Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Nope. Necessary only in "proof." Had God been incarnate and not claimed resurrection, or visible resurrection, Christianity would still exist. The trinity, the passion, the sacrifice, all there. Resurrection was mostly proof, and what do we hear about those who require miracles to believe?
I disagree. I think that it is much more than only proof. The resurrection is one of the main points that distinguishes Christianity from all other religions. The tombs of Buddha, Mohamed, Confucius, Joseph Smith, etc., are all full. Only the tomb of Christ is empty.
Jesus claimed to be God. Had He not been resurrected then He would have allowed death to defeat Him, and everyone would have seen that. What kind of following do you think would have ensued if Christ did not rise? I don't think it would have been very great at all. And, if you rewrite all the scriptures that are dependent on the resurrection, including the point of eschatology that you mentioned, then what is left really isn't Christianity. It is some other faith. The resurrection is central to our faith, so without it, it ceases to be Christianity. It could not claim to be superior to any other made-up faith.
Well, based on the axiom that God's essence cannot die, there can be no resurrection without Incarnation. But I see that as a "mechanics" argument, not one addressing what it means to Christianity itself.
But if you are supposing that a regular human came as a prophet and then was later raised from the dead, I'm not sure what that would really show. The Incarnation IS necessary for Christianity, but the Resurrection is what defines it.
"I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." Peter's words according to Acts 10:34-35 (ESV)
He is generous to the righteous and unrighteous.
But if God's overriding intent is to save all men, then He would dispense enough grace that all should be saved
His intent is to save — because He loves us. Ours is to accept His grace. Love does not compel.
Given that you believe in pedobaptism, one does wonder why you do not also practice pedocommunion?
But we do! If you ever go to an Orthodox Church you will witness it first hand.
Apparently, you do not share the RC view here. They seem to teach that baptism frees the infant from the bonds of original sin so that it is possible for him to be saved
The Orhodox do not share St. Augustine's notion of the original sin. Baptism is a covenant with Christ through the Holy Spirit, and not of our doing. We ask the Holy Spirit to have mercy on us and adopt us into Christ. It does not require our "understanding" or "age of reason." That's why what you call sacraments are called "mysteries" in Greek. Hence, no understanding is required. God is not held hostage by our intellectual ability to "comprehend" His grace.
But habits of worship can become distorted or even mythical. How else to account for the corruption of Reformation era indulgences? Or the veneration of saints who in modern times have been admitted to be myths and not real persons at all. How else to explain the married clergy of Rome to the celibate clergy of Rome in a later era?
Habits of worship are recorded and are required to be in harmony with Scrioptures. If you read the Liturgy of St. Basil or St. James, the oldest ones known, it is only a longer version of our weekly John Chrystostomos' Divine Liturgy, which is 1,600 years old.
There is a tendency to 'improve' worship until it is no longer recognizable and becomes mere ritualistic repetition or even blasphemous, reducing the spiritual life of the church to a mere series of actions and not a sign of inner spiritual life
Orthodoxy does not display any such phenomenon. I know for a fact that my ancestors 1,100 years went to church on Sunday and sang the same liturgy we sing today. I can read the Church Slavonic text used at that time because our liturgical language (as far as the prayers are concerned) is still in Church Slavonic, and is identical to that used by Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians and Carpatho-Slovak Christians. I would say that makes it very recognizable indeed.
The problem is that you only know western Christianity, and are tagging their stereotypes on us. We never felt that we could improve on that which the Apostles knew and taught.
As for the western indulgences (which we don't have, never had and never will have), human corruption is evident in all that we do, including the church. Thus, you have corrupt ministers as we have corrupt clergy. The Church is made of sinners, not saints. :)
"Ho,ho....Now come on. The Reformation fathers traced their views back to the early days of the church as well. I often cite Augustine as my source-not the Reformed fathers."
Yes, Augustine gets cited a lot (but an awful lot of St. Augustine gets swept under the rug by Protestantism), and a smattering of other Fathers, selectively. But as to who lives and breathes the Fathers, I'm afraid that no-one comes close to the Orthodox -- and that includes Catholicism. We don't have a Catechism, we don't have a systematic theology, we don't have a series of Papal encyclicals and bulls a mile long. We just have the patristic tradition -- one that lives still today.
