I wish to apologize

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟38,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
You may need to explain a little further what you're wanting to convey here. ;)

One can accept the creeds, and these transmit some idea of trinitarianism, but assuming these transmit the original orthodox understanding of trinitarianism appears to fall flat on its face with the many observed attempts to explain trinitarianism gone awry. I've never met anyone who's successfully done it without getting lost in the details or arriving at a metaphor that just doesn't pass the creeds' requirements.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,683
8,019
PA
Visit site
✟1,021,060.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Downhill Prevention!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,175
9,960
The Void!
✟1,132,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
One can accept the creeds, and these transmit some idea of trinitarianism, but assuming these transmit the original orthodox understanding of trinitarianism appears to fall flat on its face with the many observed attempts to explain trinitarianism gone awry. I've never met anyone who's successfully done it without getting lost in the details or arriving at a metaphor that just doesn't pass the creeds' requirements.

I agree. But humanly speaking, it's more than likely that attempts at metaphor and analogy is about the best any of us will ever be able to do in describing something that we can't actually put under the microscope ...
 
Upvote 0

Thatgirloncfforums

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2021
1,823
737
43
Nowhere
✟40,622.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Private
ok however you wish to view it - I was just wondering if you think Luther was wrong on that point... since you are Lutheran.
I attend a Lutheran church but I don't take communion, so I don't consider myself Lutheran per se. I don't know if Luther was right or not
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,918
3,538
✟323,504.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
For instance, with a little study, or better yet, with a lot, we can definitely say that the traditions and conceptual vehicles of the Gospel in A.D. 43 weren't---couldn't have been---identical to what they were in A.D. 343 or even A.D. 1543.
I’d be curious to know what you base that idea on.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Downhill Prevention!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,175
9,960
The Void!
✟1,132,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I’d be curious to know what you base that idea on.

Just lots and lots and lots of reading. But, rather than list a litany of books here, I'd say that we could start with something like (without being exclusively beholden too) the book, A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed - by James D.G. Dunn.

We could begin with this, along with the easily recognizable fact that the Earliest Church of at least the first three decades after the Ascension of our Lord had no canonized New Testament yet written that could be handily referred to by the masses at a moments notice. No, they had, as I'm sure you're already aware of, the testimony held by the rest of the Church and its Apostolic leadership.

And then, in recognizing this, we'd go from there through the rest of the 2,000 year history as it has thus far been ... :cool:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,918
3,538
✟323,504.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Just lots and lots and lots of reading. But, rather than list a litany of books here, I'd say that we could start with something like (without being exclusively beholden too) the book, A New Perspective on Jesus: What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed - by James D.G. Dunn.

We could begin with this, along with the easily recognizable fact that the Earliest Church of at least the first three decades after the Ascension of our Lord had no canonized New Testament yet written that could be handily referred to by the masses at a moments notice. No, they had, as I'm sure you're already aware of, the testimony held by the rest of the Church and its Apostolic leadership.

And then, in recognizing this, we'd go from there through the rest of the 2,000 year history as it has thus far been ... :cool:
The main question involves the core doctrines themselves an whether or not they've changed-I wouldn't expect the church to exist-and survive-in a world such as this one and remain unchanged in appearance and practice. And I'd submit that those teachings haven't changed-in either the eastern or western churches that trace their orgins to the beginning.

Things like baptismal regeneration, infant baptsim, the definition and outworkings of justification, the Eucharist and real presence, whether not one can compromise their justifed state and therefore their salvation, the need for metanoia, repentance, and confession if one does turn to back to the flesh and away from God, the diety of Jesus/the Trinity, God's ultimate plan for man involving theosis/deification-most all of which others, outside of those chruches, often disagree with each other over-or dismiss altogether.

Pomp, cermemony, politics -and human pride, weakness, and sin aside, I suggest that those teachings have survived intact in spite of human failings.
 
Upvote 0

Thatgirloncfforums

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2021
1,823
737
43
Nowhere
✟40,622.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Private
I wasn't aware that doctrines such as the Trinity, Transubstantiation and Justification all of which depend upon Greek thought can trace their origins to the beginning.
The main question involves the core doctrines themselves an whether or not they've changed-I wouldn't expect the church to exist-and survive-in a world such as this one and remain unchanged in appearance and practice. And I'd submit that those teachings haven't changed-in either the eastern or western churches that trace their orgins to the beginning.

Things like baptismal regeneration, infant baptsim, the definition and outworkings of justification, the Eucharist and real presence, whether not one can compromise their justifed state and therefore their salvation, the need for metanoia, repentance, and confession if one does turn to back to the flesh and away from God, the diety of Jesus/the Trinity, God's ultimate plan for man involving theosis/deification-most all of which others, outside of those chruches, often disagree with each other over-or dismiss altogether.

