries; if your view of his presence is the correct one, then you should allow space for this mystery, that he deigns to be present even where things are imperfectly understood.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 06:20:13 PM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.196 seconds with 72 queries.