Orthodox Christianity

[blhowes]

There are so many churches that claim to be orthodox. Each has different customs, practices, teachings, and historic writings.

1. How do you define orthodoxy?
2. How do you determine if your church tradition is orthodox?
3. How broad is the "orthodox umbrella" ie., how far can a church deviate from which teachings of what you consider to be orthodox before it is no longer orthodox?
4. Does orthodoxy include such things as church government, or is it just confined to certain kinds of teachings?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Etymology: Greek orthodoxos, from Greek orth- + doxa opinion

1) It is
a) "conforming to established doctrine" in its basic definition; a belief or orientation agreeing with conventional standards.
b) The body of essential biblical teachings. Those who embrace them should be accepted as Christians. The opposite of heresy.

2) By the Scriptural concensus based on studying "ad fontes" (back to the sources), through private interpretation which includes conculting the doctors and pastors of the church.

3) Orthodox = that which is accepted as based on Scripture. Error is the opposite of that, but heresy is the non-fellowshipping termination point. (i.e. a man may believe that he must be immersed to be baptized, and that there is no other way to be baptized. That is an error, but not a heresy.)

4) Yes, orthodoxy includes EVERY Christian doctrine. It is simply a matter of whether we hold to a deviant position that is in error, or we become heretics in denying essential orthodox statements (Trinity, Deity of Christ, Salvation, Imputation, Justification, etc.)

 

[Saiph]

Read G.K. Chesterton's book "Orthodoxy".

 

[dswatts]

you mean 'orthodoxy' doesn't mean agreeing with me?!?!



Grace,
Dwayne

 

[JohnV]

Bob:
The churches I have attended and been a part of I judge on a simply axiom: is their teaching from Scripture, and is their practice following their teaching. The last two churches that I have been a member of have been outwardly orthodox, in that they claim a strict adherence to the Westminster Standards. But their practices were quite another thing. It is no use to be strong inconviction but not to have the courage of the conviction to face it when it challenges you.

Strict Biblical doctrine is not good enough for me anymore. What good is it if cultish activities are still going on, vis a vis, I follow Peter, I follow Paul, I follow Apollos, and "Oh yeah? well I can trump you 'cause I follow Christ." (paraphrasing 1 Cor. ) There is so much of that going on in orthodox circles that it no longer curls anyone's toes to hear phrases like "according to our perspectives", and, "in line with our views" etc. Since when do we divide over such things? When did that come about?

What a church believes comes out in its' practices. If they truly have a heart for the wounded soul, and a pastoral spirit for the soul on shaky ground, and they do it because God loved them first, then you are much closer to an orthodox church than one that is rigid in doctrine, but rides roughshod over those who don't fall in with their traditions.

I don't know how this applies in other areas, but here I have been kicked from church to church for following my conscience, not my logic. They were orthodox by creed, but not by practice.

It is easy for a relatively new church to begin on a sound doctrinal basis, but that does not yet establish that they are sound in faith and practice. It takes years to mature, and to come to right judgements, especially if the elders new at it. That doesn't mean they are unorthodox. But if they are mature, and they obscure Biblical teaching with lame excuses, then thier orthodoxy doesn' men anything anymore. What good are their confessions if they don't keep out false practices, and do not truly seek the good of the souls under their charge, but just make man-made ideas and falsehoods look orthodox as well?

 

[blhowes]

[b:5ff3fd94bc]Matthew wrote:[/b:5ff3fd94bc]
...2) By the Scriptural concensus based on studying "ad fontes" (back to the sources), through private interpretation which includes conculting the doctors and pastors of the church.

It would seem like your average Christian would have to put considerable faith in their church officials that what they told them was correct about their church being orthodox (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). I don't think most people would be prepared to digest all the writings of the early church and be able to differentiate what actually is orthodox and what isn't. Seems like it would be too much to synthesize.

It would be particularly difficult for a person who's saved in a "different" orthodox church to determine what correct orthodoxy actually is. As an example, I did a search for orthodox christianity and went to a site called "What is an orthodox christian?". The site had information about the early creeds, writings about the early church fathers, etc., but also had an article defending the perpetual virginity of Mary and like topics, based on writings of the early church fathers. How could your average Christian possibly discern that this isn't the orthodox position?

More to come later - gotta catch my train.

Bob

 

[mjbee]

Who defines orthodoxy? I read a post recently where somebody (I can't remember who) said "What says the Confession?" and I immediately thought of Pink's repeated question, "What saith the Scriptures? To the law and to the testimony!" Not "To the Westminster Confession!"

If you are appealing to the teachings of men, and creeds, and tradition, doesn't that smack of Roman Catholicism, which you roundly condemn as unscriptural?

Not that we should discount the learned teaching of those giants who have gone before us. But, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and ALL men may have erred on some points. And perhaps somewhere along the way they missed something. Surely the Puritans weren't singled out by God as a repository of all truth that is worth knowing! I'm no Catholic, but I sure am glad that some of them thought it was their holy obligation to preserve and transmit the Scriptures!

Ahh, the sovereignty of God! Speak to me of that, and I'll be blessed and happy!

 

[blhowes]

[b:090e09f6ef]John wrote:[/b:090e09f6ef]
The churches I have attended and been a part of I judge on a simply axiom: is their teaching from Scripture, and is their practice following their teaching.

Teaching and practice. Interesting. I hadn't thought about the practice aspect of what it means to be orthodox, but only on the teaching side of things - what the core beliefs are and how do you confirm that they are orthodox. It certainly is a lot easier to discern the practice aspect of orthodoxy then it is the teaching side (requires less research). I think on a personal level that's a good thing to keep in mind - the study of the scriptures shouldn't just be intellectual, but should change our lives as well.

Bob

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Christ said that we tell a tree by its fruits. The fruit does not make a tree good or bad, it just tells us whether it IS a good tree or a bad tree!

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by webmaster]