The Church: Doctrinal disunity or unity?

[Standing Up]

On doctrinal matters, there is only one truth. That isn't a doctrinal issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed


How about the Nicene Creed of 325ad? Don't EO, RC, OO, P all agree?

 

[bbbbbbb]

On doctrinal matters, there is only one truth. That isn't a doctrinal issue.

I see. So, then some beliefs are doctrines and some beliefs are not doctrines. Could you provide some examples of each so I can gain some idea as to which things are objectively true and which were merely subjectively true?

 

[sculleywr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

How about the Nicene Creed of 325ad? Don't EO, RC, OO, P all agree?

No. Roman Catholic add to it. Many protestant denominations don't make any use of it. To say it is universal is untrue

 

[sculleywr]

I see. So, then some beliefs are doctrines and some beliefs are not doctrines. Could you provide some examples of each so I can gain some idea as to which things are objectively true and which were merely subjectively true?

Christ is God: doctrine
Christ has blue eyes: not doctrine
Christ died for our salvation and was raised on the third day. Doctrine.
Christ was human, so He could be depicted in physical representations. Doctrine
Style of said art, not doctrine.
We should dress modestly.doctrine
Specific clothes. Not doctrine.

There are others, but I am on my Android.

 

[Albion]

Christ is God: doctrine
Christ has blue eyes: not doctrine
Christ died for our salvation and was raised on the third day. Doctrine.
Christ was human, so He could be depicted in physical representations. Doctrine
Style of said art, not doctrine.
We should dress modestly.doctrine
Specific clothes. Not doctrine.

There are others, but I am on my Android.

The only items on that list that are identified as doctrine are from Scripture. Tradition, IOW, is not a factor in setting any of these doctrines.

So what's the objection to simply consulting Scripture the way all reformed churches do?

 

[Standing Up]

No. Roman Catholic add to it. Many protestant denominations don't make any use of it. To say it is universal is untrue

I said the original Nicene Creed of 325.

What part don't Christians agree with?

Why would anyone want to "attach" further doctrine to it, like the de fide marian ones of 431 or 1950? At what point did the One Church fall away (keep in mind each says the same of the other)? So, why not the original Nicene Creed?

 

[Albion]

I said the original Nicene Creed of 325.

What part don't Christians agree with?

You are right that the overwhelming number of Christian churches affirm the articles asserted in the Creed although fewer actually have adopted the Creed itself as part of their statement of faith.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I see. So, then some beliefs are doctrines and some beliefs are not doctrines. Could you provide some examples of each so I can gain some idea as to which things are objectively true and which were merely subjectively true?

The distinction isn't between objective truths (truth in-and-of-themselves) and subjective truths (truth for me but not truth for you), but between doctrine- which is "what the true church believes, teaches, and confesses on the basis of the word of God everywhere, always, by all" (the most standard definition, formulated best by St. Vincent of Lerin, and used with great effect by Jaroslav Pelikan in his five volume magnum opus, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine)- and various nonessential beliefs (note on the meaning of this below) and the speculations of theologians.

Now, because of the changes in the west since the Great Schism, what the church believes, teaches, and confesses on the basis of the word of God everywhere, always, by all has become severely curtailed. First, among Protestants the church has been marginalized as the actor in the definition in favor of the individual, and thus the line between the theological beliefs of the individual and the public doctrine of the church is quite blurry. Second, the confession of doctrine on the basis of the word of God is viewed through the lens of sola Scriptura among Protestants and among Catholics includes holy tradition (as manifest in the church fathers, church councils, and infallible papacy) as a second avenue through which God speaks, thus conflating the church as authoritative confessor and church as authoritative source of doctrine. Third, we can hardly any longer claim that too many doctrines are genuinely believed always, everywhere, by all, both because there is no longer much of a consensus among all Christians in the present and because advancements in patristics scholarship in the past hundred years shows that what we once thought of as a full consensus was more like "most of the time, in most places, by most."

I reject the first two changes as aberrations of the tradition and think the third is not insurmountable. While the church fathers did not have an overwhelming common consensus, the church did have a mechanism by which to formulate authoritative doctrines: ecumenical councils. These were the way the church set the boundaries of what would be confessed, believed, and taught in Christendom; they thereby always drew an effective line between the not-quite-common set of individual theologies among the church fathers and the common apostolic doctrine. They did not, however, view the councils as a second source of revelation through tradition, but rather as the codification of the common interpretation of scripture as developed in dialogue among its authoritative interpreters, the bishops (overseers) of the church.

