# many Reformed folks need to rethink determination and criter



## rembrandt (Jun 7, 2004)

1) What/who determines orthodoxy (conditions necessary to make a ruling)?
2) What is the criterion for orthodoxy?

I believe that alot of modern Reformed folks have a tampered view of &quot;orthodoxy.&quot; Perhaps something that will bring this more into the light is if the [above] question #2 is restated: &quot;What is the qualifications that one must meet in order to be labeled as [i:293f4e231e]unorthodox[/i:293f4e231e]? 

&quot;The word orthodox is from the Greek combination of ortho which means 'right' or 'correct', and dox which means 'thought' or 'thinking'.&quot; What establishes [i:293f4e231e]right thinking[/i:293f4e231e] (right interpretations) of the Scriptures? Obviously we couldn't come out tomorrow and deny the Trinity. This is established as 'true doctrine' once and for all times. It is declared as &quot;orthodox,&quot; or correct information, and is not to be changed by anybody even if they believe their interpretation is more plausible. I will assume that we all agree that at least the first three Creeds are authoritative teachings that proclaim the doctrinal beliefs and commitments of the whole Church. These Creeds carry special weight because it was the [generally speaking] unanimous consent of the whole Church. When this is the case, we are to believe it as the truth since God has promised to uphold [i:293f4e231e]us[/i:293f4e231e] in truth (cf. Tim. 3:15 etc.). I assume we agree on this.

Now, my position, along with many Reformed theologians, is that the determination for "orthodoxy," is that the [i:293f4e231e]whole Church[/i:293f4e231e] must agree or at least be in general consent (excluding Mormons and such because they are not Christians). For instance, no individual part of the body of Christ or theological camp can come out and declare what is orthodox for the [i:293f4e231e]whole[/i:293f4e231e] Church. The precise reason for that is because they are [i:293f4e231e]not[/i:293f4e231e] the whole Church, and no one group of believers has express authority to do such a thing. Examples of groups trying to do this, is Rome and the Greek church, not to mention thousands of cults. So, I trust you see why the WHOLE body of Christ must agree, in order to pronounce doctrines as "orthodox." If a large part of the body of Christ happens to be practicing a doctrine, and it is declared unorthodox, then that would mean that the church practicing that doctrine is "unorthodox." And if one is declared unorthodox by the Church, they cannot be said to be practicing true religion, and therefore cannot be called Christians.

So, I would say that when THE Church agrees as a 'unified whole' on a matter that is expressly stated in Scripture as authoritative, then they have a right to declare "orthodoxy." If the whole Church does not agree and has differing thoughts on a matter, they [i:293f4e231e]cannot[/i:293f4e231e] declare orthodoxy. I have faith that God will teach the Church in due time about his Word. Before then, we are not to take the prerogative to declare [i:293f4e231e]what we believe[/i:293f4e231e] is true religion [i:293f4e231e]at the expense of our brothers[/i:293f4e231e]. 

Where does this then leave us? Can we not preach our distinctives as if they were true? By no means! If our brothers disagree, we should still try to persuade them with what we believe the Word of God is saying, as long as it is within the realms of orthodoxy 'already declared'. It is just that we cannot count them as unorthodox. 

We can also say they are [i:293f4e231e]wrong[/i:293f4e231e], but this does not mean unorthodox. There is a priority level of doctrines in the Bible. For instance, the Trinity is more important than a literal six day creation or amillennialism. The later are not the highest priority levels for us. Having correct views on lower priority level doctrines may be a [i:293f4e231e]standard[/i:293f4e231e] for us, but it is not a criterion of orthodoxy.

Thus I will say that Reformation creeds and confessions are not criteria of orthodoxy, for the simple reason that they do not meet the demands necessary (universal, historical assent). They may be the standards for Scriptural accuracy and are authoritative within our own circles, but they are not binding on the WHOLE church, because only a select group of individuals made them. A group of people cannot make decisions for the whole Church unless the whole Church chooses to have them make those decisions. 

I will also say that Calvinism is not a criterion of orthodoxy (though hopefully one day it will be!), based on principles listed above. How then does this justify the Reformation? Didn't they break off of the THE Church? Well, I would say that Rome was acting unreasonably in her 'lording over' the Scriptures. They were speaking things as unquestionably 'true doctrine', which is something they had no right to do since the Eastern church was not also in agreement. 

If a particular denomination dismisses a member who believes and is preaching baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace, they would not be labeled as a heretic (as Rome called the Reformers) necessarily, but would be told to leave because that is not the conviction of the denomination. So, I have made it clear that standards can be upheld, that are not given the high rank of "orthodoxy."

Another realm of 'orthodox criteria' is whether a church teaches something that is [i:293f4e231e]not[/i:293f4e231e] in Scriptures. The problem with calling certain Roman doctrines (for example) like transubstantiation [i:293f4e231e]unorthodox[/i:293f4e231e], is that there is no ruling by the whole church to declare such a thing. I mean, what they say [i:293f4e231e]could[/i:293f4e231e] be reasonable, we just don't believe it is. They must teach something contrariwise to the ruling of the whole Church in order to be declared unorthodox. 

On matters that are not expressly stated in the first seven ecumenical creeds, and yet the whole church is in agreement on the validity of the matter, I think we can classify this as within the realm of orthodoxy (in a sense). Maybe it would be a lower class of "orthodoxy" (if that is possible), and could be given a name like 'general ruling'. My point here is just that something doesn't have to be stated in one of those first seven creeds, in order for us to know if something is an "orthodox teaching" (as long as its recognized as less authoritative than a canonized creed). For example, genocide is unorthodox because it is the 'general understanding of the church'. (But again, the whole Church must agree.)

[b:293f4e231e]My conclusions are that the rulings of the early unified Catholic Church are more authoritative, binding, accurately expressed, important, than ANY creed or confession during the Reformation period; and that our determination for orthodoxy cannot therefore be dependent upon the 16th and 17th century church who cannot offer anything binding (for the whole church). We can call Arminians and Roman Catholics wrong, but we cannot say they are unorthodox.[/b:293f4e231e] The former is based on our opinions and persuasions, whereas the latter is based on the whole Church's rulings. (I have already made clear that creeds and confessions that are made by individual theological camps do bind on those who go to those churches; thus the individual local church can possess dogmatic authority; but they have no right to impose this dogma on other theological camps, as if they are the only ones right.)

thoughts on the two question listed above??

Paul


----------



## yeutter (Jun 7, 2004)

I would not define orthodoxy in terms of all the edicts of the seven oecumenical councils or even the first four oecumenical councils. I think a good working definition of orthodoxy is adherence to the propositional statements set forth in the Apostles, Nicene, and Chalcedon Creeds. 

St. Augustine held that all Trinitarian Baptism done with Trinitarian intent was valid even if it was performed by a Novation or Donatist Schismatic. In saying this Saint Augustine distinguished between heretics and those who were generally orthodox but who he was not in communicant fellowship.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 7, 2004)

Paul:
You say a lot in the opening post; maybe a bit too much to respond to in on one post. I think, though, that you make your position very clear. You touch on a number of matters that are close to my heart. 

For example, I agree that no minister of the Word, or elder, or even deacon for that matter, is in office to propagate his ideas. He is not given a licence to give his opinions, as if they suddenly have some authoritative standing. As a matter of fact, it is my opinion that it is a stipulation of holding an ecclesiastical office that that right is taken away. An office-bearer in the church must uphold the church's teachings and doctrines, even if he doesn't agree with one of them. And if he is otherwise minded on some doctrine or teaching, he is to keep it to the confines of discussion only in the Session or Consistory. If there is any merit to his views, then the truth itself will take root, all things being equal. But he may not publicize his views. Somehow we've gotten away from that, mostly in our church magazines and newpapers, sometimes propagating ideas outside the auspices of the Session.

I don't agree with your idea of orthodoxy being seated in the consent of the church. I believe that each of us can know truth objectively, and that times may come, and are here already, when we need to stand up for truth, even if we stand alone. Just because a denomination will not do what is needed to stem the tide of the watering down of doctrine, that doesn't excuse each of us from our duty to our vows or our faith. The accumulated and common igorance that sometimes thrives in modernity is not orthodoxy, even if all the churches agree that it is. 

As I see it, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place ecclesiastically. On the one hand, certain groups are taking advantage of the perceived unknowability of orthodoxy, or maybe better said as the wide range of freedom within orthodoxy at present, to raise up notions of their favourite side issues. At first these seem innocent enough, but some of them form root movements within the Reformed churches, causing unnecessary divisions. 

On the other hand, this advantageous use of the freedom with the systems of each church exposes our unwillingness to call a spade a spade. We easily enough speak ill of people we do not personally know, but we give all kinds of room to people we do know, and excuse them because we think they are sincere. We are leery about using the words &quot;heretic&quot; or &quot;apostate&quot; within our own circles. They too easily convey to us that it is one group calling the other group names, and that there is no real way to settle disputes except through comprmise. 

I think that orthodoxy is within reach for all of us. We don't need to compromise, and we don't need to throw around useless accusations. There is a way to listen, and a way to speak, and we desperately need to relearn these, with an eye to truth beyond our own particular limited views. We need to learn again how to listen to each other's different views, and hold our own view as fallible as well. 

Truth is knowable. Just because our generation despairs of it doesn't mean it is not knowable. So we need to get to work on knowing truth, and not just opinion. 

Now you might say that these two concepts are contradictory: office-bearers being held back in opinionating; and individuals being enabled to responsibly think for themselves. But I only ask that you think about these until you too see how, rather than being mutually exclusive, they are complimentary concepts. For it calls eveyone to subdue even their own opinions to the sway of truth from above, that it takes our interest away from our own egos or self-serving interests, and focuses it on something outside of each of us, yet revealed to us.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 7, 2004)

[quote:df88ecdcc1]I would not define orthodoxy in terms of all the edicts of the seven oecumenical councils or even the first four oecumenical councils. I think a good working definition of orthodoxy is adherence to the propositional statements set forth in the Apostles, Nicene, and Chalcedon Creeds.[/quote:df88ecdcc1]

When I said 'first three Creeds', I was referring to those three. If I said 'council' instead of 'creed' or something, that is not what I meant. There was no Creed made at the third council, right? Also, when I mentioned the seven ecumenical councils, I was making a point about something else.

Do you believe there is any orthodoxy beyond those three Creeds?

Paul

[Edited on 6-8-2004 by rembrandt]

[Edited on 6-8-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 7, 2004)

So John, you are saying that orthodoxy is based on individuals and not on church testimony or church history? What sway does church testimony have in the production of the individual's thoughts? And since many have differing views, how can they be united by their views alone? There must be a uniting principle, which you say is the Bible. I agree. But is there a uniting principle for the interpretation of the Bible? If I am my own standard for interpretation, then I have the right to say that my interpretation of Jesus' divinity does not accord with the majority of the church.

This creates confusion. Thats why I believe that &quot;The Church of the living God [is] the pillar and gound of the truth&quot; (1 Tim. 3:15). Since I believe in the organizational unity of the Church, I believe that God has purposed for the Church to speak authoritatively (to an extent) on matters of interpretation of doctrine (we can declare the Trinity as infallible doctrine etc.)

Paul


----------



## JohnV (Jun 7, 2004)

[quote:48e1abf908][i:48e1abf908]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:48e1abf908]
So John, you are saying that orthodoxy is based on individuals and not on church testimony or church history? [/quote:48e1abf908]
Not at all. I'm saying that churches can go wrong too. Orthodoxy depends on nothing but adherence to truth, and we are called to do that, corporately and individually. 

[quote:48e1abf908]What sway does church testimony have in the production of the individual's thoughts?[/quote:48e1abf908]

Much. It is not a light thing to case aside the testimony of the church. But as dubious a task as that may seem, we are called to do just that if the entire church has swayed from true doctrine. There is no individual excuse because of corporate responsibility. 
[quote:48e1abf908] And since many have differing views, how can they be united by their views alone? There must be a uniting principle, which you say is the Bible. I agree. But is there a uniting principle for the interpretation of the Bible? [/quote:48e1abf908]
The Bible is the principle upon which we must find unity. Not interpretations. There is one only right and proper interpretation, and we must seek it. We cannot be satisfied with our own; rather, that should scare us. 

[quote:48e1abf908]If I am my own standard for interpretation, then I have the right to say that my interpretation of Jesus' divinity does not accord with the majority of the church.[/quote:48e1abf908]
That is precisely the problem with not recognizing that there is indeed an interpretation to which we are all accountable. The standard is no one person's, but God's. 

[quote:48e1abf908]This creates confusion. Thats why I believe that &quot;The Church of the living God [is] the pillar and gound of the truth&quot; (1 Tim. 3:15). Since I believe in the organizational unity of the Church, I believe that God has purposed for the Church to speak authoritatively (to an extent) on matters of interpretation of doctrine (we can declare the Trinity as infallible doctrine etc.)[/quote:48e1abf908]

All I ask for is consistency. I've seen to many put thier foot in the door based upon a lack of authoritative say-so. In other words, the certainty is not so certain, so other things are possible. But most get their foot in the door by ignoring a lot of other significant ramifcations of their preferred interpretations. And the most significant is that theythemselves do not recognize a one true interpretations, but rather believe in a plethora of interpretations without anyone to settle the matter. But there is God, and He will not be trifled with. 

It's really just another way of &quot;everyone doing what is right in his own eyes&quot; that I object to. Possibility thinking is one thing; to deny objectivity, and even authoritative truth is another. 

For me, Paul, it all starts with a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I need to read His word daily, and to pray to Him often, and to listen for His voice at all times. In Him I have an objective starting point.


----------



## raderag (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:35416d3bb7][i:35416d3bb7]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:35416d3bb7]
1) What/who determines orthodoxy (conditions necessary to make a ruling)?
2) What is the criterion for orthodoxy?
[/quote:35416d3bb7]

I believe the criterion for orthodoxy is the nature of God, man, and the Gospel, but I don't think we can know who or what determines it in our modern ecclesiology. It must be providential that God does not want the Church to determine Orthodoxy as of now.

[quote:35416d3bb7]
I believe that alot of modern Reformed folks have a tampered view of &quot;orthodoxy.&quot; Perhaps something that will bring this more into the light is if the [above] question #2 is restated: &quot;What is the qualifications that one must meet in order to be labeled as [i:35416d3bb7]unorthodox[/i:35416d3bb7]? 
[/quote:35416d3bb7]

Well, I don't think this is a modern thing as most modern reformed people are willing to accept other camps. Rather the synod of Dordt declared that which departs from 5 point Calvinism to be heresy. Dordt is ecumenical if you believe that Reformed is the only orthodoxy, otherwise it is not. Regardless, Dordt condemned many of the same errors that Augsberg did, but in a more direct way.

[quote:35416d3bb7]
&quot;The word orthodox is from the Greek combination of ortho which means 'right' or 'correct', and dox which means 'thought' or 'thinking'.&quot; What establishes [i:35416d3bb7]right thinking[/i:35416d3bb7] (right interpretations) of the Scriptures? Obviously we couldn't come out tomorrow and deny the Trinity. This is established as 'true doctrine' once and for all times. It is declared as &quot;orthodox,&quot; or correct information, and is not to be changed by anybody even if they believe their interpretation is more plausible. I will assume that we all agree that at least the first three Creeds are authoritative teachings that proclaim the doctrinal beliefs and commitments of the whole Church. These Creeds carry special weight because it was the [generally speaking] unanimous consent of the whole Church. When this is the case, we are to believe it as the truth since God has promised to uphold [i:35416d3bb7]us[/i:35416d3bb7] in truth (cf. Tim. 3:15 etc.). I assume we agree on this.