Pomp, cermemony, politics -and human pride, weakness, and sin aside, I suggest that those teachings have survived intact in spite of human failings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,918
3,538
✟323,504.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I wasn't aware that doctrines such as the Trinity, Transubstantiation and Justification all of which depend upon Greek thought can trace their origins to the beginning.
Transubstantiation is a doctrine- whether necessary or not-that's just derived from the knowledge of the real presence, which itself is debated among sola scriptura devotees. Arians employed Scripture as did the church in her arguments and determination against Arianism at Nicaea but the church also referenced her continous understanding of the faith as its always and everwhere been held since the beginning. The basics on justification have been unchanged which ECFs, for example, attest to. The teachings, themselves, don't depend on any language.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Downhill Prevention!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,175
9,960
The Void!
✟1,132,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The main question involves the core doctrines themselves an whether or not they've changed-I wouldn't expect the church to exist-and survive-in a world such as this one and remain unchanged in appearance and practice.
True, it's a norm to see ideas morph through derivative thinking within and through the bastions of different cultures, languages, and then, too, among individuals who think and work within those social influences.

However, where Christianity is concerned, I tend to think that from the ways in which doctrines are either alluded to or specified by writers in the New Testament, we would only expect just so much 'morphing' of the ideas enveloping the teaching which Jesus delivered to His Church. We might even be on guard against the allowance of too much morphing, even if at the same time, we expect that there remains room for further Christian thinking on certain teachings.

And I'd submit that those teachings haven't changed-in either the eastern or western churches that trace their orgins to the beginning.
Ok. You're free to think that, and being that you and I discern our respective views on the Christian faith from different praxes and/or focal points of Christian Tradition, it goes without saying that we're going to see things a little differently, I'm sure. Personally, unlike some other Christians, I'm more or less "ok" with this.

Things like baptismal regeneration, infant baptsim, the definition and outworkings of justification, the Eucharist and real presence, whether not one can compromise their justifed state and therefore their salvation, the need for metanoia, repentance, and confession if one does turn to back to the flesh and away from God, the diety of Jesus/the Trinity, God's ultimate plan for man involving theosis/deification-most all of which others, outside of those chruches, often disagree with each other over-or dismiss altogether.
Sure. But I'd propose that the disagreements we find among Christian denominations and different traditions stems from various historical, philosophical, and hermeneutical factors that have arisen among Christians at various times over the past two millennia, some of which were afforded by the fact that Jesus, His Apostles and the Earliest disciples of the 1st century church didn't address every conceptual or social problem that any and every human being could ever face in the ongoing living of life.

On the other hand, some of the disagreements have come about because--let's face it--someone, somewhere went a little too far in applying and vouching for their own derivative interpretations of the faith. Obviously, some derivations (like the concept of the Trinity) seem to have proven to be very workable and reflective of our mental archaeology regarding what we think are the teachings of the first century brethren; other derivations may be the outcomes of human imagination working on either very paltry New Testament allusions.... or cases were individuals were merely reaching through otherwise indiscernible allusions, however biblical they were thought to be, to which some leader(s) in the Church thought an answer needed to be provided.

Pomp, cermemony, politics -and human pride, weakness, and sin aside, I suggest that those teachings have survived intact in spite of human failings.
Ok. I'm more or less in accordance with you on these things, and being that you asked what I 'base' my earlier points upon, I hope I've answered your earlier question in a way that provides 'why' I think the way I do.

Be Blessed in Christ!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,918
3,538
✟323,504.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It's this that I wonder about. Doesn't language and thought go hand in hand; I speak as I think?
I may not be sure where your going with this but the concepts of our faith are adequately expressible in any language.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Michie
Upvote 0

Thatgirloncfforums

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2021
1,823
737
43
Nowhere
✟40,622.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Private
I may not be sure where your going with this but the concepts of our faith are adequately expressible in any language.
If this is true then why does everyone appeal to the original languages for clarification?
(I'm just musing. I don't have a goal. )
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,918
3,538
✟323,504.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If this is true then why does everyone appeal to the original languages for clarification?
(I'm just musing. I don't have a goal. )
Any scholarship in those areas is worthwhile of course, but to say that the concepts cannot be adeqately translated into other languages by translators who first of all correctly understand the concepts involved might be to say that God only targets those who can understand the original languages to be saved. The apostles were often already translating as they preached.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Site Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,445
5,300
✟827,313.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I attend a Lutheran church but I don't take communion, so I don't consider myself Lutheran per se. I don't know if Luther was right or not
Have you ever read the book of Concord? Luther/Melanchthon were not always right, but the Word of God is. Confessional Lutheranism, in the light of Scripture, is about as compliant with the Bible as we can be. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are valid as well; but from my confessional Lutheran perspective, in light of the Bible as explained in the unaltered 1580 Book of Concord, I can only remain steadfastly Lutheran.
 
