Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It leaves too much wriggle room, IMO.Are you saying the pseudo-Athanasian Creed lead to heresies though? Of course, it does have the filioque clause, but it was written intentionally to defeat basically all trinitarian heresies like Sabellianism, Arianism, Partialism, etc.
In what way? It's by and large the longest of the so-called ecumenical creeds, and it explicitly defines and condemns views that are heretical, while clearly affirming the proper view (ignoring filioque).It leaves too much wriggle room, IMO.
Athanasian Creed said:1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
I must be thinking of a different creed. The one you have quoted above is not the one that is usually recited in a liturgical context, is it.In what way? It's by and large the longest of the so-called ecumenical creeds, and it explicitly defines and condemns views that are heretical, while clearly affirming the proper view (ignoring filioque).
The apostles creed on the other hand, that's much shorter and can be accepted by most non-trinitarian Christians. Maybe you're thinking of that?
Traditionally in the west we confess the Nicene-Constantinople Creed (albeit with the filioque) during the divine liturgy.I must be thinking of a different creed. The one you have quoted above is not the one that is usually recited in a liturgical context, is it.
Apostles' Creed said:I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified died and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God, the Father almighty. From thence he will come to judge the living and the dead.
And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
Thank you, I'm aware of the broad differences across the spectrum of Protestantism. But, McGilchrist put it this way: : "In the subsequent unfolding of events, however, Luther could be seen as a somewhat tragic figure. He was himself tolerant, conservative, his concern being for authenticity, and a return to experience, as opposed to reliance on authority. His attitude to the place of images in worship and in the life of the Church was balanced and reasonable: his target was not images themselves (which he actually endorsed and encouraged) but precisely the functionalist abuse of images, images which he thought should be reverenced. Yet despite this, he found himself unleashing forces of destruction that were out of his control, forces which set about destroying the very things he valued, forces against which he inveighed finally without effect. Describing the fanaticism of the time, 'I have seen them return from hearing the sermon, as if inspired by an evil spirit', wrote Erasmus, 'the faces of all showing a curious wrath and ferocity.'Yes well FWIW Lutherans don't "toss out" iconography, introits, chants, bodily gestures in worship, incense, vestments, the Eucharist, etc. That being said, we did say that they were not "infallible" or binding on us or our practices, so perhaps you have a point. And of course, many protestants threw them out entirely, but don't lump us all together, as easy as it is
That said, I find the rest of your post very helpful and informative. Why do you think the western world placed such an emphasis on left-brain thinking, logic, etc.? Did we just embrace neoplatonism more, perhaps? Augustine was certainly a platonist, but so was Gregory Nazianzus so I'd be interested to hear what you think.
Yeah, I would agree with your assessment of Luther. I (saying this as someone who is still Lutheran) view the reformation as a tragedy, not because it was unnecessary, but because of what it caused. I know Luther himself wrote on numerous occasions that "the truth lies with the Greeks", etc. -- he almost always appealed to the practice of the Orthodox when defending himself against papal accusations; there was a dialogue between the East and Lutherans in the late 16th century, but I think that occurred too late in the reformation, and the lutherans that we had in that dialogue were not who I would have sent if I'd been alive back thenThank you, I'm aware of the broad differences across the spectrum of Protestantism. But, McGilchrist put it this way: : "In the subsequent unfolding of events, however, Luther could be seen as a somewhat tragic figure. He was himself tolerant, conservative, his concern being for authenticity, and a return to experience, as opposed to reliance on authority. His attitude to the place of images in worship and in the life of the Church was balanced and reasonable: his target was not images themselves (which he actually endorsed and encouraged) but precisely the functionalist abuse of images, images which he thought should be reverenced. Yet despite this, he found himself unleashing forces of destruction that were out of his control, forces which set about destroying the very things he valued, forces against which he inveighed finally without effect. Describing the fanaticism of the time, 'I have seen them return from hearing the sermon, as if inspired by an evil spirit', wrote Erasmus, 'the faces of all showing a curious wrath and ferocity.'
