 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject) | Forum Quick Jump
|
|  DLW Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 2457 | Posted 10/3/2003 5:34 PM (GMT -6) |   | This is the first parag. taken from "The Remaking of Evangelical Theology" by Gary Dorrien, the only history of evangelical theology done by a non-evangelical...
In 1899 Record of Christian Work, a Moody Bible Institute publication, asked a number of prominent American evangelists to describe Christ's attitude toward those who held erroneous doctrines. The dean of American evangelists, Dwight L. Moody, characteristically replied that Christ's teaching was unfailingly constructive and loving. "His method of dealing with error was largely to ignore it, letting it melt away in the warm glow of the full intensity of truth expressed in love," he assured. "Let us hold truth, but by all means let us hold it in love, and not with a theological club." The response of Moody's chief associate, Reuben A. Torrey, was equally characteristic:"Christ and His immediate disciples immediately attacked, exposed and denounced error. We are constantly told in our day that we ought not to attack error but simply teach the truth. This is the method of the coward and trimmer; it was not the method of Christ."
I believe Moody was right about the method of Christ and that the latter perspective that came to characterize much of US Fundamentalism is a terrible perversion of what it means for us to strive to be more Christ-like.
dlw Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/4/2003 5:41 AM (GMT -6) |   | Good post, DLW!
I agree.
In my wide web-journeying a few years back I discovered a particularly strong adherance to the right-doctrine-tied-to-near-salvation among the neo-conservatives of the Presbyterian crowd, stemming back into their history. But my best hunch is that it goes back to the Medieval influx of will-based and text-based religion entering Europe with the Arabs and Jews from Africa in that intellectual influx. When the written word replaces the Living Word THEN such misplaced allegence to correct ideas does find opportunities to replace the active and dynamic relationship to Christ.
Dwight L. Moody, and that aspect of Evangelicalism is strongly in the Holy Tradition going back to those Fathers of the Faith (both East and West--for "in Christ there is no East nor West...") who are Orthodox. "Orth-odox" -- correct belief -- is in the Person of Christ who is God-in-the-flesh.
In this respect Evangelicalism and "Eastern" Orthodoxy are closer than Orthodoxy to either "mainline" protestantism, or to Roman Catholicism. But, then, there is "no East nor West."
St. Bede and St. Patrick would embrace Moody's statement too!
(This quote is relevant for what Mephi is trying to teach on another thread; and Modes a while back.)
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  DLW Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 2457 | Posted 10/4/2003 6:50 AM (GMT -6) |   | Do share it with them...
I think also the Protestant/Catholic Schism encouraged the latter attitude since so much of that was in large part a tax-revolt in the north and Catholic Scholastic Theologians tried hard to undercut the theological legitimacy of the Protestants and Protestant theologians adopted the same form of reasoning in response...
dlw | | Back to Top | | |
 |  GregBoyd Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 1818 | Posted 10/4/2003 10:47 AM (GMT -6) |   | Ah, Moody was a wishy washy liberal. Burning people alive is much more Christ-like, much more effective, and far more entertaining. Unfortunately, the secular government won't allow this anymore (those heathens who conspired to sign the Peace of Westphalia), so the next best thing is to defame disagreers by associating them everything your audience fears and detests. (Anyone read the World article on Open Theism two or three years back? Open theism leads to abortion, homosexuality, relativism, yada yada).
I say, back to torture. If it was good enough for Calvin and the traditional Church, its good enough for me! 
Its probably not polite to bring up our lurid past in jest... but sometimes the best way to make a point is by sarcastic contrasts. My apologies to offended parties. "The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
  |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 10/4/2003 4:23 PM (GMT -6) |   | | While Christ is to be an example, so is Paul and the apostles. From my reading of both the Old (which is still in the Bible) and the New, I see both types of ways used. Ah, but then it wouldn't go along with this posts need to find the right and condemn those who are "unloving" (which is not to be confused with Doctor Boyd's obsession with being "loving" above all else, including, perhaps the truth). | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/4/2003 4:41 PM (GMT -6) |   | This is now at least the second thread festering of 'cross-town-rivalry.' To a different tune, the Moody quote was inspiring.
