|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christian Orthodoxy
|
Via Media
Shipmate
# 16087
|
Posted
How should Christian orthodoxy be defined? Should the criteria be 'generous' -- say, the Apostles' and/or the Nicene Creed -- or must a Christian believe, and not believe, things above and beyond what is communicated in these ecumenical formularies (say, believing in Sola Fide; or rejecting gay marriage) to be considered orthodox?
The former interpretation would leave a lot of room for 'non-essential' doctrine (say, Calvinism vs. Arminianism; traditional sexual ethics vs. progressive ethics, etc.), which may be orthodox or may be heterodox; but insofar as the basic criteria is met, regardless of which position is taken on the non-essentials, the Christian nonetheless must be considered orthodox. The latter would leave less room, incorporating what the former sees as non-essential into the very criteria for Christian orthodoxy -- and thereby, possibly, making heretics out of Calvinists or Arminians, or those who reject traditional sexual ethics.
The question seems to me to be of central importance for ecumenism.
What say you?
[ 05. January 2015, 01:02: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Most of the time, eh?
Posts: 65 | From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I draw the line at the Council of Chalcedon, which includes the creeds and Christological controversies leading up to it.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I only use the word "orthodox" to describe the Orthodox Church, which alone lays claim to preserving not only the apostolic faith and ancient patterns of worship, but also the Creed in its original form. I'm afraid I think that to use the word in any other context risks misrepresentation.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Which is precisely the attitude that merits the use the fairly maligned terms "Roman Church" and "Eastern Churches."
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
How should Christian orthodoxy be defined?
What do you mean by 'Christian orthodoxy'? Is it what one must believe to be saved, what one must believe in order to call themselves Christian, or a definition of 'average' Christianity?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I use the ecumenical Creed as a standard for sine qua non Christian belief. There is more to be said on the subjects of ecclesiology and sacramentology (to coin a word), however.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
I vote for the Nicene Creed myself, and I vote for baptism to be seen as incorporation into Christendom.
According to that incomparable tome of internet knowledge, dictionary.com, the meaning of 'orthodox' comes from something like 'right in religion.' The question then becomes one of authority: who gets to declare what is 'right'--the bishops or the people?
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
The problem becomes tautological if, to be Christian, one must be orthodox, and if orthodox belief is required in order to claim the label of Christian.
What about those sincere Christians - followers of Jesus Christ - who are not Orthodox by creedal definitions, such as Unitarians, Quakers, Progressive Christians etc?
If orthodoxy and Christianity are conflated, it becomes impossible to be a heretic, and every heretic is forced to become an apostate.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
I think that different people have different definitions of "orthodoxy". Moreover, "orthodoxy" is itself often defined in terms of being "not heresy". The heresy itself is often defined in very fine detail, merely so that the orthodoxy can position itself as being the polar opposite on one particular point of detail of that heresy.
This is itself a legacy of Christianity's attempts to try to define itself in terms of being "not pagan" and "not Jewish", which in turn is partly a legacy of Judaism's attempts to define itself in terms of being "not Egyptian", and even, to some extent, Platonism's attempts to define itself in terms of being "not sophistry".
[ 31. December 2010, 16:36: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think I use orthodox to mean roughly speaking the Apostles' and Nicene creeds, plus the Chalcedonian definition, and anything that can be said to reasonably follow on from that. (For example, if you've said that God is the creator of all things visible and invisible, you can't then talk about God as another very complex assemblage of atoms and molecules.)
More precisely, it's the positions that you navigate towards by progressively rejecting various major Christological and Trinitarian heresies.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I think that different people have different definitions of "orthodoxy".
I'm finding it hard to imagine grounds for disagreeing with this.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Via Media
Shipmate
# 16087
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
What about those sincere Christians - followers of Jesus Christ - who are not Orthodox by creedal definitions, such as Unitarians, Quakers, Progressive Christians etc?
I don't know, but you've just proposed your own criteria for Christianhood: He who is a 'follower of Jesus Christ'.
A little too generous for my liking; it could include Muslims, for instance, who can claim to follow Jesus Christ.