Now, my position, along with many Reformed theologians, is that the determination for "orthodoxy," is that the [i:35416d3bb7]whole Church[/i:35416d3bb7] must agree or at least be in general consent (excluding Mormons and such because they are not Christians). For instance, no individual part of the body of Christ or theological camp can come out and declare what is orthodox for the [i:35416d3bb7]whole[/i:35416d3bb7] Church. The precise reason for that is because they are [i:35416d3bb7]not[/i:35416d3bb7] the whole Church, and no one group of believers has express authority to do such a thing. Examples of groups trying to do this, is Rome and the Greek church, not to mention thousands of cults. So, I trust you see why the WHOLE body of Christ must agree, in order to pronounce doctrines as "orthodox." 
[/quote:35416d3bb7]

Define who is in the Church? That is the real problem. You might say the first 3 creeds, Rome will say all, and the east will say something else.

[quote:35416d3bb7]
If a large part of the body of Christ happens to be practicing a doctrine, and it is declared unorthodox, then that would mean that the church practicing that doctrine is "unorthodox." And if one is declared unorthodox by the Church, they cannot be said to be practicing true religion, and therefore cannot be called Christians.

So, I would say that when THE Church agrees as a 'unified whole' on a matter that is expressly stated in Scripture as authoritative, then they have a right to declare "orthodoxy." If the whole Church does not agree and has differing thoughts on a matter, they [i:35416d3bb7]cannot[/i:35416d3bb7] declare orthodoxy. I have faith that God will teach the Church in due time about his Word. Before then, we are not to take the prerogative to declare [i:35416d3bb7]what we believe[/i:35416d3bb7] is true religion [i:35416d3bb7]at the expense of our brothers[/i:35416d3bb7]. 

Where does this then leave us? Can we not preach our distinctives as if they were true? By no means! If our brothers disagree, we should still try to persuade them with what we believe the Word of God is saying, as long as it is within the realms of orthodoxy 'already declared'. It is just that we cannot count them as unorthodox. 

We can also say they are [i:35416d3bb7]wrong[/i:35416d3bb7], but this does not mean unorthodox. There is a priority level of doctrines in the Bible. For instance, the Trinity is more important than a literal six day creation or amillennialism. The later are not the highest priority levels for us. Having correct views on lower priority level doctrines may be a [i:35416d3bb7]standard[/i:35416d3bb7] for us, but it is not a criterion of orthodoxy.

Thus I will say that Reformation creeds and confessions are not criteria of orthodoxy, for the simple reason that they do not meet the demands necessary (universal, historical assent). They may be the standards for Scriptural accuracy and are authoritative within our own circles, but they are not binding on the WHOLE church, because only a select group of individuals made them. A group of people cannot make decisions for the whole Church unless the whole Church chooses to have them make those decisions. 
[/quote:35416d3bb7]

I think the standard here has a problem. The Arians didn't agree to Nicene, perhaps they are the true Church?


[quote:35416d3bb7]
I will also say that Calvinism is not a criterion of orthodoxy (though hopefully one day it will be!), based on principles listed above. How then does this justify the Reformation? Didn't they break off of the THE Church? Well, I would say that Rome was acting unreasonably in her 'lording over' the Scriptures. They were speaking things as unquestionably 'true doctrine', which is something they had no right to do since the Eastern church was not also in agreement. 

If a particular denomination dismisses a member who believes and is preaching baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace, they would not be labeled as a heretic (as Rome called the Reformers) necessarily, but would be told to leave because that is not the conviction of the denomination. So, I have made it clear that standards can be upheld, that are not given the high rank of "orthodoxy."
[/quote:35416d3bb7]

So we can cast out the orthodox because of disagreements on secondary issues? How is that biblical?

[quote:35416d3bb7]
Another realm of 'orthodox criteria' is whether a church teaches something that is [i:35416d3bb7]not[/i:35416d3bb7] in Scriptures. The problem with calling certain Roman doctrines (for example) like transubstantiation [i:35416d3bb7]unorthodox[/i:35416d3bb7], is that there is no ruling by the whole church to declare such a thing. I mean, what they say [i:35416d3bb7]could[/i:35416d3bb7] be reasonable, we just don't believe it is. They must teach something contrariwise to the ruling of the whole Church in order to be declared unorthodox. 

On matters that are not expressly stated in the first seven ecumenical creeds, and yet the whole church is in agreement on the validity of the matter, I think we can classify this as within the realm of orthodoxy (in a sense). Maybe it would be a lower class of "orthodoxy" (if that is possible), and could be given a name like 'general ruling'. My point here is just that something doesn't have to be stated in one of those first seven creeds, in order for us to know if something is an "orthodox teaching" (as long as its recognized as less authoritative than a canonized creed). For example, genocide is unorthodox because it is the 'general understanding of the church'. (But again, the whole Church must agree.)
[/quote:35416d3bb7]

What is the whole Church. Did not Westminster, Dordt, and Augsburg exclude some of the Church that you believe needs to be in agreement?

The reformed view was that the Catholic Church excluded the Arians, and now exlcludes the Papist. Why is this wrong?

[quote:35416d3bb7]
[b:35416d3bb7]My conclusions are that the rulings of the early unified Catholic Church are more authoritative, binding, accurately expressed, important, than ANY creed or confession during the Reformation period; and that our determination for orthodoxy cannot therefore be dependent upon the 16th and 17th century church who cannot offer anything binding (for the whole church). We can call Arminians and Roman Catholics wrong, but we cannot say they are unorthodox.[/b:35416d3bb7] The former is based on our opinions and persuasions, whereas the latter is based on the whole Church's rulings. (I have already made clear that creeds and confessions that are made by individual theological camps do bind on those who go to those churches; thus the individual local church can possess dogmatic authority; but they have no right to impose this dogma on other theological camps, as if they are the only ones right.)

thoughts on the two question listed above??

Paul [/quote:35416d3bb7]

Your ideas on binding seem to be arbitrary to me as Dordt made clear that Arminians were not the true Church and Westminster and Augsburg condemned RC as not in the Church. I don't understand why that is not ecumenical?

I am very interested in your thoughts here, but I am slow to go against Protestant tradition.

[Edited on 6-8-2004 by raderag]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 8, 2004)

John, you say, &quot;The Bible is the principle upon which we must find unity. Not interpretations...That is precisely the problem with not recognizing that there is indeed an interpretation to which we are all accountable. The standard is no one person's, but God's.&quot; However, we can't simply say that we're going to find unity based on the plain Bible itself, and that &quot;I have no standard but God's&quot; when specifying our position. The reason that is impossible is that [i:0c7bb441bb]everyone[/i:0c7bb441bb] who bears the label &quot;Christian,&quot; from Mormon to Catholic to Reformed to Oneness Pentecostal to liberal Episcopalian - we [i:0c7bb441bb]all[/i:0c7bb441bb] trace the basis of our beliefs back to &quot;the Bible&quot; and &quot;God's standard,&quot; yet come to hundreds of hugely different conclusions! Defining orthodoxy is not as simple as saying, &quot;That which the Bible teaches,&quot; or &quot;God's own standard for it,&quot; because that is precisely what people disagree on.

That being said, I also disagree with your assertion, Paul, that the only criteria for orthodoxy should be the ecumenical creeds. I say this precisely because of the definition of orthodoxy you give: correct thinking. But nearly all of Christendom subscribe to the ecumenical creeds...Roman Catholics, Assemblies of God, Reformed, Southern Baptist, Lutheran, etc. However, it would surely be incorrect and misleading to say that all of those camps are equally orthodox.

Now, perhaps the ecumenical creeds could be used as the standard by which to judge full-fledged heretics who are to be considered enemies of the faith. However, they are not specific enough to allow everyone who holds to them to be called &quot;orthodox.&quot; When we hear the term &quot;orthodox Judaism,&quot; we think of the very strict, literal Jews. When we think of &quot;orthodox Islam,&quot; we think of people that want to take over the world by force and kill all who will not convert. In other words, the word &quot;orthodoxy&quot; typically does not mean the bare minimum, but the maximum. You're not an &quot;orthodox Jew&quot; unless you very strictly subscribe to all the teachings and practices of the religion, beyond simply acknowledging its basics. In the same way, if we call beleivers of churches like the Assemblies of God &quot;orthodox,&quot; I think we're misleading people.

In light of that concept of the word, does a church need to be Reformed in order to be considered a valid church? No. But does one need to be Reformed in order to be considered orthodox. I would say yes. After all, orthodox literall means, &quot;right thinking,&quot; which is synonymous with a biblical perspective on the whole spectrum of issues, and not just the bare minimum. And please don't use the straw-man that none of us can know God's truth [i:0c7bb441bb]in full[/i:0c7bb441bb] until the next stage of life, so our standards for orthodoxy should not be specific. That is a straw man because, while God has reserved soem things to be revealed in the next life, He has also clearly revealed to us in His Word that which is knoweable in this lifetime, and which He intends us to know...that on which He intends us to have &quot;correct thinking&quot;...or orthodoxy.

In Christ,


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:f7fce47a84]Define who is in the Church? That is the real problem. You might say the first 3 creeds, Rome will say all, and the east will say something else.[/quote:f7fce47a84]

All those who hold to the first 3 creeds. I think the East was able to agree on those, right? I am under the impression that this is a true statement: &quot;The Orthodox recognize seven Ecumenical Councils, up to the Second Nicene Council (787)&quot; (Hall of Church History). So here, Rome, Eastern, and Protestants agree.

[quote:f7fce47a84]I think the standard here has a problem. The Arians didn't agree to Nicene, perhaps they are the true Church?[/quote:f7fce47a84]

This is what I said: [quote:f7fce47a84]the whole Church must agree or at least be in general consent [b:f7fce47a84](excluding Mormons and such because they are not Christians)[/b:f7fce47a84].[/quote:f7fce47a84]

Arians were not the true Church! All those who are not Christians do not make up the 'true Church'. This has always been recogized and is the standard that has always been used!

[quote:f7fce47a84]So we can cast out the orthodox because of disagreements on secondary issues? How is that biblical?[/quote:f7fce47a84]

It is NOT biblical to cast people out because of secondary issues! I never said it was. All I said is that denominations have the power to do that. It is a shattered form of church government, but it is what we have right now. I despise denominations! 

[quote:f7fce47a84]What is the whole Church. Did not Westminster, Dordt, and Augsburg exclude some of the Church that you believe needs to be in agreement?[/quote:f7fce47a84]

Show me something (from one of those assemblies) that says that Rome is not a true church [i:f7fce47a84]in any way[/i:f7fce47a84]. 

[quote:f7fce47a84]Your ideas on binding seem to be arbitrary to me as Dordt made clear that Arminians were not the true Church and Westminster and Augsburg condemned RC as not in the Church. I don't understand why that is not ecumenical?[/quote:f7fce47a84]

Where are you getting this from? The question is, what do [i:f7fce47a84]you[/i:f7fce47a84] mean by 'true Church'.

Paul

[Edited on 6-8-2004 by rembrandt]

[Edited on 6-8-2004 by rembrandt]

[Edited on 6-8-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:28815d7a53]That being said, I also disagree with your assertion, Paul, that the only criteria for orthodoxy should be the ecumenical creeds. I say this precisely because of the definition of orthodoxy you give: correct thinking. But nearly all of Christendom subscribe to the ecumenical creeds...Roman Catholics, Assemblies of God, Reformed, Southern Baptist, Lutheran, etc. However, it would surely be incorrect and misleading to say that all of those camps are equally orthodox.[/quote:28815d7a53]

Before I finish reading your post, let me say that I NEVER said that! First of all, I said 3 creeds were [i:28815d7a53]definitely[/i:28815d7a53] determinative for orthodoxy (not the 7 councils- I was only giving a demonstration when I mentioned them). Second, I never said the 3 creeds or 7 councils [i:28815d7a53]only[/i:28815d7a53]. I say, for the most part, that is all we have now until the Church as a whole can agree [i:28815d7a53]again[/i:28815d7a53]. I made much references to the possibility of that happening (I said that I hope Calvinism becomes criteria for orthodoxy). 

Paul


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 8, 2004)

OK, sorry for putting words in your mouth, Paul. In your last post, you say that the three creeds are &quot;all we have now until the Church as a whole can agree again.&quot; I think that it's incorrect to make our definition of orthodoxy dependent upon the universal external Church, or the whole body of people who claim the label &quot;Christian.&quot; I say this because I believe orthodoxy is a fixed thing, the full embodiment of biblical truth that God revealed to us. But I also believe that that phrase will not work as a definition of orthodoxy, since, as I explained in my above reply to John, that is the very thing that is debated. So I think that we need to define orthodoxy by a specific set of doctrines, and that the whole external church will [i:22a3e39143]not[/i:22a3e39143] in fact agree as to what orthodoxy is until the next life, or the last days of this life if you are Postmillennial.

Moreover, at this time in history, I would venture to say that the closest thing we have for defining &quot;orthodoxy&quot; would be the WCF. I say this because, again, when I think of the word &quot;orthodoxy,&quot; I think of the fullest embodiment of the sacred beliefs of a religion. And I also happen to believe that no present document comes closer to that embodiment of Christianity than the WCF. And don't misunderstant me and think that I'm saying only churches that acknowledge the WCF are true churches - I think we should have a much broader doctrinal standard for considering a church to be valid. However, I still couldn't in good conscience call a church &quot;orthodox&quot; that denied the WCF.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:f91e35ca46]And please don't use the straw-man that none of us can know God's truth in full until the next stage of life, so our standards for orthodoxy should not be specific. That is a straw man because, while God has reserved soem things to be revealed in the next life, He has also clearly revealed to us in His Word that which is knoweable in this lifetime, and which He intends us to know...that on which He intends us to have &quot;correct thinking&quot;...or orthodoxy.[/quote:f91e35ca46]

Lets make the creeds as specific as possible!!! Its just hard to do that since so many people disagree. Through God's grace he will relieve his Church from stupor.

[quote:f91e35ca46]When we hear the term &quot;orthodox Judaism,&quot; we think of the very strict, literal Jews. When we think of &quot;orthodox Islam,&quot; we think of people that want to take over the world by force and kill all who will not convert. In other words, the word &quot;orthodoxy&quot; typically does not mean the bare minimum, but the maximum. You're not an &quot;orthodox Jew&quot; unless you very strictly subscribe to all the teachings and practices of the religion, beyond simply acknowledging its basics.[/quote:f91e35ca46]

Unfortunately, the Christian Church has not agreed on [i:f91e35ca46]tons[/i:f91e35ca46] of strict details, though it has been alot. 

[quote:f91e35ca46]But does one need to be Reformed in order to be considered orthodox. I would say yes. After all, orthodox literall means, &quot;right thinking,&quot; which is synonymous with a biblical perspective on the whole spectrum of issues, and not just the bare minimum.[/quote:f91e35ca46]

Now we are not talking about the same kind of orthodoxy. If I happen to be right about unconditional election, does that make me orthodox? Well, if orthodox means right thinking, then sure. But that is not the fullness of how we are here using the word. I gave that definition as a primer, and then went on to further explain.

Now in regards to Reformed being the only ones &quot;orthodox&quot; (as I am using the word, and is traditionally used), well I would have to laugh at that as utterly ridiculous! Did orthodoxy change in the 16th and 17th centuries? This is the question we are faced with. I guess this excludes the Lutherans since they were not Reformed according to the WCF...

Paul


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:6cca2d5b02][i:6cca2d5b02]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:6cca2d5b02]
OK, sorry for putting words in your mouth, Paul. In your last post, you say that the three creeds are &quot;all we have now until the Church as a whole can agree again.&quot;[/quote:6cca2d5b02]

I said 'for the most part'. There is a large number of things that the universal Church has agreed upon that were not in those creeds, that could definitely count for orthodoxy as well.

