Christian discussion: Everyone welcome, but please respect the intent of the thread

[MisterOJ]

I recommend checking out the Book of Confessions, which is technically Book One of Presbyterian Polity for the PCUSA. You can find electronic copies for free on the PCUSA website. Of particular importance for the PCUSA has been the Westminster Confession. As with all things good, orderly, and Presbyterian, citation numbers are provided

Hah! Thanks for that.

I have my own copies of the Book of Confessions. They gave me one when they made me an Elder. Of course, I've only read it a little. Mostly, it just sits on my bookshelf.

I am a bad Elder. :)

[Ded As Ned]

Hah! Thanks for that.

I have my own copies of the Book of Confessions. They gave me one when they made me an Elder. Of course, I've only read it a little. Mostly, it just sits on my bookshelf.

I am a bad Elder. :)

SHAME! :)

Has your church done a Manual of Operations yet? This has fallen to me and I've been wading throught the Book of Order and Book of Confessions for reference as I go through. The book of confessions has some interesting things I didn't know about Presbyterians... the book of order is primarily boring as all get-out though.

[Lily Valley]

It has nothing to do with affronting or downplaying femininity. It's because reverence is reserved for the Trinitarian God, and any reverence for "God's mother" ventures treacherously into the venue of treating Mary as if she was divine. The fact that you would raise the equal participation of God the Father with Mary, with one being an aspect of divine masculinity and the other as human femininity, is precisely what Protestants would likely find problematic. Also add in the fact that there are a number of mainstream to liberal Protestants who no longer really believe in a "virgin birth" of Jesus. Should Christians therefore believe in an immaculate conception in regards to Joseph since he too was involved in the human birth of Jesus? Protestants approach matters of gender-language in Godhood in a variety of different ways. Some treat the Trinity as all masculine. For some, all gendered language is neutered: e.g., God the Creator, Jesus the Child, the Holy Spirit. Some mix and match the language sporadically, such that God is occasionally referred to using feminine pronouns. Historically, the Holy Spirit has a tradition of being gendered female, which some Protestants have adopted.

As I said to Terra, I meant no offense and have a much better understanding now of why there is such a big difference. It was a real shock when I was young.

I didn't realize there were Protestants out there who rejected the Virgin birth. I knew there were many that rejected Mary as ever-Virgin. I had friends who argued loudly with me about the existence of Jesus' siblings.

St. Joseph is revered, but not regarded as immaculately conceived as Mary was.

And, fwiw, as an atheist feminist, I am gobsmacked by many of the practices within the RCC, much in the same way, or maybe even more, as your puzzling over this point concerning Protestants. But this is not the thread for it.

Terra, I hear you. Being a Catholic feminist sometimes = being a masochist. My first take on realizing that Protestants did not revere Mary struck me as sexist. I was 16 and very angry and very ignorant. I saw misogyny everywhere (it is everywhere). I wasn't a practicing Catholic at the time either. Today I realize the difference on Mary is much more fundamental than whether or not she is lady and that the RCC has a take on Mary that is actually outside the "norm".

Lily Valley,

What is an interesting dichtomy between Orthodoxy and the RCC is our view of "original sin". The RCC view is the we are each individuall born into the world in a "fallen" state as such, for Christ to be born without sin his mother, logically, had to be without sin also. Hence, the doctrine of Mary's sinless birth.

Orthodoxy take the view that we are born into a fallen world and that it virtually inevitably leads all of us to sin. However, our view is that Mary is without sin not because she was born sinless, as Christ was, but because she never sinned during her lifetime. Orthodox scholars reject the RCC immaculate conception of Mary becaue they believe it means Christ is less than fully human.

If you would like to read more about the history of the Orthodox Church and try Timothy Ware's book The Orthodox Church he's an Englishman who is now a bishop in the Greek Orthodox Church. His book on Orthodox theology is The Orthodox Way.

My wife also recommends the several books on Orthodoxy by Fredrica Mathewes Green; Facing East and At the Corner of East and Now.

Thank you for this great post and for the reading recommendations. I will chew these up. I know the doctrinal hair-splitting is irritating to a lot of people, I find it fascinating as I wind learning a lot. I am really surprised at the differences on original sin. That's a new take on humanity. I'm hoping that some reading will lay out the consequences of that difference.I'm less surprised about the division over Mary. Ssome of the Marian dogmas are pretty new.

That's what Methodists believe as well -- the difference is more philosophical than practical. Methodism acknowledges that we are all born as people who will sin. It's just that a born baby without volition, and without committing any acts, has not itself sinned.

