< staff edit >.
There are different kinds of unorthodox believers. I'm an example of an unorthodox orthodox unorthodox in that I adhere to the basic beliefs with a bit of dissenting but I make sure I don't overdo the dissenting to the point of disregarding the Scriptures. It's the desire that counts. My desire is to just teach the Bible. That has more priority than debating this matter.
There are different kinds of unorthodox believers. I'm an example of an unorthodox orthodox unorthodox in that I adhere to the basic beliefs with a bit of dissenting but I make sure I don't overdo the dissenting to the point of disregarding the Scriptures. It's the desire that counts. My desire is to just teach the Bible. That has more priority than debating this matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
N
Nanopants
Guest
I wouldn't say it's wrong, but certainly it must be done in the right way and with the right intentions as not to cause further damage. For instance, here you are quite liberally applying your concept of what it means to be "rebellious" without giving room for those who are in disagreement with you, but are faithful to their convictions. That isn't rebellion.
Everyone I've seen here that has issues with the creed seems to be very ready to accept arguments founded on scripture. Their problem is trust. They do not trust your concept of "orthodoxy" and by painting them as being "rebellious" you are not building any sort of trust with them.
I haven't read through all of the posts, but the worst I've seen against orthodoxy is the claim that the creed is man-made. However, that's not a direct assault against your character. I presume that their rejection of your arguments might not be as severe if they didn't feel as if they were being personally attacked.
I think you may be a little too biased to see the situation clearly.
Upvote
0
Tzaousios
Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
- Dec 4, 2008
- 8,504
- 609
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Okay, but please distinguish what you mean by "right way" and "right intentions." "Intention" is a very slippery word if not defined. It appears to me that it is ill intention which characterizes many of the presuppositions and the expressions of rebellion in this thread. In other words, they all proceed from a deep-seated dislike of anything that smacks as "Catholicism."
Nanopants said:
Of course I give room to those who disagree. I have not called for them to be banned or issued a warning for expressing disagreement. I would hope that you do not confuse my disagreement with their disagreement to be refusing them room.
As for "faithful convictions," that may be true in the sense that they cling to them, but it does not mean that those convictions are particularly informed or justified. At least, I have not seen anything near an argument that would convince me, if that is what they are in fact trying to do.
Nanopants said:
If I had the impression that they were at all willing to change their minds, and thus needed to establish trust, perhaps I would have formulated my words differently. However, this is not the impression that I get, or that I would think is normally projected, in GT.
As for "being founded on Scripture," anyone can make that claim for a variety of reasonable or cockamanie declarations. The consciously prudent reader will realize that it is particular interpretations of Scripture that are being offered, investigate the history and assumptions behind them, and come to an informed decision. In most cases, people are not "merely repeating what the Bible plainly says," justificatory rhetoric not withstanding.
Nanopants said:
I could not agree with you more. This is part-and-parcel of a certain type of justificatory rhetoric, namely the rejection and hatred of whatever is perceived as "Catholicism."
Nanopants said:
Oh? The false dichotomies that are being presented certainly do indicate that a judgment of character is made. I have no problem with disagreement with me or rejection of my arguments. What I do not like is (counter)argumentation which appears to be borne of knee-jerk reactionism and bigoted stereotypes.
What do you think of the implication that "non-institutional," lonewolf Christians are entirely spiritual and in possession of some kind of gnostic enlightenment concerning the Bible and the nature of "institutional" Christianity, while "institutional" Christians who accept and defend the creeds and historical Christianity are carnal, non-spiritual, and seduced by "doctrines/traditions of men/demons"?
Tzaousios said:
How so, considering I am not a convert or catechuman to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy? In fact, I am a Protestant and have been one my entire life. I cannot help that my respect for these churches and for the study of history comes across as "too biased" or something unbecoming of a True Protestant.
Upvote
0
N
Nanopants
Guest
I think that's too over simplified to be accurate. Granted, there is a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment around, and misconceptions to be confronted, but we are not talking about Catholicism in this thread.
I also do not presume to know what the right intention may be with regard to correcting people for their unorthodoxy, because that's not my calling. What I do know is that causing people to feel threatened by orthodoxy does not heal anti-orthodox perspectives. It actually fuels that which you claim to resent so much.
