What is the 'danger' of bad theology?

[Rick Wagar]

Hello all.

As I read orthodoxinfo.com and others, I see the frequent reference to the "danger" of bad theology. What I do not see, however, is concrete examples of this.

Example: What are the ramifications of believing that the holy spirit proceeds from the son as well as the father?

" " " " " believing that the communion of saints, infant baptism, etc. are not true?

Thanks.

[Paul Cowan]

Dear Rick,

These questions are critical to the understanding of Orthodoxy. They are also covered in depth if you can use the search feature of this site. Each of these or parts therof were also the reasons for the 7 ecumenical councils of which we are based.

[Antonios]

What is the danger of bad theology?

Dear Rick,

The danger is that there is one Truth and one God. There can only be one theology. Contradictions with the orthodox faith is what keeps those contradictions outside of it. These sometimes lead to minor stumblings and sometimes to major schisms, but always leading them away from God and into further darkness.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Father David Moser]

reference to the "danger" of bad theology. What I do not see, however, is concrete examples of this.


The Christian faith is referred to as "the way" many times in the scripture - eg. the way into the Kingdom of Heaven. Our Lord, Himself, said that He is the Way, the Truth, the Life by which all men come to the Father. The "way" is a path, a route and the beliefs and practices of the Christian faith are the directions or the map by which that way is revealed to us and laid out for us. If we get "bad directions" we may stray off the path and get lost. The danger of "bad theology" (I don't really like that particular term - but since you used it) is that we are led astray and are unable to actualize our salvation.

If one were to analyze carefully the ancient (and still modern) heresies - the nature of Christ, the incarnation, the icons etc - and the underlying beliefs that make up these heresies in the light of the nature of salvation then it becomes quite apparent that salvation is rendered impossible by those heresies. One of the great problems that many of the post-reformation Christian confessions face is that they have lost or at best fragmented the concept of salvation and therefore this obvious conclusion is lost because they compare the results to an already faulty standard. Does this mean that no one can be saved who does not fully embrace "good theology" - certainly not, but then the explanation depends on one's definition of what it means to be saved. I was speaking the other day with a life long, pious, dedicated evangelical protestant with whom I frequently converse. This man of 80 years - at least 60 as a serious Christian - who studies the scripture and theological writings daily, suddenly realized for the very first time in our conversations (even though I have said it before) that for the Orthodox Church "salvation" encompasses not only what he considers to be "justification" but also "sanctification". I thought he understood that from our conversations - but for the first time this realization hit home for him and opened a whole new vista of how to look at his own Christian faith. He was not living fully or wholistically his salvation, but only experienced it as discrete and separate functions. He lived the majority of his life crippled in his Christian faith by a faulty understanding of salvation.

This is a living example of the "danger" of "bad theology"

Fr David Moser

[Herman Blaydoe]

Even a cursory glance at the Acts of the Apostles and their letters to the Churches show that they warned time and time again about "other gospels" and wolves amongst the sheep sowing contention with "bad theology". The Apostle Paul goes on and on about the importance of being "of one mind".

If you want "concrete examples" just read the Epistles! Just about every one was written to combat "bad theology" that started creeping into the various churches--the circumcision controversy for starters.

One God, one Christ, one Church, one theology. Seems fairly straightforward, at least to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Owen Jones]

Well, let's begin with the basic stuff, like God is Good, and His creation is good. That's the foundatin of "good" theology. If you have a God concept based on the idea that God is an SOB who is out to get you, and looking for every time you mess up as an excuse to whack you, has created an intolerable life for you and an intolerable world that is designed to make your life miserable, i.e. life is a hellish curse, i.e. something far less than a Good God, then that is going to dramtically effect your attitude about your own life and that of others and life in general. It is going to lead, and also stems from, some basic disorder in the soul. It is an unhealthy God concept that causes soul-sickness, and also is a sign of a soul sickness that was already there. I know many people who believe this strongly. Some are "religious" and some are not.

Plato, who coined the term theology, described the sophists as believing that either a) God does not exist or b) he does't have the power to save us or c) he can be bribed by sacrifices. Plato said this is clearly wrong (without trying to prove it explicitly) and called the alternative believe, not good theology per se, but just "theology." So theology implicitly is good theology. There is theologizing, which is the proper orientation of the noetic faculty to God, and all the rest is opinion. So true theology or good theology is not right opinion, it is not opinion at all, but right orientation.

[Owen Jones]

And I should add, this is compatible with the Patristic view. Theology is really a verb, implying right living and right orientation of the noetic faculty that leads to the various parts working in harmony, that is, the physical body, and the spiritual body comprising intellect, will and desire... A theologian is one who has attained a relatively healthy unity of all of the parts and is able to discern, prophetically, what most of us cannot. Theology is devinitely not just a body of information or opinion, right or wrong, but a state of existence if you will.

