I remember that Vance of Northpoint church was mad at me because he thought I might be willing to excommunicate Nestorius! Never a dull moment around here.
Discussion is of course always allowed, but defining something (about God and His nature) beyond what God has revealed to us in the bible is dangerous and unknowable and very likely create controversy.
of course if we read the bible and the history of the early church, the seed of the controversy about the nature of Christ had been there in gnosticism, but neither Paul nor other apostles tried to define the nature of Christ and leave it at that (God, the son of Man, âŠ).
That is what my point exactly.
perhaps we can revisit that history and unpack/deconstruct those event to see whether an orthodox doctrine (of the undefined) need to be an orthodox doctrine.
The nature of Christ our God is of course unique and there is no other like Him. Can we really know how God incarnated as man? From my limited understanding, I could only see the human Jesus functioning before the resurrection. Was Jesus God? of course. Stripped of His glory perhaps. Was He God in status only and we can only glimpse of His Godhood during the mount of transformation? Maybe. This is of course discussion point, but to make something like this (nature of Christ) as an orthodox doctrine is going beyond the scripture.
we did know that councils (not sure how many it is) had made mistakes before and at one time there was a council cancelling the previous council. Why should my understanding/ my theology that is based on the bible is supplemented by the decision of the council. Isnât the bible enough?
Hi,
I personally agree with you that decisions of councils are not infallible, and that ultimately, what I consider to be within the bounds of âorthodoxyâ must be consistent with scripture (not only based on what a collection of bishops says). And where the bible doesnât spell things out meticulously, I am comfortable with leaving âwiggle roomâ in how one articulates a tough concept like the Trinity. Admittedly, this isnât a huge struggle for me because I was raised in a ânon-creedalâ denomination which, while not disagreeing with the creeds, has never seen them as infallible or authoritative in that sense. The mantra was not âbelieve in Creed Xâ but rather âfollow what Jesus saidâ.
3 Likes
Sounds like miaphysitism of Oriental orthodoxy.
The orthodox position is dyophysitism that Christ had two distinct but inseparable natures. That is from the council of Chalcedon. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person (Wikipedia). Though many denominations have had their own âeccumenical councilsâ since then to redefine Christianity and orthodoxy to suit themselves.
That is why I personally I go with the original text of Nicea 325 AD for the definition of Christianity which specifically put Arianism (Jesus as some kind of created demi-god) outside of Christianity and declaring the full divinity of Christ. This means that later councils which denounced monophysitism (Ethiopian church) and Nestorianism (Syriac church of the East) do not mean these are not Christian churches as far as I am concerned.
The division with the Eastern Orthodox came later over an even more trivial reason (the filioque clause claiming that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father, and the Son), though some say the seeds of it were planted in the council of Chalcedon. The real issue was frankly the Roman church declaring itself the sole authority while the Eastern orthodox continued to gets its authority from the ecumenical councils. Though there is number of other differences which arose since then like original sin, papal infallibility, and the immaculate conception of Mary.
And Nestorianism, besides the objection to theotokos (which I totally sympathize with because sounds really weird), is the teaching that Christâs two natures represent two distinct persons.
BTW, guess I go with the orthodox dyophysitism position personally. Though for me the point is that 100% God became 100% man, and thus the power to become the latter is an expression of the former â ergo both ânaturesâ distinct but inseparable. However I specifically deny that 100% God requires the earthly Jesus to be omniscient and omnipotent (which would be totally in conflict with Jesus being 100% man) â power and knowledge being no more necessary for God to be God than it is necessary for a man to retain powers of speech and memory in order to be a man.
Philippians 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
1 Like
It is not possible to believe that a human being can think God in any manner. Only the Holy Spirit can know the things of God. I note that Christ, as the teacher to his disciples, asked them who they thought Christ was. (âWho do people say that the Son of Man is?â⊠He said to them, âBut who do you say that I am?â Simon Peter answered, âYou are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.â Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heavenâ).
