Catholic vs Protestant: A Few Questions

4,957 Views | 51 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by Zobel
BlackGoldAg2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So as a recent addition to this board I have read a lot of discussions and learned a lot about what I going to hence forth refer to as Catholicism. As a disclaimer, when I say Catholic, really I am referring to essentially all orthodoxy that subscribes to essentially the same beliefs. This is wrong terminology I have learned from reading y'all's discussions, but old habits die hard and all. Through my reading I have had several questions come to mind but not wanting to derail discussions I kept them to myself. Finally I decided to just start a thread for this conversation. So here are a few of my core questions to kick of discussion.

  • 1) Reading the thread on the catholic reading list, I skimmed the book on heresies and was caught off guard when I saw Protestantism. So first question is do you truly view Protestantism collectively as a heresy, and if so are there any denominations you view as non-heretical?
  • 2) With my limited knowledge of the catholic belief on baptism and salvation, combined with a few comments I have read on here I began wondering, do you view the salvation of a protestant to be in question? Here I mean one that has accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as payment for their sins and made Him Lord in their life.
  • 3) Finally, while I understand that differences of theology are important distinctions, and often big enough to make a todo about, but my view has always been that if you confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior (assuming you believe in what I will call the core of who Christ is: divinity, humanity, resurrection, trinity, etc.) then you are my brother even if we can't agree on every detail in theology. The stance I have seen here seems to indicate that the position of the catholic church is that, without a full agreement on each teaching of theology by the church, there can be no unity of the type described by Paul in Ephesians as the one body. I guess this really goes back to the core of my first question, but do you truly hold that there can be no true unity between catholic and protestants?

Full disclosure, as I can't recall if I posted on the GTKY thread, I was raised in a Methodist church, and since leaving home have been to both a non-denomination, and a few Baptist churches. I currently am an active member of a Baptist congregation, but have a bit more of a charismatic and "don't hate the gays or the poor/immigrants" than some Baptists or the SBC might be fully comfortable with. All this so you are aware of my background and bias going into this.
SoulSlaveAG2005
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
First: you did reply on the GTKY thread.

http://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2767536/2


Welcome to the board!

Second: I think you will get a full range of answers, And ill go my best to answer my thoughts once I get this sick toddler to stop wiping his snot all over me...
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

I'm orthodox, so catholic but not Roman.

1) Protestantism in and of itself isn't heresy, it's schism. Altogether different. Heresy means choice literally, and practically means choosing your own belief over union with the church. A protestant who does not know the truth cannot be a heretic.

All protestant sects preach some degree of heresy, to my knowledge. They are varied, including soteriology, ecclesiology, christology, etc.

2) As a person raised in a baptist church, believe me when I say that what you have in mind when you say salvation and what the orthodox have in mind are two very different things. That being said, simply put, yes. A person's salvation limited to the criteria you gave is possibly "in question". Salvation comes from deification and union to God, not from "payment" for sins and confession. Salvation isn't done, but to come. Salvation isn't a transaction, it's a transformation.

That being said, it's not mine to judge who is saved or isn't. St Theophan the Recluse said "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Savior Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins..."

3) The problem is that "core" is not common and there are important things about divinity, humanity, trinity that were expressed and formalized - almost universally against heresies - that most (or all) protestants reject. The problem is that theology isn't ours, it's not from us. God is inherently unknowable, we only come to know Him as He wills. So theology is from God to us. Therefore, differences in theology represent a difference in experience -- and these differences, if they can't be reconciled, imply a difference in God, which is, of course, wrong. The unity of one Body, as Paul describes, is unity into the Church, which is the Body. The protestant idea of the invisible church is foreign to the early church and was devised precisely to cover the obvious gap of different theologies and churches.

There can be no true unity between any man and another. True only comes from union to God. By being united to Christ, we become united to each other in Him. And the only way that we can become united to Christ is to grow up into becoming one body as members of Him, in His Church...exactly as St Paul expresses it. So you see the confusion arises because protestants have rejected the Church with Christ at the head as the unifying feature and changed it to belief. This is an anachronistic innovation with a human requirement and action at it's heart, rather than a full reliance on Christ at its foundation.
BustUpAChiffarobe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hello and Welcome, answers below

quote:


  • 1) Reading the thread on the catholic reading list, I skimmed the book on heresies and was caught off guard when I saw Protestantism. So first question is do you truly view Protestantism collectively as a heresy, and if so are there any denominations you view as non-heretical?



Yes I believe Protestantism is heretical by definition, and dont believe any denominations are non heretical

quote:

  • 2) With my limited knowledge of the catholic belief on baptism and salvation, combined with a few comments I have read on here I began wondering, do you view the salvation of a protestant to be in question? Here I mean one that has accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as payment for their sins and made Him Lord in their life.