[Michael Stickles]

Sometimes it is difficult to see the ramifications of a particular piece of "bad theology". However, I do remember spending nearly two years in a study with a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I recall clearly the method built into their study book (though I unfortunately cannot remember the details - this was about 20 years ago).

Basically, the little book they go through with you starts with a few chapters putting forth bits of "bad theology" which seem quite innocuous, and are presented so as to make them also seem quite reasonable. Once you've agreed with those, the following chapters build with inexorable logic to deduce all the points of their false doctrine from those first few points which seemed so unimportant before. If you balk at a later point, the JW will say something like "Wait a minute, you already accepted these earlier points, and this point just follows logically from them." So you are stuck with the choice of rejecting the things you accepted earlier, or accepting all of their doctrines.

When you read about a fierce battle in the early Church over a doctrine that seems to be rather insignificant, you can be pretty sure that those defending the truth could see a similar progression that would result from accepting the false position.

In Christ,
Mike

[Anthony]

I used to know a "charismatic" group, which functioned with the approval of some Anglican clergymen. Some members of it ended up needing psychiatric treatment. That has always served for me as a pretty dramatic example of the danger of bad theology.

[Andreas Moran]

The Church has a centre in Moscow which treats people damaged by sects and cults.

[Alex Haig]

As said before, Theology can be thought of as a verb: it is, as Evagrius of Pontus says, prayer. Without prayer, it is not Theology.

Bad theology, then, is when man has cut himself off from God: separated by his pride.

With love in Christ

Alex

[Nina]

As said before, Theology can be thought of as a verb: it is, as Evagrius of Pontus says, prayer. Without prayer, it is not Theology.

Alex

This is very true and many Fathers maintain this. A theologian is he who prays, therefore lives in continuous communion with God. If a person is in communion with God he receives the knowledge of God. Therefore the term "bad theology" is a charitable term coined from noble souls with spiritual goodwill. Maybe what is meant is pseudo-theology.

[Gary McGinnis]

As has been pointed out, much (if not everything) depends on what we mean by "salvation." For Orthodoxy, salvation means nothing less and nothing else than theosis (actually, existentially, ontologically sharing in God's nature without, of course, being merged into His essence). Another way of stating this is that we are to become by grace (God's uncreated energy) everything that God is by nature, except for His essence. We are to become utterly conformed to the image of God, and of course, the image (lit. ikon) par excellence is Christ.

The decisions of at least the first seven ecumenical councils might seem like barren intellectual debates over academic details. However, they should be seen as the Church's defense of the meaning of salvation as theosis. For example, if the integrity and fullness of both the human and divine natures in the personal unity of Christ is compromised at all, this has a direct bearing on the meaning of salvation. Thus, the Church's rejection of Arianism, Appolinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monarchianism, and the various other -isms can most helpfully be understood from this angle.

And since the Logos became incarnate, the Logos can be thought, taught, and depicted artistically in iconography. This doesn't mean that icons should be "realistic" in the photographic sense, but that they are authentic windows into heavenly reality. I should also point out that, unlike Western sacred images, which tend toward realism and three-dimesionality, icons are two-dimensional. They are meant as windows, and this is very important, because we look THROUGH windows, not AT windows; icons, therefore, ought never to be objects of worship, but aids to it.

[John M.]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


Theology is really a verb, implying right living and right orientation of the noetic faculty that leads to the various parts working in harmony, that is, the physical body, and the spiritual body comprising intellect, will and desire... . Theology is a noun that is made up of two Greek words - 'God' and 'the study of'. So it means the study of God.
Theologize is a verb. It means to study God and also to study religion for the purpose of understanding the activities of God.

Just wanted to give some clarity.

John

[John M.]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


Hello all.

As I read orthodoxinfo.com and others, I see the frequent reference to the "danger" of bad theology. What I do not see, however, is concrete examples of this.

Example: What are the ramifications of believing that the holy spirit proceeds from the son as well as the father?

" " " " " believing that the communion of saints, infant baptism, etc. are not true?

Thanks.
In the Orthodox Church, bad theology is heresy, which means: religious opinion contrary to Church dogma.

The first 7 ecumenical councils were convened mainly for the purpose of defending the Church against specific heresies.

The 1st ecumenical council was convened for a number of purposes, one of these was to condemn the heresy of Arius who denied the divinity of Christ.

This 1st Council proclaimed the true teaching concerning God the Father and God the Son, Jesus Christ. The council formulated canons regulating the Church and drew up the first seven articles of the Creed.

