OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 04:11:22 PM *
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: What do we at least agree on ?  (Read 1824 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,738


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #45 on: February 04, 2014, 07:08:12 PM »

You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,060


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #46 on: February 04, 2014, 07:11:13 PM »

You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.



But within the Church we agree that there are two valid calendars to choose from. 

But you're now begging the question of who is the Church?

There are several "genuine" and "canonical" Orthodox groups that consider themselves the Church.

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate. 

Each time the group that left wasnt the church.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,738


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #47 on: February 04, 2014, 07:17:11 PM »

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate.

The time those "canonical" and "genuine" groups did.


Quote
Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

That's subjective. According to the aforementioned groups, the "canonical" Church broke away from them.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,060


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #48 on: February 04, 2014, 07:26:51 PM »

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate.

The time those "canonical" and "genuine" groups did.


Quote
Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

That's subjective. According to the aforementioned groups, the "canonical" Church broke away from them.

Apply the Vincentian canon to that argument. 

My point is, they were the first and only.  Innovation doesn't bode well for such claims. 
Logged
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,060


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #49 on: February 04, 2014, 07:28:33 PM »

No I'm not.  Name one time in history before the 20th century that the Orthodox Church excommunicated the entire hierarchy of all other autocephalous churches on the basis that they were apostate.

The time those "canonical" and "genuine" groups did.


Quote
Each time the group that left wasnt the church.

That's subjective. According to the aforementioned groups, the "canonical" Church broke away from them.

Apply the Vincentian canon to that argument. 

My point is, they were the first and only.  Innovation doesn't bode well for such claims. 

Well, upon further reflection, I think you can compare them in a lot of ways to the Russian Old Believers. 
Logged
DeniseDenise
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,354


« Reply #50 on: February 04, 2014, 07:37:21 PM »

Upon further reflection it's clear we have at least one thing in common with Protestants:

The ability to bicker among ourselves about things until death.


Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #51 on: February 04, 2014, 07:41:28 PM »

Upon further reflection it's clear we have at least one thing in common with Protestants:

The ability to bicker among ourselves about things until death.




I believe the TRUE Orthodox believe in theosis as a process which never ends. So I imagine there will be bickering after death as well.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
DeniseDenise
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,354


« Reply #52 on: February 04, 2014, 07:43:27 PM »

Upon further reflection it's clear we have at least one thing in common with Protestants:

The ability to bicker among ourselves about things until death.




I believe the TRUE Orthodox believe in theosis as a process which never ends. So I imagine there will be bickering after death as well.

I meant the death of the things, not the people. Well aware there will be bickering after Wink
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,738


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #53 on: February 04, 2014, 07:46:45 PM »

Apply the Vincentian canon to that argument.

I don't think you understand how canons work and they could just as well throw some obscure canon at you.

Quote
My point is, they were the first and only.

So? There's a first time for everything

Quote
Innovation doesn't bode well for such claims.

"Innovation" is a part of Theosis. We're being saved; it's a process, remember?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,060


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #54 on: February 04, 2014, 07:49:33 PM »

Apply the Vincentian canon to that argument.

I don't think you understand how canons work and they could just as well throw some obscure canon at you.

Quote
My point is, they were the first and only.

So? There's a first time for everything

Quote
Innovation doesn't bode well for such claims.

"Innovation" is a part of Theosis. We're being saved; it's a process, remember?

I do understand how canons work.  The Vincentian canon isn't really a canon at all. It's a principle. 

Solomon says There's nothing new under the sun.  The longer I live, the more I believe it. 

You have a faulty concept of innovation.  All that we are being saved unto already exists in Christ our Lord.  That is expressed in the Liturgy when the priest says Blessed IS the Kingdom and when he thanks God for the second coming in the past tense.   
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,757


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #55 on: February 04, 2014, 07:52:18 PM »

Upon further reflection it's clear we have at least one thing in common with Protestants:

The ability to bicker among ourselves about things until death.




Do Protestants also poke holes in others' arguments without putting forward their own?  I don't know enough Protestants to be sure either way. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #56 on: February 04, 2014, 08:19:30 PM »

You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.
James, the OP asks what we agree on, not what we don't agree on.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 08:21:45 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
DeniseDenise
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,354


« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2014, 08:25:56 PM »

You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.
James, the OP asks what we agree on, not what we don't agree on.

Oh face it. The OP stopped trying to figure out what everyone was arguing about two hours ago.

And later when someone asks about why we don't share our faith more, well this is why.
We show to outsiders, the same fractured church they already have. 

But we will write it off as 'they were too lazy' or ' they didn't stay long enough'

Logged
FormerCalvinist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #58 on: February 04, 2014, 08:42:28 PM »

1. The Holy Trinity
2. The Virgin Birth
3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
5. The Nicene Creed

Speaking generally, of course:

1. No. Most Protestants hold to the Filioque, and from my experience they understand it in a heretical sense.
2-3. No. Most Protestants are crypto-Nestorians so their understanding of Jesus' birth and divinity is heretical.
4. No. They understand the prophecies wrongly (e.g., Isaiah 53 is viewed as a proof of penal substitutionary atonement).
5. No. They include the Filioque and understand the creed in a heretical manner (e.g., their views on the Church).
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,377



« Reply #59 on: February 04, 2014, 08:53:29 PM »

    See this is why I wonder if The Lord is starting to do a work in many people's heart about Orthodoxy, because there really are Protestant Christians out there that believe these Core Doctrines but it seems like a lot of these Protestant Churches are starting to go off the deep end and deny The Very Basic Core Doctrines of Historical Christianity.  It's disturbing.

... Well, it was the Orthodox-Catholic Church (notice the Ecumenical Dash™  Shocked) that made those ideas normative, when Protestants reject the authority of the Church and Her tradition, it's a natural result.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #60 on: February 04, 2014, 08:54:37 PM »

You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.
James, the OP asks what we agree on, not what we don't agree on.

