charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/20/85)
Some comments from the July 1 Forum Letter by Richard John Neuhaus might be of interest here. In commenting on the "gnesio-Lutherans," Neuhaus states: "As important as the doctrine of justification by faith surely is, we are not baptized into a doctrine; we are baptized into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. . . The one Church of which we are part has existed and does exist also where that doctrine is not taught." In a separate artical, Neuhaus notes that the editors of the _Lutheran Perspective_ have stated that the Athanasian Creed "can be understood to suggest that correct faith is a work by which we merit salvation." The editors suggest that a council of Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc., meet to "clean up the text". (For those not familiar with it, the Athanasian Creed is a doctrinal statement about the Trinity and the Incarnation. It dates from about 400 A.D.) The following seem like obvious questions for discussion: Is correct faith or correct doctrine necessary to salvation? If so, to what extent? What differentiates an unbeliever from a believer holding a "bad doctrine"? Should the Athanasian Creed be "cleaned up"? If so, what would you change? (If these comments trigger any other interesting questions or comments, please post them, too!) charli
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/23/85)
In article <304@cylixd.UUCP> charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) writes: >Some comments from the July 1 Forum Letter by Richard John Neuhaus >might be of interest here. > >In commenting on the "gnesio-Lutherans," Neuhaus states: > >"As important as the doctrine of justification by faith surely is, we >are not baptized into a doctrine; we are baptized into the one, holy, >catholic and apostolic Church. . . The one Church of which we are part >has existed and does exist also where that doctrine is not taught." > >In a separate artical, Neuhaus notes that the editors of the _Lutheran >Perspective_ have stated that the Athanasian Creed "can be understood to >suggest that correct faith is a work by which we merit salvation." The >editors suggest that a council of Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc., >meet to "clean up the text". (For those not familiar with it, the >Athanasian Creed is a doctrinal statement about the Trinity and the >Incarnation. It dates from about 400 A.D.) > >The following seem like obvious questions for discussion: > >Is correct faith or correct doctrine necessary to salvation? >If so, to what extent? What differentiates an unbeliever from >a believer holding a "bad doctrine"? > >Should the Athanasian Creed be "cleaned up"? If so, what would you >change? > >(If these comments trigger any other interesting questions or comments, >please post them, too!) > > charli For anyone not familiar with it, here is the Athanasian Creed: Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith. Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish. Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being. For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another. But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit. Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit. The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite. Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit. And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited. Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty. Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God. Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord. As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords. The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son. Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits. And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons. Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity. It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and man. He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother - existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity. Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ. He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity. He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures. For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man. He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire. This is the catholic faith. One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully. (Text cited here translated by Ralph W. Quere, from the Lutheran Book of Worship, 1978.) charli
hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) (09/24/85)
On the Athanasian Creed: You've got to be kidding. If the creed can be read as teaching faith as a work, the best approach is for theologians to say that the 20th Church does not read it in this way. The last thing we need is to go around modifying historical documents. Look at what a seemingly innocent change like filioque did to us. As I am sure you know, the whole issue of faith and works has been one of the most difficult issues between Protestants and Catholics. I think there has been a remarkable convergence in recent decades. Catholic comments on Romans (e.g. in the notes to the Jerusalem Bible) can look amazingly Lutheran. And books such as Bonhoeffer's "The Cost of Discipleship" make it clear that Protestants cannot be satisfied with bare faith. But I am not convinced that we are yet to the point where we could agree on common language on this subject. I am believe we are seeing roughly the same thing, but I am also conscious that we are seeing it from somewhat different viewpoints. On the importance of right faith and right doctrine. I think "The Cost of Discipleship" has the right emphasis here. In it, Bonhoeffer continually directs our attention to the