The 2nd EC completed the 12 articles of our Creed, which is the symbol of our faith and is still used today. It is known as the Nicene Creed.

The 2nd Council also rejected the teachings of Macedonius, condemning them as heresy against the Holy Spirit. Macedonius falsely taught that the Holy Spirit was created by God similarly to angels, being a spirit of a higher degree or order than angels. Bishops attending both these first Councils also granted preeminence to five Bishops because the cathedrals in their cities were established by the Apostles themselves. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople.

The 3rd EC condemned the heresy of Nestorius who taught that our Lord was only a man with divinity abiding in Him like in a temple. Nestorius called the Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ and not the Mother of God.

The 4th EC council's great work was its definition of Jesus Christ as the Second Person in the Holy Trinity as True God and True Man with His divine and human natures distinct without confusion and inseparably united in One Person.

This council condemned the Eurychian party who taught that Jesus was God only and His divine nature absorbed the human one.

In 5th EC, the followers of Nestorius (heresy from 3rd EC) were excommunicated and their writings condemned.

The 6th EC condemned the teachings of the Monotheists who ackowledged only the divine will of Christ while denying the human one.

The 7th EC took a stand against iconoclasm and defined the doctrine concerning images and their veneration (not worship) and ordered the images (Orthodox icons) restored in churches.

There were other duties performed at these councils, mostly appointments to ranks in the hierarchy of the Church.

In answer to your question about the ramifications of believing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father; I will quote the Lord's words, (Joh. 14:16), (Joh. 14:26), (Joh. 15:26), (Joh. 16:7), "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." (Joh. 16:7), (Act. 1:8).

You see the Son had to depart from the earth in order for the Holy Spirit (the Comforter) to arrive and abide in the Church, that is the Christians. If the Son remained on the earth and the Holy Spirit came into the world, He, the Holy Spirit, would have abided fully in the Son because the Son is the rightful temple of the Holy Spirit.

Just as the Holy Spirit abides more abundantly in a saint of God than He does in a righteous Christian and more so in him than in an unrepentant sinner, so too He abides in the Son of God fully when the Son is incarnate on the earth.

The Son's departure was necessary because the Holy Spirit would remain with the Son on earth due to His ultimate divinity and Holiness by nature and not become our Comforter. This is only due to the fact that the Holy Spirit abides in the Son but does not proceed from the Son as He does from the Father. The Holy Spirit came to abide in the Son at His baptism in the River Jordan when John the Baptist saw Him decend onto the Son in the form of a dove.

Had He also proceeded from the Son as He does from the Father, He would abide in us when the Son is present in His incarnate form (in the physical body of Christ Jesus) on earth.

I don't know how to answer your second question because I never heard it asked or answered in the Orthodox Church:
... believing that the communion of the saints, infant baptism etc.. are not true. I don't know the answer.

I don't think an Orthodox Christian ever presented such a question because a young child would not think of it and a practicing Orthodox adult would not disbelieve those two beliefs. So the only "ramification' that I can offer is that such a person is grossly lacking in faith and that would be a non practicing Orthodox Christian because the practice is a work of faith. (Jam. 2:18)

John

[Owen Jones]

There are some problems here. If we simply say that theology is true because it is the Church's dogma, and the Church is infallible, QED, then there is really no need to understand what the theology means, why it is significant, what are the practical implications. In our preaching and teaching we tell people what they are supposed to believe, with no connection to the soul and why it is good for the soul to believe these things.

I am more and more persuaded that good theology is analogous to good medicine. When we take medicine, we can get away with not knowing all of the biochemical aspects of it. However, we should always ask the physician what is in the medicine we are taking. Why and how does it work. What, if any, are the contra-indications. And so on. And the same is true and more so for theology. We should know what the theology is doing for us. We should demand to know this from our clergy. Just to be told that it saves us is not a sufficient answer. We are also commanded, all of us, not just clergy, to give a good account of our faith. That requires us not only to know what are supposed to believe, but what it means, and what are the practical consequences. Anything less is tantamount to malpractice.

[John M.]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


We should know what the theology is doing for us. We should demand to know this from our clergy. Just to be told that it saves us is not a sufficient answer. We are also commanded, all of us, not just clergy, to give a good account of our faith. That requires us not only to know what we are supposed to believe, but what it means, and what are the practical consequences. Anything less is tantamount to malpractice. Yes, and also (Mat. 10:16) and (Mark 10:15).

John

[Rick H.]

Yes, sanctification, evangelism, and apologetics.

[Misha]

I think that our fathers were so strict about "bad theology" because they have experienced God and knew that this "bad theology" (in ecclesiastic words :heresy) leads to a wrong way of living and takes us apart from God.