You might consider that to be good, you might consider that to be bad, but it is how it is.
"In addition, you can't really say that ALL your doctrinal beliefs can be traced back to the early part of the Church for the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic are at schism with each other."
You are right. In every place where Catholicism and Orthodoxy genuinely differ (there are points where there have been true misunderstandings), Orthodoxy considers that Catholicism varies from the teachings and practice of Holy Tradition.
"You left in 1000AD."
See the above as to who we feel left whom.
"Who’s to blame..."
Depends on whom you ask. Obviously our Catholic friends think differently.
"...and why don't you agree with the RCC interpretation?"
Because of the reasons stated above.
"Do you believe in the Nicene Creed as the Roman Catholic doctrine shows?"
Besides the filioque, there are some nuances of understanding that differ if one goes through the Creed line by line.
"Do you accept the Pope as your final authority?"
Of course not. Neither did the undivided Church, although the Roman see was held in *very* high regard because of the orthodoxy of that see in general through the first centuries of the Church. That see was also first in honor, and the bishop of Rome was turned to for assistance in settling disputes within and between other local churches because of that honor and that reputation for orthodoxy. With the loss of that orthodoxy, all of that respect, deference, and primacy was lost. It was a loss to the Church.
"Why is there an Orthodox Church and an RCC if tradition is the same?"
There is only one Holy Tradition. As I stated above, where Roman Catholic and Orthodox doctrines diverge, we believe that the Catholic church has misinterpreted Tradition.
In no small part, this is the result of the development of the idea of universal authority and primacy of the Pope. Eastern Orthodoxy looks very static and fossilized, but the reality is that we are constantly in a state of reformation, in the sense that we are constantly looking at present actions, worship, belief, etc... and making sure that it lines up with Holy Tradition. We do this by being immersed in the Scriptures, the writings of the Fathers, and the liturgical services of the Church. There is a constant "return to roots" going on.
In Catholicism after the schism, there was nothing to stop things from changing. The balance of the East was gone, the power was very centralized in Rome, discouraging dissent and criticism. There is plenty of both going on in Orthodoxy all the time. Trust me!
"All these are legitimate questions."
Yes they are.
"To say that the Orthodox and RCC have built their foundations upon the early traditions and the Reformers on something made up 1500 years later is simply not true."
I cannot speak for Catholicism, because in general, Orthodoxy traditionally does not look on Catholicism as being patristically grounded in the same way that we are. The role of the Magesterium has come to overshadow the Fathers in Catholicism -- they are quoted, but more in a "proof-texting" kind of way, IMHO, to lend ballast to the declarations of the Magesterium.
This is compared to our sense of striving to be "inside" the patristic mind, and our belief that no-one -- absolutely no-one -- is infallible in any sense of the word, and that the teachings and words and actions of any bishop can and must be scrutinized for faithfulness to Holy Tradition.
But speaking from the Orthodox perspective, I really cannot see how there is any comparison between the living continuity with the early centuries that we have, and the limited use of patristic writings within Protestantism.
I certainly did not mean to imply that the Reformers took a Bible and created doctrines out of whole cloth based on the Scripture. They most obviously have been heavily influenced by theh traditions of the Church in many ways.
What I do mean to say, and have said before, is that in general, a traditional Protestant is going to approach the writings of the Reformation fathers with a basic standpoint of trust and belief -- with points of disagreement being expected to be the exception. That same Protestant is going to approach the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. John Chrysostom, etc... with a general approach of distrust, expecting to find a few usable points and a little ballast, but with the point of view that where these Fathers disagree with Protestant distinctives, the Fathers are wrong, and the reformers are right.
If the Reformers had turned to the writings of the Fathers for the answers to where Rome had gone wrong and to what needed to be changed, there wouldn't have been a Reformation. There would have been a Reunion. This is a matter of great sadness to Orthodoxy. It is worth reading the letters exchanged between the Tubingen theologians and the Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople in the immediate wake of the Reformation, if one wants to see this in rather stark terms.
