Nicene Creed doctrine of man: manifestations of evil or God?

Anglian · #81 6th February 2008, 12:53 PM

Dear Albion,

Inspired by your words and the spirit behind them, and by the too kind comments of Preacherswife, I want to venture out a little further.

I like your use of language, which is at once more flexible and precise than my own, and one of the advantages of this dialogue is that I am beginning to see how some of what seemed like difference were down to modes of expression; how like the Church itself!

When you write:

To you, there's a need to be able to say that what you believe is arrived at in some demonstrably inspired way and proven absolutely.

that is kind of it, and yet not. Now that does need me to be more precise, I fear, so here goes.

It is the 'proven absolutely' with which I have caveats. How can one be sure that one's reading of Scripture is in accord with that of the Gospel delivered to the Apostles and passed on through them? We would hold that the only way of knowing that is to be part of the Church founded by Christ, with bishops who hold their office in direct line of succession to the Apostles. If 'proven absolutely' means that, then yes, we do need that to be certain that we read the Holy Scriptures aright. It does not mean that all other readings are wrong; only those which contradict the reading of the Church through the ages are wrong; but we do think there are wrong readings, and we think it important for salvation that people should not preach another gospel.

Now that does, indeed, lead many of my fellow Orthodox to the view that since their reading is the best, that means they are THE Church and everyone else, being outside the Church, is not saved. Some Catholics and some Protestants believe this also.

I do not say they are wrong; Heaven forfend that I should take on myself God's prerogative of Mercy and Judgement. We hold He will judge in mercy, not in justice as we see it; by that standard we know what we deserve; only the Omniscience and Merciful God knows our fate. Anyone not content with that had better take it up with God.

So I, and others in the Oriental Orthodox family (and I know others in the whole Christian family) would hold not that everyone else is an heretic, but that we know that the fulness of the Faith has been preserved in our Church. And in others? How shall we know? Who are we to judge? All we would ask is whether other Churches profess the essentials of the Credal statements of the early Church; if that be so, then we would recognise brothers and sisters all. I bear, and happily, the opprobrious comments that sometimes come my way from my fellow Orthodox when they call that syncretism; it isn't - it is, perhaps, a reductionist approach - hence the importance of Nicaea for me.

The early Church fixed, in whatever manner one thinks it was fixed (inspiration, politics, sheer fluke, good fudging) a basic standard by which we could recognise those who preached the same Gospel of the Apostles. Of Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conceptions, filioques and Purgatory it said naught definitive; some of us would hold it said naught at all. This is why the Creed matters to me.

Many will say they are of Him, but the tongues of men are many, and the understandings elusive; let me know only that my brother there and my sister here believes what the early Church said was essential, and what Pope Benedict more recently described as the 'fundamentals', and I know that I need not behave as St. John did when Cerinthus came into the bath-house.

More, perhaps, needs saying here, but for now, I hope this will illuminate, a little, where I come from on this.

Your tone, and your erudition and spirit alike command my deep respect and admiration; it is an honour and pleasure to converse with one such.

In peace,

Anglian

Albion · #82 6th February 2008, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Anglian

Dear Albion,

Inspired by your words and the spirit behind them, and by the too kind comments of Preacherswife, I want to venture out a little further.

I like your use of language, which is at once more flexible and precise than my own, and one of the advantages of this dialogue is that I am beginning to see how some of what seemed like difference were down to modes of expression; how like the Church itself!

When you write: "To you, there's a need to be able to say that what you believe is arrived at in some demonstrably inspired way and proven absolutely."

that is kind of it, and yet not. Now that does need me to be more precise, I fear, so here goes.

It is the 'proven absolutely' with which I have caveats. How can one be sure that one's reading of Scripture is in accord with that of the Gospel delivered to the Apostles and passed on through them?

I'd say that we cannot be absolutely certain. I also have the feeling that you are now going to tell me that it's both important to you to be convinced that what your church teaches is the full truth and that it matters to you that you can say there's no doubt about it.

We would hold that the only way of knowing that is to be part of the Church founded by Christ, with bishops who hold their office in direct line of succession to the Apostles.

Of course you do. My immediate reaction, however, is to ask how that allows you to "know" that you have the truth? It would appear to me that a falsehood can be carried on in an unbroken line of succession just as easily as a truth. What, really, does the age or continuity have to do with anything?

If 'proven absolutely' means that, then yes, we do need that to be certain that we read the Holy Scriptures aright.

Why do you "need" that kind of assurance which some might call a conession to our insecurities and anxieties?

It does not mean that all other readings are wrong; only those which contradict the reading of the Church through the ages are wrong;

Why do we know that to be the case? And how do we know that "Church through the ages" is indeed as tidy, unbroken, uncontested, as the theory would want us to think? We all know that Church History is littered with periods in which heresy was in the majority, as with Arius, there were disputed episcopal elections, the faithful were torn by doubts and disagreements, etc.

we do think there are wrong readings, and we think it important for salvation that people should not preach another gospel.

I'd agree.

But I have to say this also in response--

1) what do you mean by the use of the term "another Gospel?" If that includes a disagreement over the exact nature of the afterlife, I don't think that's material, but if you mean by your use of the term "another Gospel" something like how we come to be saved at all, that's clearly significant. My point is only that disagreements in themselves do not constitute "another Gospel;" it matters which disagreements we are speaking of.

And 2) We probably ALL agree that "people should not preach another Gospel."

Deciding which is the right one and which is the wrong one, however, is the real issue. Most often, each side lays the same condemnation on the other.

Now that does, indeed, lead many of my fellow Orthodox to the view that since their reading is the best, that means they are THE Church and everyone else, being outside the Church, is not saved. Some Catholics and some Protestants believe this also.

