Mariolatry?

[Always in His Presence]

Those who God has numbered among the saints do not die, but fall asleep in the Lord.

Everyone who has accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior are saints - it isn't (according to Holy Scripture) a special class of believer.

Lastly, the doctrine of the Dormition is not unscriptural, because it does not contradict Sacred Scripture.

Dormition is absolutely positively unscriptural - you even stated it could not be supported - that is by definition what unscriptural is.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I would say our main difference is that your seminary did not stress the importance of Patristics, which to be fair mine understated, requiring me to re-train myself under the mentorship of an Orthodox bishop, but the net result is that we differ in our appreciation of the history of the early church and the church Fathers.

for those who are not aware: Patristics is the Study of the early Christian writers who are designated Church Fathers.

The study of the early Christians is only germane as long as it aligns with Sculpture, which is the measuring line. Hence Sola Scriptura (Only Scripture). To that extent - you are correct.

2 Tim 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [c]instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.​

Dormition: The first Christian century was completely silent, but anonymous traditions concerning the Dormition began circulating as early as the third century and perhaps 'even earlier' such as the Book of Mary's Repose.

Why is the third century such a pivotal time in many of these traditions? It is when the church transitioned to a Romanized church. Traditions began to develop that were never written of in 300 years of Christianity.

So yes, we differ in our view of the history of the Early Church and the Church fathers especially after the 300's.

 

[Always in His Presence]

You seem to take the unfortunate view of many Pentecostal, Restorationist, Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians who have a particular dislike of Roman Catholicism

I don't have a dislike for the Roman Catholic Church - I grew up Roman Catholic - my father was a seminarian until he fell in love with my mother - my family was as steeped in Roman Catholicism as just about any. I can still sing and pray in Latin.

My views began to change after my Salvation and began to study the Scriptures and not traditions. It was then I began to see a marked difference. It led me to a lifetime study of the word and two degrees.

You seem to make the unfortunate view that anyone who disagrees with your belief system hates you, or has a dislike for you. That cannot be father from the truth.

and simply group all of the Church Fathers as being somehow “Roman Catholic”

Not in any way shape or form. I don't believe that for a minute. Especially the first 300 years before the church became westernized.

, by buying into the narratives the Roman Catholic church has propagated about itself, insofar as the RCC greatly overstates both its power and influence in the Early Church.

I've not bought into anything my Brother - you are making assumptions (I believe) based off other things than what I have expressed.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

All dead in Christ during the age of the church and the raptured believers of the church age, will be judged at the bema seat judgment (The Day of Christ) in the clouds. But first the falling away will come first and the man of sin will be reveled on earth, during the mid part of the tribulation. Also and possibly immediately before or after the bema seat judgment, Old Testament saints will be judged for their rewards.

No born again child of God will be judged to see if they are a born again child of God. The born again believers will be judged only at "the Judgment seat of The Messiah".
Which is a judgment for rewards and not a judgment like is seen at the great white throne. Where the dead are judged first for their works, then second to see if their names are in the book of life. Which they are not and then are cast into the lake of fire.

Similarly, unbelievers who survive the tribulation evidently won’t appear at the Great White Throne Judgment. Matthew 25:41-46 records their final judgment — 1000 years before that of Satan and his angels and the unsaved dead at the end of the Millennium (cf. Revelation 20:11-15). The uniqueness of this judgment (sheep and goats), unlike the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment, is that believers and unbelievers will be judged at the same time and place.

 

[The Liturgist]

My views began to change after my Salvation and began to study the Scriptures and not traditions. It was then I began to see a marked difference. It led me to a lifetime study of the word and two degrees.

I was saved when I was baptized, and there is a direct continuity between my current beliefs as an Orthodox Christian, and my beliefs growing up in the Methodist Church, and during my ill-fated efforts to restore the UCC to some condition of doctrinal orthodoxy due to the left-wing takeover.

A huge mistake you are making is confusing what Mark 7 is about. Mark 7 is a condemnation of the “Oral Torah” tradition of the Pharisees, which eventually became the Talmud.

On the other hand, the same New Testament actually enjoins Christians to adhere to our tradition, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and in 1 Corinthians 11:2, and elsewhere.

Of course it is the case that the Roman Catholic Church drifted away from Orthodoxy by embracing Papal Supremacy and the Satisfaction Theology of Anselm of Canterbury, and Scholastic Theology, among other errors, but the radical approach you took had the effect of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

 

[The Liturgist]

The study of the early Christians is only germane as long as it aligns with Sculpture, which is the measuring line.

That’s not correct - one can learn a lot about what Christianity is by studying the heretical sects that are blatantly and obviously unscriptural, like the Arians, Sabellians, Nestorians, Iconoclasts and indeed the Collyridians and Antidicomarians.

 

[The Liturgist]

for those who are not aware: Patristics is the Study of the early Christian writers who are designated Church Fathers.

