ITT We Discuss Theology

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Cen1aur 1963

I feel you on this 100%. What's confusing to me, and has always been, because no one has ever been able to answer the question. But some folks believe Jesus is God. God is the "Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", which is what I've always been raised to believe growing up. What trips me out about that is the church I attend now, when our pastor baptizes someone, he says "I baptize you in the name of Jesus."

A Oneness Pentecostal church?

What does your current pastor say about Matthew 28:19?

When I was growing up, our pastor at my childhood church would say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". Which is why I grew up believing that if he is all three, which some folks believe, then if God only helps those who help themselves, then wouldn't Jesus?

Like I said, though, "God helps those who help themselves" may be a popular saying, but isn't anywhere in the Bible (even though many, many people think it is). It is not at all what the Bible teaches and I think many if not most theologians and Bible scholars would say that it is actually contrary to what the Bible teaches, and certainly to the message of the Gospel.

Originally Posted by dekeguy

As a suggestion, you might want to read carefully the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. Give it a bit of thought and then lets kick this around a bit.

For many of us, the Nicene and Apostles creeds are normative and something of a bedrock, but there're lots of Christians for whom they are not and for whom any creed is suspect. Saying "study the creeds and then we'll talk" is essentially saying "adopt my perspective and then we'll talk."

[SWTXBelle]

Studying the creeds would be a good place to start to understand long-standing interpretations of the Trinity, whether or not the reader actually ascribes to them.

[Little Dragon]

I have been reading from past posts and write here my contributions to three of them. This is only what I think and what I was taught, conceding the fact that I might be wrong.

Baptism:
Both formulas are from the Bible

"Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19) vs.
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38)

[Sorry for the quotes from different translations of the Bible, I google them quickly.]

The first one has been the official formula from the beginning of the Church. The second one means "by the authority of Jesus," assuming the first formula is to be used. Yet, the latter has been taken out of context by different groups at different times for different reasons. Also, although it is not a valid argument, the first one are Jesus' words; the second one are Peter's. Who do we believe?

"God helps those who help themselves"
MisticCat explained it pretty well, so I won't repeat what has been said. I'll add that this is very dangerous phrase.

First, God is not limited by anything, including men's unwillingnes to help himself.

Second, I've actually heard people, in the same line of thought, quoting Paul when he says that those who don't work, don't eat. This is said in a very specific context and need not be taken out of it.

Finally, let's look at what it is being said behind the words: "Since God help those who help themselves, if you are in a hole, it means you are not helping yourself." There goes any help to Africa, any help to those in need anywhere in the world. "If they had helped themselves, God would help them."

Since the phrase is used as an excuse against helping others that may look lazy, I add my opinion, without being accused of being naive and always taking the much needed precautions so that it doesn't happen, a Christian should always prefer to be disappointed by trusting (even though some undeserving individuals might take advantage) than be surprised by doubting (and so doubting others worthy of such trust). The same can be apply to the help we provide. Some might abuse, most won't. Paraphrasing an Ignatian thought: I did not start helping others so that they may abuse of me, neither will I stop helping others because of it.

Creeds
The Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed was written to answer the heresies as they arose (Arianism > Jesus is not God) (Monophysitism > Jesus has only one nature and that is the Divine), etc. It was first stated at the Nicaea Council, and later confirmed at the Constantinopolitan Council, in order to clarify the misunderstandings which gave place to the heresies. The Apostle's Creed, probably older although its oldest written account is dated much later than the Niceno, states what Christians believed, probably taken phrases from the Bible, but allowing for the misunderstandings from which the heresies were born.

Now, I've always wondered why the Apostle's creed mentions "the communion of Saints" while the Niceno-Constantinopolitan doesn't. I know that the latter include it implicitly, but still.

[SWTXBelle]

Neat pictures - blessed Ash Wednesday,y'all.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow...-your-forehead

[SWTXBelle]

For your listening pleasure:

http://www.live365.com/index.live

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

For many of us, the Nicene and Apostles creeds are normative and something of a bedrock, but there're lots of Christians for whom they are not and for whom any creed is suspect. Saying "study the creeds and then we'll talk" is essentially saying "adopt my perspective and then we'll talk."

==================================================

No, actually what I was SUGGESTING was a read of the creeds and an invitation to discuss. I find them useful as a point of reference but my comment was not intended to be in the form of "adopt my perspective and then we'll talk". It was a suggestion to propose a framework for discussion. What works for me does not imply that it works for everyone else but it does offer a starting point from which a concensus might or might not be achieved.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

Some random theological musings:

I believe that Jesus called for people to care about ALL of people's needs.

When people were hungry, he didn't just preach to them, he fed them.

It bugs me when people say "well feeding the homeless is great, but they need Jesus."

Um, feeding homeless people IS Jesus. I feel like we minister to people through the things we do to help them, not just by telling them about the Gospel.

Thoughts?