The upshot of all this is that doctrine functioned for the whole of the first millennium as the official codification of what was believed in most places, most of the time, by most Christians but which, thought length debate (sometimes centuries long) was determined by the church as that which would be believed, taught, and confessed on the basis of the word of God everywhere, always, by all. The fact that the west has deviated from that norm in a variety of different ways doesn't change the fact that that's what the church of the first millennium believed itself to be doing.

These doctrines of the councils set a boundary between what the church had to confess on the one hand and between, on the other hand, the various pious opinions of the laity and learned speculations of theologians. This is where I want to come back to the definition of "nonessential beliefs" I promised earlier. In the first millennium, doctrine was the public confession of the church and thus salvation (being part of the people of God, the church) hinged on adherence to that doctrine. Thus nonessential beliefs necessarily meant beliefs not essential for salvation. However, many more beliefs and practices- the liturgy, beliefs about salvation- were part of the church's life and were considered salutary on the road to salvation (theosis). Doctrine is the bare minimum that separates the church and its community of salvation from pagans, Jews, and heretics; nonessential beliefs were extraordinarily important, but were not the bare minimum that defined the essence of the church's confession.

As for examples: the doctrines of the church were codified in the Nicene Creed (Councils of Nicea in 325 and Constantinople in 381), the condemnation of Nestorius (at Ephesus in 431), the Formula of Chalcedon (451), the repudiation of the Three Chapters (at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553), the repudiation of monothelitism and monoenergism (at the Third Council of Constantinople in 680-81), and the affirmation of iconography (at the Second Council of Nicea in 787). The Oriental Orthodox only accept the first three (and would agree with the fifth, but it fails to bring them back into union), and Roman Catholics include another fourteen, but there is general agreement that these are the councils par excellence.

The Reformation also demanded confessions from the various groups that had to redefine themselves in the wake of the fragmentation of the late medieval catholic legacy (including Roman Catholicism). It was at this time that the Catholic Church looked on the councils from Constantinople IV and Lateran I up through Lateran V as genuinely ecumenical and capped it off with the Cannons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Us Lutherans also produced a series of common confessions beginning with the Augsburg Confession that culminated in the Book of Concord. The continental Reformed/Calvinists produced three confessions called collectively the Three Forms of Unitywhile their English coreligionists produced the Westminster Standards. The Anglicans never produced anything with similar binding standing within their communion, but Thirty-Nine Articles come pretty close (but are neither representative of all views nor binding). Even the Orthodox produced a confessional statement to define itself over-against the Reformation at the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem, in additional to two medieval councils that resolved certain major doctrinal controversies. None of these really have quite the standing of the seven ecumenical councils (let alone the first four, let alone the Nicene Creed), but they serve as doctrinal standards for the major branches of Christianity. What is contained within them is considered essential doctrine, and what is not contained within them is not.

Unfortunately, with so much doctrinal definition going on there wasn't too much room let for nonessential beliefs. It also raises the question of how any doctrinal definition not decided by a genuinely ecumenical council that commands the respect of Christians both in the east and in the major branches of the west can truly be the public doctrine of the church, believed, taught, and confessed on the basis of the word of God and binding everywhere, always, by all.

 

[ViaCrucis]

"The Church: Doctrinal disunity or unity?"

Yes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sculleywr]

I said the original Nicene Creed of 325.

What part don't Christians agree with?

Why would anyone want to "attach" further doctrine to it, like the de fide marian ones of 431 or 1950? At what point did the One Church fall away (keep in mind each says the same of the other)? So, why not the original Nicene Creed?

The "marian" council of 431, also known as the Third Ecumenical Council, was not a question of Mary's identity as much as a question of Christ's identity. The heretics responded to here were the Nestorians. They asserted that yes, Christ is God, but He did not become God until the Baptism, or Theophany. Other factions of Nestorians taught that the Logos only dwelt in Christ, and that the human body was only a vessel.

Because of this, the Nestorians refused to use the title "Theotokos", which meant "Birthgiver of God". Instead they wanted to use the term "Christotokos", or "Birthgiver of Christ." This teaching contradicted both the early Church understanding of who Christ is, as well as the gospel itself. In Luke, the divinity of Christ is already recognizable long before Christ was born, as John the Baptist leaps in the womb from the very presence of Christ's unborn self.

The Council confirmed this and they confirmed that Theotokos was a proper title for the Virgin, as it properly reflected the truth about Christ.

Theotokos was not a new title, simply one that needed specific explanation because of the new heresies that arose.