  • I consider all of our salvation to be "in question" and that I dont think its good for anyone to take the state of their soul for granted. I think devout Protestants will be saved by the abundant mercy of Christ, but make it harder on themselves by not availing themselves of the sacraments and by his instituted Church

    quote:

  • 3) Finally, while I understand that differences of theology are important distinctions, and often big enough to make a todo about, but my view has always been that if you confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior (assuming you believe in what I will call the core of who Christ is: divinity, humanity, resurrection, trinity, etc.) then you are my brother even if we can't agree on every detail in theology. The stance I have seen here seems to indicate that the position of the catholic church is that, without a full agreement on each teaching of theology by the church, there can be no unity of the type described by Paul in Ephesians as the one body. I guess this really goes back to the core of my first question, but do you truly hold that there can be no true unity between catholic and protestants?


  • I dont think full and complete agreement on every theological issue is necessary as much of it is a different understanding or visualization of an ethereal concept; but protestantism and Orthodox Christianity dont agree on basic fundamentals. Back when he was merely Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict XVI said in Dominus Iesus "the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense "
    Guadaloop474
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Jesus created only one Church, so all Christians are members of that Church.
    Believing in Christ with one's mind does not automatically save one. One has to live His message as well.
    One can be saved even at the last moment of his life, like the good thief on the cross was.

    IF you are Catholic, and don't believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you would be a heretic.
    IF you are a Catholic, and don't believe that the Holy Spirit comes to you at Baptism, you would be a heretic.

    BUT - IF you are not a Catholic and honestly don't believe in these teachings, then you would not be a heretic, but one who would be considered not in the fullness of truth, and that is a big difference..
    OnlyForNow
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    I'm not a Catholic, but this is why Protestants make jokes about being quite when we walk by the Catholics' door in heaven.

    As a Methodist I respect the work the Chruch does and recognize it as what was originally set in motion by Jesus and carried on by Paul. I just have a lot of different beliefs as far as saints and who I pray to when compared to Catholics.
    Win At Life
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    quote:
    Protestantism in and of itself isn't heresy, it's schism.

    I thought the strict definition of a schism was that it had to occur at the level of bishop or higher, because bishops had been given the sacrament to ordain new priests? I thought that's what differentiated the East/West schism from most other faiths.
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    No, anyone (bishop priest deacon or layman) who departs from canonical authority is in schism.

    Apostasy is probably what you're thinking of. In this regard, I was probably not quite correct earlier. This is denying the legitimacy of the other body as the church, separation from the Church completely. The Protestants are apostates. I suppose you could say that heresy and schism eventually produce apostasy.
    OnlyForNow
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    So even though some protestants believe that the Catholic Church is righteous and the first church, Catholic teaching is that we are all not going directly to heaven? (Can we even get into heaven?)
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    I guess you're talking about Purgatory? I'm not catholic, and the Orthodox Church doesn't have a purgatory doctrine to my knowledge.

    Your statement doesn't make any sense to me in an ecclesiastical sense. There is no first church because that implies that there is a second church. There's only one Church. To have a second one would need a second Christ.
    OnlyForNow
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Ok, well as a Methodist part of our/the Apostle's creed is that we believe in the Holy Catholic Church.

    I don't deny that it exists and that those folks who accept Christ as their savior and ask for forgiveness will be saved, but the same level of salvation occurs to Methodists and Baptists and Etc. We just disagree on some fundamentals along the way.
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    That's fine, but your understanding of the Church is very modern, and your soteriology matches.
    OnlyForNow
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    We're Methodists... very modern.

    I just find it hard to believe that God is really that angry with everyone that isn't "x,y, or z" that they have to completely change their belief system in order to be saved.

    His love and grace are unending, why would he short change people that believe in Him, His Son, the Holy Spirit all because they don't do "this or that" the same way as others?
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Modern is closer to pejorative than adjective. Holy Scripture tells us the faith was "delivered once for all to the saints." If that's the case, how can modern be an improvement?

    There's a lot "funny" about your statement. First, who said anything about God being angry? Second.. of course you have to completely change your belief system in order to be saved. We don't become members of a personal belief system. God isn't subject to our understanding or teaching. When Christ asks the expert in the law "How do you read it?" and the man answers, Christ says his answer is correct. This means there are incorrect answers, no? This isn't a quiz bowl, this is our souls. This matters: we'd better get it right. If there is a right answer, shouldn't we find it? If you had cancer, and you were told and believed there was a perfect treatment, wouldn't you want to follow it exactly? Or would "good 'nuff" suffice?

    It's hard to have this discussion, because we are very far apart on a lot of words, as I said above. Being "saved" is a loaded term. But your point is easily shown to be somewhat hollow, as the do "this or that" can be widely expanded.

    Does this or that include baptism? Does it include communion? Does it include believing that the Son and the Spirit are God, not created? You didn't mention belief in God precluding believing in other gods - is that a requirement? Do we have to repent as part of "this or that"? Do we need to confess our sins to one another? Do we need priests, deacons, overseers? If His Love and Grace are unending, why do we need to believe in Him anyway?

