www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West "God in a Box"

I have absolutely nothing substantive to add to this thread, but every time I look at the thread title the words "Prince Albert in a can" pop in to my head.

FWIW, I don't think this shift of emphasis was based on "theological presuppositions/misconceptions" at all, but on the practical fact that it is simply *easier*, humanly speaking, to run an organization when the rules are spelled out very clearly.

My point about Patriarch Photius was that whatever his interal motives were (which we, of course, cannot judge), he certainly had external motive for wanting to discredit the Pope, since the latter had issued a serious challenge to the legitimacy of his office. Furthermore, what he established was merely the fact that one formula (Augustinian) was incompatible with another formula (Cappadocian). Both, however, are formulas--ways of explaining the dogma of the Trinity, neither of which come anywhere near expressing this mystery in its totality.

To conclude from this, then, that he "proved" that the Filioque is heretical (its inclusion in the Creed is a separate issue), is to equate a teaching about the Trinity with the dogma of the Trinity itself. This is what I meant by placing too much emphasis on a doctrinal formula.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

So, I changed the title. HaHa

LOL!

First of all, I did not say that one places "God-in-a-box" by affirming the Trinitarian & Christological dogmas (or the Nicene Creed). Furthermore, I agree that to affirm this would be to say that they are wholly "man-made" constructions, which they are not.

Please forgive me if I gave the impression I was affirming these things--that was not my intention.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Epiphanius,



I'll admit that you did not assert that the act of assenting to the truth of a doctrinal formula itself placed God into a box, but you did equate the construction of doctrinal formulas/definitions with the attempt to place God into a box:



I also disagree with this assertion because I think that "placing God into a box" requires more than simply making statements about God. Jesus, the Apostles, the Fathers & the Creeds all do that, but I'm going to assume that you don't believe they've done so. Now if we agree that simply making statements about God isn't sufficient to constitute placing God into a box, what is? Obviously ascribing to human language the ability to exhaust the content of revelation or the reality of God would be wrong, but since no one appears (explicitly or implicitly) to be doing this, I think that contention would depend on a caricature of some sort. If merely thinking and writing with some organization & specificity was all it took to be a Scholastic or rationalist, then the label would be applicable to virtually everyone, but it isn't so it's not.



Granting that stance is logically consistent, I simply don't believe it's true because (as I explained earlier) I believe that the differences between the Patristic Tradition & Scholastic theology are substantive and not reducible to a mere "shift of emphasis." My contention was that if someone were to look into the differences and plumb their depths that he would find that at rock-bottom the theological disagreements stem from two mutually-opposed views of God (as beyond being or being-itself.)



I believe that the above statements fail to make some important distinctions: the difference between asserting that something is the case and explaining how it is so, and the difference between possessing truth and being exhaustive. Even if both positions represented explanations of how something was the case or what something meant, the possibility would still exist that one explanation could be heretical and the other non-heretical.

Gentlemen and ladies, go read the thread about brawling priests in the Church of the Nativity. I wonder if this happens from attempting to put God in a box?

Deacon Richard, I think you answered your own question with the use of the word *ex-pression*. Expressions of faith can also be *pro-fessions*. Whereas one is derived from (ex-) the object of faith; the other is an assent to (pro-) that object of faith.

Creeds are like love letters, not boxed cages. My love to my wife: "I acknowledge and respect your person, you are adorable, you make me happy, you are very pretty, you are a wonderful mother ..." How do I love thee? Let me count the ways even though I know that 1,000 ways of loving thee will never explain fully the object of my love's desires or affections. So I can only profess my love for you - I love you. This love will show in my actions in my life. This is my creed. But my creed will never substitute for the reality of its subject believing or professing, nor will it fully define the object of one's love. It is like you said - it is an expression.

only if it is a ring
Stephanos I

Without a quibble ... I agree. And think this well said.


But I am not sure about the 'Church' part because 'Church' can be interpreted several ways.

-ray

I disagree, God has revealed himself fully! Revelations has ceased with the death of the last apostle. God did not leave us in the dark.
That being said it is we who fall short in our apprehension and understanding of the faith.
Stephanos I

At times the church means the person of Jesus himself (I am the Temple).

At times ... the church is those in whom Jesus has his mystical life - and these people do not necessarily belong to any one 'right' religion. "You shall recognize them by their fruits" means their virtues. Anyone - who has substantial virtues.

At times we mean the earthly organization entire - Church - which includes all sacramental churches.

At times we mean only our own particular church.

And I wold say that the church as an earthly organization ... is just like an individual Chritian .. there are moments of holiness and moments of sin and pride and etc...

and so the only thing I would really agree on for ;guide his church in all Truth' would be the individual in whom Jesus lives mystically.

But .. I quibble You said it all well and thoughtful.

-ray

Very much so. That and human arrogance and pride.

my $.02

-- John

I don't think Christians are a very tolerant people. I think they can be a forgiving people, because they themselves have been forgiven, but they are not often tolerant.

Instead, I think Christians often can be judgmental, arrogant, fanatical and triumphalist. Christians often assume that they alone truly or fully or only know God. And they often think that not just about the religion in general but especially their own sect in particular.

I also think you are quite correct in your statement that Christians often cannot tolerate anything that appears to them to be error or immorality or injustice. History has plenty of examples of persecutions of Christians and others by Christians.

Of course, Christians have also done much good.

But, sadly, much of the evil that Christians have done in the name of God and their religion has been (in my opinion) because Christians have tried to put God in a box: their box, of course.

My $.02

-- John

John, I agree. I suspect many of us know this but still remain triumphalist!