|
|
Post by rgrove on Dec 23, 2004 15:52:30 GMT -5
You guys are making such wide generalizations that it is difficult to bring things down to earth. I was originally just evaluating this gentleman's statements regarding Baptists. His article was very long so my response was. Perhaps separate threads on topics of serious interest would be better. I hope that wasn't implied in my responses. I don't consider him evil. I just disagreed that what he was describing was standard Southern Baptist practice. unfortunately. Sin sucks...  Only the second day I ever posted here so I'm not completely familiar with all of the guidelines either. I hope you don't leave, though, because I'm interested in dialog regarding Eastern Orthodoxy much more than debating the author of this articles understanding of Baptist faith and practice. I'd rather know what you think since we can interact with one another.  Eastern Orthodox doctrine is an area I have wanted to learn more about for some time now. In christ, Ron |
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Dec 23, 2004 16:47:12 GMT -5
You guys are making such wide generalizations that it is difficult to bring things down to earth. Clearly, you can't judge a church by the evil deeds or excesses of individuals...any more than you can say the apostles all failed because they ran away at the arrest of Jesus or because Peter and Paul argued. There never was a golden age where all was concord between Christians ... and it certainly isn't found today. However, if the purpose of this forum is to reassure ourselves that Reformation theology really is the only reasonable way of looking at things and all else is polemical and false, I would like to know it straight away since I have no interest in serving as a foil. If my presence must be apologized for, it raises the question. Your choice. Pax, John I'm sorry, John. I don't mean to paint Orthodoxy with a wide brush. In fact, I am very attracted, as you know, by many things in Orthodoxy. Of coursel, as someone almost rootless, having experienced serveral of the mainline Protestant and evangelical churches, I, although evangelical, fundamental to the point of J. Gresham Machen, and conservative theologically have retained a somewhat amorphous identity based on the heart of my Christian faith and not on my presence in community with other believers. And I believe, historically, Biblically, and theologically, that Christianity is a life that flows most generously, not out of a ruggedly individual faith (although such can preserve one in times of trial and separation), but from the Body of Christ, the Living Community of the King. Certainly my understanding of Baptism, Eucharist, and Confession, although not Roman Catholic, extend relatively beyond their common use in Baptist or Reformed tradition. If asked it the bath of Baptism is inherently salvific, I would argue that a little water, howerver applied, will not make anyone anything other than wet. And although Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, and Reformed Baptists are not Zwinglian in their approach to Baptism, it would be equally true to say that when they use the term Sacramental, it is defined rather broadly in comparison to Roman Catholic or Orthodox beliefs. But from my understanding, Orthodox Christianity would probably say that the ex opere operato view of either Baptism or Communion does not well reflect its understanding, which is far less tied to the linearity imposed by Western constructs. I hope you wil expound on this as well, for I an eager to hear more and learn more. You have cetainly not been invited here as a foil. Nor is this a place to argue the final authority of the Westminster Confession, Belgic Confession, and Reformed theology as the final revealtion of God's truth (although I thing that Reformed theology has much to commend it). We must all learn by comparison, and to some extent, what we know will be compared that with which we are unfamiliar, if for no oonther reason than to try and use similitude and dissimiltude to help us to understand. It was more by "Divine appoment" that rgrove replied to Clarck Carlton immediately prior to your posting. I though to warn you in advance, but I give you a lot of credit. In this forum, we try to be honest (although not brutally so), and sometimes polemicism can get in the way of the attitude of our hearts. rgrove has a fine mind and a good heart, and sometimes reacts to what appears poorly contrued theological blather in a very straightforward manner. I appreciate this, because I truly want to have the benefit of others straightforward analysis when I post, and appreciate that honesty [although adding a measure of diplomacy and benefit of the doubt can, occasionally, be helpful--P.S. to rgrove]  I will say that we do follow a more "European" view toward dialog and debate here. I anticipate that there will be disagreements, some held deeply, for we are talking of