The Catholic position on original sin is confusing to me. I know some Protestant denominations believe that we all inherit Adam's sin at birth. We are born not as beings that will sin, but as a being that has already sinned. But I've heard some Catholics say that is not the case, which I have a hard time reconciling with the explanation they give for baptism.

The Catechism puts this better than I can.

Here's CCC 403

Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".²⁹¹ Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.²⁹²

This is how I understand the RCC concept of original sin and the reason for baptizing infants. You got a really good answer from Archmaester Philip. I think of it as a predisposition.

Lutherans and (some) Calvinists are argaubly even tougher on original sin than catholics. It's the entire "utter depravity" thing, not only are we incapable of saving ourselves, we don't deserve to be saved.

Oh dear! Like "Sinners in the Hands of an Angy God"? The first time I read that sermon I was so grateful I was Catholic.

You know, I live in a 90 % orthodox country and I wasn't aware of that until now. I guess the distinction is too philosophical for most people to care about it. From my experience, most orthodox are more offended by liturgical details such as the use of unleavened bread by catholics during the Eucharist, then about differences in the understanding of original sin.

BTW, I just read up a bit on the orthodox doctrine, and I think it makes a good point.

Hahaha! I think most Catholics are more offended by these things too. I had a friend at school who was Church of Christ (don't really know where that falls in the Protestant rainbow). He told me once that at a church function they had used cornbread for the Eucharist. My jaw hit the floor. I was totally shocked and had to put myself in quiet time.

[Lily Valley]

I'm curious what the Catholics in the thread think about Dogma.

I love Matt Damon, therefore the movie is awesome. My son and I watched it together and laughed our way through.

[Galactus]

Oh dear! Like "Sinners in the Hands of an Angy God"? The first time I read that sermon I was so grateful I was Catholic.

To some extent it exists in (proto-)catholic stuff as well, St. Augustine for instance. (he argued against, IIRC, pelagianism)

Basically the idea tends to be not that God is angry but that he is so incredibly good that even though we are fallen and do not deserve it, he'll still save us,simply out of his own benevolent nature.

[Ded As Ned]

Hahaha! I think most Catholics are more offended by these things too. I had a friend at school who was Church of Christ (don't really know where that falls in the Protestant rainbow). He told me once that at a church function they had used cornbread for the Eucharist. My jaw hit the floor. I was totally shocked and had to put myself in quiet time.

We've used cornbread before. Nowadays we use regular wheat bread or oyster crackers. This is not uncommon for other denominations as well in my neck of the woods afaik.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

We've used cornbread before. Nowadays we use regular wheat bread or oyster crackers. This is not uncommon for other denominations as well in my neck of the woods afaik.

I might receive Communion on a regular basis if it meant I would get cornbread.

[Ded As Ned]

I might receive Communion on a regular basis if it meant I would get cornbread.

If you're ever coming through central KY on the 1st Sunday of the month let me know and we'll do cornbread just for you friend. :)

ETA: We also do a pot-luck after worship the first Sunday every month. There is generally 15-20 people and enough food for 40, and dessert for 100... all good home southern cookin' ;)

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

SHAME! :)

Has your church done a Manual of Operations yet? This has fallen to me and I've been wading throught the Book of Order and Book of Confessions for reference as I go through. The book of confessions has some interesting things I didn't know about Presbyterians... the book of order is primarily boring as all get-out though.

I actually took an entire course on the Book of Order. Passing a Presbyterian polity exam is even an ordination requirement, which involves solving hypothetical church issues through informed and appropriately cited uses of the Book of Order. The Book of Order can be dull, but it has some absolutely wonderful theological gems, primarily at the introduction and in the Directory for Worship.

To some extent it exists in (proto-)catholic stuff as well, St. Augustine for instance. (he argued against, IIRC, pelagianism)

Basically the idea tends to be not that God is angry but that he is so incredibly good that even though we are fallen and do not deserve it, he'll still save us,simply out of his own benevolent nature.

This is precisely why I said that negative anthropology tends towards benevolent theology, or at least a more "democratically forgiving" theology.

[Ser Loudmouth]

It's a thin line by most Protestant standards that's seen as borderline idolatry. Worship is reserved for God. Reverence is reserved for God. Fan clubs are reserved for God. Saints get a simple thumbs up and a collective honorable mention.

Here we come close to the "agree to disagree" terittory. The catholic position is that it is possible to keep saint worship separate from God Worship. For further reading, and since I can not claim that my posts represent the official view of the Church, here is an official (and lengthy) discussion on catholic saint worship : http://www.catholic.com/tracts/saint-worship (I guess orthodox and other traditionalist Churches have the same position)

Allso "thumbs up and a collective honorable mention" is rather incompatible with the catholic attitude that saints are necessary role models (As the catechism says: "There are no better examples than Saints and no better role models"

"On earth." But why would God even need a queen in heaven?! Why would any of that entitle Mary to anything other than simply being in heaven in God's presence? Why must heaven apparently mirror the 1st century CE Judean court? Or mirror further back to a presumed 8-10th century BCE Jerusalemite court? Is this just to make Mary even more special?