It was said concerning Abba Agathon that some monks came to find him, having heard tell of his great discernment. Wanting to see if he would lose his temper, they said to him, "Aren't you that Agathon who is said to be a fornicator and a proud man?" "Yes, it is very true," he
answered. They resumed, "Aren't you that Agathon who is always talking nonsense?" "I am." Again they said, "Aren't you Agathon the heretic?"
But at that, he replied, "I am not a heretic." So they asked him,
"Tell us why you accepted everything we cast you, but repudiated
this last insult." He replied, "The first accusations I take to
myself, for that is good for my soul. But heresy is separation from
God. Now I have no wish to be separated from God." At this saying
they were astonished at his discernment and returned, edified.

[Rick H.]

Yes again, discernment of the distinction between error and heresy.

[Father David Moser]

We should know what the theology is doing for us. We should demand to know this from our clergy. Just to be told that it saves us is not a sufficient answer. We are also commanded, all of us, not just clergy, to give a good account of our faith. That requires us not only to know what are supposed to believe, but what it means, and what are the practical consequences

You and I are in full agreement here Owen. Certainly the clergy should lead in this as we are (in theory at least) theologically educated and should have some sense. More importantly, however, is the spiritual life, since theology is not so much something that is studied and learned as it is something that is perceived as we perceive the nature of the spiritual world. Theology is simply a description of the Kingdom of God and how we fit into it and conform to it. It is in one sense, truly a science - we observe and then create constructs based on our observations and these constructs are our doctrines. Doctrines are quite simply the explanation of the way the spiritual world works (Dogma is probably more like the apriori assumptions upon which the doctrinal constructs are based).

The above model points out, I think, why it is that the saints whom we honor with the appellation of "theologian" are not so much academics as they are men of deep spiritual vision. It also points out the validity of Metr Hierotheos of Nafpaktos' statements that those in the priesthood should have attained to a certain level of spiritual perfection and development in order to properly guide their flocks (and for the record I fall far far short of that).

It is true that we clergy should be ready to explain what "good" theology does us, not just that it is true and so we have to believe it to get into heaven (like passing a test). For those interested in this kind of thinking, I would refer you to a book called "Moral idea of the main dogmas of the faith", a collection of essays by Metr Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev which takes the main dogmatic assertions (like the Trinity) and draws out why it is important for us in our own spiritual life to believe that. (a caution though, the one essay on the moral idea of the dogma of redemption is at best "controversial" and was withdrawn by Metr Anthony because it was (in his opinion and in the opinion of the Synodal censor) too easily misunderstood. It has been, however, resurrected by the editor of this text, Lev (aka Archbishop Lazar) Puhalo). Archimandrite Justin Popovitch's writings have a similar kind of quality to them as do some of the writings of Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky - and of course the previously mentioned Metr Hierotheos.

Fr David Moser

[Gary McGinnis]

There are some problems here. If we simply say that theology is true because it is the Church's dogma, and the Church is infallible, QED, then there is really no need to understand what the theology means, why it is significant, what are the practical implications. In our preaching and teaching we tell people what they are supposed to believe, with no connection to the soul and why it is good for the soul to believe these things.

I am more and more persuaded that good theology is analogous to good medicine. When we take medicine, we can get away with not knowing all of the biochemical aspects of it. However, we should always ask the physician what is in the medicine we are taking. Why and how does it work. What, if any, are the contra-indications. And so on. And the same is true and more so for theology. We should know what the theology is doing for us. We should demand to know this from our clergy. Just to be told that it saves us is not a sufficient answer. We are also commanded, all of us, not just clergy, to give a good account of our faith. That requires us not only to know what are supposed to believe, but what it means, and what are the practical consequences. Anything less is tantamount to malpractice.

Yes: There is no use superimposing the Roman Catholic authoritarian model onto Orthodoxy, claiming that our dogma is "just better," and letting it go at that. While it's true that Orthodoxy is not rationalistic, this doesn't mean that it's irrational, incoherent, or unreasonable. Nor does Orthodoxy's avoidance of authoritarianism or claims of infallibility/inerrancy mean that the Church is devoid of authority or full of error.

I am even tempted to say, "Orthodoxy is true because it works." However, the danger then is pure pragmatism. Works for whom, and as the solution of what issues? If Orthodoxy is the answer, what was the question? After all, what worldview assumptions are required to make us believe that martyrdom "works"?