Oh face it. The OP stopped trying to figure out what everyone was arguing about two hours ago.

And later when someone asks about why we don't share our faith more, well this is why.
We show to outsiders, the same fractured church they already have. 

But we will write it off as 'they were too lazy' or ' they didn't stay long enough'
It could actually just be the personalities of those who took the time to reply to the OP.
Logged
Jude1:3
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 64



« Reply #61 on: February 04, 2014, 09:15:11 PM »

1. The Holy Trinity
2. The Virgin Birth
3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
5. The Nicene Creed

Speaking generally, of course:

1. No. Most Protestants hold to the Filioque, and from my experience they understand it in a heretical sense.
2-3. No. Most Protestants are crypto-Nestorians so their understanding of Jesus' birth and divinity is heretical.
4. No. They understand the prophecies wrongly (e.g., Isaiah 53 is viewed as a proof of penal substitutionary atonement).
5. No. They include the Filioque and understand the creed in a heretical manner (e.g., their views on the Church).

  

     Thank you very much for your response. I just want you to know that I don't mean my response in a facetious or snooty way. Sometimes it's a challenge to know exactly because we are reading text. I'm honestly asking for personal information and self education.


1.Can you break down exactly how modern day Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians don't believe in the Holy Trinity ? How do they understand it in a heretical sense ?  


2/3. The Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians I'm speaking of believe that The Lord Jesus Christ is Literally God and that The Holy Spirit is Literally God.      Can you please explain crypto-Nestorians for me ?


4. Protestants understand every single prophecy from the Old Testament about Jesus Wrongly ?.........  Every Single One ?  Protestants don't understand any Prophecy about Jesus in the OT Correctly ?   I'm having a hard time understanding that.


Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,377



« Reply #62 on: February 04, 2014, 09:45:24 PM »

1. The Holy Trinity
2. The Virgin Birth
3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
5. The Nicene Creed

Speaking generally, of course:

1. No. Most Protestants hold to the Filioque, and from my experience they understand it in a heretical sense.
2-3. No. Most Protestants are crypto-Nestorians so their understanding of Jesus' birth and divinity is heretical.
4. No. They understand the prophecies wrongly (e.g., Isaiah 53 is viewed as a proof of penal substitutionary atonement).
5. No. They include the Filioque and understand the creed in a heretical manner (e.g., their views on the Church).

 

     Thank you very much for your response. I just want you to know that I don't mean my response in a facetious or snooty way. Sometimes it's a challenge to know exactly because we are reading text. I'm honestly asking for personal information and self education.


1.Can you break down exactly how modern day Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians don't believe in the Holy Trinity ? How do they understand it in a heretical sense ?   


2/3. The Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians I'm speaking of believe that The Lord Jesus Christ is Literally God and that The Holy Spirit is Literally God.      Can you please explain crypto-Nestorians for me ?


4. Protestants understand every single prophecy from the Old Testament about Jesus Wrongly ?.........  Every Single One ?  Protestants don't understand any Prophecy about Jesus in the OT Correctly ?   I'm having a hard time understanding that.

 

1. They believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son which subordinates the hierarchy of the Holy Trinity. Page 7 (327) on this PDF from Orthodox Answers shows the resulting complications from this idea.

2. I was going to explain this earlier, but decided not to. The Council of Ephesus decreed in 431 (sic?) that St. Mary is the 'Mother of God', which means that St. Mary gave birth to God, because Christ is the God-man. Christ was fully God and fully man, so Mary is the Mother of God. Protestants reject the idea that Mary is the Mother of God on account of it's "idolatry" and call Mary 'the Mother of Christ' this was exactly the position Nestorius took when he objected to the Orthodox-Catholic Church using the word Theotokos or Mother of God, and he decided to use the word "Christotokos" Mother of Christ.

In essence, Protestants indirectly reject the Incarnation of Christ because they deny that St. Mary birthed God Himself, and not simply a man. Thus, the reason she isn't called "Mother of God' but 'Mother of Christ' by many Protestants.

Do Protestants REALLY reject the Incarnation? I don't think so, but they reject the idea that Mary birthed God, which is quite close to saying that Mary only gave birth to a man.

4. No. But they interpolate their own theology into the passages and make them say something they don't really say. That was the point of Isaiah 53. Another passage is Psalm 2.

Psalm 2 in Protestant Bibles says "Kiss the Son" but Catholic and Orthodox Bibles (from the Septuagint and Vulgate) say "Embrace discipline" (DRB). The verse itself in every non-Protestant version says "Embrace discipline" but for theological purposes, they mistranslated the verse.

Anti-Christian Jews also point out that this verse was purposely mistranslated.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 09:59:38 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Jude1:3
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 64



« Reply #63 on: February 04, 2014, 10:04:52 PM »

 Thanks for taking the time to answer my response.

I agree Mary is the Mother of God as in The Lord Jesus Christ. Is it Heretical to make the distinction though that she did not Create/Birth The Father or The Holy Spirit ?
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 10:14:39 PM by Jude1:3 » Logged
FormerCalvinist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #64 on: February 04, 2014, 10:14:20 PM »

Thank you very much for your response. I just want you to know that I don't mean my response in a facetious or snooty way. Sometimes it's a challenge to know exactly because we are reading text. I'm honestly asking for personal information and self education.

1.Can you break down exactly how modern day Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians don't believe in the Holy Trinity ? How do they understand it in a heretical sense ?  

2/3. The Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians I'm speaking of believe that The Lord Jesus Christ is Literally God and that The Holy Spirit is Literally God.      Can you please explain crypto-Nestorians for me ?

