Reason, Intellect, and Understanding in Orthodoxy and Western Christianity

[Targaryen]

Hello all,

In this thread on the differences in the approach to the Eucharist in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, some of the posts from our Western Christian friends seem to show an understanding of Orthodoxy that supposes that Orthodoxy treats reason as something bad, or to be neglected, or to be mocked if someone should find some use of it.

I do not think that this is at all the case, and I believe that such things are a result of misunderstanding the emphasis in Orthodoxy vis-a-vis Western Christianity, such that the Westerners are "scholastic" while the Orthodox are "mystical" or whatever you'd like to call it. As easy as that is to say, I think it's much harder to substantiate in a way that makes sense to the Western Christian (if you're Orthodox and looking at Western Christianity) or to the Orthodox (if you're a Western Christian and looking at Orthodoxy), so it seems that we spend an awful lot of time talking past each other because we do not necessarily understand or connect with where the person from another tradition is coming from.

With that in mind, I thought it might be good to share things from our own traditions that address the mind, the intellect, understanding, and reason. My purpose here is only to show that, no, Orthodoxy is not in any way predicated on a deprecation of such things, only a different emphasis that is not dependent on them in exactly the same fashion as in certain forms of Western Christianity. I do not wish to denigrate Western Christianity, and would appreciate it if anyone posting here would not take this as an opportunity to do so.

As I am Coptic Orthodox, I will be offering examples from my own Church and communion. I welcome others to offer their own examples from their own.

+++

First I will point out something that is kind of a formulaic introduction by a certain point in medieval Coptic writings in Arabic, as you can find in, for example, books like Ibn Kabar's (14th century) The Lamp that Lights the Darkness in Clarifying the Service, which begins "Glory be to God who enlightens the minds, and guides the souls by His proof, and
cleanses the understanding by the teachings of his Church; and educates the intellect with the sciences of His laws..." (and on and on like this).

Earlier examples of similar preambles, such as is found in the great bishop Severus El Ashmunein (Severus Ibn Al Muqaffa') in his Lamp of the Intellect (10th century) appear to likewise take it as a given that God directly enlightens us to know what we may know, but do not necessarily mention proofs and sciences. HG writes, after bringing many examples from the scriptures of what he intends to prove (as a defense of the faith against the charges of those outside of the Church), "I have entreated God, blessed and exalted be His name, and I have told you what has been made known to me; I have informed you of that which I have been successful in [attempting] to understand and know. If it is right, it is from the Holy Spirit speaking through our mouths, and uttering by means of our tongues; and if it is wrong, it is our shortcoming, weakness, error, and heedlessness. But do not take offense at our error, and may our fault not be gross in your eyes. Be content with what we have set forth for you, for we have laboured, explained, condensed and expounded, and have refrained from arguing each point and refuting [our] opponents, for these things are mentioned in the books which are suitable for them; and from God comes success and support."

And earlier than either of these, and from the Syriac Orthodox rather than the Coptic tradition, we have the very interesting preamble to A Homily on the Blessed Mar Severus, Patriarch of Antioch by Mar George, Bishop of the Arabs (d. 724). It is interesting to consider that this is a hagiographical work, which you may conceivably think does not require a great recourse to anything outside of the received tradition concerning the saint in question, and yet its opening paragraphs contain the following prayer to the Lord Jesus Christ:

Behold, I dare to measure the waters of the sea in my hands, although the hollow of my hand could not even contain a cup of water. Now I plan to count the sand of the sea, although I am not clever in the counting of all the seas. Behold, I dare to measure in the palms of my hands the dust of the earth, although my palms cannot hold even a pound of soil. I am trying to count with my fingers the stars of the heights, although I have only ten fingers on my hands.