I would expect that most members posting in General Theology know what Patristics is. And also one of the nice things about living in the 21st century is easy access to dictionaries that are truly comprehensive, so that even the most obscure and technical phrases we might invoke can easily be looked up and identified.

This is extremely important, because it allows for our language to be more precise. So much confusion has resulted over the years through the use of clumsy metaphors and analogies and alternative phrases intended to get around using a more precise term that is less well known outside of a specific intellectual community. But here, the marvel of the World Wide Web and the work of Sir Tim Berners-Lee really shines, since this Internet-based technology truly has, to a very large extent, democratized information. Thus, what would previously require the use of specialized dictionaries of terminology for fields as diverse as architecture, or computer science, or theology (all three fields near and dear to my heart), can now be looked up in seconds, not to mention terminology related to many other fields, for example, classical music.

Thus, rather than having to categorize all andantes as slow pieces of music compared to the allegro, which doesn’t really do the concept justice, one can look it up, and find examples, and even listen to them, and acquire much more of an understanding.

We can now, without any sense of erudite pride or intellectual discrimination, embrace precise language and avoid vague generalism, and this is of great benefit - recall that in Nineteen Eighty Four, Newspeak was characterized by its decadent reductionism from more precise terms to more vague terms that evoked general feelings and concepts as opposed to identifying something more specific, and the goal of the architects of Newspeak was to remove words from the language, so that a thought contrary to the Party doctrine would become literally unthinkable. And we see real-world examples of such tampering with language in propaganda as a fairly routine occurrence. Thus I campaign for the use of precise, exacting terminology, wherever possible, since we now have the technological means by which people can be informed of the meaning of such language if they do not already know it.

But in the case of Patristics, this is one of those words that anyone who wants to debate Theology should learn before attempting to do so. It is foundational to the subject.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Certainly - have you heard or seen her walking around after she physically died? Only one is the risen savior, who manifest in the flesh three days after He died and was buried. He is the ONLY mediator between God and man. Mary is spiritually alive in heaven - probably talking with my mother. She has no higher authority or access to Jesus in heaven than any other born again believer.

What does having a physical body have to do with hearing prayers? Does The Father have a physical body?

 

[The Liturgist]

Does The Father have a physical body?

Not according to Scripture. John 4:24, and for that matter John 1:1-18. He is not even visible - no one has seen Him at any time. St. Moses interacted with Jesus Christ and with the Holy Spirit in the form of the burning bush. And St. Isaiah saw Jesus Christ as the Ancient of Days, for anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father.

Rather, it is clear from Scripture that the Father has only ever been perceived audibly, notably “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Conversely, we are not sure of any instant where the Holy Spirit was heard audibly rather than experienced visually and via other perceptual means, for example, as what the Jews called the Shekhinah.

 

[Valletta]

Not according to Scripture. John 4:24, and for that matter John 1:1-18. He is not even visible - no one has seen Him at any time. St. Moses interacted with Jesus Christ and with the Holy Spirit in the form of the burning bush. And St. Isaiah saw Jesus Christ as the Ancient of Days, for anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father.

Rather, it is clear from Scripture that the Father has only ever been perceived audibly, notably “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Conversely, we are not sure of any instant where the Holy Spirit was heard audibly rather than experienced visually and via other perceptual means, for example, as what the Jews called the Shekhinah.

Interesting information. I will have to give that subject some thought.

 

[jas3]

Dormition: The first Christian century was completely silent, but anonymous traditions concerning the Dormition began circulating as early as the third century and perhaps 'even earlier' such as the Book of Mary's Repose.

Why is the third century such a pivotal time in many of these traditions? It is when the church transitioned to a Romanized church. Traditions began to develop that were never written of in 300 years of Christianity.

So yes, we differ in our view of the history of the Early Church and the Church fathers especially after the 300's.

I think you've made a mistake in your chronology; the 3rd century is AD 201-300. Is it your position that the Church became "Romanized" in the 200's when Christians were still under active persecution from the Roman Empire?

 

[Always in His Presence]

I was saved when I was baptized, and there is a direct continuity between my current beliefs as an Orthodox Christian, and my beliefs growing up in the Methodist Church, and during my ill-fated efforts to restore the UCC to some condition of doctrinal orthodoxy due to the left-wing takeover.

Good to know - thanks for sharing

A huge mistake you are making is confusing what Mark 7 is about. Mark 7 is a condemnation of the “Oral Torah” tradition of the Pharisees, which eventually became the Talmud.

How can I make a huge mistake on Mark 7 when I have not brought up Mark 7? Can you show me which post I brought up Mark 7 please?

On the other hand, the same New Testament actually enjoins Christians to adhere to our tradition, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and in 1 Corinthians 11:2, and elsewhere.

2 Thess 2:15 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. that would be scripture my friend

1 Cor 11:2 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved

Do your woman pray and prophesy with covered heads? Because that is what he is talking about.