Agreed.

I do not say they are wrong; Heaven forfend that I should take on myself God's prerogative of Mercy and Judgement. We hold He will judge in mercy, not in justice as we see it; by that standard we know what we deserve; only the Omniscience and Merciful God knows our fate. Anyone not content with that had better take it up with God.

Wait a minute before we move ahead. You said that you disagree with some Orthodox who hold that they are THE CHurch AND ALSO that they say everyone outside it is not saved. Then you went on to say that God judges who's saved. That is to disagree with the Orthodox in question on the second point but to remain noncommital on the former point you mentioned--or so it appears to me.

I'm not nit-picking, I assure you. The point about what is THE Church, or if that is even a proper way to view things, is one we've already discussed with me saying that it's a cardinal point of difference between Catholics and Protestants. To set this straight, would you tell us which side of that matter you come down on?

So I, and others in the Oriental Orthodox family (and I know others in the whole Christian family) would hold not that everyone else is an heretic, but that we know that the fulness of the Faith has been preserved in our Church.

You reach that conclusion from a consideration of various evidences which carry weight with you; but you don't "know" it in an absolute sense.

And in others? How shall we know? Who are we to judge?

Well, you did just judge. Anglian, you said that you know your church to hold the fulness of the Faith and are only telling everyone else that you will not say if theirs do or do not. We reformed Christians wouldn't be hesitant in saying that all those who are true followers of Christ are members of his Church, whatever denomination or assembly they may happen to belong to, and that these are men and women whose status is known only to God.

All we would ask is whether other Churches profess the essentials of the Credal statements of the early Church;

What if we respond that that's an arbitrary standard, that adherence to the Word of God should be the standard instead of a statement written up by men three hundred years after Christ founded his Church?

if that be so, then we would recognise brothers and sisters all.

I'm sure this seems fair and ecumenical to you, and to some degree it is. After all, universalists and those who deny the Real Presence can easily assent to the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds as well as you, I, and Preacher's Wife who all belong to the liturgical and Credal churches can.

But you still are asking for a statement plucked from Church history to be what we must agree to. Why not make it the Augsburg Confession instead? Better yet, why not some powerul and relevant Bible passage like John 3:16? There are innumerable creeds that men have written up at one time or another. The Nicene Creed is the most widely used, I warrant, but it's still not of divine origin which, it seems to me, would make it a genuine rallying point. On the other hand we DO have something that all of us agree without hesitation IS of divine origin, divinely given to us for our guidance--the Scriptures. Let's choose the Bible instead, I suggest.

I bear, and happily, the opprobrious comments that sometimes come my way from my fellow Orthodox when they call that syncretism; it isn't - it is, perhaps, a reductionist approach - hence the importance of Nicaea for me.

I do appreciate the point you are making. It is a step in our direction. It is only the insistence on making the Nicene Creed the meeting place that I have yet to be comfortable with.

The early Church fixed, in whatever manner one thinks it was fixed (inspiration, politics, sheer fluke, good fudging) a basic standard by which we could recognise those who preached the same Gospel of the Apostles. Of Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conceptions, filioques and Purgatory it said naught definitive; some of us would hold it said naught at all. This is why the Creed matters to me.

Well said. Yes, I understand and appreciate that. It's not, after all, as though you are saying that your church owns the Nicene Creed and so everyone is being asked to get on your particular church bus and none other, or else there's no mutual recognition possible.

Many will say they are of Him, but the tongues of men are many, and the understandings elusive; let me know only that my brother there and my sister here believes what the early Church said was essential,

That's the rub, isn't it? The Nicene Creed was not written during the days of the really Early Church, you know. If you were asking us to acceded to an APOSTOLIC statement instead, I'd say that would be a totally different matter. The Nicene Creed was written not only to decide a very limited issue but not until 300 years and more after the Christian Church was functioning.

More, perhaps, needs saying here, but for now, I hope this will illuminate, a little, where I come from on this.

I think it does.

Izdaari · #83 6th February 2008, 02:50 PM

Here's my creed; it's simple enough and I trust Paul's authority as an apostle on the matter:

[bible]Romans 10:9-10[/bible]
Do that, and I'll expect to see you in heaven, however off your doctrine may be in other respects.

Anglian · #84 7th February 2008, 03:55 AM

dear Albion,

I am not sure that I should be having this much fun during Lent! But then the Orthodox Lent has not started yet

I think you yourself answer the questions about why I am so concerned about certainty when you write:

And 2) We probably ALL agree that "people should not preach another Gospel."

Deciding which is the right one and which is the wrong one, however, is the real issue. Most often, each side lays the same condemnation on the other.

It matters because salvation depends upon following the Gospel preached by Christ. Falsehood can indeed be carried on for a while, and that was why the early Church ended up having to priovide benchmarks for orthodoxy. So although what you say here is true:

The Nicene Creed was not written during the days of the really Early Church, you know. If you were asking us to acceded to an APOSTOLIC statement instead, I'd say that would be a totally different matter. The Nicene Creed was written not only to decide a very limited issue but not until 300 years and more after the Christian Church was functioning.

we must take on board that all the Fathers saw themselves as doing was putting into words what the Church had always believed. Those who argue that the Canon of scripture is a late invention along with the Creed have a point, even if it is not the one they think; in both cases there was a codification of earlier practices.

Continuity with the source of the stream is important for obvious reasons. To that it might be objected that that is our view; of course, and it is one happily subjected to any scrutiny. It does not, to abut onto your question for me, mean there are not others who can also trace their stream back to the source; just that we are sure we can. That, I hope, makes us humble, not proud. So much was given, and have we done as He would have done?

