SuchaFob, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a fine, reliable source. Some religions are good at scholarship, others obviously suck at it. (Has everybody seen conservapedia.com ? If not, check out what they have to say about dinosaurs and unicorns.)
gao_bo_han is correct. The Romans initially does not have an official stance against Christians (Pliny to the emperor Trajan). It was later in the Imperial era that the Christians were officially persecuted (which resulted in the Donatist heresy).
Screaming Jesus also have good information.
The few most important points were (same for all true Christian denominations, Greek Orthodox/Catholic, Roman Catholic, Protestant, not sure about the Nestorians [Antiochians] and the Monophysites [Alexandrians], I believe they have the same core beliefs except about the nature of Christ [Christology], which resulted in the schisms):
*belief that there is one GOD, the Divine Blessed Trinity - the Father, Son(Logos/Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit
*belief in Salvation through Jesus Christ (results in a relationship with GOD)
*don’t slander the Holy Spirit
*the link between the Old Testament and New Testament are irrefutable
*There must be Sacraments - but the issues of the Sacraments are muddy – two common Sacraments to all mainstream and true denominations are Baptism and Eucharist (a must).
(these are some definitions that I can think of right now)
This provides a great general summary of the Christian Schisms
img251.imageshack.us/my.php?imag … agevl0.png
AFAIK, the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches accepted the first seven Ecumenical Councils. There are definately other councils that were called after the “Great Schism”, but neither side accepted the other later councils.
For the “Protestants”, depends on which group and the term in quotations [since some are clearly heretical], accept the first seven Councils. AFAIK, the first seven Ecumenical councils (all occurred before the Great Schism) are accepted.
Gnostics, non-Trinitians (such as Arians [or their modern version, Mormons]) and some others are heretics.
The Gladitorial Munera could also be considered as human sacrifice to the Greco-Roman pagan gods (from Suetonius’ histories). And thus, argued by one Church Father (I think he is Tertullian ), must not be participated by Christians.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“sjcma”][quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“sjcma”]
gao_bo_han, I’d add the belief in the Holy Ghost to that list of yours.[/quote]
not to be Christian, but Catholic. 12 years they never explained that one![/quote]
Are you saying only Catholics believe in the Holy Ghost? I’m pretty sure the Holy Ghost, as one part of the Trinity, is a fundamental part of most, if not all, branches of Christianity.
The Holy Ghost plays a prominent role in Acts and is probably more important for Pentecostals than any other major denominations.[/quote]
really? i always thought the trinity was a catholic thing. did they explain to you what it is?[/quote]
Trinity is in most Christian denominations. The few that aren’t tend to be EXTREMELY odd sects. Ready for this post?
The understanding of what the Trinity is developed over time. Early examples in Scripture include verses such as Matthew 28 and II Cor 13. Somehow, salvation is seen as coming from God the Father, Jesus (the Son) and this thing called the “Holy Spirit,” which is explained as sort of a guide that helps reveal God’s will to us. The verses of Scripture that incorporate them seem to have them so tightly intertwined that it suggests they are one in the same. It also seems clear that salvation comes through all three. Thus begins the puzzling part for Theologians to understand what is meant in these passages.
Tertullian is the best example of a person to develop the actual Theology behind the Trinity. He came up with the explanation of three persons (persona), one substance (substantia). The term “persona” literally means “a mask.” Sort of like what is used in a play. According to Alister McGrath “It is quite possible that Tertullian wanted his readers to understand the idea of ‘one substance, three persons’ to mean that the one God played three distinct yet related roles in the great drama of human redemption.”
Substantia dealt with the “substance.” To get into a discussion of substance and accidents is quite an ordeal. So just, for now, try to stick with what is said in the persona explanation.
Got it so far? :help: :loco:
Want to REALLY get confusing? There’s sort of a difference between the Eastern concept of explaining the Trinity and the Western concept. Ah…what fun! :bravo:
Matt
What’s even funnier was their misunderstanding started with the mistranslation of one word (since Latin do not have that particular Greek word).
