Christopher
Puritan Board Freshman
What do you believe are the standards for orthodoxy? I know what the deffinion is for the word orthodoxy but who do you think should fall into that catagory?
Orthodoxy?
- Thread starter Christopher
- Start date
- Status
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Chris,
History is our orthodoxy. The church at large has, over the centuries, generally has agreed on certain principles.
Here is an excellent thread on the subject.
Theological Traditionalism: Defined, Examined, Refuted
It was started by Duelos Christos, a while back. It addresses the way God and history has been a support system for the believer today.
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1710
[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]
History is our orthodoxy. The church at large has, over the centuries, generally has agreed on certain principles.
Here is an excellent thread on the subject.
Theological Traditionalism: Defined, Examined, Refuted
It was started by Duelos Christos, a while back. It addresses the way God and history has been a support system for the believer today.
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1710
[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott Bushey]
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
Chrisopher:
Orthodoxy is defined in the conciliar decisions made and received by the universal church (which used Acts 15 as a model). The decisions rightly interepet scripture. You will notice that the Westminster Confession bakes in these elements.
Scott
[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott]
Orthodoxy is defined in the conciliar decisions made and received by the universal church (which used Acts 15 as a model). The decisions rightly interepet scripture. You will notice that the Westminster Confession bakes in these elements.
Scott
[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Scott]
Is there anything "new" that defines orthodoxy today? By that I mean, are our standards [i:da168bfd7e]only[/i:da168bfd7e] old creeds and confessions? How could the Church today make a definitive mark on what determines orthodoxy? Certainly we would work on what already is orthodox, but can we declare something that has yet to be dealt with by an [i:da168bfd7e]ex cathedra[/i:da168bfd7e]?
Paul
Paul
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
In my experience 'Orthodoxy' has come to mean many things. In my area, when it is said of someone, "Oh, he's from the orthodox church," it usually meant as a slur against his character, that he is narrow-minded, or staunchly conservative, living in the past. It is a way of suggesting that such a person is unwilling to tackle the hard things in modern life, to really deal with the issues that beset the Christian of today. An orthodox person will not recognize, for example, that a true Christian has struggles with his homosexuality, and will not minister to him, but rather just condemn him.
Unchecked, a conversation about someone who is labelled 'orthodox' will go in this direction, on the average.
I have friends and family in that kind of group. It is inconceivable to them that they are doing the very things to the orthodox that they blame the orthodox for. They believe that they are as right as they can be. So they hold the definition of the word for themselves, but the word itself is a negative term to them. But when challenged, the common resort is to hide behind the idea that the Bible is open to each person's interpretation, and that no one really knows what the truth is. If you continue to back them up on their ideas, they only fall back on such an attempt as solid proof that their original idea of narrow-mindedness and oppositional character is right. In other words, they are stubbornly opposed to orthodoxy, not logically.
In our day, I think, it is not enough to define orthodoxy by grounding it in the past. I think that the past is a witness to the lasting power of othodoxy, but we need to be ready to re-prove at every minute what the truth is that is inherent in orthodoxy is. We cannot just be satisfied with upholding the traditions, though we do need to do that. (2 Thess. 2:15 ) We also need to be able to test for the truth. (1 Thess. 5:21 )
I think that the lack of this in our day has led to the existence of many factions in the churches, split over mutually exclusive ideas, but without the resolve to overcome the differences. I have witnessed a few times now that ministers of the Word take it upon themselves, without ecclesiatical consent, to dictate a resolution, when it is clearly in the province of churches and Presbyteries to do that. Even the Apostles did not settle things on their own authority, but held counsel with the elders, before the assembly, on the matters in question. Paul could easily, on his authority, have settled the dispute in Antioch, but he didn't. That is the principle that Jesus instituted when He said that we are not to lord it over each other, that we are not to call any man our father or prior. (Matt. 20:25)
The idea of orthodoxy is very strange to the minds of many in our day, for the concepts of modernity have taken deep hold, even in the church. The text note in the NIV study Bible on John 8: 31, 32 suggests a dichtomous view of truth among Biblical scholars. (I'll see if I can find it, but I don't have it handy by any means. ) The idea of freedom to know the truth, or that truth is sufficiently discernible to settle differences is deemed as arrogance and lack of toleration in our day.
