Saint Moses the Black
Saint Moses the Black
Popular Posts
-
The new thing for 2011 is going to be their next-generation user interface . They show snippets of it towards the end of the video. The new ...
-
As seen from the website : "Kevin's guest, Keith Elmore, discusses his journey from Pentecostal preacher (since the age of ten!) to...
-
I'm gonna read this one slowly. I'm not gonna rush to any conclusion. I learned my lesson in jumping in other peoples disputes witho...
-
Part 1: Part 2: Part 4: To see the rest please visit Eastern University
-
The theology section of a christian hiphop board was just closed down. I salvaged what I could from the board I posted on. A Calvinistic bud...
-
There is an Emergent type church in the city of Pittsburgh called "Hot metal bridge". They dwell on the southside. http://www.hotm...
Saint John the Theologian
Saint John the Theologian
Facebook Badge
Subscribe
Posts
Comments
Friday, January 28, 2011
Questions
11:12 PM | 
Posted by
Jnorm |
As seen from Theologica: (I am putting this on my blog because it took me a few hours to write. I only used his initials instead of his full name in this one.)
Did he turn EO in a Baptist seminary? I know a number of new converts that did while in seminary or while pastoring.
No I don't see it as impossible. For us, time is a major factor. We don't call Clement of Alexandria a Saint. Eventhough he had some good things to say. But we don't call him a saint for a reason. We eventually called Origen a heretic some centuries after his death(eventhough he too had alot of good things to say. He was a prodigy, a genius, and well loved, he is probably one of the most respected and well loved declared heretics of all time), and we call Origenism heretical as well. Why? Because of time. Time is a tester of fruit. One can see the implications or logical conclusions of a belief through time. This is also true in regards to the issue of Arainism....well at least in regards to the Christian East. The moderate Arians or homoiousiosians saw the fruit of Arianism through the radical Arians. Once they saw that, they were ready and willing to re-unite with the Nicene party. It took Saint Athanasius many decades to get them back, but they were ready once they saw the implications of Arianism for themselves.
And so Time is the answer. When we look at the issue of Sola Scriptura, we see that eventually everyone wasn't content to just go by what a Martin Luther, a Zwingli, or a John Calvin had to say. Eventually the flood gates of individualism was open. Eventually the rapid growth of perpetual schisms and splits was open. There is a reason why thousands of different groups exist today. Yes, schisms and splits will always happen, but at what magnitude? Sola Scriptura was like the assembly line for schism. It made splits more easily available, and once it was transplanted to North America in where we have freedom of Religion, it became unstoppable. America is a schism factory. We are in the business of producing schisms. We should have a stamp that says "Schisms R Us"! It has gotten to the point of schism being the norm. No one really cares about the chaos. No one really cares about the massive divisions. No one really cares about what the New Testament has to say about schisms and those who create them. No one really cares because we are entrenched in schism mania.
1.) It depends on the issue, and what we are talking about
2.) We would have to include both implicitness as well as explicitness
3.) We would have to look at consistency, logical conclusions....etc
4.) We would have to look at wholeness, meaning what would have to change in order to embrace such and such. Every doctrine influences another, even if you can't see it or perceive it at the time. There is an influence.
It is my personal opinion that out of all the groups that exist today, we are the ones that can make the best claim in this regard. We may not be perfect, and we may fall short in some areas, but this is my own personal opinion.
It depends, as seen from this podcast, When The Fathers Disagree. It also depends on what issue we are talking about as well. If we are talking about the issue of Free Will, then the finger would have to be pointed at Origen and Origenism for bringing in a teaching of determinism for Christians in the Eschaton(due to his embrace of NeoPlatonism), in regards to determinism in the here and now, as well as the Eschaton, we would have to point the finger at Saint Augustine and Augustinianism(also due to his embrace of NeoPlatonism). Other than that you will see most Fathers....especially in the East as being uniform in regards to that issue. And so it really all depends. A good portion of the contradictions have a context to them. This is the reason why we look for Consensus. Or Patristic consensus. The consensus is not just in the area of different regions, but also in regards to different times as well. And so it's both....both time and region.
Those who reject the teaching of Free Will, will simply pick and choose differently. They will have to start with Saint Augustine and stay within the Augustinian tradition by picking and choosing a number of high Augustinians throughout the centuries......like Lucidus, Gottschalk,......etc.
A similar situation would be true in regards to the issue of Baptismal Regeneration. I could be wrong, but it would seem as if one would have to point the finger either at Wycliffe(because of his high Predestinarian views) or at the Christian humanists of the 16th century.....you know, people like Zwingli, the Anabaptists, and maybe John Calvin. I hear conflicting things by people about what he believed, and so I really don't know at this time in regards to John Calvin.
But before that time, it's hard not to see Baptismal Regeneration as being universally advocated. The view is represented strongly in the Fathers. When one adopts the method of Patristic Consensus, then Baptismal Regeneration is the view. Not only in different regions of the globe, but also in every time period as well.
Those who reject Baptismal Regeneration will have a rougher time picking and choosing. They will have to go to Wycliffe(maybe) and then to Zwingli and all those in the Zwnglian and maybe Calvinist tradition. That is what they will have to do.
In regards to the issue of the Eucharist, if one holds to the method of Patristic consensus, then the obvious view is one of the Real Presence. I don't object to the doctrine of Transubstantiation because it's one acceptable school of thought of the Real Presence. Some Orthodox will even use the Latin word.
We have our own word, as found in a ecumenical council, but some Orthodox will make use of the Latin term as well. Those who reject the doctrine of the Real Presence will have to jump to the 5th century to an obscure statement by Saint Augustine. Then they will have to jump again to the 10th or 11nth century to what a Christian Philosophical Naturalist said. Then from there you would have to jump to the 16th century. Some in the 16th century found out what the Naturalist I just mentioned earlier said and so they were following him. We(Christians) are not atheists(naturalists) nor semi-atheists(naturalists). Christians are those who believe in the Supernatural.
And so it all depends on the issue we are talking about. One will find more continuity than discontinuity when looking at the Fathers.....especially when you compare their contradictions to the ones we have in our day(I am including liberals/modernists in all this as well). The contradictions among Christians today is far more severe and chaotic then what we can find in the past. What we would find in the past will always be to a lesser degree than what we will find today. As far as disagreements go.
If you don't see people fighting over the issue, having arguments and conflicts over the issue, and splitting over the issue, then it is probably a good sign that it's universal. Chillism was faced with opposition early on. Saint Hippolytus had to change his mind on the issue. And so we can tell by the reaction it gets.
I might get a little long winded in this, and so if I loose you, please let me know. All Arians weren't the same. Most of the Eastern Imperial Arians were moderates. There is a reason why they rejected Nicea. You see, the word homoousious was associated with heretical groups. In the 3rd century a local eastern council rejected it in the context of how it was being used by the heretics they were fighting with. Now in saying this I am leaving out some other factors. For there were some Christians in the 3rd century that did use the word. Tertullian used it, and Origen used it, and so Saint Athanasius wasn't the first, but I don't want to get into that at this time, for the word could mean different things to different people. There is an Orthodox way to use it and that is what Nicea represented, but like I said, I don't want to talk about that at this time. What I do want to talk about is how the Christian East hated Sabellianism. I mean, they really really hated Sabellianism. And so Arius went into error in the other direction as a reaction against modalism. There were fears by some in the Christian East that Nicea was a modalistic council because it adopted the word homoousious. These fears were confirmed when they saw Marcellus of Ancyra openly teach Sabellianism.
Quote:
"For Marcellus, Son and Spirit emerged from the Godhead as distinct persons only for the purposes of creation and redemption. At the end of the world, both would be resumed into the divine unity. These statements of Marcellus convinced many that the Creed of Nicaea was suspect of Sabellianism, and he would long be an albatross about the necks of the orthodox Nicenes. Marcellus made the mistake of sending a book embodying his views to Constantine. For his pains he was deposed in 336, surviving through many vicissitudes until his death at the age of ninety in 374.
[1] page 76
Marcellus was friends with Saint Athanasius. The moderate Arians wanted Athanasius to condemn Marcellus, but Athanasius refused, and so it took decades of verbal fighting before re-union could take place.
"Quote:
"The aftermath
"The Church historian Socrates (380-450) describes the failure of mutual understanding: "The situation was like a battle by night, for both parties seemed to be in the dark about the grounds on which they were hurling abuse at each other. those who objected to the term homoousios imagined that its adherents were bringing in the doctrine of Sabellius and Montanists. So they called them blasphemers on the ground that they were undermining the personal subsistence of the Son of God. On the other hand, the protaganists of homoousios concluded that their opponents were introducing polytheism, and steered clear of them as importers of paganism........Thus while both affirmed the personality and subsistence of the Son of God, and confessed tht there was one God in three hypostases, they were somehow incapable of reaching agreement, and for this reason could not bear to lay down arms."
[2] page 82
What finally caused reunion to happen was due to the radical Arians. Once the moderates saw the fruit of the radicals, that's when they were ready to rejoin the Nicene party.
Quote:
"How Athanasius eventually won over the semi-Arians/moderates.