The point is that "Queen of Heaven" is a honorific title (just like "Queen of the Patriarchs" and other titles given to Mary). It does not require a functional royal court in "Heavenly Jerusalem". It all boils down to the saints-as-rolemodels attitude, with Mary as the ultimate role model.

Again quoting from the catechism: "Mary is the Mother of God. She was united with Jesus on earth as no other human being was" and "anyone who lives and believes as Mary did will go to heaven"

As for prayer. It's not as much praying to the Saints but praying alongside the saints. It's still God who answers the prayers.

It's still a presumption that Reformed Protestants do not want to formally make, because that knowledge of salvation ultimately rests with God alone.

In the case of Mary, you have a point. We Catholics have the doctrine of the assumption of Mary to heaven, as well as Marian Apparitions, so believing that depends on how much you trust the Church to have gotten things right on the matter. But if you are not a catholic, you may be disinclined to believe them.

However, I would argue that there are at least a few persons for which we can say based on Biblical evidence alone that they went to heaven: Enoch and Elijah, for whom the assumption happens on page, Moses, who is shown hanging out with Jesus in Mark 9,3-5, Abraham who is shown to be in Heaven in the parable of Lazarus, the criminal promised Heaven by Jesus, etc...

Even then, most Protestants view praying to saints as a redundancy, since Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are considered more viable praying options. There is clearly more biblical evidence in the Old and New Testament for direct mortal-to-God prayer lacking any need for intercessory saints. Even the most famous of prayers, the Lord's Prayer - which Jesus taught the disciples to pray - is stylized as a direct divine address.

There is a whole discussion to be had here on whether some people are more comfortable with intercessory prayer than with addressing God directly, and wether God is willing to accommodate them, but that would require some quote mining from the Bible, and I don't have the time or energy for that at the moment. I wish I was like one of you protestants who know the bible by heart... :frown5:

[Ded As Ned]

There is a whole discussion to be had here on whether some people are more comfortable with intercessory prayer than with addressing God directly, and wether God is willing to accommodate them, but that would require some quote mining from the Bible, and I don't have the time or energy for that at the moment. I wish I was like one of you protestants who know the bible by heart... :frown5:

Matthew 27: 50-51. Luke 23: 45-46. Mark 15: 37-38. IMO, when the veil was torn from the Holy of Holies in the temple, at the time of Jesus' death, to me that meant we needed no intercessor between us and God. Christ has already interceded for us. Thus why when I pray, I pray directly to God, in Christ's name. John 14:13.

I don't have a problem with intercessory prayer though. I think God hears all prayers, not just the ones that abide by some preferred format. "Saint Peter, you only bring me those prayers recorded on Betamax like I asked. You toss those VHS prayers in the trash heap where they belong. Heathens!" :cool4:

ETA: There are a ton of examples in scripture for reasons God will not grant your prayer request. Most of them dealing with praying for the wrong reasons and/or from the wrong state or mind or faith. But I can't think of any examples from scripture of God refusing to listen to a prayer. My pastor jokingly says that God answers all prayers, just that sometimes the answer is NO, since God knows what is best for us and we certainly do not in many cases.

ETA2: So, I don't see any reason why intercessory prayer is different functionally than any other prayer. I don't think it's necessary, but still works just fine, is what I'm trying to say in the end, from my Protestant pov.

[Brandon Stark]

A bit late to the party, but there were a few things I saw that I wanted to comment on.

Knowing my wife's experience (and her sisters) and now hearing about yours, I just wonder if there is something special about these large Catholic communities?

For me, it seems like the line between culture and religion really blurs when dealing with Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam. Certainly the religious beliefs of every faith have an impact on the communities in which they're popular, but it seems as though Catholicism and the others are so integrated into specific ethnic backgrounds and shared experience that it becomes something that transcends (a strange term to use on this topic) religious belief. The foods we eat, the immigrant experience, etc. At many points in my life I have lived with varying degrees of distance between myself and the physical church or its teachings, but I have never felt anything other than culturally Catholic.

For me, living in Michigan, that's most strongly associated with Polish and Irish cultural features, as well as the trappings of the church itself. We got married in a church and baptized our kids for family reasons as much as, if not more than, religious.

Happy Sabbath everyone.