Of course it is the case that the Roman Catholic Church drifted away from Orthodoxy by embracing Papal Supremacy and the Satisfaction Theology of Anselm of Canterbury, and Scholastic Theology, among other errors, but the radical approach you took had the effect of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

Agreed

That’s not correct - one can learn a lot about what Christianity is by studying the heretical sects that are blatantly and obviously unscriptural, like the Arians, Sabellians, Nestorians, Iconoclasts and indeed the Collyridians and Antidicomarians.

To become learned in a subject - you study the subject - not the anthesis of the subject. Studying heresy makes you better versed in heresy - not scripture. If I want to know Scripture - I study Scripture.

I think you've made a mistake in your chronology; the 3rd century is AD 201-300. Is it your position that the Church became "Romanized" in the 200's when Christians were still under active persecution from the Roman Empire?

It was in the 300's that the church became Westernized - does that clarify for you?

 

[jas3]

It was in the 300's that the church became Westernized - does that clarify for you?

Well no, because then the first attestation of the Dormition of the Theotokos predates the westernization of the church, so if your complaint is with "traditions that were never written of in 300 years of Christianity," you can't include the Dormition among those.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Well no, because then the first attestation of the Dormition of the Theotokos predates the westernization of the church, so if your complaint is with "traditions that were never written of in 300 years of Christianity," you can't include the Dormition among those.

Quote: The first Christian century may be silent, but anonymous traditions concerning the Dormition began circulating as early as the third century and perhaps 'even earlier' such as the Book of Mary's Repose. According to some, before the 4th-5th century the Dormition was not celebrated among the Christians as a holy day.

 

[jas3]

Quote: The first Christian century may be silent, but anonymous traditions concerning the Dormition began circulating as early as the third century and perhaps 'even earlier' such as the Book of Mary's Repose. According to some, before the 4th-5th century the Dormition was not celebrated among the Christians as a holy day.

This just restates that the Dormition is attested to before your supposed westernization of Christianity in the 4th century. What are you trying to say?

 

[Always in His Presence]

This just restates that the Dormition is attested to before your supposed westernization of Christianity in the 4th century. What are you trying to say?

Psst… the church began into be westernized in 325

 

[jas3]

Psst… the church began into be westernized in 325

Alright, let's go with that. Then the Dormition is not a product of that westernization because it's attested anywhere from 25 to 124 years prior to the beginning of that westernization.

 

[The Liturgist]

Do your woman pray and prophesy with covered heads? Because that is what he is talking about.

Alas, I cannot accept your interpretation because it is based on a hermeneutic model which could only be described as profoundly eisegetical. He’s talking about the entirety of tradition, which is reflected in the fact that it continues from there into a discussion of the Eucharist, which is the central tradition of the church, something even most Protestants, except for the Salvation Army and the non-evangelical Quakers, celebrate (albeit referring to it as the “Lord’s Supper” and interpreting it in a memorialist or Zwinglian manner of the sort that my friend @Ain't Zwinglian very correctly objects to, also with regards to baptism).

Likewise, the phrase “Word or Epistle” in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not mean Scripture - it means Scriptures and the preaching of the Apostles, most of which was not recorded directly, but has been preserved in the Church.

Remember that the Word is actually Jesus Christ, and that in preaching the Word, the Apostles were preaching Christ Crucified, which is described in the text of the Bible, but there are some details that surround the early church, such as martyrdoms, the Dormition of the Theotokos and so on, which we do not have surviving scriptures that pertain to, as well as other details, such as the liturgy for celebrating the Eucharist, and the ancient canons, which were not included in most editions of the New Testament (except for that used by the Ethiopians, who made a point to include these canons as an appendix to the New Testament).

And these are not the only texts, but I thought I would start with them.

By the way, if you don’t mind my asking, which seminary did you go to? I really am curious because usually I don’t see this kind of approach taught in seminaries, even those associated with, for example, the Southern Baptists. I do see it taught in Bible Schools, but there is something of a difference.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well no, because then the first attestation of the Dormition of the Theotokos predates the westernization of the church, so if your complaint is with "traditions that were never written of in 300 years of Christianity," you can't include the Dormition among those.

Correct.

 

[The Liturgist]

Psst… the church began into be westernized in 325

So you reject the Nicene Creed then? You think we would have been better off had Arius been allowed to run willy-nilly preaching his doctrines? You aren’t aware that after the death of Emperor Constantine, his son Constantius, who had been converted to Arianism by Eusebius of Nicomedia, began a persecution of Christians that lasted until the death of Emperor Valens around 378?

Here is a trivia question for you, just to see how “western” the Council of Nicaea was: what percentage of bishops in attendance at the council were Western Christians who spoke Latin as their primary tongue? Western Christians like St. Ambrose of Milan or St. Augustine of Hippo or St. Vincent of Lerins.