Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 8      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 222
Reply with quote  #46 
Whilst the Athanasian creed may not be universal like its predecessors and attempts at unity may have softened its relationship with the See of Rome, to write a list of fundamentals of the faith that run contrary in spirit to such a widely affirmed creed seems like denominational politics, not a honest attempt at summary or exposition of general doctrine.
__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,197
Reply with quote  #47 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor

I got the impression that such a position is not uniform amongst Catholic theologians.
Either way, the question remains, why do you count such a complex and secondary doctrine as fundamental?

The Monarchy of the Father is certainly not a secondary doctrine. Nicene Trinitarianism is based on the Monarchy of the Father. Rejecting the Monarchy of the Father is grave heresy. According to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and to the Son. If the Son is a source of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Son. 
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,197
Reply with quote  #48 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor
Whilst the Athanasian creed may not be universal like its predecessors and attempts at unity may have softened its relationship with the See of Rome, to write a list of fundamentals of the faith that run contrary in spirit to such a widely affirmed creed seems like denominational politics, not a honest attempt at summary or exposition of general doctrine.

My list of fundamentals of the faith is a list of beliefs, which unite the Christian churches, which predate the Protestant Reformation. I consider Protestantism to be heretical. I'm sick and tired of superficial ecumenism. Rejecting heresy is very important to me. But I'm strongly opposed to persecution of heretics. I'm a staunch supporter of freedom of religion.

My new list of fundamentals of Christianity:
- Trinitarianism.
- Jesus Christ being fully divine and fully human.
- The Father being the sole origin of the Holy Spirit.
- The Ten Commandments.
- Belief in eternal life.
- Good works being necessary to salvation.
- Rejection of double predestination.
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 222
Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

The Monarchy of the Father is certainly not a secondary doctrine. Nicene Trinitarianism is based on the Monarchy of the Father. Rejecting the Monarchy of the Father is grave heresy. According to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and to the Son. If the Son is a source of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Son. 

I'm not actually denying the monarchy of the Father.
He is still the only unbegotten person and the origin of the Spirit in the Son is only because the Son Himself is generated by the Father.
I'm not advocating for subordination, simply for dual roots of the Spirit in the Godhead.
Why would having the Spirit originate from the Son subordinate the Spirit when the Son is generated from the Father and yet the Father and Son are co-equal in glory and majesty.
The example of Father and Son would imply that generation has no impact on glory and majesty, so why would inspiration?

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 222
Reply with quote  #50 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

My list of fundamentals of the faith is a list of beliefs, which unite the Christian churches, which predate the Protestant Reformation. I consider Protestantism to be heretical. I'm sick and tired of superficial ecumenism. Rejecting heresy is very important to me. But I'm strongly opposed to persecution of heretics. I'm a staunch supporter of freedom of religion.

My new list of fundamentals of Christianity:
- Niceno-Constantinopolitan Trinitarianism.
- Jesus Christ being fully divine and fully human. 
- The Ten Commandments.
- Belief in eternal life.
- Good works being necessary to salvation.
- Rejection of double predestination.

I must say I find it quite ridiculous that you regard Protestantism as heretical whilst seeing the East-West schism as reconcilable. Why would one schism produce legitimate churches whilst another produces illegitimate churches?

I would argue it makes far more sense to examine church by church rather than simply stating that every body derived from one particular schism must be beyond the bounds of salvation.

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,197
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor

I must say I find it quite ridiculous that you regard Protestantism as heretical whilst seeing the East-West schism as reconcilable. Why would one schism produce legitimate churches whilst another produces illegitimate churches?

I would argue it makes far more sense to examine church by church rather than simply stating that every body derived from one particular schism must be beyond the bounds of salvation.

I have never claimed, that Protestants can't be saved. I don't know the will of God. I won't rule out God saving righteous people, who are neither Christians nor Jews. Protestants are far more likely to be saved than non-Christians. 
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 222
Reply with quote  #52 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

I have never claimed, that Protestants can't be saved. I don't know the will of God. I won't rule out God saving righteous people, who are neither Christians nor Jews. Protestants are far more likely to be saved than non-Christians. 

Need Jews, in your Dual-House system, go through the traditional sacrifice system in order to atone for sins?
If so, there's not many left who're sorted.

I would say that Christ made the Will of the Lord perfectly clear when He proclaimed that no-one comes to the Father without him. This would strongly indicate that salvation is exclusive to Christians.
Nonetheless there's only so far I can discuss salvation with you before slipping into Calvinism as opposed to the Mere Christianity that we're trying to work out here.

