What is "orthodox theology" in Christianity?

[Tim]

@swamidass

I suspect most Anglicans have never heard of John Polkinghorne .

And how many evangelical church-goers have heard of Thomas Oords? I would expect that, apart from theologians who are either prominent members of a church’s hierarchy, or those who are also prominent apologist writers, most churchgoers would not have heard of most theologians.

@swamidass

I should also add that this sort of analysis doesn’t require picking a side in these debates, or agreeing with any particular side.

I’m not picking a side, and if I were, it would most certainly not in favor of Open Theism, a viewpoint that I don’t have much personal sympathy for. I am merely using it as an example, prominent through having been repeatedly brought up, of how a potentially-heretical idea gets treated.

@swamidass

Just from a “people watching” or sociological point of view, we can talk about what ideas are accepted in particular groupings of Christian.

Yes, we can, but I don’t think you will like where this “people watching” leads me. I return to your original statement:

@swamidass

Most of them ended up losing their jobs at seminaries. Outside a very narrow group, the idea seems to have been quickly rejected. So it never gained enough traction to elicit much in the way of official condemnation, as far as I know.

On further reflection, I find this account to be very troubling. OT seems to have been disposed of through preemptive suppression and fear (of getting fired), rather than through calm consideration of its merits in open debate. This feels more than a little Orwellian. It is not the sort of process that would bring anybody who values freedom of conscience, freedom of expression or academic freedom to a positive view of evangelicalism.

It tells me a lot more about the evangelical mindset than it does about demarcating the border between the merely heterodox and the outright heretical.

@swamidass

This original conversations was about Evangelicals …

No Joshua, this thread is about “What is ‘orthodox theology’ in Christianity”. It has been about “a set of core doctrines common to all the great ancient, medieval and Reformation churches – the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholic, the Anglican, the Reformed, and the Lutheran” (from the thread’s 6th post).

Therefore I would suggest that its remit is rather wider than ideas that make evangelicals bring out their torches and pitchforks.

And its remit is most emphatically NOT about “evolutionary creationists” and BL. Your repeated attempts to drag this thread back to BL (which was the subject of the previous thread, where orthodoxy and OT were first discussed, not this thread) forces me to bring up a well-known Churchill quote:

A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.

Could we please keep this thread’s subject on Orthodoxy not BL?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Seems like you forgot the history of this thread . It was spit from another thread with that was specifically regarding BioLogos and RTB, and the early posts here address BL specifically.

It’s fine though, as I think the key points are all made quite clearly as it is.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Tim

@swamidass

Most of them ended up losing their jobs at seminaries. Outside a very narrow group, the idea seems to have been quickly rejected. So it never gained enough traction to elicit much in the way of official condemnation, as far as I know.

On further reflection, I find this account to be very troubling . OT seems to have been disposed of through preemptive suppression and fear (of getting fired), rather than through calm consideration of its merits in open debate.

Honestly, I had nothing to do with it. It seems that there was about a decade of debate, in which the ideas were carefully considered. They were explicitly arguing for a change to the traditional position, so it’s not if that was manufactured by their opponents.

Whether or not people should have lost jobs, I’ve already been clear my position on that: Q&A on “A Compromise on Creationism”

It comes down to whether, in specific cases, the individuals adopted positions in conflict with the belief statements of their institutions. I don’t know any of the specifics here, and I hope that no one was unfairly dismissed.

[Witchdoc]

@BenKissling

This is what I believe Daniel meant when he said there’s a “non-zero chance” God will not accomplish His purposes.

I have a few questions here.

Does God will for each and every person to be saved?

It is clear from a few bible verses that God’s will is for all sinners be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37).

Yet will all sinners be saved?

If not, is this not an example of a non-zero chance of God not fulfilling His purposes?

Why/why not?

[deuteroKJ (Kenneth Turner)]

@swamidass

[NOTE: @deuteroKJ corrected me here. Peter Enns is not an Open Theist. Rather, he rejects Biblical inerrancy, a different unorthodox position.]

If I might add one more pedantic correction. From my standpoint, at least, inerrancy is not core to orthodoxy. While inspiration is assumed by the creeds and taught by the universal church in the tradition, inerrancy is a bit of a latecomer (with particular roots in the North American landscape of the early 20th c. that take on political and sociological flavors as much as theological). If we replaced this term with something more basic like “truthfulness” then it becomes closer to the core.