[quote:6cca2d5b02]So I think that we need to define orthodoxy by a specific set of doctrines, and that the whole external church will [i:6cca2d5b02]not[/i:6cca2d5b02] in fact agree as to what orthodoxy is...[/quote:6cca2d5b02]

Oh, you mean that you get to determine orthodoxy for other [i:6cca2d5b02]believers[/i:6cca2d5b02] without their consent? What if they have something to teach you? We can all learn form a great number of church traditions. To think that God has graced the Reformed community with [i:6cca2d5b02]all[/i:6cca2d5b02] his gifts, is utterly pathetic. God has dispersed his gifts all over Christendom. There is no one community that can ignore the other!

[quote:6cca2d5b02]Moreover, at this time in history, I would venture to say that the closest thing we have for defining &quot;orthodoxy&quot; would be the WCF. [/quote:6cca2d5b02]

I agree that it is probably the most accurate confession to date! But, that doesn't mean that it determines orthodoxy. If it did determine it, then we would have authority to knock around our Lutheran brethren who do not subscribe to it. Do you see the problem with this?

Paul


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:b06e14c37d][i:b06e14c37d]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:b06e14c37d]
Now we are not talking about the same kind of orthodoxy.[/quote:b06e14c37d]

Again, I define orthodoxy to be that which it literally means, &quot;right thinking.&quot; You simply cannot say that, say, the Assemblies of God, is &quot;orthodox Christianity&quot; as found in the Bible, for it is a far cry from it. Like John said, I basically define orthodoxy as &quot;biblical Christianity,&quot; yet I also affirm that we need to specify it beyond that phrase. Biblical Christianity does not change, regardless of people's perception of it.

[quote:b06e14c37d][i:b06e14c37d]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:b06e14c37d]
Now in regards to Reformed being the only ones &quot;orthodox&quot; (as I am using the word, and is traditionally used), well I would have to laugh at that as utterly ridiculous! Did orthodoxy change in the 16th and 17th centuries? This is the question we are faced with. I guess this excludes the Lutherans since they were not Reformed according to the WCF...[/quote:b06e14c37d]

Orthodoxy in the second century is orthodoxy in the tenth century is orthodoxy in the 15th century is orthodoxy in the 21st century...just because the external church has never agreed on what doctrines constitute biblical orthodoxy does not change what biblical orthodoxy is! We simply have to strive to always get as close to that biblical orthodoxy as possible, as the Chritian church has been striving to do for two millennia. But orthodoxy itself has always been fixed, in spite of the non-fixed agreement of the church on it over the centuries. And [i:b06e14c37d]of course[/i:b06e14c37d] the modern Lutheran church is not orthodox, for it does not have a biblical understanding of many issues.

[i:b06e14c37d][b:b06e14c37d]I agree that it would be ridiculous to speak of Reformed churches being the only &quot;true&quot; churches, but I think it is equally ridiculous to call all &quot;true&quot; churches orthodox.[/b:b06e14c37d][/i:b06e14c37d] But if you want to credit the Lutheran faith or the Assemblies of God church with orthodox status (meaning a correct understanding of the Bible), be my guest...you are welcome to your theological relativism, but right now I am content to keep my perspective that what we now call the historic Reformed church is the only church rightly interpreting the Bible in all major areas that God intended to be knowable.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:d3f93ce1ca]Again, I define orthodoxy to be that which it literally means, &quot;right thinking.&quot; You simply cannot say that, say, the Assemblies of God, is &quot;orthodox Christianity&quot; as found in the Bible, for it is a far cry from it. Like John said, I basically define orthodoxy as &quot;biblical Christianity,&quot; yet I also affirm that we need to specify it beyond that phrase. Biblical Christianity does not change, regardless of people's perception of it.[/quote:d3f93ce1ca]
Name a Reformed theologian who says this. This is definitely not how Christians use the word &quot;orthodox&quot; and it never has been. In fact, this is not the Biblical concept of orthodoxy. You cannot always use a word in theology as it is used in common speach. The historical understanding of [i:d3f93ce1ca]Christian[/i:d3f93ce1ca] Orthodoxy means MORE than right thinking. 

[quote:d3f93ce1ca]just because the external church has never agreed on what doctrines constitute biblical orthodoxy does not change what biblical orthodoxy is![/quote:d3f93ce1ca]

The Church HAS (!!!) agreed on what orthodoxy is! The three creeds!

[quote:d3f93ce1ca][i:d3f93ce1ca][b:d3f93ce1ca]I agree that it would be ridiculous to speak of Reformed churches being the only &quot;true&quot; churches, but I think it is equally ridiculous to call all &quot;true&quot; churches orthodox.[/b:d3f93ce1ca][/i:d3f93ce1ca][/quote:d3f93ce1ca] 

I agree. But are you saying that Lutheranism is not a true church?

[quote:d3f93ce1ca]But if you want to credit the Lutheran faith or the Assemblies of God church with orthodox status (meaning a correct understanding of the Bible), be my guest...you are welcome to your theological relativism, but right now I am content to keep my perspective that what we now call the historic Reformed church is the only church rightly interpreting the Bible in all major areas that God intended to be knowable. [/quote:d3f93ce1ca]

Okay, according to your standards YOU and the Reformed community are not orthodox, since none of us are right on [i:d3f93ce1ca]every point[/i:d3f93ce1ca]. You do admit that we are not right on every point, right? I will ask, what then is your criteria for orthodoxy? Just whatever [i:d3f93ce1ca]you[/i:d3f93ce1ca] think is most Biblical (Reformed theology). And that gives you the right to call your Christian brothers unorthodox?

Our reference point MUST be the Church, or else YOU end up in relativism, by making your own individual rational a determinative source for orthodoxy. 

Paul

[Edited on 6-8-2004 by rembrandt]

[Edited on 6-8-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:0ff9386bc2][i:0ff9386bc2]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:0ff9386bc2]
[quote:0ff9386bc2][i:0ff9386bc2][b:0ff9386bc2]I agree that it would be ridiculous to speak of Reformed churches being the only &quot;true&quot; churches, but I think it is equally ridiculous to call all &quot;true&quot; churches orthodox.[/b:0ff9386bc2][/i:0ff9386bc2][/quote:0ff9386bc2] 

I agree. But are you saying that Lutheranism is not a true church?[/quote:0ff9386bc2]

No. I say that it is a [i:0ff9386bc2]true[/i:0ff9386bc2] or [i:0ff9386bc2]valid[/i:0ff9386bc2] church, but that it is certainly not orthodox Christianity.

[quote:0ff9386bc2][i:0ff9386bc2]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:0ff9386bc2]
[quote:0ff9386bc2]But if you want to credit the Lutheran faith or the Assemblies of God church with orthodox status (meaning a correct understanding of the Bible), be my guest...you are welcome to your theological relativism, but right now I am content to keep my perspective that what we now call the historic Reformed church is the only church rightly interpreting the Bible in all major areas that God intended to be knowable.[/quote:0ff9386bc2]

Okay, according to your standards YOU and the Reformed community are not orthodox, since none of us are right on [i:0ff9386bc2]every point[/i:0ff9386bc2]. You do admit that we are not right on every point, right?[/quote:0ff9386bc2]

I quote myself: &quot;And please don't use the straw-man that none of us can know God's truth in full until the next stage of life, so our standards for orthodoxy should not be specific. That is a straw man because, while God has reserved soem things to be revealed in the next life, He has also clearly revealed to us in His Word that which is knoweable in this lifetime, and which He intends us to know.&quot;

[quote:0ff9386bc2][i:0ff9386bc2]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:0ff9386bc2]
I will ask, what then is your criteria for orthodoxy? Just whatever [i:0ff9386bc2]you[/i:0ff9386bc2] think is most Biblical (Reformed theology).[/quote:0ff9386bc2]

As to my criteria of orthodoxy, I say the Reformed confessions, which are the official standards summarizing the body of biblical truth as understood by what is today known as the historic Reformed faith. I do not simply say that whatever my own view on anything may happen to be is what constitutes orthodoxy, but rather I will gladly submit to the Reformed confessions as the current standard for orthodoxy even when I disagree with them on points.

[quote:0ff9386bc2][i:0ff9386bc2]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:0ff9386bc2]
And that gives you the right to call your Christian brothers unorthodox?[/quote:0ff9386bc2]

It gives the Reformed church just as much right to call their Christian brothers unorthodox as you have to call, say, Dispensationalism unbiblical.

[quote:0ff9386bc2][i:0ff9386bc2]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:0ff9386bc2]
Our reference point MUST be the Church, or else YOU end up in relativism, by making your own individual rational a determinative source for orthodoxy.[/quote:0ff9386bc2]

I disagree. Rather, I believe that it is precisely your position that logically leads to relativism, since you make the very definition of orthodoxy dependent upon a lack of error within the external, universal church. Furthermore, I do not make my own individual musings on details the determinative source for orthodoxy, but hold to confessionalism as I explain above.

Overall, as far as defining orthodoxy goes, I see two extreme, equal and opposite errors: The first extreme error is hyper-individualism, which 90% of Christians ascribe to today, since they are self-righteous regarding their own reasoning and viewpoints on every issue. The second exteeme error is a hyper-perspective on the authority of the universal, external church. The flawed part of this perspective is not your claim that the universally-agreed-upon issues should be considered binding for every Christian (for that is true), but the flawed part is your claim that nothing [i:0ff9386bc2]but[/i:0ff9386bc2] the universally-agreed-upon issues should be considered binding for every Christian. Under your perspective, since so many Christians today are of a hyper-individualist mindset, you have no right to claim that hyper-individualism is unorthodox.

In Christ,


----------



## kceaster (Jun 8, 2004)

But, do we want to become so narrowly focused that any demon in hell can agree and sign on?

That is the question that perplexes me.

We have the truth in the Scriptures. Obviously, God would want us all to arrive at that truth. For whatever reason it pleases Him, He allows us to be blinded to the truth.

If orthodoxy is right thinking, what does that render down to in the denominations of the church? One group says it's right thinking that men are elected to life and some are predestined to death. The other group of course can't sign on to that. Yet, what is the truth? What is right thinking?

Doctrine divides, this is true. But the moment we boil it all down to believing Christ to be A WAY of salvation instead of THE WAY of salvation is not going to get us any closer to true unity and doctrinal purity. Sure, it might make us feel better, but that's not the unity God intended.

And for those who believe the confessions should not be a part of the standard for orthodoxy, why? Do you think they believe something the early church did not? Do you think they defined things in different terms than Paul? To throw out the 3FU, WCF, LBCF, the Savoy without taking the sum of their parts where they agree and not establish some sort of orthodoxy on them, throws out the whole Reformation. Whatever God was doing at that time was of no use?

What should be the standard for orthodoxy? The doctrines of the Reformation where there is no hint of heresy or division. That should be the standard for orthodoxy. How did they articulate these doctrines? Just the same as the early fathers according to the tradition of the apostles.

Any less, and we may as well boil it down so that the devil can sign it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:3b501e8312]
I believe that alot of modern Reformed folks have a tampered view of &quot;orthodoxy.&quot; 
[/quote:3b501e8312]

Who specifically?


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:d2adc3dfca][i:d2adc3dfca]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:d2adc3dfca]
[quote:d2adc3dfca]
I believe that alot of modern Reformed folks have a tampered view of &quot;orthodoxy.&quot; 
[/quote:d2adc3dfca]

Who specifically? [/quote:d2adc3dfca]

I can't think of many theologians who think this way. It is not them I am talking about, but average people, who think being Reformed is the embodiment of orthodoxy.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 8, 2004)

Being &quot;reformed&quot; is a strange thing because it means so many different things to so many different people. (Thus this thread!)

It does help when we have a concensus through history of the creeds and confessions that agree.


----------



## raderag (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:699b456626][i:699b456626]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:699b456626]

I can't think of many theologians who think this way. It is not them I am talking about, but average people, who think being Reformed is the embodiment of orthodoxy. [/quote:699b456626]

I think you might have it backwords. It is the reformed confessions, such as Dordt that place non-Reformed thelogy outside of orthodoxy. Most reformed people that I know are much more inclusive in their orthodoxy.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:4780babd00]Okay, according to your standards YOU and the Reformed community are not orthodox, since none of us are right on every point. You do admit that we are not right on every point, right?[/quote:4780babd00]

I quote myself: &quot;And please don't use the straw-man that none of us can know God's truth in full until the next stage of life, so our standards for orthodoxy should not be specific. That is a straw man because, while God has reserved soem things to be revealed in the next life, He has also clearly revealed to us in His Word that which is knoweable in this lifetime, and which He intends us to know.&quot;[/quote] 

So you think Reformed theology is perfect? Name one theologian who has ever thought that! It is a misunderstanding of anthropology to suppose we can be right on every issue this side of heaven. Truth is absolute and is not relative, [i:4780babd00]but[/i:4780babd00] there is great truth in the presuppositions of postmodernism. What I mean by that is that we always see truth in [i:4780babd00]part[/i:4780babd00], no two people can [i:4780babd00]exactly[/i:4780babd00] agree, everthing we know is filtered by our interpretations. Click here to see what I am talking about: http://www.thirdmill.org/qath_answer_main.asp/section/qa/subnav/th/file/99730.qna So, NO man-made theology is perfect because of our state as creatures. It doens't mean we cannot come up with good creeds, just that they are not [i:4780babd00]perfect[/i:4780babd00]. What we should do then, is not limit creeds to one body of believers and allow the whole Church to participate, thus allowing all of God's gifts to be used in the process. This is why I see those creeds that the [i:4780babd00]whole[/i:4780babd00] Church agreed upon as so special; God caused them to be an accurate rendition of the Bible, because of his promises to guide us into all truth. 

The Reformed community is not the only group of believers who God has promised this to. We are not the only ones who are &quot;The church of the living God, the ground and pillar of truth&quot; (1Tim. 3:15).

[quote:4780babd00]It gives the Reformed church just as much right to call their Christian brothers unorthodox as you have to call, say, Dispensationalism unbiblical.[/quote:4780babd00]

I do not believe that we can throw around the word &quot;unorthodox&quot; as we can the word &quot;unbiblical.&quot; There are many traditions that fit within the realm of orthodoxy, and may not understand the bible on some things. But if you are going to use &quot;orthodox&quot; synonymous with &quot;biblical,&quot; we have a problem. We need to redefine &quot;orthodox&quot; so that we are on the same page.

[quote:4780babd00]but the flawed part is your claim that nothing but the universally-agreed-upon issues should be considered binding for every Christian.[/quote:4780babd00]

I have already said that the Reformed confessions bind on Reformed people, just not the whole Church. Everything our theological camp pronounces would be binding, just not on every Christian, since they had no say in the matter.

Paul


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:5850f8234d]I think you might have it backwords. It is the reformed confessions, such as Dordt that place non-Reformed thelogy outside of orthodoxy. Most reformed people that I know are much more inclusive in their orthodoxy.[/quote:5850f8234d]

Name one theologian who used the word &quot;orthodoxy&quot; exclusively to describe the Reformed community, thus leaving out all other Christians (Lutherans for example) as unorthodox. 

Paul


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 8, 2004)

Paul, I am not one for &quot;popular&quot; authors, however, I think you would find Keith Mathison's book, &quot;The Shape of Sola Scriptura&quot; to be helpful in your question.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:9ee7af963c]If orthodoxy is right thinking, what does that render down to in the denominations of the church? One group says it's right thinking that men are elected to life and some are predestined to death. The other group of course can't sign on to that. Yet, what is the truth? What is right thinking?[/quote:9ee7af963c]

The concept of orthodoxy is more than right thinking. I just used that as a primer on my first post to dig into what orthodoxy is.

[quote:9ee7af963c]And for those who believe the confessions should not be a part of the standard for orthodoxy, why? Do you think they believe something the early church did not? Do you think they defined things in different terms than Paul? To throw out the 3FU, WCF, LBCF, the Savoy without taking the sum of their parts where they agree and not establish some sort of orthodoxy on them, throws out the whole Reformation. Whatever God was doing at that time was of no use?[/quote:9ee7af963c]

Because the whole body of Christ did not agree on them. That has always been necessary to determine orthodoxy for the whole body of Christ. That doesn't mean however that they are of no use. I have already stated that they are binding on us as standards of the biblical record, but that doesn't make them binding on the whole body of Christ.