things that speak of God, eternal life, and equally eternal separation. We are talking about things of eternal and highly personal significance. I would probably be disappointed if no emotion was ever conveyed. I would worry that the Word of God had been denigrated to a mere source or casuistry and sophistry, and that we would come to believe as the devils believe--in that cold, eternal reality in which the condemned see God as His, and have no part of Him. That thought should truly make us tremble. So I expect lively discussion. I invited you here because I have found great benefit in talking with you, and wish others to experience that same benefit. This topic is not like the "atheist" hook topics in which a person in lured into participation in what they think will be a discussion, only to experience a rather tortuous "piling on." And I did not start this area to "pile on the Orthodox guy". Your friendship, though just being renewed, means far too much to me. There will be discussion, and I can't promise it will never be polemical. These topics, if believed with any fervency, tend to encourage emotion. But at NO point will I allow a "piling on", and fortunately, I have the administrative moxie to assure this. If you think we are painting with broad brush strokes, call us on it! I'm and Oxford-style debater myself, and am not beyond people questioning my sanity, my knowledge, my intelligence, my humanity, my faith...well, if you are familiar with Oxford-style debating, you know what I mean. And I have learned not only to roll with the punches, but to give as good as I get. Of course, the important part is largely left out in the colonies--everybody retiring after the debate to a neighborhood pub for a bit o' the suds. While I don't anticipate quite the level of jarring invective one would sometimes hear in Europe (I believe historical reality of my mother's wedding vows occuring prior to my birth was called into question more than once), I imagine many things will be argued forthrightly. I would expect no less, and I believe that we will all be the better for it. You will note, PaxJohn, I have made you a Moderator, in this area, because of your knowledge, your fine reasoning capability, your gracious and irenic demeanor. and because if we are guilty of building a straw man of Orthodoxy, you can help us see Orthodoxy in truth. The eternal verities with which we deal demand of us no less. Will everyone flock to Mother Orthodoxy? Probably not (although some, indeed, may). Yet no decision is ever truly possible if the truth is not known. Stay right in here. They haven't laid a glove on you. Drop me a line as you have time and I will tell you more). God bless and keep you and yours, my friend, Matthew (soulfyre) |
|
|
|
Post by paxJohn on Dec 23, 2004 17:44:47 GMT -5
Ok, I didn't mean to establish some sort of special begging of the question for myself alone! I'm not easily ovewhelmed but I also don't want to tempt myself to sectarian squabbling since I have an affinity for thinking that I'm right.  Orthodoxy is somewhat organizationally challenged ... but in the opposite way to those under the hierarchy of the bishop of Rome. Rome is famous for killing both Peter and Paul. Antioch is famous for being started by the same. And our patriarchs of the churches are famous (infamous) for never agreeing on anything new which means little "doctrinal development". No loss, IMHO. I take it you recall the antics at the Council of Nicea! As far as conveying Orthodoxy in words...I don't know. I suppose the Holy Spirit might do something in spite of myself. We generally would look at evangelism not as (merely) the transmission of the fundamentals of the faith but primarily as an invitation to Christian community. Like the disciple that invited his fellow to come and see because he had found the Lord, I consider this the primary mode of evangelism. Certainly, with St. Paul, we have the example of an apostle starting new churches in new places. But that certainly wouldn't be my mode as much as I respect missionaries and that calling. I would say that to understand Orthodoxy, you have to participate in the corporate worship. The more the better. Right doctrine is certainly part of that. Our motto is Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi: Right belief proceeding from right worship. Regarding right doctrine, I ran into Bishop Gerber, a retired Roman Catholic bishop at the bookstore (Eighth Day Books of course) yesterday and somehow we started talking about closed communion. I mentioned that I used to believe that the more people we had receiving communion, the more catholic (universal) was the church. However, I have come to believe that an essential aspect of participation in the Eucharist is a participation in intimacy with Christ. Part of intimacy is right knowing of the mind of Christ. He said he would put it another way ... that a certain level of doctrinal agreement was a