If you do not believe/deny in the Trinity, you deny the Nicaean Council (the first Christian/Catholic council in 325), which all real Christian Denominations accept (at least).
It’s the non-Trinitarians that do not accept the Trinity (which also means some “Protestant” “christian” groups) [note the quotation marks]
Also, Catholic means universal. The original word was used to refer to all of Christendom, but after the split there’s different styles, like Roman Catholicism (easily seen, Rome claims to be the head of the universal Whole Catholic/Christian church), or Greek Orthodox (Orthodox derived from Orthodoxy, simply put, the original the true one, opposed to heterodox - ‘other teaching’, normally false).
Looking at both the names, you can see the obvious point that they are driving at. Rome says it’s the head macho, while Constantinople says that it stems from the Original/unaltered teachings, liturgy and rituals, so they are the true leader.
They are both Patriarchs and Pappas (Greek), Papa (Latin) (where the word Pope was derived from, meaning “father”); fascinating if you ask me since before their contest of wills/authority, they were both referred to as Patriarchs, or Pappas/Papa by their “sub-ordinates”.
Would also like to add Council of Jerusalem was first technically. But most don’t include that in the list. But it is an important one since it shows ecumenical councils were important in settling disputed matters within the 1st Century Church.
Matt
h22chen, what is this Greek word you refer to? Do you mean “hypostasis”?
Your “all true Christians accept the Nicene Creed” is a variation of a “no true Scotsman” argument. (“No true Scotsman would do such-and-such. But so-and-so is a Scotsman, and he did such-and-such. Well, no TRUE Scotsman would do such-and-such…”)
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]h22chen, what is this Greek word you refer to? Do you mean “hypostasis”?
Your “all true Christians accept the Nicene Creed” is a variation of a “no true Scotsman” argument. (“No true Scotsman would do such-and-such. But so-and-so is a Scotsman, and he did such-and-such. Well, no TRUE Scotsman would do such-and-such…”)[/quote]
Not really. It’s not a matter of “doing such and such.” It’s a matter of how a faith is defined. Like it was stated in previous posts, can someone call themself a Christian and never have heard of Jesus while worshipping Santa Clause? They can CALL themselves that, but they’d clearly be wrong.
In your example, it’s like saying “He says he’s a Scotsman, though he’s never heard of or been to Scotland. Nor does he know anything about the life or culture there. And he speaks only Hebrew of a dialect only found in a small city in Peru.” Why would we argue that person is a Scotsman? I certainly would argue against it.
Same thing here…why would we would argue a person who doesn’t hold the most basic Christian statement of faith to be true as a Christian?
Matt
Would you consider Missouri Mormons (the Community of Christ, formerly known as the Reformed Latter-Day Saints) to qualify as “real” Mormons? The Utah Mormons think not (to the extent that they’ve even head of them), and they are in the overwhelming majority, but how is an outsider to decide? Who sets the standards for what “Mormonism” is?
If your answer is based on mere numbers, then what percentage does one sect or group of sects have to have before it/they can lay claim to the religion? (If more than 50 % is enough, then Catholics will have the right to define Christianity as a whole. If 70 %, then Sunnis can exclude Shi’is.)
Or is there some other way of objectively defining a mainstream?
Not sure if the question was directed towards me or someone else. Or a general question. But I’ll throw in a few cents where I can.
Probably history and someone who really studies it. I don’t know much about Mormons except the very basics of their faith. So I can’t comment either way on who is and who is not a Mormon.
[quote]
If your answer is based on mere numbers, then what percentage does one sect or group of sects have to have before it/they can lay claim to the religion? (If more than 50 % is enough, then Catholics will have the right to define Christianity as a whole. If 70 %, then Sunnis can exclude Shi’is.)