Quote:
"Amid the disturbances of Julian's rule, the doctrinal differences within the Church continued. In 361 the radical Arians met at Antioch under the leadership of Euzoius and declared their belief in a Son unlike the Father. In 362 Athanasius, before his exile, called a peace conference at Alexandria consisting of representatives from Egypt, Palestine and Italy along with delegates sent by the fanatical Nicene Lucifer of Cgliari, Apollinaris of Laodicea and the priest Paulinus, chief of the Nicene community at Antioch. Athanasius' main concern was to reconcile the moderates and the Nicenes by getting behind party catchwords to the deeper meaning of each position. He recommended asking those who held three hypostases if they meant three in the sense of three subsistent beings, alien in nature like gold, silver and brass, as did the radical Arians. If they answered no, he asked if they meant by three hypostasis a Trinity, truly existing with truly substantial Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and if they acknowledged one Godhead. If they said yes, he allowed them into communion. Then he turned to those who spoke of one hypostasis and asked if they meant this in the sense of Sabellius, as if the Son were not substantial and the Holy Spirit impersonal. If they said no, he asked them if they meant by one hypostasis one substance or ousia because the Son is of the substance of the Father. If their answer was yes, he accepted them into communion. Finally, in a statesmanlike fashion Athanasius brought out the truth each side was fighting for and showed that between the moderates and the Nicenes there was really no ground for disagreement. The results of these deliberations were sent off to Antioch divided into three factions: the Arians led by Euzoius, the imperially recognized bishop, the Homoeousians led by the exiled Meletius and the old Nicenes led by the priest Palinus, loyal to the long-dead Eustathius. The way seemed open for peace.But the way was proved long and ruff. For while Athanasius was laying the groundwork for reconciliation at Alexandria, Lucifer of Cagliari had gone to Antioch and made things worse. Instead of attempting to reconcile the moderate bishop Meletius who had already declared for the Nicene faith. Lucifer consecrated the Old Nicene Paulinus as bishop. The two parties which Athanasius had been attempting to reconcile were now separated by rival bishops, while the old Arian Euzious held the churches of the city. This schism at Antioch would impede reconciliation between moderates and Nicenes for years to come as Athanasius and the bishop of Rome came to support Paulinus, while the rising leader of the East, Basil of Caesarea, remained loyal Meletius.
[3] page 102-103
I hope this helps. Like I said before, it takes time to test an idea. A doctrine, a belief, and it took decades for the council of Nicea to be embraced. The moderate Arians weren't that far away from the Nicenes, and at the end of the day they were able to heal the split. Yes, the Empire fought against the Nicene party for decades. But there was light at the end of the tunnel.
Check out these podcasts:
The Ecumenical Councils - Part 1
The Ecumenical Councils - Part 2
The Council of Nicaea - 1
The Council of Nicaea - 2
The Council of Nicaea - 3
Post Nicaea
and this:
1st Ecumenical Council-Nicea 325 AD and the struggle with Arianism
The influence of the Franks and Germans. There are two good books you can read if you want to learn more about this from our perspective: (sidenote: avoid volume 1 in the series)
The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy
The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy: The Church 1071-1453 A.D
and
Greek East And Latin West
Greek East And Latin West: The Church AD 681-1071
I hope this helps.
The western interpretations are different from the Eastern. Our interpretation has strong strong strong continuity with the pre-Nicene world. The same may not be true with some western interpretations. In my protestant years from 1997/1998 to about 2003 I use to follow David Bercot's online ministry/website. And so I use to believe in the pre-Nicene view of the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, they did believe in the Father, the Logos(I said it this way for a reason), and the Holy Spirit. And yes, they saw all Three as Eternal and Divine. Now there are differences between the Nicene and Pre-Nicene views. I know what they are, but I don't want to go into much detail right now. For the past few months I have been talking about this very issue with an online friend. You can see it here.
Sorry, but I didn't want to repeat myself over here......eventhough I probably have, but yeah, I use to believe in the Pre-Nicene view. Now I believe in the Eastern Christian interpretation of the Nicene view. The core essence is the same. One of the main reasons why I chose to go East instead of Rome was because of this very issue. I knew that the pre-Nicene view was extremely close to the Eastern Christian Nicene understanding. Listen to this podcast by Fr. Thomas Hopko
The Holy Trinity
Also read what Pope Alexander of Alexandria had to say about the issue against the heretic Arius, and you will see that the doctrine is not new.......far far from it.
Read the primary sources for yourself. Yeah, it may take a few years, but it's worth it. I've been reading them off and on since 1997/1998. Read them for yourself and then decide what you think the tie breaker is. I Chose Antioch over Rome because of the doctrine of the Trinity. But for someone else it might be something different. A different issue.
I hope this helps.
[1]page 76, [2]page 82,[3] pages 102-103 from the book the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology by Leo Donald Davis
C.B. said:
"Jnorm, I find your arguments pretty persuasive (my best friend in a Baptist turned EO too)."
Did he turn EO in a Baptist seminary? I know a number of new converts that did while in seminary or while pastoring.
C.B. said:
"But...do you hold that its impossible for error to be introduced in the church's practice and theology?"
No I don't see it as impossible. For us, time is a major factor. We don't call Clement of Alexandria a Saint. Eventhough he had some good things to say. But we don't call him a saint for a reason. We eventually called Origen a heretic some centuries after his death(eventhough he too had alot of good things to say. He was a prodigy, a genius, and well loved, he is probably one of the most respected and well loved declared heretics of all time), and we call Origenism heretical as well. Why? Because of time. Time is a tester of fruit. One can see the implications or logical conclusions of a belief through time. This is also true in regards to the issue of Arainism....well at least in regards to the Christian East. The moderate Arians or homoiousiosians saw the fruit of Arianism through the radical Arians. Once they saw that, they were ready and willing to re-unite with the Nicene party. It took Saint Athanasius many decades to get them back, but they were ready once they saw the implications of Arianism for themselves.
And so Time is the answer. When we look at the issue of Sola Scriptura, we see that eventually everyone wasn't content to just go by what a Martin Luther, a Zwingli, or a John Calvin had to say. Eventually the flood gates of individualism was open. Eventually the rapid growth of perpetual schisms and splits was open. There is a reason why thousands of different groups exist today. Yes, schisms and splits will always happen, but at what magnitude? Sola Scriptura was like the assembly line for schism. It made splits more easily available, and once it was transplanted to North America in where we have freedom of Religion, it became unstoppable. America is a schism factory. We are in the business of producing schisms. We should have a stamp that says "Schisms R Us"! It has gotten to the point of schism being the norm. No one really cares about the chaos. No one really cares about the massive divisions. No one really cares about what the New Testament has to say about schisms and those who create them. No one really cares because we are entrenched in schism mania.
C.B. said:
"How reliably can all the doctrines be traced back to the first centuries?"
1.) It depends on the issue, and what we are talking about
2.) We would have to include both implicitness as well as explicitness
3.) We would have to look at consistency, logical conclusions....etc
4.) We would have to look at wholeness, meaning what would have to change in order to embrace such and such. Every doctrine influences another, even if you can't see it or perceive it at the time. There is an influence.
It is my personal opinion that out of all the groups that exist today, we are the ones that can make the best claim in this regard. We may not be perfect, and we may fall short in some areas, but this is my own personal opinion.
C.B. said:
"What about when the Fathers contradict each other?"
It depends, as seen from this podcast, When The Fathers Disagree. It also depends on what issue we are talking about as well. If we are talking about the issue of Free Will, then the finger would have to be pointed at Origen and Origenism for bringing in a teaching of determinism for Christians in the Eschaton(due to his embrace of NeoPlatonism), in regards to determinism in the here and now, as well as the Eschaton, we would have to point the finger at Saint Augustine and Augustinianism(also due to his embrace of NeoPlatonism). Other than that you will see most Fathers....especially in the East as being uniform in regards to that issue. And so it really all depends. A good portion of the contradictions have a context to them. This is the reason why we look for Consensus. Or Patristic consensus. The consensus is not just in the area of different regions, but also in regards to different times as well. And so it's both....both time and region.
Those who reject the teaching of Free Will, will simply pick and choose differently. They will have to start with Saint Augustine and stay within the Augustinian tradition by picking and choosing a number of high Augustinians throughout the centuries......like Lucidus, Gottschalk,......etc.
A similar situation would be true in regards to the issue of Baptismal Regeneration. I could be wrong, but it would seem as if one would have to point the finger either at Wycliffe(because of his high Predestinarian views) or at the Christian humanists of the 16th century.....you know, people like Zwingli, the Anabaptists, and maybe John Calvin. I hear conflicting things by people about what he believed, and so I really don't know at this time in regards to John Calvin.
But before that time, it's hard not to see Baptismal Regeneration as being universally advocated. The view is represented strongly in the Fathers. When one adopts the method of Patristic Consensus, then Baptismal Regeneration is the view. Not only in different regions of the globe, but also in every time period as well.
Those who reject Baptismal Regeneration will have a rougher time picking and choosing. They will have to go to Wycliffe(maybe) and then to Zwingli and all those in the Zwnglian and maybe Calvinist tradition. That is what they will have to do.
In regards to the issue of the Eucharist, if one holds to the method of Patristic consensus, then the obvious view is one of the Real Presence. I don't object to the doctrine of Transubstantiation because it's one acceptable school of thought of the Real Presence. Some Orthodox will even use the Latin word.
We have our own word, as found in a ecumenical council, but some Orthodox will make use of the Latin term as well. Those who reject the doctrine of the Real Presence will have to jump to the 5th century to an obscure statement by Saint Augustine. Then they will have to jump again to the 10th or 11nth century to what a Christian Philosophical Naturalist said. Then from there you would have to jump to the 16th century. Some in the 16th century found out what the Naturalist I just mentioned earlier said and so they were following him. We(Christians) are not atheists(naturalists) nor semi-atheists(naturalists). Christians are those who believe in the Supernatural.
And so it all depends on the issue we are talking about. One will find more continuity than discontinuity when looking at the Fathers.....especially when you compare their contradictions to the ones we have in our day(I am including liberals/modernists in all this as well). The contradictions among Christians today is far more severe and chaotic then what we can find in the past. What we would find in the past will always be to a lesser degree than what we will find today. As far as disagreements go.