Thing about suffering. It can be born by us as a Cross. In so doing we save our "enemies."
Take up. What goes into the tomb will be resurrected.
The big picture includes the arrival of the Light. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Tom Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 10353 | Posted 10/4/2003 8:00 PM (GMT -6) |   | honorman-
I see your point, but I think you're falsely assuming that "love" and "truth" are sometimes at odds with each other, that we have to deny one to embrace the other. But surely that cannot be. Love and truth at odds? We must be misunderstanding one or both if we think we ever have to choose between them.
When Paul told the Galatians, for example, that those Judaizers seeking to convince them to accept circumcision ought to go ahead and just "wack it off!" he wasn't being unloving. Or when he confronted Peter in public in Antioch, was he sacrificing love for the sake of truth.
Remember, it was Paul who said "Love rejoices in the truth."
If you wanna argue about it buddy, then we'll just BURN YOU AT THE STAKE!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
 |  DLW Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 2457 | Posted 10/5/2003 5:05 AM (GMT -6) |   | I think it comes down to the sticky question of how we deal with onto-theological differences and heresy.
Traditionally in the past, onto-theological differences served as a source of great, never-ending division among Protestants. In the US, the 19th Ctry Revivals served to bring together people who still had these differences, but saw that what they had in common as far more important.
Hence, we could focus on making disciples of all nations, not Swedish Pietist Baptists(such as is the case for me)of all nations.
There still is heresy and it still has to be dealt with within the Church, but squelching heresy is not our primary task, showing God's love and how our lives can be transformed is.
dlw Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/5/2003 12:01 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 10/5/2003 7:07 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom: my point was not that love and truth are at odds, but rather my view that Doctor Boyd seems to believe that if you are not loving as he views love than you are not truly loving. Either that or he ridicules the opposite side. I think there are many ways to confront heresay, but the attitude that anyone who condemns it wishes that his opponents be "burned" at the stake, is highly judgmental in itself. I have brought up a different view of love than Doctor Boyd several times and he has never answered it, but rather gets all "emotional" and somewhat unreasonable when someone disagrees with him on the subject. He seems unable to dialogue on the subject with those who disagree with him on the subject without resorting to sarcasism and sometimes just plain rudeness. How we deal with heresay is a complex issue, perhaps must be dealt with in each person's hearts. But it should be remembered that we deal not just with the sinner but also with the sin and how a holy God views sin. It is a tight rope we Christians walk, but I believe it is our duty to love both God and man, which means love the sinner but also show that God hates the sin. To do less is to love God less. That is why we strive to live holy lives. I suppose, though, in the end it depends on how one views love. Doctor Boyd has said somewhere else on this site that love should generate a positive experience for the person who is experiencing it. I challenged that. Many times love is harsh. But you are right Tom. Love and truth are one. Love strives for truth and truth for love. That is why when we speak we speak the truth in love. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  GregBoyd Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 1818 | Posted 10/6/2003 9:12 AM (GMT -6) |   | Honorman: Tom: my point was not that love and truth are at odds, but rather my view that Doctor Boyd seems to believe that if you are not loving as he views love than you are not truly loving.
Doc: Don't know quite what you're talking about honorman. But obviously if someone does something you think is unloving, you would view them as being unloving in this act even if they say it is loving.
Honorman: Either that or he ridicules the opposite side.
Doc: In the above post I was being sarcastic about the traditional practice of burning people at the stake for heresy. Is this practice the "opposite side" you're referring to? If so, you have a point. But I'd be surprised to hear you defend Calvin's treatment of Servetus as loving.
Honorman: the attitude that anyone who condemns it wishes that his opponents be "burned" at the stake, is highly judgmental in itself.
Doc: Did I say anyone who condemns heresy wishes their opponents would be burned at the stake?
Honorman: I have brought up a different view of love than Doctor Boyd several times and he has never answered it,
Doc: You have? I haven't? Sorry. Must have missed it.
Honorman: but rather gets all "emotional" and somewhat unreasonable when someone disagrees with him on the subject.
Doc: So I do answer the objections? Just not yours? Don't have any recollection of anything remotely like this ever happening on this site. But Anyway, sorry if I came across as emotional and unreasonable. When flaws in my reasoning are pointed out, I'm usually happy to address them and correct them.