    Is it really important to believe in One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? Because you didn't mention that, either. Maybe you can make your creed a little shorter?

    In Orthodoxy we don't have the same legalistic or as severe of a juridical view of salvation as the west in general and protestants particularly do. Being saved is not binary, it's a process. Part of that process includes (mere) intellectual belief, yes. It includes baptism. It includes faith. It includes being joined to Him, union with God to become God. Salvation isn't "going to heaven", it's becoming by grace what He is by nature. So the doing "this or that" the same way reads to me similar to saying I want to be a chemist but I don't want to do "this or that" the same way as other chemists. Unfortunately, we don't get to bring our own rules. You want to live and not die? You must be joined to the source of life. The scriptures are clear, there's only one way to be joined to Him. And that's to become part of the Church, through baptism, which is one body, one unit, comprised of us individually as members in it. As St Paul says... There is one body, one Spirit, one hope; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

    Not many bodies with different hopes about what it means to be saved, many faiths based on personal interpretation, and one baptism (or none, or more, if you want to rededicate your life, or whatever you feel like).
    OnlyForNow
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Wow, big response.

    I'll take this in very short bites, and hope you can reply in the same manner.

    So you're not Catholic? You are then???? Orthodox __________?
    BlackGoldAg2011
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    quote:
    No, anyone (bishop priest deacon or layman) who departs from canonical authority is in schism.

    Apostasy is probably what you're thinking of. In this regard, I was probably not quite correct earlier. This is denying the legitimacy of the other body as the church, separation from the Church completely. The Protestants are apostates. I suppose you could say that heresy and schism eventually produce apostasy.
    Not to be argumentative but are you sure about your definitions here? From the "Catholic Answers" website (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies) here are the definitions given in their heresies tract, taken straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
    quote:
    "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CCC 2089).

    they go on in the tract to provide some greater clarity:
    quote:
    To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.
    A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.
    Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope's infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).
    It is important to distinguish heresy from schism and apostasy. In schism, one separates from the Catholic Church without repudiating a defined doctrine. An example of a contemporary schism is the Society of St. Pius Xthe "Lefebvrists" or followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvrewho separated from the Church in the late 1980s, but who have not denied Catholic doctrines. In apostasy, one totally repudiates the Christian faith and no longer even claims to be a Christian.
    Based on these definitions, your statement makes the claim that Protestants have completely rejected the Christian faith and for all intents and purposes are no different in the eyes of the Catholic church than Muslims, atheists, or tribal religions. Is that the stance you are holding? if so you are entitled to that, but I just want to be clear about it, because if so, to the best i can tell, that puts you in disagreement with the Catholic church on this issue. From the catechism quote above, Protestantism would seem to fall soundly in the definition of heresy.
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    I'm not Latin or Roman Catholic. I'm an Orthodox Christian.
    BlackGoldAg2011
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    quote:
    Being saved is not binary, it's a process. Part of that process includes (mere) intellectual belief, yes. It includes baptism. It includes faith. It includes being joined to Him, union with God to become God. Salvation isn't "going to heaven", it's becoming by grace what He is by nature.
    OK, so then just for semantics clarification, when you speak of "Salvation", you are speaking about what we would refer to as sanctification. Based on the scriptures, we see two distinct processes of Christ in our lives.

    The first being Salvation (or more properly justification), which is the receipt of Christ's redeeming payment for our sins. Once this grace is accepted it is full and complete. My sins are paid for and I no longer stand in condemnation for them. See, the thief on the cross, Acts 13:31, Romans 10:9, most of Hebrews 10, etc.

    The second being Sanctification, which is being conformed to the image of Christ, and is an ongoing process until the day we day. This seems to be more in line with the concept you are discussing. It is described nicely and succinctly in 2 Corinthians 3:16-18.

    Now, I will not argue that our word choices are the best as even in looking up these references they are not always consistent with the words used in scripture, but the concepts behind the words hold firm. But just for the purposes of discussion, i wanted to be sure to clarify the two concepts behind the words we use to avoid confusion. please correct me if i am wrong on my interpretation of what you are describing when talking about salvation.

    If I am not wrong, then do you not hold that once accepting Christ's sacrifice, all of your sins are forgiven (justification)? At which point I would say a person is "Saved" but can and should continue to be "sanctified" into the image of Christ, otherwise they may be saved, "but only as one through fire" 1 Cor 3:15
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Am I sure? No.

    I don't follow the Latin Catechism, so I'm not sure I agree completley.

    St Basil describes three kinds of people apart from the Church - heretics, schismatics, and parasynagogists.
    (Link here and here)

    Parasynagogists were priests and bishops who were deposed from their offices but refused, and continued to act as clergy apart from the Church. These can be reunited with the Church through repentence.

    Schismatics were at variance with the church on some matter of church polity, but not matters of faith. These can be reunited with the Church but in some cases may need to be baptized -- if they were baptized by a schismatic priest, there may be no efficacy in their baptism.