--------------------
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Most of the time, eh?
Posts: 65 | From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
What do you want a definition of orthodoxy for?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I think that different people have different definitions of "orthodoxy".
I'm finding it hard to imagine grounds for disagreeing with this.
Thanks - but I'm pleased that you tried. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
More precisely, it's the positions that you navigate towards by progressively rejecting various major Christological and Trinitarian heresies.
Indeed. "Orthodoxy" is "not heresy", meaning that you have to understand the heresy before you can understand the orthodoxy.
The Trinity and the Incarnation seem to be particular sticking points. I particularly like the way that different denominations are able to accuse each other of being non-Trinitarian, and sometimes even non-Incarnational, when they each insist that they themselves are fully Trinitarian and Incarnational.
What about the Trinity? You're allowed to say "God is the Father, the Father is God. God is the Son, the Son is God. God is the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is God. But the Father is not the Son, and the Father is not the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Father, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is not the Son."
You can also say "Atum is Atum-Ra, Atum-Ra is Atum. Ra is Atum-Ra, and Atum-Ra is Ra. But Ra is not Atum, and Atum is not Ra".
But heaven forbid anyone suggest you use ancient Egyptian composite gods as a model for understanding the Trinity! No! That's far too pagan! Even though the nature of the Trinity is beyond human understanding, this is not supposed to prevent us from knowing that the nature of the Trinity is unlike the nature of Egyptian composite gods.
Platonism tried to pass itself off as being "not sophistry" - indeed, it even tries to have us believe that Socrates died over the matter, among other things. But personally, I reckon that Aristophanes had it right in his play "Clouds" all along.
And ever since then, one of the best ways of practising your sophistry skills has been to familiarise yourself with the apologetics of any religion or school of philosophy that tries to pass itself as "not" something else. Like "not pagan", or "not Jewish", for example.
Having said all that, I find it hard to conceive of a religion these days which does not define itself in terms of being not something else. It's no good saying that the hero will rescue the princess from the monster, if you can't tell the hero and the monster apart.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Via Media
Shipmate
# 16087
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What do you want a definition of orthodoxy for?
Why, orthopraxy, my good man.
Also, a solid common standard for ecumenical relations.
--------------------
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Most of the time, eh?
Posts: 65 | From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
The problem becomes tautological if, to be Christian, one must be orthodox, and if orthodox belief is required in order to claim the label of Christian.
This is pretty silly. Talking about orthodoxy is precisely talking about what the contents of the Christian faith are; it's drawing a line between Christian and non-Christian. If we aren't allowed to define orthodoxy, then the catholic faith is devoid of any meaning.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What do you want a definition of orthodoxy for?
Why, orthopraxy, my good man.
Also, a solid common standard for ecumenical relations.
But again, what are you going to do with this standard?
If the idea is, say, that you want it to be the criterion for entry into a particular ecumenical partnership, then the definition of "orthodoxy" should be determined by the aims of the partnership.
So if (for example) you're going to define the Council of Chalcedon as the standard of orthodoxy, such that non-Chalcedonians aren't allowed in the group, then there has to be some explanation as to why membership of the group would be unsuitable for, say, Copts or Armenian Orthodox.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
The problem becomes tautological if, to be Christian, one must be orthodox, and if orthodox belief is required in order to claim the label of Christian.
This is pretty silly. Talking about orthodoxy is precisely talking about what the contents of the Christian faith are; it's drawing a line between Christian and non-Christian. If we aren't allowed to define orthodoxy, then the catholic faith is devoid of any meaning.
No. You are of course allowed to define orthodoxy, but orthodoxy is narrower than, and not coterminous with, Christianity. There are plenty of people who are Christians, but not orthodox - because they believe that orthodoxy is wrong.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
The problem becomes tautological if, to be Christian, one must be orthodox, and if orthodox belief is required in order to claim the label of Christian.
This is pretty silly. Talking about orthodoxy is precisely talking about what the contents of the Christian faith are; it's drawing a line between Christian and non-Christian. If we aren't allowed to define orthodoxy, then the catholic faith is devoid of any meaning.