Lord of the Universe, of the seas and of the earth and also of the sky, my trust is in You; help me as You are accustomed to do; Oh He who perfects His strength in the weak, as He said, perfect Your strength in me, and I shall be made strong by You for the narration.
​

+++

What if anything can be made of these short examples, three among tens of thousands, concerning the attitude of those in these traditions towards the intellect, reason, and understanding? In all three it is by the direct intervention and guidance of God that we are capable of knowing or doing anything, whether that is by the "proofs" and "sciences" of Ibn Kabar, the measured successes and crowning humility of Severus El Ashmunein, or the daring reliance on the strength of God displayed by Mar George, who compares even speaking of the blessedness of his predecessor of some centuries to every impossible thing he can think of. And there is in these a sense of limitation, that the Lord should set before His holy ones that which may only be accomplished in their unceasing prayers to Him, and reliance directly upon Him, and their use as His instrument ("...speaking through our mouths, and uttering by means of our tongues").

Intellect, understanding, and reason are not necessarily in themselves the/a problem -- they are just not the focus of Christian prayer or life more generally. The focus is on supplication before the Lord and His direct guidance and sustaining of the life of the Church and its shepherds and believers. It is through Him and only Him that we have any understanding whatsoever, as we pray in the litany of the 9th hour prayer of Good Friday in the Coptic tradition "Let my supplication come before You O Lord; give me understanding according to Your word. Let my prayer come before You and revive me according to Your word." The understanding -- the illumination and transformation of our minds -- is according to the word of God, given by Him directly to us, not as mediated according to this or that school of philosophy or principle. (Which is not to say that such philosophical traditions don't exist or are somehow 'bad' for existing; to be sure, they have helped to shape the traditions of Alexandria, Antioch, and so on. But again, these are not to be held up as things; Christ our God is the One who gives light to every man that comes into the world, not "the Alexandrian tradition" as a thing...and I write this as someone of the Alexandrian tradition!)

So I would say that indeed there is a kind of reason(ing) and understanding that is not only accepted in Orthodoxy, but which is essential to the way that we are to live -- reason placed in submission to the Lord, and understanding following from that which He gives to us in response to fervent prayers. All else is at best speculation, and at worse heinous error.

And finally, a hopefully preemptive response to one possible question I could see to this, which would be very reasonable: "Then how do you know when you are receiving such direct guidance, and when you are suffering spiritual delusion/prelest?" Ah, but it is not you or I who receive it as individuals, but all of us who have received it from our fathers, within the bosom of the Church. The job of any one generation is only to guard and pass on, not to discover any 'new truths', even if there were any to discover (which there are not; Christ died upon the holy wood of the cross, He is risen, and He will come again in His glory to judge the living and the dead -- the end). This is why the prayers of the Church are its rule of faith/standard of belief, because the core anaphoras of all received traditions as found in, e.g., the liturgy of St. Basil, St. Cyril (in Greek, St. Mark), St. John Chrysostom, have remained remarkably stable through the centuries, and the Church and her people believe as they pray and pray as they believe. Hence I can pick up the Didache (1st century) and find my faith in it, or the Teaching of St. Gregory the Illuminator (early 4th century), and find my faith in it, or the Letters to the Orthodox in Persia (6th century) and find my faith in them, etc. So if a person will stick to the prayers and traditions of the Church, which are jealously kept to, intellectual pursuits will be given their proper place (i.e., not broaching matters of revelation but in a speculative, non-dogmatized fashion to the extent that such speculation may be allowed, depending on the form it takes and the matters it addresses) as at the most an aide in understanding, never the means to understanding.

Well I think I'm going to jump in and get my feet wet here. and state my own opinion,based more on historical points. But personally, I've never thought Orthodox brethren lack scholarship or reason. I've never found that the case when speaking with any Orthodox follower be it lay to clergy. Nor do I think Orthodox theology is somehow lacking to that compared to the West. I think rather the misunderstanding stretches back to the schism of 1054.

Up till that time, the Church Universal was whole, rooted in the ECF's and witness from Christians East and West for the most part, till the politics of the Primacy of Rome/Constantinople got in the way. After that point, I guess, speaking as one from a Western church background, the Roman Church relied heavily on papal rulings and had to establish strictures that made Roman oversight and thus "just practise" more uniform then maybe was done in the East, as well as a lack of true contact or inter-communion theologically for the most part with the Eastern churches.

