Are our churches failing at properly teaching Christology?

[Jipsah]

Some of those creeds include the worship of Mary..

Really? Which ones?

 

[Jipsah]

You mean read the Bible, right?

I doubt that there was a single heresiarch who hadn't read the Bible, or who didn't believe, or at least claim, that his heresy was "the clear teaching of Scripture".

 

[Jipsah]

That's what people keep saying, yet I'm perfectly literate and remain unconvinced...

You might be convinced if you actually read the creeds instead of basing what you think they say on what someone else who hasn't read them thinks they say.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I am aware of that. My point is that any division of scripture from the Creed as a matter of a priori view that the two ought be separated is contradicted by the history whereby the same people who wrote the Creed also canonized the scripture, so not only is it obvious that they should be in harmony (as they would have to be even if there hadn't been this connection, of course, so that the Creed may be found acceptable; there were other creeds of ancient provenance, such as that of the Arian bishop Wulfila, which were never accepted), but this historical fact ought to inform our approach to the fathers overall: if they got it right here (and they did), then why not also consider that they also got it right in other areas, instead of judging bit by bit according to one's own understanding of the scriptures, when the historical record shows them going hand-in-hand (and, actually, in a temporal sense, the Creed coming well before the promulgation of the 39th festal letter of 367 AD, wherein the 27-book NT canon is found).

Okay, so your back to saying because Catholics wrote the Bible anything they say about God or religion most therefore be correct?

Yeah.. I've heard that before too, and I disagree.

God preserved His Word (aka those letters from the Apostles of Christ) through His Holy Spirit.

It doesn't make the people involved infallible in every way.

When I was saved Gods Angel told me those same scriptures were Gods Word.. does that make me infallible in all my thinking?

Absolutely not. I make mistakes in my understanding etc., and sometimes I need to course correct, all people can make mistakes. I think the disciples were closest to being unable to because they discipled under Christ yet even they had disagreements with one another and times they had to come together and decide what should be taught and why..

So any time we are talking about people we are needing to consider and infer fallibility upon them just as much as need to consider God's Spirit in what they did and/or their understanding.

Which means no matter what scripture needs to be the measure we all measure up against.. even if its the church fathers.

 

[Hazelelponi]

You might be convinced if you actually read the creeds instead of basing what you think they say on what someone else who hasn't read them thinks they say.

Found it!

Second Nicaea

 

[dzheremi]

Okay, so your back to saying because Catholics wrote the Bible anything they say about God or religion most therefore be correct?

What?

It would be really helpful if you would please pay a bit more attention to who you are interacting with and what they are actually writing. I did not use the term "Catholics" in any part of that post, and neither am I myself a Catholic (as you can tell by looking at my info-box that is right underneath my name on every post), so I don't why you are saying that I am claiming anything about Catholics, or would claim anything about Catholics.

Yeah.. I've heard that before too, and I disagree.

But that's not what I said in the first place.

God preserved His Word (aka those letters from the Apostles of Christ) through His Holy Spirit.

It doesn't make the people involved infallible in every way.

When I was saved Gods Angel told me those same scriptures were Gods Word.. does that make me infallible in all my thinking?

I honestly do not know where any of this is coming from. I did not say anything about infallibility, I do not believe in infallibility (and neither does my Church), and I would never say that anyone is infallible.

Absolutely not. I make mistakes in my understanding etc., and sometimes I need to course correct, all people can make mistakes. I think the disciples were closest to being unable to because they discipled under Christ yet even they had disagreements with one another and times they had to come together and decide what should be taught and why..

Yes, exactly. My point is that this continued beyond the era of the apostles and the disciples to the men they ordained as bishops, down to today. The model for every subsequent Church council is the Council of Jerusalem which was described in the Acts, and in this same manner the early Church dealt with the early adoptionists, Maricion and his party, Montanus and the rest of the Phrygians, and so on. What changes in the ecumenical era is that the Church is big enough to call many bishops from across the empire to do the same thing as had previously been done at more local/regional synods.