No. You are of course allowed to define orthodoxy, but orthodoxy is narrower than, and not coterminous with, Christianity. There are plenty of people who are Christians, but not orthodox - because they believe that orthodoxy is wrong.
Every community of faith defines its identity through certain rituals and beliefs. The orthodox creeds function in a similar way to a country's Constitution. I suppose one could say that a Constitution necessarily excludes those who do not agree with its underpinning values. But without a Constitution, a form of first principles that underlies the conversation, dialogue is difficult, and nay say, near impossible.
So even if one puts aside the Creeds, and simply examine the belief that Jesus existed. A conversation between two people who accept that Jesus existed will be different than people who reject his existence altogether.
Orthodoxy simply frames the dialogue. For example, when speaking of the doctrine of marriage, many thinkers use the analogy of the Trinity. To enter into the particular discussion of marriage then, would be to accept as a first principle, the doctrine of the Trinity.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So we need two definitions: "orthodoxy" for the desirable inner circle, and "Christian but not orthodox" for the less desirable but still okay outer circle.
But wait. Doubtless there are people who don't want to be in the bull's eye and yet don't want to be in the also-ran circle. We need three concentric circles then, each with its own definition.
But wait.
This way madness lies.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What do you want a definition of orthodoxy for?
Why, orthopraxy, my good man.
Also, a solid common standard for ecumenical relations.
But again, what are you going to do with this standard?
If the idea is, say, that you want it to be the criterion for entry into a particular ecumenical partnership, then the definition of "orthodoxy" should be determined by the aims of the partnership.
So if (for example) you're going to define the Council of Chalcedon as the standard of orthodoxy, such that non-Chalcedonians aren't allowed in the group, then there has to be some explanation as to why membership of the group would be unsuitable for, say, Copts or Armenian Orthodox.
That's a very good point. I think this is a very good argument in favour of the idea that the definition of "orthodoxy" ought to be a little bit flexible, so that it can be altered to fit the circumstances of each particular grouping of Christians as necessary.
I still think there might be some people who prefer to think that orthodoxy ought to be a bit more rigid than that, though.
Mind you, "God" and "orthodoxy" are not one and the same thing. Just because God doesn't change, doesn't mean that orthodoxy must not change either. But again, I think some Christians will be uncomfortable admitting that orthodoxy is itself a product of human need rather than divine revelation. Makes it sound a bit capricious.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So we need two definitions: "orthodoxy" for the desirable inner circle, and "Christian but not orthodox" for the less desirable but still okay outer circle.
But wait. Doubtless there are people who don't want to be in the bull's eye and yet don't want to be in the also-ran circle. We need three concentric circles then, each with its own definition.
But wait.
This way madness lies.
I agree. But I don't think it's any madder than the existing system of denominational infighting.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I wasn't aware that those were two options we were choosing between.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So we need two definitions: "orthodoxy" for the desirable inner circle, and "Christian but not orthodox" for the less desirable but still okay outer circle.
But wait. Doubtless there are people who don't want to be in the bull's eye and yet don't want to be in the also-ran circle. We need three concentric circles then, each with its own definition.
But wait.
This way madness lies.
From my perspective, where your "madness" goes wrong is in thinking that the circles are concentric, and that being orthodox is somehow better than being heterodox.
I just think of "orthodox Christians" as a sub-set of all Christians, no better or worse.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What do you want a definition of orthodoxy for?
Why, orthopraxy, my good man.
Also, a solid common standard for ecumenical relations.
And because it's preferable to believe something true to something false, whether or not that true or false thing has any practical outworking.
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I just think of "orthodox Christians" as a sub-set of all Christians, no better or worse.
We know. It's only the same pony you ride through town every Tuesday.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
I always imagined that saying 'an orthodox Christian' is tautological. Like saying a three sided triangle, or unmarried bachelor. The definition of being a Christian is to be orthodox.
Saying 'heterodox Christian' is like saying a five sided triangle or married bachelor - it's a state of affairs that simply cannot be.