... in Luther's case, I would say the original impulse, towards authenticity, came from the right hemisphere, but quickly became annexed to the agenda of the left hemisphere. Not by a revolutionary inversion, but by a slippage of meaning which repays attention..." (Iain McGilchrist, "The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Modern World"; Yale University Press, 2009.)
You asked me what I think the reason is that the Western world developed a stronger left hemisphere bias. Firstly, it is crucial to know that no part of humanity is in any way separate from the whole, so what westerners do has an impact on all, either directly or indirectly. So my answer will be concerning the direction, over time, of the whole world: what happened in the west, and consequently the whole world, has been in accordance with the design of the evil one, whose "mystery of lawlessness" (2 Thessalonians 2:7) is always trending humanity toward total depravity of Divinity, through the collective and comprehensive temptation of all human persons to become and remain slaves of sin. So, it is just as the prophets and Apostles prophesied: man will grow more and more evil, until the time when the number of God's elect is fulfilled. Then the end of this world, along with its evil ruler, will come.
Oh that's really interesting. I hadn't heard that about the line in the Athanasian. That'd be very noteworthy if trueI think the NPNF actually lists the Athanasian Creed as a legit Orthodox Creed, only without the Filioque portion, which is interesting. it implies that was a later addition probably to refute Arianism. dunno if that is true, but it is something to think about
Yeah, as an academic that's definitely something I can fall guilty of. Too often I push prayer, etc. to the side so that I can do more academic reading and research (I'm not talking about meditations on Scripture!). And while research certainly isn't bad to do, prayer is definitely more helpful to my spiritual life... Lord have mercy on me!Right brain/left brain. For those kinds of knowledge which have turned out to be true, it still makes me wonder.
When I first came into the Church I was very much about reading, studying, learning, theology. To be honest I think that had grown to dominate my spirituality as I was exposed to more radical Pentecostalism and rejected what I deemed to be errors there.
But I well remember the real pulling up short and refocusing the Church gave me once I was admitted to the Sacraments. Prayer, Sacraments, and living my life AS Orthodox loomed large, and while study and theology was still important to me, it was moved into proper balance, I think.
It was really refreshing in a sense, restoring something similar to what I experienced after my serious conversion as an adult. (And even times as a child ... in a way I sought God from very early on, just in a VERY uninformed way.)
It just seems related to me. I still need course corrections.
As information. {I don;t usually quote myself but in this case it's easierI know Luther himself wrote on numerous occasions that "the truth lies with the Greeks", etc. -- he almost always appealed to the practice of the Orthodox when defending himself against papal accusations; there was a dialogue between the East and Lutherans in the late 16th century, but I think that occurred too late in the reformation, and the lutherans that we had in that dialogue were not who I would have sent if I'd been alive back then
the pdf fileThe Protestant Reformation and the Orthodox Christian East by Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou, Ph.D. was the topic on Fr. Barnabus Powell's podcast (Faith Encouraged) last night.
Fr. Panayiotis presented the paper in Germany on the Occasion of the 500-Year Anniversary of the Reformation.
It's a Historical Survey and Study of the Communications between the Reformers
and the Patriarchs Joasaph II and Jeremias II.
It's available on the Faith Encouraged link.
You can hear the discussion and caller questions here: Faith Encouraged Live.
Just sharing something I found interesting.
Thanks! I'll give that a listen. I remember seeing your post and bookmarking the presentation, but I don't know if I ever got around to listening or reading. (If I did, I didn't pay much attention and don't remember what they said...)
Oh that's really interesting. I hadn't heard that about the line in the Athanasian. That'd be very noteworthy if true
and even the more Latin, as opposed to German, West stood against the Filioque for many years as well.
Indeed! In fact all the Popes resisted the insertion of tha Filioque in the Creed up until 1009. In that year the first Frankish Pope was elected. Coincidence?!
