/christianity/ - Christian Theology

>>5577

Obviously, you are not satisfied by your current religious state. You need something more "real" and life changing. In this case maybe you can try some more extreme form of Christianity? A cult (dangerous) or Eastern Orthodoxy?

I any case, staying mostly in the Internet is not helpful. If I were you, I would start visiting a different Christian church every Sunday until I find what I am looking for. Don't worry about disliking church – maybe you haven't found the right one yet?

Maybe you justifiably dislike your church because it's no good. Where do you go?

>>5577

Honestly I feel awkward among other Christians cause they’re always so much better than me

>>5590

>they’re always so much better than me

Don't compare your spiritual state with the spiritual state of other people. Christ asks from us to be perfect as our heavenly Father. (Matthew 5:48) If you were better than the other Christians, would you be as perfect as our heavenly Father? No, you wouldn't. There would be, however, good chances that you would consider your spiritual state satisfactory and this would be a deadly mistake. Pray to God that you will always consider the other Christians so much better than you.

Also, do not think about the sin in terms of guilt. The laws of God are like the prescriptions of a physician. If you don't follow the prescription, you do no harm to the physician, you do harm to yourself. The sin is like illness. We do not condemn an ill man, we love him and we try to help. Moreover, if you go to a healthy Church, you will find out that the other Christians will think that they are worse sinners than you (even though they won't be).

——————–

Jesus answered them, “Those who are healthy have no need for a physician, but those who are sick do! I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Luke 5:31-32)

>>5583

I was chrismated orthodox but eventually left because it didn't do it either. I thought I didn't have the proper gospel and wasn't saved. But since then I don't feel better either. I think it is mostly a personal problem but I can't seem to get over it. I'm not currently attending church since baptist churches makes me cringe. The rock music and then the stand up comedy show for preaching doesn't do it for me. Only church I ever liked going was catholic mass during week days because its very quiet and I feel at peace and find it easy to pray to God and feel in communion.

>>5597

To add to the last: I have a problem with catholic church dogmas for obvious reason though and I don't see myself seeing it as true. To me it got so far away from what christianity is supposed to be that I just see it as idolatry. I'm kind of split concerning the eucharist though.

>>5601

I don't think this picture is correct. Take for example the Roman Catholicism. Where is its authority derived? Scripture and tradition? Then what about the infallibility of the Pope? And what about all the rationalization in the Thomism? Instead of "Scripture and tradition" the Roman Catholicism is more like "Pope, Tradition, Reason and Scripture".

Then take the Orthodoxy. "Scripture and tradition" the picture says. But then what about the infallibility of the Ecumenical councils? So it seems it is more than just "Scripture and tradition". Only then try to find an Orthodox doctrine which is not based on the Scripture. You won't find any. Isn't this more like "Scripture alone"? Then what about the words of Christ that the Holy Spirit "will teach you all things" (John 14:26)? Isn't the Holy Spirit an authority? "The wind blows where it wants to, and you hear its sound, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papism.aspx

>>5629

The picture has been wrong for a long time. We have pointed out the numerous examples of its problems, but it is too late now, he didn't listen and spread it around.

>>5598

>not Conservative Anglican or Lutheran

There is your problem

>>5601

>>5629

>>5640

Are there any anons here that have a good understanding of the denominations, or have gone into ministry education to accurately create a better flow chart? It would be fantastic to have this as a reference chart for comprehensive learning.

>>5629

The "scripture and tradition" is based on Catholic declarations that set them apart from the reformation principle of sola scriptura.

The Roman church's doctrines around the pope and apostolic succession are what they mean when they cite "tradition" as a source of authority.

>82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

Eastern orthodoxy, which should not simply be referred to as orthodoxy in comparative discussion, has a parallel system. Like you said, they see councils as infallible declarations, which are workings of tradition.

Short answer: when they say tradition, they mean what their clergy have historically taught and declared.

>>5640

Make your own, whiner. I have not been shown sufficient evidence that mine is wrong.

I haven't even seen other people post it, it's not like I'm spreading disinfo far and wide.

The only thing that I find suspect is the historical debate around the Wesleyan quadrilateral; it's mainstream but some Wesley scholars don't think it's accurate.

>>5643

It is quite accurate broadly speaking BUT there is some nuances in Scripture and Tradition such as,

1)Scripture and Tradition are two separate sources of revelation(2 source theory) which is typically the Roman view

2)Single source of revelation where Scripture and Tradition coincide and say the same thing. Tradition is evidence of true interpretation(EO view, some Roman Catholics also accept this like Yves Congar)

Both views may not be so different as they also suppose that the Holy Spirit protects the church from error.