C.B. said:
"If we have a Father from the second century affirming a doctrine, how do we know the view was catholic?"
If you don't see people fighting over the issue, having arguments and conflicts over the issue, and splitting over the issue, then it is probably a good sign that it's universal. Chillism was faced with opposition early on. Saint Hippolytus had to change his mind on the issue. And so we can tell by the reaction it gets.
C.B. said:
"How you you understand Arianism, specifically in regards to that it WAS the orthodox view for a period? (I assume there might be a disagreement on how one defines orthodox, but as I understand it at one point the Arian view was dominant in the church in terms of numbers and ecclesial and and politicla power)."
I might get a little long winded in this, and so if I loose you, please let me know. All Arians weren't the same. Most of the Eastern Imperial Arians were moderates. There is a reason why they rejected Nicea. You see, the word homoousious was associated with heretical groups. In the 3rd century a local eastern council rejected it in the context of how it was being used by the heretics they were fighting with. Now in saying this I am leaving out some other factors. For there were some Christians in the 3rd century that did use the word. Tertullian used it, and Origen used it, and so Saint Athanasius wasn't the first, but I don't want to get into that at this time, for the word could mean different things to different people. There is an Orthodox way to use it and that is what Nicea represented, but like I said, I don't want to talk about that at this time. What I do want to talk about is how the Christian East hated Sabellianism. I mean, they really really hated Sabellianism. And so Arius went into error in the other direction as a reaction against modalism. There were fears by some in the Christian East that Nicea was a modalistic council because it adopted the word homoousious. These fears were confirmed when they saw Marcellus of Ancyra openly teach Sabellianism.
Quote:
"For Marcellus, Son and Spirit emerged from the Godhead as distinct persons only for the purposes of creation and redemption. At the end of the world, both would be resumed into the divine unity. These statements of Marcellus convinced many that the Creed of Nicaea was suspect of Sabellianism, and he would long be an albatross about the necks of the orthodox Nicenes. Marcellus made the mistake of sending a book embodying his views to Constantine. For his pains he was deposed in 336, surviving through many vicissitudes until his death at the age of ninety in 374.
[1] page 76
Marcellus was friends with Saint Athanasius. The moderate Arians wanted Athanasius to condemn Marcellus, but Athanasius refused, and so it took decades of verbal fighting before re-union could take place.
"Quote:
"The aftermath
"The Church historian Socrates (380-450) describes the failure of mutual understanding: "The situation was like a battle by night, for both parties seemed to be in the dark about the grounds on which they were hurling abuse at each other. those who objected to the term homoousios imagined that its adherents were bringing in the doctrine of Sabellius and Montanists. So they called them blasphemers on the ground that they were undermining the personal subsistence of the Son of God. On the other hand, the protaganists of homoousios concluded that their opponents were introducing polytheism, and steered clear of them as importers of paganism........Thus while both affirmed the personality and subsistence of the Son of God, and confessed tht there was one God in three hypostases, they were somehow incapable of reaching agreement, and for this reason could not bear to lay down arms."
[2] page 82
What finally caused reunion to happen was due to the radical Arians. Once the moderates saw the fruit of the radicals, that's when they were ready to rejoin the Nicene party.
Quote:
"How Athanasius eventually won over the semi-Arians/moderates.
Quote:
"Amid the disturbances of Julian's rule, the doctrinal differences within the Church continued. In 361 the radical Arians met at Antioch under the leadership of Euzoius and declared their belief in a Son unlike the Father. In 362 Athanasius, before his exile, called a peace conference at Alexandria consisting of representatives from Egypt, Palestine and Italy along with delegates sent by the fanatical Nicene Lucifer of Cgliari, Apollinaris of Laodicea and the priest Paulinus, chief of the Nicene community at Antioch. Athanasius' main concern was to reconcile the moderates and the Nicenes by getting behind party catchwords to the deeper meaning of each position. He recommended asking those who held three hypostases if they meant three in the sense of three subsistent beings, alien in nature like gold, silver and brass, as did the radical Arians. If they answered no, he asked if they meant by three hypostasis a Trinity, truly existing with truly substantial Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and if they acknowledged one Godhead. If they said yes, he allowed them into communion. Then he turned to those who spoke of one hypostasis and asked if they meant this in the sense of Sabellius, as if the Son were not substantial and the Holy Spirit impersonal. If they said no, he asked them if they meant by one hypostasis one substance or ousia because the Son is of the substance of the Father. If their answer was yes, he accepted them into communion. Finally, in a statesmanlike fashion Athanasius brought out the truth each side was fighting for and showed that between the moderates and the Nicenes there was really no ground for disagreement. The results of these deliberations were sent off to Antioch divided into three factions: the Arians led by Euzoius, the imperially recognized bishop, the Homoeousians led by the exiled Meletius and the old Nicenes led by the priest Palinus, loyal to the long-dead Eustathius. The way seemed open for peace.But the way was proved long and ruff. For while Athanasius was laying the groundwork for reconciliation at Alexandria, Lucifer of Cagliari had gone to Antioch and made things worse. Instead of attempting to reconcile the moderate bishop Meletius who had already declared for the Nicene faith. Lucifer consecrated the Old Nicene Paulinus as bishop. The two parties which Athanasius had been attempting to reconcile were now separated by rival bishops, while the old Arian Euzious held the churches of the city. This schism at Antioch would impede reconciliation between moderates and Nicenes for years to come as Athanasius and the bishop of Rome came to support Paulinus, while the rising leader of the East, Basil of Caesarea, remained loyal Meletius.
[3] page 102-103
I hope this helps. Like I said before, it takes time to test an idea. A doctrine, a belief, and it took decades for the council of Nicea to be embraced. The moderate Arians weren't that far away from the Nicenes, and at the end of the day they were able to heal the split. Yes, the Empire fought against the Nicene party for decades. But there was light at the end of the tunnel.
Check out these podcasts:
The Ecumenical Councils - Part 1
The Ecumenical Councils - Part 2
The Council of Nicaea - 1
The Council of Nicaea - 2
The Council of Nicaea - 3
Post Nicaea
and this:
1st Ecumenical Council-Nicea 325 AD and the struggle with Arianism
C.B. said:
How do you understand/explain the schism between East and West under this view of authoritative tradition? How did the inerrant tradition of the church basically cause it to divide in two? How is the East vs. West doctrinal splits resolved according to tradition? (I know the differences are fewer in magintude and importance to the Protestant split, but its still and issue).
The influence of the Franks and Germans. There are two good books you can read if you want to learn more about this from our perspective: (sidenote: avoid volume 1 in the series)
The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy
The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy: The Church 1071-1453 A.D
and
Greek East And Latin West
Greek East And Latin West: The Church AD 681-1071
I hope this helps.
C.B. said:
"Are all doctrines past form the apostles or are some developed based on other things? Take the Trinity as an example...my understanding is that this was systematically formed based on heterodox attacks, but as a systematized doctrine it was new."
The western interpretations are different from the Eastern. Our interpretation has strong strong strong continuity with the pre-Nicene world. The same may not be true with some western interpretations. In my protestant years from 1997/1998 to about 2003 I use to follow David Bercot's online ministry/website. And so I use to believe in the pre-Nicene view of the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, they did believe in the Father, the Logos(I said it this way for a reason), and the Holy Spirit. And yes, they saw all Three as Eternal and Divine. Now there are differences between the Nicene and Pre-Nicene views. I know what they are, but I don't want to go into much detail right now. For the past few months I have been talking about this very issue with an online friend. You can see it here.
Sorry, but I didn't want to repeat myself over here......eventhough I probably have, but yeah, I use to believe in the Pre-Nicene view. Now I believe in the Eastern Christian interpretation of the Nicene view. The core essence is the same. One of the main reasons why I chose to go East instead of Rome was because of this very issue. I knew that the pre-Nicene view was extremely close to the Eastern Christian Nicene understanding. Listen to this podcast by Fr. Thomas Hopko
The Holy Trinity
Also read what Pope Alexander of Alexandria had to say about the issue against the heretic Arius, and you will see that the doctrine is not new.......far far from it.
C.B. said:
"I guess as ideas and therefore doctinres evolve and heterodxies infiltrate and attack, the result can be conflicting traditions...at which point there must be some tie breaker? What is that?"
Read the primary sources for yourself. Yeah, it may take a few years, but it's worth it. I've been reading them off and on since 1997/1998. Read them for yourself and then decide what you think the tie breaker is. I Chose Antioch over Rome because of the doctrine of the Trinity. But for someone else it might be something different. A different issue.
I hope this helps.
[1]page 76, [2]page 82,[3] pages 102-103 from the book the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology by Leo Donald Davis
Labels:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blogs: Eastern Orthodox
-
-
-
-
The Four Horsemen of Palamism2 years ago
-
-
-
It’s Time to Say Goodbye2 years ago
-
-
-
Orthodox Life13 years ago
-
-
-
How We Prove Our Love To God3 weeks ago
-
-
-
The end of Pious Fabrications10 years ago
-
The Holy Fathers on Witchcraft10 months ago
-
Bending Toward Bethlehem10 months ago
Blogs: Oriental Orthodox
-
-
The Importance of The Passion Week8 years ago
Blogs: Roman Catholic
-
-
-
-
-
-
A Brief Update10 years ago
-
-
-
My Sister's New Blog13 years ago
-
Blogs: Anglo-Catholic/ACNA
-
ABORTION IN AMERICAN POLITICS13 hours ago
-
Hello world!9 months ago
-
-
-
Blogs: Lutheran Protestant
Blogs: Mostly Arminian Protestant
-
Book Review: Grace for All9 years ago
-
-
Design Interior Rumah Type 36/726 years ago
-
Christian Rappers and Collaborations13 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
When Truth is Partial: Horses Like Apples3 years ago
-
-
-
NOT Independence Sunday15 years ago
-
Picture of Calvinist Ship2 years ago
Blogs: Reformed Protestant
-
-
Do Not Disavow5 months ago
-
-
This Blog Has Moved!!!10 years ago
-
-
John Calvin And The Use Of Icons15 years ago
-
-
46 comments:
Jnorm,
In response to:
"How do you understand/explain the schism between East and West under this view of authoritative tradition? How did the inerrant tradition of the church basically cause it to divide in two? How is the East vs. West doctrinal splits resolved according to tradition? (I know the differences are fewer in magintude and importance to the Protestant split, but its still and issue)."