necessary starting point. I think this illustrates an essential difference between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The west has developed an appreciation for the rule of law. I try to put that in a positive light for there are good things about it. We don't have "spiritual directors" we have "spiritual fathers". We don't have dispensations from discipline, we have Economia ... the understanding that certain of the disciplinary canons or customs (fasting for instance) are "House Rules" ... made for the well ordering of God's House. Some rules cannot be broken without serious spiritual wounds resulting. The Christian East developed its theology without the Reformation dialog with Rome. We know nothing of double predestination. We tend to reject Augustine's slant on Original Sin (but not Original Sin itself) and therefore we are not forced to jump through dogma hoops in proclaiming Marry immaculately conceived and then proclaiming the Pope infallible to back up the last leap. Matters such as the Assumption of Mary are of course a part of the tradition...people were talking about it a very long time ago. However, it is antithetical to the spirit of Orthodoxy to dogmatize it. Therefore, you might find it mentioned in some liturgy but our official commemoration is called the Dormition ... the falling asleep of Mary. I assume that she died for she was mortal and any less than that takes away from the humanity of Christ. I dislike Tillich's method and prefer Barth among Protestant theologians. My hope would be not to make converts from other Christian bodies but to join with you in prayerful dialog so that we might discover more of Christ in the Church and in one another. May Christ convert us continually. Well, I'm covering too much in one long ramble and I'm late for an appointment so I must run. If you haven't noticed, I'm INFP on the Myer Briggs. Pax, john |
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Dec 23, 2004 18:05:05 GMT -5
One last question for today: What is the difference between a creed and a confession? Now perhaps this merely a verbal issue in this example but I note that the Episcopal Church traditionally claims that it is not a confessional church but a credal church. Historically I believe that creeds were developed to establish a certain sine qua non of Christian belief, a statement that, in brief, could when used at the point of initiation (baptism) to establish the committment of the one professing belief to the orthodox understandings of the faith. Confessions, however, tend more to be theological dissertations whose purpose is not to simply identify the core of Christian belief, but a theological distinctive to identify a community of faith. The Creed is simple, but profound, and there is indication that credal forms were at use in the earliest Christian community (cf. such passages as Philippians 2:6-11 and I Timothy 3:16). I have yet to understand why the Baptist tradition is so staunchly against "creedalism". Fundamentalism itself is essentially a creed (the "fundamentals" of the faith). Church history since the Reformation reveals that the Biblical doctrine of the priesthood of the believe, which was argued primarliy as a polemic against the "mediational" theology of Roman Catholicism, has progressed to its illogical extreme, as to make conscience alone the arbiter of belief. I believe many Baptists (of which, in general, Reformed Baptists are a happy exception), will counter that creeds and confessions are not, after all, "holy writ", and that the word of God (i.e. the Holy Bible) is their "creed" and "confession." This, of course, necessarily begs the point. For we often assume the near canonicity of our jargon ("Jesus is standing at the door of your heart and knocking. Won't you let him into your heart today?), with so little Biblical study that we don't realize that this jargon horribly wrenches a verse out of context for a meaning unintended by scripture. Sometimes, I think that saying "We believe the Bible" is an attempt to put our beliefs beyond rational discussion or question (after all, who can disagree with the word of God?), even though we often do not know, do not practice, and effectively do not believe what the Bible does say. It's sort of like saying, "Well God showed me that the passage means thus and thus,", or "I haven't received a witness of God in my heart concerning what you say, so I believe what you say must be wrong." These statements put all beyond argument (even though our peculiarly individual perception of God, uninformed and uncorrected by the ministry of the body of Christ, has been practiced by others who have begun personality cults that deviate wildly from Christian orthodoxy). All this is to say that by labeling the use of creeds as "credalism", with a failure to understand why for centuries they were in use for baptism, or a lack of understanding of their beautiful, yet precise, statement of the