What I am describing is in terms of traditional Catholicism and Orthdooxy. Things have made some changes as a result of Vatican II. From the standpoint of formal doctrine, the changes have been positive, and Orthodoxy and Catholicism has theoretically drawn closer to Orthodox positions. From the standpoint of praxis, the post-Vat II Catholic ways are farther from Orthodox praxis than ever -- and this may prove to be more of a practical problem than the filioque ever was.
I know I'll get flamed from all directions for this post... But they are things that need to be said in light of your valid criticisms.
In short, Orthodoxy does not believe in the Immaculate Conception. We believe that Mary was conceived in the ordinary way, without any special freedom from original sin based on "prevenient grace", and with the effects of the ancestral sin.
The rub is that Orthodoxy believes that the effects of the ancestral sin are death and corruption -- full stop. We do not believe that a man is worthy of condemnation to hell just by virtue of being born.
We believe that the Theotokos had a miraculous birth, similar to that of St. John the Baptist (her parents were elderly and childless -- a familiar Biblical story.) We believe that this birth happened for a reason, just as did the miraculous births of Sampson, Samuel, and St. John the Baptist. But the morally guiltless life of the Theotokos was not the result of some special grace given her at conception. She had the same ascetic tools at her disposal that all the rest of us do. She is a true role model of obedience and sanctity for us.
Being born with the ancestral sin, she grew old and died. Her salvation is completely dependent on the work of Christ, since without Christ conquering death, she would be held captive by Hades just as were all the Righteous of the OT prior to the Resurrection.
"But we do! If you ever go to an Orthodox Church you will witness it first hand."
Yes! And it is a beautiful sight to behold, isn't it, Kosta?
My oldest does not remember our last years as Anglicans. But I do remember vividly the fact that even as a very small child, he didn't understand why, if communion was important and good for you, he couldn't receive it.
It was a great joy when I could watch as their godfather took my three tiny children up for their first communion the Sunday after our reception into the Orthodox Church. That was a long time ago -- they're all young adults now and have been nourished on the Body and Blood of Christ all of their lives.
"Baptism is a covenant with Christ through the Holy Spirit, and not of our doing. We ask the Holy Spirit to have mercy on us and adopt us into Christ. It does not require our "understanding" or "age of reason." That's why what you call sacraments are called "mysteries" in Greek. Hence, no understanding is required. God is not held hostage by our intellectual ability to "comprehend" His grace."
*Very* well stated. For the benefit of our Protestant friends, I would point out that this idea of a covenant that is not of our doing extends, by the way, to things like marriage. There are no vows in an Orthodox wedding. The couple presents themselves to the Church, asking to be joined, and Christ joins them together.
There really is no substitute for going to attend some Orthodox services, preferably at parishes that do things in a traditional way, and in the English language -- if one wants to criticize how we really are, rather than how one *thinks* we are!
"There is no such thing as "a little bit saved"."
Orthodox approaches to the spiritual life revolve around the idea of theosis. There is really no English equivalent for this word. "Divinization" and "deification" are very poor translations, since they imply that we think we are becoming God.
"Sanctification" and "becoming Christ-like" really don't capture it, either, since these are ways of Protestant speaking that apply to someone who is "saved" and now is living out the implications of that. These terms to not capture the very direct participation in the life of God that we believe is possible to begin right here on earth. It is not imitation -- it is participation.
Sometimes we say that we are "being saved", in an ongoing sense, but even that doesn't really capture it, since it implies (especially when combined with the standard and honest answer of "I don't know" that any Orthodox Christian gives to the question of "are you saved?") -- a mental and emotional state of uncertainty, doubt, and fear that are just not a part of the Orthodox spiritual life. Our lives are filled with comfort, love, hope, and the knowledge of God's mercy -- as long as we actively receive it.
My analogy wasn't a great one, and you are right that analogies always break down.
The point that I was trying to make was that we want to join ourselves to Christ. We want to participate in the life of Christ. We want (in the terminology of St. Gregory Palamas) to participate in the divine energies and begin the path to theosis. We want our children to participate in the life of Christ and to be joined to the Body of Christ.
We don't baptize our children out of fear that they will go to hell or limbo (which we Orthodox don't believe in anyway) if they aren't baptized. We baptize our children for the same reason that we keep them warm, feed them, hold them, and comfort them when they cry. We baptize them because we love them -- and what more loving thing can a parent do for their baby than to join him to Christ?
