Orthodox Christianity

[Davies]

Whoops - that's just the sort of thing I object to other people doing. Please accept my sincere apologies. (Davies - was that yet another miracle?)



I note your opinion.

Aardverk,

God is still blessing you!

- Davies

 

[Fedusenko]

This is a good read!

 

[Aardverk]

That is the million dollar question. It can be very difficult and it is very weighty but, of course, that neither means we should abandon such a pursuit nor simply disregard what much of the Church currently holds as orthodoxy (not that you're suggesting either of those).

Given that there can be no certainty on religious matters, otherwise it would be a matter of fact and not a matter of religious belief, how can there ever be a sensible 'pursuit' of orthodoxy? One person's orthodoxy with always be another person's heresy. Unless we appoint one person or one committee to tell us what to believe, we can never have universal belief. Attempts to do that in the past have always had tragic results. I think we are far better off living peaceably with differing beliefs and not pursuing orthodoxy.

The first to try to establish orthodoxy was Constantine, 1700 years ago. He appointed a committee to decide what was 'true Christianity' and then he enforced it. The Committee squabbled all the way through the process, he ordered them to stop wasting time on trivial matters and they published their book under serious time pressure from Constantine. Sadly, we still suffer from that rushed job and lack of clarity today.

[For those who are unaware of the relevant history, the book Constantine commissioned was the Bible.]

 

[Free]

Given that there can be no certainty on religious matters, otherwise it would be a matter of fact and not a matter of religious belief, how can there ever be a sensible 'pursuit' of orthodoxy? One person's orthodoxy with always be another person's heresy.

There can be a sensible pursuit of orthodoxy because we have the Bible and numerous writings about it. While there may not be any absolute certainty, on many issues there is a very high degree of certainty. Take the crucifixion and resurrection for example. Paul clearly states that if Jesus has not been raised, then there is no salvation and our faith is in vain. This is absolutely central to Christian belief. And there are very good reasons to believe that the resurrection did actually happen as an historical event. Yet there are those liberal "Christians" who deny the resurrection, hence showing that they cannot be Christians, based on Paul's words. Some things are clear and some things are not so clear.

As I stated, without orthodoxy there is no Christianity, no salvation. Right belief is even commanded to be pursued in Scripture. Most of the NT, if not the entire Bible, clearly implies that other beliefs are wrong and that there are a good number of things that are to be believed. So, if much of the Bible itself is an apologetic against other beliefs, then it is reasonable to conclude that there must be certain things which are true, that there is right belief which followers of Christ must seek out and follow, something that the NT very clearly states.

Unless we appoint one person or one committee to tell us what to believe, we can never have universal belief. Attempts to do that in the past have always had tragic results. I think we are far better off living peaceably with differing beliefs and not pursuing orthodoxy.

This isn't about forcing others to believe what we believe to be orthodoxy but to search it out and then discuss the differences. The one thing I find that people who argue to Christianity's problematic past often forget, is that amongst all the un-Christlike behaviour, is an understanding of the seriousness of error and the necessity for protecting the truth, even at all costs.

I am not at all trying to justify any of the atrocities committed by "Christianity," but rather point out that this "post-modern" idea of truth has had such a significant impact on society that even in the church people don't understand how important the truth is, how important correct belief is.

The first to try to establish orthodoxy was Constantine, 1700 years ago. He appointed a committee to decide what was 'true Christianity' and then he enforced it. The Committee squabbled all the way through the process, he ordered them to stop wasting time on trivial matters and they published their book under serious time pressure from Constantine. Sadly, we still suffer from that rushed job and lack of clarity today.

[For those who are unaware of the relevant history, the book Constantine commissioned was the Bible.]

There is no "suffering" from a supposed "rushed job and lack of clarity today." Let's look at why they needed to have a canon--lit. "reed" or "measuring stick".

There was much Gnostic and heretical literature that used "gospel of" or "acts of" in their titles to make them appear as though they were genuinely apostolic. The first canon was that of Marcion, who's Gnostic leanings led him to reject the entire OT and only include Luke and Paul's writings, sans references to the OT. If there was any who simply picked and chose what they liked in regards to acceptance of biblical books, it was Marcion.

Hence the immediate need for the Church to select those books which were acceptable for Christians, those which were authentic over against those that were not. There were criteria put in place to determine which books were inspired and which were not. The canon simply formed out of that process and those books which were rejected, were rejected for good reason.

There was at least one canon developed before Constantine came on the scene, the Muratorian Canon, and the process wasn't finished until long after his death, after several other canonical lists were put forth. The NT we have now was approved at the Council of Carthage in 397.