Roman authority colored how Western churches seem to view their theology based on this point. Western theology seems to be more based on ensuring proper oversight of theological matters more so then what I think Eastern churches do, not that they don't ensure proper theology themselves but it is off a manner less pronounced I guess is the only word that I think fits, and it might fit badly, depending on how this personal theory of mine is received.

This Roman style of "explaining ourselves" I think colored why there is far more of a need for Western churches, RCC or Protestant to explain their theology, their polity, their oversight so on then say Eastern churches may have to do. This could be a very simplistic way of putting it, but I view the Eastern position as "we practise the true faith received." As in, while there is certainly no lack of scholarship or reason in the East, it's more of not having to generally pull it apart and explain all it's aspects out. In the West, we've done it more then one, the 1054 schism, the Schism that started in 1521 and to this day. Correct me if I'm wrong but, for the most part, Eastern churches did not suffer as much need to re-interpret their theology as the west did? The only case I can think of of a perhaps similar situation in the West is the Old Believers in the Russian Orthodox church and the fallout with Patriarch Nikon?

I hope I explained my view here adequately.

 

[hedrick]

Let me comment from a liberal Protestant perspective.

Both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions have fine scholarship, but it's generally scholarship in service of the tradition.

In the Protestant tradition, in many ways the tradition is built on top of scholarship. That is, the Reformation of the 16th Cent was based on a rational reassessment of at least some of the foundations, resulting in significant changes of the foundations.

A lot of modern Protestantism is conservative, so the relationship has been returned to the Catholic / Orthodox one of scholarship in the context of tradition. It's just a somewhat newer tradition. I think of conservative Protestantism as Protestant Catholicism. However liberal Protestantism is a child of the Enlightenment, and as such continues to be willing to reexamine and if necessary change the foundations.

This brings challenges to us that traditional Orthodox and Catholic thought doesn't have, though modern Catholic scholarship has enough in common with ours to have some of the same issues. That is to make sure that through the evidence as assessed by scholarship, we see Christ speaking, and thus end us as actual followers of Jesus, and not a scholarly seminar.

 

[dzheremi]

Well I think I'm going to jump in and get my feet wet here. and state my own opinion,based more on historical points. But personally, I've never thought Orthodox brethren lack scholarship or reason. I've never found that the case when speaking with any Orthodox follower be it lay to clergy. Nor do I think Orthodox theology is somehow lacking to that compared to the West. I think rather the misunderstanding stretches back to the schism of 1054.

Yeah, maybe it does. I don't really know as much about the 1054 schism as I do the earlier one involving my own Church, but I have heard from a few different sources that the Latin-Greek schism wasn't really solidified until sometime later, c. 13th century, after the sacking of Constantinople in 1204. I'm not sure how true that is, but I think it is probably significant that you don't see really heavy polemical works like Aquinas' Contra Errores Graecorum until around that time (1263, in the case of that particular work). There were definitely earlier pieces of writing that expressed the growing estrangement between the Latins and the Greeks (like the infamous Dictatus Papae, from 1075), but those generally stuck to matters of ecclesiology and the prerogatives of the Roman Pope without really going after the Greeks for their practices that differed from that of the Latins.

Or at least that's how it seems to me as an outsider in communion with neither of you. From what I can tell, the Greeks expressed their reservations with Latin/Roman theological distinctives somewhat earlier (e.g., Patriarch Photios of Constantinople and his disputes with the Latins over the procession of the Holy Spirit in the 9th century), but apparently not in a way that led to an actual schism at the time (though I suppose it could be argued to prefigure one, living as we do in a world where this is all old news and we have the benefit of hindsight).

Up till that time, the Church Universal was whole

Oh. I guess I'll go wait in the car, you guys...

rooted in the ECF's and witness from Christians East and West for the most part, till the politics of the Primacy of Rome/Constantinople got in the way. After that point, I guess, speaking as one from a Western church background, the Roman Church relied heavily on papal rulings and had to establish strictures that made Roman oversight and thus "just practise" more uniform then maybe was done in the East, as well as a lack of true contact or inter-communion theologically for the most part with the Eastern churches.