That is not at all what orthodoxy is, of course. People don't like having their hiding places exposed, so they retaliate with ad hom attacks. We need to be firm, yet gentle, in holding to the positions that the churches have always held to, as witnesses for us that we are not standing as some renegade or lone wolf, even if everyone else is of a different persuasion. But we need to be able to derive the truth from the revelations God has given us to discern. And He has revealed Himself by two means, in the creation and governance of the world, and more clearly and fully in His Word.
So to put in very succinct terms, orthdoxy is holding the truth in love.
Unchecked, a conversation about someone who is labelled 'orthodox' will go in this direction, on the average.
I have friends and family in that kind of group. It is inconceivable to them that they are doing the very things to the orthodox that they blame the orthodox for. They believe that they are as right as they can be. So they hold the definition of the word for themselves, but the word itself is a negative term to them. But when challenged, the common resort is to hide behind the idea that the Bible is open to each person's interpretation, and that no one really knows what the truth is. If you continue to back them up on their ideas, they only fall back on such an attempt as solid proof that their original idea of narrow-mindedness and oppositional character is right. In other words, they are stubbornly opposed to orthodoxy, not logically.
In our day, I think, it is not enough to define orthodoxy by grounding it in the past. I think that the past is a witness to the lasting power of othodoxy, but we need to be ready to re-prove at every minute what the truth is that is inherent in orthodoxy is. We cannot just be satisfied with upholding the traditions, though we do need to do that. (2 Thess. 2:15 ) We also need to be able to test for the truth. (1 Thess. 5:21 )
I think that the lack of this in our day has led to the existence of many factions in the churches, split over mutually exclusive ideas, but without the resolve to overcome the differences. I have witnessed a few times now that ministers of the Word take it upon themselves, without ecclesiatical consent, to dictate a resolution, when it is clearly in the province of churches and Presbyteries to do that. Even the Apostles did not settle things on their own authority, but held counsel with the elders, before the assembly, on the matters in question. Paul could easily, on his authority, have settled the dispute in Antioch, but he didn't. That is the principle that Jesus instituted when He said that we are not to lord it over each other, that we are not to call any man our father or prior. (Matt. 20:25)
The idea of orthodoxy is very strange to the minds of many in our day, for the concepts of modernity have taken deep hold, even in the church. The text note in the NIV study Bible on John 8: 31, 32 suggests a dichtomous view of truth among Biblical scholars. (I'll see if I can find it, but I don't have it handy by any means. ) The idea of freedom to know the truth, or that truth is sufficiently discernible to settle differences is deemed as arrogance and lack of toleration in our day.
That is not at all what orthodoxy is, of course. People don't like having their hiding places exposed, so they retaliate with ad hom attacks. We need to be firm, yet gentle, in holding to the positions that the churches have always held to, as witnesses for us that we are not standing as some renegade or lone wolf, even if everyone else is of a different persuasion. But we need to be able to derive the truth from the revelations God has given us to discern. And He has revealed Himself by two means, in the creation and governance of the world, and more clearly and fully in His Word.
So to put in very succinct terms, orthdoxy is holding the truth in love.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
John,
Are you saying then it is in terms of definition or in whom is defining it?
Are you saying then it is in terms of definition or in whom is defining it?
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:5385d03826][i:5385d03826]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:5385d03826]
John,
Are you saying then it is in terms of definition or in whom is defining it? [/quote:5385d03826]
I'm not sure of what you mean, Scott. But I recoil at the thought of the latter. I think that it is prevalent in our day to root or seat orthodoxy in the individual. I'm saying that individuals resort to a right to see things their own way, and that that is the final arbiter for them on what truth is. Each person does have a right to keep to his conscience, and not to be held against his conscience. But that gives no right to hold to things that the Bible addresses as other than their conscience dictates. Consciences have to be set right too, grounded in the truth. And what some may call their conscience is nothing more than their own justifications for whatever they are defending.
