Book about how New Testament books were selected

3,060 Views | 58 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Zobel
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Because obviously I don't think the difference in religion means what you think it does. They're very different, but those differences while real don't lead me to the conclusions you're assuming (no grace, no salvation, whatever).

You're basically saying nuh uh, but you also have almost no exposure to orthodoxy. It's like you're arguing with me about a country you've never visited but I've lived in for ten years. It's strange. Have you ever been to a Divine Liturgy?
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Because obviously I don't think the difference in religion means what you think it does. They're very different, but those differences while real don't lead me to the conclusions you're assuming (no grace, no salvation, whatever).

You're basically saying nuh uh, but you also have almost no exposure to orthodoxy. It's like you're arguing with me about a country you've never visited but I've lived in for ten years. It's strange. Have you ever been to a Divine Liturgy?


I've thought heartfully about joining an Orthodox Church. I've posted before that the church we have been a part of is struggling in multiple areas and yes it dying on the vine because of it.

Ive looked into a couple different orthodox churches in my area, but they all have the same angle.

-We've been right longer than you. Congrats on joining The Right Team (TM).
-you don't know how to pray, commune, live and here's how your (cue straw man Protestant church attack that does it wrong, but looks an awfully lot like the Christians who have devout faith in other churches).
-the Catholics left us.
-we have the same structure as the Catholic Church, but the lead guy is just an admin, no papal supremacy. (Which I can agree with, they know how to sell to a Protestant.)
-We've been around for 2000 years (established 1983)

There has been a threshing floor in my house about what is important and what isn't when church shopping. We're both bringing precious church baggage to the decision. I'd be interested in checking out an Orthodox Church in deeper, my wife is not.

I'd be interested in going to a daily liturgy as a field trip.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If I don't know what your exposure is, it's because you've spent the entire conversation telling me what I think and refusing to expound on your experience. I'm happy to listen if you want to talk about it.

To be very clear I don't mean denomination. I absolutely mean religion. I think Eastern Orthodoxy is so different from the west - particularly American evangelical Protestantism - that it's not the same religion. I was convinced of that fifteen years ago, and I'm more convinced now. And I think the things which the scripture describes as the essence of Christian identity and unity support my opinion here, because that is precisely where the differences lie.

You're probably not able to hear this but honestly you have so much baggage to unpack it will probably take you the better part of a decade to come to Orthodoxy. I say this because that's how long it took me - and in some ways I'm still unpacking. And that journey began with a commitment to a blank slate approach, being open to anything without presumption. As long as you begin with "here's what is and isn't core" you're bringing a lot of layers in opposition to that.

PS. We don't have the same structure as the Roman church.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

If I don't know what your exposure is, it's because you've spent the entire conversation telling me what I think and refusing to expound on your experience. I'm happy to listen if you want to talk about it.

To be very clear I don't mean denomination. I absolutely mean religion. I think Eastern Orthodoxy is so different from the west - particularly American evangelical Protestantism - that it's not the same religion. I was convinced of that fifteen years ago, and I'm more convinced now. And I think the things which the scripture describes as the essence of Christian identity and unity support my opinion here, because that is precisely where the differences lie.

You're probably not able to hear this but honestly you have so much baggage to unpack it will probably take you the better part of a decade to come to Orthodoxy. I say this because that's how long it took me - and in some ways I'm still unpacking. And that journey began with a commitment to a blank slate approach, being open to anything without presumption. As long as you begin with "here's what is and isn't core" you're bringing a lot of layers in opposition to that.

PS. We don't have the same structure as the Roman church.
First of all, I love both of you guys.

I agree with Zobel about the differences.

Being raised in the Baptist Church, the whole difference between ontological vs judicial theology is pretty radical. When I was young, Jesus was only to keep you from going to hell. And He is so much more than that. Completely different way of life.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I also remember getting *really* annoyed at one of my very best friends about orthodoxy. I wrote him an email about how orthodoxy was just another way and how God didn't care about the differences etc. One line in it was something like "if the Orthodox have a true apostolic legacy it's arguing about who is the greatest".

Cringeworthy in retrospect. It wasn't him I was reacting to, or orthodoxy. And I was wrong.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I have been wrong a zillion times, the whole "turn or burn" theology(primarily Western) is like a different religion than what was preached in the NT. Read Paul's sermon on Mars Hill and compare it to Jonathan Edwards's "Sinners in the hands of an angry God". There is basically no similarities.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel,

I apologize for getting defensive. I should've been more gracious to you.