4. Protestants understand every single prophecy from the Old Testament about Jesus Wrongly ?.........  Every Single One ?  Protestants don't understand any Prophecy about Jesus in the OT Correctly ?   I'm having a hard time understanding that.

Reading back over my post I was unclear on some things so hopefully this will help to clarify. I'll also provide some supporting evidence from the Westminster Confession of Faith.

1. I did not mean that Protestants do not believe in the Trinity at all, but that they understand it wrongly. We can both say, "I believe in the Trinity," but if what we understand as "The Trinity" is different then we really don't believe the same thing. In my experience dealing with Protestants I have found that they believe the Filioque in the sense that the Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Son; i.e., that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Son in the same way that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. This is heretical.

WCF 2.3 "...The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

2-3. The issue here regards whether Christ is one person or two persons (Nestorianism). To explain this I need to distinguish between the way we use the term "person." We can use "person" to refer to the personality of the hypostasis, or we can refer to the natural composition of the hypostasis; or perhaps I could say we can speak technically or casually, respectively. Technically, the personality of Christ's hypostasis is divine. Christ is not a human person in this sense, but a divine person who has taken upon himself a human nature. He did not become a different person at the Incarnation. By virtue of his human nature, rational soul, etc. he is fully human, and thus in the casual sense we can say that Christ is a human person. The natural composition of the hypostasis is a divine nature and a human nature, and so Christ is a person who is human. He is both God and man. But to speak technically of the personality of the hypostasis it is only divine.

Protestants do not seem to understand this distinction and believe that the personality of Christ's hypostasis is both divine and human, that in this technical sense Christ's person is a result of the joining of his divine nature with a human nature. It is one of the reasons that many will not use the term "Mother of God," as they believe that Mary only gave birth to Christ's human nature (which they treat as a "person") which then combined with his divine nature (which they treat as a "person") to result in the divine/human person of Christ. So while they will affirm that Christ is one person, the manner in which they treat his two natures results in a theology in which Christ is treated as two persons. They are thus crypto-(hidden)-Nestorians.

WCF 8.2 "...So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion..."

4. I didn't mean to say that they understand every prophecy wrongly, but that they understand some wrongly. Sorry about that.
Logged
Jude1:3
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 64



« Reply #65 on: February 04, 2014, 10:21:38 PM »

Thank you very much for your response. I just want you to know that I don't mean my response in a facetious or snooty way. Sometimes it's a challenge to know exactly because we are reading text. I'm honestly asking for personal information and self education.

1.Can you break down exactly how modern day Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians don't believe in the Holy Trinity ? How do they understand it in a heretical sense ?  

2/3. The Baptists/Evangelicals/Trinitarians I'm speaking of believe that The Lord Jesus Christ is Literally God and that The Holy Spirit is Literally God.      Can you please explain crypto-Nestorians for me ?

4. Protestants understand every single prophecy from the Old Testament about Jesus Wrongly ?.........  Every Single One ?  Protestants don't understand any Prophecy about Jesus in the OT Correctly ?   I'm having a hard time understanding that.

Reading back over my post I was unclear on some things so hopefully this will help to clarify. I'll also provide some supporting evidence from the Westminster Confession of Faith.

1. I did not mean that Protestants do not believe in the Trinity at all, but that they understand it wrongly. We can both say, "I believe in the Trinity," but if what we understand as "The Trinity" is different then we really don't believe the same thing. In my experience dealing with Protestants I have found that they believe the Filioque in the sense that the Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Son; i.e., that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Son in the same way that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. This is heretical.

WCF 2.3 "...The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

2-3. The issue here regards whether Christ is one person or two persons (Nestorianism). To explain this I need to distinguish between the way we use the term "person." We can use "person" to refer to the personality of the hypostasis, or we can refer to the natural composition of the hypostasis; or perhaps I could say we can speak technically or casually, respectively. Technically, the personality of Christ's hypostasis is divine. Christ is not a human person in this sense, but a divine person who has taken upon himself a human nature. He did not become a different person at the Incarnation. By virtue of his human nature, rational soul, etc. he is fully human, and thus in the casual sense we can say that Christ is a human person. The natural composition of the hypostasis is a divine nature and a human nature, and so Christ is a person who is human. He is both God and man. But to speak technically of the personality of the hypostasis it is only divine.

Protestants do not seem to understand this distinction and believe that the personality of Christ's hypostasis is both divine and human, that in this technical sense Christ's person is a result of the joining of his divine nature with a human nature. It is one of the reasons that many will not use the term "Mother of God," as they believe that Mary only gave birth to Christ's human nature (which they treat as a "person") which then combined with his divine nature (which they treat as a "person") to result in the divine/human person of Christ. So while they will affirm that Christ is one person, the manner in which they treat his two natures results in a theology in which Christ is treated as two persons. They are thus crypto-(hidden)-Nestorians.

WCF 8.2 "...So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion..."

4. I didn't mean to say that they understand every prophecy wrongly, but that they understand some wrongly. Sorry about that.


    I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate on your answers. I think I might have to re read 2-3 again (LOLS)  Cheesy To really understand fully what you wrote. 
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #66 on: February 04, 2014, 11:32:13 PM »

You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.
James, the OP asks what we agree on, not what we don't agree on.

PtA, he's been given an answer by you, me, and James which is the same: nothing.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,599



« Reply #67 on: February 05, 2014, 12:05:37 AM »

1. The Holy Trinity
2. The Virgin Birth
3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
5. The Nicene Creed

Speaking generally, of course:

1. No. Most Protestants hold to the Filioque, and from my experience they understand it in a heretical sense.
2-3. No. Most Protestants are crypto-Nestorians so their understanding of Jesus' birth and divinity is heretical.
4. No. They understand the prophecies wrongly (e.g., Isaiah 53 is viewed as a proof of penal substitutionary atonement).
5. No. They include the Filioque and understand the creed in a heretical manner (e.g., their views on the Church).