call of God and our response to it. In commenting on "The Rich Young Man" (Mat. 19:16-20) Bonhoeffer says: "The young man is trapped once more. He had hoped to avoid committing himself to any definite moral obligations by forcing Jesus to discuss his spiritual problems. He had hoped Jesus would offer him a solution of his moral difficulties. But instead he finds Jesus attacking not his question but himself. The only answer to his difficulties is the very commandment of God, which challenges him to have done with academic discussion and to get on with the task of obedience." Faith and doctrine are very important. If we misunderstand God, we may react inappropriately to him. A widespread misunderstanding may cause large numbers of people to reject God. But we should not imagine that the power of the Educational Testing Service extends to the point where entrance through the pearly gates is controlled by a multiple-choice exam in theology. I believe that God will call every person. This call may take very different forms for different people. In some cases the Church may have botched things so badly that God's call will actually be away from Christianity. (Consider for example the case of a Jew being persecuted by Christians, wherein accepting Christianity may in fact be giving in to worldly pressure and rejecting God.) There are two extremes to avoid. One says "it does not matter what you believe so long as you are sincere." It does matter. If you do not believe you stand in need of God's forgiveness, or if you do not accept God's way of dealing with your sins, this is obviously a grave handicap in dealing with God. In certain cases the handicap can even be fatal. On the other hand, we do not want to go so far in our orthodoxy that we limit God's freedom to call who he wants. God can get around the stumbling blocks set up by our misunderstanding or incorrect beliefs. After all, he gets around the stumbling blocks set up by our sin, and surely that is a more serious problem than any theological errors. In a book called "Christian Doctrine", Guthrie suggested an interesting analogy. Consider a doctor. If you want to find the doctor to help you, you go to his office. This doesn't limit the doctor. He can still react to emergencies whereever they may be found. But only a fool would look for the doctor by running around the countryside at random hoping to run into him.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/25/85)
In article <304@cylixd.UUCP> charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) writes: >Some comments from the July 1 Forum Letter by Richard John Neuhaus >might be of interest here. >In commenting on the "gnesio-Lutherans," Neuhaus states: >"As important as the doctrine of justification by faith surely is, we >are not baptized into a doctrine; we are baptized into the one, holy, >catholic and apostolic Church. . . The one Church of which we are part >has existed and does exist also where that doctrine is not taught." >In a separate article, Neuhaus notes that the editors of the _Lutheran >Perspective_ have stated that the Athanasian Creed "can be understood to >suggest that correct faith is a work by which we merit salvation." The >editors suggest that a council of Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc., >meet to "clean up the text". (For those not familiar with it, the >Athanasian Creed is a doctrinal statement about the Trinity and the >Incarnation. It dates from about 400 A.D.) >The following seem like obvious questions for discussion: >Is correct faith or correct doctrine necessary to salvation? >If so, to what extent? What differentiates an unbeliever from >a believer holding a "bad doctrine"? >Should the Athanasian Creed be "cleaned up"? If so, what would you >change? As is typical, the Anglican position on this is confusing and hedges often. There is also dissent within the Anglican communion on this point. The Episcopal Church [in the USA] does not accept the authority of the Athenasian Creed, and prints it as an appendix to the prayer book. The "official" pronouncement on the subject lies in the two "Quadrilaterals" (so called because of the four point structure they share). I quote from the Chicago Quadrilateral of 1886: As inherent parts of this sacred deposit [of Christian Faith and Order], and therefore as essential to the restoration of unity among the divided branches of Christendom, we account the following, to wit: 1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the revealed Word of God. 2. The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith. 3. The two Sacraments,-- Baptism and the Supper of the Lord,-- ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution and of the elements ordianed by Him. 4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church. Now, in point of fact current efforts strain at the wording of this considerably. Union with the Presbyterians must stumble on 3 and 4, unless both are taken VERY loosely. But to quote from an earlier section: [W]e believe that all who have been duly baptized with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are members of the Holy Catholic Church. So correct doctrine is VERY limited, to this one small thing. All other doctrinal and liturgical differences are only relevant to COOPERATION. The Lutherans and the Episcopalians have found it fairly easy to join in communion; the considerable differences between Episcopal and (say) Southern Baptist practices and theology essetially make union impossible. As a final note, the Episcopal Church has struck the "Filoque" clause from the Nicene creed, thereby easing the way towards relations with the Eastern churches. Charley Wingate
nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) (09/26/85)
