Orthodoxy…Starting a New Thread
’m going to do something a bit odd for this blog. I’m going to start a thread for discussion without posting too many of my own thoughts about the topic at the start. In the recent discussions we have had, the word “orthodox” was used by Earl, and I set it aside. Turns out that Earl used it very intentionally! (Sorry, Earl!) And then Tony Sisk said that he thought the word needed to be discussed, and perceived a negativity in my previous comments about the word.
Fair enough, gentlemen. So, in addition to continuing to dialogue about the other posts, I would like to open up the comments here for some thoughts about orthodoxy. Specifically, I’m requesting the following information from any and all who would like to contribute to this:
- What is your understanding of the definition of “orthodoxy”?
- How narrow or broad is the label “orthodox”?
- Who/what determines orthodoxy?
- How should orthodoxy affect fellowship (assuming you believe that unorthodox people can still be Christians)? If you don’t believe that a Christian can be “unorthodox”, then state that, too.
- How should orthodoxy be “enforced”, and by whom?
- What should be the result of someone being “unorthodox”?
Any other thoughts you want to address on this topic are fair game. I’m hoping that there will be enough input on this to give me something to respond to. But for now, the floor is all yours…
Until next time,
steve 
September 20th, 2006 00:38
Steve,
Well, I wasn’t expecting to be made a post out of…
I have no problem with using either the word orthodox or unorthodox. There must be an established set of doctrinal parameters to detrermine what is “sound” and “unsound” doctrine. May I take the pastoral epistles as a case study?
In 1 Timothy 1:3-4, Paul warns Timothy about wrong doctrine and to guard against it. He sought that Timothy might “remain in Ephesus that [he] may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables…”
In 1:10 Paul wrote that the law is against all that was ungodly and contrary to sound doctrine.
In 4:1, there is a doctrine that arises from demons and not from God.
4:6 shows us that Timothy was told this: “If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed.”
4:13: Paul told the young minister “Till I come give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.”
4:16 is an additional exhortation to “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them and you will save both yourself and those who hear you.”
The young pastor was to give himself to sound doctrine. It necessarily follows that if Paul is commanding Timothy to take heed to good (orthodox) doctrine, then it necessarily follows that there must be bad (unorthodox) doctrine. I do not see this as imposing anything artificial on the Word of God or erecting barriers around it , not when the formulation of it is clearly stated.
In 5:17, the Apostle counts the elders (read, shepherd, pastor) be counted of double honor especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.
6:1 teaches that bondservants are to count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine not be blasphemed.
6:3 warns of the futility of wrangling with men who subscribe to unsound doctrine and even recommends that those who ascribe to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ (as sound doctrine) withdraw from those who are unsound.
So, I think then that Paul is having Timothy devote a large amount of time in his ministry to the formulation of orthodox doctrine, training men in that doctrine to teach it to the congregations entrusted to their care, and then propagate that doctrine as what is true and correct and should be accepted as sound.
In 2 Timothy there are four references to doctrine, and without becoming laborious and tedious, I offer these references to you for your review: 3:10, 16, 4:2-3. Also there are four in Titus, much akin to the previous references: 1:9, 2:1, 7, and 10.
I think the qualifier Paul uses to describe doctrine in 1 Timothy 1:10, hugiaino, sound, speaks to orthodoxy. It speaks primarily of one who is in good health but can also be applied to one’s teaching and that it can be unhealthy; laden with error. The Greek word is also a verb (present active participle), which I do not think that it is a stretch of the exegesis to say that sound doctrine is an active pursuit of the Christian.
So, I think the analysis of these verses (and boy, have I tried to be brief!) answers, at least for me, the six bulleted questions in your post.
Orthodox would mean, then, an established set of doctrine, accepted by the church as fundamental and necessary to faith in Jesus Christ. A departure from these accepted tenets indicates a departure from the faith and a holding to unorthodoxy or departure from orthodoxy should affect fellowship. I would not call someone who is unorthodox in their beliefs about Jesus Christian, though I think this statement needs qualification.
