Classic Definition of Orthodoxy

[alcovey]

What is your definition of 'orthodox'?

Ask 10 Evangelical Christians, and you will most likely get 10 different answers.

Many of our beliefs have historic roots, but how old and how orthodox are they?

I would submit that orthodoxy has already been established by the Church Counsels, and they are the only authoritative means we have for settling doctrinal disputes that virtually all of Christendom accept.

God Bless,

Allen

 

[alcovey]

Of course the most ancient (outside of the Bible) and probably the well known creed is:



The Apostles' Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

 

[alcovey]

And probably the next most famous Creed is the Nicene Creed:


The Nicene Creed (381 A.D.)

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

 

[alcovey]

Then we have 2 more - slightly lesser known, but further define classic orthodoxy and belief. Notice that the Creeds (as opposed to many Statements of Beliefs) tend to focus on Christology.



The Chalcedonian Creed

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.






The Athanasian Creed

We worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit.

The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being. So also there are not three uncreated Beings, nor three infinite Beings, but one uncreated and one infinite Being.

In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. And yet there are not three omnipotent Beings, but one omnipotent Being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God only. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only.

For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each person distinctively to be both God and Lord, we are prohibited by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords. The Father is made by none, nor created, nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone, not made, not created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is not created by the Father and the Son, nor begotten, but proceeds. Therefore, there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

And in this Trinity there is nothing prior or posterior, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal to themselves. So that through all, as was said above, both unity in trinity and trinity in unity is to be adored. Whoever would be saved, let him thus think concerning the Trinity.

 

[parousia70]

So if something can be proven with scripture, but contradicts the creeds, the creeds must be considered the final authority?

 

[alcovey]

Originally posted by parousia70
So if something can be proven with scripture, but contradicts the creeds, the creeds must be considered the final authority?

Hi Parousia,

This is the thing. Most Christians believe in the Trinity as orthodox. And yet, it is not really that clear in Scripture. To those of us who accept it, it is - but let's say a group of people, with the Bible as their guide, sit down and determine for themselves whether or not the Trinity is is true. After careful review and prayer, they come to the unanimous conclusion that the Trinity is a 'tradition of man' and is wrong - 'Jesus is the firstborn of all creation' therefore he is a created being. - who is to tell them that they are wrong?

Private interpretation of Scripture is a huge problem. So, if we rely solely on 'Scripture Alone' as the ultimate authority - we can bicker endlessly on what is the 'right interpretation of Scripture' (orthodoxy)

So, I would say that we better have a darned good reason to question the creeds, as they have been the standard for close to 2000 years, where many of the 'current theological trends' can be mere fads.

Do you have any specifiic statements in the Creeds that you think are unBiblical?

I used to think there were, until I got studying them out and discovering what was meant by the various doctrines contained in them.

God Bless,

Allen

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by alcovey
What is your definition of 'orthodox'?

Ask 10 Evangelical Christians, and you will most likely get 10 different answers.

Many of our beliefs have historic roots, but how old and how orthodox are they?

I would submit that orthodoxy has already been established by the Church Counsels, and they are the only authoritative means we have for settling doctrinal disputes that virtually all of Christendom accept.

God Bless,

Allen

Hey how is it going?  You know me on your site as Blackhaw6.  I am an admin. here.  Happy you are here.

But enough with the introductions.  I have a question because I know you are Catholic.  Doesn't your councilarism viewpoint go against the church's position on who and what are the authorities on what is orthodox?  Part of the reason Martin Luther was not taken very well was his view that councils should be used to reform the church.   Now I am not saying that you have to believe what the RCC believes on this position but jsut curious.   

 

[JesusServant]

I think most civil Christians that do not believe in that Jesus is God part of the Trinity do not attack or hurt people who do believe it in any way.  If people feel threatened they feel threatened, that's not the fault of someone who questions a popular theory.  Normally on such discussion I can always walk away with "well, it's not a salvation point, so it's not of the utmost importance", and the same goes here for the most part.  But, as an individual, I really want to know the truth. 

People ALWAYS use the argument of how long a theory or belief has been around like that justifies it in some way.  Once again I make the point that for no telling how long people believed the world was flat, maybe for thousands of years, but that long term belief did not hold true.

God bless!

 

[alcovey]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
Hey how is it going?  You know me on your site as Blackhaw6.  I am an admin. here.  Happy you are here.

