Posted on 05/01/2009 10:31:49 PM PDT by Salvation
***I remember in our glorious thread getting into some heated discussions with a loyal Reformed. She got to where she was posting some almost anti Matthew posts. :) Not quite anti, really, but very very irritated against their content.
I can see why the Gospels can be a fly in their ointment.***
Not a fly; a serious and deadly contaminant.
What did she have to say?
What do they say?
I have enquired further as to the beliefs of some of evangelical friends and coworkers, gently of course, and my previous posting to you about their understanding of the Trinity appears to be correct.
Surprisingly, the mainline Protestants maintain theological orthodoxy when it comes to the Holy Trinity (at least in theory) even though it is not to be found in "sola scriptura."
Rather, it seems, they accept the orthodox Trinitarian concept and then work their way backwards, searching the Bible for suitable verses and neglecting the preponderance of non-Trinitarian or even anti-Trinitarian verses that are all over the place.
That's the kind of "science" when you know what result you want and then devise experiments that will give you the desired result!
***What did she have to say?***
She was upset with their lack of anti abortion work, their support of the Catholics in politics, the lack of catechesis (she is an ardent religious education and RCIA teacher), the lack of understanding with the 60s generation as to what the Church really is, the Wiccan lesbian sojourning nuns and the actions of a rather nasty lavender mafia that existed in our diocese 15 years ago.
She is working for the good. The laity of which the Orthodox speak - she is one of them.
***That’s not what the JWs say. :)
What do they say? ***
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in one God, the Creator of the universe and the God of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. They stress the fact that God has revealed his personal name to humanity, which is Jehovah.
Jehovah’s Witnesses disagree with the mainstream Christian belief that Jesus was “fully God, fully man.” Witnesses teach that Jesus was not God, but rather God’s first creation. Jesus existed in pre-human form as God’s agent of creation and God’s chief spokesman (the Word), and took on human form as the man Jesus by means of a virgin birth.
The purpose of Jesus’ incarnation on earth was threefold in the view of Witnesses: (1) To teach the truth about God; (2) to provide a model of a perfect life for people to follow; and (3) to sacrifice his life to set humans free from sin and death. His crucifixion was not on a cross, but a single upright stake. After his death, God raised Jesus from the dead “as a spirit creature” and Jesus returned to his home in heaven. Jesus was not made King, however, until 1914.
In accordance with their rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity, Witnesses disagree with mainstream Christianity that the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons in the Godhead. Instead, they believe the Holy Spirit to be “God’s active force.”
from http://www.religionfacts.com/jehovahs_witnesses/beliefs.htm
***Surprisingly, the mainline Protestants maintain theological orthodoxy when it comes to the Holy Trinity (at least in theory) even though it is not to be found in “sola scriptura.” ***
That is correct.
But the breakaways and the non denominationals which now make up the vast majority of Protestantism do not.
That's because their true "gospel" is St. Paul. Obviously, he was among the greatest of the Apostles, but for a radically different reason, both historically and ecclesiastically.
The Church could integrate St. Paul, despite some things he says (his Epistles, after all, are not considered on the same level as the Gospels), seamlessly by placing him higher than the Old Testament and lower than the Gospels.
The Prots who interpret the Scriptures literally can't do this precisely because there is a disconnect in some of the things St. Paul says.
And while the Church made subtle corrections (after all, no one was perfectly orthodox and fully in grasp of the whole faith; it took the Church over three hundred years to organize it into a theological whole), such as in the Creed where we say "and he rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures." Those are St. Paul's words, (as is much of the Creed) save for the he rose, which the Church inserted in place of St. Paul's "he was raised."
The very beginning of the Creed is also borrowed from St. Paul, but heavily altered. Yet, interestingly one of the most crucial things remained unaltered: the Creed calls "God" only the Father, as St. Paul did; the Son and the Spirit are referred to only as the Lords. I find that a little disturbing, given that the orthodox belief is that all three divine hypostases are one and the same God (in essence).
The Creed, of course, makes sure that the co-equality and co-eternity of the Holy Ttinity is made certain when they say that all three are worshiped and glorified, and I see that as an inelegant attempt to integrate some of the most non-Trinitarian statements of St. Paul into orthodox Triniatrianism.
Wow, she sounds like someone God-sent. I see a big revival of Orthodoxy in the Latin Church. With a truly Patristic Pope, may God grant him many years, people like him and this deacon's wife are the people who will make sure the Catholic Church comes out stronger and more Orthodox than ever since the Patristic times.
I hope you realize that they are getting this mostly from the New Testament, shocking as it may appear.
The purpose of Jesus’ incarnation on earth was threefold in the view of Witnesses: (1) To teach the truth about God; (2) to provide a model of a perfect life for people to follow; and (3) to sacrifice his life to set humans free from sin and death
All this is "sola scriputra" based New Testament reading.