For a Mormon who has come to Christ, I understand there is going to be a time where that new believer must grapple with their new understanding of the faith found in (the true) Jesus and there may be some mixture of error in their faith system. However, I am confident that the Holy Spirit is capable enough to stimulate a love for and a pursuit of sound doctrine in the regenerated believer. So, as a new believer wrestles with these things, he may hold some beliefs that are unorthodox while at the same time believing orthodox beliefs.
And the question of accountability? It goes without saying that of course the unorthodox are accountable to God, but how so that the unorthodox one is kept from misleading others, the reason why P aul had Timothy remain in Ephesus? I think it falls in the hands of the spiritual leadership of the church, as Paul advised Timothy, as he advised the church in Galatia, as John warned the church in Pergamos for holding to the doctrine of Balaam, specifically addressed to the church’s “messenger” or pastor, and as Jesus admonishes the church in Matthew 18. This I believe also applies to the deacons of the church in that they are to hold to the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience and have great boldness in their faith (1 Timothy 3:8-11).
And the result of the one who is unorthodox, is well, he looks like a great candidate for evangelism and instruction in sound doctrine.
To be honest, I have only read a few of your recent posts, and I do not know where you or any of the other commentes are coming from in your understanding of orthodoxy. This is how I see it from the Scriptures, and I am open for honest criticism. Also, I am tired and not thinking as clearly as i would like, but after reading the last post, felt it necessary to comment before I went to bed.
Blessings to all.
September 20th, 2006 08:31
Tony’s comments are excellent.
I can devote the continued time that I have to this blog. I’ve got to be doing things elsewhere. Steve, you’re doing an excellent job with the blog, keep it up. I will be dropping in as I have the opportunity. This is a fun place.
September 20th, 2006 08:36
Earl, I certainly understand about needing to do other things. You’re welcome here anytime. Thanks for your input on these topics.
Be blessed, brother!
steve
September 20th, 2006 09:24
What is your understanding of the definition of “orthodoxy”?
A: Believing the doctrines I believe.
How narrow or broad is the label “orthodox”?
A: Only those who agree with me.
Who/what determines orthodoxy?
A: I do.
How should orthodoxy affect fellowship (assuming you believe that unorthodox people can still be Christians)? If you don’t believe that a Christian can be “unorthodox”, then state that, too.
A: If someone is “unorthodox” (disagrees with me) they cannot be a Christian.
I therefore cannot fellowship with anyone who does not agree with me.
How should orthodoxy be “enforced”, and by whom?
A: Careful comparison of their doctrine to mine. By me or my appointed representative.
What should be the result of someone being “unorthodox”?
A: Excommunication and possibly death (depending on their willingness to recant).
Sorry, Steve.
I couldn’t pass it up. Everyone can feel free to resume their serious discussion now.
September 20th, 2006 10:10
Nephos, very, very funny! Thanks for the humor
It’s always welcome here.
steve
September 20th, 2006 15:49
Tony, I appreciate the thoughts you have put here. I’m going to leave this thread open for a while longer (maybe even a day or two) to give others a chance to give input on their thoughts concerning this topic before I respond. But thank you for taking the time to respond!
steve
September 20th, 2006 16:27
No thanks needed. I am the one that is grateful. I appreciate you entertaining my ramblings and the courteous and open dialogue. I am looking forward to your response, and whomever else decides to get involved.
Blessings to you and yours,
Tony
P.S. I LOVE the composers as your anti-spam words!! I hope you have included Mozart in their somewhere…mine and my wife’s favorite!
September 20th, 2006 16:42
I don’t believe in orthodoxy. I think every Christian should develop his own theology and then when we get to heaven, the one who is closest to the actual truth gets the biggest mansion.
Seriously, there are pros and cons to orthodoxy. If it is orthodox error, then unfortunately it is perpetuated through successive generations.
On the other hand, if something has been held to for several generations and is considered to be orthodox, then it is probably worth at least a second look as to why.