Given that the Evangelical Theological Society anchors itself in two doctrines–inerrancy and Trinity…and, as noted, tied inerrancy to the Chicago Statement–Enns’ shift put him on the outs with this group. (The term “evangelical” can and has been used without inerrancy as a litmus test, but ETS is the main game in town in the US scene.)

Whether Enns is orthodox would depend on his view of other issues–positions of which I don’t have knowledge.

As an aside, I was at the ETS meeting that voted on the Open Theists guys. I voted against removing them, partly b/c I felt there needed to be more time and discussion to figure out, and partly b/c It is a collection of scholars and not a church or denomination.

[Tim]

It seems a post I made yesterday got lost in moderation. Unfortunately I did not take the precaution of saving a backup of it when I closed my computer, so will have to reconstruct it.

@swamidass

Seems like you forgot the history of this thread .

Seems you overlooked my parenthetical stating that BL “was the subject of the previous thread, where orthodoxy and OT were first discussed”. I did not ‘forget’ the history, I explicitly addressed it. But BL was the subject of that thread, not this thread.

@swamidass

Honestly, I had nothing to do with it.

I did not intend to imply that you were in any way personally involved. If I was unclear on that point, then I apologise.

@swamidass

It seems that there was about a decade of debate, in which the ideas were carefully considered.

I would not consider institutional infighting to get individual theologians fired before there was some form of binding consensus on the status of the idea to be ‘careful consideration’. It strikes me as a blatant attempt to nobble your opposition. It leaves one side with their leading figures having had their reputations damaged, and the remainder scared for their jobs and reputations. This sort of process would seem tailor-made to favor rigidity over rigor.

@swamidass

It comes down to whether, in specific cases, the individuals adopted positions in conflict with the belief statements of their institutions. I don’t know any of the specifics here, and I hope that no one was unfairly dismissed.

A quick reading of Wikiedpia articles on OT’s main supporters, and supporting citations, suggests that it was considerably more murky than that. Oord for example left as part of a “negotiated settlement” after a new university’s president’s request that he resign led to a vote of no confidence in that president, and the president’s resignation. John E. Sanders was dismissed, not because he was a supporter of OT (as other supporters at his university were not), but because he was the most prominent supporter.

@deuteroKJ

As an aside, I was at the ETS meeting that voted on the Open Theists guys. I voted against removing them, partly b/c I felt there needed to be more time and discussion to figure out, and partly b/c It is a collection of scholars and not a church or denomination.

That strikes me as the more cautious and considered approach.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Tim

@swamidass

It comes down to whether, in specific cases, the individuals adopted positions in conflict with the belief statements of their institutions. I don’t know any of the specifics here, and I hope that no one was unfairly dismissed.

A quick reading of Wikiedpia articles on OT’s main supporters, and supporting citations, suggests that it was considerably more murky than that.

I’m not surprised it was murky. This is a specific area that is in need of reform at religious institutions.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@John_Harshman

Eddie disposed of any religious opinions he didn’t want to entertain by saying they weren’t foundational and thus weren’t theology.

I don’t recall ever saying that views that weren’t foundational “weren’t theology”. A statement might not be foundational to historical Christianity but still theological in content.

I pointed out that certain views were historically orthodox and their negations historically unorthodox. That God sees all of the future is orthodox; that God sees none of it, or some of it, unorthodox. That God created everything is orthodox; that matter is co-eternal with God and uncreated by him is unorthodox.

As for what I would “entertain”, as a scholar I would entertain any view, orthodox or unorthodox, for the sake of discussion and clarification and philosophical evaluation. However, as a historian reporting on what the Church consistently maintained on some questions for the first 1700 years or so, what I personally would “entertain” is irrelevant.

Another way of putting it is that I could be the rankest heretic that ever lived, yet still be very accurate in describing what the Church has labelled as orthodox, unorthodox, heretical, etc. My personal evaluations are not the source of Church definitions. I might say that Polkinghorne’s Open Theism is both unorthodox, and false; but I could be wrong about the latter while being entirely correct about the former.