Honorman: He seems unable to dialogue on the subject with those who disagree with him on the subject without resorting to sarcasism and sometimes just plain rudeness.
Doc: You're off your rocker lame brain. Just kidding just kidding just kidding just kidding just kidding JUST KIDDING. ] Seriously, I'm sorry I offended you honorman. Really. I honestly don't have a clue as to anything you're talking about, but it clearly would be in contradiction to my professed faith if I have been rude. (Though, I suppose, not against my personality to sometimes inadvertently come across as rude... especially if my occasion attempts at humor [see above] are not appreciated.)
Honorman: it should be remembered that we deal not just with the sinner but also with the sin and how a holy God views sin.
Doc: So long as we apply this first and foremost to the tree trunks in our eyes before we turn to the splinters in others, I'm in FULL agreement. I just have such an issue with the tree trunks that I only have space in my brain to deal with a few splinters in a few people I'm in close relationship with -- and then only when they point them out to me.
Honorman: Doctor Boyd has said somewhere else on this site that love should generate a positive experience for the person who is experiencing it.
Doc: That must have been the other Doctor Boyd. I believe love must always seek to BENEFIT the other. I believe that ordinarily love IN SERVICE must be demonstrated before love IN CONfRONTATION can be perceived as loving. But "positive experience"... sounds kind of fluffy.
Okay, I really really really don't like it whenever this board gets personal. So maybe I shouldn't have responded to Honorman's post. But PLEASE lets not make ME the point of discussion.
I KNEW I shouldn't have made that little poke at people being burned at the stake. I knew it. Someday I'll learn.
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 10/6/2003 9:27 AM (GMT -6) |   | | PerhapsI misunderstood you, Doctor Boyd. If so, I apologize. I do trly agree, though, that love should always seek the benefit of the other. But many times that benefit is painful. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Tom Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 10353 | Posted 10/6/2003 11:51 AM (GMT -6) |   | Doc: I KNEW I shouldn't have made that little poke at people being burned at the stake. I knew it. Someday I'll learn.
Tom: Wrong again bucko! You'll never have a chance to learn because...
...WE'RE GONNA BURN DOC!!!
Light your torches boys! Tie him up, and to the back yard with him!
 | | Back to Top | | |
  |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/6/2003 1:41 PM (GMT -6) |   | What's being accomplished here?
DLW's post was a genuine step. I think that by itself it accomplishes something.
Now I just see more festering...
What's to contrast?
quote: ... Each of the early Christian communities that we know about had its own unique character, and its own unique problems, as we see in the New Testament documents. Generally speaking, however, each church had great concern for the others and were all called to teach the same doctrines and to practice the same virtues, living the same life in Christ and the Holy Spirit.
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teachings, and communion, to the breaking of the bread, and the prayers.
And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need (Acts 2:42, 44).
This description of the Church in Jerusalem can generally be applied to all of the early Christian communities. www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Bible-and-Church-History/First-Century.html
quote: The second century saw the further development of the Christian faith, and the greater persecution of the Church by the Roman imperial authorities for whom Christianity was an "illegal religion."
The Christians were criminals in the eyes of the Romans, not only religiously, but also politically. They transgressed the laws of the state because they refused to honor the earthly emperor as king, lord, and god, which was required of them as members of imperial society. They prayed for the civil authorities and gave "honor to whom honor is due" (Romans 13:1-7), but they refused to give the earthly king the glory and worship which was due to God, and to His Christ, alone. Thus the Roman law declared: It is not lawful to be a Christian.
...
The persecution of the Christians in the second century was largely local, conducted according to the zeal of the local imperial authorities. Nevertheless, the persecutions were widespread and the Christians were generally hated even by the most tolerant and open minded of the Roman rulers. They were hated mostly for what was considered their stubbornness and intolerance due to their exclusive devotion to Christ as Lord. They were persecuted also for what was considered to be the political danger which they brought to the unity of law and order in the imperial reign, particularly because of the increasing number of persons who were joining the Church.