I'll try to come with a blanker slate around here, especially in your corner of expertise. I see (but also don't) your claims about it being a different religion, but I'll let it go. I've been around great people of faith from all sorts of denominations. I just can't comprehend the idea that if you devoutly believe in a biblically sound version of Jesus that you're of different religion-not just a denomination. I seen some weak faiths growing up that loved to talk about how some other denomination wasn't actually Christian and was going to hell. Just infuriating to me that they would limit Christ like that, declare themselves perfectly right in interpretation and cast those people aside. I see that isn't your take though.

My apologies again.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No worries, it's all gravy, God forgives.

It seems like to you "a different religion" carries a negative connotation that I don't intend. Orthodoxy does not say if you're not Orthodox you're going to hell. It doesn't even say if you're not Christian you're going to hell. In fact we rarely talk about hell at all. It doesn't really come up very often.

For me, religion is sort of comprised of some major claims
- who your deity is (call this Christology or Theology proper)
- what the objective or outcome of following that religion is (soteriology)
- how your religion is structured in relation to itself (ecclesiology)
- what the major teachings of the faith are (doctrine)
- how people who follow are expected to act (praxis)

I think all of the mainline denominations generally align on Christology, but I think there's a lot of soft Christology in modern protestantism that gets kind of handwaved. I don't think official positions are at odds in general, but I think a lot of personal beliefs are - and because official positions are so myriad, it's hard to tell the difference. The essences / energies distinction and the two natures (and wills!) of Christ are not often formally taught, and in some cases are not understood at all in the west. These are fundamental aspects of Orthodox theology.

Soteriology is a big miss, especially colloquially. The whole "go to heaven, sit on a cloud" or "escape earth" theory of modern protestantism is just plain un-Christian. I know you share my affinity for Tim Mackey, so I know you know better. But there's almost no teaching of theosis at all, which is salvation for the Orthodox.

Ecclesiology has a big gap. There's a big variance, and I'm not talking about administrative aspects but theological ones that come to how the Church relates to God and the people of God as well as the authority and reliability of the Ecumenical councils.

Doctrine and Praxis are summaries of the rest and two sides of the same coin, so there is no surprise at so much variance. There are core teachings of Orthodoxy that are ignored or in some cases outright rejected by Protestants (the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, entire understanding of grace through the mysteries). Likewise praxis, there are aspects of Orthodoxy that are called heretical or "unnecessary" by Protestants which are essential parts of the Apostolic faith (fasting, almsgiving) or are genuine expressions of Apostolic worship (iconography).

So when you really only generally align on Christology - which is the bedrock of it all and should bring the rest to alignment - and not on the rest, then you have to stop and consider. When people say that Protestants are in many ways closer to Rome than they are to the East, Orthodox people nod and agree and literally everyone else scoffs. It's hard to express.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I also really enjoy this YouTube-cast. You convinced me to watch the two hours on the Orthodox Church.

dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

No worries, it's all gravy, God forgives.

It seems like to you "a different religion" carries a negative connotation that I don't intend. Orthodoxy does not say if you're not Orthodox you're going to hell. It doesn't even say if you're not Christian you're going to hell. In fact we rarely talk about hell at all. It doesn't really come up very often.

For me, religion is sort of comprised of some major claims
- who your deity is (call this Christology or Theology proper)
- what the objective or outcome of following that religion is (soteriology)
- how your religion is structured in relation to itself (ecclesiology)
- what the major teachings of the faith are (doctrine)
- how people who follow are expected to act (praxis)

I think all of the mainline denominations generally align on Christology, but I think there's a lot of soft Christology in modern protestantism that gets kind of handwaved. I don't think official positions are at odds in general, but I think a lot of personal beliefs are - and because official positions are so myriad, it's hard to tell the difference. The essences / energies distinction and the two natures (and wills!) of Christ are not often formally taught, and in some cases are not understood at all in the west. These are fundamental aspects of Orthodox theology.

Soteriology is a big miss, especially colloquially. The whole "go to heaven, sit on a cloud" or "escape earth" theory of modern protestantism is just plain un-Christian. I know you share my affinity for Tim Mackey, so I know you know better. But there's almost no teaching of theosis at all, which is salvation for the Orthodox.

Ecclesiology has a big gap. There's a big variance, and I'm not talking about administrative aspects but theological ones that come to how the Church relates to God and the people of God as well as the authority and reliability of the Ecumenical councils.