Regarding #1, not all Protestants even understand the Trinity with formal definitions in mind, much less with the filioque. I doubt the Evangelical church up the road has any idea what the filioque is, but they do know what the Trinity is. Even if they did hold to the filioque, I don't think it's enough to say they worship a different Trinity. Here I concede to Fr. Sergius Bulgakov who considers the filioque and the "through the son" as theologoumena (even if he disagrees with the former), Western and Eastern respectively.

#2, not all Protestants are crypto-Nestorian. Just look at the eucharistic debates between Luther/Calvin, where the former was accused of being monophysitic by the latter. Although even if they were all crypto-Nestorians, I'm not sure how that negates their belief in the Virgin Birth itself, regardless of how they understand the specific person born in that circumstance.

#3, again, see #2. If they are crypto-Nestorian, then there is a substantial difference - yet only if they actually are - and then in how we perceive Christ's divinity. They do affirm the deity of the Holy Spirit, which we agree.

#4, while most Protestants do hold to penal substitution theory (although some are leaving that for older variants of atonement theories), I don't think that's enough to dismiss that they do view the Old Testament Christologically like we do. I would say that some, in the vein of folks like Luther, perceive the Old Testament much differently than we do by making too many conclusions with a (false) dichotomy between Gospel/Law.

#5, I think in the most basic since we share the Nicene Creed (for those groups that do affirm it), but I do have to concede that our understandings of it are widely different in general.

In my own thoughts, I would say that we do share: the Holy Trinity, the divinity and sinlessness of Christ, the virgin birth, the deity of the Holy Spirit, that Christ died to save us (regardless of how/why), Christ's resurrection, and that the Church and Scriptures (whatever they may be) are somehow important.

That said, I have to qualify "Protestants" by specifying conservative Trinitarian Protestants. Anything outside that, and even inside that sometimes, can throw out I said above, such as liberal Protestants that even deny the very existence of Christ etc.

Honestly, Catholics (except liberal/progressive Catholics, e.g. some that deny Christ's historical resurrection) and Orthodox share much more in common than either do with even the most conservative/classical of Protestants, but I wouldn't go so far as to say we share absolutely nothing. I suppose I try to see this more positively than I used to, when I wanted to consign all Protestants to the furthest depths of Hell.
Logged
FormerCalvinist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #68 on: February 05, 2014, 01:04:06 AM »

Regarding #1, not all Protestants even understand the Trinity with formal definitions in mind, much less with the filioque. I doubt the Evangelical church up the road has any idea what the filioque is, but they do know what the Trinity is. Even if they did hold to the filioque, I don't think it's enough to say they worship a different Trinity. Here I concede to Fr. Sergius Bulgakov who considers the filioque and the "through the son" as theologoumena (even if he disagrees with the former), Western and Eastern respectively.

As we all know, Protestants are a very broad group and I can only speak in general terms and about the groups with whom I have the most experience, which is primarily the Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists. I can tell you that in Reformed theology the Filioque as an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is viewed as in important aspect of the Trinity and is deeply tied to their exegetical methodology. I of course do not think that they are worshiping a different Trinity, but that they understand the Trinity wrongly.

#2, not all Protestants are crypto-Nestorian. Just look at the eucharistic debates between Luther/Calvin, where the former was accused of being monophysitic by the latter. Although even if they were all crypto-Nestorians, I'm not sure how that negates their belief in the Virgin Birth itself, regardless of how they understand the specific person born in that circumstance.

#3, again, see #2. If they are crypto-Nestorian, then there is a substantial difference - yet only if they actually are - and then in how we perceive Christ's divinity. They do affirm the deity of the Holy Spirit, which we agree.

It does not negate their belief in the Virgin Birth, but they understand the Virgin Birth in a wrong manner; i.e., that Mary essentially gave birth to a human person who then united with the divine Word to form the current person of Christ. I didn't mean that they don't believe in these things at all but that their understanding of them is very flawed. I don't think that every single Protestant is a crypto-Nestorian. There is probably a minority who hold an orthodox Christology, and many don't know anything about this issue at all; but every Protestant that I have seen discuss this issue has taken a Nestorian position, anecdotal as that may be.

#4, while most Protestants do hold to penal substitution theory (although some are leaving that for older variants of atonement theories), I don't think that's enough to dismiss that they do view the Old Testament Christologically like we do. I would say that some, in the vein of folks like Luther, perceive the Old Testament much differently than we do by making too many conclusions with a (false) dichotomy between Gospel/Law.

I was unclear there and I clarified in a second post that I did not mean that they misunderstand all Old Testament prophecy. Penal substitutionary atonement in Isaiah 53 was just an example of something that they do misunderstand. I agree that they view the Old Testament in a Christological manner.

#5, I think in the most basic since we share the Nicene Creed (for those groups that do affirm it), but I do have to concede that our understandings of it are widely different in general.

In my own thoughts, I would say that we do share: the Holy Trinity, the divinity and sinlessness of Christ, the virgin birth, the deity of the Holy Spirit, that Christ died to save us (regardless of how/why), Christ's resurrection, and that the Church and Scriptures (whatever they may be) are somehow important.

That said, I have to qualify "Protestants" by specifying conservative Trinitarian Protestants. Anything outside that, and even inside that sometimes, can throw out I said above, such as liberal Protestants that even deny the very existence of Christ etc.

Honestly, Catholics (except liberal/progressive Catholics, e.g. some that deny Christ's historical resurrection) and Orthodox share much more in common than either do with even the most conservative/classical of Protestants, but I wouldn't go so far as to say we share absolutely nothing. I suppose I try to see this more positively than I used to, when I wanted to consign all Protestants to the furthest depths of Hell.