So again, if they got things right in these other cases (and they did; Marcion et al. were in the wrong), then there is reason enough to at least entertain the suggestion that they may not be completely off their rockers concerning matters that many modern Christians wrongly take to be later inventions or conspiracies. And, that being the case, this repetition of the harmfulness of the "teachings of men" (when the accuser often doesn't even know what they actually are, e.g., your inability to show where in the Creed we are told or taught to worship St. Mary) is baseless.

So any time we are talking about people we are needing to consider and infer fallibility upon them just as much as need to consider God's Spirit in what they did and/or their understanding.

I'm not entirely sure what this sentence means, but I am not considering or inferring infallibility upon anyone. No one is infallible. There has been precisely one perfect man, and that is Jesus Christ our Lord.

Which means no matter what scripture needs to be the measure we all measure up against.. even if its the church fathers.

Again, I'm a little bit unclean on what you are trying to say here, but I don't think the Church Fathers would even for a second consider themselves above scripture. But again I must point out that in a very real temporal sense this is backwards: the faith came first -- scripture came later. Scripture is a record of the faith and the history and the prophecies (etc.) of the early Church, written by the light and direction of the Holy Spirit working in our fathers and masters the apostles and disciples, but it is not something outside of the tradition of the Church. It is a product of the Church, written for her and by her and proclaimed and studied and lived within her. Anyone who attempts to set the Church up against the scriptures does not understand what either are.

 

[dzheremi]

Found it!

Second Nicaea

The second council of Nicaea did not compose or promulgate a creed.

Any changes to the existing Creed (that of Nicaea-Constantinople) would not have been allowed by that time, as the Eastern Orthodox will be happy to tell you. (This is a major sticking point between them and the Roman Catholics, as the Roman Catholic Church's subsequent addition of the filioque clause -- "and through the Son" -- violated this previously agreed upon decision.)

 

[zippy2006]

Found it!

Second Nicaea

I found it too. You posted only a few times in that thread, and only once did you reference a place where you believe traditional Christians worship Mary: post #21. What you quoted was a conciliar decree from Nicea II, not a creed. Furthermore, what you quoted is not understood by any Christians who adhere to it to entail worship of Mary (and the thread itself bears this out).

 

[Hazelelponi]

What?

It would be really helpful if you would please pay a bit more attention to who you are interacting with and what they are actually writing. I did not use the term "Catholics" in any part of that post, and neither am I myself a Catholic (as you can tell by looking at my info-box that is right underneath my name on every post), so I don't why you are saying that I am claiming anything about Catholics, or would claim anything about Catholics.



But that's not what I said in the first place.



I honestly do not know where any of this is coming from. I did not say anything about infallibility, I do not believe in infallibility (and neither does my Church), and I would never say that anyone is infallible.



Yes, exactly. My point is that this continued beyond the era of the apostles and the disciples to the men they ordained as bishops, down to today. The model for every subsequent Church council is the Council of Jerusalem which was described in the Acts, and in this same manner the early Church dealt with the early adoptionists, Maricion and his party, Montanus and the rest of the Phrygians, and so on. What changes in the ecumenical era is that the Church is big enough to call many bishops from across the empire to do the same thing as had previously been done at more local/regional synods.

So again, if they got things right in these other cases (and they did; Marcion et al. were in the wrong), then there is reason enough to at least entertain the suggestion that they may not be completely off their rockers concerning matters that many modern Christians wrongly take to be later inventions or conspiracies. And, that being the case, this repetition of the harmfulness of the "teachings of men" (when the accuser often doesn't even know what they actually are, e.g., your inability to show where in the Creed we are told or taught to worship St. Mary) is baseless.



I'm not entirely sure what this sentence means, but I am not considering or inferring infallibility upon anyone. No one is infallible. There has been precisely one perfect man, and that is Jesus Christ our Lord.