Some Anglicans follow the Scripture, Tradition and Reason triad but some high churchmen actually hold to the infallibility of Scripture Alone which is what Hooker does but he conceives the church as an interpretive community and the role of experts or with Laudians, Scripture Alone is the infallible rule of faith, but only the church can interpret it infallibly.

>>5643

>>5645

It's accurate broadly, so it's accurate. A flowchart like this doesn't go into nuances.

This is a good reference chart.

>>5642

Wish there was a lutheran church under 1 hour of driving around.

>>5644

>The Roman church's doctrines around the pope and apostolic succession are what they mean when they cite "tradition" as a source of authority.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia: "The word tradition in the ecclesiastical sense, refers sometimes to the thing (doctrine, account, or custom) transmitted from one generation to another; sometimes to the organ or mode of the transmission."

>The "scripture and tradition" is based on Catholic declarations

If we understand "tradition" in accordance with the Catholic Encyclopedia, then we can say that the dogma about the Immaculate conception of Mary is a novelty which is not based on the original Catholic tradition. Several respected Catholics (Aquinas among them) explicitly denied this dogma.

>When the Orthodox say tradition, they mean what their clergy have historically taught and declared

This is tradition:

Things that we have heard and known,

that our fathers have told us.

We will not hide them from their children,

but tell to the coming generation

the glorious deeds of the Lord, and his might,

and the wonders that he has done.

He established a testimony in Jacob

and appointed a law in Israel,

which he commanded our fathers

to teach to their children,

that the next generation might know them,

the children yet unborn,

and arise and tell them to their children,

so that they should set their hope in God

and not forget the works of God,

but keep his commandments.

(Psalm 77(78):3-7)

The clergy does not have the authority to make changes or additions in the dogmatic tradition. The dogmatic definitions of the councils ought to be merely statements of what the Christian faith always has been, since the Apostles and to this day. The Christians have the right (and the duty) to reject a council (or a bishop) whose decisions are contrary to what they know as Orthodox faith.

>>5671

I see no problem with the encyclopedia's definition of tradition as it pertains to catholic practice. I'm sure there's a fine argument withing roman catholicism about what ought to be understood as authoritative tradition, but for the chart I'm only identifying that tradition is a source of authority.

Are you meaning to argue that it's wrong to identify scripture and tradition as the two sources of authority for the roman church?

When I said "they" I was referring to roman catholics and the eastern orthodox. I agree with your concluding sentence as an evangelical.

State your point directly please

>>5673

>I see no problem with the encyclopedia's definition of tradition as it pertains to catholic practice.

Well, the definition says "thing transmitted from one generation to another". You say the teaching of the Pope is also tradition. But these two statements are not compatible. We can do either of the following two: we can change the "official" definition of what tradition is (as you have done), or we have to acknowledge that Scripture and Tradition are not the only sources of authority for the roman church.

>Are you meaning to argue that it's wrong to identify scripture and tradition as the two sources of authority for the roman church?

Yes. I mentioned the dogma about the Immaculate conception because it was mentioned for first time only in the XII century so can not be explained as sourced from the Scripture or the Tradition. When this new teaching appeared for the first time, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia "It is even natural that the theologians should show more hesitation than the other faithful. More aware of the apparent opposition between the new opinion and the ancient truth, they may legitimately resist, while awaiting fuller light, what may seem to them unreflecting haste or unenlightened piety. Thus did St. Anselm, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure in the case of the Immaculate Conception." Notice the words "fuller light". Where does this light come from? Scripture? No. Tradition? No. The Catholic Encyclopedia leaves the impression that this dogma was adopted almost as surrender of the theologians before the popular sentiment: "Little by little the feeling of the faithful won the day. Not, as has been said, because the theologians, powerless to struggle against a blind sentiment"

>I agree with your concluding sentence as an evangelical.

My concluding sentence is Eastern Orthodox. The following is from Canon 15 of the Council of Constantinople of 861:

"But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it barehead in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodal verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christ­ians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions."

It is remarkable that this council was convened after the first schism between the East and the West was resolved. Its main topic was how to prevent further schisms. Basically, by following proper canonical procedures. No compromises about the faith, however, are permitted, so the separation from the heresy before a formal verdict is not a schism, but rescuing the Church from schisms and divisions.

>>5748

Ok I think I'm finally understanding that your first point was to protest the Roman church's application of tradition as a source of authority, and you were saying that the chart should reflect this reality.

In the interest of impartiality the chart is meaning to use terms that they use for themselves.

>>5629

The Russian catechism posted in the other thread found our answer for the Eastern Orthodox category

>16. How is divine revelation spread among men and preserved in the true Church?

>By two channels–holy tradition and holy Scripture.

So the chart needs no alteration