Are our churches failing at properly teaching Christology?

[Paidiske]

Okay... let me see if I can help explain this.

A Creed is a statement of faith which is adopted by a particular group, and - usually - incorporated into its liturgy in some way. It's an attempt to make a positive declaration of "what we believe."

A statement from a council that such-and-such is not an acceptable belief is a way to try to set some boundaries. Such-and-such is - literally - beyond the pale. But those statements are not usually incorporated into the worshipping life of a community in the same way, and, frankly, most conciliar statements (or canons) are now cheerfully ignored by most Christians. They were important at the time, in the context of issues going on then, but we certainly don't go around saying that so-and-so is cursed (or not Christian) because they believe something that had a motion passed against it at some council none of us have ever read all the resolutions of.

(Disclaimer: The Orthodox tend to take statements from councils more seriously than this, but even then, some are referred to more often than others).

The Creed is the bedrock of what we believe and who we are. It is the rule of faith by which we read Scripture. It sits at the foundation and shapes everything about how we live.

The statements like the one you mentioned about Mary just aren't that important to us.

 

[zippy2006]

(Disclaimer: The Orthodox tend to take statements from councils more seriously than this, but even then, some are referred to more often than others).

Really all 'older' churches, including Anglicans, have traditionally accepted the first 7 ecumenical councils, so isolating the Orthodox isn't very accurate. Modern liberal Christianity ignores lots of things, including the early councils and the creeds they produced. Perhaps you could isolate the Orthodox on that count: liberal Orthodoxy just doesn't exist to the same extent that liberal Anglicanism or Catholicism exist, and thus no subset of Orthodoxy has dramatically changed its teaching on the more core tenets.

But even churches which accept Nicea II will distinguish a decree/anathema from a creed, and your positive/negative explanation on that point is good. Weight and centrality are also valid criteria.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Okay... let me see if I can help explain this.

A Creed is a statement of faith which is adopted by a particular group, and - usually - incorporated into its liturgy in some way. It's an attempt to make a positive declaration of "what we believe."

A statement from a council that such-and-such is not an acceptable belief is a way to try to set some boundaries. Such-and-such is - literally - beyond the pale. But those statements are not usually incorporated into the worshipping life of a community in the same way, and, frankly, most conciliar statements (or canons) are now cheerfully ignored by most Christians. They were important at the time, in the context of issues going on then, but we certainly don't go around saying that so-and-so is cursed (or not Christian) because they believe something that had a motion passed against it at some council none of us have ever read all the resolutions of.

(Disclaimer: The Orthodox tend to take statements from councils more seriously than this, but even then, some are referred to more often than others).

The Creed is the bedrock of what we believe and who we are. It is the rule of faith by which we read Scripture. It sits at the foundation and shapes everything about how we live.

The statements like the one you mentioned about Mary just aren't that important to us.

Okay. I do understand a creed as a statement of faith. That no issue and that is how I understand a creed to mean.

But that council said a person must believe that exact statement about Mary or they were (or should be) cursed and were not a Christian.

I don't believe that statement.

Therefore, those who affirm that council as being representative of a Godly resolution of faith, don't accept me as Christian.

Now. That is sneaky because they don't tell you upfront they believe it's central to Christianity, but apparently they do tell you.

The council statements seems to me to be the fine print of the creed...the legalese most people don't read, but will get you in the end.

 

[dzheremi]

You believe they were infallible if you don't think we can question what they taught..

But I don't believe that to begin with. I don't believe that anyone is infallible.

Also, if it weren't for people questioning what the Church Fathers were teaching, we probably wouldn't have many of their writings, since many were apologies. HH St. Athanasius' De Decretis comes to mind concerning the Creed, for example.

I don't believe as Christians we can question scripture because i believe its infallible. But I think we can seek to question our understanding of it and discuss it and pray about it until we understand it's meaning.

Okay.

But here we can't even do that with the early church fathers.

