Posted on 01/07/2012 6:00:19 PM PST by rzman21
There remain OTHER PROTESTANTS who are simply much more like Orthodoxy than you'd believe possible. Lurking around in the Protestant movement where there are High Church inclinations probably won't take you there.
My Roman Catholic friends might disagree with me, but I think the roots of ecclesiastical rationalism were sown by the scholastics.
As the author points out, the Orthodox world has largely been spared a lot of the thorns that higher criticism has sown.
Places like Holy Cross might be an exception, but I haven’t seen the sort of widespread theological liberalism among the Orthodox as one sees among the Western denominations.
I like the idea of trying to have a dialog rather than the same flame wars. The ecumenic tag is well worth a try in this regard. According to the RM guidelines, the key is to avoid antagonism. How this is avoided in the spirit of the ecumenic tag may require some learning. The full guidelines are on the RM's home page. I've read them a couple of times, but still may need more study and practice.
With this in mind, my comment:
Something new for me was to realize the two-step development post-reformation. The initial reformation worked out confessions or creeds. Even though these varied in some key ways, there was the idea of authority in order to have a common belief.
The second step was away from this and to an individualistic 'church' – the rejection of all authority. Protestants can be divided into those who recognize some authority, confession or creed, and those who recognize none.
About the only thing the Protestants share in common with the Orthodox is an opposition to papal supremacy.
Beyond that, the similarities fade.
Confessional Lutherans and orthodox Anglicans are the closest to Apostolic Christianity while those like the Baptists and the Unitarians are the furthest.
Lutherans generally are far more at home say in a Catholic Church save for the Marian stuff than in a Baptist or a Pentecostal service.
The Confessional Protestants made an attempt to say they were still attached to the historic Catholic Church and weren’t starting a new religion.
While those in the Radical Reformation made every pretence to be “restoring” the faith of the apostles.
Of course they do, but the general Protestant view is that they are in serious error.
Southern Baptists (not to be confused with the SBC) keep it simple. Book says don’t add... we didn’t add. Book says don’t take away... we didn’t take away.My Southern Baptist friends are among the very most knowledgeable about what Scripture says of all of my friends. They also have the least understanding of what Scripture means. An example:
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “They know what it says. They refuse to consider that it means that God intended for MEN to have Divine Authority here on earth, even in the most limited sense.
I'm not sure I completely agree, but I believe there is a difference East and West concerning the use of reason. We can assign a time to this, the Enlightenment, where Theology, Philosophy and Science split from fusion into separate spheres. The un-holy result was each vying for the role of sole means of 'truth.'
The East had its own and separate challenges; I think, based on my limited knowledge, these include: unity, independence from government and variations in theology that result from less centralized authority.
Before I seem too antagonistic. :)
I see this differences as inevitable and neither good nor bad in general. The East has more involvement and authority in the layperson it is more 'democratic'; the West has an easier time of consistency. The West was also where modern science arose and, I believe jurisprudence. I attribute this to the same cultural impulse.
Inevitably there is the pull between the two, call them, personalities. There is both good and bad results possible from the extremes; the best we can do is try to combine what is best.
I've likely gone too far off topic here. I'll shut up now. :)
The art and science of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures and of inquiring into their true meaning. It defines the laws that exegetes are to follow in order to determine and explain the sense of the revealed word of God. It presupposes that the interpreter has a knowledge of the biblical languages and of such sciences as contribute to a better understanding of Holy Writ. (Etym. Greek herm_neus, interpreter.)
Since the essence of both the Catholic and Orthodox communities are the Seven Sacraments and Apostolic Succession, you are either jesting or are woefully uninformed. What sects or denominations are, in your opinion, close to the Orthodox?
A good chunk of modern Protestant movements are more a rejection of the High Church crowd than a rejection of Rome.
Which makes me wonder, seriously, why does the Catholic hierarchy think it useful to drag in a half a dozen Anglican congregations while there are gazillions of Methodists out there who'd take half the effort to bring into that particular fold?
Is it the class system at work or what?
I have quite a bit of dialog locally with Episcopalians and I certainly agree on this score. What I learned recently was that Wesley and Methodism came from Anglican roots.
I don't know if this is related, but I also learned that theosis is most closely resembled, in the Protestant world, in certain Methodist teaching.
Today the Episcopal, Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches are in some turmoil over the liberalism the article addresses.
You’ve missed the earlier discussions on the matter. This is not one that starts out in a way that calls for that. Just accept on faith that i probably know as much about my own church as yours, and the other guys.
Can you name those “Protestant Churches that have MORE in common with the Orthodox than do the Roman Catholics”?
My church used to get all their new members from people who had fallen away from various protestant churches. Now new members come mostly from people who fell away from catholic churches—and now feel a need to return to the church—however, for whatever reason—they don’t feel that the catholic church is their church home.
(I don’t think all the news is bad for catholics. I’ve heard recently that American catholic seminaries have cleaned up their act and they’re getting a lot of conservative seminarians. as well, the number of catholics in the USA is increasing—however,the reason for the increase in membership is not because of conversion or family growth— but rather because of immigration)
You’ve missed the earlier discussions on the matter.No doubt.
This is not one that starts out in a way that calls for that.Huh? One what? Calls for what?
Just accept on faith that i probably know as much about my own church as yours, and the other guys.Nothing you have posted gives me any faith in that statement. And that you have yet to give a name to the sect or denomination makes the claim of superior knowledge even more strained. Sorry.
I don’t see much of a connection between Rome and Methodism.
Methodism and the Oxford Movement had similar roots in a protest against the CofE’s moribund faith in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution of 1689 if I recall directly.
Eastern Christianity never divided theology from spirituality the way the Scholastics did.
Let me guess, The Scriptures alone are not sufficient cause God couldn’t get them right, and we need Special leaders to fill in the blanks.
Johnny come latelys always accuse their predecessors of having been in error to deflect attention away from the novelty of their ideas.
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.