I don't have many insights to speak of regarding what the Anti-Christ would be. There have been many anti-Christs (lower case "a"), and these are those who taught destructive heresies. The beast, however, we can assume will have the ability to work "great signs and wonders", but by the power of the evil one, and not for good, but for evil.Yeah, I would agree with your assessment of Luther. I (saying this as someone who is still Lutheran) view the reformation as a tragedy, not because it was unnecessary, but because of what it caused. I know Luther himself wrote on numerous occasions that "the truth lies with the Greeks", etc. -- he almost always appealed to the practice of the Orthodox when defending himself against papal accusations; there was a dialogue between the East and Lutherans in the late 16th century, but I think that occurred too late in the reformation, and the lutherans that we had in that dialogue were not who I would have sent if I'd been alive back then
Anywho that's neither here nor there. I like your explanation on the trend of the west/world of overemphasis on logic, etc. I guess we could say that this is the same thing that caused scholasticism.
I also wonder -- the antichrist is going to act as Christ, naturally (that's what the etymology of the word is, at least). So I guess it makes sense that the antichrist is going to be the antilogos: replace the Logos (who is Christ) but make it seem as though this didn't happen. I wouldn't say that this occurs with the Lutheran sola scriptura (because Scripture truly is the Word, so that'd be creating a divide in the Trinity and/or calling Christ Satan, which is obviously false), but with rationalism, scholasticism, etc.
I dunno, this is starting to seem like a stretch. Maybe I'm going too far... Eh, oh well. Thoughts?
I don't have many insights to speak of regarding what the Anti-Christ would be. There have been many anti-Christs (lower case "a"), and these are those who taught destructive heresies. The beast, however, we can assume will have the ability to work "great signs and wonders", but by the power of the evil one, and not for good, but for evil.
Just FYI, we (when I was AoG) accepted the Nicene Creed. I had to memorize the Nicene Creed during my Missionettes classes there (classes for teaching faith to the girls). We also had a Statement of faith which used the Nicene Creed as one of it's sources. It does however use the Western version with the filioque. See Assemblies of God (USA) Official Web Site | Assemblies of God 16 Fundamental Truths for the references to the Nicene Creed. Of course, there is a lot I disagree with, but I don't want them to be misrepresented.It's curious though because the Pentecostals don't use creeds (which opens the door to all sorts of error obviously), so I wonder if their overemphasis is a direct result of the filioque or simply because they reject creeds...
Just FYI, we (when I was AoG) accepted the Nicene Creed. I had to memorize the Nicene Creed during my Missionettes classes there (classes for teaching faith to the girls). We also had a Statement of faith which used the Nicene Creed as one of it's sources. It does however use the Western version with the filioque. See Assemblies of God (USA) Official Web Site | Assemblies of God 16 Fundamental Truths for the references to the Nicene Creed. Of course, there is a lot I disagree with, but I don't want them to be misrepresented.
Honestly- and many don't believe this - I found many things from the AoG beliefs that I could connect to Orthodoxy. A lot of things just made sense. Soteriology actually wasn't that tough to change (relatively...once I learned the language) - though I still struggle with some elements, especially in explaining it. We had the Holiness Wesleyan influence, which is synergistic. Anyways, we had lots of training to learn things like that - such the Our Fundamental Truths which draw from the Nicene Creed and the Nicene Creed itself. I'm not sure what it is like now ten years later, but we didn't reject all elements of the Church. We even used to celebrate Pentecost Sunday though I guess that makes a bit of sense. It was on the Church Calendar date for Pentecostal Sunday though.that's interesting, because in my time as an evangelical, the creed was "no creed but Christ." which of course, every Creed from the earliest of times is about Christ.
Lol when I got to the end and saw my name ... yes, I was thinking as I read it that I could relate.Honestly- and many don't believe this - I found many things from the AoG beliefs that I could connect to Orthodoxy. A lot of things just made sense. Soteriology actually wasn't that tough to change (relatively...once I learned the language) - though I still struggle with some elements, especially in explaining it. We had the Holiness Wesleyan influence, which is synergistic. Anyways, we had lots of training to learn things like that - such the Our Fundamental Truths which draw from the Nicene Creed and the Nicene Creed itself. I'm not sure what it is like now ten years later, but we didn't reject all elements of the Church. We even used to celebrate Pentecost Sunday though I guess that makes a bit of sense. It was on the Church Calendar date for Pentecostal Sunday though.
I think ~Anastasia~ can also vouch for this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?