 

[nijjhar]

Hi Brethren,

In Jesus, our Faith is living of spirit and not the dead of the letters. Unless, you have ears to hear His Word, you cannot Preach Gospel from your own mouth.

Dead in spirit, bury their dead in letters.

Living Jesus is for the living in spirit people.

 

[farouk]

I suppose the thing that's up in the air, then, is what is or should be considered orthodox. That is a very weighty subject.

questdriven:

Yes; it's more to do with the authority of Scripture, than people's opinions and traditions.

 

[Aardverk]

.........While there may not be any absolute certainty, on many issues there is a very high degree of certainty.............. Some things are clear and some things are not so clear.

As I stated, without orthodoxy there is no Christianity, no salvation. Right belief is even commanded to be pursued in Scripture. Most of the NT, if not the entire Bible, clearly implies that other beliefs are wrong and that there are a good number of things that are to be believed. ...........


This isn't about forcing others to believe what we believe to be orthodoxy but to search it out and then discuss the differences. The one thing I find that people who argue to Christianity's problematic past often forget, is that amongst all the un-Christlike behaviour, is an understanding of the seriousness of error and the necessity for protecting the truth, even at all costs.

There is no "suffering" from a supposed "rushed job and lack of clarity today." ...................

Hence the immediate need for the Church to select those books which were acceptable for Christians, those which were authentic over against those that were not. There were criteria put in place to determine which books were inspired and which were not. The canon simply formed out of that process and those books which were rejected, were rejected for good reason.

I have edited your text and underlined the bits I would like to cover. I hope I have not changed any of your meaning by this process. I thought it more appropriate than dissecting your post bit by bit.

In essence you have done exactly what concerns me. You have made up your mind to accept certain things without doubt, whatever they may be, and appear totally convinced that you are right. Although you start off saying, quite reasonably, that there is a high degree of certainty (by which you actually mean ‘probability’, because ‘certainty’ cannot be qualified), but then state that there are things to be believed and refer to the necessity for protecting the truth, even at all costs. There is a rapid change in your words from a high degree of probability, to stating unequivocally that it is 'even worth all costs’ to enforce your truth. You certainly appear to leave no room for discussion even though you claim that there is. The impression given is that the discussion you mention would actually be a one-sided discussion and that the beliefs of anyone holding differing opinions from you would be dismissed because you feel it necessary to protect the truth even at all costs.

I have exaggerated slightly to make the point that yours are 'fighting words'. In reality, I am sure you do understand that when people are so convinced they are right, and will even fight (at all costs) to promote their beliefs, there can never be an open-minded debate. Given a slightly different subject matter, that rapidly transmutes into extremist politics.

You mention Christianity’s problematic past, which is an interesting subject for other threads, but Christianity also has a problematic present. We still have far too many people trying to tell others how to behave, what to believe and even what to wear. We can’t change the past but we can change the future – although I rather doubt that we will ever find enough open minds to successfully do so.

The very reason for the Bible being written was the plethora of differing Christian beliefs. The fact that in 325AD certain documents were accepted by the Council and other documents were rejected is in no manner proof that they made the right decision indeed the subsequent councils/synods, continuing arguments and schisms confirmed that the contents were not agreed and indeed are still not agreed in all matters. It is virtually a matter of random decision which particular ‘orthodox’ branch of Christianity you follow. One might as well just toss coins to make a decision now as the original documents no longer exist and we are reliant upon the accuracy of ‘political’ decisions made nearly 2,000 years ago. If a current political party made a momentous decision based on the documents that they had available and then burned everything that they didn’t bother to read or which disagreed with their decision, you would be rather suspicious – at least most of us would. There would however always be some who would continue to have unquestioning faith in that political party.

Far be it from me to tell anyone what to believe; I would not dream of telling anyone that I had all the answers. I have often said in these pages that I know nothing, I just have my beliefs and I generally only speak up when I see someone ‘teaching’ beliefs as if they were facts. Unfortunately there are a great many very good Christians who have absolutely no idea of the origin and reliability of the Bible nor of the controversy that abounded during its composition and which has continued ever since. Despite the laudable intention of creating just one version of Christianity, we have even more denominations today than Constantine sought to do away with 1,700 years ago. We will each find something to disagree with in all of those denominations and we will probably all find something to disagree with - with most of the intelligent members of your own denomination. Given that continuing, major problem, the practice of ‘telling’ people what to believe is far more divisive than humbly accepting that ‘we’ may not have all the answers. Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn't really know very much. 1 Corinthians 8:2 NLT


So, I stand by my earlier words….