That is why we have church discipline as well. If a person is ruled to be aberrant to church doctrine, in what he believes, then he ought to be persuaded by the witness of the church. But it is possible that the church can be wrong. If he remains persuaded, by Scripture and nature, that the witness of the church is wrong, then he must hold to the higher, which is the revelation of truth itself.
We cannot resolve things on the witness of others alone. Nor can we rely on our own intellect or ability. If the Spirit witnesses truth to our hearts, then we need to be able to discern that. And we need to do that at times when everyone else around us differs, and when they accuse of having a martyr syndrome, or of claiming to hold a special revelation over top of everyone else. Somehow, we need to recognize that we are given the gifts to stand firm in the truth, as a group, regardless of suasions of the world, and sometimes of the churches around us.
We sometimes think that Luther stood alone, persuaded by the Word. We now know that he was not alone. Yet it is also true that he did stand alone, for he stood up and spoke against the powers that be in the church, even when no one dared to do so.
Don't get me wrong, Scott. I'm not saying that orthodoxy is not present in our day. I think it is alive and well, even on this discussion Board. It can be rightly said that it is flourishing here. We allow truth to have its sway, regardless of person; and we gratefully submit to it. What I refer to is the general trends in churches that, when they begin to depart from orthodoxy, very little can be done to change the direction; no amount of argumentation or persuasion, even from Scripture, seems to have any effect. And this is happening in Reformed churches of all sorts.
[Edited on 6-2-2004 by JohnV]
John,
Are you saying then it is in terms of definition or in whom is defining it? [/quote:5385d03826]
I'm not sure of what you mean, Scott. But I recoil at the thought of the latter. I think that it is prevalent in our day to root or seat orthodoxy in the individual. I'm saying that individuals resort to a right to see things their own way, and that that is the final arbiter for them on what truth is. Each person does have a right to keep to his conscience, and not to be held against his conscience. But that gives no right to hold to things that the Bible addresses as other than their conscience dictates. Consciences have to be set right too, grounded in the truth. And what some may call their conscience is nothing more than their own justifications for whatever they are defending.
That is why we have church discipline as well. If a person is ruled to be aberrant to church doctrine, in what he believes, then he ought to be persuaded by the witness of the church. But it is possible that the church can be wrong. If he remains persuaded, by Scripture and nature, that the witness of the church is wrong, then he must hold to the higher, which is the revelation of truth itself.
We cannot resolve things on the witness of others alone. Nor can we rely on our own intellect or ability. If the Spirit witnesses truth to our hearts, then we need to be able to discern that. And we need to do that at times when everyone else around us differs, and when they accuse of having a martyr syndrome, or of claiming to hold a special revelation over top of everyone else. Somehow, we need to recognize that we are given the gifts to stand firm in the truth, as a group, regardless of suasions of the world, and sometimes of the churches around us.
We sometimes think that Luther stood alone, persuaded by the Word. We now know that he was not alone. Yet it is also true that he did stand alone, for he stood up and spoke against the powers that be in the church, even when no one dared to do so.
Don't get me wrong, Scott. I'm not saying that orthodoxy is not present in our day. I think it is alive and well, even on this discussion Board. It can be rightly said that it is flourishing here. We allow truth to have its sway, regardless of person; and we gratefully submit to it. What I refer to is the general trends in churches that, when they begin to depart from orthodoxy, very little can be done to change the direction; no amount of argumentation or persuasion, even from Scripture, seems to have any effect. And this is happening in Reformed churches of all sorts.
[Edited on 6-2-2004 by JohnV]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
John,
Well, you said that "orthodoxy" is holding the truth in love".
The question is who is holding the truth (in love)? Almost everyone could claim orthodoxy based upon this idea-no?
Possibly, I have misunderstood what you meant John?
Well, you said that "orthodoxy" is holding the truth in love".
The question is who is holding the truth (in love)? Almost everyone could claim orthodoxy based upon this idea-no?
Possibly, I have misunderstood what you meant John?
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:d00babe750][i:d00babe750]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:d00babe750]
John,
Well, you said that "orthodoxy" is holding the truth in love".