You just referenced a couple books without explanation and this is the key issue here. If indeed men's epistemology and their consciences are de jure to begin with the decisions and authority of a visible institution
the only way God could justly hold men accountable to such a system is if there was only one of these institutions. Do not forget there are now many institutions that do this exact thing. The Persian Church, The Oriental Orthodox, The Mainline Eastern Orthodox, The Roman Church, and now I cannot even count how many Sedevecantist Groups have set up their own Popes and declared themselves to be the one true Church. From my own "experiences" there are therefore 6 groups that can trace their history back to the apostles.
So here is my question Jnorm: How is someone supposed to know which visible institution is the true one? If one begins with History and tries to discern who has the earliest representation: 1. How do you rule out the scriptures as being a species in this genre in order to deny the final authority to it? The fact is the scriptures are older than Ignatius and Polycarp, Clement and Irenaeus etc. 2. You have ipso facto tip toed around the authority of your visible institution and now made archeology and empirical research your final authority.Frankly I am still trying to figure out how an Oriental Orthodox is supposed to figure out whether he is in the right visible institution or if the mainline Eastern Orthodox Institution is correct. Could you demonstrate that to me? Walk me through how an Oriental Orthodox catechumen is supposed to figure out that the mainline group is the true institution.
It cracks me up to listen to these ex Baptists talk about how they read the early church fathers and that convinced them that Eastern Orthodoxy was the true religion. Folks, Calvin, Turriten, Luther, Wycliffe and Tyndale etc. were all very well aware that the majority of Visible Christianity from the early centuries to their time had been anchoretic in the vast majority of its teachings. They were living in a civilization where anchoretic theology had come full blossom for centuries and was destroying civilization as they knew it. The icon/relic system was akin to the TBN bl;essing for money system of theology and was an absolute scandal not to mention that the rank bureaucracy that Patristic Ecclesiology had produced was the worst of it all. What do you do when the fathers disagree? Look to the Roman Patriarchate. Jnorm and the EO simply cannot get around this issue. This satanic organization was drunk with the blood of Christians, full of filthy lucre from the kings and surfs that served the every whim of the Pope who in In Coena Domini declared himself the king of kings and Lord of Lords, and the Popes to be the monarchs of the World who held diposing power over all nations and kings. Bishoprics were sold and prostitutes were hired and the destruction of the Christian religion was well nigh at hand. This is what your system of theology produced.
Now in the 21st century anabaptist religion has had its day in the sun for about a century and a half thoguh technically it began with Roger Williams in the 17th century producing the Christian (Baptist) support for the French Revolution and you guys think you are reacting against the Refomration the same wa the Refomration reacted against you. You are deceived. Europe did not react against protestantism, they reacted against Romanism, the necessary consequence of Patristic Theology.
Call me a humanist if you want but if rebelling against Ecclesiastical tyranny,the ematiation of civilization, the widespread iliteracy of the common man and the free availability of God's word is humanism, I am a humanist with a capital H. If we didn't rebel against Romanism, the vast majority of the people who write on this blog WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO READ OR WRITE!
Another piece of propoganda I want to address: it is commonly stated on this blog, David P's and most other anchoretic blogs that the Reformation was started as one man show by Martin Luther. This is slanderous crap and people who say it deserve their ignorance. Zwingle had his distinctive Reformation principles hammered out and written down and preached them in 1516, a year before Luther's Theses. See pg 213 of this book by Cunningham: http://books.google.com/books?id=EY9_tQLQb64C&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+reformers+and+the+theology+of+the+reformation&hl=en&ei=2SpHTeraK4iq8Aa7v_iMAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Also, take the case of someone living in the late 10th century a.d. The East and West were still one visible institution with two very different systems of theology. How was the common man to know which one was right? The visible institution taught both and so if the visible church is the first principle of a Christian's conscience how was he to know which one was right?
(a) 6 historical groups are better than 30,000 an-historical groups.
(b) The Scriptures are not opposed to our faith, for us to have to either get rid of them, deny their authority, rule them out, tip-toe around them, ditch them, or whatever other colorful synonyms your rich imagination can come up with.
But from several possible readings (interpretations) of their various passages, we pick those that do not have the "outstanding" ability to contradict the way in which 99% of Christians living throughout 99% of Church history understood them.
(c) It's serfs. Not surfs. Not smurfs. Serfs.
(d) When two Fathers disagree, ask a third: there's a consensus view on every central or important topic
(e) Eastern Orthodoxy has no distinctives: that's why it's the one true Christian faith. (The Vincentian Canon: universality, antiquity, and consensus).
Point (e) needs some unpacking:
1. there are three marks of truth: antiquity, universality, consensus.
2. we've already ruled out all but a few of the over 30,000 Christian denominations on the grounds of lacking antiquity. These are:
The Persian Church,
The Oriental Orthodox,
The Mainline Eastern Orthodox,
The Roman Church.
3. Now let's move on to consensus or universality:
The Roman-Catholic distinctive is their belief in the Filioque, which is proper to them, and to them alone, being completely unknown to any of the other three groups.
The Persian-Assyrian-Nestorian distinctive is their belief in two persons (divine and human) in Christ (the divine Logos, and the man Jesus). Again, all of the other three groups disagree with this, confessing to just one single person in Christ Jesus, the Son of God made flesh.
The Oriental Orthodox (Myaphysite or Monophysite) distinctive is their unique belief in only one nature in Jesus Christ, something firmly contradicted by all of the other three groups, who confess to there being two natures, divine and human, in Christ Jesus.
In conclusion, there's no Filioque (3 to 1); there's only one Person in Christ Jesus (3 to 1); and there are two natures, both divine and human, in Jesus Christ (3 to 1)
The only Church that has all three points "checked" is the Eastern or Mainline Orthodox Church.
QED.
I'll try and answer tonight. I'm a bit tired at the moment.
The link fron ancient faith radio was an overwhelming 9 minutes of nonsense. He makes the christian's object of knowledge an experience not a proposition. This makes demonstrable absolute truth impossible. To the question: what happens when the fathers disagree he simply does the typical American thing he sears his conscience from the clear contradiction of patristic Christianity and buries the law of contradiction 6th under when he asserts that contradictory statements are both true not propositionally but experientially. The experience is the knowledge. This clearly contradicts 2 Peter 1:3-5. Peter asserts that deification comes through knowledge of propositions not experiences.
Drake,
When you know someone, it is experience based knowledge.
The same is true when you truly know something. Especially for humans.
For us, a Theologian is one who prays. Not necessarily one who just read books. There is a difference between knowing someone/something and knowing about someone/something. And so when we read the Bible, we are reading about someone in whom we know.
Listen to these:
Theology As A Way Of Life
The Tragedy Of Dogma
and
Scholasticism and Theology: The Difference Between East and West
Also, when you look in the Bible about "knew"/"know".......etc. It is mostly experience based. At least from what I can tell. And so you can't count "experience based" knowledge out. You will have to at least admit that it has a place at the table.
What was Adam's knowing of Eve? Was that abstract propositional based knowledge or was that experience based knowledge?
What about this?
Acts 26:5
They knew me from the first, if they were willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Was there knowledge of Paul based on abstract propositions or was it experience based?
I can go on and on and on. But I think you get the idea.
Hey,
What are your thoughts about Nominalism?
Drake said:
"You just referenced a couple books without explanation and this is the key issue here. If indeed men's epistemology and their consciences are de jure to begin with the decisions and authority of a visible institution"
I did give an answer. I said the influence of the Franks and Germans. That was the short answer. The long answer is found in the two books.....which basically go into detail of what I just said.
Drake said:
"the only way God could justly hold men accountable to such a system is if there was only one of these institutions."
You can't put God into a box like that. Baptismal Regeneration is the norm and rule, but even the thief on the Cross was able to be saved. And so there are exceptions to the rule. the exceptions never become the new rule. The rule is the rule. The norm is the norm, but like I said, I don't think you can put God into a box like that.
Drake said:
Do not forget there are now many institutions that do this exact thing. The Persian Church, The Oriental Orthodox, The Mainline Eastern Orthodox, The Roman Church, and now I cannot even count how many Sedevecantist Groups have set up their own Popes and declared themselves to be the one true Church. From my own "experiences" there are therefore 6 groups that can trace their history back to the apostles."
What LVKA said is true! 6 is way less than thousands. Even a few dozen is way way less than thousands. And so deciding who is right among 6 should be alot easier than deciding who is right among thousands. Also, I don't look at the Church as an institution. I look at it as an Organism. The Church is the Body of Christ. And so it is more than just a mere earthly institution of man. It is of God!
Drake said:
"So here is my question Jnorm: How is someone supposed to know which visible institution is the true one?"
Visit the Divine Liturgies, and Masses. Then pray and fast about it......along with your reading. You can't ignore the experiential aspect of knowledge.
Drake said:
"1. How do you rule out the scriptures as being a species in this genre in order to deny the final authority to it?"