> In a separate artical, Neuhaus notes that the editors of the _Lutheran > Perspective_ have stated that the Athanasian Creed "can be understood to > suggest that correct faith is a work by which we merit salvation." The > editors suggest that a council of Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc., > meet to "clean up the text". (For those not familiar with it, the > Athanasian Creed is a doctrinal statement about the Trinity and the > Incarnation. It dates from about 400 A.D.) > > The following seem like obvious questions for discussion: > > Is correct faith or correct doctrine necessary to salvation? > If so, to what extent? What differentiates an unbeliever from > a believer holding a "bad doctrine"? > > Should the Athanasian Creed be "cleaned up"? If so, what would you > change? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charli Phillips poses some interesting questions in his recent article concerning the Athanasian Creed in particular and correct doctrine in general. I will address these questions in reverse order. First, should the creed be changed, and how? I would strongly recommmend (had I the power to recommend things to councils) that the creed NOT be changed, even though I find some of its statements objectionable, for the following reason: Although the church (hopefully) grows in its understanding of God and his work on earth, it is not safe to trust our present understanding too completely as being the best possible description of Christian doctrine. All cultures and times have flaws and biases, our own included, and these flaws and biases can distort our understanding of God. One way to try to compensate for these biases is to compare our present understanding with the beliefs held by the church in different times and places. The creeds provide valuable information for making this comparison: they tell us what, in a given time and place, was considered to be orthodox by the church. To serve this purpose, it is important that they remain as they were when they were written. There is no value to comparing my beliefs against the ancient creeds if I have changed the creeds to reflect my own beliefs. On the other hand, it would be worthwhile, if it could be achieved, to have a council write a creed which expresses a 20th century understanding of the issues addressed in the Athanasian creed. I would insist, however, that the council be truly ecumenical: the Roman Catholic Church, all branches of Eastern Orthodoxy, and all branches of Protestantism should be represented. This would, of course, be difficult to achieve, but I think it is necessary in order for the writings produced by the council to be seen as authoritative in the sense of "this is what the 20th century church believed". The other questions, Is correct faith or correct doctrine necessary to salvation? If so, to what extent? What differentiates an unbeliever from a believer holding a "bad doctrine"? are much more difficult to answer. As a matter of fact, the statements in the Athanasian creed that I find the most troubling are those which claim that correct belief (particularly regarding the almost incomprehensible doctrine of the Trinity) is essential to salvation. Certainly, there are many doctrines which are not essential to salvation. There probably is a minimal core of beliefs without which a person is not justified in claiming the label "Christian". I do not have an answer regarding the salvation of someone who lacks these beliefs, as it requires insight into the mind of God which I lack: Is it enough that we live the best we can according to what we know, or does God require some specific work of us, such as Christian belief and commitment, or is it entirely a matter of God's grace and unrelated to any action of our own? I have no idea. N. L. Tinkham duke!nlt (Duke University)
bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) (09/29/85)
>From charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) Fri Sep 20 13:03:34 1985 >Message-ID: <304@cylixd.UUCP> > >The following seem like obvious questions for discussion: > >Is correct faith or correct doctrine necessary to salvation? >If so, to what extent? What differentiates an unbeliever from >a believer holding a "bad doctrine"? > >Should the Athanasian Creed be "cleaned up"? If so, what would you >change? > Concerning the first: Christianity is, after all, the religion of belief in Christ ("...whoever believes in Him should not perish..."). It is clear that this does not mean just any kind of belief concerning Christ (historical existence, that he had two legs, etc.), but some particular kind of belief is required. On the other hand, we must be careful not to think that more kinds of belief are included than actually are, since this tends to result in a lot of extra burdens on people and division amongst Christians. Christ criticized the Pharisees for making up extra rules, and it is important that any such list of beliefs does not extend farther than the New Testament permits. In the doctrinal discussions of the NT epistles, what thing is it about Christ which is most often discussed? The idea of Christ's death for sin is always central; it seems to be the starting point for all of Christian doctrine. As such, I would tend to list (approximately) the following as bare essential Christian doctrine: 1. Belief that Christ's death is in payment for one's own sin. 2. Some form of deity of Christ, since the NT discussion of #1 always assumes this. I think this could be held rather weakly: the main thing is to assert that he was not just "a good man," but was in some unique sense divine: "the Son of God." 3. Enough of a Christian worldview for 1 & 2 to make sense: existence of God, existence of sin, etc. It is important to remember that any statement of essential doctrine will be at best a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a Christian; the book of James speaks well to that point. Concerning the second: My only familiarity with the Creed is having read the copy which someone thoughtfully posted earlier, but I think it's clear that I would consider it far too strong a statement to be called essential. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "That we have made a hero of Howard Hughes tells us ... that the secret point of money and power in America is neither the things that money can buy nor power for power's sake ..., but absolute personal freedom, mobility, privacy." -- Joan Didion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Bennet @ U of MD Comp Sci Dept | ..!ihnp4!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!bennet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) (09/29/85)