As far as the distinction between heresy and truth, that can be cast in therapeutic terms as well, without encroaching on anyone's freedom of conscience. So the Orthodox Church is (in our view) THE Hospital for Sinners. Her patients receive medicines for illnesses rather than divine retribution for moral infractions. If someone else has a different view of the disease, diagnosis, and cure (including the denial that sin is a disease in the first place), they are certainly free to hold their view. They are even free to remain inpatients. However, they are NOT free to practice medicine at this hospital.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

Because there is a pedantic streak in me, and because I'm particularly sensitive to inaccurate representations of the work of the ecumenical councils, please forgive me harping on about the following:


The 1st ecumenical council was convened for a number of purposes, one of these was to condemn the heresy of Arius who denied the divinity of Christ.

This 1st Council proclaimed the true teaching concerning God the Father and God the Son, Jesus Christ. The council formulated canons regulating the Church and drew up the first seven articles of the Creed.

Arius did not deny the divinity of Christ (he explicitly proclaimed it): he denied a divinity co-equal to the divinity to the father. This the gathered assembly sought to identify as heretical.

The council did not meet to 'condemn the heresy of Arius', but to articulate right theology in the face of Arius' challenges. Arius' view was hereticised by the council.


The 3rd EC condemned the heresy of Nestorius who taught that our Lord was only a man with divinity abiding in Him like in a temple. Nestorius called the Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ and not the Mother of God.

Nestorius did not teach that Christ was only man, with divinity abiding in him; rather, that Christ was one persona comprised of two complete personae, thus leading to the accusation that he 'divided the Christ'.

I realise that these finer points are tangential to the main discussion: but as I say, I am rather sensitive.

As to the thread's focus: I agree utterly with Owen's recent comments.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[John M.]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


Dear friends,
Because there is a pedantic streak in me, and because I'm particularly sensitive to inaccurate representations of the work of the ecumenical councils, please forgive me harping on about the following:

Arius did not deny the divinity of Christ (he explicitly proclaimed it): he denied a divinity co-equal to the divinity to the father. This the gathered assembly sought to identify as heretical.

The council did not meet to 'condemn the heresy of Arius', but to articulate right theology in the face of Arius' challenges. Arius' view was hereticised by the council.

Nestorius did not teach that Christ was only man, with divinity abiding in him; rather, that Christ was one persona comprised of two complete personae, thus leading to the accusation that he 'divided the Christ'.

I realise that these finer points are tangential to the main discussion: but as I say, I am rather sensitive.

As to the thread's focus: I agree utterly with Owen's recent comments.

INXC, Dcn Matthew Dear fellow Orthodox members:

Details about ecumenical councils are not one of my pet Orthodox topics of interest, but once doubt has been cast on my Orthodox source, I do want to know if my source is wrong or the source used by the one casting doubt is wrong. This is just for the sake of my not giving inaccurate information to other Church members in the future.

My source is Orthodox. It is called, "FAITH OF OUR FATHERS" and was first published in 1954. Officially approved for publication by Metropolitan Leonty, Archbishop of New York. Primate, Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America. Officially approved for publication by The Rev. Joseph Stephanko, Censor. St Andrew of Crete Day, July 17, 1954, New york City, N.Y.
Library of Congress catalog Number 55 - 21996

Printed in the United States of America. The Lund Press, Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Published By THE OLYMPIC PRESS; 806 N.E. FOURTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS 13, MINNESOTA

Copied below is the relevant text from my source

4. THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS—UNIFIED CHURCH LAWS
Following the recognition of Christianity by Constantine, differences of opinion developed regarding the exact and correct doctrines which Christ had given to the church. Discord over these differences developed.

A firm believer in systematic standardization, Constantine called a meeting of the Bishops and Clergy for the purpose of settling the differences in beliefs and doctrines. Known as the First Ecumenical Council, this meeting was held in Nicaea in 325 A.D. It was attended by three hundred and eighteen men of the clergy including every Eastern Bishop of importance and four Western Bishops. Subsequently, six other Ecumenical councils were convened.

At the First Ecumenical Council, the preeminence of Bishops of the three main centers of the Roman Empire (Rome, Alexandria and Antioch) was approved. As a mark of honor, the Bishop of Jerusalem was added. This council also condemned the heresy of Arius who denied the Divinity of Christ.

This first council proclaimed the true teaching concerning God the Father and God the Son, Jesus Christ. The council formulated canons regulating the church and drew up the first seven articles of the Creed.

At the Second Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople in 381 A.D., the last five articles of the Creed were composed. The completed creed of twelve articles, which is the symbol of our faith and which is still being used, is called the Nicene Creed.

The second council also rejected the teachings of Macedonius, condemning these teachings as a heresy against the Holy Spirit. Macedonius falsely taught that the Holy Spirit was created by God similarly to angels, being a spirit of a higher degree or order than the angels. ….

