Concerning "Orthodoxy"

[zweiteskommen]

Continually, I run across statements concerning those doctrines that are orthodox and those which aren't. The term "orthodox", and its antonym "heterodox", are themselves healthy terms which serve a useful purpose in our theological studies. However, the terms are all too often derisively applied; the implication of which is that orthodoxy is the equivalent of empirical truth and heterodoxy, therefore, is a falsehood.

Obviously, I do not believe these implications can be sucessfully defended. What say ye?

Z

[spl_cadet]

Orthodoxy=What Christians have believed for centuries
Heterodoxy=Departure from what Christians have believed for centuries, and hence is heresy.

Thus, by definition, they have been successfully defended.

[zweiteskommen]

spl_cadet:
Thus, by definition, they have been successfully defended.

spl_cadet,

You've missed the crux of my point. I don't contend that the definition of the two terms can't be defended. I am saying, rather, that the often associated implication does not logically follow.

You have offered a perfect case-in-point.

spl_cadet:

Heterodoxy=Departure from what Christians have believed for centuries, and hence is heresy.


The term heterodox is not synonymous with heresy (which is also a misunderstood term). Your use of the word implies (or rather explicitly states) that it is... that is what I would challenge.

Z

[spl_cadet]

Heresy:
1. A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine

I rest my case :teeth:

[zweiteskommen]

spl_cadet:

Heresy:
1. A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine

I rest my case :teeth:

You have yet to make your case. Read my first post... I'm contesting the implication that...

Orthodoxy = Empirical truth; Heterodoxy = falsehood.

Z

[spl_cadet]

Heresy=Falsehood in the Christian world.

[zweiteskommen]

Gotta run, spl_cadet. I'll reply later this evening.

Z

[dizzle]

Way to go Cadet!! I really isn't that complicated. As an aside, with the particular controversy that Z (sorry for the abbreviation, I hope it is not offensive), is motivated by (for usually those complaining about heterodoxy are the heterodox), I defended my case for separation without appealing to the creeds whatsoever, but simply used the text. If the orthodox view is correct, this particular abberation must be expunged from the Body as Paul did millenia ago.

[spl_cadet]

What particular issue are we talking about here?

[HerodionRomulus]

Heterodox can mean a view which is not widely shared or held but which does not hinder salvation.
Heresy affects salvation.

Most Protestants take a heterodox view of Mary, and would deny that she is Theotokos.
Many think that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, that she had children after Jesus, this is heterodox but not heresy. Most of Christendom has held to both views and hence it is orthodox.

I realize most RCC think anything about Mary which is less than their view is lese majeste...but hey :bonk:

[dizzle]

Cadet, I believe that Z endorses full preterism which is a denial of the orthodox doctrine of the future physcial general resurrection and future physical return of Christ.

[spl_cadet]

Yep. Even violates the Nicene Creed.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
...
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

[zweiteskommen]

I hope we are not getting into the practice of shedding heat rather than light. Let me clarify my thinking on this subject.

spl_cadet:

Orthodoxy=What Christians have believed for centuries


I don't deny this definition; it is a fair description. However, just because we have traditionally believed something to be true does not make it so. Orthodoxy is a guide or "rule of thumb" that assists us in determining truth. Orthodoxy is NOT the truth itself. Dee Dee admits as much when she states, "If the orthodox view is correct...". That which is orthodox is determined by fallible men and it is subject to error. Hence, it does not logically follow that heterodoxy is positively falsehood. It IS a warning that something is drastically opposed to a commonly accepted belief, but that does not equate to falsehood itself. Christianity began as Jewish heterodox, it was not the commonly and historically accepted belief, but that didn't make it false. The Jewish belief that the messiah would establish his kingdom on earth and liberate Israel from Imperial Rome was orthodox, but that didn't make it true. The ideals expressed by the terms orthodoxy and heterodoxy aid us in knowing the truth and avoiding falsehood, but they are not interchangable terms.

