many Reformed folks need to rethink determination and criter

[rembrandt]

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

 

[yeutter]

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]

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 "heretic" or "apostate" 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]

[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]

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 "The Church of the living God [is] the pillar and gound of the truth" (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]

[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 "The Church of the living God [is] the pillar and gound of the truth" (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 "everyone doing what is right in his own eyes" 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]

[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 "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: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]
"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: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 "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: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]

John, you say, "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." However, we can't simply say that we're going to find unity based on the plain Bible itself, and that "I have no standard but God's" when specifying our position. The reason that is impossible is that [i:0c7bb441bb]everyone[/i:0c7bb441bb] who bears the label "Christian," 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 "the Bible" and "God's standard," yet come to hundreds of hugely different conclusions! Defining orthodoxy is not as simple as saying, "That which the Bible teaches," or "God's own standard for it," 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 "orthodox." When we hear the term "orthodox Judaism," we think of the very strict, literal Jews. When we think of "orthodox Islam," 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 "orthodoxy" typically does not mean the bare minimum, but the maximum. You're not an "orthodox Jew" 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 "orthodox," 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, "right thinking," 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 "correct thinking"...or orthodoxy.

In Christ,

 

[rembrandt]

[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: "The Orthodox recognize seven Ecumenical Councils, up to the Second Nicene Council (787)" (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]

[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]

OK, sorry for putting words in your mouth, Paul. In your last post, you say that the three creeds are "all we have now until the Church as a whole can agree again." 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 "Christian." 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 "orthodoxy" would be the WCF. I say this because, again, when I think of the word "orthodoxy," 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 "orthodox" that denied the WCF.

 

[rembrandt]

[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 "correct thinking"...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 "orthodox Judaism," we think of the very strict, literal Jews. When we think of "orthodox Islam," 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 "orthodoxy" typically does not mean the bare minimum, but the maximum. You're not an "orthodox Jew" 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, "right thinking," 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 "orthodox" (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]

[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 "all we have now until the Church as a whole can agree again."[/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 "orthodoxy" 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]

[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, "right thinking." You simply cannot say that, say, the Assemblies of God, is "orthodox Christianity" as found in the Bible, for it is a far cry from it. Like John said, I basically define orthodoxy as "biblical Christianity," 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 "orthodox" (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 "true" churches, but I think it is equally ridiculous to call all "true" 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]

[quote:d3f93ce1ca]Again, I define orthodoxy to be that which it literally means, "right thinking." You simply cannot say that, say, the Assemblies of God, is "orthodox Christianity" as found in the Bible, for it is a far cry from it. Like John said, I basically define orthodoxy as "biblical Christianity," 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 "orthodox" 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 "true" churches, but I think it is equally ridiculous to call all "true" 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]

[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 "true" churches, but I think it is equally ridiculous to call all "true" 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: "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."

[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]

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]

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

Who specifically?

 

[rembrandt]

[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 "orthodoxy."
[/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]

Being "reformed" 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]

[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]

[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: "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."[/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 "The church of the living God, the ground and pillar of truth" (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 "unorthodox" as we can the word "unbiblical." 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 "orthodox" synonymous with "biblical," we have a problem. We need to redefine "orthodox" 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]

[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 "orthodoxy" exclusively to describe the Reformed community, thus leaving out all other Christians (Lutherans for example) as unorthodox.

Paul

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

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

 

[rembrandt]

[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]

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, "believe the Scriptures". Sometimes, with some people, that is what I have to do because they are already averse to red flag words like "Calvinism." 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]

Paul,

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

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

Ok, back on topic.

 

[kceaster]

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 "new" 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]

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

Sorry. This is TOTALLY off topic, but, your title of "Minister of Custodial Affairs".....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, "Bishop of the Toilets." But that might be misleading too. I'll say... "Captain of the Evanjellyfish Custodial Club" (CECC).

Paul

 

[rembrandt]

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 "orthodox." 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 "orthodox" I am saying something [i:110623bcd5]more[/i:110623bcd5] than "something that is right" (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]. "You believe this or you die." This is the fullest essence of Church dogma.[/b:110623bcd5]

Now, what we are really dealing with, is the question: does this "orthodoxy" 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 "orthodoxy" in which I am talking about. I already gave a hint that this "orthodoxy" 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 "orthodoxy" that I am talking about (in which I defined above).

Paul