    Heretics were in disagreement on a matter of faith, who had separated themselves. Their sacraments have no legitimacy and they must be received into the Church completely.

    At some point, being separated from the Chruch is really all that matters. Is there a line between utter apostasy and heresy? Yes. Is there a line between apostasy and schism? Yes. But where is judgment.

    (For what it's worth, as a counter point, St John the Damascene describes Islam as a Christian heresy, so these terms are broadly used and not necessarily very precise).
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    We don't make a distinction. Justification is not a once-for-all thing. It is the act of becoming to a right relationship with God, which begins with baptism. This is made possible by Christ alone, through Him we are forgiven and made righteous. It's not an instanteneous guarantee, and it's not a legal declaration that a person who wasn't righteous is because of Christ. It's a daily pursuit. Sanctification means being set apart for God. They're two sides to the same coin. This is why a person is told when baptised "thou art justified, thou art illumined, thou art sanctified, thou art washed in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God". You can't separate them.

    The problem is at the root a difference in the concept of sin and salvation, which, as I said, makes this discussion very difficult.

    quote:
    If I am not wrong, then do you not hold that once accepting Christ's sacrifice, all of your sins are forgiven (justification)? At which point I would say a person is "Saved" but can and should continue to be "sanctified" into the image of Christ, otherwise they may be saved, "but only as one through fire" 1 Cor 3:15
    No, I don't agree really. It's not a fruitful discussion, in my opinion, to figure the minimalist requirement to be saved. We have instructions: believe, repent, be baptized, join the church.

    (St John Chrysostom teachesthat all will be saved from death because Christ trampled down death by death, but that St Paul is teaching that the salvation through fire is for those who are not "saved", i.e., that fire is not purifying through purgatory but basically hell.)

    Some links that say it better than me:
    On Justification
    On Righteousness
    Furlock Bones
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    k2,

    were you baptized again when you joined the OCC? i thought they recognized baptisms from churches that perform them in the trinitarian form.
    BlackGoldAg2011
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    quote:
    The problem is at the root a difference in the concept of sin and salvation, which, as I said, makes this discussion very difficult.
    I think this is probably the crux of all the issues discussed and disagreed upon by the various "sects" of Christianity. Probably also why we struggle to find common ground and agreement between protestants and catholics, because we disagree on this issue which seems to inform the rest of our theology in one way or another.

    OK so a preface question for you. I will not try to argue "its not in the bible" with a catholic since they openly admit to not professing "sola scriptura" and so anything down that road is just a waste of time. catholic/orthodox does believe in the inerrancy of scripture though right? And if so, how would you (both collectively and individually) found a teaching/tradition of the church to be in conflict with scripture?

    i realize the belief in the infallible church would make this impossible, but humor me for a minute in this hypothetical scenario. is there a way to reconcile/correct these hypothetical errors? or if proven undeniably in conflict with holy scripture(i know i know, not possible, infallible church) does the entire belief system collapse?
    OnlyForNow
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Ok, so I just wiki'd that to understand it better (have heard about it in the past and knew very little).

    So in all honesty, it seems similar to Catholicism to me, expect no Pope or Bishops per-say.

    Maybe we should move this discussion to another new thread?
    Furlock Bones
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    quote:
    quote:
    The problem is at the root a difference in the concept of sin and salvation, which, as I said, makes this discussion very difficult.
    I think this is probably the crux of all the issues discussed and disagreed upon by the various "sects" of Christianity. Probably also why we struggle to find common ground and agreement between protestants and catholics, because we disagree on this issue which seems to inform the rest of our theology in one way or another.

    OK so a preface question for you. I will not try to argue "its not in the bible" with a catholic since they openly admit to not professing "sola scriptura" and so anything down that road is just a waste of time. catholic/orthodox does believe in the inerrancy of scripture though right? And if so, how would you (both collectively and individually) found a teaching/tradition of the church to be in conflict with scripture?

    i realize the belief in the infallible church would make this impossible, but humor me for a minute in this hypothetical scenario. is there a way to reconcile/correct these hypothetical errors? or if proven undeniably in conflict with holy scripture(i know i know, not possible, infallible church) does the entire belief system collapse?

    i grew up methodist. but, i'll say i never understood how a person can believe in sola scriptura or as you say the "inerrancy" of the scripture when there are literally 100's of translations and versions.
    BlackGoldAg2011
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    quote:
    i grew up methodist. but, i'll say i never understood how a person can believe in sola scriptura or as you say the "inerrancy" of the scripture when there are literally 100's of translations and versions.
    first, sola scriptura and inerrancy of scripture are linked but two separate things.

    sola scripture is the belief that everything necessary for the faith can be found in the scriptures, and while God is not limited in how he makes revelations, scripture is sufficient and if it is all you had, that would be enough. It also implies that God will never contradict his revelations to us in scripture with any subsequent special revelations, and any revelations outside of scripture are not applicable to the church as a whole but to the specific person or group the revelation was made to.

    as to the inerrancy of scripture, that majority (though not all) subscribe to the belief that the scripture is inerrant in its original text. this is why such a big deal is made about the accuracy of translations and which manuscripts they are based on. the thought being, the closer to the original text, the more inerrant the book in your hands actually is.
    OnlyForNow
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    quote:

    Schismatics were at variance with the church on some matter of church polity, but not matters of faith. These can be reunited with the Church but in some cases may need to be baptized -- if they were baptized by a schismatic priest, there may be no efficacy in their baptism.