I'm not confused. You have every right to disagree, but you need to take a look at what you're doing.
Do you think that it's possible that the heart of a believer (his or her intent) is more important than the mind of a believer? I'm sure there is a variation of different motives for everyone here, but mostly I see a lot of diverse believers who are here to discuss and refine their faith. That, in my opinion, is why CF is a great place to do these things. We don't sit down under a pastor to be spoon fed, we participate. That in itself seems to oppose what seems to be an "orthodox" notion of submitting our minds instead of using them, and so long as you find that to be offensive, I'm sure you'll be offended by others' participation here.
Perhaps that is your problem. It sounds to me as if you've brought a bit of baggage into this conversation.
On the contrary, this discussion is not about Catholicism, but some of the issues that have come up may be a root for anti-Catholicism. There's a major difference between saying "I distrust Catholicism, therefore I distrust man-made doctrine" and "I distrust man-made doctrine, therefore I distrust Catholicism." In the former case, we shouldn't care about anyone's distrust for man-made doctrine, and in the latter, anti-Catholicism can be addressed constructively. It would be prudent to make an effort to understand the perspective of your opponents before making assumptions.
I think that's an extreme case, and it's more likely to be explicitly stated when both sides are guilty of making personal attacks. If you're taking offense because it is a mere implication, well, there's not much that anyone but you can do about that.
It's not your respect for the Apostolic traditions that is a problem, it's your lack of respect toward those who disagree with you. So, you're a Protestant that feels no animosity toward the older sects of Christianity? Praise God. I think you would do well to serve as an example of unity instead of a defender of a faith that is not particularly your own if you can't do one without the other.
Upvote
0
S
SpiritualAntiseptic
Guest
The Trinity has everything to do with salvation. Who died on the cross? Do you want to say that God died on the cross?
But that is the typical response by people who lack an understanding of traditional theology- nothing matters except what is necessary for salvation, but even they do not seem to know what that is except something to do with accepting Christ as your savior.
Proper theology and understanding God has everything to do with theology. Salvation is about coming into a deep relationship and knowledge of God. That requires the fullness of truth available to mankind. That requires that we constant engage the mysteries of the Christian faith. That means that people who go up front one Sunday and do a little show in front of the Congregation are not really getting saved- they are just trying to convince themselves that they are.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
revrobor
Veteran
- Jun 24, 2003
- 3,993
- 367
- 92
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Belief in the Trinity doctrine is not necessary for salvation. It is the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross that saves us when we choose to follow God. Denying Jesus will cost a person their salvation but refusing to believe in the Trinity doctrine won't cost anyone anything. Too many "Christians" try to confuse the issue of salvation by telling people you must believe in this, that or the other thing (including the Trinity doctrine) to be saved or a true "Christian". I have no problem with the Trinity doctrine (and stated what I believe in an earlier post) but don't try to shove it down people's throats as a necessary belief for salvation.
Upvote
0
PaladinValer
Traditional Orthodox Anglican
- Apr 7, 2004
- 23,582
- 1,245
- 42
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
It isn't absolutely necessary, but it is necessary for a person to claim to be Christian to adhere to the dogma of the Holy Trinity.
Problem: denying the Holy Trinity is denying salvation for Christians. As someone else already said, Who Jesus is, is absolutely and fundamentally critical when it comes to soteriology, which is based on, wait for it, the Holy Trinity.
Too many so-called ministers have such a poor understanding of the religion they supposedly profess that they are leading people into heresy and unorthodoxy.
No Trinity, no Christianity. That is how it has been for ~2,000 years and it isn't going to change because people want to reraise a long-dead heresy from the grave because "God inspired me." That's what Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Church of Jesus Christ Scientist teach, and they are NOT Christians.
If you really are a minister, you better tell them it is necessary.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,458
- 26,890
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
I agree that believing and understanding Trinitarian theology is not a prerequisite for salvation. But then I would also say that most matters of theology are not prerequisites for salvation. Salvation isn't about getting all our i's dotted or t's crossed; it's not about believing all the right things, thinking all the right things or doing all the right things. It's about God's grace.
That said, orthodoxy isn't about being as needlessly complicated as possible in order to confuse most people, it's about being faithful and honest to the Faith we have received. Trinitarianism isn't about getting on God's good side because otherwise we're all damned if we don't properly understanding the depth of Trinitarian theology; it's about having an appropriate understanding of God as understood within the historic Christian faith, making sense of Scripture and the whole conversation of faith which has been going on in the Church among Christians for the last two thousand years.