As far as heresy goes, the word is anachronistic. In Paul's day, hairesis referred to someone of a factional or divisive spirit. The present day meaning developed much later and has been read back into the original word; Paul did not use it as such (cf. Titus 3:10).

Equating orthodoxy to empirical truth is tantamount to placing the opinions of men on the same level as the word of God; we dare not do it! Let's understand these terms with a proper perspective.

Z

[zweiteskommen]

Dee Dee... your assumption is wrong. I am not a "full" preterist. All I have done is make an appeal to the fair hearing of that viewpoint. I am not convinced of far too many points that they make... I am quite sure, however, they are not cursed of God.

Z

[dizzle]

Well again I disagree with the above, but it is irrelevant for the specific heresy that prompted this discussion which I defended the imperative to divide over soley using hte Bible. I do not believe using the Creeds is illegitimate whatsoever, but irrelevant here. The orthodox can have no fellowship of faith with hyperprets.

[Justme]

Hi,

From Dee Dee,

Cadet, I believe that Z endorses full preterism which is a denial of the orthodox doctrine of the future physcial general resurrection and future physical return of Christ.
***************

I don't particularily care what ism or ist anybody follows or promotes, my concern is what scripture says.

If you show me one verse that says mankind will be physically restored to earth I'll show you two that says He won't.

If you can show me any verse that talks of a second physical/natural body I'll show you three that says there isn't.

I can't even get promoters of this physical walk around earth again group to answer my first really simple question...

How many great tribulations are there?

From space cadet...

Yep. Even violates the Nicene Creed.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
...
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

It only violates your interpretation of the Nicene creed. Of course Jesus comes again in judgment, no full preterist I know denies that. Of course there was a resurrection(raising) of the dead as there will be future raisings of the dead,(1 cor 15) no full preterist I know denies that either.

I just asked a hard core full preterist if he considers that the second coming for todays believers is future and he said yes. All there is left to prove is if that second coming results in a spiritual or a physical existance after that second coming. Do you want to go there? You remember when you showed up at that catholic site and the moderator told you she was a full preterist don't you?

Go ahead and lay out your story and we'll deal with it from the book.

Justme

[dizzle]

Justme I do not have the time or inclination at this point to argue heretical preterism with you. It is incorrect that no one has demonstrated this to you for Cherith most certainly has. And you need to do some reading of NeoHymeaneans before making some of the statements you have. Max King comes to mind.

I simply desired to demonstrate, that from the point of the view of the orthodox, full preterism is an issue to fully divide over with regards to the historic Christian faith. This is not an aspersion of the person, as I am sure that I would be personally fond of many who have been taken snare by this poison. You refuse to be convinced by the abundant evidence (and 1 cor 15 is not multiple resurrections over and over period, Noe is out of his tree), and I do not have the time to run those circles. Persons much more capable than I have proven this point. I am satisfied timewise at this piont with pointing out the heresy and warning the flock. If God grants me more time, I will devote more time to it. But the orthodox have been given no choice by Scripture than to separate with NeoHymenaeans.

And I did not say coming in judgment, I said physical and bodily.

And redefining the Nicene Creed is simply dishonest. The framers of it meant something specific and no Hymeanean twisting of it changes that fact. If I were a heretical preterist I would not be trying to redefine things to make me orthodox, I would outright and forthrightly reject it. Games benefit no one.

[George Blaisdell]

Today @ 02:35 PM
z writes::

I'm contesting the implication that...

Orthodoxy = Empirical truth; Heterodoxy = falsehood.

Z

I'm with you in this one, Z... Orthodoxy is hardly "empirical truth" - THAT is the realm of the natural sciences...

Yet heterodoxy is deviation from orthodoxy, and orthodox means right belief/worship... So that heterodox by implication means deviation from "right" [ortho-] - Hence heresy...

Paul writes warning of any "differing" evangel than the one he has proclaimed from the beginnings - Not that there actually IS any 'different' gospel, but even any 'differing' gospel is to be anathematized.

