CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[JettaKnight]

If I enter a room of Baptists
...

You are kind of outnumbered here!



I'm sleepy so I'll address the other issues tomorrow morning. (if someone else doesn't beat me to it!)

 

[historian]

Now I ask Protestants when do they Bless Mary? After all, its in the scripture to do so. You can imagine the stares and questions that I get. I do it daily.

I mentioned upthread a while back that I once heard a three point alliterated sermon on Mary. So yeah. As they say in the hood, "Respect."

Yeah... we're not really cool with the whole "blessing" thing...

We sing "Bless the Lord, oh my soul..." but that's about as far as we go without a safety net.

I been to other churches, incl. RCC... saying "Peace" while shaking hands gives me the heebee geebees.

And with ewwwwwwww


Now. I leave this thread for a couple of days, and look what happens. Fos and JK are back at it again. I mean. Come on. Don't make me pull this thread over!

 

[2A_Tom]

I never said a thing about vestal virgins.

You can not prove they had these children together biblically unless you rely on your own tradition. Even the early reformers did not interpret the scripture as you do.

You are right. Surprised?

Words have no meaning. Where it says his mother and his brethren, there were most likely LGBTQ+, you can not prove it is not true from the bible.

Personally, I just believe God used the right words and trust Him to be concise in his language.

Others may accept what they are taught without searching the Scriptures to prove them. I tend to be more Barean like.

 

[T.Lex]

I tend to be more Barean like.

??

 

[JettaKnight]

I am not arguing so much against unity as asking you to SHOW it. A major reason there are different Baptists is because there is not unity.

What would that look like to you? That we agree on all and every point of theological contention? That sing the same songs? That we all use same language during Baptism? That we follow the same creeds?

During the period of slavery during which many churches divided, were they essentially unified? They were teaching the same salvation message. Why did they not reunite post Civil War?

Why should they? Merely for the sake of saying, "look at us! We're one big happy denomination!"

Baptist, more than any other denomination, place a high value on independence and the doctrine of the priesthood of believers. Meaning not that we can make up our own religion, but we are free to worship the Lord directly. Look at the largest protestant denomination - the SBC. Within there's a fair number of churches that act nothing like a traditional SBC church and others that openly criticize the SBC leadership. How is that the unity you hope for?

Thought exercise: If the SBC dissolved, what would change? Would the individual churches be worshiping Baal within ten years? Would the churches be absorbed by other Baptist groups? Would the SBC re-form to fill the void? Or would the churches just keep on keepin' on?

A little bit of dissension is healthy, but a lot can be detrimental.

I had a pastor that was constantly saying, "It's a miracle!" And as a cessationist, I focused right in on this and had a hard time following any of his preaching. Would you have me stay, ignore what I believe to be true, and just sit in the pew for, you know, unity? Or should find another church that more closely aligns with my belief on these veiled things such that I might worship with a clean conscience? FTR, my pastor teaches unlimited atonement, but since it's not something that comes up but once in a blue moon, I can cope.


I kind of look at denominations as ice cream. You got you all these different flavors, but they're still ice cream and 90% of the ingredients are the same. We've got some that use a vanilla base and others that use a chocolate base. We got those with nuts and those without. And as anyone knows, you can mix and match and still have a tasty treat.

Now you're coming along and trying to tell me that all this variety is detrimental and needs to be stripped away only one flavor shall be served.

Down at the far end of the counter we have the sherbet and sorbet...


(As fun as it would be, I think I will not reveal what denomination is represented by what flavor. That exercise is left up to the reader.)

 

[ArcadiaGP]

??

I can get behind a religious crusade against the undead anyday.

 

[T.Lex]

Now I'm hungry for dessert and it isn't even lunch yet.

You can kiss my mint chocolate chip, JK.

 

[hog slayer]

I can get behind a religious crusade against the undead anyday.

haha! I thought you had been run off

 

[T.Lex]

I can get behind a religious crusade against the undead anyday.

Welcome to Catholicism.

 

[JettaKnight]

Now I'm hungry for dessert and it isn't even lunch yet.

You can kiss my mint chocolate chip, JK.

I so very much want to play the game...

Spumoni is [redacted], butter pecan is [redacted], Superman is [redacted]...

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Pope suggests 'better to be atheist than hypocritical Catholic' | Reuters

 

[foszoe]

Deep breath... and...