If one denies the distinction between Father and Son then the question is going to arise: What does it mean to say that the Son is seated at the right hand of the Father? A common response is that the term "Son" refers exclusively to Jesus' humanity, and yet Scripture says:
"But of the Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.'" - Hebrews 1:8
And the problems arise and topple upon each other over and over.
Our ancient brothers and sisters in the Church weren't dumb. All of these sorts of questions were arising time and again from all over the place, and that's why, through prayerful and thoughtful consensus, we have as Christians come to agree with universal confessions of faith. The most important of these is the Nicene Creed.
Honestly questioning orthodoxy doesn't bother me. What bothers me is how little some stop to really think through the history and really understand why we are confessing what we are confessing as Christian orthodoxy. For example, rarely does someone question the contents of the Canon; that remains unquestioned but most everything else is. Why? The Biblical Canon is as much a part of the received Christian tradition and Christian orthodoxy as the Trinity or Hypostatic Union is. The reason why we have the Epistle of Jude but not the Epistle of 1 Clement is because one stuck and the other didn't--even if we attribute Providence to the Canon, we are still attributing Providence to received Christian tradition.
There's just so much inconsistency, so much that seems to be taken for granted.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
Dorothea
One of God's handmaidens
- Jul 10, 2007
- 21,553
- 3,534
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I'm sorry you think that. Could this be because of Christomonism that came about around and just after the Reformation? In order to know God, you have to be in a loving relationship with the Trinity. You know the Father through Christ, and you know Christ through the Holy Spirit. You cannot know One without the Others.
Upvote
0
revrobor
Veteran
- Jun 24, 2003
- 3,993
- 367
- 92
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Why are you sorry I think that? It's true. I have been a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ since 1949. I learned about the Trinity as I grew in my faith. I did not know about the Trinity when I was saved and did not need to know about the Trinity to be saved and neither does anyone else. Read John 3:16.
Upvote
0
N
Nanopants
Guest
This is all very interesting.
So far, aside from the non-denominationals, I've seen those in Eastern Orthodox, RC and Reformed traditions posting here in this thread, which is not uncommon here at CF. What is unusual, is that these three are strangely united in denouncing unorthodoxy, even though each is unorthodox by each other's standards. Perhaps our only shot at unity is to be unified in denouncing one another.
Apparently, the Body of Christ cannot escape its own heresy, and I hope I'll be pardoned for losing faith in the effectiveness of orthodoxy itself.
So far, aside from the non-denominationals, I've seen those in Eastern Orthodox, RC and Reformed traditions posting here in this thread, which is not uncommon here at CF. What is unusual, is that these three are strangely united in denouncing unorthodoxy, even though each is unorthodox by each other's standards. Perhaps our only shot at unity is to be unified in denouncing one another.
Apparently, the Body of Christ cannot escape its own heresy, and I hope I'll be pardoned for losing faith in the effectiveness of orthodoxy itself.
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,458
- 26,890
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
It's because Catholics, Orthodox and Mainline Protestants (and most Evangelical Protestants, including "non-denominational" churches/Christians) all share the same Creed.
That Creed is the summary of everything it means to talk about Christianity.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Tzaousios
Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
- Dec 4, 2008
- 8,504
- 609
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I agree that there is. In fact, it is so pervasive as to become obstructive to honest debate and a stumbling block to those who are seeking.
While Catholicism may not be the subject of the thread, it is an underlying assumption of some that the orthodox conception of the Holy Spirit as expressed in the creeds is "tainted" by Catholicism and therefore illegitimate or questionable at best.
Nanopants said:
Neither do I presume to know. However, I do make certain conclusions based upon the tone and content of the rhetoric that is employed about certain issues. Perhaps if it was not clothed in the usual rhetoric and denigratory canards, and people were upfront about their presuppositions, we could get down to brass tacks and eliminate some of the problem. I have been around here long enough to know it when I see it.
As for reforming or changing the people who harbor it, I also do not presume to be able to do that or to "heal" any rifts. It will take a work of the Spirit to accomplish that.
