Is Conservatism Wrong?

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Tertullian coined the phrase "personae" into Latin from the old Etruscan word for a theater mask. He did so around the time of 180 A.D. "Personae" was intended to be a Latin translation for the Greek word "hypo-stasis." Until that time there was no word in Latin for this idea.

- hypo-stasis means "hupo" or "under" + "stasis" or condition, nature or state of being. Hypo-stasis was the term for the fundamental nature of a thing or a being, in this case the fundamental state of God's being.

He also coined many new terms like "trintas" and so forth. Modern scholars have counted well over 100 words that Tertullian introduced into the Latin vocabulary.

Most importantly, he did NOT use the word "personae" in the same sense that the word "person" is used today. After he died and in the midst of the terrible persecutions and the later civil wars within the Roman Empire his writings were lost. They were not rediscovered until after the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

That means the guy who could best explain what he meant by "Person" and "Trinity" - the guy who coined the terms - was silent for over 1,000 years of theological debate and formulation. His writings were not even extant at the time of Nicea in 325. He was only known from second hand references in the writings of others.

It is "modern scholarship" that has unraveled the mysteries around Tertullian's theology, and "modern scholarship" that has shown just how shaky the ground is beneath "Orthodox Trinitarianism."

Sadly, OP's tend to revile "modern scholarship" more vociferously than they do their hated Trinitarian foes. It's amazing what we could learn if we set aside our prejudices. We might even discover - much to our own amazement! - that we were right about a few things and that most people have come to see that.

I understand Tertullian originally had a more "tritheistic" view of the godhead and then later recanted his own teaching, which caused great persectution for him.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

I understand Tertullian originally had a more "tritheistic" view of the godhead and then later recanted his own teaching, which caused great persectution for him.

That's a study just in and of itself! LOL.

What he did to offend many (besides becoming a "Montanist") was to describe God as having "corporeity" through His spirit. Many took this to mean that Tertullian was asserting that God's spirit had "flesh." But the whole debate goes back to Platonic ideals and the thought that "things" (including people) possessed an existence apart from the physical form that we can see and touch. Tertullian seems to have been trying to apply this old philosophical idea to God Himself.

The "corporeity" of God's spirit would not have been a fleshly body that could be handled, but an ideal that could be contemplated; but some folks seem to have taken him too literally.

Something like that...


It's all interesting from a purely academic standpoint; but Christianity really shot itself in the foot when they started to demand allegiance to whatever was the prevailing school of thought that particular day.

Better to have been a real "conservative" about the mysteries and use a "laissez faire" method of dealing with all of the philosophical stuff.

[Norman]

Change simply for the sake of change is not necessarily improvement, and could be wrong.

[OneAccord]

Originally Posted by hometown guy

This is a liberal way of thinking. Of course it would be nice but we don’t live in fantasy land and we need labels to know who and what people are. Can you image in politics if there was no republic or democratic titles we would not have a clue what there basic principles were during elections. (I know there is always exceptions. We will not know everyone by their label. I hope I don’t have to clarify everything)

Well, no, I can't agree, brother. If a Republican votes for a Democrat sponsored bill, does that make him a Democrat? I know a Republican is a Republican by the way he votes, not by his label. I know a Christian, whether he is Con or Lib, Trinnie or Oney, by his fruits, not by the carnal label I stick on him.

Is it wrong to be a conservative? Certainly not. Defining "conservative" for me, then trying to force someones definition of "conservatism" on me is wrong.

The Amish. I respect and admire their conservatism. Necessry for salvation? No, I don't thing so. But I respect them just the same until their brand of conservatism is forced on me. I have but one label I put on my brother and sister in the Lord. And thats it. Brother and/or Sister. Nothing else really matters. Their label may be Jew or Greek. Or bond or free. Or male or female. What really matters is that they (and I) are in the family of God.

[Timmy]

So, we have "labelers" and "nonlabelers". Do we have "ultralabelers" and "ultranonlabelers", too?

[commonsense]

Originally Posted by pelathais

It's wrong for those who call themselves "conservative" within the Apostolic/Pentecostal world to do so...

A real conservative champions a position that slowly accepts change and and even then, only after careful consideration and reflection.

Within the OP world, those who claim to be "conservative" have forced a series of broadscale changes upon much of the movement and have done so with Nancy Pelosi like tactics. They cloud their agenda with Orewellian double talk and do all that they can to silence the voices of those with whom they disagree.

What's wrong with "conservatism" in the Apostolic churches? It's the label. These are NOT conservatives, but radicals bent upon forcing radical change.

Take an honest look at our common heritage; then compare that to the imagined "old paths" that these rascals are trying to sell.

Well said.
Conservative? Liberal? Changing the past and then telling us it's the way it's always been.
It's ok to believe something enhances your Christian walk, But don't make it an old landmark.
We're always hearing---don't tear down the landmarks.
Maybe it's not an old landmark. Perhaps, it's a new vision and should be labeled as such.