I think the definition of a Christian, then, is someone who accepts the creeds; specifically, a Christian must believe in the Trinity and deity of Christ. Someone who says they're a Christian but don't believe Jesus is the Son of God is essentially saying that they're a Christian but not a Christian. It's a non-existent, impossible and contradictory state of affairs. They may well have a very real faith of some kind, they may worship in a Christian community, but their faith cannot be called Christian.
Obviously this should be qualified with the caveat that no human can judge whether a person affirms or denies these beliefs - it's perfectly possible for me to affirm the Creeds weekly at Mass, but to never have really believed them. I think that judgement of the heart is to be left to God alone.
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I just think of "orthodox Christians" as a sub-set of all Christians, no better or worse.
I think they're worse. Why get stuck on the idea that God somehow prefers right believers? As if belief was a choice, let alone an eternally significant one.
Until church redefines orthodoxy in terms of Christian values, better to be heterodox.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Until church redefines orthodoxy in terms of Christian values, better to be heterodox.
I rather like the value of believing what is true and rejecting what is false. Is that a Christian value? If you don't accept Christian revelation, then you don't accept Christianity and you aren't a Christian.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I just think of "orthodox Christians" as a sub-set of all Christians, no better or worse.
I think they're worse. Why get stuck on the idea that God somehow prefers right believers? As if belief was a choice, let alone an eternally significant one.
But lots of things are like this. To be a "Utilitarian" is to have certain beliefs. Likewise, a "behavioral Psychologist" or a "Keynesian economist."
These are definitions of things. The label "orthodox Christian" is - or should be - a value-neutral identifier. Just because certain people are pompous about it doesn't mean the rest of us are or have to be.
[ 31. December 2010, 21:42: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I rather like the value of believing what is true and rejecting what is false. Is that a Christian value?
Probably. It'd be what makes a revelation-believing orthodoxy undesirable.
quote:
you aren't a Christian.
Well, nothing to do with you anyway. I'm Church of England.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The label "orthodox Christian" is - or should be - a value-neutral identifier. Just because certain people are pompous about it doesn't mean the rest of us are or have to be.
True. It's hard to resist the odd comment though.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I just think of "orthodox Christians" as a sub-set of all Christians, no better or worse.
I think they're worse. Why get stuck on the idea that God somehow prefers right believers? As if belief was a choice, let alone an eternally significant one.
Until church redefines orthodoxy in terms of Christian values, better to be heterodox.
Indeed. I just wasn't bold enough to say that, and reopen a can of worms, on a forum dominated by those who think that orthodox = Christian and the rest of us can go hang.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you don't accept Christian revelation, then you don't accept Christianity and you aren't a Christian.
I think the point is that, in our view, the orthodox completely misunderstand the Christian revelation, as shown by the life and teachings of the man Jesus (as best we can piece them together from the historical record).
The orthodox treat Christianity as a set of doctrinal beliefs rather than an ethical approach, as a religion about God rather than as a philosophy about humanity, and as a means of salvation from hell rather than as grounding for life.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
The orthodox treat Christianity as a set of doctrinal beliefs rather than an ethical approach, as a religion about God rather than as a philosophy about humanity, and as a means of salvation from hell rather than as grounding for life.
Like I said, the pony you ride through town every week. In that view, orthodoxy means absolutely nothing. You could worship a 50-breasted fertility goddess and if you "Did unto others" you'd still count as a Christian. You've already pinpointed the essential difference between yourself and Christians- Christians think what one believes is important.
quote:
Probably. It'd be what makes a revelation-believing orthodoxy undesirable...Well, nothing to do with you anyway. I'm Church of England.
Cute how you cut what I actually said in the most precise manner possible so that you could twist it into something that would cause you offense. If you claim to be a Christian, yet you reject Christian revelation, I think you ought to give some very serious though into why you are a Christian at all. Where do you think the Christian faith came from? How can you accept the validity of its creeds if you can't accept how those creeds came about?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Like I said, the pony you ride through town every week.
I've as much right to my pony as you have to yours, and I'll keep on riding it as long as is necessary.
quote:
In that view, orthodoxy means absolutely nothing. You could worship a 50-breasted fertility goddess and if you "Did unto others" you'd still count as a Christian. You've already pinpointed the essential difference between yourself and Christians- Christians think what one believes is important.