The importance of dogma in the realm of faith is not generally well understood in the west - We like to put our brains to things and figure them out and decide for ourselves individually what is true. The Eastern Orthodox Tradition, on the other hand, seeks unity of mind and worship in Christ in the mystery of the faith in a purified conscience in a life of repentance and self denial... Humility translates in part to obedience of belief, and the ground and pillar of truth in this regard, of course, is the Church, the guardian of truth... And the pillars of the Church are those 'overcoming' their sinfulness.... [Revelation___]... The perfected [and indeed the ongoingly perfecting] saints...

And the history of heresies and their exclusion by the historic Orthodox Church is the history of Christianity for the first thousand years, and indeed is continued even to this day in the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has never gone "beyond" the first 7 Ecumenical Councils... [We are that ancient Church - "Primitive", I believe is the term some have called us...]

But you were asking about 'orthodoxy', and not "Orthodoxy"... :-)

geo

[Justme]

Hi,

Dee Dee is busy so let's have Space cadet have a go. Cherith dodged around every point and finally ran and hid.

And still my first question hangs out there.
How many great tribulations are there?

You see when I look at some of the TV bible thumpers preaching this future return to earth and taken untold millions from little old ladies who believe it all I get more adamant to stamp out this false religious doctrine and madder than DDW has ever been or ever will be.

So Space Cadet, what are your thoughts here?

Justme

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 05:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=161516#post161516)
zweiteskommen:
I don't deny this definition; it is a fair description. However, just because we have traditionally believed something to be true does not make it so. Orthodoxy is a guide or "rule of thumb" that assists us in determining truth. Orthodoxy is NOT the truth itself.

Incorrect. Given that orthodoxy is the historic Christian belief, that which is orthodox can be traced back to the apostolic era. What they taught is most defintely true.


That which is orthodox is determined by fallible men and it is subject to error.

Incorrect. What is orthodox is determined by history.


Christianity began as Jewish heterodox, it was not the commonly and historically accepted belief, but that didn't make it false.

Depends on viewpoint on that instance actually. Since Christianity is fulfilled Judaism, it can be argued that the Jews who rejected Jesus were the heretics prior to the schism.


As far as heresy goes, the word is anachronistic. In Paul's day, hairesis referred to someone of a factional or divisive spirit. The present day meaning developed much later and has been read back into the original word; Paul did not use it as such (cf. Titus 3:10).

And what about his anathematization of those who preached a different Gospel, hmm?


How many great tribulations are there?

Not sure at the moment. Eschatology isn't one of my strong points and after reading Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn, there's obviously thinking I need to do on it.


You see when I look at some of the TV bible thumpers preaching this future return to earth and taken untold millions from little old ladies who believe it all I get more adamant to stamp out this false religious doctrine and madder than DDW has ever been or ever will be.


Same here. Televangelists are überbad.

[dizzle]

Today @ 10:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=161600#post161600)
Justme:

Hi,

Dee Dee is busy so let's have Space cadet have a go. Cherith dodged around every point and finally ran and hid.

Absolutely not true. I do suspect she got a sore head.

You see when I look at some of the TV bible thumpers preaching this future return to earth and taken untold millions from little old ladies who believe it all I get more adamant to stamp out this false religious doctrine and madder than DDW has ever been or ever will be.

First of all I doubt that. Second babies and bathwater come to mind.


So Space Cadet, what are your thoughts here?

Justme

I do hope that was a typo and not a mockery of his name.

[Justme]

Hi,

Concerning the typo of the name... not a typo ...a stupid mistake, I thought he/she was just leaving letters out of 'space'.

Apologies to Spl_cadet......

DDW wrote:
Absolutely not true. I do suspect she got a sore head.

She got very frustrated, but that need not be because of a messenger, it may be the message.

Is there some reason people won't answer the question about how many great tribulations? Like do you anticipate what question 2 would be?

Justme

[Thomas2003]

Today @ 02:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=161536#post161536)
Dee Dee Warren:

Justme I do not have the time or inclination at this point to argue heretical preterism with you. It is incorrect that no one has demonstrated this to you for Cherith most certainly has. And you need to do some reading of NeoHymeaneans before making some of the statements you have. Max King comes to mind.