Each region or Patriarchate developed their own canon or collection based on their Divine Liturgy. It took centuries for most ancient churches to have a uniform New Testament canon. However, we never had a uniform Old Testament canon. And thus, Scripture was never the final authority. When you read Saint Paul, you will see him talking about the Church being authoritative when it comes to the issue of solving disputes.
to be continued....
Drake said:
"The fact is the scriptures are older than Ignatius and Polycarp, Clement and Irenaeus etc."
True! But how are the Scriptures to be interpreted? Also, without a 100% uniform canon for all regions and all groups then the idea of Sola Scriptura would be impossible. It couldn't exist.
Drake said:
"2. You have ipso facto tip toed around the authority of your visible institution and now made archeology and empirical research your final authority.Frankly I am still trying to figure out how an Oriental Orthodox is supposed to figure out whether he is in the right visible institution or if the mainline Eastern Orthodox Institution is correct."
At the moment both EO's and OO's are in the middle of talks, and so I will role with whatever our hierarchs, monks and other laity eventually decide.
Drake said:
Could you demonstrate that to me? Walk me through how an Oriental Orthodox catechumen is supposed to figure out that the mainline group is the true institution.
We are in the middle of talks at the moment and so I'm not going to say much about that. Sorry!
Drake said:
"It cracks me up to listen to these ex Baptists talk about how they read the early church fathers and that convinced them that Eastern Orthodoxy was the true religion. Folks, Calvin, Turriten, Luther, Wycliffe and Tyndale etc. were all very well aware that the majority of Visible Christianity from the early centuries to their time had been anchoretic in the vast majority of its teachings."
You make it seem as if anchorism is wrong? Why do you think the modern western World is mostly atheistic and secular? I think the Reformed threw the baby out with the bath water! They made the western world ripe for atheism. Also, John Calvin and company were very selective in how they read and quoted the fathers.
Listen to this:
The Christian Reformed: Who are they?
Drake said:
They were living in a civilization where anchoretic theology had come full blossom for centuries and was destroying civilization as they knew it. The icon/relic system was akin to the TBN bl;essing for money system of theology and was an absolute scandal not to mention that the rank bureaucracy that Patristic Ecclesiology had produced was the worst of it all.
Our Icon/relic system never produced a situation of indulgences. The whole Tetsil situation was based on the Fuugers(bankers) wanting their money for the building of Saint Peter's Basilica. And so blame the banks and the Renaissance movement for that. Also, everything about western anchorism wasn't bad. There was alot of good in it. They had the school system, hospitals, the preservation of culture, keeping philosophical naturalism at bay.....etc. And so they also did alot of good for the west as well.
You can't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Drake said:
What do you do when the fathers disagree? Look to the Roman Patriarchate. Jnorm and the EO simply cannot get around this issue."
What are you talking about? Our Trinitarianism is different from the west, Our Christology is different from the west, our Theology is different from the west. The way we look at things is different, And so what are you talking about? I think you've been reading way too many Roman Catholic apologetic books.
Drake said:
"This is what your system of theology produced."
What are you talking about? I think you need to read the two books I posted on this post. Our system didn't produce what you are talking about.
Jnorm,
Thanks for responding. Here's my issue with the frank and German answer. First I am assuming by this that the pagan influence of the franks and Germans changed the western church's understanding of law. This was actually acknowledged by Aulen in his book Christie victor and admits that this cannot be the answer and acknowledges cyprian's penance system to be the theological foundation of penal sub and cyprian Is a 3rd century writer.
You still didn't answer how the common man is supposed to find his way from one infallible institution to another. That is the issue
You assert that knowledge of other human persons is experienced based. This ignores the element of deceit. Was Judas' kiss an object of knowledge? No it was deceit and betrayal.
Truth as Encounter. Judas iscariot had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Christianity therefore cannot be defined as a personal relationship.
There is the ancient distinction between knowledge and opinion. When I say I know something based on an experience I am being colloquial in my speech. What I mean technically is that is my opinion.
Put God in a box? I believe that God has attributes and does not act contrary to these essential attributes. This irrational attempt to escape the rational argument is usually based on predicating infinitude of God. God Is not infinite. Infinity refers to a series with no last term . If Gods knowledge was infinite he could not be omniscient. One cannot posses a series with no last term.
I am listening to your lectures during my workout tonight and I am sad to say that eastern orthodoxy is simply the religious liberalism of the early 20th century. The whole idea that Christianity is not a system of doctrine but an experiential relationship with God is something I am quite familiar reading about in Emil brunner Karl Barth keirkegaard etc. Basically eastern orthodoxy is a vindication of the attacks against the trinity the person of Christ the reliability of scripture etc. Judas iscariot then becomes the same old problem for both the eastern and liberal theologies. Judas had a personal relationship with Christ. Judas lived the therapeutic way and these did not do it for him.
Jnorm,
"What LVKA said is true! 6 is way less than thousands. Even a few dozen is way way less than thousands. And so deciding who is right among 6 should be alot easier than deciding who is right among thousands. Also, I don't look at the Church as an institution. I look at it as an Organism. The Church is the Body of Christ. And so it is more than just a mere earthly institution of man. It is of God!"
First the 33000 satment is simply stupid. I know less than 10 groups that I consider Reformed Churches.
Second, you are avoiding the argument. The fact is the Protestant groups have a way to determine which doctrinal system is corretc by the use of scripture and logc. Your system begins with the authority of the visible institution and so there is no way to dtermine whose authority is better than the others.
"So here is my question Jnorm: How is someone supposed to know which visible institution is the true one?"
Visit the Divine Liturgies, and Masses. Then pray and fast about it......along with your reading."
How is this any different than the priesthood of the believer in the Protestant view. You have asserted then that the individual makes the final determination not the church.
"You can't ignore the experiential aspect of knowledge."
Sure I can. Sensation cannot be defined, perception canot be produced from sensation and abstract ideas cannot be produced from either sensation or presumed perception. Are dreams "experiences"? On your view they are, and therefore I am to deduce truths from the hallucinations I am having for 8 hours every night. Nonsense!
Show it, prove it.
I take Acts 26:5 as a colloquaialism.
I do not deny that the church has authority when solving disputes.
"True! But how are the Scriptures to be interpreted? Also, without a 100% uniform canon for all regions and all groups then the idea of Sola Scriptura would be impossible. It couldn't exist."
You have failed to show how 6 infallible visible institutions makes the issue any easier.
"At the moment both EO's and OO's are in the middle of talks, and so I will role with whatever our hierarchs, monks and other laity eventually decide."
So I am sitting on edge until it is honestly admitted by one of these infalliblke institutions that it was wrong, and I am even more on edge to discover how they went about determining this.
"We are in the middle of talks at the moment and so I'm not going to say much about that. Sorry!
"
Can I follow the literature? Where do I find it?
"You make it seem as if anchorism is wrong? Why do you think the modern western World is mostly atheistic and secular? I think the Reformed threw the baby out with the bath water! They made the western world ripe for atheism. Also, John Calvin and company were very selective in how they read and quoted the fathers.
"
I go into detail about this in my article against anchorism in this article: http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/concerning-orthodoxy/against-ancient-christianity
Second, you are changing the subject. The issue was that the anchoretic system had blossomed into a tyranical monster and atheism was reacting against the Roman Church not the refomred this is complete historical slander. Gargantua and Pantagruel was not about the puritans it was about Roman tyranny and hypocrisy.
"What are you talking about? Our Trinitarianism is different from the west, Our Christology is different from the west, our Theology is different from the west. The way we look at things is different, And so what are you talking about? I think you've been reading way too many Roman Catholic apologetic books.
"
You missed my point. I actually read no roman apologetical books. The only anchoretic writings I read are eastern, take that as a complement. I may not have been clear. My argument was an ad hominem snipe that shows what I think is the logical necessity of your view of the church. When the fathers disgareed, I know you guys did not look to the roman patriarchate, but my argument is, why not? When you assert inspired authority to your theologians and then they disagree the whole idea that the church is led infallibly by the holy spirit in the same way or at least an analogous way as the apostles were leaves a gaping whole in the system that the office of Pope logically filled.
I will read the books. By the by, know anywhere I can find Joseph P Farrell's Book on Maximus the Confessor and free will sold less than 400 dollars?
Drake Shelton said:
"First I am assuming by this that the pagan influence of the franks and Germans changed the western church's understanding of law."
Nah, I wasn't thinking about Law and the influence of pagansim when I said "Franks and Germans". I was thinking about politics, and how the bishop of Rome was trying to be over civil kings....etc.
The Baptist church historian Dr. Maxie Burch, covered it a little in his church history podcast series:
Medieval/Reformation Christianity
Drake Shelton said:
"You still didn't answer how the common man is supposed to find his way from one infallible institution to another. That is the issue"
Why not just ask me why I became EO instead of RCC or OO? I can't speak about hypothetical situations of other people. But I can speak about myself and my own situation.
Drake said:
"You assert that knowledge of other human persons is experienced based. This ignores the element of deceit."
It doesn't ignore it. It includes it, for that too is an experience. They are all experiences. And so the difference is one of discernment.
What is the book of proverbs mostly about?
Drake said:
Truth as Encounter. Judas iscariot had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Christianity therefore cannot be defined as a personal relationship."
We will have to agree to disagree. For what happened to Thomas Aquinas when he had a Truth Encounter with God? He stopped writing! You can't ignore the aspect of experience based knowledge. It plays a role.
Drake said:
"I am listening to your lectures during my workout tonight and I am sad to say that eastern orthodoxy is simply the religious liberalism of the early 20th century."