 INGATIUS
Among the most famous of the Christian leaders and martyrs of the second century were the bishops Ignatius of Antioch (d. c110) and Polycarp of Smyrna (d. 156), and the philosopher Justin (d. c165). Each of these men who were killed for the faith left writings which, together with the Didache (the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), the Letter to Diognetus, the letters of Clement of Rome, the Letter of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the apologetic writings of such men as Athenagoras of Athens, Melito of Sardis, Theophilus of Antioch and the greatest of the second century theologians, Irenaeus of Lyons, all give a very vivid picture of the faith and life of the second century Church.
...
The Christian Church lived in relative peace from the death of Marcus Aurelius (185) to the time of the Emperor Decius (249). When Decius came to power, he inaugurated a universal persecution of Christians throughout the whole empire. The persecutions by Decius were continued in force by Valerian (253-260). During this time, not only were the Christians forced to sacrifice to the imperial gods, but the clergy were sought out to be killed and all Christian properties were to be confiscated and destroyed. There was an all-out attempt to purge the Church of its leadership and to destroy it completely.
After Valerian, however, Gaflienus, his son, stopped the policy of general persecution and the Christians once more lived in relative peace until the end of the century. During this period, there was an astounding growth in Church membership which perhaps reached up to ten percent of the imperial population. http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Bible-and-Church-History/Second-Century.htm
quote:

Hieromartyr Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (+167)
Saint Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, was born about the year 80 and lived in Asia Minor in the city of Smyrna. He was left an orphan at an early age, but through the direction of an Angel, he was raised by the pious widow Kallista. After the death of his adoptive mother, Polycarp gave away his possessions and began to lead a chaste life, caring for the sick and the infirm. He was very fond of and close to the holy bishop of Smyrna, Bukolos (commemorated 6 February). He ordained Polycarp as deacon, entrusting to him to preach the Word of God in church.
At this time the holy Apostle John the Theologian was still alive. Saint Polycarp was especially close to Saint John the Theologian, whom he accompanied on his apostolic wanderings. Sainted Bukolos ordained Saint Polycarp presbyter, and shortly before his death expressed last wishes that he be made bishop upon the Smyrna cathedra. When the ordination of Saint Polycarp to bishop was accomplished, the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to him. Saint Polycarp guided his flock with apostolic zeal. He was also greatly loved among the clergy. With great warmth did Saint Ignatios the God-Bearer regard him. Setting out to Rome where execution awaited him -- he was torn asunder by wild beasts -- he wrote to Saint Polycarp: "Just as the winds and turbulence require the rudder for coming ashore, so likewise are the present times necessary, in order to reach God."
The emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180) came upon the Roman throne and started up a most fierce persecution against christians. The pagans demanded that the judge seek out Saint Polycarp -- "the father of all the christians" and "the seducer of all Asia". During this while Saint Polycarp, at the persistent urging of his flock, stayed at a small village not far from Smyrna. When the soldiers came for him, he went out to them and led them in to eat, and at this time he began to pray, having prepared himself for the deed of martyrdom. His suffering and death are recorded in "An Epistle of the Christians of the Church of Smyrna to the other Churches" -- one of the most ancient memorials of Christian literature. Having been brought to trial, Saint Polycarp firmly confessed his faith in Christ and was condemned to burning. The executioners wanted to tie him to a post, but he calmly told them that the bonfire would not work, and they could merely tie him with ropes. The flames encircled the saint but did not touch him, coming all together over his head. Seeing that the fire did him no harm, the throng of pagans demanded that he be killed with a sword. When they inflicted the wound upon Saint Polycarp, there flowed from it so much blood, that it extinguished the flames. The body of the priestmartyr Polycarp was then committed to flame. The Christians of Smyrna reverently gathered up his venerable remains, honouring his memory as sacred.
A story has been preserved about Saint Polycarp by his disciple, Sainted Ireneios of Lyons, which Eusebios cites in his Ecclesiastical History (V, 20):
I was still very young when I saw thee in Asia Minor at Polycarp's -- writes Saint Ireneios to his friend Florinus -- ... but I would still be able to point out the place where Blessed Polycarp sat and conversed, be able to depict his walk, his mannerisms in life, his outward appearance, his speaking to people, his companionable wandering with John, and how he himself related, together with other eye-witnesses of the Lord -- those things that he remembered from the words of others and in turn told what he heard from them about the Lord, His teachings and miracles ... Through the mercy of God to me, I then already listened attentively to Polycarp and wrote down his words not on tablets, but in the depths of my heart ... Wherefore, I am able to witness before God, that if this blessed and apostolic elder heard something similar to thy fallacy, he would immediately stop up his ears and express his indignation with his usual phrase: 'Good God! That Thou hast permitted me to be alive at such a time!'