This in no way implies that the experience of revelation is one that encapsulated Godâs goodness as a totality of God, or in some way the person has all knowledge in toto. The essence of God is not knowable to humans. Indeed, the personâs understanding is according to his attributes, his abilities and capacity to choose and to act, including his proclivity to choose either good or evil. A humanâs knowledge of what is good or otherwise is incomplete and consequently human reality is not changed spontaneously into a perfect or idyllic state because of the revelation.
We discuss God in many ways, but it is understood that we may do so analogically, or by negation. The requirements for creeds and Orthodoxy became evident to the early Church, before the separation. It is noteworthy that councils were called to deal with controversy and innovation, usually motivated by self-interests. I value Orthodoxy and dogma because these were given the agreement (the amen) by the entire Christian Church.
I think that today, with so many Christian denominations, the major traditions (as far as I can tell) agree on the Orthodoxy expounded by the Councils (or at least to the 7th, if memory serves).
So the point of defending Theotokos (mother of God) is that the baby born to Mary was God, not that the origin of God was Maryâs womb.
agree totally with this. That is what this thread is all about.
I have nothing against orthodoxy and dogma as long as it does not go beyond the scripture. Anything about the nature of God should come to us in the form of revelation (revealed and taught clearly in the bible) instead of human ingenuity or invention. This is fine of course to be discussed, but to raise it to the level of dogma is not.
I find this puzzling. Can you point out Orthodox dogma on this that is not based on the bible.
hahaha. I thought it is clear from the beginning of this thread. The doctrine of trinity is one of them. The doctrine about the nature of Christ is another one. What I mean is that these doctrines are not clearly defined in the bible. It was not until several centuries later, then the formulation of the doctrines were defined and affirmed. That is what I mean.
Hmmmm⊠perhaps the mystery is in our communications. Just for the record, Orthodoxy affirms and maintains the mystery, and the articulations you refer to as definitions are wordings that were required to maintain the biblical teachings. Perhaps you may be conflating the scientific meaning of âdefinitionâ with the articulations of these doctrines. 
1 Like
What orthodox doctrines in the bible are we talking about?
The first six of the seven ecumenical councils are pretty apophatic where they are theological at all.
- 325 1st Nicea - anti-Arian
- 381 1st Constantinople - anti-Macedonian - Ecumenical limit for Church of the East
- 431 Ephesus - anti-Nestorian, anti-Pelagian - Ecumenical limit for Oriental Orthodox
- 451 Chalecedon - anti-monophysite - Ecumenical limit for Anglicans
- 553 2nd Constantinople - see (4), anti-Origen
- 680-1 3rd Constantinople - anti-monothelite, anti-monoergite
- 787 2nd Nicea - anti-iconoclastic
Ephesus elevates Mary.
The most intellectually relevant by a country mile is Chalcedonâs Creed of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, human and divine, which communicate in perichoresis; they are not blended.
Oooh, and of course the Biblically orthodox, 1st Nicean, homoousian heterodoxy that comes from the Biblically heterodox imaginings about God the Son and the Son of God.
never heard of ânestorianismâ before so it was interesting reading the wikipedia article about it with a graph on the various schisms.
Indeed the doctrines are a stumbling block for unity of the church with trying to have authority over the human interpretation of Jesus or whatever else they want to declare holy. It is the attempt to distinguish oneself from those who just believe in God.
All the Jesus blenders to justify his veneration as God lead to the foundation of Islam as an antidote to Christianity.
If you look at the story from a logical perspective you would see the divine element in Mary to be to accept a pregnancy against her will, let alone the will of her betrothed. This child was born not by the will of man but by the will of God, and therefore free of sin. Whether
we donât know as it is not reported, neither if Joseph tried to, but if he would not have accepted her pregnancy it would have surely been a death sentence for Mary. Considering the situation being anything but romantic under brutal military occupation, the likelyhood of your community accepting a pregnancy as miraculous whilst the other options are so much more obvious requires a certain degree of naivety to accept the nativity as the romance story it is now celebrated as in western Disney tradition.