I'm happy to see you commenting over here. I'm a poor student of the KJV compared to you and ftd. Keep posting. There are so few of us who know anything about the "Ghost Society." 8~)
If the Gospel writers were free to make changes this significant, then the Bible is not inspired. It is a work of fiction. Another explanation could be that Jesus did reverse the order because it was "in remembrance of Him". From then on, they would remember Jesus uniquely every time they partook.
This is not what the Orthodox believe and I don't believe I would have said it that way. We simply do not speculate, knowing that God is not limited in any way to save by His grace whomever He wishes.
Yes, that's why I used the word "technically". I know you believe God can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants. I just thought that absent a special dispensation by God, you thought that an unbaptized baby does not go to heaven.
I know where Ryrie is coming from, and truth be told, this is the way I read it the first time myself, without having any background. Now I understand that it can be taken either way. This argument holds that Christ says that you have to be born TWICE (born again), one birth by water (regular birth) and a second birth by the Spirit (salvation, but not involving baptism as its cause). Seen in this light I think the passage does make sense. Nicodemus wondered if both births were in the regular sense. Jesus corrected him.
FK: "Under faith by proxy, justification can be achieved by who you know, not what you believe. That concerns me."
So what you are saying is that you are only saved when you have "x" amount of faith - as determined by the individual? Is faith a gift? Why now does it depend on you to be saved?
No, I am not saying that. I only commented on my disagreement with faith by proxy. I have always maintained that individuals never determine their own salvations. Only God does that. When I said "...justification can be achieved by who you know, not what you believe." you assumed that I meant that "belief" came from the individual, when my position all along has been that belief (or faith) comes only from God. Only believers are justified.
Good memory, Agrarian. In the body of the text, after verse 8 and before verse 9, my Bible inserts "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20". But the whole section is there, red letters and all. :) I didn't know that was a KJV difference from many other versions. Even though some of the verses are a little weird sounding, I have always considered the passage to be fully scriptural.
Thank you for all of your comments on the KJV. I did Google as you suggested and found some sites that I will look into. It was funny that most on the first page were actually anti-KJV-only sites. They shouldn't get to be listed first. :)
JK quoting: "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Mat 5:20
Well, this is a fair matter for interpretation. Can I take credit for "MY" height? There are plenty of things that are "mine" that I had nothing to do with. So I would say that "my" righteousness is only a product of God, not of me.
No, that about is what imputed righteous is. Something not part of us, just a legal status. A pile of manure covered with snow to trick God...
Where does the idea about "tricking God" come from? Nobody thinks that. When we are in heaven we actually will be righteous. But that glory we have to wait for. If I turn out to be correct, I think one reason that God made that decision is His knowing what a man who thinks he is righteous is capable of.
We are being given a share in the divine nature, which means WE can LOVE! WE can LOVE even our enemies! ...
OK, I see what you mean. I was thinking along a totally different line. :)
One, that's pure speculation, although a "soothing one," and, two, it doesn't explain why the first century Christians in Didache reversed Christ's reversal, or why would they want to!
You are dismissing those Christians who lived in the time when Apostles still walked the earth. Could it be, perhaps, that it was because the Gospels were still being written at that time?
I would wager on that possibility, although it is not as "soothing" as your speculation. After all, the Gospels seem oblivious to Peter's Epistles and vice versa.
That is at the core of "theosis" or "divinization" in Apostolic theology. Through the Spirit we can share in the divine nature (or essence). We can never assume, however, divine nature; we can only participate in it its uncreated energies.
Yes, you nailed what I was thinking at the time, in your last sentence. I suppose that since I was talking to Joe, I didn't have my Orthodox hat on! :) I don't think I had heard it expressed this way before specifically from the Catholic side. I think I get it now.
Baptism, in Orthodoxy, is a petition for adoption of one's soul into Christ by the Holy Spirit. We concentrate on adoption, and trust that the adopting Parent will protect. That's all. We do not go into details of God's mind, or plans.
Adoption, by definition, does not require "understanding" or "age of reason." God's grace is not held hostage by our intellect or our acceptance of Him.
Bingo! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.