Or is there some other way of objectively defining a mainstream?[/quote]
Mine was not based on mere numbers. Mine was based upon how Christianity developed over time.
Matt
The thing is, every creed was designed to expel somebody. That means that almost by definition, there was some group out there whose members thought of themselves as Christian–and often had as hoary a pedegree as the “proto-Orthodox” or “Great Church” (depending on time period)–but lost out in the theological / political struggle. While I know of no surviving Gnostic (or other ancient anti-Nicene) sect, the Assyrian Church of the East opposed the third ecumenical council, and lots of Oriental churches rejected the fourth (Chalcedon).
So when you say “historical development,” and say that it has nothing to do with numbers, I’m not sure what this means.
The Mormon case was meant as a neutral parallel–you have one huge Mormon church (the ones who come to your door) who recognize a certain lineage and leadership, alongside several much smaller ones with an equally venerable history, that split with them over various things. The Missouri Mormons, for instance, didn’t make the trek to Utah and never accepted polygamy or celestial marriage. (Other sects insist on polygamy, which the main Utah LDS has since abandoned.) So, how do we decide who has the right to the name of “Mormon”? We can then apply the same principles to “Christianity.”
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]h22chen, what is this Greek word you refer to? Do you mean “hypostasis”?
[/quote]
probablly, I will have to look it up. It might take a while, sorry.
[quote=“ILoveItHereButIDoMissSnow”][quote=“Screaming Jesus”]h22chen, what is this Greek word you refer to? Do you mean “hypostasis”?
Your “all true Christians accept the Nicene Creed” is a variation of a “no true Scotsman” argument. (“No true Scotsman would do such-and-such. But so-and-so is a Scotsman, and he did such-and-such. Well, no TRUE Scotsman would do such-and-such…”)[/quote]
Not really. It’s not a matter of “doing such and such.” It’s a matter of how a faith is defined. Like it was stated in previous posts, can someone call themself a Christian and never have heard of Jesus while worshipping Santa Clause? They can CALL themselves that, but they’d clearly be wrong.
In your example, it’s like saying “He says he’s a Scotsman, though he’s never heard of or been to Scotland. Nor does he know anything about the life or culture there. And he speaks only Hebrew of a dialect only found in a small city in Peru.” Why would we argue that person is a Scotsman? I certainly would argue against it.
Same thing here…why would we would argue a person who doesn’t hold the most basic Christian statement of faith to be true as a Christian?
Matt[/quote]
ILoveItHereButIDoMissSnow hits it on the nail. It’s the statement of faith, principally on the Trinity, the core.
[quote=“ILoveItHereButIDoMissSnow”][quote=“h22chen”]
If you do not believe/deny in the Trinity, you deny the Nicaean Council (the first Christian/Catholic council in 325), which all real Christian Denominations accept (at least).
[/quote]
Would also like to add Council of Jerusalem was first technically. But most don’t include that in the list. But it is an important one since it shows ecumenical councils were important in settling disputed matters within the 1st Century Church.
Matt[/quote]
Thanks ILoveItHereButIDoMissSnow, something new I learn.
I have been fascinated that Jerusalem was glossed over in the later councils.
I think of myself as a Christian. I pray (to Jesus and God) a lot…actually think they’re annoyed by now. I’ve felt God…hard to explain if you haven’t been there. Once I went to a Evangelical church and was giggling at people going nuts and fainting…and the next moment I was lying on the floor in tears. Had a couple of similiar experiences.
But…I don’t believe in Hell. I don’t believe that people that live on an island in the middle of nowhere and don’t even know about God will go and burn in Hell. I don’t believe that people that choose not to believe in God and Jesus, will go to Hell.
If I could only see for 2 seconds if there was a Hell and that God is that strict, then I will stop being a Christian today.
so, I think that when it comes to all the rules, I’m not a Christian in many peoples eyes. But luckily it isn’t those people that I care about…people of the church can try and convince me otherwise, but I have to feel things directly from God to believe it.