What one believes is important. That's why false beliefs can be so dangerous, and why stripping Christianity back to its bare essentials is preferable to the multiplication of invented articles, creeds and doctrines.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
There has to be a point at which we don't attempt to make windows into men's souls, as Good Queen Bess said. Hence, subscribers to the Chalcedonian Christological definition and the Nicene Creed should arguably be considered orthodox Christians, regardless of how they might inwardly understand those formulae.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Via Media
Shipmate
# 16087
|
Posted
quote:
What one believes is important. That's why false beliefs can be so dangerous, and why stripping Christianity back to its bare essentials is preferable to the multiplication of invented articles, creeds and doctrines.[/QB]
Using the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds as the standard of Christian orthodoxy is stripping things down to the bare essentials. That's the point. The many differences between separate Christian communions and denominations (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) are supposed to be above and beyond the bare essentials which the Creeds communicate -- above and beyond (or, rather, below) the one catholic faith, called Christianity.
If Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., find that they do not believe some of these things, they have unfortunately departed from Christianity. This judgement/inference is not to denigrate them; it is, rather, to respect them as unique religions in their own right. For instance, it is more respectful to regard Islam -- which also shares much in common with Christianity, doctrinally -- as its own distinct religion than to regard it (as very many Christians did prior to the 20th century) as a 'Christian heresy'.
--------------------
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Most of the time, eh?
Posts: 65 | From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
quote:
What one believes is important. That's why false beliefs can be so dangerous, and why stripping Christianity back to its bare essentials is preferable to the multiplication of invented articles, creeds and doctrines.
Using the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds as the standard of Christian orthodoxy is stripping things down to the bare essentials. That's the point. The many differences between separate Christian communions and denominations (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) are supposed to be above and beyond the bare essentials which the Creeds communicate -- above and beyond (or, rather, below) the one catholic faith, called Christianity.
If Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., find that they do not believe some of these things, they have unfortunately departed from Christianity. This judgement/inference is not to denigrate them; it is, rather, to respect them as unique religions in their own right. For instance, it is more respectful to regard Islam -- which also shares much in common with Christianity, doctrinally -- as its own distinct religion than to regard it (as very many Christians did prior to the 20th century) as a 'Christian heresy'. [/QB]
Exactly.
To be Christian isn't simply a private matter, it is incorporation into a community of faith. As a worshipping community, much of our hymnals and devotional liturgies is rooted in Creedal theology ("Glory be to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" is often said/sung after a Psalm for example). By reciting the Creeds, we are intentionally entering into a tradition that includes Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Karl Rahner and others who were united in worshipping the Triune God and honoring the unique Incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. So, the Creeds act as a type of family language that signals that we are one family united around common faith principles.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
In that case, Christianity is a mockery and a travesty of Jesus Christ.
It's nothing more than a blasphemous concoction of cannibalistic mystery-cult pseudo-Egyptian idol-worship, and deserves about as much respect as Scientology or Satanism.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What do you want a definition of orthodoxy for?
Why, orthopraxy, my good man.
Also, a solid common standard for ecumenical relations.
And because it's preferable to believe something true to something false, whether or not that true or false thing has any practical outworking.
But the question posed wasn't "What is true?" but "How should we define the word 'orthodoxy'?"
From the responses given, it appears that most posters think "true" and "orthodox" are different things. A Protestant who defines "orthodox" in terms of the Nicene creed presumably believes the Catholics are wrong about (say) the Immaculate Conception, but not unorthodox. Whereas the Unitarians are both wrong and unorthodox.
RadicalWhig and Zach are not (on this thread) arguing about the proposition "Jesus Christ was God incarnate" - which is a proposition of fact - but merely over whether RadicalWhig can be called a Christian, which is a dispute over terminology.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The point I'm making is that asking "What is orthodox?" doesn't seem to be very helpful in establishing what is actually true or false.
It's very effective, however, for getting people annoyed.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
you cut what I actually said in the most precise manner possible so that you could twist it into something that would cause you offense.