Humans - all of them. There's a lot of doctrine they held to that I'm sure you would disagree with. We've got a lot more knowledge and insight to rely upon.

Ah! So there lies the rub

Again broad brushing....We are all human. Not even the leaders can be fully trusted in their understanding. Where does this lead? Ultimately it leads to each individual Christian trusting in his own interpretation. We can attempt to justify this by saying I am guided by the Holy Spirit, but what are checks and balances on the Individual in the Protestant system? I hold the viewpoint that there are none.

EXCEPT other people. Now these people are usually learn ed people. They are people the individual trusts, but aside from mental convincing based on their own interpretation, there really is no room for an outside influence to be right UNLESS the individual acknowledges that his/her interpretation, guided by the Holy Spirit, agrees with the outside influence and abandon's his own interpretation that he previously believed that the scriptures and the Holy Spirit had revealed to him to be true.

Now, to recognize what you and Woobie et al put forth, I will freely admit that in perhaps 99% of the disagreeements, its not over something of a salvific nature.

But for my example let's say its over whether or not something is a sin. Lets say its sex with a close relative, polygamy, the right to own another person etc. I'll let you guys pick, but I want it to be something the bible has been used to support, not an easy one like murder or some such. Or we can just call it X with that understanding in mind.

These people are making an appeal to tradition whether they want to admit it or not. However, it carries no real authority.

Now, lets say the disagreement isn't salvific, but the splits over the matter. Is that split itself salvific? I would argue no, it is a sin against the Unity that Christ prayed for in the High Priestly Prayer. That prayer, I would argue, is a clear statement of what Christ wants from his followers and is a firm beginning in refuting the "invisible" Church doctrine.

So how would Orthodox handle such a matter? Again I admit broad brushing.

If it was not salvific in nature, we would argue about it constantly, but we would NEVER break communion and build a church across the street under a different banner for that is a sin against the Body of Christ and the Unity for which Christ prayed, no would we look for another Church that "suits us" better. Under a "once saved, always saved" doctrine this one is easy to overlook, but not under a paradigm where salvation can be lost. That is a key difference between us.

But what if it is salvific in nature? This is where the tradition of the Church weighs in.

But I will step back from that point and digress into another point that is a more pertinent application of Tradition than the above, with the exception of unity. An attempt to answer the Protestant feeling that tradition is a millstone or albatross around the neck.

A top complaint among Protestant converts or even young Protestants is that once converted they don't know what to do. The emphasis is getting a commitment, a personal relationship with Jesus, or some such, but then what's next? This is a contributing factor to why a sizeable number of people move from Church to Church. They are looking for an emotional experience that fills a void which was supposedly filled by Christ at conversion but, lets be frank, is not. It's not a movement over sin or error its a movement over satisfying self.

What is the Tradition of the Orthodox Church in this matter?

There are records of St Cyril's Catechetical Lectures from the 4th century. These are still used prior to bringing a person into the Church in many places and the process used back then can still be recognized today. A person/catechumen learns the faith over the course of months or even years until the priest believes they are ready to join the faith. There should be no real question about what the Church believes/teaches on any salvific question by the time the person is ready to join the Church.

When they are ready to be baptized into the Church, its not a matter of dunking 3 times and that's it as so many Protestants believe. Baptism takes an hour and during that time the Person is asked several times if they have renounced Satan and to physically spit on him. They are also asked if they wish to unite themselves to Christ several times. They recite the Creed etc etc. If a Protestant took the time to read the Service of Baptism without preconceived notions, they would recognize in the prayers several striking the same chord as their own prayers of conversion. However, the knee jerk reaction is Baptism "as I understand it" is wrong. The problem is they don't understand it nor do they put forth the effort to understand it, however they are still willing to disagree with something that is not understood.

The key difference between us is that Protestants place a the emphasis on getting saved. Orthodox place the emphasis on a Life in Christ. We don't have to reinvent the wheel to do this for many that have gone on before have shown us the way.

That is why what you see as a millstone, I see as liberating.

For a rough analogy, Lets say we both come from a long line of auto mechanics and placed in front of us is a brand new Ford Mustang and we must do a complete teardown and rebuild. We have at our disposal all the Service and Tech manuals for every mustang in the history of mustangs. We have the Chiltons, we have the Haynes. These were written down over a long period of time but pretty much everything we need to accomplish the task at hand is sitting on the shelf and we each have identical toolkits.