Doctrine and Praxis are summaries of the rest and two sides of the same coin, so there is no surprise at so much variance. There are core teachings of Orthodoxy that are ignored or in some cases outright rejected by Protestants (the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, entire understanding of grace through the mysteries). Likewise praxis, there are aspects of Orthodoxy that are called heretical or "unnecessary" by Protestants which are essential parts of the Apostolic faith (fasting, almsgiving) or are genuine expressions of Apostolic worship (iconography).

So when you really only generally align on Christology - which is the bedrock of it all and should bring the rest to alignment - and not on the rest, then you have to stop and consider. When people say that Protestants are in many ways closer to Rome than they are to the East, Orthodox people nod and agree and literally everyone else scoffs. It's hard to express.
I agree with you. The entire Western church sometimes seems based strictly on "saving" people from hell or whatever as a judicial matter. I think the relatively new emphasis in the Western church of a "relationship" with Christ is a move towards the concept of theosis and synergism, whereby we work in conjunction with the Holy Spirit to become more Christlike and produce fruit,

I just reviewed the Orthodox view on Christology and it is beautiful,seamless, and makes me love Jesus even more. The Incarnation is not emphasized nearly enough in the Western church imho.

Now onto the other topics mentioned. Thanks Zobel.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The soteriology is a little more difficult for me.

I believe anyone who puts their faith in Christ receives salvation and is forgiven of their sins, I also believe in sanctification or theosis, where we become more Christ like via synergism. It is not my place to judge anyone's works or lack thereof. For me personally, I find it essential to continue studying Scripture, praying, and spending contemplative time alone with God. And to consciously, in conjunction with the Spirit, produce fruit and perform good works.

Please feel free to correct me where I am wrong Zobel. It is hard to change a Western mind set. It has taken me years to get to this point.

I am much more conscious now of being the most Christlike I can be rather than noticing what other people do.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I've watched him before and I appreciate his approach. In the end I think his ecumenical spirit is admirable, but I only think it works in one direction. It is very easy for him to say, "all the stuff I care about we agree on with high specificity, so why can't we be in unity?" without realizing that some of the stuff he doesn't care about is really important to others. That's maybe a little unfair, but I don't think it's too far off.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I actually think the biggest difference comes in the praxis and doctrine department. I would love it if we could all fast, have the Eucharist, etc. together. As one church body.

And again, please correct me if I am wrong, Zobel.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
When talking about the filioque, St Photios said something along the lines of it being the only barrier to communion at the time. All the other things considered errors could be worked through in communion, but a difference in the symbol of faith could not. Unfortunately a lot has changed in the eleven centuries since.

I don't know how you can approach the chalice as if in communion when you have fundamental disagreements over what it is.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

When talking about the filioque, St Photios said something along the lines of it being the only barrier to communion at the time. All the other things considered errors could be worked through in communion, but a difference in the symbol of faith could not. Unfortunately a lot has changed in the eleven centuries since.

I don't know how you can approach the chalice as if in communion when you have fundamental disagreements over what it is.
I agree. The difference between a symbol and the actual blood and body of Christ is huge.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Derm, you said " I think the relatively new emphasis in the Western church of a "relationship" with Christ is a move towards the concept of theosis and synergism, whereby we work in conjunction with the Holy Spirit to become more Christlike and produce fruit,

I just reviewed the Orthodox view on Christology and it is beautiful,seamless, and makes me love Jesus even more. The Incarnation is not emphasized nearly enough in the Western church imho."

As a Catholic I have spent a good portion of the last year studying theosis/deification/divinization. What I have found is that the Latin fathers all taught it long before the Schism and later others such as Blessed Jon Duns Scotus and the Franciscans were very inclined to think of theosis as a critical aspect of what it's really all about. I love St Maximos's writings on it and would strongly encourage my Orthodox brethren to look at what the Franciscans and Blessed Jon Duns Scotus in particular thought about the Incarnation and the Primacy of Christ in God's plan for creation.

I think it's reasonable to interpret the Latin Church's lesser focus on theosis as the result of its reaction to the Reformation. Theosis is explicitly mentioned in the Catechism and is entirely orthodox for a Catholic, but when faced with defending orthodoxy against the novelties of the Reformation, Rome allowed its traditional emphasis on theosis to flag and become a lower priority than it should have. But have no doubts, deification is very much part of the Latin church's theology.