In 431 A.D. the Third Ecumenical Council was held in Ephesus. This council condemned the heresy of Nestorius who taught that our Lord was only a man with the divinity abiding in Him like in a temple. Nestorius called the Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ and not the Mother of God. Two hundred Holy Fathers attended this council.
The Fourth Ecumenical Council was held...Fr Matthew:
Is your source also Orthodox or is it from a University library and not Orthodox?


INXC, John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Such defensiveness is an undesirable trait of discussion.

[John M.]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


Such defensiveness is an undesirable trait of discussion.Are you serious? You were the one who did the offensive move but I am defending Orthodox doctrine and I do not know what you are doing, waiting for my post to jump in with a response like that.

What is your motive?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

As I mentioned above, I think there is a great deal that is of interest in Owen's recent post. He wrote:


I am more and more persuaded that good theology is analogous to good medicine.

This is very much in line, of course, with any number of the fathers on the nature of theology and its pastoral significance. St Cyril of Jerusalem (recently on my mind, due to quotation in another thread) spoke of this healing nature of theology expressly in his catechetical orations; and he even translates 'Christ' as 'healer' in order to emphasise the nature of his transformative nature of his work -- and thus the work of all Christian theology (an excellent text, for those who wish to see this in brief, is St Cyril's Homily on the Paralytic).

You went on to write:


When we take medicine, we can get away with not knowing all of the biochemical aspects of it. However, we should always ask the physician what is in the medicine we are taking. Why and how does it work. What, if any, are the contra-indications. And so on. And the same is true and more so for theology. We should know what the theology is doing for us. We should demand to know this from our clergy. Just to be told that it saves us is not a sufficient answer. We are also commanded, all of us, not just clergy, to give a good account of our faith. That requires us not only to know what are supposed to believe, but what it means, and what are the practical consequences. Anything less is tantamount to malpractice.

You seem to hit on a wonderful double-aspect here, which is that (a) theology does not have to be fully understood for it to be effective; and (b) each person has a responsibility to comprehend as much as God permits of the nature of the theology that is transforming him. Your comparison to the taking of a course of medication seems excellent.

There are several example that spring to mind -- primarily apothegmata -- that relate the reaction of various monastic communities to the decisions of some of the finer points of the various ecumenical councils (particularly that at Chalcedon in 451), to the basic end that a full understanding of what is right is not necessary for salvation (God saves the faith of little children), though wrong understanding may indeed hinder the salvific work of Christ in a man.

As to the main question of this thread, 'What is the danger of bad theology?', this seems to be precisely the ancient testimony of the Church: wrong theology combats the healing work of Christ. This does not mean that Christ can or will only heal if one has a deep understanding of right theology; but that holding to errant theology actively combats the work of the Trinity in the human heart.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Father David Moser]

My source is Orthodox. It is called, "FAITH OF OUR FATHERS" and was first published in 1954. Officially approved for publication by Metropolitan Leonty, Archbishop of New York.


I am familiar with this book and in fact have a copy. This is a text book published by the Metropolia (now OCA) to be used in Church school for children. As such, the information is simplified and presented in a way that can be grasped by the minds and hearts of young children. Thus a lot of the fine details of history and theology (such as Fr Matthew pointed out) are glossed over and only the very most general idea of the events and meaning of Church history is described. This book is fine as a "starting point" to learn about something, but it is not really meant to be a reference book for in depth adult discussion. The difference that you perceive here is like saying "what do you mean the earth isn't a perfect sphere and that it has bulges, according to my 1st grade science book, the earth is round." It isn't exactly wrong - it's just lacking in detail.

