Orthodoxy: Who Gets to Define?

[Sebastian Heck]

In discussion about orthodoxy (theological, not the historical term) it seems that there is often misunderstanding on the authority issue. Who gets to decide what is orthodox? The typical evangelical answer will most likely be: me and my Bible. The typical Catholic answer would be: the church.
The Reformed (or Lutherans, for that matter), if they are confessional, should have a different take on the authority issue. I would suppose that orthodoxy is always an ecclesiatical issue, right? The church decides that pelagianism is unorthodox (i.e. heretic). The church decides that socinianism is out of bounds.

I am trying to get my mind around just what the link is between heresy and "unorthodox doctrine" (is it the same?), and between the confessional standards and orthodoxy (is it the same?)

Any thoughts, brethren?

 

[JohnV]

I'll take a stab at it, Sebastian.

For me orthodoxy has to mean just that, right thinking. That means that one, whether that is an individual believer or a group of believers, or the group of believers we call the Church, that one, I say, has to be able to judge whether what he thinks is right by some objective standard outside of himself. It's the ability to see the marker in the coastless sea to guide your direction, whatever that marker may be. You need to be able to navigate your direction so that you are heading toward your destination. Not like Colombus' first trip, where he just went in the general direction, but like a modern-day ocean liner headed straight for her port even though the captain does not yet see that port from the helm. Being able to direct yourself toward the goal of true thinking is what I call orthodoxy.

It is not decided on arbitrarily by anyone, It is recognized by believers. It is officially recognized by the Church, as those believers who meet in holy convocation, pray to God, and decide by the direction of the Holy Spirit, and give thanks for His guidance.

Heresy is about some view or opinion that sticks out, that goes against the unity of the group on an agreed or constitutional matter. But in the church it is not heresy to be the lone voice appealing to truth, while the church goes off on her own course. In that case the church is going into heresy, and not the lone believer. So heresy has to be defined by some referent above the church. And that has to be the Bible as interpreted by itself, not the church.

WCF, I, iv: The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

9. II Peter 1:19-20; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13; Rev. 1:1-2

Pelagianism and Socinianism are not heresies because the Church said so, but is rather the case that the Church said so because they are heresies. The Bible puts adherents of such views at odds within the Church's agreed position, and that makes them heresies. They are proven to be so by Scripture's clear revelation, and not by Church tradition, or the Church's own standard in addition to or beside the Bible.

In summary, if right thinking depended at all upon man or the Church to put context to the truths of the Bible, then there really is no such thing as right thinking, and orthodoxy is really only a pipe dream, it does not really exist for man. But the very fact that we have a word such as orthodoxy, that we have an aim for objective truth, that we have a reference point in mind to guide us toward that aim, means that orthodoxy exists, and that therefore an objective reference point exists. Or, from the other direction, the fact that we can say with certainty that some view is wrong means that we have some reference point of truth from which to assert error.

This, I found, is quite the same as trying to learn perfect pitch. Without a piano in the room, hum for me a D. Can you do it? If you can't, then you don't have perfect pitch. You can learn it, but it is hard to do. I'm getting a lot closer than I used to be. I used to have no clue at all as to how to go about it. Now I do. I don't have perfect pitch, but I'm a lot closer than I used to be to being able to give you a D. It's a whole note below E, and E is the one I can get closest to. But what I'm working on here is a reference point for pitch that a piano has to conform to as well, not just my conforming to the piano; and being able to reach it even if a piano isn't handy. It's kind of like a musical orthodoxy.

That's my opening thoughts on this.

 

[Sebastian Heck]

ISo heresy has to be defined by some referent above the church. And that has to be the Bible as interpreted by itself, not the church.

Thanks, John. I know I overstated my case in terms of the importance of the church, just to prime the pump.
At the same time, are you saying that the church (with its confession) has no real "power of decision" as to what is heresy and what is not? If not, are we not back at the pietistic "me and my Bible!" as our sole guide of orthodoxy? Who is to say what "the Biblical view" is on anything if the church has no say?

Also, it seems that this discussion will get us into the question of the "epistemological function of the confessions", as I would call it. What I mean is that your statements sound to me like a "quatenus" approach to confession (we let the confession decide as far as or as long as it agrees with the Bible), rather than a !quia! approach (BECAUSE it agrees with the Bible!). Only in the latter case can the confession exert any real authority on the church; in the former view, I believe, the confession is a nice embellishment and that's about it.

Is not the act of adopting a confession the act of saying: "this is what we believe the Bible to teach!" And is not not then an ecclesial act of drawing the boundaries of orthodoxy - of course, along Biblical lines only!

Do you understand my concern?

Nice analogy with the perfecht pitch. I don't have it either, but I also am practicing. Interestingly enough, you can train your brain to "hear" a note; I used to practice with a tuning fork. After so many weeks, I didn't need the tuning fork anymore, just the motion of the hand to my ear was enough for me to "hear" the note... I wished there was such a psychological training in orthodoxy with which to heresy-proof the church...

 

[JohnV]

I think that I would simply reply that the Bible is the Bible, not whatever men may say the Bible is. It's bigger than me, and is more true than I'll ever know in this life. But it is also bigger than the Church, and is more true than the Church will ever know in this life.

I think the Confessional statement says it well enough.

Where we probably have difficulty is in looking to someone to authoritatively determine for us all that the Bible says once and for all, and have no more divisions among us. But the Bible already says those things. The problem is not the Bible. The problem is us, who like to put all kinds of different spins on it, and then trying to compete with each other over these spins. Pretty soon we lose sight of the fact that the Bible stands on its own. We are so overtaken with all the undermining questions of what the Bible is clearly saying, to the point that the clearest statements of the Bible are no longer clear to us, and then blame the Bible for not being clear, that we forget that it is ourselves who are the problem, not the Bible.

I wouldn't put individual interpretation up against corporate interpretation. I mean, of course, that to root out heresies you have to do that. But it isn't a matter of either-or. It has to be both. A rightful personal interpretation within the context of the ecclesiastical doctrinal outline for true faith: these have to go together. You cannot be an island, but neither can the Church be an island. Just as I need the Church to bear corporate witness to me of true doctrine, so also the Church needs me and all true believers as true believers in their midst be qualify to be called Church.

 

[JohnV]

How does the verse, "No Scripture is of private interpretation" apply to us?

Trevor:

I think the same answer applies. When it becomes personal interpretation against corporate interpretation, then it is quite possible that both are areas of responsibility are being misunderstood. I am personally responsible for following Christ at His Word. But I am within that coporate context of many true believers with the same personal responsibility, coming together and being sharpened in understanding by each other. It is still the one true interpretation that we are all after, and the same self-deceptive character in each of us that we are trying to escape the influence of.

The corporate body is the body through which Christ rules His people. But that doesn't mean that they are always automatically right. If there is a division between the body and one of her members, then the same set of possibilities still exists: one is wrong, the other is wrong, or both are wrong. It can happen that it is the church that is wrong, or that it is both that are wrong. And yet the other side of it is that it is most likely that the individual is wrong. No matter how you look at it, there has to be an objective reference point above both individual responsibility and ecclesiastical responsibility. And it works best when both are in harmony with that reference point, rather than seeking their own way.

The text that you are referring to, then, tells us that doctrine or Scriptural teaching does not come from men, but from God. Sola Scriptura means only Scripture. We should not be looking for any else. Whether personal or corporate, Scripture is the interpreter of Scripture.