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 "orthodoxy." Perhaps something that will bring this more into the light is if the [above] question #2 is restated: "What is the qualifications that one must meet in order to be labeled as [i:293f4e231e]unorthodox[/i:293f4e231e]?
"The word orthodox is from the Greek combination of ortho which means 'right' or 'correct', and dox which means 'thought' or 'thinking'." 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 "orthodox," 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
2) What is the criterion for orthodoxy?
I believe that alot of modern Reformed folks have a tampered view of "orthodoxy." Perhaps something that will bring this more into the light is if the [above] question #2 is restated: "What is the qualifications that one must meet in order to be labeled as [i:293f4e231e]unorthodox[/i:293f4e231e]?
"The word orthodox is from the Greek combination of ortho which means 'right' or 'correct', and dox which means 'thought' or 'thinking'." 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 "orthodox," 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