Again, I'm a little bit unclean on what you are trying to say here, but I don't think the Church Fathers would even for a second consider themselves above scripture. But again I must point out that in a very real temporal sense this is backwards: the faith came first -- scripture came later. Scripture is a record of the faith and the history and the prophecies (etc.) of the early Church, written by the light and direction of the Holy Spirit working in our fathers and masters the apostles and disciples, but it is not something outside of the tradition of the Church. It is a product of the Church, written for her and by her and proclaimed and studied and lived within her. Anyone who attempts to set the Church up against the scriptures does not understand what either are.

I will apologize but I see no difference on the forums between creedal faith groups that all consider themselves "orthodox Christianity", all affirm one another's beliefs, from what I'm gathering, so in my mind I have simplified this dizzying array of denominational names into one "Catholics".

I apologize if that is somehow offensive, but it certainly makes my life easier.

I have read someone all over this forum, and others continually affirm his statements, that we don't have a right to call into question any teaching of the early church fathers because they "wrote" the scriptures.

Scriptures whose existence largely predated Jesus Himself mind you; all Jesus and the disciples did was to quote scripture from the hebrews and explain how that pertains to today - that day in which those scriptures were fulfilled - and how we should be walking with the Lord after our reconciliation to God in Christ.

I'm not lessening what the church fathers taught, but I don't think we have no right to question various heretical teachings that have apparently crept in (of course, I'm continually being told these things aren't heretical so there is that.. difference of opinion perhaps) just because someone in 600 AD might have said it (just a random example, not a real one).

Not being allowed to question faith, not being solidified in our own beliefs is how the church becomes a runaway tyrant, not how we follow Jesus in our daily life.

If that is not exactly what "your" teaching then you either disagree with others here on this forum, or all of you are not speaking to the rest of us clearly.

 

[dzheremi]

I will apologize but I see no difference on the forums between creedal faith groups that all consider themselves "orthodox Christianity", all affirm one another's beliefs, from what I'm gathering, so in my mind I have simplified this dizzying array of denominational names into one "Catholics".

The problem in this case is that you were going on about something that I as an Orthodox Christian do not at all affirm (infallibility). So even if you do not see a difference between the various groups at a macro level, when you hit upon a difference according to the details of why these groups aren't all one in the first place (e.g., difference in ecclesiology, in this case), then it's going to matter.

It would be like if I said to you "I don't really see a difference between a non-creedal, primitivist Christian and a Mormon, since Mormons consider themselves Christians, grew out of a certain strain of Christian primitivism, and also tout the 'non-creedal' nature of their religion, so I am going to refer to you as Mormon, and assume that you believe in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, since that's what Mormons believe." Well you don't believe in that (I'm assuming), so that's not accurate, even if it doesn't make a difference to me exactly why.

I have read someone all over this forum, and others continually affirm his statements, that we don't have a right to call into question any teaching of the early church fathers because they "wrote" the scriptures.

Who is this person whose statements are constantly affirmed? Who says these things?

The Early Church Fathers did not write the scriptures. That's historically inaccurate/impossible. The Early Church Fathers were those who wrote and preached in the era following the apostolic fathers (men who had been taught by the apostles themselves), so they are too late to have written the scriptures. They canonized them, sure, but that's a very different thing.

Scriptures whose existence of predated Jesus Himself mind you

What?

all Jesus and the disciples did was to quote scripture from the Torah and explain how that pertains to today - that day in which those scriptures were fulfilled - and how we should be walking with the Lord after our reconciliation.

No, I'm pretty sure there's a lot of the New Testament that does not consist of quotes from the Torah.

I'm not lessening what the church fathers taught, but I don't think we have no right to question various heretical teachings that have apparently crept in (of course, I'm continually being told these things aren't heretical so there is that.. difference of opinion perhaps) just because someone in 600 AD might have said it (just a random example, not a real one).

Alright...I'm not sure where anyone is saying that you don't have a right to question anything in particular, but okay.

Not being allowed to questionfaith, not being solidified in our own beliefs is how the church becomes a runaway tyrant, not how we follow Jesus in our daily life.

