What is the definition of Orthodoxy?

[Alex_Smith]

Well I think we established that the Athanasian Creed doesn’t define orthodoxy (The Athanasian Creed defines orthodoxy), so the question is, what does??

As the declarations of early ecumenical councils were taken as binding by both eastern and western churches, they set the standard for orthodoxy in all mainstream Christian churches—Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant.

What are the “declarations of early ecumenical councils”? Up to the Second Council of Nicea?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scisms_and_their_Councils.PNG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Scisms_and_their_Councils.PNG/800px-Scisms_and_their_Councils.PNG

I know Robin has written on this topic (evangelicaluniversalist.blogspot … ns-to.html and in both his books), but it would be good to have a summary.

[Luke]

I haven’t read that thread yet but I doubt that it overturns one and half thousand years of church history.

Defining Orthodoxy objectively as possible would be very important in this debate, in that post of Parry’s that you linked to Alex, I only skimmed it and couldn’t see a definition.

[TGB]

For a quick review: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Councils

I might screw this up, but if you look at it in terms of specific councils, you have the first seven councils (325 AD to 787 AD):

(1 – 7)
1st Nicaea, 1st Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, 2nd Constantinople, 3rd Constantinople, 2nd Nicaea.

Roman Catholics hold further councils to be authoritative:

(5 – etc.)
(4th Constantinople, the Lateran councils, the Lyon councils, etc., all the way to 2nd Vatican).

You have SOME Eastern Orthodox who abide by 4th Constantinople, 5th Constantinople, and the Synod of Jerusalem (1672).

The Assyrian Church accepts only 1 and 2. Oriental Orthodox accept 1, 2, and 3. Eastern Orthodox embrace all of 1 – 7 and some accept a few more.

Roman Catholics accept 1 – 7 and many others.

Anglicans accept (?) 1 – 7 but conditionally.

Lutherans and Methodists accept 1 – 7 with reservations.

Other Protestants accept none.

---

So again my question: Whose orthodoxy? Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Evangelicals? At best we might say the Seven Ecumenical councils are generally adhered to, or perhaps the first three, but even there Protestants only take the crucial doctrinal elements from them. They wouldn’t feel obligated to accept what the creeds say about icons for example!

Tom

[JasonPratt]

Well I think we established that the Athanasian Creed doesn’t define orthodoxy (The Athanasian Creed defines orthodoxy), so the question is, what does??

Ummmm… we did? I don’t remember establishing that. I sure didn’t argue that it doesn’t define orthodoxy. Nor that it does! (All I argued was that the wrapping statements aren’t the “Catholic faith” that the wrapping statements are talking about and promoting super-heavily.)

TGB’s summary is, as far as I can recall, accurate.

I would add that conservative and moderate Protestant congregations effectively accept the theological if not specifically hierarchical positions established in Councils 1 through 7, even if informally so. The Southern Baptist Conference may not like treating Creeds as being authoritatively binding, but they/we still accept the positions nominally and usually in practice. (Also, that hasn’t stopped them from writing up declarations of faith, i.e. “credos” “we believe”, and refusing membership privileges to congregations which don’t accept them. Nor do I blame them for that in the least.)

[TGB]

I’ve struggled with how to relate the councils and creeds to defining orthodoxy. It’s not about which councils and creeds to go with. For the sake of argument, let’s start with Luke Islam’s comment:

Luke (on his blog): Generally…the first four creeds and the first seven councils are taken as the starting point of traditional catholic (universal) Christianity.

OK, does Luke do this? Does he accept the four creeds and full published conclusions of the first seven councils? There’s a great deal in these councils that I’m guessing he wouldn’t accept. I know there are many conclusions/dictates that I don’t buy. Now, my point is, to those who take these documents seriously as sources of orthodoxy, they take them in their entirety. One doesn’t get to pick and choose which parts or conclusions one is going to view as definitive of orthodox. To do THAT is essentially to argue a new creed based on previous creeds. I think that’s what most modern Protestants do, and I think this boils down to using the creeds as a kind of menu from which one orders up one’s own unique standard of orthodoxy, and THAT is just to place one’s self over and against these creeds and the tradition of belief and experience they represent.

Be that as it may, Luke’s attempt to secure the heretical status of orthodoxy (if that’s what he’s doing) by appealing to the Athanasian Creed fails because a) that Creed is not among the standard measurement Luke later admits is definitive of orthodoxy (referred to above), and b) Luke (likely) does not accept everything in these councils himself, which leaves us wondering why he is not also a heretic? And if Luke is just picking which parts of the councils and creeds HE believes are authoritative today (say, regarding the question of UR), then my question is: Who is Luke over and against anyone else who is picking and choosing from among the proceedings of these councils? In the end, Luke saws off the limb on which he sits.

