What is "orthodox theology" in Christianity?

Conversation
22

That’s actually @RonSewell’s definition. Even Ron added that what these denominations hold in common are expressed in the “central historic creeds”, and there are groups other than those four whose beliefs are accurately expressed by those creeds. Furthermore, @Eddie has since clarified further what he means by orthodoxy, and it’s clear he and I are talking about the same thing.

That’s not clear to me. Nor do I think it’s relevant to the discussion.

No, of course not. I’m talking about what Baptists and Methodists actually believe and their theological interactions with other Christian groups.

1 Like
23

A good technical option is “heterodox,” which avoids the toxicity of “heresy” (though I agree with the conclusions of many here).

I didn’t read him as saying that, and I wouldn’t know what supposed unorthodox views the vast majority of Christians would hold.

And Baptists and Methodists did arise from the Reformation.

24

Rejecting the Trinity is a view that the vast majority of Christians would consider unorthodox. Wouldn’t you agree?

25

Ah, I misunderstood you. Yes, the majority would consider that unorthodox…not that the majority reject the Trinity and are therefore unorthodox.

1 Like
26

Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.

27

Is that the whole of orthodoxy? It doesn’t mention God knowing all the future, so Eddie’s example is missing.

28

“For the most part” removes effective meaning from that sentence, as does “on the whole there is continuity” in the next. What we have here is just a list of people you think are orthodox or at least orthodox-ish, and another list of people you don’t (all those individualistic American protestant sects, which oddly enough includes most American baptists, so maybe they aren’t part of “the most part”). It would be better if you could provide criteria for orthodoxy rather than just a very porous list. So: what are the criteria of orthodoxy?

Trinity, perhaps not. Etc., definitely. And I mean by you, not by someone else. You have not provided the criteria for orthodoxy.

If you can say this, there must be a list that you are referring to. Please state what this list contains. Apparently God must completely know the future. Where is this stated in the doctrines of all the churches you consider orthodox?

Ah, so it is.

It’s not clear to me, because nobody so far has defined orthodoxy.

You mistake his claim. He’s saying that the vast majority of Christians hold some ideas to be unorthodox, not that they hold unorthodox ideas.

29

Yes, I know. I was not accusing you of error, but merely trying to refine the discussion further, expanding upon your distinction.

No, but it’s a good skeleton of orthodoxy. Of course, skeletons need to have things added to them: flesh, skin, nerves, muscles, organs, etc. They aren’t the whole organism.

The Creed can be stated in a few paragraphs. But that there is more to be said about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is evident from the fact that theologians have written millions of pages about each of them.

That God knows the future, that God is omnipotent, omniscient, sovereign, providential, etc. is fleshed in great detail in the writings of the orthodox theologians – Athanasius, Augustine, the Cappadocians, etc. There is a high degree of consensus among theologians, even across “denominations”, on most of these doctrines, from the early centuries through the Reformation.

If you are truly interested in learning the contents of orthodox Christian theology, there are plenty of books in any university library, or even in the better public libraries, where you can read official statements produced by the Roman Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, etc., as well as commentaries and systematic works by the Fathers, the Scholastics, Calvin, etc., and scholarly works dealing with specific topics (e.g., Wand’s book on The Four Great Heresies). Jaroslav Pelikan’s five-volume historical work on the development of doctrine is quite good, though it presumes some background, and therefore is probably more useful for those who have read more basic introductions, such as Henry Chadwick’s The Early Church, first.

1 Like
30

No great mystery here. There are three major divisions in the Christian Church based on historical circumstance: the Eastern Orthodox, the Western Catholic, and the Protestant, which split from the Catholic stream.

All three accept the Bible as authoritative, the older streams accepting as canonical the few Old Testament apocrypha which the Protestants consider only as “edifying” because they do not appear in the Hebrew canon, but only the Greek Septuagint.

The major doctrines arising from that are summarised in the historic creeds, which all three accept, and in the decisions of Ecumenical Church Councils, which are pretty much agreed among the three for the first 4 centuries or so, when the major doctrines of the Trinity, Christology and some more were settled.

After that, as the East and West were becoming estranged (linked to the separation of the Eastern and Western empire on linguistic and political grounds) councils began to differ on less central issues. The Protestants of course were a reforming movement, and consciously adopted the decisions of the early councils together with the canon of Scripture.

A similar historic unity has existed regarding the early orthodox “Fathers,” of east and west, from the “apostolic Fathers” like Irenaeus through to later figures like Athanasius and Augustine and the Cappadocian Fathers. You’ll find these guys quoted as much by Calvin as by the Orthodox and Catholics, though the traditions vary as to how their authority is balanced with Scripture or the Councils. To the Protestant, they are subordinate to Scripture, and that is pretty much how the Fathers would have seen themselves, as well.