No, I simply quoted the parts of your post I was replying with.
quote:
If you claim to be a Christian, yet you reject Christian revelation, I think you ought to give some very serious though into why you are a Christian at all.
I mostly don't claim to be a Christian, because I know there are people like yourself who take a very narrow view. Instead I self-identify as a member of a church where continuing orthodoxy of belief is not a condition of membership.
Willingness to assent to the creeds is not a test of belief anyway. Most people I know who regularly participate in services either don't say some parts of the creed, or say it only as part of the liturgy, nothing to do with their personal beliefs. It's a fundamentally dysfunctional means of expressing commitment to a community. Whatever the history, insisting on vocal assent to an institution's statement of beliefs only excludes those who prefer to mean what they say.
[cross-posted]
[ 01. January 2011, 11:28: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I am not sure that saying the Creeds is any test of orthodoxy. Depends what we mean when we say them.
The Apostles Creed has "born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate" and "sitteth at the right hand..." without distinction about the sense used. Yet all would say that the last is not to be taken literally and has a meaning beyond the literal.
Does the same apply to other credal phrases?
Can not "born of the virgin Mary" also be taken as a theological rather than a biological statement?
And anyway the driving force behind the creeds (particularly Chalcedon) was not so much to elaborate on truth as to combat heresy.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Radicalwhig, are you here to discuss the definition of orthodoxy, as Ricardus explained, or are you here to once again denounce the catholic faith?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Radicalwhig, are you here to discuss the definition of orthodoxy, as Ricardus explained, or are you here to once again denounce the catholic faith?
I'm here to remind you that what passes for your "orthodoxy" is not "right belief" at all. It couldn't be more wrong, either as a way of describing reality or as a way of understanding the message and teachings of Jesus. You can define "orthodox" and set the bounds of your religion as you please, but that doesn't make it right or true.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Most people I know who regularly participate in services either don't say some parts of the creed...
Which bits, specifically, aren't said?
The only line I imagine someone could not believe in the Apostle's Creed and still be a Christian is the "...and descended to the dead."
I can't understand how someone can claim to carry the name Christian and not believe in the deity of Christ or Trinity. I think it's a bit odd that someone who would want to claim to be a Christian wouldn't believe in the Virgin Birth, but it's certainly possible to not believe in the Virgin Birth and be a Christian.
Why would someone who doesn't believe that Christ is fully human and fully divine want the appelation of 'Christian'?
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Perhaps because they follow the religious and ethical teachings of the naturally-born mortal human being Jesus - you know, the non-trinitarian Jewish prophet who tried to purify and reform his religious tradition for the sake of a more genuine spirituality and a deeper human fraternity founded on a universal grace-based ethic, and who was martyred by the religious and political authorities of his day for the trouble?
[ 01. January 2011, 14:36: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Perhaps because they follow the religious and ethical teachings of the naturally-born mortal human being Jesus - you know, the non-trinitarian Jewish prophet who tried to purify and reform his religious tradition for the sake of a more genuine spirituality and a deeper human fraternity founded on a universal grace-based ethic, and who was martyred by the religious and political authorities of his day for the trouble?
All very laudable - except there's nothing unique about Jesus' ethical teaching when compared to those of any other rabbi, sage, buddha, guru, sadhu, druid etc. etc. Why does Jesus stand out?
Unless he's the Son of God?
And, the following of the teachings of a Jewish rabbi may amount to some sound ethical instruction, but it's not Christianity. Christianity says it's possible to have a living, personal relationship with that Jewish rabbi, who is alive now.
And I feel that a part of making that relationship a good one is believing the right things about that rabbi - including that he's fully divine, and alive now.
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
Why would someone who doesn't believe that Christ is fully human and fully divine want the appelation of 'Christian'?
Mostly I imagine to either identify with a particular community or institution, or to acknowledge they at least in some respect value the Christian tradition.
I suspect most claims to orthodox belief are more a fig leaf for commitment to or dependence on a church community that requires it than any meaningful conclusion about the Trinity.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