In either case, it is important to note that there is no “new truth”. What is true, has been true from the beginning. It is our responsibility to determine what that truth is.
September 20th, 2006 17:10
Doctrine and orthodoxy…..hmmmm….Tony’s has done a service in gathering the Scriptures which topically refer to doctrine and substantiating the biblical directive to hold to sound doctrine. His linking of these Scriptures to “orthodoxy” has been logical. Yet do these references directly link any particular doctrine to “orthodox” Christianity as understood and practiced today?
Can one find any Scripture like:
“Teach the belief in the Trinity as sound doctrine.”
or
“Have nothing to do with those who sprinkle for baptism, for this is based on unorthodox doctrine.”
Are the doctrines of Scripture not all a function of the doctrine of faith? Are these doctrines not clearly linked to faith in the Living God as revealed in the Testatments and fulfilled by Jesus? What beyond faith in Jesus must doctrine address?
Faith pleases God. Leaders who expect those who follow them to believe doctrines which are of men do so to their own peril. This discussion takes on huge proportions and must be carefully thought through by all those who accept the mantle of guiding others in faith and its practices. God shed the blood of His first begotten Son for people not robots. His goal was for people to come into the life, the Tree of Life, Jesus. Jesus described and lived a mystery: a wonderful, mystical experience of a human in-dwelt by God. Then He prayed for His disciples and those who followed to know the same experience. Next He took on the greatest act of love imaginable by walking the path of the cross so that fallen, flawed and failing-all-holiness humans could become forgiven and cleansed. Thus prepared, people receive the power of the resurrection, a power over death itself, a new life as those who are in-dwelt by God. This oneness of Creator with created is only because of His wondrous grace to substitute Jesus in atonement for the sin we willfully embrace. Having come into oneness with Him, the mystery unfolds. The fruit of the Holy Spirit can be forthcoming out of these mere humans.
But we better get a handle on this: human beings will not bring forth those fruits by any means other the in-dwelling Christ. People cannot be commanded, coerced, or manipulated into a holiness which is a function of the heart submitted to the presence of Jesus within. People so submitted are wonderful to be with, because the fruit is so sweet.
Here is my opinion: Orthodox Christianity is clearly mystical and nothing less.
I do not accept “orthodoxy” or “doctrine” which moves far beyond a short list for this reason: Orthodox Christianity and sound doctrine is that which supports, encourages and gives instruction on knowing the in-dwelling Spirit of Jesus, people then being released by such knowledge into an ever-increasing love of the Father and experiencing an ever-more effectual love of other people.
Paul said he taught Christ and Him crucified. Will we make orthodoxy any more than that? If so, why, and to what result?
Those would teach Christ and call it the feeding and tending of those who would follow Christ must ask themselves honestly and critically, “Do my words support the life in the Spirit or the law of death?”
September 21st, 2006 09:46
I would have to follow the thought that the centrality of Christ is my doctrine…all else stems from this….I don’t believe in ordothoxy…it has caused much injustice and misunderstanding over the centuries, robbing the church of true liberty in Christ and crushing Christians under its heel…There may be good and solid ground hidden in orthodoxy but it is just that, hidden, and was meant from the beginning to keep believers from having personal interaction with scripture, personal spiritual experience and personal relationship with God Himself, perpetuating the idea that interpretaion of God should be left to the more educated and compleley making void the value of the Holy Spirit in the lives of ordinary believers. I agree with ded’s comments and with Paul who said he would know nothing “save Christ among you”
September 21st, 2006 16:08
Hi Steve and other commenters,
Thank you for the gracoius dialogue; I have enjoyed listening and praying through this with all of you; I hope you have to.
After reviewing, thinking, and praying through the comments that have thus far gathered, I do not think we are all on the same page.
Steve, as per your inititial request at the conclusion of the “About those Mormons” post, I have attempted to build my case from Scripture, adhering to the Word with as little explanatory comment as possible. I have appealed to no creed or formal statement of faith, not that I would anyway.