I'll be missing church today because my oldest has a couple soccer games and they're too far away to go to church and make it on time. Oh well, watching her play soccer is probably my favorite pasttime right now. I thank God for my children every day. I'm sure He's cool with me missing a Sunday service to spend time with family. :)

I'll always believe it's the life we live 7 days a week that God cares about more than where we spend one morning. That's probably why I'm not good at being a participating member of the church...

[Galactus]

We've used cornbread before. Nowadays we use regular wheat bread or oyster crackers. This is not uncommon for other denominations as well in my neck of the woods afaik.

But does cornbread work as missile weapons against vampires?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Here we come close to the "agree to disagree" terittory. The catholic position is that it is possible to keep saint worship separate from God Worship. For further reading, and since I can not claim that my posts represent the official view of the Church, here is an official (and lengthy) discussion on catholic saint worship : http://www.catholic....s/saint-worship (I guess orthodox and other traditionalist Churches have the same position)

Probably, as the distinctions looks incredibly blurred from a Protestant perspective. That's generally why Protestants just give them a collective honor.

Allso "thumbs up and a collective honorable mention" is rather incompatible with the catholic attitude that saints are necessary role models (As the catechism says: "There are no better examples than Saints and no better role models"

In the case of Mary, you have a point. We Catholics have the doctrine of the assumption of Mary to heaven, as well as Marian Apparitions, so believing that depends on how much you trust the Church to have gotten things right on the matter. But if you are not a catholic, you may be disinclined to believe them.

However, I would argue that there are at least a few persons for which we can say based on Biblical evidence alone that they went to heaven: Enoch and Elijah, for whom the assumption happens on page, Moses, who is shown hanging out with Jesus in Mark 9,3-5, Abraham who is shown to be in Heaven in the parable of Lazarus, the criminal promised Heaven by Jesus, etc...

Moses was kind of a dick in the wilderness, and Elijah committed mass murder against the Baalite priests. Abraham kicked out Hagar and his son into the desert for a jealous spouse and just about ritually sacrificed his other son. We know practically nothing of Enoch's life. Are there really no better role models than the Saints?

The point is that "Queen of Heaven" is a honorific title (just like "Queen of the Patriarchs" and other titles given to Mary). It does not require a functional royal court in "Heavenly Jerusalem". It all boils down to the saints-as-rolemodels attitude, with Mary as the ultimate role model.

Again quoting from the catechism: "Mary is the Mother of God. She was united with Jesus on earth as no other human being was" and "anyone who lives and believes as Mary did will go to heaven"

I don't think Protestants see the need for honorific titles for Mary. She's already Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

There is a whole discussion to be had here on whether some people are more comfortable with intercessory prayer than with addressing God directly, and wether God is willing to accommodate them, but that would require some quote mining from the Bible, and I don't have the time or energy for that at the moment. I wish I was like one of you protestants who know the bible by heart... :frown5:

Most Protestants do not know the Bible by heart. I have known MANY individuals who have come into seminary without reading the entirety of the Bible or even most of it. It's almost absurd to think about, but it's true. Bible professors in seminary have to teach their courses now as if people had no prior knowledge of the Bible. And my background comes from the Presbyterians, which has one of the strongest Protestant reputations for education and biblical literacy. My biblical literacy comes more out of a necessity of my academic field.

[TerraPrime]

*bump*

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Uh. Praise The Lord?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Matrim,

Where does the Protestant justification for Sola Scriptura come from given the fact that the Church (RCC and Orthodox) assembled the bible without a Sola Scriptura dogmatic understanding?

[MisterOJ]

Uh. Praise The Lord?

This made me laugh out loud.

I think I am going to go to a different church this weekend. I'll be out of town at my in-laws for a funeral and I've missed the last two weeks at my regular church. I always enjoy worshiping as a visitor at a different church in another town.

[Grand Moff Mithrandir]

It makes me happy to see a thread like this. I'll wait until I get behind a computer before I provide my background(typing on a cellular phone can be demanding).

My God's not dead!

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Matrim,

Where does the Protestant justification for Sola Scriptura come from given the fact that the Church (RCC and Orthodox) assembled the bible without a Sola Scriptura dogmatic understanding?

I'm not entirely sure. It was likely borne out a need to provide an alternative schema or structure that laid outside of an 'institutional tradition' that Reformed Protestants viewed as corrupted from its origins. Sola Scriptura thereby provided a criteria for assembling a new tradition, albeit one that sought to be more in the spirit of the earliest tradition. Of course it's false that Protestants came close to the original early church, but it's also false that the RCC or Orthodox churches closely preserve this early church either. Scripture became the primary means by which Protestants apologized for their rejection of the RCC, as they needed to show that the basis for their decision was rooted in Scripture and that they themselves were faithful Christians.