“Modernism” has tended to increase historical divsiions more than elide them: apart from the long assault on the authority of Scripture, and the doubts cast on the reliability of traditions even when shared by the major divisions, one has phenomena like the recent Russian Orthodox’s rejection of Augustine because he was Latin-speaking and western, though he was regarded previously very highly.

That unity on major doctrines is real is shown by the relative ease with which dissatisfied Christians sometimes move between them without changing their core beliefs. One of my friends, dissatisfied with the wooliness and innovations in the Baptist church, converted to Catholicism in the belief that it better preserves both the original teachings, and the authroity-structures to defend them. His wife remained a Baptist with a Charismatic bent, and they both consider each other orthodox (small “o”) Christians, whilst probably disagreeing on the Pope, the Virgin Mary’s role and so on.

For myself, I’m a Baptist elder, and have no hesitation in in reading and teaching from Orthodox or Catholic sources, old and new, whilst being careful to say where I disagree, and why. In that respect it’s very parallel to the way science was in its hay-day, before governments and corporations got control of the funding.

6 Likes
31

Once again, you remove meaning from your statements through equivocating words like “most of these”. I’m asking for a list of tenets that are required for orthodoxy. Not a cloud of tenets, some of which are often characteristic of orthodoxy. Extra points if you can say which are foundational and which are not.

32

There is no single set of documents or list of statements which conclusively and exhaustively define orthodox theology, just as there is no single set of documents or list of statements which conclusively and exhaustively define “the correct understanding of evolutionary science.” There is ongoing debate at the boundaries about what constitutes orthodoxy, and this is likely what Eddie means about “for the most part”. However, this does not negate the existence of a universally agreed upon core. Virtually everyone would agree that to be orthodox, it is necessary (but not sufficient) to affirm certain creeds such as the Apostles and Nicene creeds.

To affirm a creed doesn’t mean interpreting the words anyway you want. Rather one must affirm them in the way they have been traditionally understood throughout the centuries. There’s no set of documents that explain this fully and exhaustively, although Eddie has given some good reading recommendations to start with. This is not something that can be cleared up within a few forum posts. Rather you need some serious study to gradually absorb the tradition and how a theologian thinks. I would say something similar to someone who wants me to define “the correct understanding of modern physics.”

Finally, orthodox can be used to describe beliefs as well as churches or people. I know Joshua doesn’t like the term, but historically there has been a real difference between a heretical and heterodox belief. A church can affirm some heterodox beliefs still be regarded overall as being orthodox, but not heretical beliefs.

2 Likes
33

So what is the universally agreed upon core, and why, if it’s universally agreed upon, did you find it necessary to insert “virtually”? Further, if the Apostles and Nicene creeds are insufficient, why can’t you say what else is required? Orthodoxy seems amorphous and undefinable, perhaps differently defined by different people. One might suppose that the boundaries are fuzzy and a matter of opinion. So how do we tell if BioLogos is orthodox, heterodox, or heretical? Have they denied the Nicene creed?

1 Like
34

First, did you read what I wrote?

Second, I inserted “virtually” because there are probably a few oddball theologians who might dissent from that statement, just like there are a few creationist biologists out there.

One could say the same about the definition of “evolutionary science” or “modern physics”. For broad concepts such as these, it’s not unusual that it’s very difficult to come up with a precise definition that absolutely everyone agrees with.

No, certainly not as a whole. I think Eddie was referring to the views of Thomas Jay Oord, who supports open theism. Open theism is definitely regarded as outside the boundaries of orthodoxy. The vast majority of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Reformed, and Baptist theologians would all agree with this.

35

I did.

Excellent. Now we’re making progress. What makes it outside the boundaries of orthodoxy? What tenet of orthodoxy does it violate?

36

That’s my understanding too. There is a difference between heterodox (essentially the minority report, which might flat out contradict the majority) and heresy (explicitly rejected).

1 Like
37

Open theism explicitly rejects the doctrine of providence and God’s omniscience.

2 Likes
38

Besides what Joshua mentioned, open theism contradicts the basic tenet that God cannot change.

1 Like
39

Progress again. So among the basic tenets of orthodoxy are such diverse elements as providence, omniscience, and invariance. Are those tenets in fact universally agreed? Are they in the Nicene creed? And while omniscience and invariance are reasonably clear, providence is not. What is entailed?

40

Yes, all orthodox theologians would agree with this.

Not explicitly, but they are assumed.

That God governs all of creation, and God will not fail to achieve his will regarding creation.

1 Like
41

Not quite sure what that means. Are they implicitly in the creed? How is it implicit?

What does “govern” mean here? It seems to imply that every event is directly determined by God. He caused Covid-19, he caused the development of a vaccine, he caused the anti-vaxxer movement, he in fact caused your toast this morning to be a little burnt, caused you to spread butter on it nevertheless, and so on. No?