Nanopants said:
What would you suggest? People are going to do what they want, including seekers in many cases. They are not computers waiting to be programmed one way or the other based upon what they take in. Whatever they develop a predisposition towards is the direction they take.
For now I think it is good to point out the kind of rhetorical constructions and presuppositions that people employ so that at least the gullible are not fooled by what they see.
Nanopants said:
Sure, but I do not know where I said that the mind should be valued over the heart. Orthodoxy is not just a matter of intellectual assent. Neither myself nor the Church Fathers have made such a proposition. At the same time, neither should it be only a matter of the heart, with intellectual pursuits and refinements being condemned as "non-spiritual" and "carnal."
Nanopants said:
Yes, but in the end, after all of the participation and experience, it comes down to the pivotal moment when one must decide to whom or what they submit in terms of interpretation and practice. Hopefully this is an informed and willing submission.
Nanopants said:
Not baggage, in the sense that many ex-Protestants to Orthodoxy or Catholicism might have, or vice versa. I don't know if you were here, but the baggage and sour grapes from that situation used to be a problem in GT, too, but has since subsided.
I will admit, however, that I grow quite weary and embarrassed at the kind of rhetoric and ignorance that is displayed by many of my fellow Protestants. It is no longer (perhaps was never) the antidote merely to present historical and theological information for perusal, only to have it derisively rejected as "doctrines/traditions of men/demons."
Nanopants said:
Trust me, nine times out of ten, if the trope "man-made doctrine" is employed in any sense, it will be in reference to something that is perceived as Catholic. I admire you idealism and equity, but such is the harsh reality of General Theology and the mentality of too many Evangelical Protestants. It becomes a matter of to what degree or extreme of the scale anti-Catholic bigotry is being disguised.
Nanopants said:
No, it is a clever rhetorical implication that I see being insinuated and made constantly around here.
Upvote
0
N
Nanopants
Guest
The only problem I have with that is still, I have not encountered a single person who can explain it as if it is understood. That being the case, I am tempted to doubt that any of us can really talk meaningfully about Christianity, if it is as important as you say.
On the other hand, Paul wrote that in Christ is the fullness of the Godhead (Col 2:9), so if what you say is true, and the Trinity is summarized in Christ in that its fullness is present with Him, then Christ is the summary of everything it means to talk about Christianity. That makes a lot of sense to me, so in that case I can agree with you.
Upvote
0
N
Nanopants
Guest
This is just an idea, but you could go and debate with atheists, pagans, gnostics, mormons, etc, etc. The reason I say that is so that you can get a better perspective on the similarities between you and your opponents here in GT. I say that because it sounds as if you have our differences under a kind of magnifying glass, taking too much offense over our disagreements.
Granted, there will always be those who are actually out to ruin somebody else's day, but aside from that type of believer, the debate should be enjoyable no matter what the implications are of any argument.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Tzaousios
Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
- Dec 4, 2008
- 8,504
- 609
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
If you look back in my record of posts, you will see that I have spent a fair amount of time talking to atheists. As for the others, I am quite aware of the glaring differences they have, both ancient and modern, from orthodox Christianity.
I don't see how these experiences are supposed to make me more receptive or sympathetic to the rejection of basic Trinitarian orthodoxy and the denigration of the men and Churches who gave their lives to preserve it.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Yes, well posted; the Holy Spirit calls us to faith in Christ; it is only through Christ that we can come to the Father!
While Scripture tells us what we need to know, and through it God tells us what He wants us to know; Scripture does not tell us every thing that we want to know. I think it's a fair conclusion that God desires that some things remain mysteries. From the very beginning there were things that God desired that we not know; in Eden it was the knowledge of good and evil. In our time there are many mysteries which the Holy Spirit calls us to believe in; just a few of these things are the Incarnation, the Real Presence, the Resurrection, the date and time of our Lord's second coming, and the object of this thread, the nature of the Trinity.
Take what Scripture tells us; which is what the Church has taught us; add having faith as provided by the Holy Spirit and what we have is truly sufficient for Salvation. Faith!
BTW, just a reminder; the rules of CF state that one may not promote beliefs or teachings which are contrary to the Statement of Faith; which includes the nature of the Trinity as defined by the Nicene Creed. If you wish to do so, you may only do it here: Unorthodox Theology
Upvote
0
Similar threads
