Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Chrawnus Goes on an Adventure to Learn about Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    I'm not familiar with the early WoF doctrine. In Orthodox belief, Adam was created without flaw, with the free will to choose to be filled with the grace of God or reject it. Theosis is the process of becoming like God, as we are made in His image and likeness (Gen. 1:26-7); it is synonymous with sanctification. There is a distinction between God's essence, which is fundamental to His being uncreated and we cannot therefore acquire, and His energy, which emanates from Him. As we become like God, and our will aligns more closely we His, we are divinized, or filled with His energy (also known as His grace). This is the energy that emanated from Christ in the Transfiguration. Many Orthodox people, especially monastics, have been so rapt in prayer that they have seen this light, and even glow with it themselves from within (this takes extreme humility - the merest thought of pride extinguishes it immediately).
    Thank you. I have to say that I don't see anything here that strikes me as particularly objectionable.



    On another note, I just finished Clendenin's book. Time to engage with Coniaris.
    ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

    Comment


    • #17
      I've put my reading of the books OBP recommended to me on pause for a while , to focus my studies on what the early church fathers taught about the eucharist. I have to say that I find it extremely intriguing that Ignatius, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr all seemed to hold to the view that the bread and wine really became the body and blood of Christ (and did not merely symbolize it), especially considering that Ignatius was a disciple of John the Evangelist, while Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who himself was another disciple of John alongside Ignatius. Assuming that these portions of the texts (which I will link to below) are genuine (and I have no reason to believe anything else at this point in time) I find it this a pretty cogent argument for the doctrine of real presence, on the grounds that I find it very implausible that a disciple of John himself (Ignatius) and someone removed from John by only one link (Irenaeus) would have made such an egregious mistake regarding such an important practice of the Christian Church.

      Ignatius' Epistle to the Smyrnæans chapter VII

      Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV, chapter XVIII, verse IV-V

      Irenaeus Against Heresies Book V, chapter II

      Justin Martyr, The First Apology, chapter LXVI
      ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
        I've put my reading of the books OBP recommended to me on pause for a while , to focus my studies on what the early church fathers taught about the eucharist. I have to say that I find it extremely intriguing that Ignatius, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr all seemed to hold to the view that the bread and wine really became the body and blood of Christ (and did not merely symbolize it), especially considering that Ignatius was a disciple of John the Evangelist, while Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who himself was another disciple of John alongside Ignatius. Assuming that these portions of the texts (which I will link to below) are genuine (and I have no reason to believe anything else at this point in time) I find it this a pretty cogent argument for the doctrine of real presence, on the grounds that I find it very implausible that a disciple of John himself (Ignatius) and someone removed from John by only one link (Irenaeus) would have made such an egregious mistake regarding such an important practice of the Christian Church.

        Ignatius' Epistle to the Smyrnæans chapter VII

        Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV, chapter XVIII, verse IV-V

        Irenaeus Against Heresies Book V, chapter II

        Justin Martyr, The First Apology, chapter LXVI
        John Henry Newman famously said that "to be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant." Methinks you're beginning to discover what he meant.
        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
          John Henry Newman famously said that "to be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant." Methinks you're beginning to discover what he meant.

          I do have Lutheran roots, so I'm not entirely foreign to the doctrine of real presence.
          ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            I do have Lutheran roots, so I'm not entirely foreign to the doctrine of real presence.
            Like I said, this is only the beginning
            Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
              Like I said, this is only the beginning


              We'll see. I'm not ruling anything out at this point in time.
              ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

              Comment


              • #22
                Yesterday I finished reading all the books OBP recommended to me. Very interesting read, although it feels like I might have rushed through them a bit too quickly, which is why I'm going to go through all of them again, this time giving each paragraph and chapter a little more deliberation before I scurry of to the next.

                ETA: On another note, any Orthodox Christian here who can give me their opinion on the site orthodoxinfo.com? Would you recommend it to people interested about learning about Orthodoxy, and if not, why not?
                Last edited by JonathanL; 03-02-2015, 12:42 PM.
                ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                  Yesterday I finished reading all the books OBP recommended to me. Very interesting read, although it feels like I might have rushed through them a bit too quickly, which is why I'm going to go through all of them again, this time giving each paragraph and chapter a little more deliberation before I scurry of to the next.