To put it the way that Martin Luther put it: Which part of the phrase "Mother of God" do you have a problem with? That Christ is God? or that Mary is His mother?

 

[sculleywr]

The only items on that list that are identified as doctrine are from Scripture. Tradition, IOW, is not a factor in setting any of these doctrines.

So what's the objection to simply consulting Scripture the way all reformed churches do?

I can use the scriptures to prove that Christ did not have full knowledge like God did, and so therefore was inferior to the Father as pertains to a divine characteristic. In fact, the greatest heresies are supportable logically from the Scriptures.

 

[Rick Otto]

I can use the scriptures to prove that Christ did not have full knowledge like God did, and so therefore was inferior to the Father as pertains to a divine characteristic. In fact, the greatest heresies are supportable logically from the Scriptures.

You say inferior like it's a bad thing.
You say logic like it's unassailable.
You treat controversy as if it doesn't stimulate growth & we all have to be on the same page on stuff like did Jesus access omniscience. If He did, I think it would unhinge His humanity a little bit. And just the thought of it on the surface is terrificaly problematic. Imagine growing into omniscience & omnipotence.
But I can't see how answering it in any way is going to impact my keeping the two greatest commandments.
School me on that if you got the time.

 

[sculleywr]

You say inferior like it's a bad thing.
You say logic like it's unassailable.
You treat controversy as if it doesn't stimulate growth & we all have to be on the same page on stuff like did Jesus access omniscience. If He did, I think it would unhinge His humanity a little bit. And just the thought of it on the surface is terrificaly problematic. Imagine growing into omniscience & omnipotence.
But I can't see how answering it in any way is going to impact my keeping the two greatest commandments.
School me on that if you got the time.

If you truly love someone, what do you do? Let's say you are infatuated with a girl named Jen. Well, you want to get to know who she is. Let's say you talk to someone you think is her friend to find out about her. But her friend gives you false information about Jen. She tells you, for instance, Jen loves the smell of lavender, when in reality, Jen is repulsed by that smell. So you go and get a small white rose with a trimming of lavender, to try to get her attention. What will happen?

If you answered that she will have a negative response, then you would be right. You approached her with the intention of romance, but wound up being a source of displeasure.

You might respond that this is just a human misunderstanding. But think about this: a false understanding about the identity of the Holy Spirit led to the Great Schism in 1054. Because of the weakening of the Holy Spirit in the Filioque clause, the Roman Church needed another source of authority to take the position of the Spirit as the guiding force of the Church. Instead of allowing the Spirit to lead in a Theocratic environment through the company of many judges (Bishops), the Roman Church repeated the error of the Israelites, placing the pope on the throne of the Church.

This is why a precise knowledge of the active energies of the Persons of the Trinity is important.

 

[Standing Up]

The "marian" council of 431, also known as the Third Ecumenical Council, was not a question of Mary's identity as much as a question of Christ's identity. The heretics responded to here were the Nestorians. They asserted that yes, Christ is God, but He did not become God until the Baptism, or Theophany. Other factions of Nestorians taught that the Logos only dwelt in Christ, and that the human body was only a vessel.

Because of this, the Nestorians refused to use the title "Theotokos", which meant "Birthgiver of God". Instead they wanted to use the term "Christotokos", or "Birthgiver of Christ." This teaching contradicted both the early Church understanding of who Christ is, as well as the gospel itself. In Luke, the divinity of Christ is already recognizable long before Christ was born, as John the Baptist leaps in the womb from the very presence of Christ's unborn self.

The Council confirmed this and they confirmed that Theotokos was a proper title for the Virgin, as it properly reflected the truth about Christ.

Theotokos was not a new title, simply one that needed specific explanation because of the new heresies that arose.

To put it the way that Martin Luther put it: Which part of the phrase "Mother of God" do you have a problem with? That Christ is God? or that Mary is His mother?

So, the reason the original Nicene Creed is not sufficient is because it was not sufficient. Was this because Councils are fallible or what? So, this basically opens up the door for additions, until 451, if you're OO, or 1054 if you're EO, or 1500s if you're P.

So, no unity, at any time in Christian history, is what you're saying?

 

[Rick Otto]

To put it the way that Martin Luther put it: Which part of the phrase "Mother of God" do you have a problem with? That Christ is God? or that Mary is His mother?

No problemo.
"Luther ol' buddy, Mary is the mother of Jesus, Christ is without beginning or end."
I'm sure he would've accepted my correction wholeheartedly, being such a reasonable & amiable man, all heresies aside.
Trouble is, the air was already poisened with inflammatory rhetoric. & then there was ecclesiastic corruption that erroded the facade of inerrant infallable one truthyness.