We are obviously more ancient than they. What I said about the Eastern Christian concept of Theology and a Theologian is true. You can find this very thing in the Early Christians. And so no, it is not liberal. It is traditional.
What you call 20th century liberalism is nothing more than the logical conclusion of 16th century liberalism. Yes, the protestant Reformation was seen as the liberalism of it's time. The Roman Catholics were seen as the traditionalists.
But anyway, if what we say reminds you of what 20th century protestant liberals have said. Then all that means to me is that they got something right. I mean, everything about them can't be wrong, right? Right!
Drake,
About the book you are looking for,
You gotta get it from the library. That's what I had to do.
Drake,
I will respond to your other stuff at a later time. I am a little under the weather at the moment, and so I am tired.
Drake said:
"Sure I can. Sensation cannot be defined, perception canot be produced from sensation and abstract ideas cannot be produced from either sensation or presumed perception. Are dreams "experiences"? On your view they are, and therefore I am to deduce truths from the hallucinations I am having for 8 hours every night. Nonsense!
Show it, prove it.
Read Job chapter 33
Quote:
"For God may speak in one way, or in another,
Yet man does not perceive it.
15 In a dream, in a vision of the night,
When deep sleep falls upon men,
While slumbering on their beds,
16 Then He opens the ears of men,
And seals their instruction.
17 In order to turn man from his deed,
And conceal pride from man,
18 He keeps back his soul from the Pit,
And his life from perishing by the sword.
19 “Man is also chastened with pain on his bed,
And with strong pain in many of his bones,
20 So that his life abhors bread,
And his soul succulent food.
21 His flesh wastes away from sight,
And his bones stick out which once were not seen.
22 Yes, his soul draws near the Pit,
And his life to the executioners.
23 “If there is a messenger for him,
A mediator, one among a thousand,
To show man His uprightness,
24 Then He is gracious to him, and says,
‘ Deliver him from going down to the Pit;
I have found a ransom’;
25 His flesh shall be young like a child’s,
He shall return to the days of his youth.
26 He shall pray to God, and He will delight in him,
He shall see His face with joy,
For He restores to man His righteousness.
27 Then he looks at men and says,
‘I have sinned, and perverted what was right,
And it did not profit me.’
28 He will redeem his[b] soul from going down to the Pit,
And his[c] life shall see the light.
29 “ Behold, God works all these things,
Twice, in fact, three times with a man,
30 To bring back his soul from the Pit,
That he may be enlightened with the light of life."
Drake,
Also our view of the Church is conciliar. This is what happens when people disagree. They gather/assemble a council.
Recently our mother Churches gathered to decide how Orthodoxy will be in Other countries all around the world. And so we all had to gather over here in America. Eventually all the EO jurisdictions in America will be under one jurisdiction. But we gather, and that's how we solve disputes. That's how all the ancient churches resolve disputes.
Your Job 33 quote is elementary. Upon the coming of the messiah and his work Daniel Prophecies in Daniel 9: 24"Seventy (AT)weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to (AU)make atonement for iniquity, to bring in (AV)everlasting righteousness, TO SEAL UP VISION AND PROPHECY and to anoint the most holy."
Visions like the ones Job is having in 33 no longer happens. I am a strict cessationist as Daniel 9 very, very clearly teaches.
Drake,
If what you say is true then what will you do with the many christian prophets found in the New Testament and Didache? What will you do with Acts chapter 2?
Also, how do you know that that part of Daniel isn't talking about the second advent?
Sometimes Old Testament prophecy doesn't make a clear distinction between the two advents.
It would seem to fit more in line with the second advent. We see in Corinth that Paul talks about not seeing through a glass or mirror clearly, but we will then.
This would all seem to point to the second advent.
You had asked me my thoughts about nominalism:
By defintion the terms refer to whether the x that is in the mind is a reality or a representation of a reality. Nominalism affirms the later, realism the former. If the material reality is the true reality then the x in the mind is not the reality. Nominalism is often to speak of God as being qualitatively unknowable and the attributes of God, are merely different conceptions in our minds whereas in reality (whatever that is) there is no difference. Therefore an absolute failure to describe God's simplicity.
This is why I affirm a realist view of epistemology,. The true reality is the proposition in the mind of God. This reality men participate in univocally when they know something. When God impresses upon the elect the propositions of his word this is deification. Participation univocally in the propostions in God's mind.
I am aware of the Roman and Eastern objection to Imputed righteousness on this point and Occam's nominalism. Completely rediculous if you ask me. Apples and Oranges. Imputed righteousness refers to an external act whereas imparted righteousness an internal act. I am guessing this is where you are going with this.
You want to make an external act to refer to nominalism and and an internal process to refer to realism. I simpy reject that this reflects what nominalism and realism are. Seems to me like some cute way to stump some philosophical sophmore but in the end nothing more than a straw man. The external righteousness would then have to be proved to be a representation of a reality and not a reality itself. The problem is this external righteousness is the righteousness of the logos, not a created collection of individual acts of a human nature, but the uncreated righteousness of a divine person that worked this righteousness out in a human nature and endured all the categorical temptations of a human being. That propositional reality that I just described is a reality in the mind. The elect being united to the human nature participate in the eternal sonship of the logos (i.e. adoption), not a created sonship. See John L Girardeau, Discussions of Theological Questions on adoption.
The internal participation of the elect in God is in sanctification, not justification. The primary blunder the Anchoretic Churches make when they critique reformed theology is they melt justifcitation, adoption, sanctification and glorification into one thing, posit this straw man model onto reformed theology that distinguishes between these and then points out mistakes that logically follow from this false understanding.
So by representaional, Anchorism moves this issue out of the field of epistemology into justification and and then uses this new meaning of nominalism to critique reformed theology. Fatal flaw.
Shelton,
the Bible you're so busy exegeting nowhere actually conflicts with Eastern Orthodox teaching: which is NOT to say that YOU can't choose from the various possible meanings of certain passages those readings that would conflict with the equally-possible Orthodox interpretation. -- So there's NO *objective* reason to disqualify Eastern Orthodoxy as supposedly `unscriptural`.
Antiquity & universality combined form a very *objective* criterion for determining which one of the countless Christian denominations is true, as has already been shown in one of my previous comments.
Secondly, count all Protestant views on different topics and see that the number of resulting denominations is huge:
a) Luther, Calvin, and Arminius on *predestination*: three main views.
b') Anglicans, Luther, and Calvin or Zwingli on the *Sacraments* and their number: three main views.
b") Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli on the *Eucharist*: two or three main views.
c) Episcopalians and Presbyterians on *bishops*: two main views.
d) Baptists & Mainline Protestants on infant vs. believers' *baptism* (two main views).
e) Admission of children to Holy Communion: two main views (across various denominations). -- and it doesn't depend on their belief in infant vs. believers' baptism (d).
f) eternal generation of the Son and eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, or Their autotheos/aseity? Two main views.
g) etc. etc. etc.
Now, 3x2x2x2x2x2 = 96. And 6 is far better than 96, wouldn't you agree?
Lvka
"Antiquity & universality combined form a very *objective* criterion for determining which one of the countless Christian denominations is true, as has already been shown in one of my previous comments.
"
My problem with this, is that such an endeavor becomes indistinguishable from Protestant private judgment.
I remember Jay Dyer, an Eastern Apologist turned to Romanism because 1 he didn't believe that EO provided the proper authority to deal with schism and 2 he could not consciously lay down unconditional predestination. Both in my opinion logical reasons chosen by private judgment.
"Now, 3x2x2x2x2x2 = 96. And 6 is far better than 96, wouldn't you agree?"
No it's not. First, because the 96 all allow for private judgment while the six do not, making the possibility to figure out which one is true to be ipso facto impossible.
Second,,Bishop Hall in his Serious Disuasives from Popery
http://books.google.com/books?id=lekDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR11&lpg=PR11&dq=Bishop+hall,+serious+dissuasive+from+popery&source=bl&ots=jzqB7Mj-tl&sig=6isElQRlSeH6pxP8GMEGircqv7c&hl=en&ei=Mm_6SprQNILSngeX6-n_DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Bishop%20hall%2C%20serious%20dissuasive%20from%20popery&f=false
showed 300 different doctrinal divisions among Roman anchoretics and I have not organized it all yet and finished that book so I cannot competently say that they all apply to the EO Church give me some time on this before I respond.
Just off the top of my head I know of a number of doctrinal controversies among you from the class I took in EO theology last year: 1. The universal application of the atonement, i.e. universalism 2. Whether the holy Spirit can be said to proceed THROUGH the Son 3. What sin is. Saying that the corruption/sin/death is found in the body but not the body is a pretty poor answer. Then what is it? 4. Did Christ take any guilt on the cross? I know EO's that say no, and I know the EO theology teacher here in Louisville that says yes. 5. Can the icon be 3 dimensional or only 2 dimensional? 6. That icon of the Trinity where three guys are sitting at the table by Andrei Rublev. The theology teacher here had a big problem with it as I understand many others do as well. 7. It has been the tradition of the Greek Church to use no instruments yet some churches are now introducing organs. 8. There are disagreements on whether the substance and accident distinction of transubstantiation can be fully imported into the greek system of the sacrament. Some say yes, some say no. 9. The idea of doctrinal development and catholicity: some hold vincent's everywhere by all statement others do not.
That's just off the top of my head.
Drake,
if it's objective, then it's not subjective.
Antiquity rules out Protestantism, and universality selects only Eastern Orthodoxy from among the 4 groups left.
As for the things you've asked me, I've never heard of them, nor do I understand what you're saying that they're supposedly saying.
No, wait: actually, I think I get a few:
(1) Orthodox Church worship is extremely reverential, spiritual, and uplifting: [as Christ said in the Gospel, we are to worship the Father in *Spirit* and in Truth].