To me, the Protestant goes over to the shelf and picks up the Chilton's manual. The Orthodox avails himself of all the material available. The Orthodox mechanic is should all other things equal have a much easier time. The tradition makes things easier not harder.

I think many believe tradition is harder because it must be learned but I would say that is a misconception. Just go to Church, that's all you do. Attend the Bible studies. Its not all that different from how a Calvinist becomes a good Calvinist

That has some appeal. However, tonight I get the distinct notion that tradition takes the place of distasteful or pointless theology. It's as if tradition becomes a millstone around the neck.


There's a whole lot of historical and modern men I'd like to emulate. There's a whole lot of biblical characters that were faithful. However, they were still sinful, still required grace and still died an earthly death.

Kinda was touching on that above

Is your argument, "if it doesn't matter that much to you, just accept what we say"?

I guess it's a fear of a slippery slope that the RCC fell down. First we ascribe a virtue and situation with no support, then we add a bit more, then a bit more, then ... Marian cults.

No. I tried to point that out in my own Mary story earlier.

There is a crucial difference than accepting what the Church teaches and admitting that the Church could be right. Doubt is ok, denial is not.

It also truly hinges on the definition of irrelevance. If your mom and dad never lied to you, you knew you could take them at their word. Now one day dad says something that you can't prove through your experience. You have thought that it could work another way but it really is irrelevant. You could probably accept that your dad could be right.

There can be no slippery slope though. Study Orthodoxy for long and you will find that the biggest complaint is that the theology don't change and hasn't changed hardly at all since the 7th ecumenical council. The history of doctrine in the east can be covered in less than a thousand pages with the first half a shared history with the east and the west. The History of doctrine in the west to the 1700s would fill 3 more volumes and would be busting at the seams by the end of the 20th century.

 

[JettaKnight]

Pope suggests 'better to be atheist than hypocritical Catholic' | Reuters

Rev. 3:16

 

[T.Lex]

Pope suggests 'better to be atheist than hypocritical Catholic' | Reuters

Whoa. Pope is an INGOer?

Well, he didn't actually say what the headline makes it look like.

"There are many Catholics who are like this and they cause scandal," he said. "How many times have we all heard people say 'if that person is a Catholic, it is better to be an atheist'."

 

[foszoe]

What would that look like to you? That we agree on all and every point of theological contention? That sing the same songs? That we all use same language during Baptism? That we follow the same creeds?...

I think I just addressed these concerns in my most recent post

so short answers.

No. Yes, but only when in Church. (you guys don't sing from several different hymnal pages all at the same time do you?). Yes, but it should be in the local language. AS an aside, it was the Orthodox promulgated that the preaching and reading should be done in the local language not the Protestants. We had the jump on that by about 700 years when Cyril and Methodius went north and gave the Russians the "Cyrillic" alphabet!

and finally, Yes.

 

[foszoe]

Pope suggests 'better to be atheist than hypocritical Catholic' | Reuters

Without reading the article, I would agree with the Pope.

 

[T.Lex]

The History of doctrine in the west to the 1700s would fill 3 more volumes and would be busting at the seams by the end of the 20th century.

Kinda like your posts!!!!

boom roasted

 

[hog slayer]

I think I just addressed these concerns in my most recent post

so short answers.

No. Yes, but only when in Church. (you guys don't sing from several different hymnal pages all at the same time do you?). Yes, but it should be in the local language. AS an aside, it was the Orthodox promulgated that the preaching and reading should be done in the local language not the Protestants. We had the jump on that by about 700 years when Cyril and Methodius went north and gave the Russians the "Cyrillic" alphabet!

and finally, Yes.

Not really directed at anyone specific, it just fit with the quote function: is the apostles creed not sufficient?

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
*that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places

 

[hog slayer]

I apologize if these things were previously covered. I am trying to read previous posts but some of this gets pretty deep and I'm not quite there yet.

Frankly, I never worry about anything that falls outside of being a Salvation issue.

 

[ATM]

I so very much want to play the game...

Spumoni is [redacted], butter pecan is [redacted], Superman is [redacted]...

Looks like the government beat me to reading your post.