What is the "newest" orthodox theological development?

[JD]

I was just reading the overview given of Progressive Covenantalism at the new blog Christ Over All (Wellum, etc).

Being aprehensive of "new ways" of understanding Scripture, I am suspicious. If this is true, then why has no one read the Bible this way before?*

*If I am wrong on this please correct me!

That got me thinking: what is the "newest" theological development we'd deem necessary for an orthodox Christian?

Obviously orthodoxy is no newer than the age of the inspired writing, but some truths have taken us longer to tease out, or have needed to be given a place of greater importance. And surely, some things never need to be well-defined until heresy creeps in (I think here of canonization, Christology, the Trinity, the five points, etc - these formulations were developed in response to false teaching).

But 2000 years is a long time for something to go unnoticed.

So what is the "newest"?

And let's set aside sexual ethics, which I think is the low-hanging fruit here. That's not really what I am getting at - every age has cultural beliefs to respond to.

 

[KMK]

what is the "newest" theological development we'd deem necessary for an orthodox Christian?

We at PB, since we define 'orthodoxy' by Reformation era standards, would say the doctrines of Reformation: The 5 Solas for a start.

 

[ZackF]

We at PB, since we define 'orthodoxy' by Reformation era standards, would say the doctrines of Reformation: The 5 Solas for a start.

Right, Roman Catholics would call the “solas” new!

 

[davejonescue]

I would say, just from my limited observation of the theological climate of American Christianity, some of the greater fronts of establishing doctrine are:

1. Homosexuality/Trans Issues
-------a] does temptation bar from ministry
-------b] does a lack of attraction for the opposite sex necessitate turning the "gift of celibacy" into a "burden," thus negating the gift, and instead doctrinally promoting marriage, as a rebuttal against sexual immorality, even in the face of hetero unattraction?
----------1. This is important because if we say that sinful, non-hetero attraction doesnt constitute a clear gifting for singleness (which I believe it doesnt,) yet, do we do the daughters of God harm to marry men (or vise versa) that are not attracted to them, to them, though the resolution for sexual immorality in all cases is heterosexual marriage and consummation?
-----------2. Meaning formally homosexual individuals, in the course of progressive sanctification, do not get a pass to impose the "gift of" celibacy upon themselves while faltering in sexual purity, under the guise of their hetero unattraction, because voluntary perpetual celibacy is a gift, that foremost must be desired; thus, if they falter in purity, there is only one biblical route to sexual gratification if they not only do not desire, but cannot practice self-control.
2. Social Change Ethics
3. Recreational Drug Ethics (as they are becoming legalized)
-------a] what constitutes as pharmakeia?
-------b] to what degree do we allow intoxicative substances to constitute as medicine? While we presently allow Wine, Opiates, Novocaines, Laughing Gas, etc. in the course of operations, treatments, and pain managements.
4. Theo-Technological Ethics, in regards to transhumanism, AI, VR, and what would the orthodox position be on potential immortality; whether digitally (think Matrix,) or physically via transhumanism. Can the Kingdom/Glorification only be inherited by death, and would earthly immortality be a spiritual prison? Especially since our maker is eternal, and we have no idea of how long he desires to wait before his return. Is it OK to artificially-enhanced have a life expectancy of 130, 150, 200, 400 years?
------a] ecclesiology issues regarding what constitutes as "actual" church, gathering of the saints, partaking in sacraments
----------1. Is there a possibility for a digital alternative?
------b] a complete formulation on to what degree the sacraments must be taken physically; and how that compares with the established doctrine of Protestants rejecting transubstantiation; and if the elements are merely symbolic; what is the need to have them physically symbolic instead of virtually symbolic?
5. A formulation of a doctrinal understanding of humans use/abuse of earthly resources; especially in light of scientific evidence of the potential harms we may have caused/and are causing that could constitute as abuse if correct.
-------a] though it would be off to dictate what Christians can do particularly, i.e. gas vs electric vehicle, recycle vs not recycle, maximalist vs minimalist; a doctrinal formulation can be set up like:
------------1. the intent of the scriptures clearly outline mans purpose as stewards of Gods creation is to maximize the glorification of God in the earth; while doing so in a way that doesnt needlessly harm his creation, thus cherishing what he has given as a gift, and further glorifying him by our reverence and rightful stewardship of his creative works. .. Or something along those lines.

Just a few I can think of, but I am sure the list is extensive; the problem I think is now these issues are handled internally within denominational councils, so it makes it harder for the decisions to be considered universal Protestant orthodoxy, instead of peculiar orthodoxy to specific groups.