Again, I don't see where that's happening. I think you might be taking the use of the term 'heresy' rather more personally than it was probably intended.

If that is not exactly what "your" teaching then you either disagree with others here on this forum, or all of you are not speaking to the rest of us clearly.

Well of course I disagree with almost everyone here on at least some level. I don't see the rest of them coming to liturgy, or even having the decency to become Oriental Orthodox. (How dare you all! I mean, really...Lutheran? Methodist? Non-Denominational? The Desert Fathers didn't even know what these things are, and neither do I, and I think I'm doing pretty alright! )

We do not seem to disagree on the basics, however, and that is definitely related to what we have been talking about here.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The problem in this case is that you were going on about something that I as an Orthodox Christian do not at all affirm (infallibility).

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

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.

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

So even if you do not see a difference between the various groups at a macro level, when you hit upon a difference according to the details of why these groups aren't all one in the first place (e.g., difference in ecclesiology, in this case), then it's going to matter.

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

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..

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

It would be like if I said to you "I don't really see a difference between a non-creedal, primitivist Christian and a Mormon, since Mormons consider themselves Christians, grew out of a certain strain of Christian primitivism, and also tout the 'non-creedal' nature of their religion, so I am going to refer to you as Mormon, and assume that you believe in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, since that's what Mormons believe." Well you don't believe in that (I'm assuming), so that's not accurate, even if it doesn't make a difference to me exactly why.

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. They have the same church fathers up to a certain date, the same scriptures and online affirm one another as being of the same faith.

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

Who is this person whose statements are constantly affirmed? Who says these things?

Someone called Monk something or other and someone else..

The Early Church Fathers did not write the scriptures. That's historically inaccurate/impossible.

That's what I keep saying.

The Early Church Fathers were those who wrote and preached in the era following the apostolic fathers (men who had been taught by the apostles themselves), so they are too late to have written the scriptures. They canonized them, sure, but that's a very different thing.

I absolutely agree

What?

I don't know what you asked what about.. answering you this way while far clearer is also more confusing as I can't see what you quoted.

No, I'm pretty sure there's a lot of the New Testament that does not consist of quotes from the Torah.

I edited.. I should have further added other scriptures so i edited for clarity. Your faster than my edits are.

Alright...I'm not sure where anyone is saying that you don't have a right to question anything in particular, but okay.

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.

Again, I don't see where that's happening. I think you might be taking the use of the term 'heresy' rather more personally than it was probably intended.

Well, , there is that but no.. you misunderstand I think..

Well of course I disagree with almost everyone here on at least some level. I don't see the rest of them coming to liturgy, or even having the decency to become Oriental Orthodox. (How dare you all! I mean, really...Lutheran? Methodist? Non-Denominational? The Desert Fathers didn't even know what these things are, and neither do I, and I think I'm doing pretty alright! )

We do not seem to disagree on the basics, however, and that is definitely related to what we have been talking about here.

God bless you.

 

[Paidiske]

It's not whether someone finds something offensive, but all posts in the Christians Only forums do need to be in keeping with the Statement of Faith.

 

[Philip_B]

First sentence in the OP. Recent threads attack orthodox teachings. Did not start with problems in his church. He then asks for a reason why people disagree with his "orthodox teachings". He gives two answers: failed teaching and just holders of rouge theology. He then describes it as a problem.

My problem is with people that want to define what can be debated in a Christian forum without being labeled as unorthodox and one who solicits threads to be moved to the unorthodox section because they hold to creeds that are not part of the SOF here.

So can you answer my question?

My point is that the Nicene Creed presents what might be taken to be the basis Orthodox Christology, and certainly that was further expounded in the Chalcedonian Definition (and I hold due respect the the Oriental Orthodox on that subject). Whilst both the Reformation and the Great Schism call us to ask questions about the nature of the authority of the Petrine Office, the principal christology of the Christology of the Nicene Creed was accepted by all players. In a sense one of the things that the reformation started was a rise of individualism and a loss of tribe. This of course was further extended by the emergence of existentialism as a predominant philosophical position, probably all but universal in our own age.

