A refresher on the purpose for Traditional Theology

[chevyontheriver]

TT seems to ebb and flow with the content and style of posting. Some periods of time have been better than others.

That said, I appreciate getting to know people from various backgrounds in TT without worrying about everyone being barraged by posts attacking our respective beliefs. Some really good discussions are posted here giving insight into topics from various perspectives and experiences.

It was nice to have a place where Lutherans and Anglicans and Orthodox and Catholics and even Methodists could come and agree on some things.

It seems discussing homosexuality has broken that.

 

[Andrewn]

That said, it is true that this is inclusive of both non-Protestants and Protestants.

I find it useful to classify Protestants into Traditional Protestants and Anabaptists (those who don't believe in infant baptism). Is this forum meant to exclude the latter (e.g. Baptists, Pentecostals, non-denominationals, Missionary churches, SDA, etc.)?

It was nice to have a place where Lutherans and Anglicans and Orthodox and Catholics and even Methodists could come and agree on some things. It seems discussing homosexuality has broken that.

If this issue splits denominations, perhaps it should be outside the scope of TT.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I find it useful to classify Protestants into Traditional Protestants and Anabaptists (those who don't believe in infant baptism). Is this forum meant to exclude the latter (e.g. Baptists, Pentecostals, non-denominationals, Missionary churches, SDA, etc.)?

It wasn't exclusive, but those typically would not be 'traditional' in the way Lutheran and Anglican and Catholic and Orthodox would be. Part of it was whether a group or person would accept or reject the Church Fathers. Traditional Christians would pay attention to them and usually accept what they had to say. Non-traditional Christians would reject the Church Fathers, sometimes with considerable scorn.

 

[Andrewn]

It wasn't exclusive, but those typically would not be 'traditional' in the way Lutheran and Anglican and Catholic and Orthodox would be. Part of it was whether a group or person would accept or reject the Church Fathers. Traditional Christians would pay attention to them and usually accept what they had to say. Non-traditional Christians would reject the Church Fathers, sometimes with considerable scorn.

Perhaps an exclusion needs to be stated in SoP. But it will be difficult to enforce since a lot of members select the simple designation "Christian." I think most of these are crypto-Baptists.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Perhaps an exclusion needs to be stated in SoP. But it will be difficult to enforce since a lot of members select the simple designation "Christian." I think most of them are crypto-Baptists.

Having witnessed the confusion of so many who consider themselves of a traditional morality and thus thinking they are traditional Christians coming in and proclaiming 'Sola Scripura', i get it. but I don't know. I have gently tried to explain the difference a few times to those of the more Baptistic sort to mixed degree of success.

 

[chevyontheriver]

If this issue splits denominations, perhaps it should be outside the scope of TT.

I would look at it like this: What would the Church Fathers say about something? And are the Church Fathers relevant to traditional theology?

On the other hand there are many Lutherans and Anglicans and some Orthodox and Catholics who have decided that the Fathers would be all wrong about homosexuality. Are those people traditional Christians?

It's a bit of a mess. Maybe this breaks TT. I don't know.

 

[All4Christ]

I find it useful to classify Protestants into Traditional Protestants and Anabaptists (those who don't believe in infant baptism). Is this forum meant to exclude the latter (e.g. Baptists, Pentecostals, non-denominationals, Missionary churches, SDA, etc.)?


If this issue splits denominations, perhaps it should be outside the scope of TT.

I’d say first that Anabaptist definitely isn’t a category for all other Protestants. Anabaptism is a very specific set of beliefs, though many denominations follow the no infant baptism pattern.

Anyone is free to compare and contrast traditional beliefs, no matter what their tradition is, so long as it falls within the Statement of Purpose. When we revamped the SoP, we intentionally did not exclude any specific group of people. Rather it is topical to traditional Christian beliefs.

Some who believe in believer’s baptism have traditional beliefs in other areas. Others do not. Some who believe in infant baptism are not traditional in other areas. The Statement of Purpose states what is considered to be traditional for the purposes of this forum. That’s the guideline. Also, anyone can ask questions even if they aren’t Traditional Christians.