    At some point, being separated from the Chruch is really all that matters. Is there a line between utter apostasy and heresy? Yes. Is there a line between apostasy and schism? Yes. But where is judgment.

    Ok so I'll focus just on this...

    So being a Methodist, to Orthodox Christians I am a schismatic? And if that's the case then "in some cases" I would need to be re-baptized? My question is why?

    Priests, bishops, preachers, pastors, etc are positions given to them by humans after they have met certain requirements set forth by humans (in most cases), not by God Himself; why would a baptism by (insert non-Orthodox Christian sect here) not be as "good" or effective, as one performed by the Orthodox Church, did God himself ordain your Church leaders (not sure what they are called) - the answer is a resounding no. They may be called to that life, and God may have certainly acted on them in such a way they made them make that choice, I have no doubt in my beliefs that, God works in those ways... but you can't sit there and say that God created the curriculum for their seminary, because he didn't.

    This is similar to my compliant about Catholics, and while I respect them and their beliefs, aside from the fact that priests and their other clergy know A LOT about religion (theirs and others) and the Bible (both the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible), they are just humans. They aren't any physically closer to God than the rest of us and we all sin, therefore we all fall short of the glory and grace of God. Their devotion is recognized as it should be, and in some cases they probably do sin less than lay people, but we know that's not true for all of them. So, to me, it all comes out in the wash, we are all dirty sinful humans, and there is only one way to be saved. - Baptism and accepting Christ

    I've been baptized as a Christian, not necessarily a Methodist (this is my own opinion and my view of God with the understandings I've learned through my church). Baptism didn't have anything to do with the church I went to at the time, it was/is about accepting God/Christ's unending love for us wretched humans and striving to have Him work through us to spread The message. I do a crappy job of that, as do most of my fellow humans. But to me, the whole point of being saved and accepting Christ is that we can still make mistakes and still be human and still receive grace that we totally don't deserve. That is how awesome God is... we screw up on a daily basis and he is still there for us.

    If God wants His children to come to Him, why on heaven and earth would he say, 'you know what? You must come to me through this one single church entity'? - this is what I am getting from your replies and I am sorry if I am reading it the wrong way... Seems like he is cutting out a majority of the world's population on purpose who never have a chance to join this church. Isn't God supposed to love everyone and accept everyone, yet if the above is true, then he is purposefully casting some aside without regard for their damnation/salvation... right?

    BTW, I am not trying to be argumentative, I actually really enjoy discussions like these because it allows me to get a small peek at other beliefs.
    OnlyForNow
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    As a Methodist, this is my belief, regardless of what our church doctrines say.

    If all you had was the NRSV, King James, NIV, etc version of the Bible you're good to go as long as you can willingly accept it all.

    But it was all written by men and then translated and then translated and translated some more.

    We have to HOPE that the men who wrote it and translated it had God acting through them to record it.

    God-inspired is something our Sunday school class has thrown around (and some people don't like it at all) but it is what it is. God didn't send down an angel who then commandeered a printing press and BAM! we get the Bible; nor did He posses the writers or translators. Humans wrote the Bible therefore there are some errors in it, some (most?) Methodists just accept this.
    BlackGoldAg2011
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    quote:
    Ok so I'll focus just on this...

    So being a Methodist, to Orthodox Christians I am a schismatic? And if that's the case then "in some cases" I would need to be re-baptized? My question is why?

    Priests, bishops, preachers, pastors, etc are positions given to them by humans after they have met certain requirements set forth by humans (in most cases), not by God Himself; why would a baptism by (insert non-Orthodox Christian sect here) not be as "good" or effective, as one performed by the Orthodox Church, did God himself ordain your Church leaders (not sure what they are called) - the answer is a resounding no. They may be called to that life, and God may have certainly acted on them in such a way they made them make that choice, I have no doubt in my beliefs that, God works in those ways... but you can't sit there and say that God created the curriculum for their seminary, because he didn't.

    This is similar to my compliant about Catholics, and while I respect them and their beliefs, aside from the fact that priests and their other clergy know A LOT about religion (theirs and others) and the Bible (both the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible), they are just humans. They aren't any physically closer to God than the rest of us and we all sin, therefore we all fall short of the glory and grace of God. Their devotion is recognized as it should be, and in some cases they probably do sin less than lay people, but we know that's not true for all of them. So, to me, it all comes out in the wash, we are all dirty sinful humans, and there is only one way to be saved. - Baptism and accepting Christ

    I've been baptized as a Christian, not necessarily a Methodist (this is my own opinion and my view of God with the understandings I've learned through my church). Baptism didn't have anything to do with the church I went to at the time, it was/is about accepting God/Christ's unending love for us wretched humans and striving to have Him work through us to spread The message. I do a crappy job of that, as do most of my fellow humans. But to me, the whole point of being saved and accepting Christ is that we can still make mistakes and still be human and still receive grace that we totally don't deserve. That is how awesome God is... we screw up on a daily basis and he is still there for us.

