Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus…..Outside The Church There Is No Salvation !!!!

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Our theology is what has been revealed and handed down. Logic plays no part in it.

I don't think you should be playing the same distinctions as Gregoire is between Logic and Theology. Theology is logical discussion and speculation on the nature of God, it requires logic. The Church Fathers were philosophers as well as theologians, for the most part.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

Our theology is what has been revealed and handed down. Logic plays no part in it.

Fathers are not apostles nor prophets.
But I trust you, when you said that logic plays no part in your theology...

 

[topcare]

If we believe that Jesus-Christ rose again from death, ACCORDING TO the scriptures, I cannot understand, if we admit the canonical book list's existence, how we can deny for Gospel, what it's necessary for his base, the resuscitation: the "juxta scriptura"?...

Scripture did not always exist and frankly I don't need Scripture to tell me that Christ is among the living and reigning. As a Traditional Christian I ove the Scripture and Tradition but I do not worship Scripture

 

[prodromos]

I don't think you should be playing the same distinctions as Gregoire is between Logic and Theology. Theology is logical discussion and speculation on the nature of God, it requires logic. The Church Fathers were philosophers as well as theologians, for the most part.

We have a different understanding of Theology in the Orthodox Church, in fact only three Saints of the Church have been given the title of Theologian.

They are:
St John the Evangelist;
St Gregory of Nazianzus; and
St Symeon the New Theologian.

For the Orthodox, a Theologian is a man who prays.

 

[topcare]

If "Scripture" - meaning "New Testament Scripture" is the basis and foundation for everything - then what did the early Church do in the first decades of its existence, before those Scriptures had been written? It was apparently alive and growing and being firmly established in the Faith.

Exactly

 

[~Anastasia~]

Firstly, I don't care about the Fathers, but about logic.

Really?

You care nothing about what the Apostles taught and handed down, but would rather base what you believe on logical reasoning?

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

Really?

You care nothing about what the Apostles taught and handed down, but would rather base what you believe on logical reasoning?

Quote all my writings, if you want, but don't try to discredit me by lying...

 

[~Anastasia~]

Quote all my writings, if you want, but don't try to discredit me by lying...

Forgive me. I thought you directly said - what I quoted. I don't know why you accuse me of lying. I admit, I was very surprised by your statement - that you cared nothing about the Fathers (do you know who we mean when we say that?) and that you only care about logic.

I know one of the four "legs" of Anglicanism is reason, for example. But I've never heard anyone say what you did, which is why I asked.

I'm not trying to discredit you, I'm trying to understand.

Though forgive me, I see what I said can seem unkind. I was just really surprised by what you said. This is what it implies to me.

 

[topcare]

So you didn't say:

Firstly, I don't care about the Fathers, but about logic.

What was it Aliens that stole your keyboard and typed it? It is not right that you accuse one of the most outstanding members of lying when she did not and that can get you reported.

 

[~Anastasia~]

So you didn't say:



What was it Aliens that stole your keyboard and typed it? It is not right that you accuse one of the most outstanding members of lying when she did not and that can get you reported.

Thank you, Topcare. This is very kind of you to speak on my behalf.

However, if I may ... our friend is new to CF, and might not be fully aware of the focus of various boards. I may have misunderstood, but it might also be that English is not his primary language. We might have had a miscommunication, so please, all of us, myself included, I pray we can be charitable. I know I might be a bit challenged myself by the current liturgical season.

(I'm not at all chastising you, Topcare - you are of course right that accusing a member of lying is not appropriate. I'm just taking a bit of liberty since I am the object, so perhaps I can ask that we not be too hasty. )

Perhaps something else was meant by the post that surprised me so much. Perhaps he thought by "Fathers" we meant random priests, and not the very Fathers of the faith.

At any rate, forgive me all, please, for my hasty reply. Perhaps you would like to explain what you did mean then, Gregoire de Nazianze, so that we don't misunderstand you. Or perhaps not, and we should just let it drop.

However, being that this is a board devoted to Traditional Theology, I hope you will forgive me for being a bit surprised at what sounded like a dismissal of the Fathers of the Faith (which certainly includes the Apostles and their direct successors). But perhaps that isn't what you meant.

Peace, all.

 

[Hoghead1]

I understand your point abut the Nicene Creed and also Scripture. However, I am curious why you consider both of these to be inerrant. The Nicene Creed, important as sit is, leaves much to be desired on many key points. And to me the notion of an inerrant Scripture is simply outmoded by modern literary studies.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

We have a different understanding of Theology in the Orthodox Church, in fact only three Saints of the Church have been given the title of Theologian.

They are:
St John the Evangelist;
St Gregory of Nazianzus; and
St Symeon the New Theologian.

For the Orthodox, a Theologian is a man who prays.

There is a distinction between the Appalation "Theologian" which is reserved for these three and the colloquial usage of the term to denote a specialist in the Orthodox religious tradition. I really was just referring to those who were specialist and authorities on theological matters as well as philosophical matters in the early Church.

 

[Anhelyna]

May I go back a wee bittie ?

I think that Gregoire de Nazianze's first language is French - am I correct ?

Up thread someone comments on his use of Resuscitation instead of Resurrection.

This rang a few bells with me

Prodromos , and Kylissa and all our EC and Orthodox posters are aware of the Paschal Greeting in various languages - a tradition of the East.