So what would justify Jesus divinity is that he was a product of divine will. It fits the statement of âthe word of God made fleshâ as it is his command to love thy neighbour like thyself e.g. thy own, and it would justify for being a miracle as it is a profound change in reality, thus a supernatural intervention. It turns an act of hate and oppression into a beacon of love and hope, because of those two people obeying gods word. After all, a miracle is not an act of God to defy his own laws of nature, but one that manifests his authority to overcome evil. The odd thing is that we are being given that power if we do his will.
It is interesting that some of us still feel offended by the idea that Jesus could have been borne out of something else that pristine magic to justify his deity, but it is more a problem of the fall and our human derived moral value scale. Imagine God coming into this world as a âbastardâ. But the fact that this offends us is just a manifestation of our problem of judging good and evil based on our value scale. It is the same problem as thinking that makes us think that Jesus would defile the water of ritual cleansing by turning it into wine to create a fake reality that suits our materialistic expectations. We will once be asked why we would think a fine wine would be a more valuable drink one could receive over the cleansing water and why we would think that Jesus sprang into action to hide the fact that an honest groom who had served good wine all the way and not good wine followed by poor wine once everyone had had enough to drink already had given them enough to drink. Was he there to fulfil the greedy expectations of the guests. We know where he sourced the drink, so what values do we declare if we are not accepting that water for what it is?
The mystery of the bible is there to be understood in logical thinking. Itâs interpretation is a reflection of ourselves, our struggles with values and morals. We all would wish that God loves us and therefore fulfils our wishes, but that is the wrong attitude, as love is about fulfilling our needs and keeping us from falling
I love how the Chosen depicted this scene. I get that sense from reading John and the wedding incident. Jesusâs mom did what moms do. God chose her well!
Yet the councils determined what was scripture. They preserved and canonized specific books over many othersâalong with largely controlling the interpretive process that has come down to us. Protestants and sola/suprema scripture proponents have a tendency to saw off the branch they are sitting on. Church decisions and creeds are just as important as scripture since there is no scripture without them.
Good since the Gospel portrait makes it 100% certain Jesus was neither omniscient nor omnipotent.
As for the topic under consideration:
As Christians it is interesting to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But in the end there are many âmysteriesâ left to us. My only problem with them is when they become excuses for maintaining the status quo or a view that is clearly wrong. People often start with a view and blindly defend it without a proper hermeneutical approach to know where the view actually comes from or a healthy respect for alternate positions. Anything in the Bible can become a divine mysteryâslavery, misogyny, etc, so I am wary of just throwing my hands up too many times in support of doctrine. Iâd rather just subscribe to whatâs clear.
1 Like
The doctrine that Mary was the mother of God is problematic. The basic meaning may be ok but how ordinary people have understood it is not ok.
Many pagans turning to Christianity came from cultures that had a goddess or many. The turn from pagan religions to Christianity was often forced or commanded by superiors. My guess is that the mind of these ex-pagans did not turn to the unconditionally monoteistic hebrew view of God, at least not immediately. Many probably felt that a goddess, or a holy family, would be more compassionate. Approaching the Son of God through His mother was more âhumaneâ than stepping directly in front of the scary Almighty.
In practice, this has lead to behaviors where Mary is treated like a goddess. As far as I have understood, even the Roman-catholic church condemns the extreme forms of this kind of âworshipâ. In my eyes, even praying Mary that she would do something for us is too close to worshipping her. We should pray Jesus, or Father in the name of Jesus, not Mary. Anything that comes between us and God is not ok.
2 Likes
I have to partly disagree. The councils confirmed which scriptures were generally regarded as reliable. The scriptures were treated as reliable testimony even before the councils, so the councils did not just pick some scriptures to the canon, rather they gave the message: ok, we accept that these scriptures are reliable.