Organ music is sobber, uplifting, and reverential, and does not detract from that which we are trying to instill in the hearts, minds, and souls of worshippers during prayer-services. [It's not a rock-concert, or disco-music, or any other type of carnal music].
Besides: from 250 million Orthodox only an insignifficant amount use organs (Greeks in America): it's not comparable in either size or percentage to what we see in Protestantism (ie, it's not like 90% of Protestants are "one" on 90% of the issues, and then there's a minority-fringe that is diverse and detracts from unity...)
(2) The same with icons: they create a more sobber and spiritual reverence than religious statues. And the way in which they are painted [not necessarily Byzantine art] has the same properties: it's sobber, spiritual, reflective; it inspires awe and reverence, not a carnal or trivial "spirituality".
Again: I can't really think of any Orthodox Church that has statues: maybe in our minority-diaspora.
(It's not like in Protestantism, where chaos rules, and disorder is the rule. If statues are the exception, not the rule, and they look reverently-enough, then it's not a problem).
(3) There is no "brutal" icon of the Trinity, if that's what you mean. The icons we have are typo-logical and/or symbolical.
By soberness, awe, or reverence I don't mean something 'sad' or `pompous`, but a certain trans-figuring sobriety, or seriousness, or temperance, or propriety to both joy and sadness. A mystic sense of holiness or transcendance that irradiates from our music and icons. It stops joy, peace, or serenity from turning into either triviality or light-heartedness. And it also stops the sadness or sweet melancholy of repentance from degenerating into despair or self-destructive self-loathing. And it also stops our energy and hope and determination from being deformed into anger or frustration.
I can't really explain it all that well: you have to see/hear/feel or even smell or taste it for yourself
Lvka,
"Antiquity rules out Protestantism, and universality selects only Eastern Orthodoxy from among the 4 groups left."
How is this objective? John Q in the Oriental Orthodox Church says the same thing as do the sedevecantists.
Not to mention antiquity is a pagan concept. You religion really came out of Brahmanism. In a few months I am writing something quite large on this issue building on what I have already written from Isaac Taylor.
2Ki 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.
So much for ancient tradition and relics.
"Organ music is sobber, uplifting, and reverential, and does not detract from that which we are trying to instill in the hearts, minds, and souls of worshippers during prayer-services. [It's not a rock-concert, or disco-music, or any other type of carnal music]."
The problem is instruments have historically been understood to be ceremonial, 2 Chron 29:25-30. It has been historically understood that this is not simply an issue of taste but of theology. For someone so interested in the ancient practice you should know this.
"it's not comparable in either size or percentage to what we see in Protestantism (ie, it's not like 90% of Protestants are "one" on 90% of the issues, and then there's a minority-fringe that is diverse and detracts from unity...)
"
Define protestantism
"It's not like in Protestantism, where chaos rules, and disorder is the rule. If statues are the exception, not the rule, and they look reverently-enough, then it's not a problem"
Your uniformity is othing compared to the uniformity in the Scottish Presbyterian Churches that hold to the original stuff. In my denomination I have worshipped at every church in America but one and they were exactly identical. Not one inch of difference in liturgy. The Westminster Directory for worship is practiced to the letter.
For crying out loud, the Orthodox church here has a choir. I take no church serious that has an organ and a choir. A little Levitical judaizing and some Greek Pan worship all thrown together.
"By soberness, awe, or reverence I don't mean something 'sad' or `pompous`, but a certain trans-figuring sobriety, or seriousness, or temperance, or propriety to both joy and sadness."
This is all subjective.
"I can't really explain it all that well: you have to see/hear/feel or even smell or taste it for yourself"
Define sensation show how sensation produces perception and how perception produces abstract ideas.
Just like the E Orthodox say that Calvinists and Calvin read the fathers through the pressuposition of providence and simplicity which is why he never came around to the Eastern position, I say that the Early Fathers read the scriptures and built their system from their pressuposition of anchorism that they inherited from their pagan anscestors who lived the philosophical life, the life Tertullian admits he got the foundational doctrine of his system from, the heathen as he admits in Tertullian, To His Wife 1.6, Examples of Heathens Urged as Commendatory of Widowhood and Celibacy.
You are simply not going to find the people of Jah worshipping him even close to the way you guys worship God before the first couple centuries A.D. The Dura Europos synagogue is the only hope you have and the best Jewish Scholars say its an apostate exception in the vast history of the Jewish people. THERE IS NOT A CHANCE IN HELL THAT WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS RIGHT!
I have yet to get even a bad reply to this stuff from either Jnorm, David, the Priest and his trainee here in Louisville or Perry.
Drake,
why are you jumping from one thing to another with no logic or coherence?
Monophysism lacks universality for the simple reason that all other ancient apostolic Churches confess to there being two natures in Christ. [The universality vote of ancient Christian Churches is 3:1 against Monophysism].
The roots of iconography go back to the Tabernacle and to Solomon's Temple (link).
[As for the other things you've said, again, they make little to no sense whatsoever].
It has been historically understood that this is not simply an issue of taste but of theology
And I've explained to you the theology.
The theology is that the divine service should lift us up to the realm of the divine, and not lower our senses even more than they already are.
[Unless you thought that there's something "magical" or legalistic about their presence or absence.. it's not, that's my point. The reason for it is spiritual; we're not Jews here..]
In the East, the Fathers have said that the only intrument allowable in worship is the Psalter, because of the purity and nobility of its sounds. In the West, they chose the organ, for serving a similar purpose: again, what's the problem?
Basically from what I have read EO theology is the result of reading the my with brahmanist glasses, I.e. The assumption that Gods religion highly emphasizes fasting penance, celibacy, iconography, antiquity etc while presbyterianism/Puritanism looks at the Nt with Jewish Hebrew glasses and assumes that the Nt flowed out of the OT while you guys with your antiquity hermeneutic believe that the Nt flowed out of pagan culture.
Sorry my touch likes to pick words for me, the first sentence there is supposed to say Nt as in new testament not "my".
Lucian if you think those passages have anything to do with the pagan nonsense that you practice you have clearly seared your conscience.
Drake,
1.)In regards to nominalism. Well, I didn't ask you because I was trying to set you up. I asked because a number of people I know are talking about the issue, and I was told that Calvinists are more consistent with nominalism than they are with Augustinianism. You seemed different from other Calvinists and that's why I asked.
2.) You keep saying over and over that Scottish Presbyterians hold to the original liturgy. How could that be when protestantism in general focus on the sermon and not the Eucharist?
The PCA church I visited in Alabama didn't have a liturgy. Yes, they were all nice people, but one of the elders there didn't seem to like the word "liturgy". I was eating dinner at his house one sunday between morning and evening services. And he didn't like the whole concept of liturgy at all.
And this was in a conversation about the way earlier protestants use to worship.
Now I don't know the differences between the Scottish Presbyterians and the PCA. But you believing that they have the original liturgy is just something hard for me to believe.
If not next month, then the month after. But eventually I plan on buying the book:
The Shape of the Liturgy by the protestant scholar Dom Gregory Dix
I have other books about the Liturgy, but they are mostly in regards to the Eastern Christian Liturgies. I am sorry, but it's just hard for me to believe that the Scottish Presbyterians have the original liturgy.
Have you ever visited an Orthodox jewish synagogue? I'm not talking about a conservative jewish synagogue or a reformed jewish synagogue. I am talking about an Orthodox jewish synagogue.
They have liturgical worship just as we have liturgical worship, and so it's hard for me to believe that the scottish Presbytarians have the original liturgy.
But like I said. I'm going to get Don Gregory Dix's book. And I'm going to see what he has to say about the various western liturgies. I read in one of the reviews that most of his focus towards the end or later part of the book is in regards to the Anglican liturgy.
3.) You said that jewish scholars see the synagogue in Damascus as heretical or not the norm. In saying this, are you saying that all jewish scholars are saying this? Are you saying that we can't find jewish scholars to say something different? Well, those synagogues may not be the norm now....in our day, but I don't know if one could say that about 2nd Temple Judaism and shortly after 2nd Temple Judaism.
Kevin Speaks With The Rabbi About Judaism And Christianity
“I was told that Calvinists are more consistent with nominalism than they are with Augustinianism. You seemed different from other Calvinists and that's why I asked.”
I am a Clarkian, as I am sure you know and Clarkianism is Augustinian from his book Concerning the Teacher.
“How could that be when protestantism in general focus on the sermon and not the Eucharist?”
Well Scottish P’s focus on the regulative principle as a whole, not just the sermon. When I say that we have the oldest liturgy I am going back to the simplicity of the OT Synagogue as well. I can see your point though. Scottish P’s do not have the sacrament every week. I suppose I am in some error on the emphasis on the original Christian liturgy but the issue is the simplicity of it. You have no warrant for any holy day outside of easter for the first 2 centuries, no instruments, no choirs, no iconography in public worship, no uninspired songs, no organs for many centuries etc. That is my point.
“
Have you ever visited an Orthodox jewish synagogue? I'm not talking about a conservative jewish synagogue or a reformed jewish synagogue. I am talking about an Orthodox jewish synagogue.”
No
“They have liturgical worship just as we have liturgical worship, and so it's hard for me to believe that the scottish Presbytarians have the original liturgy. ”
This is laughable. You need to read Vitringa’s Book on the Synagogue:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ow9MAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=vitringa,+synagogue&source=bl&ots=IQ_2hNsgTx&sig=szPjnakGZ0KUTlnISgN7-gzxYZs&hl=en&ei=z5hNTdOdLIi_gQeRl4Aj&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
So observing a Jewish Synagogue 2000 years post apostasy and the rejection of the messiah and you seriously think you have a leg to stand on. Read also Lee Levine’s Tomb, The Ancient Synagogue. I had some correspondence with him over David’s ridiculous article on Dura Europos. The Anchoretic use of Jewish History is one the most clear reasons I reject the whole system of Anchoretic theology. The two are not even in the same universe.