Certainty also matters in a way that I am not sure people in the West can appreciate. If you live for centuries under Muslim rule where you are persecuted for the Faith, you do not remain faithful by saying: 'well, there's a better than average chance this thing is right.' The Coptic and Syriac Churches, like the Armenian Church, is one which has been subjected to a thousand years of persecution; insecurities? Yes, it is easy to feel insecure when wearing a crucifix may make you a target for violence. That is part of the answer to your question here:

Why do you "need" that kind of assurance which some might call a conession to our insecurities and anxieties?

On this question:

I'm not nit-picking, I assure you. The point about what is THE Church, or if that is even a proper way to view things, is one we've already discussed with me saying that it's a cardinal point of difference between Catholics and Protestants. To set this straight, would you tell us which side of that matter you come down on?

all I can say with certainty is that in the encounter with the Risen Lord at the Eucharist I know He is in my Church. If others tell me that of their own experience, I respect them as I would have them respect my view.

We reformed Christians wouldn't be hesitant in saying that all those who are true followers of Christ are members of his Church, whatever denomination or assembly they may happen to belong to, and that these are men and women whose status is known only to God.

Yes, I can subscribe to that.

Can I come back later to the rest of your important post?

In peace,

Anglian

</IMG>

Albion · #85 7th February 2008, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Anglian

I think you yourself answer the questions about why I am so concerned about certainty when you write:

"Deciding which is the right one and which is the wrong one, however, is the real issue."

It matters because salvation depends upon following the Gospel preached by Christ. Falsehood can indeed be carried on for a while, and that was why the early Church ended up having to priovide benchmarks for orthodoxy.

But salvation does not depend on us agreeing on whether baptism is by immersion as opposed to affusion or whether triple immersion is right and single immersion is wrong. It does not depend on what we think about the Church Calendar or the Deutero-Canonical books or who is to be admitted to Communion, etc. There are a mass of beliefs which are significant and there are ways of doing what it probably better than some other way--but salvation, according to the Bible, is rather plainly taught. That's by faith in Christ as the Son of God and your personal savior.

To consider all manner of doctrinal minutia, the stuff that separates so many denominations, as "false Gospels" is a mistake. Accepting another God or considering Jesus only to be a prophet or believing that our own works can contribute to salvation...now, that's a false Gospel, but not all the items of doctrine that some churches demand.

we must take on board that all the Fathers saw themselves as doing was putting into words what the Church had always believed.

We're all entitled to our opinions, they no less than anyone else. That doesn't make these men the standard of faith, not even if they were in agreement on some doctrinal matter or other, which they usually were not.

Those who argue that the Canon of scripture is a late invention along with the Creed have a point

Codification might have been, but the use of the Bible books was not. That's where these people are employing a fiction in order to argue that their denomination is the only real one or is superior to some other Christian church association.

Continuity with the source of the stream is important for obvious reasons. To that it might be objected that that is our view; of course, and it is one happily subjected to any scrutiny. It does not, to abut onto your question for me, mean there are not others who can also trace their stream back to the source; just that we are sure we can.

To be sure, tracing the history of any doctrine to the beginning of the Church is desirable for a number or reasons. My issues concern these reasons, not with the idea of continuity being something that is desirable:

1. Saying there is continuity and actually having a continuity are two different things. Most of the teachings ascribed to a continuity, to "Tradition," are not, in reality, tracable to the beginning of the Church,

2. Continuity is no more important than Consensus. To be able to say that someone or other believed in X at a remote time does not establish it as the belief of the Churfh, of the people of God at that time,

3. In either case, continuity and consensus is only a means of assisting us in knowing the mind of the Church, not in establishing any doctrine, for only God through his revealed word can do that, and

4. As you've already agreed, falsehoods can be carried along by time as well as the truth can be.

( BTW, there probably is a typical Anglican peeking through in that POV of mine since we tend to favor certain religious ways as being desirable if not necessary. That's what separates us from some Protestant churches which felt the need to cast off everything reminiscent of Catholicism, including those matters which were beautiful or reverent, etc., and not wrong, just old.)

Certainty also matters in a way that I am not sure people in the West can appreciate. If you live for centuries under Muslim rule where you are persecuted for the Faith, you do not remain faithful by saying: 'well, there's a better than average chance this thing is right.' The Coptic and Syriac Churches, like the Armenian Church, is one which has been subjected to a thousand years of persecution; insecurities? Yes, it is easy to feel insecure when wearing a crucifix may make you a target for violence.

Well, I acknowledged that. Sure, it makes anyone who's been under persecution FEEL more dedicated, more bonded, more strengthened by a spirit of resolve...but this is only a human concern. It may make us committed or resolute or reassured, but it doesn't make our religious doctrines for us. That's putting the cart before the horse. At best it should be said that the true faith is held firmly to by those under this kind of pressure, not that this spirit of commitment is the faith itself.

"The point about what is THE Church, or if that is even a proper way to view things, is one we've already discussed with me saying that it's a cardinal point of difference between Catholics and Protestants. To set this straight, would you tell us which side of that matter you come down on?"

all I can say with certainty is that in the encounter with the Risen Lord at the Eucharist I know He is in my Church. If others tell me that of their own experience, I respect them as I would have them respect my view.

That doesn't seem to address my question which concerned the nature of Christ's church.

"We reformed Christians wouldn't be hesitant in saying that all those who are true followers of Christ are members of his Church, whatever denomination or assembly they may happen to belong to, and that these are men and women whose status is known only to God."

Yes, I can subscribe to that.

Thanks. That does seem to answer it.

Can I come back later to the rest of your important post? Anglian

Of course.