That really is news to me. From my many, many discussions with Mormons and others on the Outreach board, I have gotten quite used to people dismissing the Early Church Fathers, the Councils, the Creed, and so on as "the opinions of sinful men", and never facing any kind of disciplinary action. I don't think the moderation here is that uneven, so maybe you happen to be running into a lot of people who have hair-triggers when it comes to bother mods whenever someone posts a thing they don't like?

People have more leeway to teach heresy here than we do questioning church fathers, and that to me us just plain crazy to be honest..

I really disagree with that. Everyone is bound by the Statement of Faith if they are going to post in the Christian areas or adopt a Christian ID, so I don't see how that could be possible. Probably many get away with posting heresy because of course no one who does so thinks that that's what they're doing to begin with (I've seen a few 'Oneness Pentecostals' and other anti-Trinitarians here), so as long as they're not too blatant about it they can probably just avoid most controversies. But that's different than their being allowed some extra degree of latitude to do so, which is how this reads. I don't know. Maybe you don't mean it that way. I'm not going to start talking about or criticizing the mods. They're right here, y'know.

It would take a lifetime to learn every single denomination and the intricacies of their individual beliefs. I don't have a lifetime left...

Yeah, but I only belong to one particular Church, which is in one particular communion (which not even that big or complicated, really). And you're on the internet right now too.

I think a stronger argument could be made much more easily that it is more difficult for me to know how to interact with someone with your faith ID than mine, seeing as how "Non-Denominational" could be many different things, and does not form a cohesive communion in any sense of the word.

Anyway, I respect your time, but I do think it is good sometimes to try to understand some basic differences between the different churches, so that we don't end up talking past each other.

If it bothers everyone so much all I have is to never speak to any of you again.. because I'd rather spend now getting to know God more..

Is this directed at me? Because I'm just one guy. I can't speak for everyone. They tend not to like it when I do that. (I'd imagine so, anyway.)

While I'd love to understand denominations some, I'm not willing to devote that much time.

It's a part of Christian history that kind of undergirds this entire topic (since the particulars of theology tend to be communion or denomination-specific), but oaky.

I guess that's your right, although as Mormons have a book outside the Bible and a prophet that's not Jesus then I could certainly explain that difference.

However, such isn't the case with Catholics and Orthodox.

That's not true.

They have the same church fathers up to a certain date

Yes.

the same scriptures

No. In the East the canon was never officially closed, so there's actually quite a variety in the canon, depending on when and in what circumstances a given people received the Bible. Not only is there a difference in the numbering of Psalms (that's a general East/West difference), but some include more Psalms than others (the Syriac Pešitta apparently has a few additional ones that others don't have), some have several additional books (the famous Ethiopian broader canon), and some even share books despite not being in communion with each other (apparently the Russians and the Ethiopians both have 2 Esdras, but others do not).

and online affirm one another as being of the same faith.

No. I am not of the same faith as Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, or Nestorians, and neither are any of them of the same faith as me. That's not my personal view, either, but the view of the Holy Synod which governs the Church. None of these people could show up to one of our liturgies and receive communion, and neither could I go to any of theirs and receive communion there. And if I were to do so anyway (because some of them, like the Roman Catholics, actually offer communion to Orthodox Christians), I would be excommunicated.

I don't even affirm a Mormon to be Christian, so you can see where your analogy falls short.

Well that's a little silly. The entire point of the analogy is that it would be according to my view -- I don't see the difference, so I'm going to act as though there isn't one -- not yours.

But I trust you see the point I was trying to make anyway.

Someone called Monk something or other and someone else..

Okay. That's a very vague description, and I don't really feel comfortable addressing the statements (which are not here) of someone else who I don't know (who is also not here), but if anyone is making such statements then they should be able to defend them in the appropriate sections of this website. I don't think they should spill over into unrelated threads, though. Whoever this "Monk something" person is, I don't think they're the Emperor of CF, so unless they're a mod, I don't know why their opinion is anything more than that.

Mods. If I say anything that someone finds offensive someone will tell me I have to be careful about what i say or they will ban me - to which I've decided means don't question too much and don't give my thoughts on anything to do with orthodox Christianity or I'll end up banned.