Paul


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 8, 2004)

Paul, don't confuse the mode with the truth.

For example, there is a chapter on Christian liberty in the WCF. The information contained in that chapter is true for every Christian, no matter what age they live in. In 400 AD there was no chapter on Christian Liberty in any confession or creed. That did not make the truth of Christian Liberty not true (until someone penned it down in a Confession).

Equally, the Synod of Dordt's propositions are Scripturally binding, not because of the Articles themselves, but because of the Scriptural basis for those articles. Dordt is a test of orthodoxy not because the church did not have it (they did - read Augustine's writings for example) but the Scriptures are true in no matter what age we live in. The Synod of Dordt is binding on us today not because a bunch of Dutch and English ministers decided to get together and write up a confession, but because the tenants in that documents are true based on the elementary principles of the depravity of man, the election of God, the atonement of Christ and the regenerating power of the Spirit of God. 

I could say, &quot;believe the Scriptures&quot;. Sometimes, with some people, that is what I have to do because they are already averse to red flag words like &quot;Calvinism.&quot; But the doctrines of grace are no less true if I quote Dordt instead as well. Why? Dordt rested on the truth of the Word of God. Any Confession, then, that faithfully represents the Scriptures is true.


----------



## sastark (Jun 8, 2004)

Paul,

Sorry. This is TOTALLY off topic, but, your title of &quot;Minister of Custodial Affairs&quot;.....that's a joke right?

I can just see some evanjellyfish church ordaining a Minister of Custodial Affairs.

Ok, back on topic.


----------



## kceaster (Jun 8, 2004)

*Paul....*

[quote:5324f5bf2d][i:5324f5bf2d]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:5324f5bf2d]
[quote:5324f5bf2d]If orthodoxy is right thinking, what does that render down to in the denominations of the church? One group says it's right thinking that men are elected to life and some are predestined to death. The other group of course can't sign on to that. Yet, what is the truth? What is right thinking?[/quote:5324f5bf2d]

The concept of orthodoxy is more than right thinking. I just used that as a primer on my first post to dig into what orthodoxy is.

[quote:5324f5bf2d]And for those who believe the confessions should not be a part of the standard for orthodoxy, why? Do you think they believe something the early church did not? Do you think they defined things in different terms than Paul? To throw out the 3FU, WCF, LBCF, the Savoy without taking the sum of their parts where they agree and not establish some sort of orthodoxy on them, throws out the whole Reformation. Whatever God was doing at that time was of no use?[/quote:5324f5bf2d]

Because the whole body of Christ did not agree on them. That has always been necessary to determine orthodoxy for the whole body of Christ. That doesn't mean however that they are of no use. I have already stated that they are binding on us as standards of the biblical record, but that doesn't make them binding on the whole body of Christ.

Paul [/quote:5324f5bf2d]
Why should the whole body of Christ not be bound to the truth of Scripture? I think you would say that they are. However, where they err (like Arminians) means that they are not free to establish orthodoxy because they do not agree.

Again, as I said, if we are going to narrowly define orthodoxy we will get to a point that the demons can sign. Does the body of Christ define orthodoxy or does orthodoxy define the body of Christ?

Paul was saying that anyone who preached another gospel was an anathema. In that, wouldn't he be saying that the orthodoxy of the Scripture defines the body of Christ and not the other way around? How do we know what the body of Christ is without defining belief and practice?

Don't get me wrong, the church is the derived authority to set forth what the Scriptures teach. But if any dissident group disagrees with another, something has to arbitrate. In this case, the church through the ages does this and outlines the orthodoxy of Christ's body. Yet, it was the truth of the Scripture in which the outline was drawn, not their agreement to it. They could agree to just about anything in their flesh, but what does the Spirit agree to? Only the truth.

Therefore, orthodoxy is defined by the truth the Scriptures teach, as witnessed by the Spirit to the church. With such a great cloud of witnesses and by the help of creeds and councils we have come to know what the objective truth is and this is our orthodoxy. This is the orthodoxy of the Scripture witnessed by the Holy Spirit in the church.

If you don't believe the Reformation embodies this and that they took their cues from the early fathers, then you really don't have a basis for orthodoxy that is a fixed mark. It will be an ever-changing orthodoxy if there is not some standard held to that cannot be corroborated by anything other than the Spirit and the Church.

The light has shined. The light has intensified. But if &quot;new&quot; light is introduced that eclipses or casts a shadow on the light that was, then it is no light from God. The light that shined in the Reformation was only intensified light, but it was the same light as the light of the early church.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 8, 2004)

[quote:7c18c315d7][i:7c18c315d7]Originally posted by sastark[/i:7c18c315d7]
Paul,

Sorry. This is TOTALLY off topic, but, your title of &quot;Minister of Custodial Affairs&quot;.....that's a joke right?

I can just see some evanjellyfish church ordaining a Minister of Custodial Affairs.

Ok, back on topic. [/quote:7c18c315d7]

hehe... no, the EFCA ordained me to scrub toilets... its a new ministry. You gotta keep up with these things man... its part of the coffee-house church movement. j/k. Yes its a joke, but I like to think of myself as ministering to people by cleaning their toilets... it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

I will change it. I didn't think it would be misleading. Perhaps I'll rename my position, &quot;Bishop of the Toilets.&quot; But that might be misleading too. I'll say... &quot;Captain of the Evanjellyfish Custodial Club&quot; (CECC).

Paul


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 8, 2004)

webmaster, I will purchase the book you recommended.

I definitely see Scripture as [i:110623bcd5]always[/i:110623bcd5] binding on [i:110623bcd5]everybody[/i:110623bcd5] for [i:110623bcd5]all ages[/i:110623bcd5]. What I am saying is that one part of the body of Christ cannot come up with an [i:110623bcd5]interpretation[/i:110623bcd5] of those Scriptures and form a Creed that is supposed to speak for the whole Church.

I see the correct [i:110623bcd5]interpretation[/i:110623bcd5] as always binding for all ages, as well. The correct interpretation is God's interpretation, so of course it is binding. What I say, is that we perfectly know the [i:110623bcd5]words[/i:110623bcd5] in Scripture, but we do not [i:110623bcd5]perfectly[/i:110623bcd5] know what the author is [i:110623bcd5]conveying[/i:110623bcd5] and what God is saying (I stated the reasons for this a coupel posts ago- you all would agree). Because we have this deficiency, it does NOT make the interpretations less binding. So we agree here.

Orthodox, yes, can be defined as what is true, and therefore we believe Reformed theology is orthodox. Okay, but this is NOT how I am using the word &quot;orthodox.&quot; I am using the [i:110623bcd5]traditional Christian sence[/i:110623bcd5]. [b:110623bcd5]What has the WHOLE CHURCH decided as valid interpretation?[/b:110623bcd5] So, by &quot;orthodox&quot; I am saying something [i:110623bcd5]more[/i:110623bcd5] than &quot;something that is right&quot; (though that is certainly an aspect, as I've already stated); [b:110623bcd5]I am saying that it is something the Church as a Unity has declared as [i:110623bcd5]ex cathedra[/i:110623bcd5]. &quot;You believe this or you die.&quot; This is the fullest essence of Church dogma.[/b:110623bcd5]

Now, what we are really dealing with, is the question: does this &quot;orthodoxy&quot; that [i:110623bcd5]I[/i:110623bcd5] am talking about really exist? And if so, does only part or the whole body of [i:110623bcd5]true[/i:110623bcd5] believers have to consent?

Let me further clarify something about this &quot;orthodoxy&quot; in which I am talking about. I already gave a hint that this &quot;orthodoxy&quot; is unquestionable Christian dogma, and therefore is not to be brought into question as if it might be false: it is to be assumed. For example, we cannot come up with a new idea of the Trinity (that really denies the Trinity) tomorrow. Now, I challege you to show me why we cannot do such a thing! [i:110623bcd5]You must lean back on the fact that the Church has already confessed it as true doctrine.[/i:110623bcd5] The Trinity is a big doctrine, but we cannot come out on lesser issues that we have less Scriptural evidence for and declare it as God's [i:110623bcd5]irrevocable truth.[/i:110623bcd5] For example, women wearing hats in church. You see, what I am trying to say, is that there is a structural level of doctrines. Some we are more certain of than others; in which case we have more of a right to declare as absolute truth. 

As much as I believe Calvinism as true, the Church is still disputing it. We must help our brothers catch up. And yes, even declaring it as truth in which they must submit to. BUT it does not necessarily follow that this is the &quot;orthodoxy&quot; that I am talking about (in which I defined above).

Paul


----------



## JohnV (Jun 8, 2004)

Paul:

I browsed through the link that you gave in an earlier post in order to try to understand what you are trying to say. If you have been reading my posts in the Apologetics forum then you will know that I reject part of that system of thought. I believe that it confuses the temporality of man's knowledge with the eternity of truth. For the life of me I cannot figure out what uninterpreted truth could be, or what it refers to. Nor do I know why that needs to be held up as point of argumentation, only to be denied existence as the point of the argument. It makes no sense to me. But it is basic to that line of thinking.

It has helped me begin to understand your dilemma, I think. Not that I do understand it fully, but I think I begin to see what you're driving at. So I wonder if maybe that problem of orthodoxy you mention is not a perceptual thing within that system of thought. I don't think the rest of us are on the same page as you are here. Let me try to paraphrase your concern, to see if I understand your original question.

People do not all see truth the same way. Some see one thing as important, and others see other things as important. It is not right that one should impose his importances upon someone else who cannot appreciate it's depth or scope. Thus there are different orthodoxies for different people, according to each as God has given them understanding. The only true test for orthodoxy must be that which all have in common, which you say is the three creeds formulated under a unified church. Therefore, though the Reformed confessions are great documents, they only pertain to those whose doctrine is described in them. For some understand truth in a different way.

Orthodoxy is not limited to one right way of thinking imposed on all. For there are some who have a different way of understanding the truth that is revealed to them. Though orthodoxy is defined as &quot;right thinking&quot;, it may differ from one group to another what that right thinking may be. Where we all find commomality in right thinking is at the root of our religion, namely the early church's formulations. And that should be our basis for the use of the term in an over-all sense.

Does this summarize you basic point of concern? I tried to bridge the gap that I perceive. I may be way out here, though. If I am out in left field here, then I apologize.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:9507a1bdc8][i:9507a1bdc8]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:9507a1bdc8]
Paul:

I browsed through the link that you gave in an earlier post in order to try to understand what you are trying to say. If you have been reading my posts in the Apologetics forum then you will know that I reject part of that system of thought. I believe that it confuses the temporality of man's knowledge with the eternity of truth. For the life of me I cannot figure out what uninterpreted truth could be, or what it refers to. Nor do I know why that needs to be held up as point of argumentation, only to be denied existence as the point of the argument. It makes no sense to me. But it is basic to that line of thinking.

It has helped me begin to understand your dilemma, I think. Not that I do understand it fully, but I think I begin to see what you're driving at. So I wonder if maybe that problem of orthodoxy you mention is not a perceptual thing within that system of thought. I don't think the rest of us are on the same page as you are here. Let me try to paraphrase your concern, to see if I understand your original question.

People do not all see truth the same way. Some see one thing as important, and others see other things as important. It is not right that one should impose his importances upon someone else who cannot appreciate it's depth or scope. Thus there are different orthodoxies for different people, according to each as God has given them understanding. The only true test for orthodoxy must be that which all have in common, which you say is the three creeds formulated under a unified church. Therefore, though the Reformed confessions are great documents, they only pertain to those whose doctrine is described in them. For some understand truth in a different way.

Orthodoxy is not limited to one right way of thinking imposed on all. For there are some who have a different way of understanding the truth that is revealed to them. Though orthodoxy is defined as &quot;right thinking&quot;, it may differ from one group to another what that right thinking may be. Where we all find commomality in right thinking is at the root of our religion, namely the early church's formulations. And that should be our basis for the use of the term in an over-all sense.

Does this summarize you basic point of concern? I tried to bridge the gap that I perceive. I may be way out here, though. If I am out in left field here, then I apologize. [/quote:9507a1bdc8]

Okay, when I said that about postmodern presuppositions, I was responding to Me Died Blue's idea that somehow the Reformed Community ALONE possess perfectly ALL of God's self-revelation. When I said this, it was NOT my arguement about &quot;orthodoxy.&quot; It was simply a statement saying that THE Church must agree together as a WHOLE because God has dispersed his gifts differently upon the Body and we each have traditions that have great things in them, in which even we Reformed folks can benefit from someone else's traditions.

When I said this: &quot;It doens't mean we cannot come up with good creeds, just that they are not [i:9507a1bdc8]perfect[/i:9507a1bdc8]. What we should do then, is not limit creeds to one body of believers and allow the [i:9507a1bdc8]whole[/i:9507a1bdc8] Church to participate, thus allowing all of God's gifts to be used in the process.&quot; I was trying to say that all creeds that are NOT agreed upon by the whole church, are bound to be imperfect. I believe however, that when the WHOLE Church agrees unanimously it is a different story. This is somehow transcends the limits of the finite. (I believe I have a strong biblical basis for this. This is precisely the &quot;orthodoxy&quot; that I am talking about.)

[quote:9507a1bdc8]It is not right that one should impose his importances upon someone else who cannot appreciate it's depth or scope. Thus there are different orthodoxies for different people, according to each as God has given them understanding.[/quote:9507a1bdc8]

Okay, lets define some terms. I would never say that we have different &quot;orthodoxies&quot; that are equally valid. However, I like your word &quot;importances.&quot; These can be defined as &quot;doctrinal EMPHASIS.&quot; So, given that, I would say yes, we have no right to impose our &quot;doctrinal emphasis&quot; or tradition upon someone else. Different parts of the Body have different &quot;favorite points.&quot; For example, a Lutheran theologian has no right to say that &quot;Christ's humiliation&quot; is more important than other denomination's DISTINCTIVES. 

Yes, I believe God has given us different understandings, and that he has purposed for his Church to unite to determine ultimate orthodoxy. We must speak with ONE VOICE!

[quote:9507a1bdc8]The only true test for orthodoxy must be that which all have in common, which you say is the three creeds formulated under a unified church. Therefore, though the Reformed confessions are great documents, they only pertain to those whose doctrine is described in them. For some understand truth in a different way.[/quote:9507a1bdc8]

YES that is what I am saying! 

[quote:9507a1bdc8]Orthodoxy is not limited to one right way of thinking imposed on all. For there are some who have a different way of understanding the truth that is revealed to them. Though orthodoxy is defined as &quot;right thinking&quot;, it may differ from one group to another what that right thinking may be. Where we all find commomality in right thinking is at the root of our religion, namely the early church's formulations. And that should be our basis for the use of the term in an over-all sense. 

Does this summarize you basic point of concern? I tried to bridge the gap that I perceive. I may be way out here, though. If I am out in left field here, then I apologize.[/quote:9507a1bdc8]

YES YES YES!!!  (although, I would say that our orthodoxy does not differ.)

I think you captured my anthropological ideas on the invalidity of the testimony of a certain group over the unified whole. One group just simply cannot undertake the WHOLE understanding because he can't understand it all.

This however, doesn't make a concept like &quot;orthodoxies.&quot; I give traditions, emphasis, and distictives, lower classifications than &quot;orthodoxy.&quot; 

Paul


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:0365a5b6ac][i:0365a5b6ac]JohnV[/i:0365a5b6ac]
Orthodoxy is not limited to one right way of thinking imposed on all.[/quote:0365a5b6ac]

I think orthodoxy [i:0365a5b6ac]is[/i:0365a5b6ac] imposed on all. But orthodoxy must be agreed upon by all.