Jesus was not made King, however, until 1914.
What an odd thing to say. Where did they get that from?
Witnesses disagree with mainstream Christianity that the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons in the Godhead. Instead, they believe the Holy Spirit to be “God’s active force.”
That is straight form the Old Testament and the Judaic understanding of the Hebrew term. It was the St. Paul, among the first, and the Church later in his steps, who changed ancient Hebrew terminology such as the "son of God," the "son of Man" (son of Adam, ben adam or bar adam in Aramaic Hebrew), the "Spirit of God," the messiah (meshiyah), the anointed one (which was never divine), the Age to Come, etc.
If you look up old Hebrew meanings of these terms you realize that, in the creation of Christianity as a separate religion, these terms were borrowed from Hebrew and their meanings radically changed for a purpose.
But the breakaways and the non denominationals which now make up the vast majority of Protestantism do not.
Even the "mainstream" Protestants/Baptists seem to have their own individualized "ideas" of the Holy Trinity rather than a theologically agreed upon concept. Scratch the surface of many of the Protestant "mainstreamers" and you will be amazed what they think of the Holy Trinity. It doesn't even come close to anything orthodox. Rather it is closer to Donatist, Adoptionist and Arian heresies.
Of course, the various unitarian sects and cults, not to mention the LDS, are not even on the same page.
***Witnesses teach that Jesus was not God, but rather God’s first creation. Jesus existed in pre-human form as God’s agent of creation and God’s chief spokesman (the Word), and took on human form as the man Jesus by means of a virgin birth.
I hope you realize that they are getting this mostly from the New Testament, shocking as it may appear.***
All of the major heresies get their support from selected verses of Scripture.
***
Jesus was not made King, however, until 1914.
What an odd thing to say. Where did they get that from?***
There is much confusion, however, the best explanation that I got was from http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/jw/jw1914-2.htm
“1914 and onwards
As was said at the start of this article, 1914 has been a critical date for the Watchtower Society. How did it arrive at the date 1914? Edmond Gruss [3] gives a brilliant assessment and is well worth reading. The following, from is how Trevor Willis explains it.
“One of the most important dates upon which the Watchtower Society build their own dating system is 607 BCE. This is the date that Pastor Russell originally claimed Jerusalem was destroyed. The Society has never changed their mind on the accuracy of this inherited date.” - Opening, p.93.
It is by counting from 607 BCE as the beginning of the Gentile times that they arrive at 1914. They calculate the reference in Daniel 4:16 of “seven times” to be seven lots of 360, the number of days in a Jewish year. This comes to 2,520 years. Counting from 607 BCE the date 1914 is arrived at. [607 BCE + 2,520 = 1914 CE]. However, if 607 BCE is inaccurate then 1914 and all that it stands for falls to the ground.
Trevor Willis lists six sources that all point to the fall of Jerusalem as taking place in 586 BCE, not 607 as the Society would have us believe [Opening, pp.93-94]. For a full investigation into this date see here. Another source that gives the orthodox Christian dating of the fall of Jerusalem is the New Bible Dictionary 2nd Ed:
“Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon captured Jerusalem in 597 and in 587 BC destroyed the city and Temple” - p.569.”
There we have it.
***Witnesses disagree with mainstream Christianity that the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons in the Godhead. Instead, they believe the Holy Spirit to be “God’s active force.”
That is straight form the Old Testament and the Judaic understanding of the Hebrew term. It was the St. Paul, among the first, and the Church later in his steps, who changed ancient Hebrew terminology such as the “son of God,” the “son of Man” (son of Adam, ben adam or bar adam in Aramaic Hebrew), the “Spirit of God,” the messiah (meshiyah), the anointed one (which was never divine), the Age to Come, etc.
If you look up old Hebrew meanings of these terms you realize that, in the creation of Christianity as a separate religion, these terms were borrowed from Hebrew and their meanings radically changed for a purpose.***
Certainly. But those without a program cannot tell the players.
***But the breakaways and the non denominationals which now make up the vast majority of Protestantism do not.
Even the “mainstream” Protestants/Baptists seem to have their own individualized “ideas” of the Holy Trinity rather than a theologically agreed upon concept. Scratch the surface of many of the Protestant “mainstreamers” and you will be amazed what they think of the Holy Trinity. It doesn’t even come close to anything orthodox. Rather it is closer to Donatist, Adoptionist and Arian heresies.
Of course, the various unitarian sects and cults, not to mention the LDS, are not even on the same page.***
Nope. The heresies of the first millennium are being reinvented, repeated and built upon with every man being his own pope. Without the Church and the doctrine of the Fathers, we are doomed to irrelevance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.