My particular flavor of Lutheranism does a lot of social justice, and other work, and we just aren't much on proselytizing, one of the many reasons we are slow to gain members. There's also an attitude of the churches I've attended that everyone is welcome, those who are baptized can have communion (we don't check IDs, it is on the honor system), and people can come and never have to be baptized, convert, or join the congregation. I wasn't really sure how well known it was that we're not trying to convert until the 2004 tsunamis in Southeast Asia. Indonesia is about 88% Sunni Muslim, the most Muslim nation in the world both by population and percentage, and Lutheran World Relief was allowed personnel on the ground who were under local organizations. Certain other sects that often go to other disasters, and do proselytize, sent all of their aid through Islamic Relief Worldwide and weren't as welcome. I'm sure there are individuals who would like to witness and perhaps covert people, but they can't do that and work under LWR.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Somehow that just seems so . . . oxymoronic -- a call to a a holy Lent, with all that entails, given in such curt fashion. But hey, I guess if it reaches even one person, the angels rejoice.

The Chabad Lubavitch community of Boise had a Sukkah on wheels for Sukkot http://www.jewishidaho.com/templates...-on-Wheels.htm For those who can't build a sukkah which I always thought was a pretty good idea to allow people to practice their faith as well as teaching about it to others who may see the Sukkah.

Even though I am personally a fan of "high church" in the practices of my faith, I'm not high church when it comes to the other parts of my faith. I grew up in a very high church congregation, Scandinavians and Germans, that anything too far from that just makes me uncomfortable, for example not receiving a wafer for Communion I'll never get used to, nor a church where communion isn't done every Sunday. Kneeling is normal, as are vestments and paraments, and there are some parts done in Latin, the only musical instruments are an organ, piano, some hand bells, and voices. The "green book" I grew up with started being replaced in 2006, and I'm still uncomfortable with it since Psalms have some word changes to be more gender neutral and that makes it difficult to appropriately pause. All of that aside, I like that women are equals to men when it comes to ordination, that we now allow those with same sex partners to be ordained, we welcome all who are baptized to the table to partake in the Eucharist, but changing how we worship has been really hard to accept.

I also don't do any Lenten activities like fasting, avoiding meat on Friday, or giving up anything. If I gave up something I'd probably be cranky and that is a disservice to everyone around me, so I try and pick up a habit and be positive instead of creating a negative.This year I've made a plan to get my house completely cleaned out of stuff that needs to go and to do some cleaning and maintenance that is overdue. I bought most of what I needed last weekend so as long as I do something on the list everyday I'll be on track.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

No, actually what I was SUGGESTING was a read of the creeds and an invitation to discuss. I find them useful as a point of reference but my comment was not intended to be in the form of "adopt my perspective and then we'll talk". It was a suggestion to propose a framework for discussion. What works for me does not imply that it works for everyone else but it does offer a starting point from which a concensus might or might not be achieved.

Sorry if I read your post other than intended and inferred what you did not mean.

I find that, for me at least, the better framework is that the goal is understanding one another, and the best starting point is to understand where people are now by asking questions so that I can understand where they are coming from, and by explaining why I think as I do. For me and in this kind of context, suggesting that someone study something (that supports my view) and then we'll have some discussion based on that sends the message that there isn't already a basis of discussion -- what the other believes/thinks and why and what I believe/think and why. I guess that would be my bias that led to my inference.

[dekeguy]

[QUOTE=MysticCat;2127572]Sorry if I read your post other than intended and inferred what you did not mean.

================================================== ====

Mystic Cat,

As usual, semantics and terminology get in the way. I think we are pretty much on the same sheet of music but we both probably could have phrased ourselves to reflect the closeness of our positions. Sorry that I did not state things more clearly.
I think our Jesuit friend Little Dragon was very helpful by providing his perspective and I hope Cen1aur 1963 found all of this useful in trying to think through his own question.
Now, strictly from my belief, I do accept the Nicean creed and the concept of a trinitarian God consisting of three persons in one God does not trouble me in the least. Of course Jesus is God, as is the Father, as is the Holy Spirit. Do I fully understand this - no - but I expect that some day I will when (if) I receive the beatific vision, which was once explained to me by a wise old Jesuit who compared it for want of better vocabulary to being able to see the whole of Creation through God's eyes. What a thought! What a vision!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

As usual, semantics and terminology get in the way. I think we are pretty much on the same sheet of music but we both probably could have phrased ourselves to reflect the closeness of our positions.

Agreed.

Do I fully understand this - no - but I expect that some day I will . . . .

Taking this and running a little bit in a slightly different direction for yet another semi-tangent:

It often seems to me that there is a component in much of Western Christianity (certainly in my particular strand of Western Christianity) to want to explain and understand everything. It's as though if we can't explain it and understand it, we can't believe it. For example, "I don't understand how all three Persons of the Trinity can be God, be distinct from each other and yet there is only one God, therefore I have trouble accepting it."

Or we try too hard to explain and understand that which is unexplainable (this side of the grave, as you note). For example, transubstantiation vs. transignification vs. consubstantation vs. Sacramental union vs. pneumatic/dynamic presence as ways to understand or explain the Real Presence (assuming, of course, one accepts the idea of the Real Presence to begin with).

It often seems to me that Eastern Christianity does a better job of simply "letting the mystery be" rather than trying to explain everything.

[Cen1aur 1963]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

A Oneness Pentecostal church?

What does your current pastor say about Matthew 28:19?

It's a non-denominational church. I'll have to ask my pastor about that and see what he says. I'll post it when I catch up with him. That's good shit, though.