On top of all this we have universalists among the Fathers and saints who remain to this day in good standing. If I embrace the universalism of Gregory of Nyssa, am I a heretic? Does Luke think Gregory is a heretic? Imagine…the Father of the Fathers (St. Gregory) is a frickin universalist? How are you going to condemn universalists as heretics without condemning Gregory (and Maximus, and many other venerable saints of the Church)?

Tom

[Luke]

Sure it’s a only a starting point and a circular one at that (Creeds true according to Scripture, Scripture read in the light of the creeds), but I’m not worried by that. You can make the same charge against Christianity in general, the Bible is part of the evidence God exists but God was one of the authors of the Bible.

I suspect we won’t get far because this debate will simply end up as “orthodoxy” is whatever you want it to be (TGB is already heading that way with his “see everyone believes something different” post), seeing this makes me happy to be an Anglican and part of the wider church that holds to confessions of faith as a good starting point for defining orthodoxy.

[Alex_Smith]

I haven’t read that thread yet but I doubt that it overturns one and half thousand years of church history.

I don’t think Robin is trying to overturn/create a new definition.

Defining Orthodoxy objectively as possible would be very important in this debate, in that post of Parry’s that you linked to Alex, I only skimmed it and couldn’t see a definition.

I agree. That post was more talking about how EU fits into Orthodoxy, rather than defining Orthodoxy.

[Alex_Smith]

Well I think we established that the Athanasian Creed doesn’t define orthodoxy (The Athanasian Creed defines orthodoxy), so the question is, what does??

Ummmm… we did? I don’t remember establishing that. I sure didn’t argue that it doesn’t define orthodoxy. Nor that it does! (All I argued was that the wrapping statements aren’t the “Catholic faith” that the wrapping statements are talking about and promoting super-heavily.)

John/Luke were implying the Athanasian Creed (inc. wrappers) defined Orthodoxy. Which as far as I can tell, it doesn’t because 1. the wrappers, 2. questionable date/authorship. It certainly contains things that are Orthodox, but it, in-and-of itself, isn’t the definition of Orthodoxy.

[Alex_Smith]

Sorry Tom, I’m not purposely ignoring you, just trouble keeping up with everything

At best we might say the Seven Ecumenical councils are generally adhered to, or perhaps the first three, but even there Protestants only take the crucial doctrinal elements from them. They wouldn’t feel obligated to accept what the creeds say about icons for example!

I think that’s a good summary

[Luke]

Hey Alex,

A couple of questions, Jason is pushing this strange idea of divisions inside the creed (“wrappers”) why do you buy into that? Also although it’s only named after Athanasius, why is authorship and dating causing you problems in accepting the creed?

Also it’s only a starting point along with the other early creeds. We construct orthodoxy in the same way we construct our doctrine of salvation and the Trinity: find the consistent threads and see who says what when.

[Alex_Smith]

A couple of questions, Jason is pushing this strange idea of divisions inside the creed (“wrappers”) why do you buy into that?

I think Jason makes a fair point, there really does seem to be a wrapper.

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iv.html) "]1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.

2. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; etc.

It certainly looks like 3. onwards is the definition of the Catholic Faith. Whilst 1. & 2. does seem like a warning, that the only way to be saved is by 100% holding this position before all things (I hold that “Christ died for the sins of the world & offers us forgiveness and grace”, before all things, not the Catholic Faith and my ability to adhere to it).

Also although it’s only named after Athanasius, why is authorship and dating causing you problems in accepting the creed?

Authorship matters, because it helps us determine the context, date, authority and acceptance it deserves. In this case, the authorship & date are in doubt, therefore, whilst it’s a good creed, it’s can’t be the seen as the definition of what is Orthodox or not. The Nicene Creed is better in both regards, and it’s not surprising is more widely accepted and therefore it’s a much better definition of what is Orthodox.

Also it’s only a starting point along with the other early creeds. We construct orthodoxy in the same way we construct our doctrine of salvation and the Trinity: find the consistent threads and see who says what when.

I agree.

[TGB]

I’m not sure what the purpose/point is in referencing the Athanasian Creed to begin with. Is it to establish that ECT has been around for a LONG time? No universalist disagrees. But–literally–so what? What’s the POINT of that? There has more or less been a UR tradition within the Church for the earliest days on as well, even if a minority. And the Athanasian Creed isn’t an ecumenical creed of the undivided church. So what’s the point? Luke, what do you want universalists to see and agree to re: universalism from the Ath. Creed?

Tom

[Luke]

I guess I understood the question as can we use the AthCreed as part of our definition of orthodoxy?

[Paidion]

Well… in a word, the definition of “orthodox” is “true”. But since there are so many opinions on what is true, it cannot be established to everyone’s satisfaction just what is “orthodox”.