[quote=“Battery9”]But…I don’t believe in Hell. I don’t believe that people that live on an island in the middle of nowhere and don’t even know about God will go and burn in Hell. I don’t believe that people that choose not to believe in God and Jesus, will go to Hell.[/quote]Battery9, it’s my opinion that a great many Christians agree with you, and that from both a moral and a technical, theological standpoint, that doesn’t make them any less “Christian”.
This is why I was surprised by Gao Bo Han’s points 6 and 8 in his original post, as it doesn’t jibe with the Christianity I know[quote=“gao_bo_han”]Is that it? I’ll add a few more, not from the Apostle’s Creed. To be a Christian one must:
- Believe that spirits will either be damned to Hell forever or allowed to enter Heaven, also for eternity.
… - Believe that all who does not accept Jesus will automatically be sent to Hell, or at least cannot ever Heaven.[/quote]To be sure, these views certainly do exist in Christianity. I believe they’re particularly prevalent in North America, though they’re strong in the worldwide evangelical movement in general, and also in traditional Calvinist churches, for example in Holland.
But I was brought up in the Church of England, and I don’t remember hearing a great deal about this stuff. Later, when doing theology and religious studies at university, there wasn’t much about it either. The department had some great teachers from various faiths, and I’m pretty sure that the Christians among them weren’t thinking that the others were all going to hell! There’s a lot of decent interfaith work going on in the UK and worldwide. I just don’t see how that’s possible if one side believes the other is dammed.
As for technical, theological justifications of this ecumenical viewpoint, I’m afraid I can’t point you to anything. I’m sure they do exist, but I didn’t study them as my teachers were more concerned with focusing on core theology – the Trinity, the nature of faith, etc., as well as good modern theology concerning science and nature.
[quote=“h22chen”][quote=“ILoveItHereButIDoMissSnow”][quote=“h22chen”]
If you do not believe/deny in the Trinity, you deny the Nicaean Council (the first Christian/Catholic council in 325), which all real Christian Denominations accept (at least).
[/quote]
Would also like to add Council of Jerusalem was first technically. But most don’t include that in the list. But it is an important one since it shows ecumenical councils were important in settling disputed matters within the 1st Century Church.
Matt[/quote]
Thanks ILoveItHereButIDoMissSnow, something new I learn.
I have been fascinated that Jerusalem was glossed over in the later councils.[/quote]
I think it’s just because it’s in Scripture. (Book of Acts) I think most sources that site councils are doing the ones not found in Scripture.
But…important since councils are a scriptural way of answering difficult questions.
Matt
I used to be really divided on the question of Hell. And it seems I’ve developed a strong Theology of Hell that seems to really make sense to me. Forget everything you’ve ever heard about it and just follow this for a minute. I’m going to redefine the concept of Hell for us (side note: This is not strictly my concepts here. So don’t think I came up with something new):
There are certain assumptions in Christianity. #5 is not necessarily a Christian assumption, but one I hold. I have reasons for it, but am just going to list it here as an axiom just to make posting this easier:
- God extends His love to us.
- God wants a relationship with us.
- Love is never forced, but freely given.
- True happiness comes from feeling God’s presence in your life.
- We cannot judge who is truly happy and who is not.
Now, let me begin constructing this argument based on the above. Assuming that #4 and #5 are true, we must also conclude that it is likely there are those who truly are happy, yet do not acknowledge its source as being from God. However, whether they are aware of it or not, we can reasonably assume that God is working through them. So even without cognitive recognition, they may have a stronger relationship with God than several people with the cognitive recognition. Karl Rahner develops this Theology and terms it the “Anonymous Christian.”
Since it is reasonable to assume these people have a relationship with God without a cognitive recognition of it, it is therefore reasonable to assume they are not hell bound. For it is never stated that a failure to cognitively realize soemthing is damnation - unless you get into post-scriptural documents. The most often cited passage against this is:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) It does not, however, say anything about those that don’t believe. But then they refute with this:
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” (John 14:6-7) But again, it does not clarify that a cognitive recognition is needed to accept Christ’s love. And, as we see from above, it is likely they already have a relationship with God.