----------



## raderag (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:c7043bd38f][i:c7043bd38f]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:c7043bd38f]
[quote:c7043bd38f][i:c7043bd38f]JohnV[/i:c7043bd38f]
Orthodoxy is not limited to one right way of thinking imposed on all.[/quote:c7043bd38f]

I think orthodoxy [i:c7043bd38f]is[/i:c7043bd38f] imposed on all. But orthodoxy must be agreed upon by all.  [/quote:c7043bd38f]

Isn't that circular reasoning? How do you define all? I would define all as those who are orthodox.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:33ead3e335][i:33ead3e335]Originally posted by raderag[/i:33ead3e335]
[quote:33ead3e335][i:33ead3e335]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:33ead3e335]
[quote:33ead3e335][i:33ead3e335]JohnV[/i:33ead3e335]
Orthodoxy is not limited to one right way of thinking imposed on all.[/quote:33ead3e335]

I think orthodoxy [i:33ead3e335]is[/i:33ead3e335] imposed on all. But orthodoxy must be agreed upon by all.  [/quote:33ead3e335]

Isn't that circular reasoning? How do you define all? I would define all as those who are orthodox. [/quote:33ead3e335]

Yes, its definitely circular reasoning. What you said is even more circular: &quot;orthodoxy is imposed on orthodox. But orthodoxy must be agreed upon by orthodox.&quot; The problem is figuring out [i:33ead3e335]who[/i:33ead3e335] is orthodox. There must be a prior ruling to configure who is and who is not orthodox. How is that standard of judgment configured? When I said &quot;all&quot; I meant all [i:33ead3e335]true[/i:33ead3e335] Christian churches. I think there has to be some wisdom in discerning [i:33ead3e335]true churches[/i:33ead3e335]. We do not possess the authority to say Arminians are not true churches. We must have our brother's consent; that is, unless they are totally apostized or unwilling to co-operate (schismatic).

Paul


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 9, 2004)

Orthodox is a subcategory of true.

Not the reverse.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:c0c1a31dca][i:c0c1a31dca]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:c0c1a31dca]
Orthodox is a subcategory of true.

Not the reverse. [/quote:c0c1a31dca]


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:708a1db461][i:708a1db461]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:708a1db461]
Orthodox is a subcategory of true.

Not the reverse. [/quote:708a1db461]

Yeah, orthodoxy is God's truth, plain and simple. But I am not using it in that sence. I'm using it in a [i:708a1db461]practical[/i:708a1db461] sence, in which the [i:708a1db461]Christian Church[/i:708a1db461] has used it. It is a [i:708a1db461]rule of faith[/i:708a1db461] that all must follow or else die, kind of thing. It is the [i:708a1db461]solemn determination[/i:708a1db461] of the correct interpretation of God's word. It is [i:708a1db461]never[/i:708a1db461] to be questioned and [i:708a1db461]never[/i:708a1db461] to be revoked. That is how I am using the word &quot;orthodoxy.&quot;

Paul


----------



## raderag (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:0f73ede5d1][i:0f73ede5d1]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:0f73ede5d1]
Yes, its definitely circular reasoning. What you said is even more circular: &quot;orthodoxy is imposed on orthodox. But orthodoxy must be agreed upon by orthodox.&quot; The problem is figuring out [i:0f73ede5d1]who[/i:0f73ede5d1] is orthodox. There must be a prior ruling to configure who is and who is not orthodox. How is that standard of judgment configured? When I said &quot;all&quot; I meant all [i:0f73ede5d1]true[/i:0f73ede5d1] Christian churches. I think there has to be some wisdom in discerning [i:0f73ede5d1]true churches[/i:0f73ede5d1]. We do not possess the authority to say Arminians are not true churches. We must have our brother's consent; that is, unless they are totally apostized or unwilling to co-operate (schismatic).

Paul [/quote:0f73ede5d1]

Let's presume that we understand orthodoxy is where the confessions and creeds of the true church agree. If we agree that Trent is wrong, and Augsburg, Westminster, and the three forms of unity are right, then the following are universally not orthodox: If the Protestant confessions are true, then the RC was not an orthodox church at the time of trent.

Roman Catholic (pope is anti-Christ + other heresy)
Eastern Orthodox
Traditional Arminian (condemned in smalcad,augsburg, dordt, etc)
Wesley Arminian
Anabaptist


----------



## raderag (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:b1e9b6a4f5][i:b1e9b6a4f5]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:b1e9b6a4f5]
It is a [i:b1e9b6a4f5]rule of faith[/i:b1e9b6a4f5] that all must follow or else die, kind of thing. It is the [i:b1e9b6a4f5]solemn determination[/i:b1e9b6a4f5] of the correct interpretation of God's word. It is [i:b1e9b6a4f5]never[/i:b1e9b6a4f5] to be questioned and [i:b1e9b6a4f5]never[/i:b1e9b6a4f5] to be revoked. That is how I am using the word &quot;orthodoxy.&quot;

Paul [/quote:b1e9b6a4f5]

Paul, this is where you area teatering on orthodoxy.

[quote:b1e9b6a4f5]
CHAPTER XXXI.
Of Synods and Councils.


IV. All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are [b:b1e9b6a4f5]not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.[/b:b1e9b6a4f5]

[/quote:b1e9b6a4f5]

To make orthodoxy, if not defined by Scripture a rule of faith is the Roman Catholic error. I agree that the Church must determine orthodoxy, but the Church's final and only rule of faith is scripture. Orthodoxy as defined by the Church can be overturned if there is evidence beyond a high threshold that the Church once erred.


[Edited on 6-9-2004 by raderag]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:6c71c32d4d][i:6c71c32d4d]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:6c71c32d4d]
[quote:6c71c32d4d][i:6c71c32d4d]JohnV[/i:6c71c32d4d]
Orthodoxy is not limited to one right way of thinking imposed on all.[/quote:6c71c32d4d]

I think orthodoxy [i:6c71c32d4d]is[/i:6c71c32d4d] imposed on all. But orthodoxy must be agreed upon by all.  [/quote:6c71c32d4d]

Well, I guess it's just too bad we have &quot;Christians&quot; like Oneness Pentecostals and &quot;Christians&quot; who deny the deity of Christ. Too bad we can't include those doctrines in our definition of orthodoxy - I guess we just have to accept the fact that those are only [i:6c71c32d4d]our[/i:6c71c32d4d] views, and that we have no right to impose them on all who call themselves Christians, since they're not bound to believe them.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 9, 2004)

Brett:

I think you catch the essence of it, but I don't think that it helps at all to call it circular reasoning. It doesn't really address the heart of the issue, I think. But then you and I have a little disagreement here too, going back to one of my early posts in this thread. 

Paul:
The way I would put Brett's critique would be to suggest that orthodoxy cannot rest on, or depend on any people, whether the few, the many, or the unified whole. Now I do understand that you don't tie orthdoxy to the action of the people, but to the work of the Spirit through the unified action of the people. So in your view orthodoxy does not strictly depend on people. And I agree that the Spirit testifies to the people of God through corporate unity. Popular suffrage is a method endorsed by the Bible. (Acts 14:23 in our translations do not show it, but I am given to understand that a show of hands was employed in the selection of elders, subsepuently appointed by Paul and Barnabas. )

It seems to me, though, that you do hit on something that has bothered me quite often. Often we, as Reformed, can't get through to some stiff-headed D) Arminian or Catholic about the basic uncompromising truths of Scripture. They just don't get it; but not because they don't believe in God. I see some things that I admire in other traditions, such as the depth in simple recitations. But I am equally, and a bit more, disgusted by that same beauty when I see how little an effect it has on the practitioners. It seems to have more meaning for me, as Reformed, than for them. In the end I am back to admiring my own tradition.

All that said, though, I have a different understanding of what orthodoxy is. I don't think that certainty is unachievable to the human understanding. In fact, I would assert, we deal with certainties every day, though we may not think of them as such. We live in this world, within its' norms and strictures, assuming its objectivity all day long. In our reasoning and argumentation we may run into dead-ends all day long too. But that is not because truth is not open to us, or because truth is out of our grasp; rather it is because we push truth away from us. We are not just in the position that truth has to be true because it doesn't work any other way; we have truth revealed to us overtly, both in the creation and in Scripture. And these truths are imposed on all of us, like it or not. We cannot escape it, though we all try.

So if we look at it from the other end of things, that orthodoxy is that tradition which least tries to escape revealed truth, then I believe we have satisfied both our understandings of truth. Of course the least is that which tries not at all to escape. And that, I believe is what the Reformed tradition has endeavoured to achieve. In fact, that is what the very word Reformed entails: semper reformanda; always reforming as we continually submit to the truth of the gospel. The Reformed tradition is the only one in which the word tradition has a unique meaning, one which is an accumulation of practiced submission, rather than a tracing of changing human culture. 

The Reformed community does not mean to ever say that the Bible could mean one thing to one culture and something else to another. There has to be a unity of truth that comprehends both cultures. The one culture does not have to compromise truth, ever, to find commonality with another culture in order to achieve orthodoxy. What is compromised is the errors, the embraced traditions that interfere with orthdoxy. And that the Reformed are willing to do, by confessional standard. That is the sum of their confessional bases. Therefore even in their Confessional statements the standard of truth for doctrine is the Word of God alone, plus no other written document.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 9, 2004)

We cannot revoke what has already been declared. If a large part of the Church, say 95%, denied the Trinity tomorrow, they would be forever anethemized. If this group was a valid group of believers and they were conservative on everything else, if they were respected bible exegetes, they would still be enternally condemned. Atleast the 3 great Creeds can NEVER be revoked, not even if we do find something wrong with them. Finding something wrong with them is a [i:ce57446ab9]contradiction[/i:ce57446ab9] though, because God united the Church to agree, and thus the Church stands as the &quot;ground and pillar of truth&quot; (1 Tim. 3:15), and &quot;the gates of hell shall not prevail.&quot;

[quote:ce57446ab9]Let's presume that we understand orthodoxy is where the confessions and creeds of the true church agree. If we agree that Trent is wrong, and Augsburg, Westminster, and the three forms of unity are right, then the following are universally not orthodox: If the Protestant confessions are true, then the RC was not an orthodox church at the time of trent. 

Roman Catholic (pope is anti-Christ + other heresy) 
Eastern Orthodox 
Traditional Arminian (condemned in smalcad,augsburg, dordt, etc) 
Wesley Arminian 
Anabaptist[/quote:ce57446ab9]

It sounds like your saying that if other churches do not agree, then they are not a true church. I agree with the first line of your post. But just because a group in the Body thinks the other is wrong, does not make one or the other an untrue church. So, your qualifications were not met, in that &quot;orthodoxy is were the true church agrees.&quot; I would say that nowadays, modern Rome, Eastern, and Arminians must agree, or that creed or confession does not constitute the whole church.

Paul


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:0bbbb57049]Well, I guess it's just too bad we have &quot;Christians&quot; like Oneness Pentecostals and &quot;Christians&quot; who deny the deity of Christ. Too bad we can't include those doctrines in our definition of orthodoxy - I guess we just have to accept the fact that those are only our views, and that we have no right to impose them on all who call themselves Christians, since they're not bound to believe them.[/quote:0bbbb57049]

Dude, Oneness Pentecostals are NOT Christians to begin with. Orthodoxy has already been declared. It is irrevocable. Someone cannot come out tomorrow and say something against orthodoxy, and then we have to let them be. NO! They are anethemized.


----------



## raderag (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:bec85239be][i:bec85239be]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:bec85239be]
Brett:

I think you catch the essence of it, but I don't think that it helps at all to call it circular reasoning. It doesn't really address the heart of the issue, I think. But then you and I have a little disagreement here too, going back to one of my early posts in this thread. [/quote:bec85239be]

The problem is in trying to say orthodoxy much be first agreed upon who we consider orthodox.


----------



## raderag (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:b97f7b064c][i:b97f7b064c]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:b97f7b064c]It sounds like your saying that if other churches do not agree, then they are not a true church. I agree with the first line of your post. But just because a group in the Body thinks the other is wrong, does not make one or the other an untrue church. So, your qualifications were not met, in that &quot;orthodoxy is were the true church agrees.&quot; I would say that nowadays, modern Rome, Eastern, and Arminians must agree, or that creed or confession does not constitute the whole church. 

Paul [/quote:b97f7b064c]


Why is Rome, the East, or Arminians considered. All of their theology is condemned in the council of orange. The real question is whether or not you think the post-reform Rome has something to say about orthodoxy? in my opinion, Rome and Protestants orthodoxy are mutually exclusive as they anathematize each other. Furthermore, Arminians are excluded by Protestants.


----------



## raderag (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:8599154eb3][i:8599154eb3]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:8599154eb3]


Dude, Oneness Pentecostals are NOT Christians to begin with. Orthodoxy has already been declared. It is irrevocable. Someone cannot come out tomorrow and say something against orthodoxy, and then we have to let them be. NO! They are anethemized. [/quote:8599154eb3]

That is what I have been trying to say about RC and Arminians.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:6e7880dcd2][i:6e7880dcd2]Originally posted by raderag[/i:6e7880dcd2]
[quote:6e7880dcd2][i:6e7880dcd2]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:6e7880dcd2]


Dude, Oneness Pentecostals are NOT Christians to begin with. Orthodoxy has already been declared. It is irrevocable. Someone cannot come out tomorrow and say something against orthodoxy, and then we have to let them be. NO! They are anethemized. [/quote:6e7880dcd2]

That is what I have been trying to say about RC and Arminians. [/quote:6e7880dcd2]

What, that they are &quot;not Christian to begin with?&quot;


----------



## raderag (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:e023c06084][i:e023c06084]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:e023c06084]


What, that they are &quot;not Christian to begin with?&quot; [/quote:e023c06084]

No, that their orthodoxy has already been determined.

I am curious to your opinion here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5017


----------



## JohnV (Jun 9, 2004)

Paul:

All I'm trying to say is that you don't think that Scripture alone is the rule for right thinking, doctrinally. It seems to me, at least, that you think that we have to make a judgment on what the Word is trying to say, but that it cannot say anything unless we agree on it. So the substance of truth lies in man, not in the Word of God. It's as if the Bible is the combination lock to the repository of truth in man's intellect, but not the information itself. Why is it that truth is not truth unless it is interpreted? After all, is than not the nub of your concern here: that different groups with different importances interpret the Word differently?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:53c32e3da1][i:53c32e3da1]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:53c32e3da1]
[quote:53c32e3da1]Well, I guess it's just too bad we have &quot;Christians&quot; like Oneness Pentecostals and &quot;Christians&quot; who deny the deity of Christ. Too bad we can't include those doctrines in our definition of orthodoxy - I guess we just have to accept the fact that those are only our views, and that we have no right to impose them on all who call themselves Christians, since they're not bound to believe them.[/quote:53c32e3da1]

Dude, Oneness Pentecostals are NOT Christians to begin with. Orthodoxy has already been declared. It is irrevocable. Someone cannot come out tomorrow and say something against orthodoxy, and then we have to let them be. NO! They are anethemized. [/quote:53c32e3da1]

What sets their heresy apart from that of Arminians? If we have no right to say that all Christians are bound to believe that Calvinism is rightly taught in the Word, what gives us any right to say that they are bound to accept the Trinity? [b:53c32e3da1]You're being inconsistent - you're saying that in order for a doctrine to be a binding standard for orthodoxy, it must be agreed upon by &quot;all Christians,&quot; yet you pick and choose whose claims to being Christian are and aren't valid based on their doctrine.[/b:53c32e3da1] You can't have it both ways. Either it is acceptable to say that certain interpretations and doctrines are binding on all who call themselves Christians, or it isn't.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:5e34407855][i:5e34407855]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:5e34407855]
Paul:

All I'm trying to say is that you don't think that Scripture alone is the rule for right thinking, doctrinally. It seems to me, at least, that you think that we have to make a judgment on what the Word is trying to say, but that it cannot say anything unless we agree on it. So the substance of truth lies in man, not in the Word of God. It's as if the Bible is the combination lock to the repository of truth in man's intellect, but not the information itself. Why is it that truth is not truth unless it is interpreted? After all, is than not the nub of your concern here: that different groups with different importances interpret the Word differently? [/quote:5e34407855]

No. The Reformed faith is both orthodoxy and not orthodoxy (depending on which sence), as I've said hundreds of times. I am not saying that we must agree in order for it to be true. The problem is that everyone is interacting with my words but not my [i:5e34407855]terms[/i:5e34407855]. Do I really have to restate what I mean by &quot;orthodox&quot; in the sence that I am trying to talk about?