I believe though that the discussion I am reading is orthodoxy vs. Christian liberty which is not what I am arguing at all, not even from my initial comment on the “Mormons” post. I believe Christian liberty with all my heart! I want to impose nothing on any other brother or sister and I expect the same courtesy. What I am arguing is orthodoxy vs. unorthodoxy, and the way I understand it is simply true teaching vs. false teaching. The tone I am “feeling,” and correct me if I’m wrong, is that orthodox(y) is BAD and its opposite is Christian liberty, and it is not! The simple dictionary definition of orthodox is “correct or sound, especially in religious teaching.” I readily admit that the word orthodoxy has too many religious trappings and through church history it has become a hatchet word. In the name of “orthodoxy” too many religious groups have busted wide open; take for instance the temperance and private prayer language arguments aflame in the SBC, all in the name of supposed orthodoxy.
So, with that being said, I can refrain from using the word orthodox(y), if you will allow me the usage of the word “sound” in place of it, a thoroughly biblical word (not that I think orthodox is not a biblical word). In no way am I trying to fit someone into a particular “box” nor do I want to be placed into a box myself. My primary argument is seeing that certain “religious” groups do not hold to sound Christian beliefs; in no way am I trying to impose anything on my brothers and sisters in Christ, draw party lines, or anything like that. So, I guess what I am trying to understand is that the Bible does build a case for sound and unsound teaching and I am not trying to make any statements on what those teachings are (yet).
I hope this clears the air somewhat. Thanks and God bless!!!
September 21st, 2006 23:46
…I would take sound doctrine in place of orthodox. It culturally presents less baggage.
September 22nd, 2006 15:11
I concur with the idea to by-pass the word othordox.
Aslo, thank you, Tony for reaching for a unity of the spirit here. I appreciate this very much and recognize such as in keeping with Steve’s heart for discussion. Blogs being just words, it is hard to convey nuances that body language and eye contact enable. I hope my words have not sounded too passionate for things I hold in my heart. I have always been a very expressive person.
Do Jesus’ words form doctrine?
Is denying self/death to self a doctrine?
I am looking forward to hearing your statements on what constitutes sound doctrine.
September 22nd, 2006 19:51
Steve,
I define orthodoxy as the faith handed down from the apostles. I think it is generally determined by the creeds, not necessarily any one creed in particular. I think that orthodoxy is very broad and allows for a wide variety of theology.
I would treat some unorthodox Christians different than others. For example, I tend to be more accepting of those who believe in “Oneness” than a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness. In any case, I would treat all outside orthodoxy with respect and compassion.
Doctrine is important. But so is love. When we elevate doctrine over people we become like the Pharisees. Not only do we behave in a despicable manner, but we get out doctrine out of whack as well.
Rod
September 22nd, 2006 21:51
Steve,
Believe it or not, I wrote the previous comment before reading your “Mormon” post. Scary, huh? Though we do seem to have a difference of opinion on this issue.
Rod
September 27th, 2006 08:33
Hey, Steve,
Just dropped by after a long while, and found you’ve been Busy since I last came!
I’ve been listening to Brian Hogan on Church Planting Movements, and one thing he talks about is that if you keep the gospel really simple, and focus on Obedience rather than “beliefs”, Orthodoxy is a kind of side-effect instead of a goal. If you are always pointing people back to “What does Jesus say we should DO?” then the renewing of one’s mind by the washing of the Word just keeps re-orienting us to the Kingdom.
Jesus said, “If you love me, you’ll obey what I command” and I’ve found it true, that A Life shows who the Heart Knows! We cannot do what God requires without God’s power.
It’s been my experience that people who have weird “hobby horse” beliefs unfailingly are too busy arguing doctrine to obey Jesus. You don’t see them practicing hospitality, visiting the sick, repenting of their pride. I also see that people who are obeying Jesus discover they are too busy to spend much time arguing over hobby horses! Being “doers of the word, and not hearers only” has a purifying effect.
September 27th, 2006 22:42
Laurie Ann, nice to see you again! I appreciate your input on this topic, and find myself pretty much in agreement.
Blessings on your fellowship and family!
steve