I simply desired to demonstrate, that from the point of the view of the orthodox, full preterism is an issue to fully divide over with regards to the historic Christian faith. This is not an aspersion of the person, as I am sure that I would be personally fond of many who have been taken snare by this poison. You refuse to be convinced by the abundant evidence (and 1 cor 15 is not multiple resurrections over and over period, Noe is out of his tree), and I do not have the time to run those circles. Persons much more capable than I have proven this point. I am satisfied timewise at this piont with pointing out the heresy and warning the flock. If God grants me more time, I will devote more time to it. But the orthodox have been given no choice by Scripture than to separate with NeoHymenaeans.

And I did not say coming in judgment, I said physical and bodily.

And redefining the Nicene Creed is simply dishonest. The framers of it meant something specific and no Hymeanean twisting of it changes that fact. If I were a heretical preterist I would not be trying to redefine things to make me orthodox, I would outright and forthrightly reject it. Games benefit no one.

Dee Dee,

Please explain the difference between a heretical preterist and a non-heretical preterist. I'm using that term "preterist" to denote 100% completion of all prophecy.

As a post-millinialist some call me a "partial preterist", but I don't like that term - so I'm not questioning that.

You seem to indicate there are two different concepts in the "full" preterist camp. If so, please explain.

Thanks,

Thomas

[dizzle]

Thomas the term preterist has not historical meant the relatively recent heretical abomination that has usurped that name. It historically has meant someone that believes that most of the eschatological passages are fulfilled but still await a future physical resurrection and future bodily return of Christ. The denial of either of those two doctrines is heresy. That is the main differentiation though there are others, but I am giving you the short answer.

I too am postmill, and I too object to the stupid word games by use of the word "partial" which is a semantic attempt to make one person right and another wrong by definition. It is a hijacking of a historically orthodox term, and is not appreciated. I refuse it. I am not partial anything. I am fully what preterist has historically meant before a relatively recent band of heretics absconded with the term. I refuse to bow to their semantical wranglings. If they do not wish to accept a term such as Seraiah's "pantelist," then I call them in honor of their ancient forebear, NeoHymenaeans.

[zweiteskommen]

It seems everyone is getting heated up on this and there is little reason to do so. These are not "stupid word games"... it as an honest attempt to point out what the words mean and what they do not. Spl_cadet has stated that this understanding is incorrect; history determines orthodoxy and it can be traced back to the apostles. That simply doesn't disprove what I have stated. It is still fallible men that come to these conclusions; it can and should be subjected to scrutiny.

George Blaisdell:

I'm with you in this one, Z... Orthodoxy is hardly "empirical truth" - THAT is the realm of the natural sciences...

Yet heterodoxy is deviation from orthodoxy, and orthodox means right belief/worship... So that heterodox by implication means deviation from "right" [ortho-] - Hence heresy...


George, I think we agree to a point. If you agree that orthodoxy is not empirical truth, it logically follows that heterodoxy is not necessarily falsehood. It certainly contradicts what is believed to be "right" [ortho], but it is not necessarily so.

Whatever your position on this discussion, I love you all with the love of Christ. Let's be sure we season our remarks with gentleness and with respect.

God bless,

Z

[dizzle]

Today @ 11:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162016#post162016)
zweiteskommen:

It seems everyone is getting heated up on this and there is little reason to do so.

Wow, how cavalier. Our great forefathers of the faith got so heated up defending these essentials that they laid down their very lifes. I find that comment to be of the utmost of disrespect to those who have gone before. Unfortunately this is typical of a great portion of the church today, ie, ignorance and ambivalence towards the historic Christian faith, can we all just get along mentality. Paul rooted out heresy with fervor and tears. I will do no less.



These are not "stupid word games"... it as an honest attempt to point out what the words mean and what they do not.

I defined and defended my statement. You may be referring to a portion of the conversation that I did not comment on, but my comment was narrowly defined and defended.