    If God wants His children to come to Him, why on heaven and earth would he say, 'you know what? You must come to me through this one single church entity'? - this is what I am getting from your replies and I am sorry if I am reading it the wrong way... Seems like he is cutting out a majority of the world's population on purpose who never have a chance to join this church. Isn't God supposed to love everyone and accept everyone, yet if the above is true, then he is purposefully casting some aside without regard for their damnation/salvation... right?

    BTW, I am not trying to be argumentative, I actually really enjoy discussions like these because it allows me to get a small peek at other beliefs.
    I may be a little off as i am still learning, but i went through and bolded the parts of your quote that I think you will receive strong disagreement on from the catholic/orthodox. They do believe that the leaders in their Church are ordained by God and of an apostolic order of Peter (hope i didn't mess that up). They have a different view of baptism (Holy Spirit actually comes on a person at baptism), and as seen in the discussion between myself and K2, they have a very different view of salvation than what we think of.
    OnlyForNow
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    I need to go back and read what I missed then.

    Thanks for continuing the discussion.
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    I was, yes. My bishop said it was my choice, because the church does grant oeconomia to those baptized by immersion and in the name of the Trinity - they can be Chrismated into the church. I chose Orthodox baptism.

    I'm at a work shindig, will answer the other stuff later today.
    BlackGoldAg2011
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    quote:
    If God wants His children to come to Him, why on heaven and earth would he say, 'you know what? You must come to me through this one single church entity'? - this is what I am getting from your replies and I am sorry if I am reading it the wrong way... Seems like he is cutting out a majority of the world's population on purpose who never have a chance to join this church. Isn't God supposed to love everyone and accept everyone, yet if the above is true, then he is purposefully casting some aside without regard for their damnation/salvation... right?
    Correct me if I am reading this wrong, but this sounds a lot like the "all roads lead to heave" view. The bible is clear that there are certain standards of truth that must be believed and adhered to in order to receive the saving grace of Christ. If there is not a defined standard then one of two things must be true. either there is no hell (whether you believe hell is eternal torture or simply total destruction is a separate argument) which causes some serious issues when held up to scripture, or there is, and God is arbitrary which would mean He is not just, which also causes some serious issues when held up to scripture. The argument between protestant and catholic is what is that standard of truth. and while we have some overlap, the more I learn, the more i am finding some very distinct differences.

    quote:
    As a Methodist, this is my belief, regardless of what our church doctrines say.

    this is actually similar to the issue in the OP starting this discussion. At what point does your diversion from methodist doctrine, disqualify you from calling yourself methodist? because what is a denomination if not an accepted list of beliefs? not accusing, legitimately asking

    quote:
    If all you had was the NRSV, King James, NIV, etc version of the Bible you're good to go as long as you can willingly accept it all.
    I think there is likely some truth in this statement. Such as if you only have access to one translation, I think that you will be held accountable to what is in it because the essentials are all basically there. but i think there is a higher level of responsibility when you have different translations available and the resources to asses the accuracy of each. i think the different levels of accountability is similar to how we are told teachers will be held to a high level of accountability. these are just my thoughts though and i havent done scriptural study to back them up. that being said, when focusing on the most basic and foundational tenants of the faith, to the best of my knowledge you can get those from basically any of the translations available.
    quote:
    But it was all written by men and then translated and then translated and translated some more.

    We have to HOPE that the men who wrote it and translated it had God acting through them to record it.

    God-inspired is something our Sunday school class has thrown around (and some people don't like it at all) but it is what it is. God didn't send down an angel who then commandeered a printing press and BAM! we get the Bible; nor did He posses the writers or translators. Humans wrote the Bible therefore there are some errors in it, some (most?) Methodists just accept this.
    to start with, God-inspired is something great to be tossed around in your ss class, since unless i am misunderstanding what you mean, it was first tossed around by Paul in writing to Timothy. (All scripture is God-breathed).

    second, he absolutely did posses the writers, isn't that exactly what the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is? between this and the first point is where the belief that in its original form, the scriptures are free from errors of content perhaps grammatical or spelling, or typo type errors, but the content is inerrant. Just because humans were involved does not necessitate error. Was Jesus not human? And if the bible is God's very word for us would He not preserve it for us?

    if you open the option up to the bible having errors of content even in its original form, then how are we to distinguish between what is truth and what is not? where do you propose we draw the line of this scripture can be trusted and this scripture cannot be trusted?