I guess we know what the Nicene Creed says, and how it got there, and that the Church catholic accepted and subscribed to it. I just wonder if in every generation we have to continue the debate and think we will be making progress. Given that the said creed is the statement of faith for this forum I probably hold the view that if you want to debate it's theology, perhaps that thread should be in controversial theology.

The Nicene Creed was endorsed by the 1st Council of Constantinople, The Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon. In a sense I feel it is a document of which we may say: TRIBE HAS SPOKEN!

 

[Hazelelponi]

It's not whether someone finds something offensive, but all posts in the Christians Only forums do need to be in keeping with the Statement of Faith.

I've never said anything against the statement of faith.

 

[Paidiske]

Given that the said creed is the statement of faith for this forum I probably hold the view that if you want to debate it's theology, perhaps that thread should be in controversial theology.

Point of order:

"Unorthodox Christian theology may only be discussed in the Controversial Christian Theology forum. These unorthodox topics do not directly oppose the Nicene Creed, but are not considered to be orthodox on CF. These unorthodox topics may not contradict the Nicene Creed. Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Outreach category forums. Gnosticism may not be discussed in any CF forums. The Controversial Christian Theology forum is open to Christian members only (faith groups list)."

There is nowhere on Christian forums where self-identified Christians may debate the positions articulated in the Creed.

 

[Paidiske]

I've never said anything against the statement of faith.

In that case, people are threatening you with mods needlessly. Provided all posts are appropriate for the Statement of Purpose of the forum they're in (eg. No debating Catholics in the Catholic forum), you're fine.

 

[Hazelelponi]

In that case, people are threatening you with mods needlessly. Provided all posts are appropriate for the Statement of Purpose of the forum they're in (eg. No debating Catholics in the Catholic forum), you're fine.

I've gone afoul of the wrong forum aspect before so maybe I was seen as debating in the wrong forum with Catholics when something was said..

I'm getting somewhat better at being in the right forum (I think.. lol) ..

But I did take to mean I can't question church fathers... so hard as it is to keep my mouth shut I've tried very hard not to question. (Some times it just comes out anyway.. lol)

 

[Paidiske]

No, you can question the church fathers. I wouldn't do that in, say the Orthodox or Catholic forums, but here in General Theology that's fine.

If in doubt, check the Statement of Purpose. It does take time to get to know your way around, and what fits where.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I found it too. You posted only a few times in that thread, and only once did you reference a place where you believe traditional Christians worship Mary: post #21. What you quoted was a conciliar decree from Nicea II, not a creed. Furthermore, what you quoted is not understood by any Christians who adhere to it to entail worship of Mary (and the thread itself bears this out).

I don't understand the difference..

They said in that people who don't believe x about Mary are under a curse and not Christian.

It's the Nicene councils and they were saying this is Christianity and if we don't believe it then we aren't Christian.

I'm unclear how that differs from a creed. That's saying that this belief is as central to Christianity as is Christ and the Trinity... so that's creed.. it's a belief.

That's just sneaky about it putting it in small writing at the back where no one knows it's there, but saying you have to affirm it.

 

[Jipsah]

We need more than creeds.

Ya think? Dang, who'd a thunk it!

The creeds are a distillation of what the Church has always believed, as drawn from the Bible.

Of course read the Bible. My drill is one Gospel a week, so all four in a month, ergo the Gospels 12 times a year. Acts through Jude straight through, 2 chapters a day. The Old Testament as a whole and the Revelation as time permits, but at least a chapter a day.

That's apart from Bible study.

The creeds and catechisms are important teaching tools to prevent us from reading the Scriptures and drawing stupid conclusions from our reading because we don't know any better.

Your creeds didn't bring me to Christ.

What did?

Creeds didn't help me to understand Christ.

You have to read them for them to do you any good.