……… how can there ever be a sensible 'pursuit' of orthodoxy? One person's orthodoxy with always be another person's heresy. Unless we appoint one person or one committee to tell us what to believe we can never have universal belief.

 

[Free]

.........While there may not be any absolute certainty, on many issues there is a very high degree of certainty.............. Some things are clear and some things are not so clear.

As I stated, without orthodoxy there is no Christianity, no salvation. Right belief is even commanded to be pursued in Scripture. Most of the NT, if not the entire Bible, clearly implies that other beliefs are wrong and that there are a good number of things that are to be believed. ...........


This isn't about forcing others to believe what we believe to be orthodoxy but to search it out and then discuss the differences. The one thing I find that people who argue to Christianity's problematic past often forget, is that amongst all the un-Christlike behaviour, is an understanding of the seriousness of error and the necessity for protecting the truth, even at all costs.

There is no "suffering" from a supposed "rushed job and lack of clarity today." ...................

Hence the immediate need for the Church to select those books which were acceptable for Christians, those which were authentic over against those that were not. There were criteria put in place to determine which books were inspired and which were not. The canon simply formed out of that process and those books which were rejected, were rejected for good reason.

I have edited your text and underlined the bits I would like to cover. I hope I have not changed any of your meaning by this process. I thought it more appropriate than dissecting your post bit by bit.

I don't think you've necessarily changed anything but I don't think you quite understood what I was saying.

In essence you have done exactly what concerns me. You have made up your mind to accept certain things without doubt, whatever they may be, and appear totally convinced that you are right. Although you start off saying, quite reasonably, that there is a high degree of certainty (by which you actually mean ‘probability’, because ‘certainty’ cannot be qualified), but then state that there are things to be believed and refer to the necessity for protecting the truth, even at all costs. There is a rapid change in your words from a high degree of probability, to stating unequivocally that it is 'even worth all costs’ to enforce your truth. You certainly appear to leave no room for discussion even though you claim that there is. The impression given is that the discussion you mention would actually be a one-sided discussion and that the beliefs of anyone holding differing opinions from you would be dismissed because you feel it necessary to protect the truth even at all costs.

I wasn't saying that I personally believe truth should be protected at all costs, but rather it would seem likely that previous Christians thought so. If that was the case, I can see why they did it, although I don't agree with it.

My point was twofold: 1) simply that they saw that the truth needed to be protected and error stamped out (although there was more to it than just that), and 2) that currently many people are stuck in this so-called post-modern mindset where truth is subjective and unknowable, particularly (and conveniently) in regards to religion. They simply do not understand the seriousness of truth or claims to truth, particularly in regards to the big three religions.

I have exaggerated slightly to make the point that yours are 'fighting words'. In reality, I am sure you do understand that when people are so convinced they are right, and will even fight (at all costs) to promote their beliefs, there can never be an open-minded debate. Given a slightly different subject matter, that rapidly transmutes into extremist politics.

Any truth claim is, in a sense, "fighting words". Of course those who will fight at all costs to promote their beliefs will not be open-minded. But there is no point in believing in anything if there isn't a high degree of probability that it is in fact true. One should be prepared to defend their position but also be open-minded to a better position, such as one that has better explanatory power, that best takes into account all that Scripture states.

You mention Christianity’s problematic past, which is an interesting subject for other threads, but Christianity also has a problematic present. We still have far too many people trying to tell others how to behave, what to believe and even what to wear. We can’t change the past but we can change the future – although I rather doubt that we will ever find enough open minds to successfully do so.

While we do need to be careful in telling others how to believe and behave, there is room for that and indeed it is even commanded in Scripture. Christians are commanded to judge biblical teaching and gently and un-hypocritically help others deal with wrong and sinful behaviour. Most of the letters of the NT are spent precisely in telling people how to behave and what to believe.

The very reason for the Bible being written was the plethora of differing Christian beliefs. The fact that in 325AD certain documents were accepted by the Council and other documents were rejected is in no manner proof that they made the right decision indeed the subsequent councils/synods, continuing arguments and schisms confirmed that the contents were not agreed and indeed are still not agreed in all matters. It is virtually a matter of random decision which particular ‘orthodox’ branch of Christianity you follow. One might as well just toss coins to make a decision now as the original documents no longer exist and we are reliant upon the accuracy of ‘political’ decisions made nearly 2,000 years ago.