    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    quote:
    I think this is probably the crux of all the issues discussed and disagreed upon by the various "sects" of Christianity. Probably also why we struggle to find common ground and agreement between protestants and catholics, because we disagree on this issue which seems to inform the rest of our theology in one way or another.

    OK so a preface question for you. I will not try to argue "its not in the bible" with a catholic since they openly admit to not professing "sola scriptura" and so anything down that road is just a waste of time. catholic/orthodox does believe in the inerrancy of scripture though right? And if so, how would you (both collectively and individually) found a teaching/tradition of the church to be in conflict with scripture?

    i realize the belief in the infallible church would make this impossible, but humor me for a minute in this hypothetical scenario. is there a way to reconcile/correct these hypothetical errors? or if proven undeniably in conflict with holy scripture(i know i know, not possible, infallible church) does the entire belief system collapse?

    Yep. Like the word theology. For Orthodox, true theology only comes from God, because God is transcendent and inherently unknowable except as He chooses to reveal Himself to us. Right there we have a very big difference, because a lot of the western thought is literally the other way around. Thomas Aquinas thought we could reach to God with reason in addition to sacred teaching (i.e,. revelation).

    Inerrancy of scripture, right, yes. Scripture is inspired and illumined and is an icon of God, points us to God. Church Tradition cannot conflict with Scripture, because Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand. Scripture is one part of Tradition, the crown jewel of Tradition, but the Scriptures that were preserved weren't kept in opposition to Tradition but because of the harmony between them. It does not follow.

    To answer your question directly - We don't believe in Scripture. We believe in God. We aren't baptized into the Bible. Being precise, we aren't even baptized into the Church, we are baptized into Christ. We aren't saved by the Church, or the Bible - we are saved by Christ. Orthodoxy is inherently Christocentric, not dogma-centric or book-centric. If all of the bibles in the world were simulateneously burned, we would abide in our faith, because our faith isn't in a book. (And, practically speaking, the Liturgy could basically reconstruct the Scriptures - and the gaps could be filled in with the writings of the Fathers).
    BustUpAChiffarobe
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    As a man with his foot in the west and his big toe in the east presently, I have to say that St.Thomas gets a lot more "right" than the Eastern Orthodox give him credit for, if not quite as much as the Western church who probably adopted too much of his musings.

    Much of St.Thomas' discourse on Natural Law and his telelogical dissertations on God's existence seem rather "energeia-etic", I have noticed this since coming to study the concept a little. I also think that the language of Aristotelian philosophy creates a divide between the east and west where there is really no intention or disagreement; similar to the understanding of transubstantiation and the divine mystery. Man's understanding God through the study of his creation sounds identical to the essence/energeia belief of the East, even if St.TA does take his thought exercise a bit too far.

    The other day I was struck by the idea that St. Thomas was perhaps an amateur hesychast who may have been gifted the light of Tabor towards the end of his life. One of St.Thomas' students said this of St.Thomas "For it is contemplation which preserves in the midst of human society the truth which is at one and the same time useless and the yardstick of every possible use; so it is also contemplation which keeps the true end in sight, gives meaning to every practical act of life".

    As Im sure you know, before he died he was rumored to have a vision while meditating in front of cross, and refused to write any more claiming "it was all like straw" after his vision. To me, that seems like a man who has experienced the energies of God, and who realizes all of his writing and philosophy is absolutely nothing compared to the experience of God himself (or his energies, you know what I mean)
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG

    quote:
    So being a Methodist, to Orthodox Christians I am a schismatic? And if that's the case then "in some cases" I would need to be re-baptized? My question is why?
    To my understanding, you are outside of the Church. The reason schismatics needed to be rebaptized in some cases is that, being outside the church, there may be no efficacy in their sacraments (in Orthodoxy we properly call these Holy Mysteries). If a hindu person baptized someone, would your church accept that? Why not?

    quote:
    Priests, bishops, preachers, pastors, etc are positions given to them by humans after they have met certain requirements set forth by humans (in most cases), not by God Himself; why would a baptism by (insert non-Orthodox Christian sect here) not be as "good" or effective, as one performed by the Orthodox Church, did God himself ordain your Church leaders (not sure what they are called) - the answer is a resounding no. They may be called to that life, and God may have certainly acted on them in such a way they made them make that choice, I have no doubt in my beliefs that, God works in those ways... but you can't sit there and say that God created the curriculum for their seminary, because he didn't.
    Ok, so, ordination is a Holy Mystery. This means it is a conveyance of grace, which comes from God. So, while being ordained does not make a person infallible or maybe even good at their jobs, there is a certain grace involved -- just like baptism, or laying on of hands (all supported clearly in the scriptures).