Chrisitian faith and their use in establishing a habit of the mind that grasped the essentials of the Gospel, has been an incredible loss to us who have never read and understood the creeds. Each time I read them, I am admonished that Jesus Christ prayed to his Father, shortly before his trial, scourging, and crucifixion, that we would be One, even as He and the Father were One and are One, in order that the whole world might know that he was sent from the father. This fragmentation of the church should be a daily source of sorrow and repentance among us all, that we should so casually treat this fervent prayer of our Lord. Creeds are, in many ways, a simple source of unity. They are not the ultimate assurance of unity, but they are a simple step along the path, the baby step that one would take at baptism or later at confirmation (if one was baptized as an infant) that begins the Chrisitian life. It is no less important, and is often more accurate, than the tract evangelism mentality, which often by omission fails to give the person being invited to become a member of the famility of faith exactly what the nature of that faith is, what the gospel entails. One must always pray to move beyond the baby steps of the credal belief and dive into the deep waters of the word of God and the wisdom of God to liver our lives. We must seek to grow beyond the pure milk of the word of God to its deeper truths and doctrines. But when we are tempted to wander far afield from the narrow way that Jesus sat before us, it is often helpful to return to the simplicity of the creed to remind of of the true simlicity of the Gospel of our Lord. God bless and keep you all, Matthew (soulfyre) |
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Dec 23, 2004 19:02:44 GMT -5
Ok, I didn't mean to establish some sort of special begging of the question for myself alone! I'm not easily ovewhelmed but I also don't want to tempt myself to sectarian squabbling since I have an affinity for thinking that I'm right. Don't we all? I thought so, but Priests must still have to interact with people who have come from other traditions and must have some kinds of answers to the questions on all the doctinal development that has happened elsewhere. Perhaps I'm wrong in this assumption? But what about anwering questions people have when they're reading the Bible? Are there any commentary series' from a highly recognized Orthodox writer? This sounds very much like traditional Reformed evangelism. That's where a Reformed Baptist church such as ours is noticibly different than the others that have changed drastically in their faith and practice over the last couple centuries. Too much American individualism have crept into the church. Church membership and church covenenants have fallen out of favor which reduces the community affect. Many are returning to this model (it even showed up in the purpose drive church stuff I believe) so that people understand that they are part of a community and have responsibilities towards that community as well as the leadership of that community having leadership responsibilities over the member. Agreed. I'd love to, but my wife has informed me it's not my calling either. ;D Very interesting. We practise "close communion". We'll have to have a Lord's Supper thread sometime. It would be interesting. Agreed. Many Protestant doctrines are only present as a result of Rome. Any recommended Orthodox reading on metaphysical matters? Since he was around well before the split where does he stand generally in Orthodox history? Do Orthodox accept his synods decisions (on Pelagius for example)? Good to hear. I found out quite late as a Catholic that my rejection of that doctrine wasn't optional and that I happened to be under something called an anathema. I was quite surprised by this at the time.  I didn't figure you'd be a fan of that one. I'm very happy to hear this. For the life of me I'll never understand placing the anathema on someone for disagreeing with this. Agreed. I'll pull more Orthodox doctrine out of you yet, though. In Christ, Ron |
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Dec 23, 2004 19:13:19 GMT -5
I have yet to understand why the Baptist tradition is so staunchly against "creedalism". This began to be a problem at the beginning of the 20th century. It's an emotional reaction to imaginary bogeymen. Inquire deeper and you'll find they have no ground to stand on... For anyone interested there is a book called "By His Grace and For His Glory" By Tom Nettles that demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt that Baptists had always used confessions until Fundamentalism (something beyond the original "Fundamentals") infected Baptists.  ;D This is how we look at it of course. I have been in churches where doctrinal anarchy was the norm. It's not pretty... In Christ, Ron |
|
Eastern Orthodox doctrine is an area I have wanted to learn more about for some time now.