----------



## raderag (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:67ebfdafed][i:67ebfdafed]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:67ebfdafed]

What sets their heresy apart from that of Arminians? If we have no right to say that all Christians are bound to believe that Calvinism is rightly taught in the Word, what gives us any right to say that they are bound to accept the Trinity? [b:67ebfdafed]You're being inconsistent - you're saying that in order for a doctrine to be a binding standard for orthodoxy, it must be agreed upon by &quot;all Christians,&quot; yet you pick and choose whose claims to being Christian are and aren't valid based on their doctrine.[/b:67ebfdafed] You can't have it both ways. Either it is acceptable to say that certain interpretations and doctrines are binding on all who call themselves Christians, or it isn't. [/quote:67ebfdafed]


Well stated. It is arbitrary to say that all Christians must agree to orthodoxy, and then define orthodoxy through creeds that not all suposed Christians agreed with.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 9, 2004)

Exactly!


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:02dbe63e90]What sets their heresy apart from that of Arminians? If we have no right to say that all Christians are bound to believe that Calvinism is rightly taught in the Word, what gives us any right to say that they are bound to accept the Trinity? You're being inconsistent - you're saying that in order for a doctrine to be a binding standard for orthodoxy, it must be agreed upon by &quot;all Christians,&quot; yet you pick and choose whose claims to being Christian are and aren't valid based on their doctrine. You can't have it both ways. Either it is acceptable to say that certain interpretations and doctrines are binding on all who call themselves Christians, or it isn't.[/quote:02dbe63e90]

The word of God is always binding. All I have been saying is that one group cannot speak for the [i:02dbe63e90]whole[/i:02dbe63e90] Church. We cannot call someone unorthodox on a matter if the whole Church has yet to thoroughly deal with these issues as a unified whole. Thus, something can be within the realm of orthodoxy and yet be heretical, because the Church has yet to pronounce such and such as criteria for orthodoxy or being a Christian.

There is a [i:02dbe63e90]doctrinal priority structure[/i:02dbe63e90]. Not all doctrines are equally important. Few Reformed theologians disagree with this.

Paul


----------



## raderag (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:7541bdb7f3][i:7541bdb7f3]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:7541bdb7f3]


The word of God is always binding. All I have been saying is that one group cannot speak for the [i:7541bdb7f3]whole[/i:7541bdb7f3] Church. We cannot call someone unorthodox on a matter if the whole Church has yet to thoroughly deal with these issues as a unified whole. Thus, something can be within the realm of orthodoxy and yet be heretical, because the Church has yet to pronounce such and such as criteria for orthodoxy or being a Christian.

There is a [i:7541bdb7f3]doctrinal priority structure[/i:7541bdb7f3]. Not all doctrines are equally important. Few Reformed theologians disagree with this.

Paul [/quote:7541bdb7f3]

I agree with you, and Dordt did not say 5 point Calvinism was the positive definition of orthodoxy, but rather than the remonstrances were heresy. All of the Protestant confesssions agree. The fact that the RC doesn't agree shouldn't be material as they were anathematized.

In other words,, the whole church has said that arminianism is unorthodox.


----------



## raderag (Jun 9, 2004)

*a question Paul.*

Would your church allow a member under discipline to decide on a a voting Chruch issue (i.e. Pastor)?

If not, why should we allow the RC (even though it contains Christians) to help define orthodoxy?


----------



## JohnV (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:0dd47af72a][i:0dd47af72a]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:0dd47af72a]
[quote:0dd47af72a][i:0dd47af72a]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:0dd47af72a]
Paul:

All I'm trying to say is that you don't think that Scripture alone is the rule for right thinking, doctrinally. It seems to me, at least, that you think that we have to make a judgment on what the Word is trying to say, but that it cannot say anything unless we agree on it. So the substance of truth lies in man, not in the Word of God. It's as if the Bible is the combination lock to the repository of truth in man's intellect, but not the information itself. Why is it that truth is not truth unless it is interpreted? After all, is than not the nub of your concern here: that different groups with different importances interpret the Word differently? [/quote:0dd47af72a]

No. The Reformed faith is both orthodoxy and not orthodoxy (depending on which sence), as I've said hundreds of times. I am not saying that we must agree in order for it to be true. The problem is that everyone is interacting with my words but not my [i:0dd47af72a]terms[/i:0dd47af72a]. Do I really have to restate what I mean by &quot;orthodox&quot; in the sence that I am trying to talk about? [/quote:0dd47af72a]

I'm sorry, Paul. I thought I was interacting with your sense of orthodoxy. I think that I have said enough on this issue. As I said, I think the point of departure is not the word itself, but the underlying principles of certainty. People think they have liberties on things that they really don't have, and they base it on the uncertainty of truth. But that uncertainty is only apparent within a particular mindset, and not actual. We live in a time when evangelically-minded (the old meaning = gospel-minded) Christians think that their ideas of Biblical doctrine are unassailable, when in fact they are not. They only hide in their traditions; and their traditions are sacrosanct to them. 

Brett is right, I think; but it just isn't helpful, in my humble estimation. It's just critique, and not, as you say, interaction with your terms. But then, my critique doesn't interact with his terms. So who am I to speak. 

I'll just watch from a distance, OK? Just keep up the good work.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:13522ab914]I agree with you, and Dordt did not say 5 point Calvinism was the positive definition of orthodoxy, but rather than the remonstrances were heresy. All of the Protestant confesssions agree. The fact that the RC doesn't agree shouldn't be material as they were anathematized. 

In other words,, the whole church has said that arminianism is unorthodox.[/quote:13522ab914]

Its funny because this comes down to &quot;who is the [true] church,&quot; just how the thread on Roman baptism is going.

Let us clarify, just because something is &quot;heresy&quot; doesn't mean that it is necessarily &quot;unorthodox&quot; (in the sence that I am talking about). What do you think about this?

You said: &quot;The fact that the RC doesn't agree shouldn't be material as they were anathematized.&quot; I don't believe that the Protestants consisted of the [i:13522ab914]whole[/i:13522ab914] Church. A divided kingdom can excommunicate each other, but what good does it really do if they are still of the same kingdom? Now, we are faced with this: is Rome still a part of that Kingdom (the Church)? I'd have to say yes. And I'm sure we will not be able to tackle any other issues before we deal with whether Rome was a [true] church at the time of the Reformation...

Paul



[Edited on 6-10-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:3dc2346efd][i:3dc2346efd]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:3dc2346efd]
[quote:3dc2346efd]What sets their heresy apart from that of Arminians? If we have no right to say that all Christians are bound to believe that Calvinism is rightly taught in the Word, what gives us any right to say that they are bound to accept the Trinity? You're being inconsistent - you're saying that in order for a doctrine to be a binding standard for orthodoxy, it must be agreed upon by &quot;all Christians,&quot; yet you pick and choose whose claims to being Christian are and aren't valid based on their doctrine. You can't have it both ways. Either it is acceptable to say that certain interpretations and doctrines are binding on all who call themselves Christians, or it isn't.[/quote:3dc2346efd]

The word of God is always binding. All I have been saying is that one group cannot speak for the [i:3dc2346efd]whole[/i:3dc2346efd] Church. We cannot call someone unorthodox on a matter if the whole Church has yet to thoroughly deal with these issues as a unified whole. Thus, something can be within the realm of orthodoxy and yet be heretical, because the Church has yet to pronounce such and such as criteria for orthodoxy or being a Christian.

There is a [i:3dc2346efd]doctrinal priority structure[/i:3dc2346efd]. Not all doctrines are equally important. Few Reformed theologians disagree with this.

Paul [/quote:3dc2346efd]

But you're still making the [i:3dc2346efd]exact[/i:3dc2346efd] same error - you're saying &quot;we cannot call someone unorthodox on a matter if the whole Church has yet to thoroughly deal with these issues as a unified whole,&quot; yet somehow when I object that your view logically leads to Mormonism not being unorthodox, you respond with, &quot;Oh, well they're not really part of the chuch.&quot; And how did you decide that? By their doctrines! That reasoning is totally non-sequitor. Your saying that we can't say Arminianism is unorthodox [i:3dc2346efd]precisely because the whole external community who call themselves Christians don't agree on it[/i:3dc2346efd] - but then you say that Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals are somehow excluded from that external community. That is flawed reasoning. Again, [b:3dc2346efd]you can't have it both ways - if you want to wait until the whole external Christian church agrees on a doctrine before calling it orthodox, you can't pick and choose which external Christians to include in your definition of &quot;the church&quot; based on a doctrine of theirs[/b:3dc2346efd].


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:4c6abe31bb]but then you say that Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals are somehow excluded from that external community. That is flawed reasoning.[/quote:4c6abe31bb]

I think you misunderstood me. They are not Christians because orthodoxy has already been determined during the ecumenical councils (we can build on that too, though, when they are ecumenical). Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals are not Christians because orthodoxy has already said so: the Trinity has been declared as true doctrine, therefore they are unorthodox.

See what I'm saying now??

Paul


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 10, 2004)

Yeah, Paul, I think I understand where you're coming from a bit more now. Granted, at the time the ecumenical councils met, the doctrines stated in the creeds were universally agreed upon - people like Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals have simply denied them after the fact. So it seems to me that you're saying that if the entire external true church can universally agree on something at a certain time, it is to be considered a requirement for orthodoxy from that point forward, even if other so-called Christians deny it after that.

Under that definition, if one considers Rome to have been a false church during the Reformation, the entire external true church (i.e. all Reformed/Protestant Christians, since the two terms were synonymous for a short time during that period) [i:d292d9a14c]would have[/i:d292d9a14c] actually agreed on, say, the doctrines of grace. So therefore, even though they were denied by true churches after that, they should be considered a binding part of orthodoxy.

So I guess you were right in saying that the whole question of our perspective of &quot;orthodoxy&quot; is directly correspondent to our view of whether or not we consider Rome to have been a true church during the Reformation. So maybe we should conclude that this issue has been sufficiently discussed, and move on to a continual discussion of Rome as a true church during the Reformation, in the existing thread for that topic.

In Christ,


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:b41c00ee26][i:b41c00ee26]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:b41c00ee26]
Yeah, Paul, I think I understand where you're coming from a bit more now. Granted, at the time the ecumenical councils met, the doctrines stated in the creeds were universally agreed upon - people like Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals have simply denied them after the fact. So it seems to me that you're saying that if the entire external true church can universally agree on something at a certain time, it is to be considered a requirement for orthodoxy from that point forward, even if other so-called Christians deny it after that.

Under that definition, if one considers Rome to have been a false church during the Reformation, the entire external true church (i.e. all Reformed/Protestant Christians, since the two terms were synonymous for a short time during that period) [i:b41c00ee26]would have[/i:b41c00ee26] actually agreed on, say, the doctrines of grace. So therefore, even though they were denied by true churches after that, they should be considered a binding part of orthodoxy.

So I guess you were right in saying that the whole question of our perspective of &quot;orthodoxy&quot; is directly correspondent to our view of whether or not we consider Rome to have been a true church during the Reformation. So maybe we should conclude that this issue has been sufficiently discussed, and move on to a continual discussion of Rome as a true church during the Reformation, in the existing thread for that topic.

In Christ, [/quote:b41c00ee26]



Some considerations for your second paragraph: the ONLY confession/creed that I can think of that most everybody would agree upon is the 'Augsburg Confession'. So, that would be the only one that is [i:b41c00ee26]solemnly determined as true doctrine[/i:b41c00ee26] by the church. Representatives from the whole Church do not need to be present, they just need to be agreed upon (as in the case of some ecumenical councils).

I don't think that an [i:b41c00ee26]idea[/i:b41c00ee26] of 'doctrines of grace' would qualify though. There needs to be something tangible (i.e. council or creed).

Remember this is only IF Rome was not a true church during that time. Also, you must be able to prove that the Orthodox were not a true church. I think they both were true: just a divided Kingdom, like we have today (denominationalism).

Paul

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 10, 2004)

&quot;If the entire external true church can universally agree on something at a certain time, it is to be considered a requirement for orthodoxy from that point forward, even if other so-called Christians deny it after that.&quot; In conclusion, if one sees that as a sufficient definition of universally binding orthodoxy, they're view of what is and isn't &quot;orthodox&quot; will directly correspond with their view of whether or not Rome was a true church during the Reformation.

Personally, I don't really even like that definition, since it's making the binding standards for truth dependent upon the existence of a time when everyone happens to understand them. But I don't think further debate of it being a beneficial definition will really be productive at this point, as we have been vigorously debating that throughout the whole thread, which has gotten fairly long. So as much as I usually hate the use of this phrase, I think we should probably agree to disagree on just how to [i:d3ac2f8840]define[/i:d3ac2f8840] orthodoxy in the first place (i.e. either as an intrinsic, unchangeable issue, solely dependent on Scripture, [i:d3ac2f8840]or[/i:d3ac2f8840] as a pragmatic, changeable issue, dependent upon history as well as Scripture). It seems like the term means different things to us, which we may just have to abide by. Again, I think that in light of that, and in light of the correspondence between Rome's validity and our view of what doctrines the above definition of orthodoxy would include, we should move on to the existing discussion of the standards for a true church, and Rome's fulfillment of them during the Reformation. This has been a good thread.

In Christ,


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 10, 2004)

[quote:7ec7b3c207](i.e. either as an intrinsic, unchangeable issue, solely dependent on Scripture, or as a pragmatic, changeable issue, dependent upon history as well as Scripture)[/quote:7ec7b3c207]

Closing statement: My idea is that we [i:7ec7b3c207]declare[/i:7ec7b3c207] something as orthodoxy. which then gives us the right to say such and such is orthodox. So then I don't think it is changeable, unless if you mean in the sence of adding to our understanding of what already is true.

Okay, enough of this. Lets start a NEW thread on the qualifications of a true church, before we get to Rome specifically. All of our discussions on this subject have been on threads of other topics.

Paul


----------



## py3ak (Jun 11, 2004)

*Latecomer*

I hope you'll forgive me for coming on after the closing statements --I only really started reading this thread this evening. I think that what I will say will be different to the historical discussion that you are beginning on the state of the Roman church.

Paul, it seems to me that the addition of a couple of adjectives might be helpful in clarifying these discussions. Those who interacted with you persistently thought of orthodoxy in terms of what we could call [i:5657e46342]Biblical orthodoxy[/i:5657e46342], that is, doctrine that is in line with Scripture. You spoke, on the other hand, of what I would call [i:5657e46342]ecclesiastical orthodoxy[/i:5657e46342], that is, what the Church agrees on as the right understanding of Scripture. Thus, Calvinism is orthodox when considered in a Biblical light. It is acceptable within the orthodox ecclesiastical community. But it is not itself a test of ecclesiastical orthodoxy in the same way that the Nicene creed would be. Is that pretty much what you were driving at?