I’m not trying to be confusing with this, but it is important to remember that some of the identified traditional Christian groups do believe in the more historic form of Sola Scriptura. Others believe in Prima Scriptura, the parallel authority of Scripture and Holy Tradition, and even Holy Tradition being inclusive of Scripture. Some believe baptism is regenerative and for the remission of sins, and some believe it is an entrance into the covenant of the church. There is a range of beliefs even within traditional Christianity. The core that connects us is the respect and use of the church fathers, councils, classical confessions, historic church, sacraments, etc. These are all outlined in the SoP.

 

[All4Christ]

For example, Anabaptists certainly have some non-traditional beliefs according to the definition in the SoP, but their understanding of soteriology has some very “traditional” aspects, which is understandable considering Menno’s history as a Catholic priest. People who are part of groups with Wesleyan backgrounds have some “traditional” beliefs as well. Wesley was a big proponent of some early church fathers, and as an Anglican, used the approach of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. He pulled from some of the early Church Fathers on his teachings. Traditional teachings can be seen in many churches and denominations, even when the denomination isn’t strictly a traditional denomination. If the discussion is about a subject which they use the church fathers, history or classical confessions to support their beliefs, then on that topic, they could fit the definition listed on the SoP. (ETA: Even if they didn’t fit the definition though, everyone certainly can still ask questions about or discuss traditional views - but it is not a place to say that traditional views are wrong.)

 

[chevyontheriver]

For example, Anabaptists certainly have some non-traditional beliefs according to the definition in the SoP, but their understanding of soteriology has some very “traditional” aspects, which is understandable considering Menno’s history as a Catholic priest. People who are part of groups with Wesleyan backgrounds have some “traditional” beliefs as well. He was a big proponent of some early church fathers, and as an Anglican, used the approach of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. He pulled from some of the early Church Fathers on his teachings. Traditional teachings can be seen in many churches and denominations, even when the denomination isn’t strictly a traditional denomination. If the discussion is about a subject which they use the church fathers, history or classical confessions to support their beliefs, then on that topic, they could fit the definition listed on the SoP.

Which is why there should be a reticence in excluding people based on a simple label.

 

[hedrick]

It was nice to have a place where Lutherans and Anglicans and Orthodox and Catholics and even Methodists could come and agree on some things.

It seems discussing homosexuality has broken that.

I think it's best to avoid that here. If it were just committed TT people, a traditionalist could ask me why I think homosexuality is OK, we could talk about the exegesis of Rom 1 peacefully, and that would be it. It just won't work. Best avoid it. You can ask in the Liberal forum if you want.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think it's best to avoid that here. If it were just committed TT people, a traditionalist could ask me why I think homosexuality is OK, we could talk about the exegesis of Rom 1 peacefully, and that would be it. It just won't work. Best avoid it. You can ask in the Liberal forum if you want.

In a Catholic setting a 'traditionalist' can have a spectrum of meaning a bit different than I think you intended here. I have sympathies with Catholic traditionalists although liturgically at least I am not very much of one. I will attend a rare Latin mass, sing a Latin Agnus Dei once a week, recite the prayer of St. Michael after mass, but that's about it. In the sense I think you were using it, I think I would be one though.

I would feel out of place in the Liberal Forum. I'm politically mixed but I take my Catholicism somewhere between the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I would probably automatically find myself at odds in that forum.

I think it should be possible to peacefully discuss Romans 1. It should be possible to bring in Patristic and dogmatic teaching on the subject too, to see how issues touched upon in Romans 1 have been understood within the democracy of the dead, the ones whose shoulders we supposedly stand upon in TT.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I find it useful to classify Protestants into Traditional Protestants and Anabaptists (those who don't believe in infant baptism). Is this forum meant to exclude the latter (e.g. Baptists, Pentecostals, non-denominationals, Missionary churches, SDA, etc.)?
If this issue splits denominations, perhaps it should be outside the scope of TT.

Not only was I founding member, I was the Champion of TT, who with the indispensable help of fellow Christians of many different traditions, put this forum together (among a fair amount of resistance from some in authority here at CF).

Anabaptists are Traditional Protestants; their Tradition is no less a Tradition that Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, Catholic, Calvinists, Pentecostalism, SDA, Alliance Churches.......