So when I say that certain BioLogos figures have flirted with unorthodoxy, I could be entirely right, while if I say that the BioLogos figures are wrong to do that I could be entirely wrong. After all, the BioLogos folks might be right about God, and traditional orthodoxy wrong. But before we could debate such things, we would have to know what is the orthodox position was, why it was held, what the BioLogos position is, why it is held, etc.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Eddie

As for what I would “entertain”, as a scholar I would entertain any view, orthodox or unorthodox, for the sake of discussion and clarification and philosophical evaluation. However, as a historian reporting on what the Church consistently maintained on some questions for the first 1700 years or so, what I personally would “entertain” is irrelevant.

Another way of putting it is that I could be the rankest heretic that ever lived, yet still be very accurate in describing what the Church has labelled as orthodox, unorthodox, heretical, etc.

I agree.

This is really a matter of historical fidelity, not personal beliefs. Certainly, there are going to be debates on the historical record, but the debate isn’t about we personally believe to be the correct doctrines. Nor is there a rule that the historical position of the Church was always correct in all its details (of course it wasn’t).

[John_Harshman]

@Eddie

However, as a historian reporting on what the Church consistently maintained on some questions for the first 1700 years or so

What is “the Church”? How do you recognize whether a theologian or denomination or sect is part of or speaks for “the Church”? Are Southern Baptists part of “the Church”? Are English Dissenters? Hussites? Anabaptists?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

Nor is there a rule that the historical position of the Church was always correct in all its details (of course it wasn’t).

Why limit that to past tense?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@John_Harshman

What is “the Church”?

I’m not concerned with administrative definitions here. Obviously there are different churches, from that point of view. Any formally embodied Christian group can be correctly called a church, and in that sense, there is not one Church, but many. But speaking in reference to theology, this was already covered in past comments from Daniel Ang, Jon Garvey, and myself, and I think some others as well. One can speak in an approximate way of the teaching of “the Church,” because, despite administrative separation, there is wide general agreement on the main points of Christian theology among the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Reformed, and Lutheran churches in their pre-Enlightenment forms. As well, most of the major Protestant groups are not far off classical Reformation churches in their theology.

Thus, you will find Eastern and Roman theologians disagreeing over details, such as whence the Holy Spirit proceeds, but you won’t find any of them denying God’s omnipotence or foresight. From the point of view of Constantinople, Rome, Canterbury, Geneva, and Wittenberg, Open Theism is unorthodox. So those TE/EC proponents who endorse or flirt with Open Theism are endorsing or flirting with unorthodoxy.

I have a hard time thinking you don’t understand this, so your motive in pressing the same point over and over again is unclear. If you want to say (e.g.) that Open Theism may not be orthodox, but could still be true, I would not contradict you. But if you are suggesting that one should not call Open Theism unorthodox, on the grounds that orthodoxy is so vague that Open Theism could well be included, then I’d say you’re simply wrong from a scholarly and historical point of view.

[John_Harshman]

@Eddie

One can speak in an approximate way of the teaching of “the Church,” because, despite administrative separation, there is wide general agreement on the main points of Christian theology among the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Reformed, and Lutheran churches in their pre-Enlightenment forms. As well, most of the major Protestant groups are not far off classical Reformation churches in their theology.

So, essentially, all those groups whose theology you like are “the Church”, but not the ones you don’t? Do I gather that you dislike the Enlightenment and everything else post-dating the 17th Century?

@Eddie

I have a hard time thinking you don’t understand this, so your motive in pressing the same point over and over again is unclear.

I’m still not getting just how inclusive or restrictive your meaning is. And it all seems circular. Orthodoxy is what the Church teaches, and the Church is those groups that teach orthodoxy.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@John_Harshman

So, essentially, all those groups whose theology you like are “the Church”, but not the ones you don’t?

No. I defined orthodoxy based not on my likes and dislikes, but on historical considerations. For all you know, I may dislike some of the beliefs insisted upon by orthodoxy. I’m reporting on the common view of all the older, major churches from roughly the 4th century until 1700 or so. Whether I like what I see is another matter entirely.

@John_Harshman

Do I gather that you dislike the Enlightenment and everything else post-dating the 17th Century?

Whether I dislike it is another matter. The point is that churches have been modifying their doctrines since about that time, and increasingly in the past 50 years or so. You can praise these modifications, or condemn them, but that they have happened is a fact.

@John_Harshman

Orthodoxy is what the Church teaches, and the Church is those groups that teach orthodoxy.