The question is who is holding the truth (in love)? Almost everyone could claim orthodoxy based upon this idea-no?
Possibly, I have misunderstood what you meant John? [/quote:d00babe750]
Scott:
I think that you stated the problem that I tried to address very well. Almost everyone does claim to be orthodox based upon this idea. My contention is that it has to be justified by the Scriptures and by nature (for God has clearly revealed Himself in both ) and not just some claim to sincerity. People stand on their freedom of concience, or their sincerity, but they do not always stand on firm ground.
The truth needs to be real truth, and love needs to be real love. In our day both are touted, but they need to be examined carefully, and not prejudicially or pejoratively. So we have to have some foundation for doing that. And that is what orthodoxy is. It shows us what real truth is, and what real love is. It is holding the truth in love; or holding love in truth. It's the same thing. And the Bible gives us the means to do it, through the work of the Spirit, who illumines us.
So orthodoxy cannot be rooted in any one person, unless that person is God. It may come out through us, by God's providential hand, but it does not find it's source in us, or in our hearts or minds. It comes form outside of us, and we need to be able to receive it. God has given that ability to us, through Christ. It is our duty to recognize it and use it rightly. There is no person or persuasion on this earth that does not fall under it's rule, or it's corrections. There are no exceptions, no excuses.
But just as we all fail under the banner of the truth, so we are also gathered by Christ to march under it's lead. Our justification comes from Christ, not from ourselves, or from our being in the throng. Wisdom comes from experience. Trials produce character. True wisdom and character are found in personally submitting to the sway of truth and of love.
Is that is bit clearer, Scott?
John,
Well, you said that "orthodoxy" is holding the truth in love".
The question is who is holding the truth (in love)? Almost everyone could claim orthodoxy based upon this idea-no?
Possibly, I have misunderstood what you meant John? [/quote:d00babe750]
Scott:
I think that you stated the problem that I tried to address very well. Almost everyone does claim to be orthodox based upon this idea. My contention is that it has to be justified by the Scriptures and by nature (for God has clearly revealed Himself in both ) and not just some claim to sincerity. People stand on their freedom of concience, or their sincerity, but they do not always stand on firm ground.
The truth needs to be real truth, and love needs to be real love. In our day both are touted, but they need to be examined carefully, and not prejudicially or pejoratively. So we have to have some foundation for doing that. And that is what orthodoxy is. It shows us what real truth is, and what real love is. It is holding the truth in love; or holding love in truth. It's the same thing. And the Bible gives us the means to do it, through the work of the Spirit, who illumines us.
So orthodoxy cannot be rooted in any one person, unless that person is God. It may come out through us, by God's providential hand, but it does not find it's source in us, or in our hearts or minds. It comes form outside of us, and we need to be able to receive it. God has given that ability to us, through Christ. It is our duty to recognize it and use it rightly. There is no person or persuasion on this earth that does not fall under it's rule, or it's corrections. There are no exceptions, no excuses.
But just as we all fail under the banner of the truth, so we are also gathered by Christ to march under it's lead. Our justification comes from Christ, not from ourselves, or from our being in the throng. Wisdom comes from experience. Trials produce character. True wisdom and character are found in personally submitting to the sway of truth and of love.
Is that is bit clearer, Scott?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
It is John, and I agree!
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Whew!
I like to state my views freely, in hopes of being corrected, but it's always scary to do so. But it's the essence of this dicussion Board to not fear the truth, and to help each other. And that's how I see this Board as being orthodox; though we all yet grapple with things. We don't give up on each other, even if we think that another member is wrong. We know that in humility we all are prone to error. But truth itself is holy, and speaks to us from the corners and highways, as wells as, and more clearly and fully, from the Word
I like to state my views freely, in hopes of being corrected, but it's always scary to do so. But it's the essence of this dicussion Board to not fear the truth, and to help each other. And that's how I see this Board as being orthodox; though we all yet grapple with things. We don't give up on each other, even if we think that another member is wrong. We know that in humility we all are prone to error. But truth itself is holy, and speaks to us from the corners and highways, as wells as, and more clearly and fully, from the Word
- Status