During his life the sainted bishop wrote several Epistles to the flock and letters to various individuals. There has survived to the present his Epistle to the Philippians which, on the testimony of Blessed Jerome, was read in the churches of Asia Minor at Divine-services. It was written by the saint in response to the request of the Philippians to send them a letter of the PriestMartyr Ignatios, which had been preserved by Saint Polycarp.
There's someone willing to die for his persecutors.
A sweet smelling fragrance, unto the Lord.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/6/2003 1:44 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
   |  Tom Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 10353 | Posted 10/6/2003 5:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | Doc: Let he who is orthodox strike the first match. News for you homie, it AIN'T GONNA BE U!!!!
Tom: Now THAT'S the truth and don't YOU know it! OK, so I won't help light you, but I can still roast marshmellows over your burning corpse.
 | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/6/2003 5:31 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Originally posted by DLW
Do share it with them...
I think also the Protestant/Catholic Schism encouraged the latter attitude since so much of that was in large part a tax-revolt in the north and Catholic Scholastic Theologians tried hard to undercut the theological legitimacy of the Protestants and Protestant theologians adopted the same form of reasoning in response...
dlw
That was interesting.
It can also bring us a few other places.
Review -- I'd posted: When the written word replaces the Living Word THEN such misplaced allegence to correct ideas does find opportunities to replace the active and dynamic relationship to Christ.
DLW mentions "theological legitimacy." THAT is particularly an issue when you have part of the body as "teachers" and the other part as "learners only." Clerical-ization. When the royal priesthood of the beliver is undermined. Rather than Christ alive in us, it is the word studied.
It is no accident that Protestant ministers wore pretty much the same kind of robes as academic professors. (Now they wear business suits--what's that say?) The dialogical role of priest to and with people was exchanged for a new hierarchy. But that was not new to Protestants; as DLW said above. Not too much new came out of the Reformation. Berengarius had a possition that even resembles Zwingli.
Now days there is lots of fretting about "Women in Office." Dispite the fact that early evidence says women deacons had higher ordination status than men deacons. performing even some eucharistic functions. In some Evangelical churches Communion is scarcely participated in. The problem of offices in Church is NOT one of gender, it is a problem of stratification.
Rather than splitting hairs about some "theological legitimacy" attention needs given about participation in Christ.
Surely correct doctrine has a role in this. But instead of approaching a book, the one thing needful is to approach the Word that gives the word. THAT approach is through repentance. Through going first and making peace with one's brothers and sisters. With those who have offended you. With those you have offended.
quote: Again, we bow before You and pray to You, O good and loving God. Hear our supplication: cleanse our souls and bodies from every defilement of flesh and spirit, and grant that we may stand before Your holy altar without blame or condemnation. Grant also, O God, progress in life, faith, and spiritual discernment to the faithful who pray with us, so that they may always worship You with reverence and love, partake of Your Holy Mysteries without blame or condemnation, and become worthy of Your heavenly kingdom.
. . .
Let us stand well. Let us stand in awe. Let us be attentive, that we may present the holy offering in peace.
Mercy and peace, a sacrifice of praise.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with all of you.
. . .
Let us love one another that with one mind we may confess: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Trinity one in essence and inseparable.
There is ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism. An in the eucharist we proclaim:
quote: We offer to You these gifts from Your own gifts in all and for all.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 10/7/2003 1:20 AM (GMT -6) |   | One holder of "erroneous doctrine" the Gospels recounts is the woman at the well: (John 4:6-8) Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour. When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) Jesus showed her the need she had, that she had been denying with her head: Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water." She knew her need well enough. But part of her hung on to an "erroneous doctrine": "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain." But Jesus showed her true doctrine, that was real and Living: Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." . . . Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:48 PM (GMT -6) There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads. In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|