POPULAR POSTS
-
From the book The Person in the Orthodox Tradition by Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos, and translated by Esther Williams "&q...
-
Eventhough the Council of Carthage was a local North African Council it became Universal when the decrees were added to the 6th ecumenical ...
-
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware talks about Saint Gregory Palamas , Apophatic Theology, and the Essence vs. Energies Distinction Apophatic The...
-
Audio Confronting the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura , by Fr. Jon Braun. (This one is mostly about what some Protestants call Solo Scriptura , o...
-
From Scripture: Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the f...
LORD JESUS CHRIST,
SON OF GOD,
HAVE MERCY ON US,
THE SINNERS.
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
13 comments:
"So much for Sola Scriptura..."
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean lol How does this follow?
Protestants don't always seem to realize the difference between the bare and naked text of Scripture, and the unspoken assumptions and unstated presuppositions that they oftentimes quite unawares bring to the table with them when approaching the Bible.
The "spiritual" presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist: not that there's anything prima-facie wrong with that, except that Christ didn't say: This is Me (so that we might then be given the permission and ability to freely speculate just how exactly "He" is present there: bodily? or in spirit?); nor did He say: This is My spirit; nor did He say: This only represents and symbolizes my body; rather He said: This is My body. Which is not to say that Orthodoxy consists in simply taking the Bible literally: that's not it either (that's Protestant Evangelical Fundamentalism). Rather it consists in reading Holy Scripture in a way and manner consistent with itself and the historic teaching of the universal Church. We're aware of our own presuppositions: and we think Protestants should too, and that they should simply start being honest about it, and just stop claiming or pretending that what they're doing is in any way different.
Ah! Okay, now I know what you're talking about. Your first comment was particularly helpful, and a good point too. Of course, there are those in every camp and of every kind of persuasion that fall victim to your critiques, Orthodoxy included. That fact doesn't absolve the Protestant, of course, but it does highlight the fact that all of us should be, as you put it, "aware of our own presuppositions."
Thanks for the explanation!
I would only add that what you are critiquing in your article and in your comments is not just a Calvinist thing. Tons of other Protestant groups that would bristle at the mere thought of being called or associated with Calvinists also view the Supper in the way you describe above. Why pick only on Calvinism? Why not Methodists or Mennonites or something? lol
Calvinism's historic distinctives are a low view of Sacraments and its belief in predestination: so whenever we post something touching on these two things specifically, we label it "Calvinism" in addition to "Protestantism".
I see. That makes sense I suppose. But Calvinists didn't invent the doctrines of election and predestination, neither did Luther. Those topics were a matter of discussion and debate centuries before the Reformers. Don't you (and the Orthodox) believe in and profess a doctrine of predestination and election? You should, especially since those are biblical words and concepts.
Probably, but for some reason or another, the Calvinists are the only ones subscribing to them, so I guess that leaves only them to bear the stigma of such a misfortunate connection. :-)
Wesley,
Election and predestination aren't shunned by the Orthodox. Neither are they shunned by Arminians and other Protestants who believe in some form of human free will. You know this. I know this. Of course, it is one's interpretation of these two words that is important. :D
John
Ikonophile (John),
I was just checking to see if the Orthodox have a doctrine of election and predestination. When I hear an EO Christian saying something like (and I'm referring to a YouTube video here), Predestination is a heresy, or, We don't believe in that predestination stuff, I wonder if he is seriously attempting to keep in mind the fact that the New Testament authors taught a concept of election and predestination.
Don't say it's a heresy or that you don't believe in it without any qualifications; say you reject unconditional election/predestination as a heresy (or whatever), and that you subscribe to a different understanding and formulation of the concept.
Anyways, thanks for your comment. I totally agree with your last sentence, and I'm glad to hear the Orthodox believe something about those doctrines =]
Grace to you and peace
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/the_bible_and_predestination_-_part_1
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/the_bible_and_predestination_-_part_2
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/the_bible_and_predestination_-_part_3
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/romans_nine_-_part_1
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/romans_nine_-_part_2
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/romans_nine_-_part_3
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/romans_nine_-_part_4
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/romans_nine_-_part_5
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/sola_scriptura_and_philosophical_christianity_part_9
I haven't listened to these particular podcasts before, but I have listened to several other podcasts from Matthew before. I hope these are better than the ones I've heard because they really weren't that good.
Wesley, how do you perceive New Covenant election?