Anglian · #86 8th February 2008, 07:06 AM

Dear Albion,

Thank you for the continued enlightenment which comes from this dialogue. Some of my fellow Orthodox wonder why I spend time in such dialogues, but with you here, and with Catholics here and elsewhere, what I discover is that although the variety of ways in which the Faith might be expressed is endless, its reality remains constant: faith, hope and love.

You write:

But salvation does not depend on us agreeing on whether baptism is by immersion as opposed to affusion or whether triple immersion is right and single immersion is wrong

I cannot find that this is essential, although I understand why some would hold us mistaken on this. My own Church does not recognise other baptisms as effectual and requires converts to be baptised and chrismated because we can only be sure that what we have received from our Fathers is effectual. I understand why some potential converts get upset at this, but it has always been our custom, and as my bishop says, it means only that we have no surety about any other form of baptism. If you suspect that this shows that desire for as much certainty as can be had, you would be right.

When you write that salvation is:

by faith in Christ as the Son of God and your personal savior.

I of course agree; but we would wish to know what that meant, and would concur with what you write here:

Accepting another God or considering Jesus only to be a prophet or believing that our own works can contribute to salvation...now, that's a false Gospel, but not all the items of doctrine that some churches demand.

For us belief in Christ as the Son of God means assent to a Triune God, and unless one believes that Christ is wholly God and wholly man with no mingling of the two even for the twinkling of an eye, then one's faith is not the faith of the Church which brings the hope of salvation. Some things are 'doctrinal minutiae', others are the essence of our hope.

When you say:

We're all entitled to our opinions, they no less than anyone else.

that is obviously so; but we both accept that some 'opinions' are heretical.

Your incisiveness here is much appreciated:

To be sure, tracing the history of any doctrine to the beginning of the Church is desirable for a number or reasons. My issues concern these reasons, not with the idea of continuity being something that is desirable:

If we take these reasons in turn:

1. Saying there is continuity and actually having a continuity are two different things. Most of the teachings ascribed to a continuity, to "Tradition," are not, in reality, tracable to the beginning of the Church,

Because we have such gaps in our knowledge of the detail of the life of the early Church we are forced into reliance upon two things: one, the works of the early Fathers; the other the oral 'tradition' retained within those Churches which trace their descent bishops by bishop back to the Apostles. This leads us to your point 2:

2. Continuity is no more important than Consensus. To be able to say that someone or other believed in X at a remote time does not establish it as the belief of the Churfh, of the people of God at that time,

Here I am less sure. I can only take my own Church as an example, and I do so not to assert some suppose superiority, but simply because it is the only way I can illustrate my point.

Our doctrine and dogma remain what they were in 451 before Chalcedon; indeed it was the view that the latter did add something to the Faith which made us decline to accept it. What we held then, we had held in similar faithfulness from the beginning, adding and subtracting naught. So, whilst we might not have immense detail on the Alexandrian Church in the era of St. Mark, we certainly do from the second century, and given our conservatism it seems not unreasonable for us to suppose that what we have continuity with is what the Church believed in the time of St. Athanasius. That, of course, does not take us to St. Mark, but that is where our caution in adding anything gives us some assurance that for us, there is continuity with what the Church taught from the beginning.

So I would quite agree with you that:

3. In either case, continuity and consensus is only a means of assisting us in knowing the mind of the Church, not in establishing any doctrine, for only God through his revealed word can do that,

The only difference is probably that we accept that the Church's reading of Scripture is the best way to establish that what we are receiving is the word of God - and not something corrupted by our own failures in understanding and our own sinful state.

Of course that can only be our opinion, and as ever, I would make no comment on how others receive the same assurance. That is why the Creed is important. It is the earliest codification accepted by the whole Church.

Such codifications came not because of a desire to confine orthodoxy and Catholicism, but because others claimed that their doctrines were Bible-based and should take precedence over the Traditions of the Apostolic Church which were simply the constructs of men. The Creeds gave the Church a way of defining what was not orthodox and what Christians could not believe and still hold themselves to be within the Church.

Modern western society with its relativistic mindset and its liberal values seems to find such an attitude lacking in its spirit of tolerance. There are many Orthodox and Catholics who seem to respond to this by saying that 'true love' means having to tell others they are heretics - and then proceed to apply that to anyone who does not concur to the letter with their own detailed interpretation, which they defend through 'Tradition'. The voice of the Oriental Orthodox is usually not heard in such discussions, and so, if we are acknowledged at all, it is assumed we must fall under the heading of 'Orthodox', but here we would wish simply to say that in saying that we can be sure that Christ is with us, we are not saying He is not with others - how can we?

Well, of course, on this last point we would with reluctance, have to say that if a Church held that the Incarnate Word was actually only Jesus Christ a prophet of God, then it is not a Christian Church, and that it does not inherit His promise.

when, in the earlier post you came to the very important point:

On the other hand we DO have something that all of us agree without hesitation IS of divine origin, divinely given to us for our guidance--the Scriptures. Let's choose the Bible instead, I suggest.

I do agree. But if it were that easy then there would not have been the divergent and heretical interpretations we have mentioned previously.

The question here is how, when there are differing interpretations of matters of vital importance - such as the Triune nature of God and Christ being wholly-human and wholly-divine, we reach an authoritative verdict; the Bible does not seem to do it for sinful man. The early undivided Church, reading the Bible in the orthodox fashion, declared what that orthodoxy was. How Christians reach that orthodoxy may be various, but since there is a handy definition, it seems to us wise to use it.

I think we may be very close together indeed on what matters. Too often Christians who disagree on the peripherals think that is what needs discussing; but of course, we may need to agree on what is 'peripheral'. Again, here the Creed is a good short-hand for where the essentials of salvation lie.