Spl_cadet has stated that this understanding is incorrect; history determines orthodoxy and it can be traced back to the apostles. That simply doesn't disprove what I have stated. It is still fallible men that come to these conclusions; it can and should be subjected to scrutiny.

I did not deal with this portion of the whole conversation mostly due to time constraints.


Whatever your position on this discussion, I love you all with the love of Christ. Let's be sure we season our remarks with gentleness and with respect.


No, at least when it comes to the NeoHymenaean heresy, I will treat it as Paul did. As a vile cancer to be put from the Body. That is my narrow interest in this thread for that is the underlying motivation for the question to begin with. You are confusing a strong condemantion of the point of view, with a hatred of the person. That will not do. I hate the heresy, I do not hate the person, but I love the Body and the Faith more.

For further defense please see:

Why it is Perfectly OK to call Heretical Preterists Naughty Names (http://www.thingstocome.org/perfectly.htm)

[zweiteskommen]

Dee Dee,

This thread was not intended to defend or refute preterism. It was to discuss the proper understanding of "orthodoxy". Again, there should be no reason for heated comments. You misunderstood the focus of my "cavalier" statement. As far as I know, the definitions of "orthodox" and "heterodox" are not essential and no forefathers ever died trying to define them.

Z

[dizzle]

Today @ 01:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162080#post162080)
zweiteskommen:

Dee Dee,

This thread was not intended to defend or refute [I insert NeoHymenaeanism]. It was to discuss the proper understanding of "orthodoxy". Again, there should be no reason for heated comments. You misunderstood the focus of my "cavalier" statement. As far as I know, the definitions of "orthodox" and "heterodox" are not essential and no forefathers ever died trying to define them.

Z

They sure did die for what they represented and that is once again an example of the semantical games I so heavily condemn. I bring in NeoHymenaeanism for I believe the motivation for the initial question is important for the respondants to know.

This is not a question in a vacuum for you. You are seeking to justify a particular heresy.

[zweiteskommen]

Dee Dee Warren:

They sure did die for what they represented and that is once again an example of the semantical games I so heavily condemn. I bring in NeoHymenaeanism for I believe the motivation for the initial question is important for the respondants to know.

This is not a question in a vacuum for you. You are seeking to justify a particular heresy.

Again with the assumptions. I am not seeking to justify preterism; my intent is to show that the misuse of the terms "orthodox" and "heterodox" to declare someone a heretic is pure fallacy. Pick a viewpoint... preterism, annhilationism, soul-sleep... the doctrine is not the question. The question is whether a doctrine's heterodox position necessarily means it is false. It simply does not follow logically.

There is no semantical game being played out here. There is no intent to twist the meanings of words to support what I want to believe. The words mean what they mean and nothing more.

Z

[dizzle]

I most forthrightly believe that your underlying motivation here is the justification of the NeoHymeanean heresy. Sorry, but that is what I believe. And firmly believing that, I do not think you are being upfront about it. But that horse is beaten to death, I have made that point enough. Now let's talk about my dress.

[George Blaisdell]

Today @ 08:47 AM
z wrote:


George, I think we agree to a point. If you agree that orthodoxy is not empirical truth, it logically follows that heterodoxy is not necessarily falsehood. It certainly contradicts what is believed to be "right" [ortho], but it is not necessarily so.



Orthodoxy is the faith of Christ's Church from the beginnings, and it is this Church that is the ground and pillar of truth. So when I say that Orthodoxy is "hardly empirical truth", that means only that it is not natural science...

Orthodoxy is the truth, plain and simple... And it is apprehended by faith, and in revelation. It is not apprehended by scientific, logical, and empirical methods...

And I failed to see the logical ensuement you affirm when you write: "If you agree that orthodoxy is not empirical truth, it logically follows that heterodoxy is not necessarily falsehood. " The simple fact is that Orthodoxy, in matters of the Christian faith, is the truth, and heterodoxy is the lie, because it differs from the truth... Which is not to say that the Orthodox are always right, but in matters where the Church has established certain truth formulations, and especially those of the first 7 councils, which are still affirmed by the Orthodox Church to this day, the matter is so settled that to deviate from these is to endorse the lie... Simple as that...