Fr David Moser

[John M.]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


I am familiar with this book and in fact have a copy. This is a text book published by the Metropolia (now OCA) to be used in Church school for children. As such, the information is simplified and presented in a way that can be grasped by the minds and hearts of young children.Good. Then why all your confusion?
Thus a lot of the fine details of history and theology (such as Fr Matthew pointed out) Where did Fr Matthew point out that these details are ‘glossed over’? I cannot see where he did point out what you say.
are glossed over and only the very most general idea of the events and meaning of Church history is described.’Gloss over’ means to give a deceptive appearance to something. Fr David, this is an Orthodox text book for children not a fictional post.
This book is fine as a "starting point" to learn about something, but it is not really meant to be a reference book for in depth adult discussion.What is Fr Matthew’s Orthodox reference book that backs up his statements and is really meant to be a reference book for in depth adult discussions? When I asked for it he replied in post #25, “Such defensiveness is an undesirable trait of discussion.” Then you came up with this post of yours that adds more confusion to all the criticisms of my Orthodox quotes. Why all the emotional responses to quotes from Orthodox sources instead of presenting better quotes from other Orthodox sources if you have any?
The difference that you perceive here is like saying "what do you mean the earth isn't a perfect sphere and that it has bulges, according to my 1st grade science book, the earth is round." It isn't exactly wrong - it's just lacking in detail.Your missing the point again. It is not a fault of my perception as I apparently perceive more clearly than my critics do. Fr Matthew said it is wrong without citing his source. That is like a 1st grade school report and I did not know there are science classes in first grade at all. I thought they start in 7th grade. Confusing again. The Holy Spirit expels confusion. But another spirit brings it in. Look Fr David, with all due respect for your degree in theology, wherever you got it from, and for your reference books, if they are Orthodox, the point is that you are wrong. Fr Matthew did not state, as you said, the same thing I did but with more detail because my version was for children and his was for adults but he actually contradicted it at the basic level. He said,
Arius did not deny the divinity of Christ (he explicitly proclaimed it) and,
Nestorius did not teach that Christ was only man, with divinity abiding in him; rather, that Christ was one persona comprised of two complete personae, thus leading to the accusation that he 'divided the Christ'.These are outright contradictions with the quotes in my post #15 which was not addressed to you or Fr Matthew, but to Rick Wagar and his post #1 . I read the other posts, including yours, and I did not see the specific questions answered. I only saw other matters being discussed around the questions. For example; in your first post which is addressed to the questions posted by Rick; I.E.
As I read orthodoxinfo.com and others, I see the frequent reference to the "danger" of bad theology. What I do not see, however, is concrete examples of this. Example: What are the ramifications of believing that the holy spirit proceeds from the son as well as the father? " " " " " believing that the communion of saints, infant baptism, etc. are not true?You give an impressive discourse on salvation and a critique of the concept of salvation held by others. You spoke in a somewhat philosophical way about “Bad Theology” and you gave an example of an acquaintance of yours who was confused about salvation but Rick asked for bread and you gave him a stone (cf. Luke. 11:11). So I wanted to give my Orthodox brother a direct answer to what I could. My source for the fact that the Holy Spirit abides exclusively in the incarnate Christ when He is on earth was a series of lectures given by an Orthodox parish priest who held a degree in ORTHODOX THEOLOGY, to the youth of my parish.

Now, instead of criticizing Orthodox sources including text books, (and any text book is a source book, regardless of if it is written "simply for children" or complicated for adults) and calling their details “glossed over” – deceptive, just present your ORTHODOX source books and I will accept them upon verification of reading the text myself to be assured that it has not been misinterpreted like the details in my post from my Orthodox source have been misinterpreted by someone.

But let’s stick to truth because God is TRUTH and LOVE and His priests and followers are examples of these attributes. And let’s not sit in the forum watching the posts of people who actually supply citations from Orthodox sources for the edification of other members and then hamper that edification by criticisms based on unresearched opinions from “Knee jerk reactions” that are not carefully thought out. I read your other criticisms of my friend’s posts.

I ask the forgiveness of anyone who experiences bad feelings from my strong words but they are necessary when TRUTH is being attacked by UNTRUTH. (Rev. 22:15) This is a knee jerk reaction to such attacks.

In Christ's Truth, John
PS: Fr David. You even watched my movements and went straight to reading this post one minute after it appeared online.

[Deanna Leonti]

Hi all,

I have a question and please keep in mind I am not a theologian, nor any other well educated in the Catholica faith.

did anyone ever pray for an answer about "One" theology?

and if both Eastern Rite & Western Rites have prayed and did get answers that both were right, then what?

Deanna

[Herman Blaydoe]

Good. Then why all your confusion?

I would submit that any confusion exhibited here is not Father's.


’Gloss over’ means to give a deceptive appearance to something.

Not to be pedantic, but no. It simply means not going into depth on a subject. Sometimes this can be used in a deceptive manner. A hammer can be used as a weapon, but it is generally considered a tool.


Fr David, this is an Orthodox text book for children not a fictional post.

A book on algebra is not fictional but it does not give the details that a book on calculus gives. It provides a person with useful information, but not all the information. Because it leaves something out does not make it fictional.


When I asked for it he replied in post #25, “Such defensiveness is an undesirable trait of discussion.”

Proverbs 9:8-9


I ask the forgiveness of anyone who experiences bad feelings from my strong words but they are necessary when TRUTH is being attacked by UNTRUTH. (Rev. 22:15) This is a knee jerk reaction to such attacks.

Knee jerk reactions are not a good thing, I suggest you learn to avoid them.


PS: Fr David. You even watched my movements and went straight to reading this post one minute after it appeared online.

This is bordering on paranoia.

If Christ is with us, there is no need for fear.