Even if one holds that one is sure that one's own Church teaches the Gospel of Christ, that is for us no guarantee of salvation; that gives us the hope only. It is through the living of the Christian life that the process of theosis is undergone, and that we can come closer to walking in His way. Here, for us, the taking of the Eucharist is as essential part of the process, as we take Him in us. Works are the fruit of the Spirit in us and part of the life He calls us to lead. We would see confession as an essential part of the process of theosis. But not all these things guarantee anything, save that at the last we can stand before Him in the hope of His salvation. But we know we remain sinners, and our reliance upon His mercy remains absolute.

In peace,

Anglian

Albion · #87 8th February 2008, 09:09 AM

Thanks to you for another fine post, Anglian. I need to come back to it when I have a little more time--which does not mean putting it off for more than a few hours.

For the moment, here's what my general view of things is--

We have articulated our positions well enough, I think, that we are down to areas where we cannot compromise and so are left only to explain and justify what our views are. As I understand you, there is an overriding willingness to trust your church and its longstanding traditions because you see it as cutting through the disagreements which characterize the maze of Christian denominations and communions, both catholic and reformed.

But on the other hand, I am forced to come back to this key point--what "works" as a decider is not necessarily what is right. Yet what is right is what we are after.

Because belief system X has been around the longest or is the most consistent (as I've said, I do not believe either of those is actually the case, however, so it's just an argument), serves to explain why you believe what you do. What it does not do is make it correct. For example, one of the many churches that stands on Sola Scriptura can just as easily be correct while all other churches are wrong, all the churches like yours which do not abide Sola Scriptura and all the rest of those that do.

So while I understand that what you've been advocating succeeds as a way of making the decision for you, choosing one of the confessions of one of the Protestant churches could do it as well. Well, not quite as well perhaps, since there is SOMETHING to be said for that which is old. There is a record over time; we have witnesses, and so on, but since I know that the continuity that is claimed is not actually continuous and the consensus that is claimed did not actually exist among the Early Church Fathers, the advantage is small and guarantees nothing when you get right down to it. It amounts to going with what is customary.

The line of thought called "Tradition" amounts to standing on a functional myth.

While we may--and I'd enjoy it--discuss smaller aspects of our two respective mindsets, this above is basically what I feel has begun to emerge as a "bottom line."

Albion · #88 8th February 2008, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Anglian

Some of my fellow Orthodox wonder why I spend time in such dialogues, but with you here, and with Catholics here and elsewhere, what I discover is that although the variety of ways in which the Faith might be expressed is endless, its reality remains constant: faith, hope and love.

You write: "...salvation does not depend on us agreeing on whether baptism is by immersion as opposed to affusion or whether triple immersion is right and single immersion is wrong."

I cannot find that this is essential, although I understand why some would hold us mistaken on this. My own Church does not recognise other baptisms as effectual and requires converts to be baptised and chrismated because we can only be sure that what we have received from our Fathers is effectual. I understand why some potential converts get upset at this, but it has always been our custom, and as my bishop says, it means only that we have no surety about any other form of baptism. If you suspect that this shows that desire for as much certainty as can be had, you would be right.

All right, but I wasn't taking issue with your own ways, or disputing the matter of being sure that a valid baptism has occurred in the case of converts. I was only saying that arguing over the mode of baptism--as many churches do--is an example of something that is doctrinal to them but IMO is not a "false gospel" whichever way one chooses to believe on that matter. IOW, we're not guarding against a false gospel when making an issue of a non-essential matter.

When you write that salvation is: "by faith in Christ as the Son of God and your personal savior."

I of course agree; but we would wish to know what that meant,

Well...it means that salvation comes by faith in Christ, not by subscribing to a long list of secondary matters such as I've mentioned before--the mode of baptism, what the afterlife is like, or all the thousands of other items that divide Christians. None of those affects the salvation of any of us who have acceptee Christ as Lord and Savior.

For us belief in Christ as the Son of God means assent to a Triune God,

That I agree with because when we say we accept Christ as our Savior it follows automatically that we have to know who it is that we are accepting as our Savior. However, the many other issues Christians debate are not in this category.

we both accept that some 'opinions' are heretical.

Certainly, but the question is "What does that tell us about the status of the heretic in God's eyes?"

I would say that most heresies are almost technical; they don't affect the heretic's chances of salvation at all. They may be wrong in our eyes, but we're probably wrong in the heretic's eyes, no? I do NOT agree to the idea that many have that being a heretic means loss of salvation, unless it affects the basic requirement for salvation we have already stated several times. Not agreeing to the Real Presence or the episcopal system of government, for instance, will bring big condemnations upon one from the church leadership, but it doesn't affect one's standing with God.

Because we have such gaps in our knowledge of the detail of the life of the early Church we are forced into reliance upon two things: one, the works of the early Fathers; the other the oral 'tradition' retained within those Churches which trace their descent bishops by bishop back to the Apostles.

...and what happens when the Fathers disagree or the belief turns out to be old but not of Apostolic origin? By and large, the catholic churches merely stipulate that it is both and dogmatise whatever the belief happens to be.

This leads us to your point 2:
Here I am less sure. I can only take my own Church as an example, and I do so not to assert some suppose superiority, but simply because it is the only way I can illustrate my point.

IOW, you are willing to trust your church and let it go at that? If so, why bother with understanding the elements of Tradition at all? -- Just accept what you are told to believe. I have a hard time with that approach.

Our doctrine and dogma remain what they were in 451 before Chalcedon;

I believe that to be incorrect. Some things obviously are, but others are not.