So…where does that leave us in terms of Hell? Mark 3:29 gives us some interesting insight:
“But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” Matthews Gospel reads it similarly (Matthew 12:32), but it Luke left it out. So it becomes an interesting passage in that regard since it IS in Mark and both Matthew and Luke are believed to have used Mark’s Gospel as a guide. But that’s a different discussion. I’m sidetracking. My apologies.
So since statement 1, 2, and 3 are assumed to be true, we can tie that into this passage. It is not God who rejects us (statements 1 and 2) but it is those of us who reject God. Since love is never forced, but freely given (statment 3), we have ever right to reject that love.
And since God’s love is what brings us true happiness (Statement 4), failure to receive that love would bring us unhappiness. (Lacking in “happy” = unhappy. Much how lacking in light=darkness).
So with this argument, Hell is more defined in terms of a rejection of God’s love and the pain and suffering that goes along with that. It is not necessarily a cognitive rejection either…and I believe that has little to nothing to do with it. But let’s face it - I think there are those in this world who truly reject anything good (not just for show, but honestly do it) and are in an incredible state of hatred. In essense, I have seen as much of a glimpse of that hell as I have a glimpse of love that Heaven must have.
So I believe in Hell. Because I believe we can utterly and truly reject all that is good and it will leave us with that feeling inside of us.
Any thoughts?
[quote=“joesax”]
But I was brought up in the Church of England, and I don’t remember hearing a great deal about this stuff. Later, when doing theology and religious studies at university, there wasn’t much about it either. The department had some great teachers from various faiths, and I’m pretty sure that the Christians among them weren’t thinking that the others were all going to hell! There’s a lot of decent interfaith work going on in the UK and worldwide. I just don’t see how that’s possible if one side believes the other is dammed.
As for technical, theological justifications of this ecumenical viewpoint, I’m afraid I can’t point you to anything. [/quote]
I don’t have many resources here in Taiwan, but let me post the following from the Catechism of the Catholic Faith (even though I’m Methodist):
“The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as ‘a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.’” (Paragraph 843)
“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.” (Paragraph 847)
What the Catechism is essentially saying here is one cannot know how God’s salvation will work in terms of anyone else. The Church claims a plan for Salvation, but does not know who will be saved and who will not be saved - as that is something between that person and God. It makes this clear in its stance on suicide:
“We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.” (Paragraph 2283)
If you read any official document from the RCC discussing salvation of other faiths, it will always mention that idea that we cannot know the salvation of anyone since salvation is left up to God. We can only pray for salvation of all.
Matt
Thanks for that, Matt. It seems you really know what you’re talking about. You mentioned Rahner in your previous post. I have dim memories of reading him. I think that was during an “introduction to theology” module, so I’m sure I didn’t go into his writings very thoroughly.
[quote=“ILoveItHereButIDoMissSnow”]What the Catechism is essentially saying here is one cannot know how God’s salvation will work in terms of anyone else.[/quote]This is a really key point. It seems that what puts off a lot of people about religion is that they feel judged by religious practitioners. It shouldn’t be this way, and as you’ve pointed out, there are legitimate canonical reasons for not being judgmental. Personally speaking, I haven’t found Catholics or indeed any kind of Christians to be judgmental, though I know there are some judgy types out there!
It’s similar with Buddhism. Some non-Buddhists, and perhaps a few Buddhists too, seem to feel that the teachings on karma are a way of judging others. But I don’t think that these teachings are intended to be taken in this way, but rather as a means for self-contemplation; for practitioners themselves to reflect on in order to avoid blaming others for their own problems, and also to make them aware of the enormous potential for good that they have in the current moment, regardless of past mistakes.