“But like I said. I'm going to get Don Gregory Dix's book. And I'm going to see what he has to say about the various western liturgies. I read in one of the reviews that most of his focus towards the end or later part of the book is in regards to the Anglican liturgy.”
Be careful , many scholars on this issue leave out the fact that Calvin though he held to some Anglican elements early on, changed to all out puritan worship in 1556 with the genevan book of church order.
I am at the Southern Baptist Seminary here in Louisville reading Free Choice in Maximus the Confessor.
Drake
Shelton,
once you're done spewing forth various vague phrases (that don't seem to mean anything to anyone else but yourself), and cease throwing around all sorts of insults and ad-hominems, and are actually able to give a *reasoned* and *meaningful* argument against what I'm saying (or for what you're saying), just let me know, OK? Until then, I'm out of here.
Drake said:
"Well Scottish P’s focus on the regulative principle as a whole, not just the sermon. When I say that we have the oldest liturgy I am going back to the simplicity of the OT Synagogue as well."
Are you sure the Old Testament(the Protestant O.T. not necessarily our O.T.'s) had Synagogues? I always thought Synagogues were formed between what you would call the Old Testament and New Testament time period. I think the same is true with the formation of the Pharisees.
The Temple Worship was Liturgical, and seeing how modern Orthodox Jews worship today, the worship in the Synagogue is also Liturgical.
The book I will soon get is suppose to also look at the connection between the Jewish and Christian Liturgies. Some call the Jewish Liturgy the mother Liturgy......although there is a difference, the modern Orthodox Jewish Liturgy is mostly based on the ancient Synagogue, where as ours is a mixture of both ancient Synagogue and ancient Jewish Temple.
But yeah, I'm gonna get the book.
Drake said:
"I can see your point though. Scottish P’s do not have the sacrament every week. I suppose I am in some error on the emphasis on the original Christian liturgy but the issue is the simplicity of it."
J.W. worship is simple. The same with how Mormons and Amish worship, but they all are non Liturgical as well.
Is the simple worship of the Scottish P's Liturgical or non Liturgical?
Why isn't it Eucharistic based? Why isn't the Eucharist the center of the worship service? Why is the sermon the center of the worship service?
Also, why didn't the church fathers follow the Reformed regulative principle of worship? If they didn't follow it then why do you believe Christians of the 1st century followed it?
Do you really believe Saint Polycarp and Saint Ignatius followed the Reformed Regulative Principle? They were both associated with the Apostle John, and so do you think the Apostle John followed the Reformed regulative principle?
Drake said:
You have no warrant for any holy day outside of easter for the first 2 centuries,
The Ancient Church has the right to form it's own Holidays. Just as it has the right to form/collect it's own Biblical canons according to it's Liturgy.....etc.
Drake said:
no instruments,
My Parish doesn't have instruments. You seem very strict about this. Will you be as strict about having no pews? I've been to Orthodox parishes with no pews. Will you be as strict when it comes to the issue of head coverings? I know that alot of modern Orthodox women no longer want to wear a headcovering, but I've been to parishes in where most of the Orthodox women wear them. Also, what about Holy kisses? My parish still does that, what about the Scottish P's? Do they do that?
Drake said:
no choirs,
I like choirs! But I have been to some Orthodox Parishes without choirs. But tell me, why is this more important than head coverings? Do Scottish P women wear head coverings? What about beards? Do Scottish P men have beards?
Do you want to know what some Early Christians had to say about beards? They liked beards! But this is starting to get silly! LOL!
Drake said:
no iconography in public worship,
How do you know? 2nd Temple Judaism had it, and I could be wrong, but I think one could make a strong argument for the 1st Temple as well.
Also, not only do we have the jewish examples of the Temples and the Jewish synagogue of Dura Europos, but we also have the example of the Christian house Church right next to it....or near by it. It's filled with pictures as well.
Drake said:
no iconography in public worship,
How do you know? 2nd Temple Judaism had it, and I could be wrong, but I think one could make a strong argument for the 1st Temple as well.
Also, not only do we have the jewish examples of the Temples and the Jewish synagogue of Dura Europos, but we also have the example of the Christian house Church right next to it....or near by it. It's filled with pictures as well.
Drake said:
no uninspired songs,
Where does the New Testament say that we can only sing Bible Verses? Yes, we do sing Bible verses, but where is the command that one must only sing Bible verses at worship?
Drake said:
no organs for many centuries etc. That is my point.
Most Orthodox parishes don't have Organs. I know my parish doesn't. But show me a New Testament verse that says no Organs at worship?
I personally don't like Organs, but like I said, most Orthodox Parishes don't have them.
Lvka,
"By soberness, awe, or reverence I don't mean something 'sad' or `pompous`, but a certain trans-figuring sobriety, or seriousness, or temperance, or propriety to both joy and sadness. A mystic sense of holiness or transcendance that irradiates from our music and icons. It stops joy, peace, or serenity from turning into either triviality or light-heartedness. And it also stops the sadness or sweet melancholy of repentance from degenerating into despair or self-destructive self-loathing. And it also stops our energy and hope and determination from being deformed into anger or frustration.
I can't really explain it all that well: you have to "
That is an argument?
You can't define sensation and using arguments to prove some artform in worship gets even more difficult. Is the tune then a reality or a representation of a reality or a representation of a representation of a reality? If you believe that senses give knowledge you must say that the materia/sensory is the reality in that case a tune then becomes impossible, why, because all you can claim to sense is the individual notes. Tunes are remembered, interpreted and abstracted by the mind.
"Are you sure the Old Testament(the Protestant O.T. not necessarily our O.T.'s) had Synagogues"
>>Not sure what you are referring to. One verse that Levine shows to prove a pre-exilic date to the synagogue is psalm 74:8 They said in their heart, "Let us completely subdue them."They have burned all the meeting places of God in the land. This Osalm is a Psalm of Asaph, the same guy in 1 Chron 16:5. He lived at the time of David (11th-10th century B.C.). Calvin commenting on Psalm 74:8 says much the same
"The Temple Worship was Liturgical"
>>Depends on what you mean by that. Both temple and tabernacle was organinzed under strict regulative principle:Tabernacle Exo 25:9 ; Temple 1 Chron 28:11-19, 2 Chron 29:25
"Jewish and Christian Liturgies."
>>I think Vitringa's book has already dealt with this with respect to the synagogue.
"Is the simple worship of the Scottish P's Liturgical or non Liturgical? "
>>In the sense of the word liturgical as you guys use it in EO Scottish P is the opposite of liturgical. Heb 9:10 calls Temple worship carnal. Why you think it is such a model to follow is beyond me.
"Why isn't it Eucharistic based? Why isn't the Eucharist the center of the worship service? Why is the sermon the center of the worship service?"
>>Because calvinism is a rational and intellectual religion. It defines Christianity as a system of propositional doctrines. Christianity is not a personal relationship with God or an experience. Judas had experiences and a relationship if the word "experience" even has a meaning.
"Also, why didn't the church fathers follow the Reformed regulative principle of worship?"
>>Because they were apostates interpreting the new testament through the spectacles of the Brahmanism of their forefathers.
"If they didn't follow it then why do you believe Christians of the 1st century followed it?"
>>because the old testament is full of it and never implies that it is ceremonial and Mat 15:9 and Col 2:20-23 clearly teach it.
"They were both associated with the Apostle John, and so do you think the Apostle John followed the Reformed regulative principle? "
>>I don't know I wasn't there.
"The Ancient Church has the right to form it's own Holidays. "
>>Do you understand how radically different that is from the OT? This is a revolution you have. It is a completely different religion from the OT.
1 Kings 12:33
Then he went up to the altar which he had made in Bethel on the fifteenth day in the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised in his own heart; and he instituted a feast for the sons of Israel and went up to the altar to burn incense.
1 Kings 13
1And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense.
2And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.
You have been deceived Jnorm
"Will you be as strict about having no pews? I've been to Orthodox parishes with no pews. Will you be as strict when it comes to the issue of head coverings? I know that alot of modern Orthodox women no longer want to wear a headcovering, but I've been to parishes in where most of the Orthodox women wear them. Also, what about Holy kisses? My parish still does that, what about the Scottish P's? Do they do that?"
>>You have clearly not read a single page of reformed literature on this. Standing or sitting is circumstantial. We distinguish between circumstances and elements. i have done the homeword on your eligion you need to do the same: here you go:
http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/the-regulative-principle/a-reading-list-on-puritan-worship-by-drake-shelton
I have had to put the time in, so are you.
"Do Scottish P women wear head coverings?"
>>Yes
"What about beards?"
>>Most everybody has a beard but what is this have to do with anything?
"Where does the New Testament say that we can only sing Bible Verses? Yes, we do sing Bible verses, but where is the command that one must only sing Bible verses at worship?"
>>Well, it commands the singing of psalms, and gives the phrase in Eph 5:19 "spiritual songs" which our divines have proved to be referring to special revelation. But since you clearly have not done your homework here I'' let you earn the rest.
"I know my parish doesn't. But show me a New Testament verse that says no Organs at worship?"
>>I don't have to. That is the beauty of the reg. principle. All I have to show is what God commanded or inferred and then do that. What he doesn't command I have no burden of proof.
That is an argument?
No, that was an explanation of terms (so that you won't get the wrong idea of what I was trying to say).