>From nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) Thu Sep 26 12:36:20 1985 >Message-ID: <6345@duke.UUCP> > > On the other hand, it would be worthwhile, if it could be achieved, to have >a council write a creed which expresses a 20th century understanding of the >issues addressed in the Athanasian creed. I would insist, however, that the >council be truly ecumenical: the Roman Catholic Church, all branches of >Eastern Orthodoxy, and all branches of Protestantism should be represented. >This would, of course, be difficult to achieve, but I think it is necessary >in order for the writings produced by the council to be seen as authoritative >in the sense of "this is what the 20th century church believed". Are you sure that such a council could ever reach an agreement on any document that actually said anything? Such councils result, at best, in a statement of the intersection of the beliefs of the various groups, which is often the empty set. (Of course, that does not mean that the empty set is not described with the most possible words; I believe it's called creative ambiguity.) It is foolish to think you can have one document that says "what the 20th century church believed." It would give a much more real picture of things to collect creeds from each major denomination. Inter-denominational councils often write such documents in order to promote Christian "unity," but I really think that Christian unity has to do with love, humility, and respect, not pretending that real differences do not exist. Such councils are a waste of resources that could be better spent on the second clause of the previous sentence. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "That we have made a hero of Howard Hughes tells us ... that the secret point of money and power in America is neither the things that money can buy nor power for power's sake ..., but absolute personal freedom, mobility, privacy." -- Joan Didion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Bennet @ U of MD Comp Sci Dept | ..!ihnp4!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!bennet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (10/08/85)
>> On the other hand, it would be worthwhile, if it could be achieved, to have >>a council write a creed which expresses a 20th century understanding of the >>issues addressed in the Athanasian creed. I would insist, however, that the >>council be truly ecumenical: the Roman Catholic Church, all branches of >>Eastern Orthodoxy, and all branches of Protestantism should be represented. >>[N. L. Tinkham] >Are you sure that such a council could ever reach an agreement on any document >that actually said anything? [Tom Bennet] I wonder if it would even be possible to get agreement on who should attend such a council, much less on what should be said. Some Baptists don't think Catholics are really Christian (and visa-versa). And what about Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Moonies, Messianic Jews, and the infinite number of tiny "Apostolic" and "Holiness" congregations? Some "main-stream" Christians would exclude some (or all) of these from a "Christian" council. I agree with Tom's suggestion that a collection of creeds from the various groups would be enlightening, probably more so than an ecumenical statement from all of them. charli
nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) (10/10/85)
[*] In response to my statement that >> [I]t would be worthwhile, if it could be achieved, to have >> a council write a creed which expresses a 20th century understanding of the >> issues addressed in the Athanasian creed. and my insistence that any such council, to be regarded as authoritative, in the sense of representing "the" beliefs of the 20th century church, must be ecumenical, Tom Bennet writes > Are you sure that such a council could ever reach an agreement on any document > that actually said anything? Such councils result, at best, in a statement of > the intersection of the beliefs of the various groups, which is often the > empty set.... > It is foolish to think you can have one document that says > "what the 20th century church believed." It would give a much more real > picture of things to collect creeds from each major denomination. Apparently I understated my skepticism as to the possibility of such an event. I am far from being "sure that such a council could ever reach an agreement..."; I do not expect any such council even to be held, much less to be successful, as long as the present denominational divisions exist. And, to anticipate the next question, I do not expect a re-uniting of the church to be easy; it may not even be possible, given our bitter and bloody history. However, I maintain that councils which are not ecumenical cannot claim to speak for the entire church and thus cannot give the authority of "this is the belief of The Church" to creeds they produce. I agree that it is important, for an understanding of Christian belief, to study the creeds of the various denominations, just as it is important to study theological works other than the creeds. N. L. Tinkham duke!nlt