There really is no room for rehash and debate of the matters already handled by the first 7 ecumenical councils. The Church has ruled on these, and She is the ground and pillar of truth. So that if you take the first 7 councils as orthodox truth, and deviance from these as heterodoxy, then you can have a pretty good idea of where the lines divide...

geo

[George Blaisdell]

Yesterday @ 01:07 PM
Dee Dee Warren:


Now let's talk about my dress.


Oooh DeeDee!

So that's YOU????

Operating under an anonymous pseudonymic benefaction of pearlies?

Oh you little dessert tray!

Nevaire will I touch a mere tart again!

Thank-you!

Pretty left-hand - right-hand sneaky-Biblical snootlies iff'n yer ask'n moi!

geo

[zweiteskommen]

George Blaisdell:

Orthodoxy is the truth, plain and simple... And it is apprehended by faith, and in revelation. It is not apprehended by scientific, logical, and empirical methods...



I just completely disagree with this assertion. What about the unbeliever? If orthodoxy = truth and it cannot be apprehended by "scientific, logical and empirical methods" then Christian apologetics (the logical presentation and defense of Christianity) is rendered futile. How do you reconcile this with the exhortation of Peter to "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." Or consider the example of Paul who "reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead." Many throughout history have come to accept Christ through an appeal to logic and reason. Truth most certainly CAN be apprehended by these means.

George Blaisdell:

There really is no room for rehash and debate of the matters already handled by the first 7 ecumenical councils. The Church has ruled on these, and She is the ground and pillar of truth.



I prefer to reason from the scriptures... "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Not the word of the 7 ecumenical councils.

Z

[George Blaisdell]

Today @ 09:39 AM
z writes:

I just completely disagree with this assertion.... I prefer to reason from the scriptures...

Z

You and everyone else in the western tradition - We all have to make up our own minds for ourselves alone just what it is that is meant by words written on paper 2 thousand years ago - And the result is precictable - There are as many "faiths" as there are "believers" interpreting scripture for themselves - This is normally called division, if one is charitable... Disintegration if not...

We all "prefer" to reason our way into our own beliefs about what the Bible says, and ignore the first thousand years of undivided Christian history, and the Orthodox faith following the separation of Rome from the communion of the rest of the Church [circa 1054]...

By preferring to do your own reasoning to your own particular conclusions from your own particular reading of the Bible on any given particular day, you make of yourself your own Pope, subservient not to the Body of Christ Who is Her Head, the Church, but only to your own mind...

Sorry for the rant, but that is the inevitable consequence of the elevation of the individual over the communion of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church... From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, the Roman see has but one Pope, but Her spawn [via the reformation] are all popes...

And yes, this horridly and grossly overstates and oversimplifies everything!

Christ did not ask your preference - He commanded us to deny our selves... And it is ourselves that prefer...

geo

[Cherith]

JustMe:Cherith dodged around every point and finally ran and hid.


Oh, is that what I did. Funny, I thought I answered you point for point and then some! And I didn't run and hide, I simply stopped responding to your willfull ignorance. (I do actually have better things to do than debate heretics.)

What is orthodox is determined by history.

No, what is ortho-dox is determined by The Spirit through The Word.

Christianity is fulfilled Judaism...

Wrong! Christianity is NØT nor has it EVER been "fulfilled Judaism." Judaism is a religion that began in the idolatrous hearts of unbelievers and was developed more fully in Babylon during the Exile. It is full of Kabbalah and Talmudic mysticism and heretical Rabbinic midrashes/commentaries on the Scriptures.

Furthermore, anyone who claims today to be a "fulfilled" or "completed Jew" is full of @#$&! There are followers of Christ - i.e. Christ-ians, and nothing else except raw heathenistic unbelief!

-C

[Justme]

Hi Cherith,

Keep truckin,

Justme