Now, I must admit that a problem strikes me in your view of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. It is that you select the 3 creeds as being the ecclesiastical orthodoxy so far established, and deny the status of true Christian to any who disagree with them. But in fact, the Nicene creed was not the faith of the universal church at the time of its original promulgation --witness the frequent exiles of Athanasius after Nicea, the hot debates at the council itself, the widespread support for Arius, the middle-of-the-roaders, etc. Now certainly, the true church held to the truth: by God's grace, that truth was established as ecclesiastical orthodoxy. But my point is, that in these &quot;agreements of the universal church&quot;, people who had been in the church up to that point got kicked out --and to deny the validity of their being in the church on grounds of ecclesiastical orthodoxy begs the question. Which forces us back, I think, to the view that ultimately ecclesiastical orthodoxy is of great, but limited utility, and must always be subordinate to Biblical orthodoxy --which, of course, is the position of the WCF, as Brett already posted


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:9b3b5eeab7]Paul, it seems to me that the addition of a couple of adjectives might be helpful in clarifying these discussions. Those who interacted with you persistently thought of orthodoxy in terms of what we could call Biblical orthodoxy, that is, doctrine that is in line with Scripture. You spoke, on the other hand, of what I would call ecclesiastical orthodoxy , that is, what the Church agrees on as the right understanding of Scripture. Thus, Calvinism is orthodox when considered in a Biblical light. It is acceptable within the orthodox ecclesiastical community. But it is not itself a test of ecclesiastical orthodoxy in the same way that the Nicene creed would be. Is that pretty much what you were driving at?[/quote:9b3b5eeab7]

Exactly! I wish I made it that clear. 

[quote:9b3b5eeab7]Now, I must admit that a problem strikes me in your view of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. It is that you select the 3 creeds as being the ecclesiastical orthodoxy so far established, and deny the status of true Christian to any who disagree with them. But in fact, the Nicene creed was not the faith of the universal church at the time of its original promulgation --witness the frequent exiles of Athanasius after Nicea, the hot debates at the council itself, the widespread support for Arius, the middle-of-the-roaders, etc. Now certainly, the true church held to the truth: by God's grace, that truth was established as ecclesiastical orthodoxy. But my point is, that in these &quot;agreements of the universal church&quot;, people who had been in the church up to that point got kicked out --and to deny the validity of their being in the church on grounds of ecclesiastical orthodoxy begs the question. Which forces us back, I think, to the view that ultimately ecclesiastical orthodoxy is of great, but limited utility, and must always be subordinate to Biblical orthodoxy --which, of course, is the position of the WCF, as Brett already posted[/quote:9b3b5eeab7]

Yes, from a Presbyterian viewpoint it begs the question. Thats why I am beginning to see the need for Apostolic tradition and Episcopalian government. I mean, it seems that its the only way things can work consistently: how else can the Apostolic Church declare something ex cathedra? 

I am starting to scare myself that I'm starting to take a Roman view on this. But it is the only way I can see how this all works out. See my thread on &quot;Apostolic succession.&quot; Try to detour me before it is too late.

One can say that believing all these things is not necessary. But I believe that without ecclesiastical orthodoxy declared ex cathedra, nothing can be coherent. There must be a unifying principle in our [i:9b3b5eeab7]interpretation[/i:9b3b5eeab7] of the Bible. Or else how could we be unified? 

Paul


----------



## py3ak (Jun 11, 2004)

Yes, it's always frightening when your foundations suddenly seem wobbly. I will pray for you about it.


[quote:0bad632227]
Try to detour me before it is too late. 
[/quote:0bad632227]

I don't have all the answers, obviously, but two things strike me, in addition to what I posted on the apostolic succession thread.

One, I am not sure that apostolic succession or ex cathedra declarations take you any further forward. Again we have the difficulty of who speaks ex cathedra. If you make humans in any form the unifying principle for interpretation, you have the problem of &quot;which humans?&quot; Who defines apostolic tradition? What about divergent apostolic traditions? Why should some really pretty nebulous tradition take precedence over a well-defined written apostolic tradition? And doesn't the unwritten apostolic tradition also need to be interpreted?

Two, is that the perspicuity of Scripture is vital. Scripture is sufficiently comprehensible to those who have the mind of Christ. Those who have this mind will, therefore, on major issues tend to agree, precisely because Scripture is perspicuous. I have experienced this personally when I have studied Scripture and realized something that was brand-new to me --and then I find that it had been taught before. 

On a practical level, it might be helpful to focus on a different issue for a while. Sometimes it's good to turn away from tough debates for a while to study something really uplifting, like the believer's union with Christ (which I just started a thread on), or the character of God. It usually helps me to gain some perspective and balance when I've been disturbed by some particular issue, if I consider something more devotional. And particularly a greater concentration on Scripture itself with a corresponding diminution in men's productions. There is nothing like the word of God itself.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:51addf3fd9]One, I am not sure that apostolic succession or ex cathedra declarations take you any further forward. Again we have the difficulty of who speaks ex cathedra. If you make humans in any form the unifying principle for interpretation, you have the problem of &quot;which humans?&quot; Who defines apostolic tradition? What about divergent apostolic traditions? Why should some really pretty nebulous tradition take precedence over a well-defined written apostolic tradition? And doesn't the unwritten apostolic tradition also need to be interpreted?[/quote:51addf3fd9]

Who speaks ex cathedra? Those who can trace apostolic succession. The Early Fathers always used this. Without it, I'm afraid I can't prove anything before AD200; not even the Scriptures themselves. How do you know they haven't been radically changed? All of our manuscripts stop at the 3rd and 4rth centuries (except for pieces).

Paul


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 11, 2004)

I read recently an analogy of the church as being an omellette that is made of eggs. It seems like maybe you are focussing too heavily on the omellette right now, and are in danger of ending up with doctrines that deny the eggs. I am not well versed in all these questions, and I'm not pretending that I can say anything profound: but I have lived in Mexico, and I do know what an omellette without eggs looks like. This is a country where Roman Catholicism has had full sway, and looks much more like itself than it does in the states, where it has to make all sorts of concessions to former Protestants, people who live next door to Protestants, etc. It is a woman who believes that God will be appeased for sin by taking money from from the household necessities (like shoes for her children) to pay the priest for masses for a dead child. It is a mass of poor people like we don't have in the states crawling across a courtyard to an ornate building who believe that the Eternal God is going to be satisfied for their sin by their hail marys, their crawling, and their money. It is a whole teeming country who pray to Mary instead of Christ, as if Christ dying for them wasn't proof of His goodwill and approachableness. It is millions of people who are not allowed to have any assurance of salvation for themselves or their dead loved ones, and the only comfort they are offered is the goodwill of a God who accepts their money for their souls. You don't realize the spiritual and material poverty these people are kept in by the church of Rome. I'm saying this because I think you don't understand that your dilemma about different interpretations and unity would not be solved by ex-cathedra declarations: there are just as different interpretations of popes and councils (such as the vast difference in doctrine and practice between Catholicism in the states and in Mexico) as there are different interpretations of Scripture. The staunchest Catholics I know in the states would utterly reject the Catholicism of Mexico. Yet they are naive: they assume that Catholicism is the same everywhere, and even more naively they assume that American Catholicism is the standard. The fact is that over the centuries, the pope has only interpreted a handful of Scriptures ex-cathedra; and they have no more unity when it comes to Scripture than they think we have. 

I would also encourage you to focus on other things for a little while-- especially maybe on the eggs instead of the omellette. The unity we have is primarily an individual union with Christ, that unites us all in Him. You say that you feel in danger of being convinced of these doctrines: the Bible does give us a very practical admonition to cease from doctrines that are causing us to err.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 11, 2004)

Paul,

On the historical side of the argument, I will let others who are better equipped respond to you. 

Apostolic succession, though, is problematic. What sort of succession is it if we arrive at a place where the apostolic foundation is denied? Why are we compelled to think of succession in what I can only call materialistic terms? Surely the question of faithfulness to apostolic testimony is fundamental in thinking of succession. I may be ordained by someone who was ordained by someone...who was ordained by Paul; but if I am not true to Paul's legacy, I am not truly his successor.

Certainly, the early church appealed to continuity in teaching --but they did that with the OT as well.

How do I know the Scriptures haven't changed? Because God is faithful --something, by the way, we know from the OT.


----------



## raderag (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:1c73b5ac34][i:1c73b5ac34]Originally posted by a mere housewife[/i:1c73b5ac34]
I read recently an analogy of the church as being an omellette that is made of eggs. It seems like maybe you are focussing too heavily on the omellette right now, and are in danger of ending up with doctrines that deny the eggs. I am not well versed in all these questions, and I'm not pretending that I can say anything profound: but I have lived in Mexico, and I do know what an omellette without eggs looks like. This is a country where Roman Catholicism has had full sway, and looks much more like itself than it does in the states, where it has to make all sorts of concessions to former Protestants, people who live next door to Protestants, etc. It is a woman who believes that God will be appeased for sin by taking money from from the household necessities (like shoes for her children) to pay the priest for masses for a dead child. It is a mass of poor people like we don't have in the states crawling across a courtyard to an ornate building who believe that the Eternal God is going to be satisfied for their sin by their hail marys, their crawling, and their money. It is a whole teeming country who pray to Mary instead of Christ, as if Christ dying for them wasn't proof of His goodwill and approachableness. It is millions of people who are not allowed to have any assurance of salvation for themselves or their dead loved ones, and the only comfort they are offered is the goodwill of a God who accepts their money for their souls. You don't realize the spiritual and material poverty these people are kept in by the church of Rome. I'm saying this because I think you don't understand that your dilemma about different interpretations and unity would not be solved by ex-cathedra declarations: there are just as different interpretations of popes and councils (such as the vast difference in doctrine and practice between Catholicism in the states and in Mexico) as there are different interpretations of Scripture. The staunchest Catholics I know in the states would utterly reject the Catholicism of Mexico. Yet they are naive: they assume that Catholicism is the same everywhere, and even more naively they assume that American Catholicism is the standard. The fact is that over the centuries, the pope has only interpreted a handful of Scriptures ex-cathedra; and they have no more unity when it comes to Scripture than they think we have. 

I would also encourage you to focus on other things for a little while-- especially maybe on the eggs instead of the omellette. The unity we have is primarily an individual union with Christ, that unites us all in Him. You say that you feel in danger of being convinced of these doctrines: the Bible does give us a very practical admonition to cease from doctrines that are causing us to err. [/quote:1c73b5ac34]

That was well said. Wow.


----------



## wsw201 (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:a5f988d720]
Yes, from a Presbyterian viewpoint it begs the question. Thats why I am beginning to see the need for Apostolic tradition and Episcopalian government. I mean, it seems that its the only way things can work consistently: how else can the Apostolic Church declare something ex cathedra? 

I am starting to scare myself that I'm starting to take a Roman view on this. But it is the only way I can see how this all works out. See my thread on &quot;Apostolic succession.&quot; Try to detour me before it is too late. 

One can say that believing all these things is not necessary. But I believe that without ecclesiastical orthodoxy declared ex cathedra, nothing can be coherent. There must be a unifying principle in our interpretation of the Bible. Or else how could we be unified? 

[/quote:a5f988d720]

You are missing something here. The historical creeds and the Reformed confessions were not necessarily pro-active statements but re-active statements primarily against heresies but also to establish what the Church believed Scripture taught. Creeds do not establish orthodoxy per se, only Scripture can do that, but they do attempt to reflect the biblical truths that can guide the Church. 

The form of church government can have no impact whatsoever on orthodoxy. The Episcopalian form of government did not stop heresy from overtakeing the Church of England or the Espiscopal Church here in the US (consider the ordination of a homosexual bishop and of course Shelby Spong). The only thing it appears to have done is perpetuate ritualism. 

Orthodoxy is only as relevent as the Church is willing to enforce it or people are willing to submit to it. The church can declare doctrines ex cathedra all it wants, but today, just as it has always been, orthodoxy is in the eyes of the beholder as each person says &quot;Has God indeed said..&quot; 

You want a unified Church, then I suggest pray as John did &quot;Even so, come, Lord Jesus!&quot;


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:b6c120875a]Creeds do not establish orthodoxy per se, only Scripture can do that, but they do attempt to reflect the biblical truths that can guide the Church.[/quote:b6c120875a] 

The Creeds and Councils were to establish what the Church believed was orthodox doctrine. Therefore we can say that they established orthodoxy [in the Church].

[quote:b6c120875a]The form of church government can have no impact whatsoever on orthodoxy. The Episcopalian form of government did not stop heresy from overtakeing the Church of England or the Espiscopal Church here in the US (consider the ordination of a homosexual bishop and of course Shelby Spong). The only thing it appears to have done is perpetuate ritualism.[/quote:b6c120875a] 

If you don't think the Church can establish something as orthodox doctrine (i.e. Trinity), then yes. When I mentioned episcopalian government I was talking about the early church must have been episcopalian in order for us to know true doctrine. The verbal word was the relient word. The early Church HAD to trust first hand sources. These sources must have been put in charge and ordained by the Apostles. These people must have successed the Apostles.

[quote:b6c120875a]You want a unified Church, then I suggest pray as John did &quot;Even so, come, Lord Jesus!&quot; [/quote:b6c120875a]

True.

Paul

[Edited on 6-11-2004 by rembrandt]


----------



## py3ak (Jun 11, 2004)

Paul,

Why would it be a problem to trust first hand sources? Surely those are the best! And, in God's glorious providence, that is exactly what we have in most of the NT --first hand accounts (with the possible exception of Luke, portions of Acts, Mark, Hebrews &amp; Jude). We have firsthand accounts of Christ's life and teaching. We have firsthand revelation from God. The Bible is the record of revelation --but it is itself revelation. See B.B. Warfield.
After the death of the last apostle the church was in much the same position we are in today. Before the canon was closed they were in a slightly different position, but not badly off at all since they could ask an apostle about something that had not yet been inscripturated.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:f0aa5a09a3][i:f0aa5a09a3]Originally posted by py3ak[/i:f0aa5a09a3]
Paul,

Why would it be a problem to trust first hand sources? Surely those are the best! And, in God's glorious providence, that is exactly what we have in most of the NT --first hand accounts (with the possible exception of Luke, portions of Acts, Mark, Hebrews &amp; Jude). We have firsthand accounts of Christ's life and teaching. We have firsthand revelation from God. The Bible is the record of revelation --but it is itself revelation. See B.B. Warfield.
After the death of the last apostle the church was in much the same position we are in today. Before the canon was closed they were in a slightly different position, but not badly off at all since they could ask an apostle about something that had not yet been inscripturated. [/quote:f0aa5a09a3]

Okay, the problem was that they didn't know who were the first hand sources. Did such and such REALLY write this book? How are we to receive this book as true? You see, there was no way to know that these actually were first hand sources except by second hand sources. A reading of &quot;The Canon of Scripture&quot; by F.F. Bruce will varify that this was precisely the case.

The question then for determining a book of the NT was, &quot;Is this the tradition in which we have received.&quot; The only way to varify the true tradition (by tradition here I simply mean &quot;teaching&quot was to point to the churches that the apostles themselves established. The apostles apointed elders/bishops at these churches therefore they can be looked upon as knowing the true teaching of Christ.

And from there they were able to validate the first hand sources. The &quot;testimony of the Spirit&quot; for determining the truthfullnes of the canon that Calvin talked about, can only be used once Canon is once and for all set in stone. The question in the early church was not about inward feelings, but objective truths. And this could only be verified by the Apostolic Fathers.

Paul


----------



## py3ak (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:362906da58]
Okay, the problem was that they didn't know who were the first hand sources. Did such and such REALLY write this book? How are we to receive this book as true? You see, there was no way to know that these actually were first hand sources except by second hand sources. A reading of &quot;The Canon of Scripture&quot; by F.F. Bruce will varify that this was precisely the case. 
[/quote:362906da58]

Paul, I think your statement overlooks an interesting finale to one of Paul's epistles. 2 Thessalonians 3:17 &quot;The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.&quot; There was something to identify the autographs as coming from Paul. Also, it overlooks the anonymous epistle of Hebrews.