If you are receiving warnings from mods, you should follow them. If you need further clarification, I am sure they would be willing to answer follow up questions. I've engaged the mods here in some discussion about one of their warnings (privately), and while I still did not agree with their action, I at least understood better the type of posting that had gotten me in trouble to begin with, and how to avoid future warnings.

There is a minimum to which every professing Christian is expected to adhere to be able to post here (the Nicene Creed), but since you have already said that you do that, I don't see any reason why you would have to fear being banned. And if it's just some person threatening to tell the mods on you, then you can always tell them to go ahead if you are confident that what you have posted is within the rules. I have had to do that on another section of this website several times, only to find that the other person was apparently bluffing (or the mod investigated it but didn't find fault in what I had posted, so I never heard about it). It might be worth it, if people are unfairly trying to brandish the mods as a weapon. That's not right.

God bless you.

May God bless you as well.

 

[zippy2006]

Okay. I do understand a creed as a statement of faith. That no issue and that is how I understand a creed to mean.

But that council said a person must believe that exact statement about Mary or they were (or should be) cursed and were not a Christian.

I don't believe that statement.

Therefore, those who affirm that council as being representative of a Godly resolution of faith, don't accept me as Christian.

Now. That is sneaky because they don't tell you upfront they believe it's central to Christianity, but apparently they do tell you.

The council statements seems to me to be the fine print of the creed...the legalese most people don't read, but will get you in the end.

But now that we have clarified this issue, how does it relate to the thread? Look at your first post:

Some of those creeds include the worship of Mary..

So no.. I vehemently disagree.

It went like this:

ViaCrucis: Christians can't deny the creeds.
Hazelelponi: There is a creed that says we must worship Mary, therefore I deny creeds.
​

But you have now been shown that there is no creed which says Christians must worship Mary. Your initial premise/assumption was incorrect. What you were thinking of was a council, and you think that council says we must worship Mary. Either way, it doesn't matter because the basis of the thread (and the SoF) is a creed, not a council.

Perhaps you would find it helpful to start a thread on councils, specifically Nicea II. Either way it seems like the discussion is off-topic here.

 

[Paidiske]

Okay. I do understand a creed as a statement of faith. That no issue and that is how I understand a creed to mean.

But that council said a person must believe that exact statement about Mary or they were (or should be) cursed and were not a Christian.

I don't believe that statement.

Therefore, those who affirm that council as being representative of a Godly resolution of faith, don't accept me as Christian.

Now. That is sneaky because they don't tell you upfront they believe it's central to Christianity, but apparently they do tell you.

The council statements seems to me to be the fine print of the creed...the legalese most people don't read, but will get you in the end.

I don't see it that way at all. The other decisions made at that council don't, in my mind, have anything to do with the Creed. It's like... parliament passing two separate motions. The only thing necessarily linking those motions is that they're passed by the same body, but one motion is not necessarily related to the other.

Some council resolutions - like the one defining what is in the Bible, for example - are really important for us in an ongoing way. Many of them just aren't.

That really is news to me. From my many, many discussions with Mormons and others on the Outreach board, I have gotten quite used to people dismissing the Early Church Fathers, the Councils, the Creed, and so on as "the opinions of sinful men", and never facing any kind of disciplinary action. I don't think the moderation here is that uneven, so maybe you happen to be running into a lot of people who have hair-triggers when it comes to bother mods whenever someone posts a thing they don't like?

Outreach forums have different rules according to their Statements of Purpose. There, non-Christians can post and debate against the Creed etc.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't see it that way at all. The other decisions made at that council don't, in my mind, have anything to do with the Creed. It's like... parliament passing two separate motions. The only thing necessarily linking those motions is that they're passed by the same body, but one motion is not necessarily related to the other.

I don't think he was saying that, but it may be at the bottom of his mind. After all, it is common sense to ask where the authority of a decree comes from if not from the body which promulgates it. That's why (some) liberal Christians are as comfortable denying creeds as councils. If parliament passes two separate motions, and the authority of the motions derives from the authority of the parliament, then it is common sense to equate the authority of the two motions.

