Formula for orthodoxy.

[raderag]

How about this for a forumal.

EC - Ecumenical Creeds
TFU - Three forms of unity
BC - Book of concord (smalcad, augsbug, etc)
WCF - Westminster

Orthodoxy = EC + [(TFU - WCF) - BC] + [BC - (TFU -WCF)]

Basically, this means that it is the overlap between the EC, and the Lutheran and reformed faiths.

Only these are authoritative as Lutheranism and Reformed are mutally exclusive from Romanism. Arminianism has no authority as it came in later and is universally condemned (council of orage, BC, TFU, and WCF).

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:00778f1cac]EC + [(TFU - WCF) - BC] + [BC - (TFU -WCF)][/quote:00778f1cac]

please explain...

 

[raderag]

[quote:ca443ef2a2][i:ca443ef2a2]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:ca443ef2a2]
[quote:ca443ef2a2]EC + [(TFU - WCF) - BC] + [BC - (TFU -WCF)][/quote:ca443ef2a2]

please explain... [/quote:ca443ef2a2]

I am saying that our standards of orthodoxy should be the doctrines in the creeds, plus all of the Protestant confessions where they agree. Once again, you have to acept either Rome or the Protestant view as they anathamatized each other.

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:5ff736e505]Once again, you have to acept either Rome or the Protestant view as they anathamatized each other.[/quote:5ff736e505]

Not anymore than I must accept the Eastern or the Roman view, because [i:5ff736e505]they[/i:5ff736e505] both anathamatized each other.

 

[raderag]

[quote:dd6dba44b3][i:dd6dba44b3]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:dd6dba44b3]
[quote:dd6dba44b3]Once again, you have to acept either Rome or the Protestant view as they anathamatized each other.[/quote:dd6dba44b3]

Not anymore than I must accept the Eastern or the Roman view, because [i:dd6dba44b3]they[/i:dd6dba44b3] both anathamatized each other. [/quote:dd6dba44b3]

And we accept the Western view as orthodoxy (filoque).

I think you might have a presumption that heresies come from without. Irenaeus made it clear that there were churches that could rightly claim apostolic succession that were apostate. Did the Church decide that the RC was outside of fellowship at the time of the reformation or not?

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:022cb62ec7]And we accept the Western view as orthodoxy (filoque).[/quote:022cb62ec7]

I said this in another thread:

[quote:022cb62ec7]"The Orthodox recognize seven Ecumenical Councils, up to the Second Nicene Council (787)" (Hall of Church History). The EO DOES accept the orthodox view. "The filioque clause found in the Western version of this creed is one of the major disagreements between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity. [b:022cb62ec7]This clause was not accepted even by the Western Church until the turn of the first millennium"[/b:022cb62ec7] (creeds.net). [b:022cb62ec7]The filioque was NOT in the original creed! Thus they do adhere to all the major creeds![/b:022cb62ec7][/quote:022cb62ec7]

And Frame says:[quote:022cb62ec7]"In my Protestant bliss, I can say fairly complacently that the 1054 split between east and west was due to papal arrogance. My Roman Catholic friends are welcome to try to set me straight. But as for the doctrinal issue, whether the Spirit proceeds only from the Father or from the Son as well, it is hard to imagine why that should be the cause of so momentous a division. It is a very difficult question, one hard to resolve from Scripture. And the concept of "procession" is mysterious indeed, part of the mystery of the Trinity itself. The meaning of it is not at all obvious. I think I can defend the western position, but I cannot see why it should be made a test of orthodoxy. Certainly one can be a knowledgeable and effective minister of God's Word whichever position he takes - or without taking any position at all."[/quote:022cb62ec7]

Paul

 

[raderag]

[quote:6cdafabd2d][i:6cdafabd2d]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:6cdafabd2d]
This clause was not accepted even by the Western Church until the turn of the first millennium" (creeds.net). The filioque was NOT in the original creed! Thus they do adhere to all the major creeds!

Paul [/quote:6cdafabd2d]

I realize that the filoque was an addition, but so was Chalcedon in a sense. Now, if we are only determining orthodoxy based on the creeds, that is another story.

The eastern Church considers Protestants to be outside of orthodoxy, and Protestants have always believed the same. Why should we change our mind?

The eastern Church denies other important doctrine such as original sin. Must we redefine all or our standards on heresy so that we can allow all "Christians" to decide orthodoxy?

 

[rembrandt]

[quote:1af939a4e9]The eastern Church considers Protestants to be outside of orthodoxy, and Protestants have always believed the same. Why should we change our mind?

The eastern Church denies other important doctrine such as original sin. Must we redefine all or our standards on heresy so that we can allow all "Christians" to decide orthodoxy?[/quote:1af939a4e9]

This is turning into the same discussion as on the other thread. Lets continue there...