                  ETA: On another note, any Orthodox Christian here who can give me their opinion on the site orthodoxinfo.com? Would you recommend it to people interested about learning about Orthodoxy, and if not, why not?
                  The orthodoxinfo.com site is a bit ...rigorist. It is good on most issues, but I profoundly disagree with it on issues like the church calendar and ecumenism. I would recommend it with caution.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I'm currently going through the hub that orthodoxinfo.com has on Western Christianity and I'm currently at this article:

                    http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/orth...rdxE/e_P12.htm (Which incidentally seems to be the located at the website of the same church/diocese [ By the way, what's the difference between a church and a diocese, if any? ] that upholds the YT channel that OBP recommended.)

                    While it's an interesting read I must say that it seems like the Lutheran teaching of the eucharist/last supper seem to be a bit misunderstood. If we are to believe the article, Lutherans explain the nature of the change such that the divinity of the Word would "enter" into the bread offered for the Eucharist or that Christ "is present not in the sense only of "penetration", as the Lutherans teach (recognizing the co-presence of Christ "with the bread, under the bread, in the bread"). From my understanding of Lutheran theology it is not the case that Christ is only spiritually present in the bread and wine (which was something the Zwinglians teached, and Lutherans rejected) rather Christ's Body and Blood are truly 'present' in the blood and wine and I would be cautious about interpreting the word 'present' to mean that the bread is not the Body of Christ but rather that they share the same locality, which seems like an unwarranted understanding of what the writers of the Augsburg Confession wanted to convey.

                    But other than that I find the article fascinating, especially the part about how in Western Christianity the change in the nature of the bread and wine is understood to happen at the invocation of the words of institution, while the Orthodox understanding seem to be that this happens because of the prayer of the church, blessing and the invocation of the Holy Spirit. (I'm not sure how exactly these three relate to eachother, i.e is the blessing and invocation the same thing, or distinct from each other) On a purely instinctive level the Orthodox understanding seems a bit more attractive to me, because the notion that the action of Jesus blessing and giving thanks for the constituents of the Lord's Supper having no effect seems a bit strange to me. And it seems to me to make much more sense of Jesus words "This is My Body", and "This is My Blood" that the change had already taken place prior to His words, rather than that His words mystically changed reality so it would concord with what He was saying. I'm not denying the possibility, but I don't see it as plausible.
                    Last edited by JonathanL; 03-03-2015, 02:58 AM.
                    ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      The orthodoxinfo.com site is a bit ...rigorist. It is good on most issues, but I profoundly disagree with it on issues like the church calendar and ecumenism. I would recommend it with caution.
                      Without taking any sides of the issue, which would be presumptous of me seeing as I'm not a member of the Orthodox Church, it seems to me that while the site might be wrong on the issue of ecumenism (they could be right too, for all I know) that atleast their motives for why they take the stand they do on the issue seem to be praiseworthy to me i.e safeguarding the truth and protecting the integrity of the Orthodox Church. If the Orthodox Church really is the Church that Jesus promised would not be defeated then the stance they take on ecumenism seems to me to be understandable, at the very least.
                      ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        I'm currently going through the hub that orthodoxinfo.com has on Western Christianity and I'm currently at this article:

                        http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/orth...rdxE/e_P12.htm (Which incidentally seems to be the located at the website of the same church/diocese [ By the way, what's the difference between a church and a diocese, if any? ] that upholds the YT channel that OBP recommended.)
                        This is a little tricky, because "church" can have two different meanings. It can refer to a building (and the people that gather therein), also sometimes called a 'temple.' Alternatively it can refer to an organization headed by a patriarch or metropolitan which is divided administratively into a number of dioceses, each headed by a bishop.
                        While it's an interesting read I must say that it seems like the Lutheran teaching of the eucharist/last supper seem to be a bit misunderstood. If we are to believe the article, Lutherans explain the nature of the change such that the divinity of the Word would "enter" into the bread offered for the Eucharist or that Christ "is present not in the sense only of "penetration", as the Lutherans teach (recognizing the co-presence of Christ "with the bread, under the bread, in the bread"). From my understanding of Lutheran theology it is not the case that Christ is only spiritually present in the bread and wine (which was something the Zwinglians teached, and Lutherans rejected) rather Christ's Body and Blood are truly 'present' in the blood and wine and I would be cautious about interpreting the word 'present' to mean that the bread is not the Body of Christ but rather that they share the same locality, which seems like an unwarranted understanding of what the writers of the Augsburg Confession wanted to convey.
                        Okay.
                        But other than that I find the article fascinating, especially the part about how in Western Christianity the change in the nature of the bread and wine is understood to happen at the invocation of the words of institution, while the Orthodox understanding seem to be that this happens because of the prayer of the church, blessing and the invocation of the Holy Spirit. (I'm not sure how exactly these three relate to eachother, i.e is the blessing and invocation the same thing, or distinct from each other) On a purely instinctive level the Orthodox understanding seems a bit more attractive to me, because the notion that the action of Jesus blessing and giving thanks for the constituents of the Lord's Supper having no effect seems a bit strange to me. And it seems to me to make much more sense of Jesus words "This is My Body", and "This is My Blood" that the change had already taken place prior to His words, rather than that His words mystically changed reality so it would concord with what He was saying. I'm not denying the possibility, but I don't see it as plausible.
                        The recitation of Jesus' words comes before the invocation of the Holy Spirit (see here at the Anaphora). It is viewed as a remembrance/recounting of Jesus' institution of the Eucharist; it seems a little odd to me to expect that recounting something would cause it to happen again. The Holy Spirit is then invoked to make the actual change. There are people who have been gifted the ability to see the Holy Spirit descend on the gifts when it is invoked. (In Orthodox practice, by the way, the laity receive the bread and wine mingled together for historical reasons. In the fourth century, with the favor shown by Constantine and his successors to the church, the influx of many people with limited understanding caused problems, among them the abuse of the Eucharistic cup. To circumvent this, priests began to add the bread to the cup and distribute the mixture by spoon so everyone got the same amount. The only liturgy in which the laity receive the bread and wine separately is the Liturgy of St. James, which is very rarely celebrated.)
                        Last edited by One Bad Pig; 03-03-2015, 09:12 AM.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          Without taking any sides of the issue, which would be presumptous of me seeing as I'm not a member of the Orthodox Church, it seems to me that while the site might be wrong on the issue of ecumenism (they could be right too, for all I know) that atleast their motives for why they take the stand they do on the issue seem to be praiseworthy to me i.e safeguarding the truth and protecting the integrity of the Orthodox Church. If the Orthodox Church really is the Church that Jesus promised would not be defeated then the stance they take on ecumenism seems to me to be understandable, at the very least.
                          Yes, their motives are not wrong; the integrity of the church does need to be protected. However, the desire is for the church to be one, and there cannot be any reunification without dialogue. While dialogue must be done circumspectly, and there is the danger of compromise, dialogue also helps to clarify the differences between sides and show what would be necessary for reunification.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            This is a little tricky, because "church" can have two different meanings. It can refer to a building (and the people that gather therein), also sometimes called a 'temple.' Alternatively it can refer to an organization headed by a patriarch or metropolitan which is divided administratively into a number of dioceses, each headed by a bishop.
                            Thanks for the explanation. I actually suspected it was something along the lines of your explanation, but I wasn't completely sure.

                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            Okay.


                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            The recitation of Jesus' words comes before the invocation of the Holy Spirit (see here at the Anaphora). It is viewed as a remembrance/recounting of Jesus' institution of the Eucharist; it seems a little odd to me to expect that recounting something would cause it to happen again. The Holy Spirit is then invoked to make the actual change. There are people who have been gifted the ability to see the Holy Spirit descend on the gifts when it is invoked. (In Orthodox practice, by the way, the laity receive the bread and wine mingled together for historical reasons. In the fourth century, with the favor shown by Constantine and his successors to the church, the influx of many people with limited understanding caused problems, among them the abuse of the Eucharistic cup. To circumvent this, priests began to add the bread to the cup and distribute the mixture by spoon so everyone got the same amount. The only liturgy in which the laity receive the bread and wine separately is the Liturgy of St. James, which is very rarely celebrated.)
                            Thanks for the explanation. I was actually under the impression that the recitation of Jesus' words happened after the blessing and invocation of the Holy Spirit, because this is the order in the Gospel (i.e Jesus blessed and gave thanks, and only thereafter did he say the words of institution) but it seems that was an unwarranted assumption on my part. I'll be more careful with assuming in the future.
                            ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              Yes, their motives are not wrong; the integrity of the church does need to be protected.
                              I do not think that there is such a thing as a perfect church or denomination.
                              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                                I do not think that there is such a thing as a perfect church or denomination.
                                I agree! Even the best of churches are comprised of broken humans in need of a Savior.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Physiocrat, 10-16-2017, 08:55 AM
                                59 responses
                                28,605 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Rushing Jaws  
                                Working...
                                X