- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,361
- 3,628
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
Thank you for explaining the eastern denominational view.
Upvote
0
It seems you missunderstood what I wrote. This is the forum of the. Eastern Orthodox denomination so I can't argue but I will clarify.
The Reformed confessions state very clearly the Bible was "kept pure in all ages...." I pointed to Luther, Calvin, etc. who held to the idea called common faith today called the logic of faith to keep often doubted passages in scripture. This is what I meant by "traditionally and confessionally." It is clear from the 16th century until the 19th century invasion of Liberalism Prots held to the Textus Receptus.
Textual criticism began with Liberalism which rejects Christianity by reinterpreting the faith as myths and fables useful for a moral story but that's it.
At the very least the German Liberal movement denied the "traditional and confessionally" view of the Bible. Muller wrote set on Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics where he outlines the Prot view of scripture and it exactly as I stated.
This is your denominational forum so I won't go anything further. Since I can't respond further I would like to recommend you are welcome to come to the Semper forum to continue this discussion, we have an Ask A Calvinist section.
Besides a few keyboard warriors that has never been my experience with RCs or EO. When I attended St Nektarios for over a year it was probably the worst example of lack of biblical knowledge which caused me to move on.
That brings me to my next question about the Filioque. Clark Carleton argues the EO agree with the West claiming the temporal sending of the Spirit of Christ was orthodox but the eternal sending was not. How was this foreseen when the creed was written? How does this affect the believer? It don't believe it does.
Just as an experiment I asked RCs and EOs if the Father sends the Son eternally or temporally based on the creed and thy both thought it was crazy because they never considered the question before.
Why is this important if EO believe Christ sends the Spirit on temporal missions but not eternal...since the creed that does not differentiate.
Thanks jm
That brings me to my next question about the Filioque. Clark Carleton argues the EO agree with the West claiming the temporal sending of the Spirit of Christ was orthodox but the eternal sending was not. How was this foreseen when the creed was written?
How does this affect the believer?
St. John of Damascus upheld the veneration of icons while under Moslem rule & was considered a heretic by then iconoclast Constaninople. During his life, Christians & Moslems even shared the same buildings for their respective days of worship in some areas. Later on, Islamic rule became moe harsh towards Christians although their devotion to icons was uninterrupted under Islam & later Constantinople reverted to icon veneration amidst political intrigue. I do not know the full analysis of this but what I have said is factually true so there appears to be an inspired current of veneration that persisted & suffered alongside natural variations of human conduct from toleration to cruelty.
Thanks Lukaris. I only have access to books that are written by Prots or secular historians. Could you recommend a title on the issue from an Eastern perspective? Perhaps I could use interlibrary loan to find it.
Thank you.
jm
Lukaris, have you heard of the title, "Orthodox Christian Theology" by Cunningham & Theokritoff?
They are the written legacy of the Prophets and Apostles. They are the records of those who encountered God's revelation directly. We would say that God's revelation is not the book, but the Person-to-person encounter that the book describes. God's revelation is the act of him showing Himself to man. Revelation is a direct personal encounter. God's full and ultimate revelation of Himself is the Person of Christ, where He became one of us (and still is) and walked among us and spoke to us directly. The books that came after describe that revelation, but they themselves are not that revelation.
They are the only books in the world that tell the story of God's people encountering God's revelation, and they're written from the perspective of those same people.
(This post should not be understood as attempting to give an exhaustive answer.)
They are the written legacy of the Prophets and Apostles. They are the records of those who encountered God's revelation directly. We would say that God's revelation is not the book, but the Person-to-person encounter that the book describes. God's revelation is the act of him showing Himself to man. Revelation is a direct personal encounter. God's full and ultimate revelation of Himself is the Person of Christ, where He became one of us (and still is) and walked among us and spoke to us directly. The books that came after describe that revelation, but they themselves are not that revelation.
They are the only books in the world that tell the story of God's people encountering God's revelation, and they're written from the perspective of those same people.
(This post should not be understood as attempting to give an exhaustive answer.)