many Reformed folks need to rethink determination and criter

[JohnV]

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 "right thinking", 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]

[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 "right thinking", 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 "orthodoxy." 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: "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." 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 "orthodoxy" 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 "orthodoxies" that are equally valid. However, I like your word "importances." These can be defined as "doctrinal EMPHASIS." So, given that, I would say yes, we have no right to impose our "doctrinal emphasis" or tradition upon someone else. Different parts of the Body have different "favorite points." For example, a Lutheran theologian has no right to say that "Christ's humiliation" 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 "right thinking", 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 "orthodoxies." I give traditions, emphasis, and distictives, lower classifications than "orthodoxy."

Paul

 

[rembrandt]

[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]

[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]

[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: "orthodoxy is imposed on orthodox. But orthodoxy must be agreed upon by orthodox." 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 "all" 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]

Orthodox is a subcategory of true.

Not the reverse.

 

[Ianterrell]

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

Not the reverse. [/quote:c0c1a31dca]

 

[rembrandt]

[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 "orthodoxy."

Paul

 

[raderag]

[quote:0f73ede5d1][i:0f73ede5d1]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:0f73ede5d1]
Yes, its definitely circular reasoning. What you said is even more circular: "orthodoxy is imposed on orthodox. But orthodoxy must be agreed upon by orthodox." 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 "all" 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]

[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 "orthodoxy."

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]

[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 "Christians" like Oneness Pentecostals and "Christians" 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]

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]

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 "ground and pillar of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), and "the gates of hell shall not prevail."

[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 "orthodoxy is were the true church agrees." 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]

[quote:0bbbb57049]Well, I guess it's just too bad we have "Christians" like Oneness Pentecostals and "Christians" 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]

[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]

[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 "orthodoxy is were the true church agrees." 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]

[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]

[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 "not Christian to begin with?"

 

[raderag]

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


What, that they are "not Christian to begin with?" [/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]

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]

[quote:53c32e3da1][i:53c32e3da1]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:53c32e3da1]
[quote:53c32e3da1]Well, I guess it's just too bad we have "Christians" like Oneness Pentecostals and "Christians" 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 "all Christians," 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]

[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 "orthodox" in the sence that I am trying to talk about?

 

[raderag]

[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 "all Christians," 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]

Exactly!

 

[rembrandt]

[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 "all Christians," 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]

[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]

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]

[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 "orthodox" 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]

[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 "who is the [true] church," just how the thread on Roman baptism is going.

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

You said: "The fact that the RC doesn't agree shouldn't be material as they were anathematized." 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]

[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 "all Christians," 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 "we cannot call someone unorthodox on a matter if the whole Church has yet to thoroughly deal with these issues as a unified whole," yet somehow when I object that your view logically leads to Mormonism not being unorthodox, you respond with, "Oh, well they're not really part of the chuch." 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 "the church" based on a doctrine of theirs[/b:3dc2346efd].