Some of us may not agree with one or more particular traditions positions on one or more theological or social positions that they hold. This forum is not here to for one group to put down another; rather it is here to discuss differences and understand them.

Understanding does not equal acceptance of that belief or philosophy. This forum is not here to promote Christian Universalism; it is here to help us all understand each other a bit better.

In the process, we are apt not only to find serious differences, but just as apt to find commonalities among our fellow Christian Brothers and Sisters.

Before this forum existed, there was no place where we could discuss our traditions and their differences and similarities other than in GT, and it was (even more so then; a war zone). No war here; if you want a fight take it elsewhere. If you want to state a position and invite questions and "civil" discussion; you are in the right forum.

Now, let's resume acting like the good Christians that we know each other is!!

Mark

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

In a Catholic setting a 'traditionalist' can have a spectrum of meaning a bit different than I think you intended here. I have sympathies with Catholic traditionalists although liturgically at least I am not very much of one. I will attend a rare Latin mass, sing a Latin Agnus Dei once a week, recite the prayer of St. Michael after mass, but that's about it. In the sense I think you were using it, I think I would be one though.

I would feel out of place in the Liberal Forum. I'm politically mixed but I take my Catholicism somewhere between the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I would probably automatically find myself at odds in that forum.

I think it should be possible to peacefully discuss Romans 1. It should be possible to bring in Patristic and dogmatic teaching on the subject too, to see how issues touched upon in Romans 1 have been understood within the democracy of the dead, the ones whose shoulders we supposedly stand upon in TT.

No one should feel at odds with this forum, unless they set themselves at odds with this forum and/or the other people who post here.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I think it's best to avoid that here. If it were just committed TT people, a traditionalist could ask me why I think homosexuality is OK, we could talk about the exegesis of Rom 1 peacefully, and that would be it. It just won't work. Best avoid it. You can ask in the Liberal forum if you want.

Hedrick, we should not need to avoid this here.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I would look at it like this: What would the Church Fathers say about something? And are the Church Fathers relevant to traditional theology?

On the other hand there are many Lutherans and Anglicans and some Orthodox and Catholics who have decided that the Fathers would be all wrong about homosexuality. Are those people traditional Christians?

It's a bit of a mess. Maybe this breaks TT. I don't know.

Yes, the Church Fathers are Relevant to traditional theology only in so far as they are relevant to a particular tradition.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

For example, Anabaptists certainly have some non-traditional beliefs according to the definition in the SoP, but their understanding of soteriology has some very “traditional” aspects, which is understandable considering Menno’s history as a Catholic priest. People who are part of groups with Wesleyan backgrounds have some “traditional” beliefs as well. Wesley was a big proponent of some early church fathers, and as an Anglican, used the approach of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. He pulled from some of the early Church Fathers on his teachings. Traditional teachings can be seen in many churches and denominations, even when the denomination isn’t strictly a traditional denomination. If the discussion is about a subject which they use the church fathers, history or classical confessions to support their beliefs, then on that topic, they could fit the definition listed on the SoP. (ETA: Even if they didn’t fit the definition though, everyone certainly can still ask questions about or discuss traditional views - but it is not a place to say that traditional views are wrong.)

Non traditional to us, but remember the Anabaptist traditions is almost as old as Lutheranism and Anglicanism; certainly older than Tridentine Catholicism; way older than Vatican II Catholicism. It is all perspective.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes, the Church Fathers are Relevant to traditional theology only in so far as they are relevant to a particular tradition.

Well, you know everybody has a tradition, even those with the tradition of saying they have no tradition. That wasn't my understanding of TT.

 

[chevyontheriver]

No one should feel at odds with this forum, unless they set themselves at odds with this forum and/or the other people who post here.

I had not felt at odds in TT. Now I don't know. I'll wait until it settles out more.

 

[Paidiske]

Hedrick, we should not need to avoid this here.

We can't have that discussion here, though, because if Hedrick answers honestly someone will take that as "promotion."

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

We can't have that discussion here, though, because if Hedrick answers honestly someone will take that as "promotion."

One of the reasons I am no longer on staff; we should be able to discuss things in a reasonable way.

So sad.