This is really what I was getting at: that though we share many things in a broad sense, we understand them in very different ways. I wanted to point out that if we look beyond the surface of the terms we are affirming, to see what we really mean by those terms, substantial differences become apparent, such that it becomes impossible to say that we agree. It's not really that surprising; this kind of equivocation of terms, of saying the same thing as orthodoxy but meaning something very different, is a common feature of heresy. So, sure, if we want to look at things broadly enough I will agree that we share certain things, but not in a truly meaningful way. I agree that we are closer to Roman Catholics than Protestants.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #69 on: February 05, 2014, 02:13:56 AM »

You actually believe the calendar is among the most basic of things?

When people are starving and blowing themselves up every day, yes.

You really think God is going to give a flying heck about which calendar we used?

But that's besides the point.

The point is that even within the Church, we can't agree on everything.
James, the OP asks what we agree on, not what we don't agree on.

PtA, he's been given an answer by you, me, and James which is the same: nothing.
1. I never said that we don't agree on anything with Catholics and Protestants.
2. James is old enough and articulate enough to speak for himself. He doesn't need you to defend him.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,384



« Reply #70 on: February 05, 2014, 02:34:58 AM »

I believe that most importantly we agree that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. It is very painful to see us separated by artificial boundaries such as various beliefs/dogmas that have accumulated over time and may not even reflect how we feel deep inside. Yet, the situation is hard and the historical and dogmatic rift is very big.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 02:36:52 AM by IoanC » Logged

Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #71 on: February 05, 2014, 03:37:58 AM »


I agree Mary is the Mother of God as in The Lord Jesus Christ. Is it Heretical to make the distinction though that she did not Create/Birth The Father or The Holy Spirit ?

No, it is our belief that she gave birth to only one of the Trinity. 
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #72 on: February 05, 2014, 08:37:10 AM »

We really need to differentiate between what branch of Protestantism. You can't paint with such a broad brush. Saying, "Protestants believe such-and-such" is like saying "Men believe such-and-such". Are you referring to Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Church of Christ, etc?

Some Protestant branches would have no problem with the Trinity (most) or The Mother of God (Lutherans) others are so alien as to barely be considered Christian by our standards.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,354



« Reply #73 on: February 05, 2014, 10:35:53 AM »

This is really what I was getting at: that though we share many things in a broad sense, we understand them in very different ways. I wanted to point out that if we look beyond the surface of the terms we are affirming, to see what we really mean by those terms, substantial differences become apparent, such that it becomes impossible to say that we agree. It's not really that surprising; this kind of equivocation of terms, of saying the same thing as orthodoxy but meaning something very different, is a common feature of heresy. So, sure, if we want to look at things broadly enough I will agree that we share certain things, but not in a truly meaningful way. I agree that we are closer to Roman Catholics than Protestants.

Good point. I was just thinking that was the real answer. Perhaps one of the most confusing things is that Protestants and Orthodox use the same terms but with vastly different definitions. I had a great deal of trouble "re-learning" and "re-programming" when I became Orthodox, but now I really don't see much common ground at all, even with Roman Catholics, because of this.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #74 on: February 05, 2014, 01:53:50 PM »

Thread locked for split
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #75 on: February 05, 2014, 02:02:18 PM »

The tangent regarding the Monothelete heresy has been moved to Religious Topics.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=56562.0
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 02:03:17 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #76 on: February 05, 2014, 02:03:38 PM »

Thread now unlocked
Logged
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 132



« Reply #77 on: February 05, 2014, 09:22:07 PM »

     What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ? I have a little list.  Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed
You have independently arrived at a partial reconstruction of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: 
Quote
In the opinion of this Conference [i.e. the Lambeth Conference of 1888] the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be, by God's blessing, made towards Home Reunion:

(a)  The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

(b)  The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

(c)  The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself -- Baptism and the Supper of the Lord -- ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.

(d)  The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
Your points (1) (2) (3) and (5) are covered by (b), and point (4) is covered by (a).

To your list I would add:

6.  The seven-day week, beginning on the Lord's Day and ending on the Sabbath.

My observations on your points (1) through (5):

1.  Here is the Collect for Trinity Sunday from the Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer: 
Quote
Almighty and everlasting God, who hast given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity:  We beseech thee that thou wouldest keep us steadfast in this faith and worship, and bring us at last to see thee in thy one and eternal glory, O Father; who with the Son and the Holy Spirit livest and reignest, one God, for ever and ever.
  Further comment (my private opinion only):  As I read the history, the twin doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation were the best way found in antiquity to preserve the truths of the scriptural and Jewish inheritance and of the original Jewish Christian experience in the face of the questions posed by the Gentile world's presuppositions.

2.  Here is one of the Collects for Christmas Day from TEC's BCP: 
Quote
Almighty God, who hast given us thy only-begotten Son to take our nature upon him and as at this time to be born of a pure virgin:  Grant that we, being regenerate and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit ever, one God, world without end.
  Further comment (my private opinion only):  It is necessary to distinguish the doctrine of virgin conception, which is scriptural, from the doctrine of "virgin birth", which holds that our Lord's worthy mother gave birth to him without pain or loss of blood.  This latter formulation I reject.  To me it seems almost to deny the Incarnation.  But even if that be not the case, it seems an unreasonable proposition.

3.  and 5.  Point (3) is clearly asserted in the Nicene Creed (point 5) which the rubrics of our Eucharistic synaxis require to be recited on Sundays and major feasts.

4.  Christological interpretations of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and Psalm 22 are implied by the appointment of these readings among the options for the readings on Good Friday.

Further comment (private opinion only):  There is no contradiction between interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures Christologically and asserting that, as a historical matter, the original authors could have had little or no knowledge of the details of how their visions would be understood by future generations to have been fulfilled.