For me, even selection among the âcanonâ by a council is not a full quarantee that the scriptures are reliable. Apocrypha are interesting texts but I do not count them reliable.
As far as I understand, later doctrinal decisions should not be in conflict with the original teachings. As long as creeds and church decisions are not in conflict with the teachings of the scriptures we got from apostles or those writing what Jesus and the apostles had told, they have value. Whenever there is a conflict between the biblical scriptures and later doctrines, we should accept the more original teaching and push away the later doctrines that are in conflict with the original teaching.
I reject the claim that only a particular denomination has the right to interpret the biblical scriptures. Individuals may make wrong interpretations but the medicine to that problem is not to restrict the group that are allowed to make interpretations. A much better alternative approach is âopen accessâ with a public referee system: anyone can interpret but others will act as referees. Widely accepted interpretations become the dominant viewpoint, competing interpretations slide towards margins. A dominant interpretation may be wrong but it is more likely than an interpretation supported by few.
Evaluating and accepting interpretations is not just a matter of opinion. Every interpretation should have credible support. Other parts of the biblical scriptures should give support and, when possible, external information should also support the interpretation. There is seldom enough external information for using it as a criteria but sometimes there is: for example, we can refute the interpretation (hypothesis) that the universe was created within seven 24h long days a few thousand years ago based on external evidence.
2 Likes
Yes, I can agree with that. Fully agree, if I understood your message correctly.
The councilsâ decisions were not accepted by the entire Christian church, unless youâre defining the Christian church by their acceptance of the councils.
1 Like
Yes i wanted to comment on this as well and here is why i believe the truth is going to come out one way or the other in fact it was society who said and wrote Jesus is THE WAY now one often questions which way ? i know i use to when i was younger i still do is it the mustard seed way ? is it societies way ? whose way and whose rules ? because the bible clearly states JESUS is the way again i am only speaking what i am but heres where the true mystery is and it is in fact found in GOD not his son Jesus and how do i know because GOD was the one who created the heavens and the earth he was the one who made the sky as infinite it was not his son if it was than where does it mention this in fact where did jesus ever say he was his father i thought he died because of that misrepresentation of the father It is I who made the earth _ and created mankind on it. _My own hands stretched out the heavens ; _ I marshaled their starry hosts. Isaiah 48:13 and again God repeats himself here [
Hebrews 11:3; Revelation 4:11 - âWhere were you when I laid âŠ
https://www.esv.org âș âŠ
](Job 38:4â7; Psalm 33:6; Psalm 136:5; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:18; John 1:1â3; Acts 14:15; Acts 17:24; Colossians 1:16â17; Hebrews 1:10; Hebrews 11:3; Revelation 4:11 - âWhere were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? T⊠| ESV.org)
5 Thus says God , the Lord,. who created the heavens and stretched them out,. who spread out the earth and what comes from it,. now it does not say Jesus said that in fact god would have known about jesus from the begiining like numbers they can go from 0 - infinity so i want to give my thoughts on the division between the churchâs now from what i have heard was that back in world war 1 and 2 yes during conflicts there were not many hospitals so babies would have been born elsewhere this may of included churchs, so of course you have one child or more being born and churchâs holding different beliefs and values now from what i can see as a peacemaker is that from the begiining the united church had things right as far as the cradle roll ministry went https://www.prcli.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Cradle-Roll-Ministry-booklet.pdf many churchâs and ministers do not even follow this or still hold the belief and value that it is acceptable to only provide this kind of ministry to our baptised members however how many times does a person require a baptisim by witnesses to prove their belief in a father in the hevanly relm now we can also look at a person by the name of SAINT STEVEN and his behaviour at the last supper before i really don;t like taliking about this but before jesus gave his body and blood for all to eat including children to the Acts of the Apostles, Saint Stephen was condemned angering the priests of the Sanhedrin assembly. While he commends his soul to [God] now i do not know for certain if this was before or after the breaking of the bread