Paul was also a bit of a fanatic, moreover..
?
And on important matters of doctrine, it's absolutely right to consult scripture, tradition, and Apostolic succession. But what does one do, for example, when Scripture and Tradition disagree?
It can't. If it does, it's tradition, not Holy Tradition. If a bishop isn't doing as a bishop should do, you turn him over to the proper authorities and if he's found to be heretical, he get's the boot until he repents and re-enters (hopefully not as a bishop). Most heretics go off and start their own churches or join other denominations that comes with a two-car garage.
Or when Scripture or Tradition is unclear?
Well, this has been a problem but within the Orthodox faith they usually embrace mystery. In the west, there's a strong movement to try to explain everything. Even the Trinity is mostly a theology that puts more emphases on what God is not as opposed to the arrogance of what God is. Pantheism for instance. Though God's invisible attributes or qualities are clearly seen in the creation, He is NOT (for instance) an atom.
Schisms are often created for selfish reasons, but they're just as often created when the opposing sects both truly believe that the Spirit is leading them the right direction.
I think there have been three departures from the Orthodox. Roman Catholics, Coptics and, er, those other folks that have Orthodox liturgies but fall under Rome's SEE (jurisdiction).
Repudiating error is fine, but too often evil men have used the excuse of heresy to condone evil actions against their brethren.
Yeah, but just because some group of people have misused heresy doesn't negate the good and right way to deal with heresy.
Which is why I prefer to agree to disagree unless there is a matter of dire threat to the physical or spiritual well-being of the church.
This is exactly the direction that it's going. And realize that now, in addition to being a follower of Christ, you have the task of attempting to decide for yourself what is a dire threat to the Church and what is not. You have, in order to order your religious life, by necissity, dubbed yourself Pope. Though, one without followers (unless you start your own church).
You might be a laid back, open minded pope that doesn't put many stipulations on what is a "dire threat". You might have decreed few dogmas. However, where are your equals? And the irony is that we do this in order to preserve our perception of Church.
Imagine a body of believers that all believe the same thing. That when they come together it isn't to listen to some sermon that they can cognitively recieve some "concepts" on how to better live a better life but to truly worship, as a whole. Not as a body of me, myself, and I's. A true unified body.
For example, we should definitely repudiate delusional doctrines like dispensationalism; the part of me that was raised Baptist though says we should leave things like veneration of icons to the Spirit's guidance of individuals.
I hear you on the dispensationalist stuff. End times stuff was never the focus of Christianity but looking around it sure seems to be a religion in and of itself.
On Icons, I never really struggled there. It's not something that is forced on Orthodox. I mean, they're pictures that retell events and are aids in helping us to snap out of our day to day existence. We're visual beings. People take issue with Icons but then aren't afraid to look into their television sets which are often just loaded with icons (windows) of death.
Some things, though, fall outside the realm of the comprehensible. In these cases, Truth isn't subjective, but we must choose what we believe to be true and trust that God will correct us if we're wrong, be it in this life or the next.
Well, sure. But at the same time, we can comprehend that we can't comprehend much and with being aware of that comes responsibility. And even our words, the way in which we explain what we truly can not even conceive, are not unlike the OT rituals wherein they stood in as mere shadows of the things to come. Some of the theophanies we have were the results of thousands of men and women being led by the Holy Spirit over long periods of time.
Because protestants largely hold to a view that Scripture is always literal, infallible, inerrant, and the only source of spiritual truth. Consequently when there are contradictions, metaphors, or unclear passages, they schism off into various branches. Yes, I agree with you that modern protestantism is incredibly messed up. There needs to be a new reformation.
Well, Holy Scripture is infallible but our private interpretations are not insofar as they don't line up with The Truth. The fundamental evangelicals have taken "literal" to new heights but with the way they've been courting governments, I don't think they'll last too long. Politics is fickle. Problem is, most of the guys feeding this stuff down the pipe aren't Christians so much as business men and people specializing in voting blocks. Ka-ching!
We have to realize that languages present a problem. We have to realize that historical context, if it's removed, will seduce us into juxtaposing modernity onto the text. There's all kinds of limitations from our end but I will not go so far as to say that the scriptures "contradict" or are flawed. The scriptures are Holy. They were spoken through a people and cultures and those limitations are just as much a part of the story as the story itself. And then throw the fact that it's God Himself who is inspiring these men to write and you have the Holy books that ought to be read with great reverance, fear and humility.
Tradition must be acknowledged on important issues, the insistence on a literal and infallible reading of Scripture needs go, and the basic precept of love your neighbor must be reaffirmed.
Again, this is the direction it's already heading. Problem is, again, baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. Of course not everything in the bible is literal. Anyone with a fourth grade reading level and a map should be able to tell us this. I mean, how many days passed before the creation of the sun, moons and stars (seasons)? I know what my pea-brain means by a day but I've no clue what God meant by day and a night. How did He count it a day? Was it twenty four hours? There was light (the effect) prior to the actual things that give the light? God gives light. Jesus is the light. Ok, but... you see? Our ability to follow it just goes haywire. And for good reason. It's God!
Loving your neighbor sometimes means letting him disagree with you if he insists on being wrong; because ultimately loving your neighbor requires you to put up with people with whom you disagree.
Oh, sure. Love's key. However, is it love if your friend says to you, "I really want to buy this venomous snake but I don't have any food or a cage and the only place I can keep it is under the crib in the babies room. Will you support me and come with me and help me move it?"
"Sure friend. Otherwise you might think I don't love you. I'll allow this hateful thing play out in the name of civility because otherwise you'll get all huffy and won't call me for a week."
Believe me, I can relate.
It depends on what you mean by Orthodoxy. For the most part, my beliefs are in line with the seven councils, but when you get into things like whether Christ had two wills or the exact nature of the incarnation, you've gone over most people's head.
Sure, I don't go out my way to see what someone thinks on the incarnation. However, if I hear someone say the Son didn't exist in the God-head until Mary, I'm a Christian. The sin of omission is just as often not unlike hate.
To me it seems kind of like nerds at a comic convention arguing over the arcane details of Superman's history, except when religion is involved there's the bonus of heretic burning and the threat of fire and brimstone.
Definitely seems that way sometimes but in regards to burning and brimstone, er, not my jurisdiction. Someone wants to become a Christian Scientist because they think Tom Cruise is cute and wants a shot at him, I can warn them of the fires to come but either way (unless she's cuter than his current wife *forgot her name*) they're gonna get burned.
This is true. By all means there is a deep rot within much of modern Christianity.
We agree there's a problem, I just think that declaring people heretics is going to drive even more people away rather than solve the problem.
I kind of see your point here. But at the same time, if you can name a heresy you can look it up and there's usually lots to read on the issue. Maybe just omitting the word heresy might keep people's heart-rate down but then people don't seem as prone to look up some disease-sounding word like, "You my brothah, have a bad case Nestorianismitis. Might want to get that looked at."
Thanks for the convo.
God bless