Upvote 0

Thatgirloncfforums

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2021
1,823
737
43
Nowhere
✟40,622.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Private
Have you ever read the book of Concord? Luther/Melanchthon were not always right, but the Word of God is. Confessional Lutheranism, in the light of Scripture, is about as compliant with the Bible as we can be. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are valid as well; but from my confessional Lutheran perspective, in light of the Bible as explained in the unaltered 1580 Book of Concord, I can only remain steadfastly Lutheran.
Must Lutherans believe that the office of the Pope is the office of the antiChrist:

Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope | Book of Concord
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Site Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,445
5,300
✟827,313.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Must Lutherans believe that the office of the Pope is the office of the antiChrist:

Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope | Book of Concord
Well, some do. Most recognize that Pope Leo at the time of Luther was "an" anti-Christ, but not "The" anti-Christ. Lets look at the Treatise, the first part:

You are here: Home / Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope
Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope
Doctors and Preachers
1 The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

2 Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

3 And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

4 These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

OK, Melancthon in 1, 2, 3 pulled together the three things that Scripture outline as identifiers of "The Antichrist"; how many really apply today? Number one; yes; number 2, not at all; number three, well the Catechism of the Catholic Church does, but not the last Popes after John XXIII.

So, is the present Pope the Anti-Christ? No more than the President of the LCMS, LCC or the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Downhill Prevention!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,175
9,960
The Void!
✟1,132,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That sounds nice, superficially, but such an ideal church suffers from the not inconsiderable problem that it doesn’t actually exist. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church still exists, but a series of unfortunate schisms have resulted in division, so you have the four ancient churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East), some minor schisms from the Eastern churches (almost entirely in protest of ill-advised changes to the liturgy; these chiefly include the Russian Old Believers and the Greek, Romanian and other Old Calendarists), and resulting from a period of severe corruption in the Roman church lasting from the Great Schism until the admirable Counter Reformation under Pope Pius V, which started to become progressively worse in the late 13th century with the dreaded Inquisition and subsequently, the decadence of the Avignon Papacy and the Borgias, we saw the emergence of the Magisterial Protestants such as Luther, Cranmer and Calvin.

Of these three, the Lutherans and Anglicans in particular, as well as the Anglican-descended Methodists, and the liturgical Presbyterian adherents of what is known as Mercersburg Theology, who are sometimes called Scoto-Catholics, have done an admirable job, in my opinion, preserving the Apostolic faith. Interestingly, two of the earliest reformers, St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague, who desired a restoration of vernacular liturgy and communion in both kinds, which had been lost when Austria conquered the Czech lands, and imposed the Roman Rite*, were the original founders of the second oldest Protestant denomination**, and the oldest non-Calvinist Protestant denomination, the Moravians, and are also venerated as saints in the Eastern Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.


So, basically any of the churches whose members identify with the spirit of the Traditional Theology

*after the subsequent Union of Brest-Litovsk and the Counter Reformation, this would not have happened, in that the Roman Catholic Church under the good leadership of bishops like Pope Pius V and Carlos Borromeo the bishop of Milan ceased to impose changes in liturgical rite, and instead developed the Eastern Catholic Churches, and by 1911 a full equivalence of rite was at least in theory and in the view of Pope Pius X the official position; one of the few good things to come out of Vatican II in my opinion was that this was finally delivered on, and the various changes to the Eastern Rite liturgies, which most liturgical scholars call Latinizations, but which I prefer to call Romanizations, as they represented the imposition of practices specifically from the Roman Rite, and were also applied to other Western Latin liturgical rites, like the Ambrosian Rite and the Dominican Rite, were mostly removed from the various Eastern Catholic liturgical rites, although unfortunately not from the other Western rites; indeed the Dominican Rite came very close to disappearing and there was a time when the Carmelite Rite was disused, and in Portugal, the traditional Rite of Braga is seriously endangered.

** The oldest Protestant denomination is the Vaudois, or Waldensians, which started as a group of unsanctioned friars similiar to the Lollards of England, around the same time, but they were much more successful, organizing into a church in Southeast France. In the 16th century, following the horrifying massacre of 15,000 Vaudois men, women and children in Piedmont, through which they had been promised safe passage, the surviving Vaudois settled in Switzerland and embraced Reformed Calvinist theology, and there is at least one Waldensian parish in the Presbyterian Church, USA. In Europe, the Vaudois returned to Italy and recently merged with the Methodists to create the largest Protestant church in Italy. However, anyone hoping for a primitive Protestant church is in for a disappointment, as the Waldensians are essentially a Reformed church along Continental European lines, which also now embraces Methodist as well as Calvinist positions, much like the United Church of Canada or the Uniting Church in Australia.

Nah. I'll just stick with what I've written in this thread so far. But thanks for all of that anyway.
 
Upvote 0