Try this: “churches”, small c, teach all kinds of things, some of them orthodox, some not. But “the Church” – the Church laid up in heaven, so to speak – teaches only orthodox doctrine. To be sure, the Church, being earthly as well as heavenly, is imperfectly realized (among other imperfections, it is split into various denominations), and so definitions of orthodoxy have rough edges. But a table with rough edges still functions pretty well as a table. An approximation of the teaching of “the Church” (the ideal Church, with the unity the Apostles and the Father strove for) is the consensus on core doctrines of all the older, major churches. Amidst all the rough edges (e.g., disagreements between East and West over whether the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, or from the Father and the Son), that consensus is a pretty useful guide for most things.

For example, there is consensus that God is omnipotent and knows all the future. That means that Open Theism is unorthodox for all traditional Christians, ranging from the Eastern Orthodox to the Presbyterians and Baptists. So if some BioLogos writers are endorsing or flirting with Open Theism, it’s an easy judgment that they are endorsing or flirting with an unorthodox view. Why would you want to question such a judgment? What’s your motive in shedding doubt on it?

I don’t need an absolutely air-tight definition of the mammalian order Chiroptera in order to know that the Mexican Beaded Lizard doesn’t belong to it. I just have to know that the lizard is not a mammal (and therefore can’t belong to a mammalian order). You seem to think that if someone can’t provide an absolutely rigorous description of the exact boundaries of orthodoxy, it will be impossible to ever know if anything is unorthodox. But that’s not the case. While there may be some borderline cases, some things are clearly outside the borders. And when we are talking about the speculations of theistic evolutionists, some of them are so obviously outside the borders that it seems downright pedantic to insist on a definition of orthodoxy accurate to 3 decimal places before a judgment can be made.

[John_Harshman]

@Eddie

The point is that churches have been modifying their doctrines since about that time, and increasingly in the past 50 years or so. You can praise these modifications, or condemn them, but that they have happened is a fact.

Why is the cutoff for orthodoxy 1700? Why is there a cutoff at all?

@Eddie

But “the Church” – the Church laid up in heaven, so to speak – teaches only orthodox doctrine.

Useless, since we have no access to this putative heavenly church.

@Eddie

An approximation of the teaching of “the Church” (the ideal Church, with the unity the Apostles and the Father strove for) is the consensus on core doctrines of all the older, major churches.

You have given no reason why that should be a correct approximation.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@John_Harshman

Why is the cutoff for orthodoxy 1700? Why is there a cutoff at all?

The core doctrines were established long before 1700, by the Fathers in fact. I only included up to 1700 because all the major confessions show significant overlap up to that point (the year is not meant exactly). I didn’t want people accusing me of taking a “Catholic” position and disregarding Lutherans, Reformed, Anglican, etc. And in fact I granted that even after 1700 most Protestant denominations followed in the path of the original Reformers, regarding basic doctrine. Daniel said the same. So the cutoff isn’t sacrosanct. It’s the contents, not the year, that matters.

Open Theism, for example, is out, whether it was floated in 500 or 1000 or 1500 or 1700 or today – for any church that follows the well-ploughed road, rather than engaging in innovations inspired by the Enlightenment and later thought.

@John_Harshman

Useless, since we have no access to this putative heavenly church.

We have no access to pure frictionless surfaces or pure vacuums either, but scientists employ such notions all the time in formulating their theories. Ideal cases are not intellectually useless. All theologians strive to articulate the doctrine that they believe Christ wanted His Church to have. If they fall short, because their brains aren’t good enough, or their reasonings are corrupted by sinful desires, etc., it’s still their intention to come as close to the right theology as possible. And because the Church is not a mere aggregation of freelancing individuals, but a body in which there is mutual criticism and instruction, the defects of any individual theologizer can be corrected by the group.

@John_Harshman

You have given no reason why that should be a correct approximation.

If you think it’s an incorrect approximation, you are free to provide your own alternate Christian theology; just tell us the sources on which you are basing it.

In any case, it is the approximation that has been used by theologians. You may think it is unreasonable that it should be called “orthodoxy”, but so it has been called. When I say that such and such a TE leader is entertaining unorthodox theological views, that’s the approximation I’m using for orthodoxy. I may be wrong to do so, but then, if I am, so are Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Aquinas, John Knox, Lewis, Chesterton, Sayers, Newman, and a lot of other very smart, very historically informed, very philologically competent people. So I will be in good company in my error. And all of us will be glad if you can show us a better approximation.