Herman

[Herman Blaydoe]

Hi all,

I have a question and please keep in mind I am not a theologian, nor any other well educated in the Catholica faith.

did anyone ever pray for an answer about "One" theology?

and if both Eastern Rite & Western Rites have prayed and did get answers that both were right, then what?

Deanna

Orthodoxy does teach that anyone who prays correctly is a theologian and a theologion is one who prays correctly. Theology and prayer are certainly directly linked. If you don't pray correctiy, your theology will be flawed. If your theology is flawed you will not pray correctly. Something of a conundrum, isn't it?

If I was in a waggish mood, I might have posted "why don't you pray about it and tell us what answer you get?" You did say "anyone" and you are also "anyone". I guess I define my "anyone" as the Fathers of the Church. Even when there are differing opinions there are common threads and areas of convergence and agreement. I look to those to define my faith. I find more convergence and agreement among those Fathers generally associated on the Orthodox side of the house than I do amongst those on the Roman side, but that might just be me.

Herman the Pooh

[Rostislav]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rostislav' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


There has been alot of controversy since post #15 so I did a Google search for "Orthodox seven ecumenical councils" and I looked into the top website that turned up.

It agreed completely with the contents of post #15 and not with the other posts that disagreed. See below the agreeing excerpts.


http://www.goholycross.org/studies/councils.html#The%20Councils%20Preceding%20Nicea


The Arian Controversy

Arius, a priest at the church of Baucalis, came into open conflict with his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, concerning the divinity of Christ. Arius reasoned and taught that if Jesus was born, then there was time when He did not exist. If He became God, then there was time when He was not. Therefore, Arius reasoned that Jesus must be understood as inferior to the Father.

The effect of making Christ less than God renders impossible our human deification (to become like God). Only if Christ is both God and man can humanity be united with God. For none but God himself can open to humans the way of union.

The Council therefore declared Arius' teaching a heresy, unacceptable to the Church and decreed that Christ is God. He is of the same essence "homoousios" with God the Father

Nestorianism : A Christological Controversy

Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, believed and taught that the Virgin Mary gave birth to a man, Jesus Christ, not God, the "Logos" ("The Word," Son of God). Thus, he reasoned that the Logos only dwelled in Christ, as in a Temple (Christ, therefore, was only Theophoros : The "Bearer of God"). Consequently, the Virgin Mary should be called "Christotokos," "Mother of Christ" and not "Theotokos," "Mother of God."In the Lord, Rusty

[Rostislav]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rostislav' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Another website from the first page listed in the search for "Orthodox seven ecumenical councils".

http://biserica.org/Publicatii/2002/NoVII/XI_index.html


First Ecumenical Council

First Ecumenical Council was summoned by Emperor Constantine the Great in 325, May 20th. The Council assembled at Niceea in the province of Bithynia of Asia Minor and was formally opened by Constantine himself. The Council passed 20 canons including the Nicene Creed (described below), the Canon of Holy Scripture (Holy Bible), and established the celebration of Pascha (Easter).

The main reason for its being called was the Arian controversy. Arius, a presbyter (priest) from Alexandria, held that Jesus Christ was created by God and denying Christ's divinity.

Arius argued that if Jesus was born, then there was time when He did not exist; and if He became God, then there was time when He was not. Arius' original intent was to attack another heretical teaching by which the three persons of the Godhead were confused (Sabellianism).

Third Ecumenical Council

The third Council was convened at Ephesus in 431 by Emperor Theodosius. The Council condemned the doctrines of Nestorios, Archbishop of Constantinople, who taught that there were two separate persons in the Incarnate Christ, the one Divine and the other Human.

Nestorios over-emphasising the human nature of Christ at the expense of the divine, teaching that the Virgin Mary gave birth to a man (Jesus Christ), and not God (the 'Logos' and Son of God). The Logos (or 'Word') only dwelled in Christ, as in a Temple.

Christ, therefore, was only the Theophoros or the 'Bearer of God'. This was directly opposite to the orthodox doctrine by which the Incarnate Christ was a single Person, at once God and Man.

One of the high points of Nestorios' teaching was the rejection of the name 'Theotokos' (bearer of God) for the Virgin Mary. Nestorios called the Virgin Mary Christotokos (bearer of Christ) rather than Theotokos. Hence, giving the name to the 'Christological controversies'.

Two hundred bishops attended this Council among whom St. Cyril of Alexandria who proved to be the orthodox champion and the force behind the condemnation and anathematising of Nestorios.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

For those who are interested in discussing the themes and focuses of the ecumenical councils, which started as a side-tangent here but has come a bit more centrally of late, could I please suggest that a new thread be started for this in the Canons and Councils area of the forum, rather than side-tracking the immediate focus of this thread.

Many thanks, INXC, Dcn Matthew