vanshan said:Much of what we think of tradition in the West is tarnished by our knowledge of doctrinal and political corruption in the Roman Catholic Church, leading us to throw aside both those corrupted traditions of the Catholics and other traditions which are rooted in Christ. It's no easy task. There have been controversies in the East as well, but I think the nature of the East, not being hierarchical in structure, has saved us from many of the problems in the West. We all live by traditions, whether they are 20 years old, 100 years old, 500 years old, or 2000 years old, or somewhere between. We must search for the traditions of Christ.
I do place the teaching of the Fathers, which are clearly biblical, above my own understanding. This really doesn't differ much from how we listen to repected preachers of our day. If a pastor you admire teaches something, you most likely would have a large degree of trust in what he is saying. Well, I've learned to trust the Fathers. We don't become robotic followers, but we should be humble enough to listen when a wise teacher speaks. We should ponder what they say and try to understand, looking at the scriptures also.
Basil
First thanks for the compliment. Also I greatly respect the Orthodox church. I have read Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Cyril of Alexandria and they chnged the way I view salvation. However where I primarily differ from the Orthodox church is that I do believe in sola scriptura. That is I believe that the scriptures themselves are the highest authority and not Tradition although as I have stated one cannot properly interpret scripture without engaging tradition. One cannot interpret scriptures in isolation from the church or tradition which froms the community of faith. However traditon can be wrong.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I do not believe doctrine x because of Tradition. I use tradition but I am not forced to interpret scripture always iun the way that the church fathers did. I am not hand cuffed to their interpretation of scriptures. I think that is the true SBC way of handling scriptures. That they are the ultimate authority although tradition is not set aside as though it did not matter.
Of course, this is all a matter of opinion and conjecture coming from an Eastern Church perspective. Of course, if you DIDN'T think the Western Church was corrupt and didn't skew doctrine, there would be no obvious reason not to end the schism that divides our communion.vanshan said:Much of what we think of tradition in the West is tarnished by our knowledge of doctrinal and political corruption in the Roman Catholic Church, leading us to throw aside both those corrupted traditions of the Catholics and other traditions which are rooted in Christ. It's no easy task. There have been controversies in the East as well, but I think the nature of the East, not being hierarchical in structure, has saved us from many of the problems in the West. We all live by traditions, whether they are 20 years old, 100 years old, 500 years old, or 2000 years old, or somewhere between. We must search for the traditions of Christ.
I do place the teaching of the Fathers, which are clearly biblical, above my own understanding. This really doesn't differ much from how we listen to repected preachers of our day. If a pastor you admire teaches something, you most likely would have a large degree of trust in what he is saying. Well, I've learned to trust the Fathers. We don't become robotic followers, but we should be humble enough to listen when a wise teacher speaks. We should ponder what they say and try to understand, looking at the scriptures also.
Basil
Liberal domination of the SBC? I certainly don't remember that ever happening, though there were a couple of churches which the SBC withdrew fellowship from when they persisted in certain practices which were contrary to scripture. Yes, I am aware that Judge Pressler used that claim as a red herring to help gain control of the SBC a quarter century ago, but the alleged liberals were generally every bit as conservative as Judge Pressler was.....greeker57married said:In the SBC with the doctrines of soul competency and the priesthood of the believer, the liberals had twisted these doctrines so that they can believe and teach their liberal views without anyone saying anything. If the liberal hold and influence in the SBC had continued to dominate, We would have no clear definition of evangelism or missions. We would have gone the way of other demoninatons influenced by liberal theology. Our confession of faith is necessary to keep us in line with Scripture. Every denomination has a confession of faith or creed. If you did not have a confession to keep you in line with Scripture as a denomination, you could believe whatever you wanted to. In 1983 in Pittsburg, PA. at the SBC Jimmy Draper ask for agreement on five fundamentals of the faith. The Deity of Christ, The inerrancy of Scripture, the Substitutionary atonement of Christ and The Bodily Resurrection of Christ, the Second Coming. Because of the influence of liberalism, the convention voted it down. I was there at the time. Southern Baptist have historically believed in the sole authority of Scripture.[Emphasis mine]
ImSoBlessed said:you guys call mary mother of god but she is not the Mother of God...when she had Jesus he was man...he came to this earth as a man not as God....
Venerating Icons is only worship if the person doing it does it for that purpose. When we understand the cultural context of veneration of Icons and the traditional way that it has been taught and practiced through out the Church's history, it becomes clear that not only is this something that is permissible and good, but necessary to safeguard the faith that Christ really did come in the flesh. Not to mention the richness and depth they add to worship, connecting us with the broader worshiping community of the faithful down through the ages.
Iollain said:Necessary to safeguard the faith that Christ really did come in the flesh??? Permissible and good???
All i read was someone trying to talk themselves into something that is wrong. They did a really good job at convincing themselves something is right that in the beginning they knew was wrong....poor guy.
Iollain said:Who's your God?
Iollain said:O Lord, raise us fallen into a bottomless pit of despair, wrongdoing and affliction; for thou art the salvation and succour and powerful advocate of those that have sinned, and thou dost save thy servants.
or
O Mary, thou sacred dwelling of the Lord, raise us fallen into a bottomless pit of despair, wrongdoing and affliction; for thou art the salvation and succour and powerful advocate of those that have sinned, and thou dost save thy servants. (Tone 1, Matins, sessional hymn)
vanshan said:When we say she is a source of salvation in the above prayers, we don't mean she saves our souls, as Christ alone has done, but rather that she can save us from many hardships and evil affects our sins have on us. Why? Because she loves us and is praying that we might all be saved, just as God her Father desires that we will be saved.
Those in Orthodoxy know what these prayers mean, you are misinterpretting them.
Basil
Pyotr said:St. Paul tells St. Timothy to save those in his flock (1 Tim. 4:16)...
Blackhawk said:But would not the saving still come from God alone. I can let my wife pray for me when I sin but I do not ask her to save because she does not save me. God saves me. She prays that God will save me. So even if one accepts that one can ask Mary to pray for you she still does not do any kind of saving. God alone saves. Mary would just be asking God to save us. Iagree with the title of Theokotos though.
Precisely, you got it! God be praised. Catholics and Orthodox don't ask Mary or saints to save us, we ask them to pray for our salvation, just like you would ask your own mother or friends to pray for you. No more, no less.Blackhawk said:But would not the saving still come from God alone. I can let my wife pray for me when I sin but I do not ask her to save because she does not save me. God saves me. She prays that God will save me. So even if one accepts that one can ask Mary to pray for you she still does not do any kind of saving. God alone saves. Mary would just be asking God to save us. Iagree with the title of Theokotos though.