 

[Hazelelponi]

But now that we have clarified this issue, how does it relate to the thread? Look at your first post:



It went like this:

ViaCrucis: Christians can't deny the creeds.
Hazelelponi: There is a creed that says we must worship Mary, therefore I deny creeds.
​

But you have now been shown that there is no creed which says Christians must worship Mary. Your initial premise/assumption was incorrect. What you were thinking of was a council, and you think that council says we must worship Mary. Either way, it doesn't matter because the basis of the thread (and the SoF) is a creed, not a council.

Perhaps you would find it helpful to start a thread on councils, specifically Nicea II. Either way it seems like the discussion is off-topic here.

When the council declares me a heretic because I don't believe something, color me confused if I don't understand/differentiate that from the creed that very council developed and that we affirm as Christians.

But I get your point. I'm off topic and should shut up..

Got it.

 

[zippy2006]

When the council declares me a heretic because I don't believe something color me confused if I don't understand that from the creed that very council developed that we affirm as Christians.

But I get your point. I'm off topic and should shut up..

Got it.

I think you should start a thread on this if you want to continue. No one here has claimed you need to follow the second Council of Nicea.

(I too think that the strong council/creed distinction is flawed, but the heart of this thread is about creeds and the SoF, not a council)

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think he was saying that, but it may be at the bottom of his mind. After all, it is common sense to ask where the authority of a decree comes from if not from the body which promulgates it. That's why (some) liberal Christians are as comfortable denying creeds as councils. If parliament passes two separate motions, and the authority of the motions derives from the authority of the parliament, then it is common sense to equate the authority of the two motions.

I take your point, but I would argue that the reception of what the council pronounces is also important. The Church has received the Creed in a completely different way from its reception of the anathemas such as the one quoted.

(Reception, for those for whom this is new territory, refers to how the wider Church community goes on to make use of what comes out of a council. Do they accept it, use it, refer to it, argue about it, etc?)

 

[zippy2006]

I take your point, but I would argue that the reception of what the council pronounces is also important. The Church has received the Creed in a completely different way from its reception of the anathemas such as the one quoted.

(Reception, for those for whom this is new territory, refers to how the wider Church community goes on to make use of what comes out of a council. Do they accept it, use it, refer to it, argue about it, etc?)

Let's not belabor this too long, but I find the reception argument finicky. I think its strength comes from tradition, not reception per se. For example, if the creed organically developed without being explicitly proposed at a council I think the 'reception crowd' ought to be just as happy with it. As is, it often strikes me as an arbitrary jab at conciliar authority. The core of that thinking has nothing specifically to do with councils so much as tradition and the sensus fidelium. (Or more generally, it has nothing to do with proposition and reception so much as tradition and the sensus fidelium.)

 

[Paidiske]

Sure, we can argue about the limits of reception. And I take your point about tradition etc, which is what gave us the Apostles' Creed, after all.

But my basic point that not everything that comes out of a council is treated equally stands, I think?

 

[Hazelelponi]

But I don't believe that to begin with. I don't believe that anyone is infallible.

Also, if it weren't for people questioning what the Church Fathers were teaching, we probably wouldn't have many of their writings, since many were apologies. HH St. Athanasius' De Decretis comes to mind concerning the Creed, for example.



Okay.



That really is news to me. From my many, many discussions with Mormons and others on the Outreach board, I have gotten quite used to people dismissing the Early Church Fathers, the Councils, the Creed, and so on as "the opinions of sinful men", and never facing any kind of disciplinary action. I don't think the moderation here is that uneven, so maybe you happen to be running into a lot of people who have hair-triggers when it comes to bother mods whenever someone posts a thing they don't like?



