Dogma, Heresy, and Modernity

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Ah, but are the Lutherans right? Baptists? Amish? All those groups are looking at the Scriptures from different angles. And all of them argue that THEY are the true interpreters of Sola Scriptura.

For example, both Luther and Zwingli agreed at Marburg except for one point: the Lord's Supper. Luther continued to point to "This is my Body" every time Zwingli tried to deny the Lutheran view of the Real Presence. In 1527, Luther wrote of Ulrich Zwingli that he would “Rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the fanatics” (The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ – Against the Fanatics).

Hence why Lutherans are not quite "protestant" and not quite "Catholic"; we agree with the protestants regarding salvation and justification (more or less), and agree with the Catholic Church (more or less) regarding the sacraments.

 

[disciple Clint]

Do you think so? As others have emphasized, the point I am making is in keeping with historical Christianity.

The other thing to note is that I also gave natural, common sense reasons why the errors of modernity are unacceptable. They lead to a contentless religion and to institutional self-contradiction. In this way the errors of modernity are not only contrary to Christianity; they are contrary to religion itself. I would say they are even contrary to any social grouping with a consistent and substantive character.

There is an interesting article about how this same modern phenomenon has affected ethical values in the West, although it may be a more difficult read ("Is Democracy Moral?").

Actually I put you post in my study notes, I think it is fine for what it is, I am also certain that there are going to be people who are uncomfortable with it and will take exception to it. But that is Theology as you no doubt know, there is very little that can not be debated.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Ah, but are the Lutherans right? Baptists? Amish? All those groups are looking at the Scriptures from different angles. And all of them argue that THEY are the true interpreters of Sola Scriptura.

For example, both Luther and Zwingli agreed at Marburg except for one point: the Lord's Supper. Luther continued to point to "This is my Body" every time Zwingli tried to deny the Lutheran view of the Real Presence. In 1527, Luther wrote of Ulrich Zwingli that he would “Rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the fanatics” (The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ – Against the Fanatics).

Baptists say the same thing I do: that the bread and wine are totally symbolic. I believe they are right on this one because Jesus said it in person after using symbolism during his ministry and is at the right hand of His Father.

 

[Fervent]

Often the disagreements are not matters of rejecting dogma altogether, but rather not accepting the same issues as containing dogma. Most of the major theological divides end up being mired in polemics where there is an element of truth in both sides and as history proceeds the divides deepen due to political divisions and ethnic adoptions among other issues that are entirely separate from the actual discussions being had. Traditionalist theology almost knee-jerks to defenses of tradition that leads to dogmatic creep ever shrinking the realm of theological opinion. Protestant theology knee-jerks to skepticism towards historic authority rendering it unable to settle simple disagreements. Modernism and post-modernism are over-corrections of the excesses in ecclesial authority seen in the late middle ages. We're starting to see the rotten fruit of unhindered skepticism of authority throughout Western society and it's likely to lead to a collapse of multiple societies.

 

[The Liturgist]

And all the Catholic churches--Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, Ethiopian, etc. etc.--look at Tradition and other doctrinal guidance systems including Scripture...and come up with different conclusions.

In other words, there's no difference when it comes to this particular issue.


As do all the churches that are classified with your own.


For example, the Roman Church believes Christ established a Papacy. Your church does not. But you both read the same books of Scripture and appeal to what you think Tradition said. Surely that's an important issue.

And by the way, you cited Luther and Zwingli as holding different views of the Lord's Supper. Well, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches hold differing views concerning the nature of the sacrament as well!

Another red herring: the Roman Catholic Church is Western. We were only talking about Eastern churches. Furthermore, depending on ecclesiology, the term Catholic Church can mean many things, but there is no ecclesiology where it refers to the eclectic group of churches you enumerated, since that would be an odd variant of Branch Theology in which Augustinian apostolic succession is being used, except some branches are arbitrarily terminated despite a lack of consensus; the only church that could hold such a theory would be the Roman Catholic Church, but as it happens they don’t.

Either all Nicene churches have the right to being called Catholic, or only one has that right, and which one depends on your perspective.

Also the Ethiopian Tewhedo Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church are integral members of the Oriental Orthodox communion. Prior to the 20th century, they were an autonomous part of the Coptic Orthodox Church, but received a Tomos of Autocephaly from the Copts in the early 20th century, and following the successful Eritrean War of Independence.

Maybe you are thinking of the Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East?

 

[The Liturgist]

Baptists say the same thing I do: that the bread and wine are totally symbolic. I believe they are right on this one because Jesus said it in person after using symbolism during his ministry and is at the right hand of His Father.

Actually most Baptists I am aware of reject your interpretation, which is Zwinglianism, in favor of Memorialism.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think one of the main differences between the ancient and modern traditions is how Mary is handled.

Because of the mental acrobatics required to make all the things said about Mary true (especially the things Catholics say but Orthodox don't), all the other doctrines need to be worded in an awkward fashion.

It kind of makes people wonder when it stopped being about Jesus.

Thus we have a trend of "making the gospel about Jesus again" and ignoring Mary .. so it will probably take some centuries to balance out through a new movement.