Remarks on other replies to this thread: 

A.  The filioque.  A detailed Anglican-Orthodox dialog on the questions raised by the filioque can be found in the Cyprus Agreed Statement:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical/dialogues/orthodox/docs/pdf/The%20Church%20of%20the%20Triune%20God.pdf

Further comment (private opinion only).  The doctrine of the filioque was asserted against the Arians.  I suppose the thinking was something like, "If the Father and Son don't share all things in common, the Son does not truly know his Father as the Arians teach.  But this cannot be so.  So the Father and the Son must share all things."   The doctrine is orthodox in intention, though the addition to the Creed long ago outlived any usefulness it had.  So the latter is slowly being phased out in Anglicanism, while the former is taught in an orthodox sense.

Any doctrine of the Holy Spirit's procession must incorporate these scriptural facts: 

i.  The Son "who is in the bosom of the Father, has made [God] known".  So the Son must truly know his Father.

ii.  The Holy Spirit is called in Scripture "the Spirit of Jesus" (Acts 16.7), "the spirit of Christ" (Romans 8.9), and "the Sprit of [God's] Son".

B.  The 2nd Psalm.  The translation of Psalm 2.10-12 in my "Protestant Bible" (RSV) is

10.Now therefore, O kings, be wise;*
be warned, O rulers of the earth.

11.  Serve the LORD with fear,*
with trembling [12] kiss his feet,

lest he be angry, and you perish in the way;*
for his wrath is quickly kindled.

Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

In my Book of Common Prayer (1979 edition) Psalm 2.10-13 is

10.  And now, you kings, be wise; *
be warned, you rulers of the earth.

11.  Submit to the LORD with fear,*
and with trembling bow before him;

12.  Lest he be angry and you perish;*
for his wrath is quickly kindled.

13.  Happy are they all*
who take refuge in him.
Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,377



« Reply #78 on: February 05, 2014, 09:40:17 PM »

     What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ? I have a little list.  Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed
You have independently arrived at a partial reconstruction of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: 
Quote
In the opinion of this Conference [i.e. the Lambeth Conference of 1888] the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be, by God's blessing, made towards Home Reunion:

(a)  The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

(b)  The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

(c)  The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself -- Baptism and the Supper of the Lord -- ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.

(d)  The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
Your points (1) (2) (3) and (5) are covered by (b), and point (4) is covered by (a).

To your list I would add:

6.  The seven-day week, beginning on the Lord's Day and ending on the Sabbath.

My observations on your points (1) through (5):

1.  Here is the Collect for Trinity Sunday from the Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer: 
Quote
Almighty and everlasting God, who hast given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity:  We beseech thee that thou wouldest keep us steadfast in this faith and worship, and bring us at last to see thee in thy one and eternal glory, O Father; who with the Son and the Holy Spirit livest and reignest, one God, for ever and ever.
  Further comment (my private opinion only):  As I read the history, the twin doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation were the best way found in antiquity to preserve the truths of the scriptural and Jewish inheritance and of the original Jewish Christian experience in the face of the questions posed by the Gentile world's presuppositions.

2.  Here is one of the Collects for Christmas Day from TEC's BCP: 
Quote
Almighty God, who hast given us thy only-begotten Son to take our nature upon him and as at this time to be born of a pure virgin:  Grant that we, being regenerate and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit ever, one God, world without end.
  Further comment (my private opinion only):  It is necessary to distinguish the doctrine of virgin conception, which is scriptural, from the doctrine of "virgin birth", which holds that our Lord's worthy mother gave birth to him without pain or loss of blood.  This latter formulation I reject.  To me it seems almost to deny the Incarnation.  But even if that be not the case, it seems an unreasonable proposition.

3.  and 5.  Point (3) is clearly asserted in the Nicene Creed (point 5) which the rubrics of our Eucharistic synaxis require to be recited on Sundays and major feasts.

4.  Christological interpretations of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and Psalm 22 are implied by the appointment of these readings among the options for the readings on Good Friday.

Further comment (private opinion only):  There is no contradiction between interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures Christologically and asserting that, as a historical matter, the original authors could have had little or no knowledge of the details of how their visions would be understood by future generations to have been fulfilled.

Remarks on other replies to this thread: 

A.  The filioque.  A detailed Anglican-Orthodox dialog on the questions raised by the filioque can be found in the Cyprus Agreed Statement:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical/dialogues/orthodox/docs/pdf/The%20Church%20of%20the%20Triune%20God.pdf

Further comment (private opinion only).  The doctrine of the filioque was asserted against the Arians.  I suppose the thinking was something like, "If the Father and Son don't share all things in common, the Son does not truly know his Father as the Arians teach.  But this cannot be so.  So the Father and the Son must share all things."   The doctrine is orthodox in intention, though the addition to the Creed long ago outlived any usefulness it had.  So the latter is slowly being phased out in Anglicanism, while the former is taught in an orthodox sense.

Any doctrine of the Holy Spirit's procession must incorporate these scriptural facts: 

i.  The Son "who is in the bosom of the Father, has made [God] known".  So the Son must truly know his Father.

ii.  The Holy Spirit is called in Scripture "the Spirit of Jesus" (Acts 16.7), "the spirit of Christ" (Romans 8.9), and "the Sprit of [God's] Son".


B.  The 2nd Psalm.  The translation of Psalm 2.10-12 in my "Protestant Bible" (RSV) is

10.Now therefore, O kings, be wise;*
be warned, O rulers of the earth.

11.  Serve the LORD with fear,*
with trembling [12] kiss his feet,

lest he be angry, and you perish in the way;*
for his wrath is quickly kindled.

Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

In my Book of Common Prayer (1979 edition) Psalm 2.10-13 is

10.  And now, you kings, be wise; *
be warned, you rulers of the earth.

11.  Submit to the LORD with fear,*
and with trembling bow before him;

12.  Lest he be angry and you perish;*
for his wrath is quickly kindled.

13.  Happy are they all*
who take refuge in him.

The problem is that those verses you and Catholic Answers love to quote to defend the filioque, don't mention anything about procession.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Maximum Bob
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,685


Personal Text? We can have personal text?


« Reply #79 on: February 06, 2014, 01:25:32 AM »

Wow.  Roll Eyes

Jude I'm glad you finally got some good answers. Brief answers based on the inclusion of absolute terms such as "all" or "none" just are not helpful, however, accurate they may be. As you can see even with helpful answers there's still a lot of room for discussion and disagreement. I think many Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox would agree on the surface about many of the things you mentioned but as has already been stated when you get down to the level of asking how they understand those beliefs then then people part ways. The Orthodox Church I would assert does agree on these basic beliefs, not only on the surface but also in underlying understanding of them from one jurisdiction to the next. Not to say that we can't find minor things to argue about or even that some people do consider them to be major, but the Orthodox Church doesn't have anywhere near the amount of dogma that the others have. Our dogma hasn't really changed in over one thousand years because we only set dogma reactively and only by agreement of the whole Church.
Logged

AS MANY OF YOU AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST HAVE PUT ON CHRIST, ALLELEUIA
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,753



« Reply #80 on: February 06, 2014, 05:16:12 AM »

Hello I will compile a nice list

1. Existence of God
2. Huh
....

Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 287


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #81 on: February 06, 2014, 12:05:53 PM »

     What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ?


   I have a little list.

   Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed


  Anything else ? I know there has to be more stuff that we agree on.

1. Yes, except some Protestants will defend the Catholic Filioque
2. Yes (though Orthodox put more emphasis on the Incarnation, while Protestants the penal substitution)
3. Yes, but a lot of modern Evangelicals reject the term Theotokos/Mother of God, and in doing so, fall for a form of crypto-Nestorianism
4. Yes
5. Mostly, though modern Evangelicals reject that "baptism is for the remission of sins" and all Protestants reject that there is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" in the meaning intended by the Creed.
Logged
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 132



« Reply #82 on: February 08, 2014, 06:33:37 PM »

So while they will affirm that Christ is one person, the manner in which they treat his two natures results in a theology in which Christ is treated as two persons. They are thus crypto-(hidden)-Nestorians.

WCF 8.2 "...So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion..."
The quotation from the WCF is a paraphrase of the Chalcedonian definition.  It does not support your accusation.
Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,060


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #83 on: February 08, 2014, 08:50:16 PM »

    What are common things that both Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestants agree on ? I have a little list.  Feel free to add:

  1. The Holy Trinity
  2. The Virgin Birth
  3. The Divinity of The Lord Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
  4. The Old Testament Prophesies of Jesus in the Old Testament.
  5. The Nicene Creed
You have independently arrived at a partial reconstruction of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral:  
Quote
In the opinion of this Conference [i.e. the Lambeth Conference of 1888] the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be, by God's blessing, made towards Home Reunion:

(a)  The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

(b)  The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

(c)  The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself -- Baptism and the Supper of the Lord -- ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.

(d)  The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
Your points (1) (2) (3) and (5) are covered by (b), and point (4) is covered by (a).

To your list I would add:

6.  The seven-day week, beginning on the Lord's Day and ending on the Sabbath.

My observations on your points (1) through (5):

1.  Here is the Collect for Trinity Sunday from the Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer:  
Quote
Almighty and everlasting God, who hast given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity:  We beseech thee that thou wouldest keep us steadfast in this faith and worship, and bring us at last to see thee in thy one and eternal glory, O Father; who with the Son and the Holy Spirit livest and reignest, one God, for ever and ever.
 Further comment (my private opinion only):  As I read the history, the twin doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation were the best way found in antiquity to preserve the truths of the scriptural and Jewish inheritance and of the original Jewish Christian experience in the face of the questions posed by the Gentile world's presuppositions.

2.  Here is one of the Collects for Christmas Day from TEC's BCP:  
Quote
Almighty God, who hast given us thy only-begotten Son to take our nature upon him and as at this time to be born of a pure virgin:  Grant that we, being regenerate and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit ever, one God, world without end.
 Further comment (my private opinion only):  It is necessary to distinguish the doctrine of virgin conception, which is scriptural, from the doctrine of "virgin birth", which holds that our Lord's worthy mother gave birth to him without pain or loss of blood.  This latter formulation I reject.  To me it seems almost to deny the Incarnation.  But even if that be not the case, it seems an unreasonable proposition.

3.  and 5.  Point (3) is clearly asserted in the Nicene Creed (point 5) which the rubrics of our Eucharistic synaxis require to be recited on Sundays and major feasts.

4.  Christological interpretations of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and Psalm 22 are implied by the appointment of these readings among the options for the readings on Good Friday.

Further comment (private opinion only):  There is no contradiction between interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures Christologically and asserting that, as a historical matter, the original authors could have had little or no knowledge of the details of how their visions would be understood by future generations to have been fulfilled.

Remarks on other replies to this thread:  

A.  The filioque.  A detailed Anglican-Orthodox dialog on the questions raised by the filioque can be found in the Cyprus Agreed Statement:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical/dialogues/orthodox/docs/pdf/The%20Church%20of%20the%20Triune%20God.pdf

Further comment (private opinion only).  The doctrine of the filioque was asserted against the Arians.  I suppose the thinking was something like, "If the Father and Son don't share all things in common, the Son does not truly know his Father as the Arians teach.  But this cannot be so.  So the Father and the Son must share all things."   The doctrine is orthodox in intention, though the addition to the Creed long ago outlived any usefulness it had.  So the latter is slowly being phased out in Anglicanism, while the former is taught in an orthodox sense.

