Archetypes of theology

What??? The eastern churches deviated as much if not more than their Roman cousins. They carried iconism so far that they believe that a portrait of Jesus manifests His spirit in a room.

 

Hi Scott J;
A quote from you;
----------------------------------------

It seems to boil down to whether you trust your reason more or your feelings more.
----------------------------------------

Well said Scott. I have always felt that Calvinist would rather trust there ability rationalize, than to see truth. When confronted with truth Calvinist rationalize it away.
Romanbear

 

Well, I've never heard of that. Perhaps some segment of the church (like the churches Muhammad encountered that apparently seemed to treat Mary as the third person of the Trinity, as the Koran denounces.)
Of course the contemplative nature of the East can lead to a sort of mysticism (I'm by no means saying that church was perfect), but still they did not get as bad as Rome, with the full blown statue worship, indulgences, papism and the corruption and constant strife over doctrines that led to all the division in the West.

 

So you think feelings and emotions are a better measure of truth than the facts of biblical texts? God said what He said... His Word and its meaning are not dependent on how we feel about it and in particular whether we think it is fair or not.

 

The Eastern Orthodox Church and its various off shoots (Russian OC, Greek OC, etc) are far worse than the RCC on this issue. Their whole theology basically centers on icons.

They have their own Pope and doctrine surrounding his office. I don't think they have gone quite as far as the RCC on this one but how much yeast does it take to leaven a lump?

I don't know that this is completely true since the eastern church branched into several different groups. One factor to remember also is that the eastern church was put on the run by Islam. There tends to be less internal strife when someone is converting your members at the point of a sword.

 

Here's a little info on the Orthodox vs. others from their perspective. Check out the problems they have with Baptist doctrine:

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/polizoides_comparison_denominations.htm

 

The bishop of Constantinople is a central leader, but not really a "pope".
The eastern Church branched off according to nationality/language, but they are not as different as the Protestant churches from the mother church and from each other. In many cases, Constantinople granted a region autocephaly, but this was not a schism.

I just don't see their problem with filioque. It may not have originally been in the creed, but it is clearly taught in scripture.

Also, it is clear the Orthodox church does not hold a Calvinistic view of "sovereignty".

 

No. They hold a clearly works based sotierology. I am not sure it can be classified as Arminian either.

Even if they did support the Arminian view of anything, I still wonder why you would consider their support meaningful. By declaring their tradition to be equal with scripture and ascribing ultimate authority to the church, they have departed from the biblical faith of the 1st century.

 

Hi Scott J;
A quote from you;
----------------------------------------
So you think feelings and emotions are a better measure of truth than the facts of biblical texts? God said what He said... His Word and its meaning are not dependent on how we feel about it and in particular whether we think it is fair or not.
-----------------------------------------
This is not what I said. You seem to be grasping at thin air for a solution to my view of Calvinism. It has been my experience that Calvinist do not go by what there Biblical text says but rather rationalize what the text actually says in order to make it seem to corroborate there theology.
Romanbear

 

Really? If truth isn't determined objectively or subjectively, how do you propose that it is determined?

I would say that you have grossly overestimated the challenge your "view of Calvinism" presents.

You must mean passages that clearly say God chooses like Romans 8 & 9, John 6, and Ephesians 1?

You don't have to rationalize anything. All you have to do is read the Bible without filtering it through your concept of what would be fair for God to do.

[ April 10, 2003, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

I don't; just that someone raised the question of what their view on "sovereignty" and "free will" was.

 

OK. I didn't see that.

 

Scott, Did you even read the post I responded to before jumping in? I didn't say that Arminians don't have an interpretation to explain these passages (albeit a wrong one). I was responding to RB's assertion that Calvinists rationalize scripture to fit a mold.

The passages I listed are very directly worded. If anyone requires "rationalization" on these passages, even you should admit that it is the Arminian. Taken to mean what they appear to say, they support divine election of the saved.

I am not trying to argue what you think they mean vs. what I think they mean... just simply responding to a false charge with proof.