    The truth of the matter is, Christ Himself ordained the Apostles. And the Apostles have chrismated and appointed bishops and presbyters, and the chain of apostolic succession in the Church is unbroken. You say you believe in an Apostolic Church -- this is precisely what you're confessing, whether you agree with it or not. That is, you are confessing that the chain of succession going back to God ordaining our bishops is a resounding yes.

    quote:
    This is similar to my compliant about Catholics, and while I respect them and their beliefs, aside from the fact that priests and their other clergy know A LOT about religion (theirs and others) and the Bible (both the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible), they are just humans. They aren't any physically closer to God than the rest of us and we all sin, therefore we all fall short of the glory and grace of God. Their devotion is recognized as it should be, and in some cases they probably do sin less than lay people, but we know that's not true for all of them. So, to me, it all comes out in the wash, we are all dirty sinful humans, and there is only one way to be saved. - Baptism and accepting Christ
    This is a red herring. Knowledge about religion or the bible (just what difference do you think there is between the "Catholic" and "Protestant" Bible? Wanna have some real fun? The Orthodox Church doesn't even have a Bible ) is not a qualification or exemption criteria for the priesthood.

    Your statement about their position with regard to God is dubious. We kiss a priest's hand and ask for a blessing not because his hand is special but because its his right hand that handles the body and blood of Christ. Physically, yes, in that case. They devote their lives to God, they are literally sanctified, set apart for God. If this made the Prophets special, why would it not make the priesthood special? The holy Martyr Phillip, the Deacon, did no miracles before being ordained but was full of the spirit before. There is grace in ordination, just as there is grace in baptism.

    Sinful nature of priests is irrelevant. Here is the prayer a priest says before beginning Liturgy. It begins "Defiled as I am by many sins, do not utterly reject me, Master, Lord, our God." Almost every prayer a priest says for every service begins with him acknowledging his utter sinfulness before God. During the Liturgy the priest prays the Psalm of Repentance, Psalm 51 (50 in the LXX). A priest's fitness for service is not based on his knowledge or his personal holiness, but on the grace of the priesthood as a part of the Church. Again, everything comes from connection to Christ alone. Apart from Him, there is nothing. And the Church is His Body, as St Paul teaches us.

    quote:
    I've been baptized as a Christian, not necessarily a Methodist (this is my own opinion and my view of God with the understandings I've learned through my church). Baptism didn't have anything to do with the church I went to at the time, it was/is about accepting God/Christ's unending love for us wretched humans and striving to have Him work through us to spread The message. I do a crappy job of that, as do most of my fellow humans. But to me, the whole point of being saved and accepting Christ is that we can still make mistakes and still be human and still receive grace that we totally don't deserve. That is how awesome God is... we screw up on a daily basis and he is still there for us.
    No. It's not so we can stil lmake mistakes and be human or receive grace we don't deserve. The point of salvation, the point of being a Christian is to be perfect. This is unequivacobly clear in the scriptures (Matt 5:48, Leviticus 19:2, Deuteronomy 18:13, 2 Cor 7:1, Phil 2:15, James 1:4, etc etc etc). But how? Christ Himself teaches us that we are to be perfected in unity -- that we may all be one. Not in union with each other but in Him, just as He is in perfect unity with the Father.
    quote:
    If God wants His children to come to Him, why on heaven and earth would he say, 'you know what? You must come to me through this one single church entity'? - this is what I am getting from your replies and I am sorry if I am reading it the wrong way... Seems like he is cutting out a majority of the world's population on purpose who never have a chance to join this church. Isn't God supposed to love everyone and accept everyone, yet if the above is true, then he is purposefully casting some aside without regard for their damnation/salvation... right?
    Go read John 17 and tell me that isn't exactly what He did.

    Eternal life by knowing God, who is Christ.
    Christ manifested everything to His Apostles., they truly believe, truly understand.
    The Apostles are one even as God and Christ are one.
    The Apostles were given the word of God, they were sancitfied in Truth, because His word is Truth.
    This doesn't apply only to the Apostles but to all who believe in Christ through their word, to be one.
    The glory given to Christ was given to Them.
    Perfection comes from Unity (Christ in us and God in Christ).

    Salvation comes from union to God through the God-man Jesus Christ. We are to believe in Christ through the word of the Apostles, which is the word of God given to them by God Himself. This is why St Jude says the faith was delivered once for all to the saints. And it was preserved in the Church. Holy Tradition and the Word delivered to the Apostles is one and the same. This is why St Paul says hold fast to the traditions you were taught whether by word or by letter, why he praises the Corinthians for remembering the traditions he taught them, why St Titus said an elder must hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching [of the apostles].
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Yes. I generally agree with your analysis, except I look at it a little differently. I think theology must be done from within God, from within Tradition, from experience (not hypothesis). This means that the vision of the uncreated light is the beginning of expressing theology, not the end.

    I don't agree, though, that Aquinas was correct on his energeia use. I also don't think the use of Aristotle was permissible or correct - the Fathers baptised a great deal of philosphy to express what they experienced, but did not use Aristotle. I think there's a reason here.

    The essence energies distinction goes back to the Cappadocian Fathers and is a cornerstone of true Theology, in my opinion. The struggle of the west is not having this in their quiver to express. For a great great study of the word energeia, check out Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West.
    Page 1 of 2
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.