How true is that, though? I think around this time was the imposition of the more standard Roman Rite on the Mozarabs in Spain, so maybe things became a little more uniform in the Latin world in particular (though the Mozarabic rite was 'allowed' in something like six churches in Toledo, if I recall correctly), but it's also around this time after the Greek-Latin schism that the Crusaders first made contact with the Maronites, who eventually converted to Catholicism from a strange sort of monothelitism. Most of the other Eastern Catholic churches are anywhere from several to many centuries more recent than that, but even outside of those there were various attempts at reunion by Rome with both the Eastern Orthodox and my own Church, most notably at Florence in the 15th century.

There certainly was a lack of communion between the RC and EO for all this time, but I'm not sure how true it was that there was a lack of contact, because obviously Rome got its Eastern churches from somewhere, and the vast majority of those came from the EO world. True lack of contact was the result of the Islamic invasions, e.g., in Egypt (so these tended to effect the OO as a communion more, because they didn't have any European strongholds, by that point), but even that was uneven. I can't remember which Pope it was under (must've been after the 16th century), but one of our popes of Alexandria for a time entrusted Roman Catholic emissaries to carry the mayroon (sorry, don't know the English word for this...chrism?) to Ethiopia from Egypt, as the Roman Catholics at that time were trying to establish their Church in that kingdom following Portuguese assistance to the Ethiopians to repel the Islamic marauders of Ahmed Gragn/El Ghazi. So at least in the case of my own Church (which was much more cut off from contact with Western Christianity than the EO were) there were also instances where contact with Western Christians was not only gratefully established, but a necessity due to the restrictions placed on the native Christians in places like Egypt.

Roman authority colored how Western churches seem to view their theology based on this point. Western theology seems to be more based on ensuring proper oversight of theological matters more so then what I think Eastern churches do, not that they don't ensure proper theology themselves but it is off a manner less pronounced I guess is the only word that I think fits, and it might fit badly, depending on how this personal theory of mine is received.

Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you have any specific examples in mind of how Western ecclesiology affected Western theology? That might help clarify, if you don't mind.

This Roman style of "explaining ourselves" I think colored why there is far more of a need for Western churches, RCC or Protestant to explain their theology, their polity, their oversight so on then say Eastern churches may have to do.

I suppose. I mean, for me personally there's less of an interest in explanations of Roman oversight, as that's never been a thing in my own Church (i.e., we don't have the Coptic Orthodox Pope spending any time or energy explaining why or in what way he should have the right to do XYZ; he either has that right or does not have the right, in accordance with the canons, not the man), than there is for the theological developments of Western Christianity that Westerners themselves categorize as "rational" or "intellectual" in supposed opposition to Eastern Christianity's "mysticism" and therefore I guess irrationality (?). I mean, that's why I started this thread in the first place, because I simply don't believe that to be a true or fair representation of the situation in either direction.

This could be a very simplistic way of putting it, but I view the Eastern position as "we practise the true faith received." As in, while there is certainly no lack of scholarship or reason in the East, it's more of not having to generally pull it apart and explain all it's aspects out. In the West, we've done it more then one, the 1054 schism, the Schism that started in 1521 and to this day. Correct me if I'm wrong but, for the most part, Eastern churches did not suffer as much need to re-interpret their theology as the west did?

I don't know what means, "reinterpret their theology". I mean...certainly the challenges are different. My particular Church deals much more with the challenge of Islam than with other churches, whether Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, or whatever. The West didn't have significant problems with Islam since Lepanto until the modern era (when sadly that is returning). But I don't think that required a reinterpretation of theology. Muslims by and large do not care about or make any attempt understand the differences between the different Christian churches or traditions. El kufr milat wahida, they say. ("disbelief is one nation", i.e., it doesn't really matter the specifics, only that you do not confess Islam.)