So I would quite agree with you that: "3. In either case, continuity and consensus is only a means of assisting us in knowing the mind of the Church, not in establishing any doctrine, for only God through his revealed word can do that, "

I am having a hard time following this. You seem to be relying upon what your church tells you is the teaching of Tradition, but here you say that you agree that Tradition is only a means of knowing the beliefs of earlier Christians concerning these doctrinal matters, not to fix doctrine. That's a contradiction as I read it.

The only difference is probably that we accept that the Church's reading of Scripture is the best way to establish that what we are receiving is the word of God - and not something corrupted by our own failures in understanding and our own sinful state.

To that I have to follow up with two questions. Are you saying that you believe in Holy Tradition or only that you believe in your church's understanding of scripture? Also, do you really mean to say that you believe whatever your church tells you is the historic record, whether or not you know it to be correct?

I would make no comment on how others receive the same assurance. That is why the Creed is important. It is the earliest codification accepted by the whole Church.

I think you mean by that that accepting the Creed is of paramount importance, especially if we care about ecumenism, genuine ecumenism, regardless of why any church or believer accepts the Creeds tenets. Am I correct there?

Even so, it seems important only as a rallying point, not as something that answers any of the bigger issues involved when different communions negotiate with each other over intercommunion or mutual recognition, etc. But you can easily be saying that you want this to be the sole criterion for everyone accepting everyone else's faith. Is that so?

There are many Orthodox and Catholics who seem to respond to this by saying that 'true love' means having to tell others they are heretics - and then proceed to apply that to anyone who does not concur to the letter with their own detailed interpretation, which they defend through 'Tradition'. The voice of the Oriental Orthodox is usually not heard in such discussions, and so, if we are acknowledged at all, it is assumed we must fall under the heading of 'Orthodox', but here we would wish simply to say that in saying that we can be sure that Christ is with us, we are not saying He is not with others - how can we?

I realize that this is a major point with you and I think I appreciate it better now.

when, in the earlier post you came to the very important point: "...we DO have something that all of us agree without hesitation IS of divine origin, divinely given to us for our guidance--the Scriptures. Let's choose the Bible instead, I suggest."

I do agree. But if it were that easy then there would not have been the divergent and heretical interpretations we have mentioned previously.

It doesn't matter. NO method of resolving docrrinal disputes gives us unanimity. Not Sola Scriptura, not Tradition, not something else. The most that can be done is to agree upon basics, which I thought was what you were angling for with your emphasis upon the Creed. Heretics and the Orthodox agree to it, you know.

The question here is how, when there are differing interpretations of matters of vital importance - such as the Triune nature of God and Christ being wholly-human and wholly-divine, we reach an authoritative verdict;

I've agreed that this point--the nature of God--is essential if we are to have acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior be our standard for what causes men to be saved. It is everything else that represents what churches figh over all the time. So if we put the Trinity aside, are you okay with the rest of what I am saying?

And if the answer is "yes," then we automatically have the majority of the world's Catholics of every variety and the majority of the world's Protestants united in the Creed and we are satisfied that this is what we wanted. No?

the Bible does not seem to do it for sinful man.

What makes you say that?

The early undivided Church, reading the Bible in the orthodox fashion, declared what that orthodoxy was.

That's an interesting fact of history, but very many Christians who don't give a fig for the doings of these ancient theologians arrived at the same conclusion using only the Bible. How do you account for that, and why doesn't it satisfy you about them?

How Christians reach that orthodoxy may be various, but since there is a handy definition, it seems to us wise to use it.

All right. Then to you, it does NOT matter if they arrive at belief in the triune God by way of Bible study or by deciding to accept the work of the men of Nicaea, Constantinople, etc. Right?

Even if one holds that one is sure that one's own Church teaches the Gospel of Christ, that is for us no guarantee of salvation; that gives us the hope only. It is through the living of the Christian life that the process of theosis is undergone, and that we can come closer to walking in His way.

We wouldn't put it that way, but I suppose you know that. Theosis is not how we come to be saved, but it (salvation) is a gift of God.

Here, for us, the taking of the Eucharist is as essential part of the process, as we take Him in us.

To us it's important but not part of the process.

Works are the fruit of the Spirit in us and part of the life He calls us to lead.

Agreed.

Anglian · #89 8th February 2008, 06:14 PM

My dear Albion,

In so many ways we are at one, even though our mode of expression may differ; how like the wider theme we are discussing.

I am with you entirely that:

Originally Posted by Albion

arguing over the mode of baptism--as many churches do--is an example of something that is doctrinal to them but IMO is not a "false gospel" whichever way one chooses to believe on that matter. IOW, we're not guarding against a false gospel when making an issue of a non-essential matter.

The 'secondary matters' are indeed just that; and I am happy to see them relegated to their proper position.

Certainly, but the question is "What does that tell us about the status of the heretic in God's eyes?"

Here we have, IMO, to accept we cannot know; God knows, that is enough.

On heretics and salvation, if the heresy

affects the basic requirement for salvation we have already stated several times

then it will likely result in what we are warned about; but again, that is for God, not us. At most I would imitate St. John with Cerinthus - and leave the bath house! But I am with you entirely in suspecting that God is not exercising Himself about Papal Infallibility etc.

what happens when the Fathers disagree or the belief turns out to be old but not of Apostolic origin?

well, at the hazard of repeating myself, that's where my Church kicks in. Have we held whatever it is, if so OK? Now, in practice, we leave huge areas where we are silent; indeed we find in much of western Christianity a noisiness and a need to know the unknowable which causes us discomfort. We happily accept that there are many areas where our Church has not pronounced, and feels no need to.