[quote:362906da58]
The question then for determining a book of the NT was, &quot;Is this the tradition in which we have received.&quot; The only way to varify the true tradition (by tradition here I simply mean &quot;teaching&quot was to point to the churches that the apostles themselves established. The apostles apointed elders/bishops at these churches therefore they can be looked upon as knowing the true teaching of Christ.
[/quote:362906da58]

Yes, you are correct in stating that they had to measure the putative writings. However, I disagree that the only way was to point to the churches already established, for two reasons. One, is that it ignores the OT. The 2nd, is that the churches the apostles established were often corrupted. Galatia had problems, Corinth had problems, Ephesus, Laodicea, Crete had problems. Paul has to write to the Corinthians, &quot;So we preach and so ye believed&quot;, reminding them of what they once held to be true. And there were heretics --even heretics purporting to be validated by the Mother Church. So there is a difficulty: a church founded by an apostle could well be corrupted. And such a corrupt church would be likely to support a corrupt literary production. In other words, historic descent from the apostles is meaningless without actual agreement with the apostles. The fact that someone was appointed to a given charge by an apostle was no guarantee of faithfulness.

The writings were well known and widely spread. Paul seems to quote from Luke. Peter read Paul's writings. I don't think that it was such a difficult problem as it seems to us, when we look back. It seems hard to us because so much documentary evidence from the time has been lost to wear and tear.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:7dad0c6bd8]Paul, I think your statement overlooks an interesting finale to one of Paul's epistles. 2 Thessalonians 3:17 &quot;The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.&quot; There was something to identify the autographs as coming from Paul. Also, it overlooks the anonymous epistle of Hebrews.[/quote:7dad0c6bd8]

A simple study of this topic will prove that there were too many fakes to take it that easily. If I remember correctly, Paul says himself that somebody might be writting a fake epistle in his name. Out of all the fake epistles and gospels in other people's names, there must have been another test than a name itself.

[quote:7dad0c6bd8]In other words, historic descent from the apostles is meaningless without actual agreement with the apostles. The fact that someone was appointed to a given charge by an apostle was no guarantee of faithfulness.[/quote:7dad0c6bd8]

I agree.

Paul


----------



## py3ak (Jun 11, 2004)

Paul,

Yes, there is some suspicion of a fake. I think 2 Thessalonians 3:17 may be getting at a signature --Paul ordinarily used an amanuensis, perhaps due to bad eyesight (he wrote to the Galatians with large letters in his own hand). Of course, those who had heard Paul speak, or read other letters by him, would have had little difficulty recognising his style. You don't have to see the title page to know when you're reading a sermon by Lloyd-Jones --his style is all his own.

I have a couple of question for you. I believe you indicate that we have two sources of apostolic tradition --the Scripture itself, and then the &quot;oral tradition&quot;. 
1. Do you hold to the sufficiency of Scripture?
2. Do you see any use for oral tradition except as a witness to written tradition?
3. Do you think of oral tradition as inspired?
4. How do we know what the oral tradition was?

[Edited on 6-12-2004 by py3ak]


----------



## yeutter (Jun 11, 2004)

WSW had it right when he said that the creeds are not proactive statements but are reactive against errors.

Creeds do not define our faith as much as they define the limits of unbelief.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:7cd012c8f2][i:7cd012c8f2]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:7cd012c8f2]
WSW had it right when he said that the creeds are not proactive statements but are reactive against errors.

Creeds do not define our faith as much as they define the limits of unbelief. [/quote:7cd012c8f2]

True. They put up barriers for unorthodoxy, thus establishing orthodoxy.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:da9a8522f5]1. Do you hold to the sufficiency of Scripture?[/quote:da9a8522f5]

Yes. 

[quote:da9a8522f5]2. Do you see any use for oral tradition except as a witness to written tradition?[/quote:da9a8522f5]

There are two forms that &quot;tradition&quot; (or &quot;teaching&quot comes in. 
2 Thessalonians 2:15 &quot;So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by [b:da9a8522f5]word of mouth[/b:da9a8522f5] or by [b:da9a8522f5]letter[/b:da9a8522f5].&quot; 

Now that we have the Word completely given, I don't see use for oral tradition at all. I mean, would there be something in 'oral speach' that is not already written down? Why wouldn't the apostles have written it down? I think that is a Roman myth. Though there is a use for traditions in general, but thats not what Paul is talking about.

[quote:da9a8522f5]3. Do you think of oral tradition as inspired?[/quote:da9a8522f5] 

The teaching is already inspired to begin with. For example, if someone read out of an epistle, that would be inspired teaching; but only because the Word was inspired. I believe that everything that [b:da9a8522f5]we[/b:da9a8522f5] [i:da9a8522f5]need[/i:da9a8522f5] and are commanded to follow is written down. But before the Bible was completed, I guess you can say in a sence it was inspired, but only if you want to call reading out of a book inspired: because it is the teaching itself that is inspired. 

[quote:da9a8522f5]4. How do we know what the oral tradition was?[/quote:da9a8522f5] 

Apostolic era: &quot;Was this what Jesus taught?&quot; &quot;Are these people speaking on behalf of Jesus, or not (and the tests of apostolic validity follow from that)?&quot;
Apostolic Father's era: &quot;Was this what Jesus' followers taught?&quot;

Paul


----------



## py3ak (Jun 12, 2004)

1 &amp; 2 we are agreed on.


[quote:0a9a35f5a1]
The teaching is already inspired to begin with. For example, if someone read out of an epistle, that would be inspired teaching; but only because the Word was inspired. I believe that everything that we need and are commanded to follow is written down. But before the Bible was completed, I guess you can say in a sence it was inspired, but only if you want to call reading out of a book inspired: because it is the teaching itself that is inspired. 
[/quote:0a9a35f5a1]

Would it be fair to summarize your view here as being that oral tradition (in the sense of Timothy telling people what Paul told him) is a RECORD of revelation, while the Scripture is itself revelation?


[quote:0a9a35f5a1]
Apostolic era: &quot;Was this what Jesus taught?&quot;
[/quote:0a9a35f5a1]

What would you do then with the new revelations that were given? The things that Jesus did not say to the disciples, because they couldn't bear them, but sent the Holy Spirit to teach them. 

[quote:0a9a35f5a1]
Apostolic Father's era: &quot;Was this what Jesus' followers taught?&quot; 
[/quote:0a9a35f5a1]

How did they define Jesus' followers? How did they judge the different claims?


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:b02db25001]Would it be fair to summarize your view here as being that oral tradition (in the sense of Timothy telling people what Paul told him) is a RECORD of revelation, while the Scripture is itself revelation?[/quote:b02db25001]

Oral tradition and written tradition are one and the same thing. For example, the words and letters in our translated Bibles are not inspired: they are only symbols (the thought is inspired in so much as it accords with the original). If I were to read a book of the Bible, I could be said to speak &quot;infallible words&quot; at that very point in time. Speech and written words are only symbols containing a message. 

The [i:b02db25001]words[/i:b02db25001] in the Bible that I have in front of me are not revelation [in themselves]. They are an acount of revelation from the original manuscripts. In regards to what you said about &quot;scripture&quot; being revelation, I don't think something needs to be written down in order for it to be revelation. However, in the post-apostolic age, I think we can say that it needs to be written, since God tells us that it is his full acount for us.

[quote:b02db25001]What would you do then with the new revelations that were given? The things that Jesus did not say to the disciples, because they couldn't bear them, but sent the Holy Spirit to teach them.[/quote:b02db25001]

The apostles, even though they didn't have to, went back and showed the people how this was the message in the OT and the message that Jesus taught. If the revelation wasn't fully revealed until after Jesus died, they still went back and showed how it fit into the framework of the OT and Jesus' teachings. Even things where Apostle Paul says &quot;this is a mystery now revealed,&quot; there is still things in the OT that witness to it. 

I think it was abundantly obvious to distinguish false teachings from those that were true. Gnosticism crept it's head in wherever possible. If something wasn't a real message, it was obvious. I think Paul thought the same way when he gave a very broad determination for true prophesy (in Cor. 13): &quot;If they say that Jesus is Lord etc etc....&quot; If the spirit of it exalts Jesus, then we can be sure of its truthfullness, since the antichrist always brings in gnosticism and stuff, such as when Apostle John gave the determination for true prophesy: &quot;If they say that Jesus came in the flesh etc. etc.&quot; From studying the formation of the NT Canon, I believe that it is safe to say that NT books were determined as true or false with ease (save the deuterocanonical). Anything that was true (written early enough to be from the apostles), they kept. 

[quote:b02db25001]How did they define Jesus' followers? How did they judge the different claims?[/quote:b02db25001]

I'm sure that after the Apostolic Father's era, people were well aquainted with the Biblical message of Jesus. Were there where no writtings at hand, people knew the teachings by memory (I think that in the early church, when writtings had yet to be dispersed, that this can be called 'oral tradition').

Paul


----------



## py3ak (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:889c522de6]
Oral tradition and written tradition are one and the same thing. For example, the words and letters in our translated Bibles are not inspired: they are only symbols (the thought is inspired in so much as it accords with the original). If I were to read a book of the Bible, I could be said to speak &quot;infallible words&quot; at that very point in time. Speech and written words are only symbols containing a message. 
[/quote:889c522de6]

Yes, they are the same thing with regard to content. So far we are agreed. Do you believe in verbal inspiration? One of your sentences made me think I should clarify that.

The distinction I was trying to draw in saying this:
[quote:889c522de6]
Would it be fair to summarize your view here as being that oral tradition (in the sense of Timothy telling people what Paul told him) is a RECORD of revelation, while the Scripture is itself revelation?
[/quote:889c522de6]
might be better put. Timothy is not inspired when he is telling people what Paul told him. He is repeating revelation --but his repetition is not inspired. 

No, something does not have to be written to be revelation. It sounds like we agreed that all special revelation that God has given to us currently is written down. Am I reading you correctly?

You say

[quote:889c522de6]
The apostles, even though they didn't have to, went back and showed the people how this was the message in the OT and the message that Jesus taught.
[/quote:889c522de6]

Why do you say, &quot;[i:889c522de6]even though they didn't have to[/i:889c522de6]&quot;?


[quote:889c522de6]
I'm sure that after the Apostolic Father's era, people were well aquainted with the Biblical message of Jesus. Were there where no writtings at hand, people knew the teachings by memory (I think that in the early church, when writtings had yet to be dispersed, that this can be called 'oral tradition'). 
[/quote:889c522de6]

My point is that the writings were widely dispersed --at least the homolegomena. For instance, Paul leaves specific instructions for the Colossian epistle to be read in Laodicea. Almost certainly some Colossian would have made a copy for Laodicea. Paul's oponents in Corinth spoke of his &quot;letters&quot; [i:889c522de6]plural[/i:889c522de6] as being weighty and powerful. The writings were circulated very widely. In other words, I agree that it was not difficult to recognise the canon, and that they had ample means for determining false teaching. But I hold that it was not difficult because of the writings themselves, and their wide dissemination, with people like Clement of Rome's memories being secondary sources only. The Apostle's had a promise of the Holy Spirit bringing things to their remembrance. I don't know that anyone else had that guarantee. It is for that reason, as well as the frequent corruptions even in the apostolic church (which were frequently remedied by writing), that I hesitate to ascribe too much to the oral tradition. There is an instance in John 21 of oral tradition --and it was corrupted very quickly.

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by py3ak]

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by py3ak]


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:ada1cbb7a1]Do you believe in verbal inspiration?[/quote:ada1cbb7a1]

Absolutely. I was going to put that in parenthesis, just so you know that I believe that. Verbal inspiration was an exception. I believe that when the prophets spoke things that were not written down, it didn't [i:ada1cbb7a1]have to[/i:ada1cbb7a1] be verbally inspired. They were infallible and inerrant in everything they said, but there is clear evidence that the prophets taught things to the people long after the fact that it had been revealed. So their speech wasn't ALWAYS verbally inspired. It is the fact of the message it contains. And even when they are reciting old prophesies, I still think God would of upheld their inerrancy when speaking (as he said to Samuel: &quot;I will not let your words fall to the ground.&quot

[quote:ada1cbb7a1]Am I reading you correctly?[/quote:ada1cbb7a1]

Yes.

[quote:ada1cbb7a1]Why do you say, &quot;even though they didn't have to&quot;?[/quote:ada1cbb7a1]

They were not under obligation to the people because it was enough that they were apostles. However, if you are going to try to throw this over on me... I think that if someone is not an apostle that credentials must be shown. 

[quote:ada1cbb7a1]My point is that the writings were widely dispersed --at least the homolegomena. For instance, Paul leaves specific instructions for the Colossian epistle to be read in Laodicea. Almost certainly some Colossian would have made a copy for Laodicea. Paul's oponents in Corinth spoke of his &quot;letters&quot; plural as being weighty and powerful. The writings were circulated very widely. In other words, I agree that it was not difficult to recognise the canon, and that they had ample means for determining false teaching. But I hold that it was not difficult because of the writings themselves, and their wide dissemination, with people like Clement of Rome's memories being secondary sources only. The Apostle's had a promise of the Holy Spirit bringing things to their remembrance. I don't know that anyone else had that guarantee. It is for that reason, as well as the frequent corruptions even in the apostolic church, that I hesitate to ascribe too much to the oral tradition. There is an instance in John 21 of oral tradition --and it was corrupted very quickly.[/quote:ada1cbb7a1]

From what I've read, it doesn't seem that circulation of the letters was good enough to do this. First of all, it took the letters along time to get to every church. Yes, certain people (elders/bishops) would have glanced at someone else's writtings when they had the chance. But copies just couldn't be produced that fast, thus they had to memorize. A proof for this was the unwillingness to give up the sacred books (usually one compilation at the most, during the first two centuries) of the church. 

Paul


----------



## py3ak (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:e45a7c5931]
Absolutely. I was going to put that in parenthesis, just so you know that I believe that. Verbal inspiration was an exception. I believe that when the prophets spoke things that were not written down, it didn't have to be verbally inspired. They were infallible and inerrant in everything they said, but there is clear evidence that the prophets taught things to the people long after the fact that it had been revealed. So their speech wasn't ALWAYS verbally inspired. It is the fact of the message it contains. And even when they are reciting old prophesies, I still think God would of upheld their inerrancy when speaking (as he said to Samuel: &quot;I will not let your words fall to the ground.&quot 
[/quote:e45a7c5931]

Good. Yes, the relation between when the revelation was given and when it was written down is not always clear. The great thing is that we have everything vital that the prophets said inscripturated.


[quote:e45a7c5931]
They were not under obligation to the people because it was enough that they were apostles. However, if you are going to try to throw this over on me... I think that if someone is not an apostle that credentials must be shown.
[/quote:e45a7c5931]
I guess I wonder why you feel that the apostles were not under obligation, when they did appeal so much to the prophets. Why do you suppose the Bereans are commended for investigating Paul's preaching?

The evidence within the NT does speak of wide dissemination, though. Just one instance is the close relation between Jude and 2 Peter. Lenski makes the point that the Gospel of John in its method of presentation presupposes the sort of presentation found in the synoptics. In other words, I basically don't see the necessity for your construct.


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 14, 2004)

[quote:4dd2d47ed5]I guess I wonder why you feel that the apostles were not under obligation, when they did appeal so much to the prophets. Why do you suppose the Bereans are commended for investigating Paul's preaching?[/quote:4dd2d47ed5]

But I said earlier that they did use the Scriptures to [atleast] show how their message fit in the framework of the OT and Jesus' teachings.

[quote:4dd2d47ed5]I basically don't see the necessity for your construct.[/quote:4dd2d47ed5]

What do you mean?

Paul


----------



## py3ak (Jun 14, 2004)

The question is not whether they did it or not. The question is whether it was necessary for them to do so or not.

I don't see the need for us to have a dependence on oral tradition for the establishment of our written tradition.


----------