But enough with the introductions.  I have a question because I know you are Catholic.  Doesn't your councilarism viewpoint go against the church's position on who and what are the authorities on what is orthodox?  Part of the reason Martin Luther was not taken very well was his view that councils should be used to reform the church.   Now I am not saying that you have to believe what the RCC believes on this position but jsut curious.   

Hi Blackhawk!

Long time no see! Always fee free to visit.

Point #1 is actually I'm not Catholic so really I cannot speak to most of your question. I am a non-denominational evangelical who has come to see the need for a more classic definition of orthodoxy. From what I am gathering from your question, it reminds me of the Orthodox position - where the Counsels (Bishops) rule on matters as a group, more than the Roman Pontiff. I just know that in my dialogues with Orthodox and Catholic, they all affirm the 7 Ecumenical Counsels, and with the minor exception of the filioque, they uphold the Creeds.

I don't know if we have the full, unbiased story of Martin Luther. I have heard quite a few conflicting statements about just how 'conciliatory' he really was. As a priest, to publicly denounce, and attack the Church is unacceptable, as well as the open teaching of questionable doctrine.

From my perspective, I highly doubt he handled himself appropriately in the situation, and his attitude and actions against the Jews were deplorable. Martin Luther is suspect, in my book. As Protestants, most of us have not questioned seriously the anti Catholic bias in our view of Church History.

So, if you could perhaps modify your question in light of these things, I will be happy to answer you if I can.

God Bless,

Allen

 

[Bruno]

ORTHODOX - Holding accepted views, traditional, following the crowd

 

[alcovey]

Originally posted by Bruno
ORTHODOX - Holding accepted views, traditional, following the crowd

Hi Bruno,

American Heritage Dictionary

orthodox
ADJECTIVE:
1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.
2. Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.
3. Orthodox a. Of or relating to any of the churches or rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church. b. Of or relating to Orthodox Judaism.
4. Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional: an orthodox view of world affairs.

To interpret that as following the crowd is to put a negative spin on it. Many Christians are doing what is right in their own eyes, interpreting the way they see fit - we have 300 some million doing that - I guess that could be considered 'following the crowd' also.

Kinda like way back in the 70's, we had millions of us running around saying 'Disco Sucks' - and we really thought we were being original!

When it comes to classic Christian orthodoxy, though - these things have been wrestled with at length by better minds than us - why would we be so quick to discard their views?

God Bless,

Allen

 

[alcovey]

Originally posted by JesusServant
I think most civil Christians that do not believe in that Jesus is God part of the Trinity do not attack or hurt people who do believe it in any way.  If people feel threatened they feel threatened, that's not the fault of someone who questions a popular theory.  Normally on such discussion I can always walk away with "well, it's not a salvation point, so it's not of the utmost importance", and the same goes here for the most part.  But, as an individual, I really want to know the truth. 

People ALWAYS use the argument of how long a theory or belief has been around like that justifies it in some way.  Once again I make the point that for no telling how long people believed the world was flat, maybe for thousands of years, but that long term belief did not hold true.

God bless!

JesusServant,

I can understand that longevity does not necessarily equate with truth. I held that view for most of my Christian walk. But as I look at Church History, and the more I get familiar with it - I have to ask myself which is more likely to be true?

One of the best arguments Catholics have used against me is: "I have an unbroken line of teaching and documentation that dates back to Ireneus (or some otherr ECF) who was a disciple of one of the originall apostles who supports what I say - what do you have? The Pre-Trib Rapture, for instance was unheard of until the late 1800s. And many Protestant doctrines are that way - they basically didn't exist for 1800 years, but we in the 21st Century presume to read our Bible and have a better handle on Truth than 2000 years of Church History. - Is it just me, or does that seem a little presumptuous?

Good doctrine does affect our salvation - we all acknowledge that certain cults or pseudo Christian groups are actually not Christian I don't have to be mean or a jerk about that to my Mormon or JW friends - but I must call their doctrines heretical. One thing you will notice is that the Creeds are basically Christological - they primarily focus and address issues of heresy that have come against who Christ is.

Another aspect of confessing the Creeds is that it links us to Historic Christianity - a communion of Saints of all ages, not just our local church or denomination.


Anyway,

God Bless,

Allen