I'll give a few examples

"Christus is opgestaan!" and the response is "Ja, hij is waarlijk opgestaan!" [ Dutch]
"Christ is risen!" and the response is "Indeed He is risen!" [ English]
"Christos anesti!" and the response is " Alithos anesti!" [ Greek]
"Le Christ est réssuscité!" and the response is " En verite il est réssuscité!" [ French]

Now let's please hear less of the correction of resuscitation. I wish my French was as good as his English

 

[Mary7]

I have read nothing but the first post and just want to say... I guess it boils down to WHAT you base your salvation upon.
A church? Or a PERSON who shed his blood on the cross for the remission of sins.
Was the thief on the cross a member of the 'church'? Is a person on his deathbed who cries out for forgiveness and salvation going to be denied because he is not a member of the Catholic church? Anyone believing the Catholic church is the means of their salvation needs to reexamine their salvation.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I have read nothing but the first post and just want to say... I guess it boils down to WHAT you base your salvation upon.
A church? Or a PERSON who shed his blood on the cross for the remission of sins.
Was the thief on the cross a member of the 'church'? Is a person on his deathbed who cries out for forgiveness and salvation going to be denied because he is not a member of the Catholic church? Anyone believing the Catholic church is the means of their salvation needs to reexamine their salvation.

When you believe that Christ is fully and entirely present in the Eucharist you begin to think that it really does matter what sort of church you belong to. When you don't buy into the nonsense of modern individualism you may begin to think of Christ's presence within a community, a broad, universal, historical community to be something of great importance. When you piece these things together you may begin to think that the PERSON who shed his blood and rose from the dead and the Church who heard his call to discipleship and his great commission are actually moving towards the same general area... ;-)

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

So you didn't say:



What was it Aliens that stole your keyboard and typed it? It is not right that you accuse one of the most outstanding members of lying when she did not and that can get you reported.

Very funny...
But, this sentence was a response to an answer. I didn't mean that I despised Fathers, my name said the contrary. No, in fact, inside theology, we must be logic, with the matter, before going to quote Fathers. That's the meaning of this incriminated sentence. Since I 'm here, in this forum, unfortunately, I didn't learn only English...

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

I understand your point abut the Nicene Creed and also Scripture. However, I am curious why you consider both of these to be inerrant. The Nicene Creed, important as sit is, leaves much to be desired on many key points. And to me the notion of an inerrant Scripture is simply outmoded by modern literary studies.

Only gnostic doesn't literally profess the creed, that's matter of faith, not of reason. Orthodox protestant theology, not fundamentalism, teaches us that he Bible is the TRIUNE GOD's word. So, we must have before a definition of who's God. That's the reason why I said that the unaltered Nicene creed is the word of God, ACCORDING TO the scriptures, ALONE-SOLA. The Nicene creed and scriptures have some kind of dialectical relashionship, this the meaning of the principle: "lex orandi/lex credendi", we pray what we believe and reciprocally (Rom.10/13-17). So, they are both God's testimony to the Unique word of God, Jesus-Christ, Bible is rule, creed, authorized explanation. The demonstration of this truth is showed by duration, according to Ac.5/33-42, Heb.13/8-9, Jd.3, Eph.4/4-7 et cetera. That is the ultimate reason I reject fundamentalism and also liberalism, even Barth himself, which was a gnostic, through his attitude before the Nicene creed.

 

[Gregoire de Nazianze]

I have read nothing but the first post and just want to say... I guess it boils down to WHAT you base your salvation upon.
A church? Or a PERSON who shed his blood on the cross for the remission of sins.
Was the thief on the cross a member of the 'church'? Is a person on his deathbed who cries out for forgiveness and salvation going to be denied because he is not a member of the Catholic church? Anyone believing the Catholic church is the means of their salvation needs to reexamine their salvation.

That's true that only Christ saves us. But, who's Christ? Which Bible? So, this is important to understand church history, because the Holy Ghost creates and preserves the church. So, what is the church? The church is God's people, gathered around the name of Jesus ( Mt.18/19-20, I Cor.12/3, IJn.4/1-4, Lc.22/19 etc...). So that, we must know what is the continual CHURCH's testimony about Christ. This testimony consists, MINIMALLY, in the canonical books' list of the Bible and the original Nicene creed, agreed by all the church, as the WCC admitted it, in other things. But, more convincingly, this is the historical duration of these two texts, according to Ac.5/33-42, Heb.13/8-9, Jd.3, Eph.4/4-7, which keeps the true understanding of God's revelation. This is the reason why Church testimony's is so important, for salvation. Because, how can you know Christ, without the universal testimony of the church ( Rom.10/13-17, ITim.3/15 or Mt.24/4-31)?

 

[Mary7]

When you believe that Christ is fully and entirely present in the Eucharist you begin to think that it really does matter what sort of church you belong to. When you don't buy into the nonsense of modern individualism you may begin to think of Christ's presence within a community, a broad, universal, historical community to be something of great importance. When you piece these things together you may begin to think that the PERSON who shed his blood and rose from the dead and the Church who heard his call to discipleship and his great commission are actually moving towards the same general area... ;-)

None of that is necessary for salvation other than He died for our sins and I believe and accept that and turn my life over to Him. We are not to add works to His finished work.

 

[~Anastasia~]

None of that is necessary for salvation other than He died for our sins and I believe and accept that and turn my life over to Him. We are not to add works to His finished work.

The understanding that Christ died FOR THE CHURCH (which yes, is made up of Christians) is a huge topic that takes time to understand, and probably can't be covered within this thread.

I'm not trying to shut down discussion - my point is just that it's like people using the same words but speaking two different languages. There is a huge communication/understanding gap in what is meant here. I just wanted to point that out.