Peace.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes -- I agree with this. The problem is the Reformation became such a debate over a very particular view of salvation that the part ended up being identified with the whole in many cases.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agree. However, I think the "Great Awakening" was more responsible for the "turn or burn" evangelistic bent which to me looks nothing like what I read in the Scriptures or from the early church.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Another thing that comes to mind. I was reading about postmodernism the other day as a part of a marketing exercise for work. One aspect was the idea that humans use tools to interface with reality, but in postmodernism those tools can be used to flip the script - instead of interacting with the world you can use them to create the world you like (the world you see is the world, world as spectacle, and so on).

Anyway the four tools mentioned are language art music and ritual. Those things imply the world on some level, the same was praxis and theology are codependent. If we extend this idea to this present topic the question becomes how much overlap is there between east and west in - art, music, language, and ritual, in the context of the sacred?
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Another thing that comes to mind. I was reading about postmodernism the other day as a part of a marketing exercise for work. One aspect was the idea that humans use tools to interface with reality, but in postmodernism those tools can be used to flip the script - instead of interacting with the world you can use them to create the world you like (the world you see is the world, world as spectacle, and so on).

Anyway the four tools mentioned are language art music and ritual. Those things imply the world on some level, the same was praxis and theology are codependent. If we extend this idea to this present topic the question becomes how much overlap is there between east and west in - art, music, language, and ritual, in the context of the sacred?



My response is premised on excluding 99% of Protestant traditions (Anglicanism being the one exception) from what constitutes the "west." I think there is significant overlap between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in praxis and theology. I know the filioque and the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome are real differences, but just about everything else seems very "overlapped" from what I have read and learned.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Another thing that comes to mind. I was reading about postmodernism the other day as a part of a marketing exercise for work. One aspect was the idea that humans use tools to interface with reality, but in postmodernism those tools can be used to flip the script - instead of interacting with the world you can use them to create the world you like (the world you see is the world, world as spectacle, and so on).

Anyway the four tools mentioned are language art music and ritual. Those things imply the world on some level, the same was praxis and theology are codependent. If we extend this idea to this present topic the question becomes how much overlap is there between east and west in - art, music, language, and ritual, in the context of the sacred?

This is a really, really good point.

I'll add as a sidebar: the very tools in the toolbox have changed as well, which is part of the confusion in these discussions.

In Western Europe you had an acceleration of measurement and quantitative thinking taking it far beyond any other region in the world.

These tools and modes of thinking had enormous impacts on how we view the physical world and have taken us from a place of material poverty to material wealth. But have they done the reverse spiritually? Has this mode of thinking relegated the tools you mention above as non-essential?

Take the issue of time. The invention of mechanical clocks in Western Europe allowed people to view time as "an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences" (Lewis Mumford). Before clocks did people experience it as an abstract entity at all?

This was literally the first thing I noticed coming from a Protestant to an Orthodox Church. In my old-school Protestant Church the service would last precisely from 9:00am to 10:15am, and if you were one minute late the ushers would glare at you with contempt, waiting to open the doors until a break between hymns.

In the Divine Liturgy many people show up before, during Orthros, but many people come in gradually over the 30-45 minutes after the Liturgy has begun. If there are a lot of people at the service then it will take a really long time due to the Eucharist, and no attempt appears to have been made to make things more efficient.

From a western perspective laziness or not being mindful of time. Viewed the other way, precise measurement of time has too much control and power over our perception of reality.

In the Divine Liturgy there are parallel actions, prayers, chants, and this multilayered approach converges at the celebration of the Eucharist. In my Protestant service the service was laid out as a series of discrete events, where one thing takes place after another.

Time as a tool and a reorienting and reshaping of reality is just one minor, indirect difference compared to the direct differences above. But I think it demonstrates the fact that there is a big gap, and it's hard to verbalize every aspect of it.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Excellent insights.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

Another thing that comes to mind. I was reading about postmodernism the other day as a part of a marketing exercise for work. One aspect was the idea that humans use tools to interface with reality, but in postmodernism those tools can be used to flip the script - instead of interacting with the world you can use them to create the world you like (the world you see is the world, world as spectacle, and so on).

Anyway the four tools mentioned are language art music and ritual. Those things imply the world on some level, the same was praxis and theology are codependent. If we extend this idea to this present topic the question becomes how much overlap is there between east and west in - art, music, language, and ritual, in the context of the sacred?

Bam. Hit all four in one clip.



Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Refresh
Page 2 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.