That's a pretty different reality than "these other Christians are wrong about XYZ", which is also a feature of all of our backgrounds, purely by virtue of being what we are (so at least implicitly, if not always explicitly); it's just not one that plays a large role in how my own Church does its theology, I guess, so I can't really relate to it. We do have our own polemics against the Chalcedonians (e.g., Dionysius Bar Salibi's anti-Melkite writings), but if there's reinterpretation anywhere, I'd argue it's more along the historical lines than anything theological -- for instance, in the popular Coptic belief that "the Greeks" are something wholly separate from us even while our liturgies are filled with Greek, and have even more Greek hymns nowadays (post-1850s) than they would have had in earlier centuries, and we share something like 13 canons (out of 100+) with the Greeks in Egypt, inherited from our common father St. Basil of Caesarea. Things like that are not really theological arguments, unless you care to squint at them hard enough to make them into one cos you've got nothin' else to do. That's generally not our way, though.

But I suspect that this is something that might be more of a feature of EO-RC relations or broader East-West theological and ritual development than anything I'd be used to. (So I can see why you left the OO out earlier...heh. It makes for a neater narrative, and since we were out of the picture for several centuries by 1054 anyway, there's no real reason not to.)

The only case I can think of of a perhaps similar situation in the West is the Old Believers in the Russian Orthodox church and the fallout with Patriarch Nikon?

Maybe? Perhaps one of our EO compatriots can comment on that, if they wish.

I hope I explained my view here adequately.

I think so. There were some things I didn't quite understand, but probably someone with more knowledge and lived experience of the 1054 schism would know better. I hope they'll respond to you, too.

 

[mark46]

hmmm

You question why Christians, especially Western Christians, use Catholic theology as a standard to compare to? I don't know. I expect much is because in the West, all other churches were formed in contrast to Catholic teaching. I wouldn't expect Roman Catholics to use the Methodist Articles when explaining. It is a matter of numbers, and also the fact that Catholicism makes very detailed statements explaining almost everything.

I think that Orthodox do this as a convenience to Westerners, since Western Christians generally have at a general view of Catholic understandings, although I agree that the views are often incorrect.
===========
There are efforts to avoid this type of discussion. Much of that occurs here. The standard isn't Catholicism. Rather, we look to the Creeds, the Councils and the Fathers of the universal Church.

Occasionally, there are such discussions between different faith communities. Catholics and Orthodox have had such dialog. TEC has had such discussions with several other groups, certainly including Orthodox, Lutheran and Catholic. Lutherans and Catholics have had these discussions. But this type of discussion is extremely difficult, since a common ground must be first established.

I find the joint declarations of these groups to be very interesting. Also, I would note that many parishioners in these groups oppose these discussions and the results of these discussions. I find the discussion of the role of the Bishop Of Rome to be of particular interest (the discussions have been between Roman and Orthodox). I would note that the Russian Orthodox Church does not participate.

Another difference I think and this is probably going off the rails here that I see, and am not sure why this is the case, is that for the most part you see folks feeling the need to contrast their beliefs against Catholic beliefs. I have seen too many posts, that are going along explaining something, and then BAM!!! "The Catholics believe this..., which we don't believe...". I really don't get the need to do this. I can understand if you are talking to Catholics; but Protestants don't know what we believe even though they think they do, and quite honestly there isn't many Orthodox Christians who know what we believe either. The phrase just comes out as saying: "Catholics bad, we good" type of phrase.

The reason why I point this out is that Catholics don't talk this way. We don't really compare ourselves to another Christian Church when discussing theology unless we are discussing directly to a specific faith tradition. I guess we don't feel the need normally. It just makes me scratch my head at times, and ask why.

 

[dzheremi]

Let me comment from a liberal Protestant perspective.

Both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions have fine scholarship, but it's generally scholarship in service of the tradition.

In the Protestant tradition, in many ways the tradition is built on top of scholarship. That is, the Reformation of the 16th Cent was based on a rational reassessment of at least some of the foundations, resulting in significant changes of the foundations.