As I stated, the need for an orthodox canon arose when the Muratorian canon was put together. There arose an immediate need to differentiate legitimate, accepted Christian writings from those that were imposters. Hence, as far as the Bible was concerned, the fight for truth was on. The seriousness of error is of the highest order when one considers the seriousness of the claims made by the Bible.

There were criteria used to determine which books were inspired and that is how the books for canonization came about. What it wasn't was random nor one faction of Christianity fighting another faction(s). While there was some disagreement, many that were excluded were excluded for good reason, particularly the Gnostic books.

There is no reason to believe that we need to agree in all matters but there certainly are certain things to be believed if one is to truly be a Christian. And on this I believe there is a significant amount of agreement.

If a current political party made a momentous decision based on the documents that they had available and then burned everything that they didn’t bother to read or which disagreed with their decision, you would be rather suspicious – at least most of us would. There would however always be some who would continue to have unquestioning faith in that political party.

With politics? Sure, it would be rather suspicious but politics is a different animal. It is a human institution and is on a different level than claims to direct revelation from God. As far as any Christian burning of documents that disagreed with, I wouldn't agree with it but I can see why it would be done. Suspicious? Perhaps. But that wouldn't make them wrong either.

Far be it from me to tell anyone what to believe; I would not dream of telling anyone that I had all the answers. I have often said in these pages that I know nothing, I just have my beliefs and I generally only speak up when I see someone ‘teaching’ beliefs as if they were facts. Unfortunately there are a great many very good Christians who have absolutely no idea of the origin and reliability of the Bible nor of the controversy that abounded during its composition and which has continued ever since.

It isn't about thinking one has all the answers but rather that the answers which they do have are most likely correct, as far as they are concerned. If one of those answers is seen by someone else to be weak or in some way inferior to another answer, then that person really should engage them on it and find out why they believe what they do, and then show why they think that answer is not the best one. This takes open-mindedness and humility by both (all) sides, since either (any) could be right or neither (none) could be right. That is the hard part.

As for the reliability of the Bible, there really is little reason to question it and rather many reasons to believe that what we have is all that God revealed as necessary for salvation.

Despite the laudable intention of creating just one version of Christianity, we have even more denominations today than Constantine sought to do away with 1,700 years ago. We will each find something to disagree with in all of those denominations and we will probably all find something to disagree with - with most of the intelligent members of your own denomination. Given that continuing, major problem, the practice of ‘telling’ people what to believe is far more divisive than humbly accepting that ‘we’ may not have all the answers. Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn't really know very much. 1 Corinthians 8:2 NLT

I very much agree except that if there were no denominations and we absolutely did not tell anyone what to believe, each single person would be a denomination unto themselves. This would make the Bible and any claim to be a Christian utterly pointless. This is, btw, precisely what happens when people believe truth is subjective and ultimately unknowable--there is no truth, which means there is no falsehood, and everything becomes meaningless.

So, I stand by my earlier words….

……… how can there ever be a sensible 'pursuit' of orthodoxy? One person's orthodoxy with always be another person's heresy. Unless we appoint one person or one committee to tell us what to believe we can never have universal belief.

Just because people disagree and because while on this Earth we will never have universal belief, does not mean there is no truth nor that truth cannot be found. That is what makes pursuit of orthodoxy sensible. In order for that to happen dialogue and discussion of various positions on a matter must take place. Truth is worth "fighting" for because of the seriousness of error.

If there is no pursuit of orthodoxy, which is the same as a pursuit of truth as far as Scripture is concerned, then what is the point in even reading or believing anything in Scripture?

 

[Grazer]

I guess I don't see the pursuit of orthodoxy and the pursuit of truth as being the same thing

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Free]

I guess I don't see the pursuit of orthodoxy and the pursuit of truth as being the same thing

I don't see how it could be otherwise. How could the pursuit of "right belief" not essentially be the same as the pursuit of truth?

 

[Grazer]

I don't see how it could be otherwise. How could the pursuit of "right belief" not essentially be the same as the pursuit of truth?

Because I don't see orthodoxy as the "right belief" If you look throughout history, the orthodox view of many things has changed and that change started with someone challenging the orthodox. The Pharisees were the orthodox of their time.

Orthodoxy needs challenging every once in a while.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Vanguard]

What is orthodox Christianity? What's so orthodox about it? What's good about it? What's wrong with a little liberalism? What's wrong with being a little radical? Was Jesus orthodox? Do I have to be orthodox to be a good Christian?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

What is Orthodox Christianity? Historically it is the eastern development of Christianity in the former Byzantine Empire (Greece, Turkey, other smaller countries). Beyond that it has no real meaning if you get right down to it. As a Christian you are saved through Jesus. End of story.