I really disagree with that. Everyone is bound by the Statement of Faith if they are going to post in the Christian areas or adopt a Christian ID, so I don't see how that could be possible. Probably many get away with posting heresy because of course no one who does so thinks that that's what they're doing to begin with (I've seen a few 'Oneness Pentecostals' and other anti-Trinitarians here), so as long as they're not too blatant about it they can probably just avoid most controversies. But that's different than their being allowed some extra degree of latitude to do so, which is how this reads. I don't know. Maybe you don't mean it that way. I'm not going to start talking about or criticizing the mods. They're right here, y'know.



Yeah, but I only belong to one particular Church, which is in one particular communion (which not even that big or complicated, really). And you're on the internet right now too.

I think a stronger argument could be made much more easily that it is more difficult for me to know how to interact with someone with your faith ID than mine, seeing as how "Non-Denominational" could be many different things, and does not form a cohesive communion in any sense of the word.

Anyway, I respect your time, but I do think it is good sometimes to try to understand some basic differences between the different churches, so that we don't end up talking past each other.



Is this directed at me? Because I'm just one guy. I can't speak for everyone. They tend not to like it when I do that. (I'd imagine so, anyway.)



It's a part of Christian history that kind of undergirds this entire topic (since the particulars of theology tend to be communion or denomination-specific), but oaky.



That's not true.



Yes.



No. In the East the canon was never officially closed, so there's actually quite a variety in the canon, depending on when and in what circumstances a given people received the Bible. Not only is there a difference in the numbering of Psalms (that's a general East/West difference), but some include more Psalms than others (the Syriac Pešitta apparently has a few additional ones that others don't have), some have several additional books (the famous Ethiopian broader canon), and some even share books despite not being in communion with each other (apparently the Russians and the Ethiopians both have 2 Esdras, but others do not).



No. I am not of the same faith as Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, or Nestorians, and neither are any of them of the same faith as me. That's not my personal view, either, but the view of the Holy Synod which governs the Church. None of these people could show up to one of our liturgies and receive communion, and neither could I go to any of theirs and receive communion there. And if I were to do so anyway (because some of them, like the Roman Catholics, actually offer communion to Orthodox Christians), I would be excommunicated.



Well that's a little silly. The entire point of the analogy is that it would be according to my view -- I don't see the difference, so I'm going to act as though there isn't one -- not yours.

But I trust you see the point I was trying to make anyway.



Okay. That's a very vague description, and I don't really feel comfortable addressing the statements (which are not here) of someone else who I don't know (who is also not here), but if anyone is making such statements then they should be able to defend them in the appropriate sections of this website. I don't think they should spill over into unrelated threads, though. Whoever this "Monk something" person is, I don't think they're the Emperor of CF, so unless they're a mod, I don't know why their opinion is anything more than that.



If you are receiving warnings from mods, you should follow them. If you need further clarification, I am sure they would be willing to answer follow up questions. I've engaged the mods here in some discussion about one of their warnings (privately), and while I still did not agree with their action, I at least understood better the type of posting that had gotten me in trouble to begin with, and how to avoid future warnings.

There is a minimum to which every professing Christian is expected to adhere to be able to post here (the Nicene Creed), but since you have already said that you do that, I don't see any reason why you would have to fear being banned. And if it's just some person threatening to tell the mods on you, then you can always tell them to go ahead if you are confident that what you have posted is within the rules. I have had to do that on another section of this website several times, only to find that the other person was apparently bluffing (or the mod investigated it but didn't find fault in what I had posted, so I never heard about it). It might be worth it, if people are unfairly trying to brandish the mods as a weapon. That's not right.



May God bless you as well.

As far as being non denominational I'm not, I only marked that because there was no place for primitive or reformed baptist.

My husbands family came here to these mountains a couple hundred years ago and they never left. The mountains spent most of that time reasonably cut off from the outside world, and the small churches here aren't like mainstream churches.

They are still on a circuit. Services are at a different church every week, it used to be because travel was hard and the areas remote. Now with roads and cars people just follow the preacher on the circuit.

But is different. There is no music but there is singing.. But even the singing is different, although the songs the same.

It's the mountains.

There is no box to check for that..

Anyway, I'm out of the thread..

 

[Jipsah]

Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

So you draw one God in three Persons from that. I say here are few who do.