Yes, I see why you may think this:

IOW, you are willing to trust your church and let it go at that? If so, why bother with understanding the elements of Tradition at all? -- Just accept what you are told to believe. I have a hard time with that approach.

but my Church holds that we have to understand what it holds and why we hold it; uncomprehending acceptance is no acceptance at all; it is collusion in possible delusion.

When you write about our doctrine and dogma being unchanged:

I believe that to be incorrect. Some things obviously are, but others are not.

it would be helpful to know what you have in mind; I say this not to challenge you, but to know what you think here; you may well be right.

I'm sorry that my meaning is so obscure here:

I am having a hard time following this. You seem to be relying upon what your church tells you is the teaching of Tradition, but here you say that you agree that Tradition is only a means of knowing the beliefs of earlier Christians concerning these doctrinal matters, not to fix doctrine. That's a contradiction as I read it.

but I hope it is no contradiction. The Church can only assert in the language and understanding of men; so what we can see our Fathers and their Fathers believed, we too can believe; but our Fathers also told us that all words are approximations to the Word Himself. So, we do the best we can, and we think that best is expressed most accurately in the words hallowed by history; but we ought to not mistake them for what they are not.

Which brings us to an important question:

To that I have to follow up with two questions. Are you saying that you believe in Holy Tradition or only that you believe in your church's understanding of scripture? Also, do you really mean to say that you believe whatever your church tells you is the historic record, whether or not you know it to be correct?

On the latter, my Church is remarkably quiet in telling me what the historic record is. It exercises itself mightily about Chalcedon, and nothing it claims has the status of Holy Writ; as it happens my own reading, from non Oriental Orthodox sources as well as OO sources says nothing against what the Church says. But we seem to be interested in the reading of the Scriptures, not history.

Holy Tradition for us is our Church's understanding of Scripture.

I think you mean by that that accepting the Creed is of paramount importance, especially if we care about ecumenism, genuine ecumenism, regardless of why any church or believer accepts the Creeds tenets. Am I correct there?

I would hope others accept them because they are true; if they are accepted in truth then you are correct. If, like the semi-Arians, they accept them for other reasons, then no.

But you can easily be saying that you want this to be the sole criterion for everyone accepting everyone else's faith. Is that so?

No, just as a starting point. If we can agree here, then we accept something important that means dialogue may be fruitful; if we part company here at the beginning, then it is best to stop there and go no further.

The most that can be done is to agree upon basics, which I thought was what you were angling for with your emphasis upon the Creed. Heretics and the Orthodox agree to it, you know.

Yes, that is so, and I agree absolutely.

I've agreed that this point--the nature of God--is essential if we are to have acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior be our standard for what causes men to be saved. It is everything else that represents what churches fight over all the time. So if we put the Trinity aside, are you okay with the rest of what I am saying?

Yes, and what follows is as you say here:
And if the answer is "yes," then we automatically have the majority of the world's Catholics of every variety and the majority of the world's Protestants united in the Creed and we are satisfied that this is what we wanted. No?

Except that my last word would be 'yes'. Yes, because we have something that we share, an assurance of worshipping the Triune God and an acknowledgement that the Son is not a creature, nor is the Holy Ghost, and that the Son is wholly-human and wholly divine. Soteriology in common will take us further in prayer.

What makes you say that?

Because even now there are those who read the Bible and deny they can find the Trinity there. You and I think them wrong; they thing we are - hence the title of this thread.

That's an interesting fact of history, but very many Christians who don't give a fig for the doings of these ancient theologians arrived at the same conclusion using only the Bible. How do you account for that, and why doesn't it satisfy you about them?

I am happy to believe that the same Spirit which moved in the Fathers moves in us today; if the ECFs could get it right, so can others today; just seems a pity to reinvent the wheel - especially when some have invented a square one, perhaps?

All right. Then to you, it does NOT matter if they arrive at belief in the triune God by way of Bible study or by deciding to accept the work of the men of Nicaea, Constantinople, etc. Right?

Yes.

We wouldn't put it that way, but I suppose you know that. Theosis is not how we come to be saved, but it (salvation) is a gift of God.

Yes, I was conscious that we express these things in different ways - but perhaps what we express is the same thing?

To us it's important but not part of the process.

It would be good to know more here; important in what way?

I hope this is comprehensible; I think on rereading it is.

Your engagement and enlightenment continues to be much appreciated.

In peace,

Anglian

Albion · #90 9th February 2008, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Anglian

In so many ways we are at one, even though our mode of expression may differ; how like the wider theme we are discussing.

I am with you entirely that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albion
arguing over the mode of baptism--as many churches do--is an example of something that is doctrinal to them but IMO is not a "false gospel" whichever way one chooses to believe on that matter. IOW, we're not guarding against a false gospel when making an issue of a non-essential matter.

The 'secondary matters' are indeed just that; and I am happy to see them relegated to their proper position.

Quote:
Certainly, but the question is "What does that tell us about the status of the heretic in God's eyes?"
Here we have, IMO, to accept we cannot know; God knows, that is enough.

...which would lead me to think that being a heretic in itself doesn't affect one's salvation. We merely have different views on the non-essentials.

On heretics and salvation, if the heresy
Quote:
affects the basic requirement for salvation we have already stated several times
then it will likely result in what we are warned about; but again, that is for God, not us. At most I would imitate St. John with Cerinthus - and leave the bath house! But I am with you entirely in suspecting that God is not exercising Himself about Papal Infallibility etc.

Quote:
what happens when the Fathers disagree or the belief turns out to be old but not of Apostolic origin?
well, at the hazard of repeating myself, that's where my Church kicks in. Have we held whatever it is, if so OK?

I was more concerned about holding whatever was not.