Any doctrine of the Holy Spirit's procession must incorporate these scriptural facts:  

i.  The Son "who is in the bosom of the Father, has made [God] known".  So the Son must truly know his Father.

ii.  The Holy Spirit is called in Scripture "the Spirit of Jesus" (Acts 16.7), "the spirit of Christ" (Romans 8.9), and "the Sprit of [God's] Son".


B.  The 2nd Psalm.  The translation of Psalm 2.10-12 in my "Protestant Bible" (RSV) is

10.Now therefore, O kings, be wise;*
be warned, O rulers of the earth.

11.  Serve the LORD with fear,*
with trembling [12] kiss his feet,

lest he be angry, and you perish in the way;*
for his wrath is quickly kindled.

Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

In my Book of Common Prayer (1979 edition) Psalm 2.10-13 is

10.  And now, you kings, be wise; *
be warned, you rulers of the earth.

11.  Submit to the LORD with fear,*
and with trembling bow before him;

12.  Lest he be angry and you perish;*
for his wrath is quickly kindled.

13.  Happy are they all*
who take refuge in him.

The problem is that those verses you and Catholic Answers love to quote to defend the filioque, don't mention anything about procession.

It all boils down to this:  It is abundantly clear that the filioque was added in an overzealous effort to combat the Arian heresy in Visigothic Spain in the 6th century and spread eastward, was first rejected by Rome, and then accepted by Rome in the 11th century once they were under the sway of the Frankish Emperors who sought to resurrect the Western Empire and diminish the Eastern Empire as heretics.  To the extent that it talks about eternal procession, the filioque is in error.  To the extent that it talks about temporal procession (proceeding "through," if you will), it is not in error.  But it doesn't belong in the Creed because no Ecumenical Council put it there.  
« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 08:52:19 PM by Yurysprudentsiya » Logged
FormerCalvinist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #84 on: February 08, 2014, 10:14:57 PM »

So while they will affirm that Christ is one person, the manner in which they treat his two natures results in a theology in which Christ is treated as two persons. They are thus crypto-(hidden)-Nestorians.

WCF 8.2 "...So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion..."
The quotation from the WCF is a paraphrase of the Chalcedonian definition.  It does not support your accusation.

You're correct in that it is not per se an admission of Nestorianism, as the same words could be used in an orthodox manner; but that is not the case here. This is revealed through the rejection of the term "Mother of God," that the Calvinist understands "joined together in one person" as meaning that the person of Christ is the result of the combination of two persons, which he will refer to as "natures." Nestorianism is not only affirming "two persons," but also affirming "one person" but treating the natures as if they are persons. One of the reasons that non-Chalcedonians object to Chalcedon is that they consider the Tome of Leo to treat the natures as persons, i.e. to be Nestorian in content. We do not understand the Tome of Leo in this way. WCF 8.2, however, is clarified as heterodox in the context of the rest of Reformed Christology.

I think their error is due to a misreading of Chalcedon, as they will make similar statements to that of St. Leo the Great, but they understand these statements in a Nestorian manner. For example, from the Tome of Leo: "For each 'form' does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh." On its face this is problematic because it appears to treat the natures as actors (persons), but again we do not understand the Tome in this manner, having clarified any ambiguity regarding Chalcedon and Nestorianism at Constantinople II. The Reformed, unsurprisingly, reject Constantinople II and only accept the first four ecumenical councils (albeit as "normed norms"). But yes WCF 8.2 is not a smoking gun as is 2.3.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 10:16:45 PM by FormerCalvinist » Logged
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 132



« Reply #85 on: February 09, 2014, 04:19:00 PM »

To the extent that it talks about eternal procession, the filioque is in error.  To the extent that it talks about temporal procession (proceeding "through," if you will), it is not in error.
The addition to the creed makes no such distinction.  Some teachers may make this distinction, others not.  If you want to develop the doctrine along these lines, be careful.  God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  So say otherwise is modalism.

But it doesn't belong in the Creed because no Ecumenical Council put it there.
On this point, your crowd have already won.  The Episcopal Church's General convention has already resolved that the next revision of the Prayer Book will use a translation of the original Greek text of the Nicene Creed.  A trial-use translation of the original Greek text is already in use in some parishes.  The Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops has already resolved that the various national churches will not break communion with any national church that uses the original form of the Creed.   But your lot go on and on about it.  Sometimes it gives the impression that your party's hatred of us is your only unvarying principle, and things like the filioque are mere excuses. 
Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,263



« Reply #86 on: February 09, 2014, 09:46:22 PM »

Wouldn't it just be easier if we considered those inside the Orthodox Church to be Christians and not worry about whether those outside of her are? It would save a lot of headaches and wishy-washy coddling.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Cackles
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (Canada)
Posts: 335



« Reply #87 on: February 09, 2014, 10:17:29 PM »

Unfortunately, what the Orthodox and Protestants have in common is the KJV. Im amazed the Orthodox would have anything to do with that Bible, considering the circumstances amd motives behind it.
Logged

The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #88 on: February 09, 2014, 10:18:49 PM »

Unfortunately, what the Orthodox and Protestants have in common is the KJV. Im amazed the Orthodox would have anything to do with that Bible, considering the circumstances amd motives behind it.
How many Orthodox actually use the King James Version of the Bible? None that I know of.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #89 on: February 09, 2014, 10:22:03 PM »

Unfortunately, what the Orthodox and Protestants have in common is the KJV. Im amazed the Orthodox would have anything to do with that Bible, considering the circumstances amd motives behind it.

What do you think the "motives" were when the King James Version was done, please? 
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
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 0.194 seconds with 73 queries.