You don't know the purpose of creeds if you think they are meant to explain meanings of beliefs. They were created to attack and weed out those with different beliefs. What does SOF stand for? How is the Nicene Creed a SOF?

You lost me there. How is it anything other than a statement of faith?

If I was going to evangelize, the Athanasian Creed is the last thing I would recite.

Ditto, in for no other reason than that a newby is unlikely to understand it at all. Not a good starting point. But a great clarifier of what the Church has always believed for the more mature. Sure helped me.

Next would be the Nicene.

Apostle's is better. Easier to grasp, easier to remember, no conceptual challenges. Pure Christianity 101. Nicene comes later as well. But I wouldn't use any of them to evangelize except as an answer to "what do you believe?", and then as a guideline.

I'm going to point out that those who don't hold your creeds are still Christian and should not have a problem posting comments on a Christian forum.

Really? So "Christian Identity" folks are Christians just the same as we creed quoters? How about the Children of God? Christian Science? Unificationists (Moonies)? Muslims? They believe that Isa was a great prophet. Anybody who uses the term "Christian"without regard for their beliefs?

No. There has to be a standard that says "this is what, at a minimum, Christians believe, otherwise they are'nt Christians, no matter what it says on their letterhead.

The churches I now go to don't require reciting any creed to participate in the Lord's Supper. They just read scripture.

Here's one that should help them along: "29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel." No? Why not? It's all holy writ, innit? No need to have any guidelines as to what's important for a Christian, or one whom we'd like to see become a Christian, should know, is there?

No, the first thing is "what do we believe?" And to answer that we go to the Bible. You don't just start flinging Scripture at folks and hope the important parts stick.

 

[zippy2006]

Sure, we can argue about the limits of reception. And I take your point about tradition etc, which is what gave us the Apostles' Creed, after all.

But my basic point that not everything that comes out of a council is treated equally stands, I think?

I don't think we agree. It stands for you, but not for me, nor for churches historically. (I don't agree with the reception argument, I was just assessing it.) Granted, I assume you are aware that conciliar writings and documents have different internal weights, and insofar as that is true I agree that "not everything that comes out of a council is treated equally."

Again, I'm happy to agree to disagree given the thread context.

 

[Paidiske]

I think I'm fine with leaving it there, for now. I was trying to be helpful to Hazel, and getting too technical with you on this point probably won't achieve that!

 

[Hazelelponi]

I think I'm fine with leaving it there, for now. I was trying to be helpful to Hazel, and getting too technical with you on this point probably won't achieve that!

I appreciate your time.. and sorry for being off topic.

I never knew I was off topic anyway.. I'm still unclear on why it's off topic.. But sorry anyway.

 

[Paidiske]

I think it's been a good discussion, actually.

 

[zippy2006]

I appreciate your time.. and sorry for being off topic.

I never knew I was off topic anyway.. I'm still unclear on why it's off topic.. But sorry anyway.

You weren't off-topic, but to continue a discussion about councils and Mary would be off-topic.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would agree with you if it weren't also self righteousness to be acceptable before men. There's another side of pretenders, and it's those that teach the devils things, not considering sin, not considering that the Bible calls us to take care of each other, or hold each other accountable, avoiding hard conversations or judgments that need to be made. We all lean to certain parts of the fence and that doesn't make either wrong, but it does allow balance among the voices. I respect your perspective and am glad it exists. But if God does call you to rebuke someone, I hope you are up to the task with kindness and wisdom that God gives you. You may turn a soul from error and cover over a multitude of sins.

I have lived a good long life now, and I might offer what I believe to be a better translation or better facts in a discussion, but I honestly have never been led to rebuke somebody because of Biblical or doctrinal error. I pray that I teach and speak truth, but if you believe differently than me, it is my responsibiliy to love you as a Christian brother/sister and it is not my responsibility to 'fix' you. (Rhetorical 'you' in this case of course.)

Rebuke should be directed at those who do harm to themselves and/or others and even then we should measure our words as much as possible so as not to turn somebody away from God.