 

[Polanus1561]

Bioethics and transhumanism is going to be big.

Uploading of memories. Artificial Delaying of death. Gene manipulation for babies in the womb.

 

[KMK]

Maybe throw the Super Bowl in there.

 

[Jake]

Perhaps the place of women in the church? The exact role of women in the church was debated some in various eras of the church, but in recent times with many promoting women being in all offices of the church this has become a dividing line. I am very cautious here as I don't know many that would say the EPC for example is an unorthodox denomination even if the allowing of female pastors and elders is a serious error.

 

[itsreed]

Perhaps the place of women in the church? The exact role of women in the church was debated some in various eras of the church, but in recent times with many promoting women being in all offices of the church this has become a dividing line. I am very cautious here as I don't know many that would say the EPC for example is an unorthodox denomination even if the allowing of female pastors and elders is a serious error.

Agreed. While we recognize that this is all but settled in our circles, there is a significant application issue going on as we shift from the way of doing things behind the curtain (i.e., "management" of ministry) to different ways. Some of this is appropriate adjustments to a-moral cultural norms, and falls under a general equity review. Others are clearly cultural accommodation with all the bad connotations of those words. Helping folks divide between these properly is requiring re-examination the exegesis of settled doctrine, and vetting the applications via that.
E.g., think "business manager", a support position commonly in use among many reformed churches (and others). Something women can do to serve the church?

 

[JD]

We at PB, since we define 'orthodoxy' by Reformation era standards, would say the doctrines of Reformation: The 5 Solas for a start.

Certainly! But inerrancy is a "newer" development than the Reformation standards (in terms of needing to be confessed). I'm wondering what the newest would be.

 

[Polanus1561]

Wrongly, some posit certain views of textual criticism to be vital (how vital or necessary differs across the spectrum).

 

[Parakaleo]

I have contested elsewhere on this board that there has been a woeful muzzling of the Scripture, stretching back even to the early church, in regards to qualifications for elders and deacons. Men must have personal experience as husbands and fathers to be qualified for office. When and where adherence to the apostle's overt expectation fell out of fashion, I do not know. I hold out hope that the church will reform in this area in times to come and see adherence in this matter as "new" orthodoxy/orthopraxy.

 

[RamistThomist]

Oh boy

 

[RamistThomist]

When and where adherence to the apostle's overt expectation fell out of fashion, I do not know.

Almost immediately. Ignatius of Antioch was a bishop who was unmarried and there is some evidence he actually outlived the Apostle John.

 

[AT]

Fulfillment theology. JN Farquhar, William Miller, among others when they came to India during the colonial era, interacted with Hinduism in a unique manner. They saw Christ as the fulfillment of Hinduism, or in Faruqhar's words "the Crown of Hinduism". Some who held to this eventually fell into some form of liberalism, so one ought to tread carefully. I take my cue from Paul at Mars Hill, when without any qualification used pagan poets to get the point across to that particular audience.

"How easy it is to step from a simple, external, sacificial polytheism, such as we are dealing with here, to Christianity, is proved by numerous examples. Those, who have leaned on animal sacrifice turn with deep religious joy to the perfect moral sacrifice of the death of Christ, once the thirst for a spiritual faith has made itself felt. We have seen how for a time men prayed to Varuna, the righteous and omnipotent Lord, the source of Ṛta, i.e. Law both natural and moral, who punished the guilty and forgave the penitent. This beautiful but short-lived faith finds full justification for itself in the Heavenly Father, whose nature is love and holiness, whose will is expressed in the regularity and impartiality of nature as well as in the moral law, who gave up His only Son to death, that we might have forgiveness. Further, Christ's doctrine, that those who know the Heavenly Father on earth will spend eternity in close personal fellowship with Him in heaven, is the direct spiritual culmination of the Vedic faith in one life and one death, followed by an immortality of happiness ; while transmigration and karma is an altogether alien conception." -- The Crown of Hinduism, Farquhar.

Lately, Dr Louis Markos with his recent works on Graeco-Roman pagan myths has been putting forward this view, largely influenced by Tolkien and Lewis. It's definitely not as simple as it sounds though.