Hmm. This is is interesting. I would've imagined before reading this that (many? most?) Protestants would've thought of themselves and their churches as returning to the neglected or obscured foundations of early Christianity by peeling away and discarding centuries of accumulated 'traditions' which, in a certain view, are a creation of and in service of Papalism. Is that too stereotypical a view? I have rarely heard or read Protestants who would admit to changing the foundations, as you appear to.

A lot of modern Protestantism is conservative, so the relationship has been returned to the Catholic / Orthodox one of scholarship in the context of tradition. It's just a somewhat newer tradition. I think of conservative Protestantism as Protestant Catholicism. However liberal Protestantism is a child of the Enlightenment, and as such continues to be willing to reexamine and if necessary change the foundations.

This brings challenges to us that traditional Orthodox and Catholic thought doesn't have, though modern Catholic scholarship has enough in common with ours to have some of the same issues. That is to make sure that through the evidence as assessed by scholarship, we see Christ speaking, and thus end us as actual followers of Jesus, and not a scholarly seminar.

Well put. Thank you for your perspective.

 

[Targaryen]

Hmm. This is is interesting. I would've imagined before reading this that (many? most?) Protestants would've thought of themselves and their churches as returning to the neglected or obscured foundations of early Christianity by peeling away and discarding centuries of accumulated 'traditions' which, in a certain view, are a creation of and in service of Papalism. Is that too stereotypical a view? I have rarely heard or read Protestants who would admit to changing the foundations, as you appear to.

I don't think it's stereotypical, in part this is true to an extent. Professor Ryan Reeves of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, whose lectures on theological topics can be found here:Ryan Reeves , has stated that the Reformation really started i earnest with the abuses of the Western Church, specially after the Avignon popes and the corruption of the then Papacy and thus the Church in general terms. I would say it would be less peeling away and discarding traditions, at least in most cases so much as to correct what had been corrupted, even if that required a new way to look at certain foundations, as Hedrick describes it. At least in the way Prof.Reeves explained it and the way, I personally see it.

Hope that makes sense somewhat.

 

[dzheremi]

I would say it would be less peeling away and discarding traditions, at least in most cases so much as to correct what had been corrupted,

That's a better way to put it, I think. Thank you.

even if that required a new way to look at certain foundations, as Hedrick describes it.

I thought Hedrick was arguing that some changes had gone on to the foundations themselves, though. Or is that the same as finding a new way to look at the same foundations?

Anyway, thank you for your post. I will take a look at Professor Reeves' YouTube channel.

 

[hedrick]

Hmm. This is is interesting. I would've imagined before reading this that (many? most?) Protestants would've thought of themselves and their churches as returning to the neglected or obscured foundations of early Christianity by peeling away and discarding centuries of accumulated 'traditions' which, in a certain view, are a creation of and in service of Papalism. Is that too stereotypical a view? I have rarely heard or read Protestants who would admit to changing the foundations, as you appear to.

You're right. But as Targaryen notes, doing so required a new way of thinking.

I know Calvin better than Luther. His major work (the Institutes) is full of quotations and references to the Fathers. He believed he was returning to Scripture, and that in many cases the errors he was correcting were fairly recent, such that earlier writers had gotten it right.

But still, in doing this restoration, he used critical tools. Furthermore, whatever they may have thought, there were aspects of their thought that was new. For Luther, justification was the critical issue. But his understanding of justification has no historical precedent, at least not until you get back to Paul himself. Hence Lutheran theology as a whole has many novel elements, although of course they would maintain that it's based on Paul's teachings. McGrath's history of the doctrine of justification (which pretty much everyone in all theological sides accepts) states flatly that there was no historical precedent for the Protestant idea of justification (excepting possibly Paul himself).

Liberal Christianity also believes that we are returning to Scripture. Our current theology is highly based on recent scholarship about the Jewish background to the NT. We think the development of doctrine for the first few centuries lost much of that, and in reading what was really Jewish thought through Greek lenses, misinterpreted it, or at least translated it into terms that often didn't fully fit the texts they were trying to understand. So despite being based on the best of historical scholarship, we end up producing a kind of theology that hasn't really existed in Christian history.