If only I had been there. I could've told him to stop worrying about Rome. "Let the dead bury the dead." I would've told him. He wouldn't've made half as many errors in judgement.

 

[sculleywr]

So, the reason the original Nicene Creed is not sufficient is because it was not sufficient. Was this because Councils are fallible or what? So, this basically opens up the door for additions, until 451, if you're OO, or 1054 if you're EO, or 1500s if you're P.

So, no unity, at any time in Christian history, is what you're saying?

No. It does not open it up for ADDITIONS. The creeds are explanations of truths that ALREADY existed. The doctrine of Christ being God from conception was not invented in 451. The Nicene Creed did not explain WHEN Christ was God. It assumed such explanation was unnecessary at the time. The further councils were simply the Church stating officially as a collective the teachings which had been implicit in the understanding of the Church already.

 

[sculleywr]

No problemo.
"Luther ol' buddy, Mary is the mother of Jesus, Christ is without beginning or end."
I'm sure he would've accepted my correction wholeheartedly, being such a reasonable & amiable man, all heresies aside.
Trouble is, the air was already poisened with inflammatory rhetoric. & then there was ecclesiastic corruption that erroded the facade of inerrant infallable one truthyness.

If only I had been there. I could've told him to stop worrying about Rome. "Let the dead bury the dead." I would've told him. He wouldn't've made half as many errors in judgement.

If Christ is God, which is the basis of 85% of the Nicene Creed, then there is no problem with the title mother of God.

 

[Rick Otto]

If Christ is God, which is the basis of 85% of the Nicene Creed, then there is no problem with the title mother of God.

Not for you, but then I think it would be the height silliness for either of us to insist the other accept or reject it.

In my opinion it is inaccurate to the point of being misleading.
God is eternal without beginning & so therefore without parents.
You arguably disrespect & misrepresent the Trinity by confusing God the Father with God The Son.

It isn't something I'd refuse you communion for, but it isn't anything I'd let anyone insist I accept.

 

[sculleywr]

Not for you, but then I think it would be the height silliness for either of us to insist the other accept or reject it.

In my opinion it is inaccurate to the point of being misleading.
God is eternal without beginning & so therefore without parents.
You arguably disrespect & misrepresent the Trinity by confusing God the Father with God The Son.

It isn't something I'd refuse you communion for, but it isn't anything I'd let anyone insist I accept.

Again. Is Christ God?
Is Mary His mother, the person who physically conceived, carried, gave birth to, and nursed Him?

If the answer to both is yes, then the titles of Theotokos and Mother of God are both doctrinally true.

The title of mother, referring to the physical relationship as biological predecessor, is about as misleading as saying that Mrs. Gail Francis is my professor at school.

God has a physical body. That body is Christ. Christ is God. Mary is His mother.

If you have no problem with either, you cannot doctrinally deny the validity of the title. Beyond that, it is not only the understanding of the majority, but it is the FIRST understanding of Mary's position, as the Greek Acronyms "MPOV" are connected to the Virgin since the second century in writings and Icons. Those letters stand for "Mater Theou" or Mother of God.

 

[Rick Otto]

Again. Is Christ God?
Is Mary His mother, the person who physically conceived, carried, gave birth to, and nursed Him?
If the answer to both is yes, then the titles of Theotokos and Mother of God are both doctrinally true.
The title of mother, referring to the physical relationship as biological predecessor, is about as misleading as saying that Mrs. Gail Francis is my professor at school.
God has a physical body. That body is Christ. Christ is God. Mary is His mother.
If you have no problem with either, you cannot doctrinally deny the validity of the title. Beyond that, it is not only the understanding of the majority, but it is the FIRST understanding of Mary's position, as the Greek Acronyms "MPOV" are connected to the Virgin since the second century in writings and Icons. Those letters stand for "Mater Theou" or Mother of God.

Majority opinion is comforting to some.
Mary has no "position", theologicaly.
The problem I have, I thought I made clear.
This "entitlement" of Mary depends upon the exploitation of the ambiguity in using the whole-Trinity-inclusive term "God".
So any "Mother of God" title is dangerously ambiguous because she is not the mother of God the Father & she is not the mother of God The Holy Spirit.
The whole thrust of this demi-deification of Mary is a false piety that supports the elitism of an all male Levite model priesthood while oppressing the individualism & leadership of women with an unreachable role model.
The fact that the problem is old & pervasive does not give it any credibility in my opinion.