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,197
Reply with quote  #53 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor

Need Jews, in your Dual-House system, go through the traditional sacrifice system in order to atone for sins?
If so, there's not many left who're sorted.

I would say that Christ made the Will of the Lord perfectly clear when He proclaimed that no-one comes to the Father without him. This would strongly indicate that salvation is exclusive to Christians.
Nonetheless there's only so far I can discuss salvation with you before slipping into Calvinism as opposed to the Mere Christianity that we're trying to work out here.

I don't affirm righteous people, who are neither Christians nor Jews, being saved. But I won't rule it out, because I don't know the will of God.
Righteous people, who are neither Christians nor Jews, being tormented in Hell is unlikely to happen, even if they aren't saved. They will likely be separated from God without being tormented. In Dante's Inferno, Saladin is in Limbo.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,637
Reply with quote  #54 
The Catholic Church is generally understood as the primary supporter of the Filioque, no matter how that's interpreted. Protestants, in my experience, accept it but spend very little time thinking of it. But it is generally seen as the chief theological division between Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism.

But, anyway, I'm still confused about what is being sought in this thread, as, in typical Azadi fashion, he jumped from trying to outline a kind of universal Christianity to his own idiosyncratic preferences.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,197
Reply with quote  #55 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
The Catholic Church is generally understood as the primary supporter of the Filioque, no matter how that's interpreted. Protestants, in my experience, accept it but spend very little time thinking of it. But it is generally seen as the chief theological division between Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism.

But, anyway, I'm still confused about what is being sought in this thread, as, in typical Azadi fashion, he jumped from trying to outline a kind of universal Christianity to his own idiosyncratic preferences.

The thread is about the beliefs, which unite the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and the Nestorian Church.
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 222
Reply with quote  #56 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

I don't affirm righteous people, who are neither Christians nor Jews, being saved. But I won't rule it out, because I don't know the will of God.
Righteous people, who are neither Christians nor Jews, being tormented in Hell is unlikely to happen, even if they aren't saved. They will likely be separated from God without being tormented. In Dante's Inferno, Saladin is in Limbo.

Devotion to false gods is a sin, why would it help one's afterlife.
Saladin will almost certainly spend his eternity in perpetual torment.
I am open to reconsidering this position if anyone can provide me with evidence of a deathbed conversion on his part.

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 222
Reply with quote  #57 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

The thread is about the beliefs, which unites the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and the Nestorian Church.

Must say it's weird that you count your small denomination as one of three branches.
Normally one would either put Anglicanism (which raises questions about closely associated other churches) or Protestantism as a whole in the 3rd place.

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,197
Reply with quote  #58 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor

Must say it's weird that you count your small denomination as one of three branches.
Normally one would either put Anglicanism (which raises questions about closely associated other churches) or Protestantism as a whole in the 3rd place.

It's not a matter of size. It's a matter of orthodoxy. I'm willing to accept the Miaphysite Orthodox Church being the fourth branch of the universal church, in spite of my dislike of Miaphysitism, because the Miaphysite Orthodox Church after all affirms Jesus Christ being fully human and fully divine. 

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,637
Reply with quote  #59 
I think Muslims worship the same God. They, like most Christians, are classical theists, and there can only be one God of classical theism, not to mention they explicitly claim Islam to be, in a sense, a continuation of Judaism and Christianity. Still, it's true that most Christians would say that are probably* not saved because they don't believe in the Christian message. Personally, I'm a soft universalist in terms of eschatology, but that's a definitely minority view amongst Christians (though with some important spokesmen, like Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa).

To Azadi, why should the fundamentals of Christianity only unite those branches and not the major Protestant traditions?

* Of course, Christians recognise they have no right to say definitively who is saved or not.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,637
Reply with quote  #60 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

It's not a matter of size. It's a matter of orthodoxy. I'm willing to accept the Miaphysite Orthodox Church being the fourth branch of the universal church, in spite of my dislike of Miaphysitism, because the Miaphysite Orthodox Church after all affirms Jesus Christ being fully human and fully divine. 



But when people talk of the fundamentals of Christianity believe or mere Christianity or something like that, they tend to mean some basic, inclusive set of principles that can apply to most traditional Christians. They don't mean the kind of more restrictive notions of orthodoxy that apply to particular denominations alone. It wouldn't make much sense, for example, to try to come up with a mere Christianity that includes the Catholic understanding of Papal infallibility. Someone doing that might as well just openly equate true Christianity with Catholicism. You seem to be building your idea of orthodoxy on your own denomination's doctrines, rather than something broader. That seems a waste of time to me.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.