What's so orthodox about it? Orthodox Christians try to adhere to the early teachings of the faith, or at least to the doctrines and creeds therein. Very little wiggle room.

What's good about it? I'll answer this question with another question: what's good about any religion? If you can grasp on to something and through it find faith, then it is "good."

What's wrong with a little liberalism? Nothing, as liberalism preaches equality, as did Jesus. He would openly speak to women, which at the time was taboo.

What's wrong with being a little radical? Nothing if your heart is in the right place. Jesus was radical according to the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Was Jesus orthodox? You'd have to ask Him that. The real question is...does it matter?

Do I have to be orthodox to be a good Christian? Absolutely not! Being good is not defined by the label you wear in your choice of denomination.

 

[Aardverk]

Hello Free

You make some interesting points that I would like to explore further but between us we have raised rather too many issues and we would end up writing War & Peace. I will therefore extract just a few elements to comment upon this time and hope that I have not misrepresented your words.

I wasn't saying that I personally believe truth should be protected at all costs, but rather it would seem likely that previous Christians thought so.

I have looked back at your words but I cannot read into them to the meaning you now give. I do accept your explanation and am relieved that you don’t think we should go to war over religious beliefs again.

many people are stuck in this so-called post-modern mindset where truth is subjective and unknowable, particularly (and conveniently) in regards to religion

We are in agreement on the nonsense idea of everyone having a ‘different truth’. There can only be one truth. The difficulty is in establishing what the truth is – even on issues in the news just last year let alone what happened 2,000 or 4,000 or 8,000 years ago before there was even any writing.

There were criteria used to determine which books were inspired

That is the second time you have said that so I will ‘bite’ this time and ask what criteria you have in mind? Certainly they would have looked for confirmatory documentation but we now ‘know’, and they probably did not know then, what was copied from what. We ‘know’ when the gospels were written and that it was after the deaths of the disciples.

We also ‘know’ that the fables in the Old Testament are mainly Midrash produced by Rabbis to provide an explanation for what was then unknowable, yet many people still regard the OT fables as factual even to the extent of ignoring or dismissing scientific ‘fact’. I put the words, ‘fact’, ‘truth’ and ‘know’ in quotes to indicate that we can never be certain of our facts, we can only look at the best evidence and decide from there what is probable. Science and religion are both littered with ‘facts’ that have proven to be wrong as our knowledge increases.

many that were excluded were excluded for good reason

I will ‘bite’ again. What would you call a good reason for dismissing any particular record?

It isn't about thinking one has all the answers but rather that the answers which they do have are most likely correct, as far as they are concerned. If one of those answers is seen by someone else to be weak or in some way inferior to another answer, then that person really should engage them on it and find out why they believe what they do, and then show why they think that answer is not the best one.

That is a very sensible approach. The chief reason that I personally have stopped calling myself a Christian is that I could not see any reason to think that the Bible was divinely inspired. We know why it was compiled (Constantine’s orders) and we know that there was much disagreement. The evidence for divine inspiration seems a little thin to me so I would be very pleased to hear why you describe it as ‘divinely inspired’.

The ‘divine inspiration’ you talk of presumably included the OT fables that any open minded person will acknowledge are simply wrong.

As for the reliability of the Bible, there really is little reason to question it

Yet I do question it. The ‘facts’ in the Bible disagree in far too many ways with the vast accumulation of knowledge held by man. You claim, without support yet, that there were ‘good reasons’ for disregarding many documents (that you have never read by the way) in 325AD but you will need to give a very good reason for disregarding the whole of the rest of the knowledge of mankind which conflicts with the Bible. Why would we accept a 2,000 year explanation for some highly questionable events that we now ‘know’ are incorrect?

if there were no denominations and we absolutely did not tell anyone what to believe, each single person would be a denomination unto themselves. This would make the Bible and any claim to be a Christian utterly pointless.

Whereas I feel it pointless one person angrily telling another person what they should believe. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Bible being taught, there is a lot to learn from it. The problem is that we all learn something different and all interpret it differently. None of us can say with confidence that we are right and there can therefore be no reliable orthodoxy.

Just because people disagree and because while on this Earth we will never have universal belief, does not mean there is no truth nor that truth cannot be found. That is what makes pursuit of orthodoxy sensible.

You are mixing up the laudable pursuit of truth with the highly questionable pursuit of orthodoxy – the subject of the OP.