That would not be OK, IMO, at least not if that were made into dogma or a cause for not recognizing other Christian communities. Otherwise, I'd put it in the same place as the 'heresies' we were discussing above.

Now, in practice, we leave huge areas where we are silent; indeed we find in much of western Christianity a noisiness and a need to know the unknowable which causes us discomfort.

On the one hand, I fully acknowledge that characteristic of western Christianity, but I would suggest that eastern Christianity has fastened itself to many of its own "must accepts" even while not being as legalistic as we. Those would include ritualistic matters and views concerning the saints.

We happily accept that there are many areas where our Church has not pronounced, and feels no need to.

I applaud that. BTW, the argument can be made that this is also a particularly strong characteristic of Anglicanism.

Yes, I see why you may think this:

Quote:
IOW, you are willing to trust your church and let it go at that? If so, why bother with understanding the elements of Tradition at all? -- Just accept what you are told to believe. I have a hard time with that approach.

but my Church holds that we have to understand what it holds and why we hold it; uncomprehending acceptance is no acceptance at all; it is collusion in possible delusion.

Then I was wrong to take that from what you'd written earlier. I'm glad to have that set straight.

When you write about our doctrine and dogma being unchanged:

Quote:
I believe that to be incorrect. Some things obviously are, but others are not.
it would be helpful to know what you have in mind; I say this not to challenge you, but to know what you think here; you may well be right.

The first Christians obviously were not ritualists in the way that our liturgies developed later. They had not the views about the saints that later developed, had no idea of what we call Apostolic Succession, of seven sacraments, and much more that later came to be part of the Church.

I'm sorry that my meaning is so obscure here:

Quote:
I am having a hard time following this. You seem to be relying upon what your church tells you is the teaching of Tradition, but here you say that you agree that Tradition is only a means of knowing the beliefs of earlier Christians concerning these doctrinal matters, not to fix doctrine. That's a contradiction as I read it.
but I hope it is no contradiction. The Church can only assert in the language and understanding of men; so what we can see our Fathers and their Fathers believed,

My concern, you remember, was with knowing what they taught as well as what this might mean for us, if anything.

Which brings us to an important question:

Quote:
To that I have to follow up with two questions. Are you saying that you believe in Holy Tradition or only that you believe in your church's understanding of scripture? Also, do you really mean to say that you believe whatever your church tells you is the historic record, whether or not you know it to be correct?
On the latter, my Church is remarkably quiet in telling me what the historic record is. It exercises itself mightily about Chalcedon, and nothing it claims has the status of Holy Writ; as it happens my own reading, from non Oriental Orthodox sources as well as OO sources says nothing against what the Church says. But we seem to be interested in the reading of the Scriptures, not history.

Holy Tradition for us is our Church's understanding of Scripture.

OK. You realize, I'm sure, that this is a view of Tradition that is not that of the other Churches, certainly not the larger of them. I guess I supposed that your church was in synch with them.

Now...

Quote:
I think you mean by that that accepting the Creed is of paramount importance, especially if we care about ecumenism, genuine ecumenism, regardless of why any church or believer accepts the Creeds tenets. Am I correct there?
I would hope others accept them because they are true; if they are accepted in truth then you are correct.

What I meant was that it wouldn't matter if they come by it through accepting what they think Tradition says or, on the other hand, from a reading of the Bible.

Then...

Quote:
But you can easily be saying that you want this to be the sole criterion for everyone accepting everyone else's faith. Is that so?
No, just as a starting point. If we can agree here, then we accept something important that means dialogue may be fruitful; if we part company here at the beginning, then it is best to stop there and go no further.

I did not have the idea that you were concerned to achieve agreement on additional matters when you focused on the Creed as a standard of unity and agreed with me that the real essential is acceptance of Christ, not subscribing to a long list of religious non-essentials.

And...

Quote:
The most that can be done is to agree upon basics, which I thought was what you were angling for with your emphasis upon the Creed. Heretics and the Orthodox agree to it, you know.
Yes, that is so, and I agree absolutely.

Which is what I was addressing in the section right above this one. Is it the Creed for you or something more?

And...

Quote:
I've agreed that this point--the nature of God--is essential if we are to have acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior be our standard for what causes men to be saved. It is everything else that represents what churches fight over all the time. So if we put the Trinity aside, are you okay with the rest of what I am saying?
Quote:
Yes, and what follows is as you say here:
And if the answer is "yes," then we automatically have the majority of the world's Catholics of every variety and the majority of the world's Protestants united in the Creed and we are satisfied that this is what we wanted. No?
Except that my last word would be 'yes'. Yes, because we have something that we share, an assurance of worshipping the Triune God and an acknowledgement that the Son is not a creature, nor is the Holy Ghost, and that the Son is wholly-human and wholly divine. Soteriology in common will take us further in prayer.

In prayer?

Going on...
Quote:
What makes you say that?
Because even now there are those who read the Bible and deny they can find the Trinity there. You and I think them wrong; they thing we are - hence the title of this thread.

But they are a decided minority, an unrepresentative minority. There always will be some religious dissenters. Since most Protestants as well as Catholics of various sorts agree on the Trinity, I don't see that this issue should be a particular worry.

The Eucharist:
Quote:
To us it's important but not part of the process.
It would be good to know more here; important in what way?

The Lord's Supper was instituted by Our Lord for the reasons he spoke at the Last Supper. We therefore observe it and it has meaning for us. However, it is not essential to our salvation whether this is done and it's not essential how it is viewed (Real Presence, Representationalism, etc.)--which is a point about what makes one a believer in Christ, not that I would agree in principle, personally, to the idea of Represenationalism or doing without the Eucharist.

Your engagement and enlightenment continues to be much appreciated.

I appreciate your kind words.