 

[Jake]

Reflecting more about this question:

The church is increasingly divided over issues that are not a part of the "traditional" orthodoxy (defining orthodoxy as that established by the early ecumenical councils). The Protestant Reformation was not dividing over these issues but over issues of salvation and worship (broadly). Today the Protestant church in the US is largely divided as a result of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, which if one were to pick a single issue that defined it; it is the view of Scripture. This led to the mainline churches and the evangelical churches (e.g., PCUSA vs OPC). Further divisions have continued to occur within the mainline branch over additional issues, including most notably in recent days sexual ethics, being the most direct cause of the origin of denominations like the ECO Presbyterians and ACNA. Functionally, "orthodoxy" is often defined in terms of view of Scripture and view on sexual ethics, and perhaps issues of women in office, in the Protestant space, where in theory everyone agrees on the ecumenical creeds. Certainly some mainline denominations admit non-Trinitarians for example, but I have run into many progressive mainliners who will defend the ancient creeds while advocating for radical LGBT views. You see this in groups like the UCC and ELCA for example which allow some of the most progressive views among long-standing denominational traditions, while still holding on paper at least to orthodox creeds and confessions.

 

[Polanus1561]

We live in a time where 9cvs abound due to social media along with anonymity in some cases. The temptation to define someone by their wrong opinions is huge.

 

[Parakaleo]

When and where adherence to the apostle's overt expectation fell out of fashion, I do not know.

Almost immediately. Ignatius of Antioch was a bishop who was unmarried and there is some evidence he actually outlived the Apostle John.

Glad to see you agree with me!

 

[RamistThomist]

Glad to see you agree with me!

You might be reading more into my comment than was intended. I meant to convey that the Paul and the earliest followers specifically did not believe what you believe.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Can we get a thumbs-down emoji on the PB?

 

[Phil D.]

Can we get a thumbs-down emoji on the PB?

You mean this?

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

You mean this?

That will work for now.

 

[83r17h]

Do we consider the Copts to be orthodox Christians?

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Do we consider the Copts to be orthodox Christians?

Coptic views on icons and works salvation (almost identical with Eastern Orthodox) are a lot more problematic than their opinion on the person of Christ (miaphysite or a fully Divine-human nature rather than two natures, one divine and one human like we believe)

 

[83r17h]

Coptic views on icons and works salvation (almost identical with Eastern Orthodox) are a lot more problematic than their opinion on the person of Christ (miaphysite or a fully Divine-human nature rather than two natures, one divine and one human like we believe)

Right, they have problematic views. But do we consider them Christians?

It seems like despite wrong views, the general view in my experience is that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are considered Christian.

Why do you think icons is more important than Christology?

 

[RamistThomist]

Right, they have problematic views. But do we consider them Christians?

It seems like despite wrong views, the general view in my experience is that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are considered Christian.

Why do you think icons is more important than Christology?

I'm not sure why Copts are being mentioned about recent orthodox developments, but I'll take a stab at it. Miaphysitism was never saying what the emperor Justinian thought it was saying. Eutyches was never a good representative of miaphysitism. To be sure, I have problems with them on this point, but they can marshal quotes from Cyril that support their cause, and Cyril was the standard for Chalcedon.

 

[83r17h]

I'm not sure why Copts are being mentioned about recent orthodox developments, but I'll take a stab at it. Miaphysitism was never saying what the emperor Justinian thought it was saying. Eutyches was never a good representative of miaphysitism. To be sure, I have problems with them on this point, but they can marshal quotes from Cyril that support their cause, and Cyril was the standard for Chalcedon.

I'm curious if they fit or not. If they count as orthodox Christians, then it is hard to take anything post-Chalcedon as a boundary of Christian orthodoxy. We also charge the Lutherans with being opposed to Chalcedon, but it seems difficult to call the Lutherans "not orthodox Christianity."

I guess I'm almost going in the reverse direction of asking "who do we consider orthodox Christianity" to find the doctrinal boundary. Does that make sense, or am I insane? (The two are not mutually exclusive...)

 

[Parakaleo]

You might be reading more into my comment than was intended. I meant to convey that the Paul and the earliest followers specifically did not believe what you believe.

You have to admit you stepped right into that one. I have a reputation for reading things hyper woodenly, even though I would submit that I read things as woodenly as the context would dictate.

 

[RamistThomist]

You have to admit you stepped right into that one. I have a reputation for reading things hyper woodenly, even though I would submit that I read things as woodenly as the context would dictate.

I might have stepped into that, but you are clearly missing the intended (now clarified) meaning of my post.

 

[Parakaleo]

I might have stepped into that, but you are clearly missing the intended (now clarified) meaning of my post.

Jacob, I knew what you meant all along. I could claim now that you are clearly missing my intended meaning.