It turns out that in restoring proper understanding of the roots, you often create something new.

It's worth noting that you rarely see full presentations of modern theology in CF, in part because it's not possible to have a candid discussion of it without violating rules.

 

[hedrick]

Let me comment on the question of whether Protestants admit to changing theology.

One might argue that all the Reformers were doing, or that we are doing, is returning to Scripture, and thus that there's nothing new. But that would be disingenuous. Theology developed for a reason: Lots of questions came up that couldn't be answered simply by quoting Scripture. The authors had various viewpoints, and they often didn't answer the questions that Christians wanted or even needed to answer. So theology developed answers, and in the process frameworks for dealing with questions like that.

That means that both the 16th/17th Cent (for conservative Protestants) and the 19th, 20th and 21st (for us), while intending to restore a Scriptural perspective, did more than just quote Scripture. We constructed frameworks for understanding Scripture and applying it to questions that we needed answered, and thus a new theology.

Of course many Protestants (possibly most that you've heard) will deny this, and say they are simply saying what Scripture says. But when you look at their actual theology, this is clearly naive.

Liberals, like conservatives, will claim to be Scriptural. If you read that claim literally, it doesn't sound like we're saying that our theology is subject to change. But if you look at theological history, it's pretty obvious that there really is a difference in our attitudes towards change. Conservative Protestants (at least the classical ones -- I'm not speaking of novel theologies such as dispensationalism or word of faith) accept confessions from the 16th and 17th as authoritative, and largely fixed. Developments occur, but they are largely details that people outside the movement wouldn't understand.

Liberal Protestants accept critical methodologies in studying both Scripture and theology. Those have developed over time, particularly as we've come to a better understanding of the 1st Cent Jewish background. Because we're committed to using the best current scholarship, our theology does change to some extent. We are specifically not committed to fixed confessions. The amount of change can be exaggerated. There's a surprising amount of continuity between 19th and 21st Cent theology. But still, we do not accept any fixed authority other than Scripture itself, understood using the best historical and theological tools.

 

[mark46]

The amount of change can be exaggerated. There's a surprising amount of continuity between 19th and 21st Cent theology. But still, we do not accept any fixed authority other than Scripture itself, understood using the best historical and theological tools.

This may deserve a separate thread.

Some take for granted the idea that our understanding of Scripture can change as we better understand translations and cultures. For example, many of the stories of Scripture have different meanings when looked at through Middle Eastern eyes. We have a 21st century idea of where animals sleep, and what a manger was. Much of this analysis was developed in Arabic. Much of the analysis is lost.

So-called conservative Protestants have a very strange idea. They believe that they can take their one translation into English and understand perfectly, with no knowledge of Greek or Aramaic, and no understanding of the culture, or what the words meant to the readers in the 1st century. They believe that their English bible speaks for itself, and the Holy Spirit will teach them, without study or scholarship, and certainly no study of the Early Fathers Of The Church.

This is certainly NOT the approach of Calvin and Luther, or of those true to their teachings.

 

[mark46]

Hmm. This is is interesting. I would've imagined before reading this that (many? most?) Protestants would've thought of themselves and their churches as returning to the neglected or obscured foundations of early Christianity by peeling away and discarding centuries of accumulated 'traditions' which, in a certain view, are a creation of and in service of Papalism. Is that too stereotypical a view? I have rarely heard or read Protestants who would admit to changing the foundations, as you appear to.



Well put. Thank you for your perspective.

 

[mark46]

The "fathers" of these denominations did indeed think that there peeling away errors, and were seeking to back to Scripture as it was intended, and they had great scholarship and great respect for the early fathers of the Church. I would put Calvin, Luther and Wesley in that category. Many of their followers do indeed try to follow their teachings and methods. In that sense, they are traditional.

However, IMHO, many Protestants have gone far from the teachings of these three. For example, their view of the eucharist is very different from that of these three. Their memorial service might not even be recognizable as liturgy. I often think of many of their liturgies as prayer services, and fine as that. Many have little use for the Church. Their views of Scripture are sometimes "solo scriptura", rejecting the traditions of the church, including their own, as well as rejecting the Church. Each person or congregation is free to decide doctrine on their own.