However, by then, the parallel prophetic ripples of church history and the histories of Israel and Judah will have played out .. and it won't matter.

The idea that Roman Catholics focus on Mary at the expense of Christ is completely erroneous, since we don’t live in the world of Jack Chick comics.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The idea that Roman Catholics focus on Mary at the expense of Christ is completely erroneous, since we don’t live in the world of Jack Chick comics.

Sure, mention Hitler. but it just confirms a discussion was never the plan.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I noticed in previous discussions that the over emphasis of Mary changes the way other doctrines are discussed profoundly. Making the wording awkward.

 

[The Liturgist]

Sure, mention Hitler. but it just confirms a discussion was never the plan.

Umm what? This thread has been derailed by people criticizing @GreekOrthodox ‘s analogue, which was valid, but I have not seen anyone disagree with the basic construct of heresy, theologoumemnon and dogma proposed by @zippy2006 , but there are Christians who tend to reject the idea of dogma and heresy and I am sure we will hear from them.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Umm what? This thread has been derailed by people criticizing @GreekOrthodox ‘s analogue, which was valid, but I have not seen anyone disagree with the basic construct of heresy, theologoumemnon and dogma proposed by @zippy2006 , but there are Christians who tend to reject the idea of dogma and heresy and I am sure we will hear from them.

Was a bad joke, the reference to Jack Chick is like invoking the name of Hitler in a debate.

 

[The Liturgist]

I noticed in previous discussions that the over emphasis of Mary changes the way other doctrines are discussed profoundly. Making the wording awkward.

I haven’t, but perhaps if you are concerned about that offtopic issue you might open a thread in Mariology or Denomination Specific Theology and I will eagerly join you to present a counter argument.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

there are Christians who tend to reject the idea of dogma and heresy and I am sure we will hear from them.

Maybe in controversial theology, but not here in GT.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I haven’t, but perhaps if you are concerned about that offtopic issue you might open a thread in Mariology or Denomination Specific Theology and I will eagerly join you to present a counter argument.

When the topic contains dogma and heresy, what could possibly be off topic? everyone is a heretic to somebody else nowadays.

 

[The Liturgist]

Maybe in controversial theology, but not here in GT.

What about the Christian Church / Disciples of Christ and the Quakers? They are Nicene-compatible Christians (except for some Modernist Quakers, including a large number in the UK) who tend to value faith and personal experience, respectively, over dogmatic theology.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What about the Christian Church / Disciples of Christ and the Quakers? They are Nicene-compatible Christians (except for some Modernist Quakers, including a large number in the UK) who tend to value faith and personal experience, respectively, over dogmatic theology.

There's just more room to "swing" in CT, though we might get some in here, it used to be pretty lively.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Actually most Baptists I am aware of reject your interpretation, which is Zwinglianism, in favor of Memorialism.

One of the main Baptist beliefs is Communion only symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus. Maybe you do not hear Baptists explain it the way I did.

 

[The Liturgist]

When the topic contains dogma and heresy, what could possibly be off topic? everyone is a heretic to somebody else nowadays.

What its about is the model @zippy2006 proposed for classifying
doctrines and actions into three categories: dogma, theological opinion and heresy, or mandatory, optional and prohibited, which comes across as Scholastic, but the concepts are solidly Patristic, and @GreekOrthodox used the metaphor of a crown to link it to Eastern Orthodox views on the subject, because Eastern Orthodox doctrines are defined apophatically, and are more frequently defined as anathematized heretical beliefs than kataphatic mandatory beliefs, which defines a sort of safe space where a wide range of theologoumemna can be held, including diverse liturgical praxis, diverse opinions on ecumenism, diverse opinions on the suitability of mystical theology treatises like the Philokalia for laity, diverse opinions on the usefulness of Origen, diverse opinions on whether the Septuagint is absolutely superior to the Masoretic Text used in the KJV, or if the latter can be used to a certain extent (there is a Russian Orthodox Bible that uses it in part), diverse opinions on certain aspects of eschatology like aerial toll houses (don’t ask what those are, I am too tired to explain, but suffice it to say some believe in them literally, some believe in them as metaphors and some reject them as an error, and this is allowed because the Church never made a formal doctrinal pronouncement on the issue), and so on.

 

[The Liturgist]

One of the main Baptist beliefs is Communion only symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus. Maybe you do not hear Baptists explain it the way I did.

In general the belief I hear Baptists confess most often is that “the Lord’s Supper” as they prefer to call it is only a memorial of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord, so in that sense it could be seen as symbolic, but in Zwinglianism the symbols are signs of grace.

 

[GodLovesCats]

In general the belief I hear Baptists confess most often is that “the Lord’s Supper” as they prefer to call it is only a memorial of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord, so in that sense it could be seen as symbolic, but in Zwinglianism the symbols are signs of grace.

I know Baptists don't call TLS communion. That is just the word the Vineyard, which is an evangelical and charismatic church chain, uses.

You are not understanding what I said. I was explaining why the bread can't literally be the body of Jesus, the wine can't literally be the blood of Jesus, and Jesus can't literally be present when we take them.