 

[Targaryen]

Perhaps we need a new descriptor for Protestants. Cause when I think Protestant, I think of the mainline churches only or better put, churches that can actually uphold the creed and traditional expressions of its theology. Then there are those that can't uphold the Creeds or some facet that differs from even Protestant thought.

 

[hedrick]

It won't surprise you to know that there are several types of Protestantism. Those that maintain the most continuity with the Reformers are either conservative confessional churches (e.g. LCMS for Lutherans, PCA for Reformed), or mainline churches (e.g. ELCA for Lutheran or PCUSA for Reformed), which follow an approach that I've referred to above as liberal. (That may not be how most in CF understand liberal.)

In the US context, "mainline" refers to the liberal branches, plus other churches with similar theology that have less direct historical contact with the Reformers (Methodists, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal, certain of the Quakers, and I would argue, American Catholicism).

But there were a number of renewal movements after the 16th Cent, and many who had new revelations. Each of these resulted in new Protestant traditions, some of them not very different from the Lutheran and Reformed, and some quite different.

Most Protestants believe they have restored Scriptural theology and practice, and most accept basic Reformation ideas such as justification by faith, but they can be quite different in other respects.

 

[Targaryen]

I view mainline to be those that can somewhat uphold the the Ancient Creeds, generally uphold the same interpretations of Scripture, have at least a consistent practice of the Sacraments then I would some others, an example would be WoF.

 

[hedrick]

I view mainline to be those that can somewhat uphold the the Ancient Creeds, generally uphold the same interpretations of Scripture, have at least a consistent practice of the Sacraments then I would some others, an example would be WoF.

Fine, but at least in the US context, the term "mainline" now has a fairly clear meaning, which isn't precisely this. Few Protestants have the same interpretation of Scripture as, e.g. the Orthodox. I think most Protestants accept the Nicene Creed, at least generally. (The main exception among mainline would be fairly widespread doubts about the Virgin Birth.) Both the mainline and their conservative equivalents accept 2 sacraments, and think Christ is in some sense present in communion (though not in the sense of Catholics, and maybe not even in the sense of Orthodox) -- Lutherans are the exception, as their idea of the real presence would be closer to the Orthodox.

 

[Targaryen]

I agree, but I'd add some Anglicans would share the nearer to the Orthodox position on the Real Presence

 

[mark46]

Fine, but at least in the US context, the term "mainline" now has a fairly clear meaning, which isn't precisely this. Few Protestants have the same interpretation of Scripture as, e.g. the Orthodox. I think most Protestants accept the Nicene Creed, at least generally. (The main exception among mainline would be fairly widespread doubts about the Virgin Birth.) Both the mainline and their conservative equivalents accept 2 sacraments, and think Christ is in some sense present in communion (though not in the sense of Catholics, and maybe not even in the sense of Orthodox) -- Lutherans are the exception, as their idea of the real presence would be closer to the Orthodox.

When you say "most Protestants", do you mean most mainline Protestants, then I agree.

However, many Protestants have never uttered any of the Creeds of the Church. They may accept baptism and the Lord's Table as ordinances, but not as sacraments, for which they have no use. IMHO, these groups are often called evangelical in the US. Of course, that is a terrible label, since we all consider ourself as evangelical. Another US label is "conservative". This too is a poor label, since there are conservative Catholics and Anglicans who are traditional. Many of these churches are Baptist, Assembly of God, and non-denominational. And some Methodists in the South fit here also.

Yes, these churches consider themselves to be of the Reformation. However, they rarely look to Reformation leaders, and almost never to the early Church fathers. And, of course, they have little use for the Church.

 

[mark46]

I agree, but I'd add some Anglicans would share the nearer to the Orthodox position on the Real Presence

yes indeed

 

[Erose]

I agree, but I'd add some Anglicans would share the nearer to the Orthodox position on the Real Presence

It depends upon which Orthodox you talk to.