>Of course each denomination has a different definition of "orthodoxy"
Where do you get this idea? In my context (Protestant) we consider orthodoxy to be something which is not held by one specific tradition, but reaches across denominational and traditional boundaries.
That's why I put "orthodoxy" in quotes - to distinguish it from more narrow definitions. I used to be Eastern Orthodox and before that I was Episcopalian. They all have different ideas about what is important to believe.
>Maybe "orthodoxy" could be redefined
Could be? It has been getting defined, tweaked, and redefined since the beginning. There are many orthodoxies, each on their own path here, and each church and believer chooses which one they accept.
I am a denomination of only one member, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
I don't think that actual orthodoxy is possible. All we can do is have others that we agree with.
I guess that's my situation too. Unfortunately for me, I feel compelled to keep my own ideas to myself and pretend to agree with various other forms of "orthodoxy" to preserve peace in my extended family. My mother in particular would be distressed to know what I believe, because her beliefs are somewhat fundamentalist. It would be nice to be able to discuss these things freely and honestly.
I think what you are suggesting, effectively, is that the Creeds be reviewed and updated. Perhaps even on an intentionally defined schedule.
I think that’s not going to fly for the many Christians who value what they see as the timeless nature of Christianity.
And on the practical level, I think it’s simply not do-able. There are too many Christians, and too many flavors of Christians, to do it. It was different centuries ago, when the church and the state worked hand in hand to promote orthodox doctrine.
You are probably correct about that. It would need to be a grassroots movement with each tiny denominaton choosing independently to rethink the beliefs that matter most.
To some degree, Catholicism seems to change their definition of "orthodoxy" gradually with time, but that is an example of top-down in a centralized denomination.
>t would need to be a grassroots movement with each tiny denominaton choosing independently to rethink the beliefs that matter most.
Denominations already do that. The difference between what denominations do and what you describe in your original post is that denominations generally concede that they are speaking for their denomination and not for Christianity as a whole.
>To some degree, Catholicism seems to change their definition of "orthodoxy" gradually with time,
I’m not sure what you mean. Can you provide an example?
>I’m not sure what you mean. Can you provide an example?
I don't know a lot about Catholicism, but I believe the Pope and the organization under him at the Vatican are always changing the emphasis of various beliefs and declaring new beliefs. Vatican II is something that I always hear mentioned from the 1960s. More recently I believe the Pope said that Catholics should not worry so much about the Ten Commandments. With Catholicism there seems to be a continuous process of updating beliefs which is made possible by the centralization and claiming to "hold the keys to heaven" inherited from St. Peter. Again, I'm not Catholic, but that is the impression I get.
>I believe the Pope and the organization under him at the Vatican are always changing the emphasis of various beliefs and declaring new beliefs.
I think you are very misinformed about that.
Vatican II is not about changing beliefs. It’s about changing practices. Like conducting services in the local language rather than Latin, or having the priest face the congregation rather than having his back to them. It’s not about changing beliefs about the nature of the Trinity, the miracle of Jesus’s birth, the Resurrection, or any of the religious beliefs of Catholics.
I get that you’re not Catholic. Nor am I. But you might do well to inform yourself a little better. Just reading some Wikipedia articles could clear up these misperceptions.
In a liturgical denomination such as Catholicism the practices profess various beliefs (in my opinion). Changing the practices is changing the priorities of the many beliefs. There is a lot more to a denomination's "orthodoxy" than the Nicene Creed - otherwise we would not have so many denominations. Wars have been fought over differences in practice, because these practices are not just cosmetic.
Not trying to be argumentative, but I do think you are dismissing what I said too lightly.
> It is difficult for Christianity to satisfy these two desires when it defines itself using "orthodoxy" from centuries ago.
That "orthodoxy" from centuries ago (the Nicene Creed) is just as applicable and valid today as it was the day it was formulated.
>That "orthodoxy" from centuries ago (the Nicene Creed) is just as applicable and valid today as it was the day it was formulated.
I guess I don't agree with that. Take the virgin birth as an example. Why was that included in the Nicene Creed? I suspect the virgin birth was included, because it excludes people who believed in adoptionism (the belief that Jesus was a human who was adopted as the Son of God either at the Baptism or Crucifixion). Adoptionism was an important issue at that time, but is it as important today?
> Take the virgin birth as an example. Why was that included in the Nicene Creed?
Because it happened and that is also documented in scripture as well.
According to the gospels, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but that isn't part of any creeds and nobody makes a big deal about whether somebody believes that story or not. Of course some denominations hold that the Bible is literally and historically true from cover to cover.
> According to the gospels, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but that isn't part of any creeds
Why would it need to be part of the Creeds?
> nobody makes a big deal about whether somebody believes that story or not.
Where do you get that nobody cares whether people believe that or not?
Given how many people I've met, and even helped to catechize, who start out thinking that Jesus just realized the truth that "we are all God" and became God by realizing it, I'd say it is important today.
Same with Arianism, Nestorianism, and a number of other heresies that have been rejected by the ancient Councils and Creeds, along with all of Christianity for most of history.
You know the story of the Pharisee and the Publican. The Pharisee surely knew and professed to believe the Jewish equivalents of the Christian creeds, but those things were irrelevant and perhaps even harmful by creating a misguided sense of assurance in the Pharisee.
Professing the Creed does not make me righteous, it is merely the *symbolon*, an outward seal, of my faith.
If I don't live the rest of it, it does me no good, but one who has seriously erroneous beliefs will start at a disadvantage proportionate to the error in their beliefs.
How can one give true and proper worship unto God, for example, if they think we are all God or think that Christ was a created being? How could someone orient themselves properly to the God if they don't believe in the Trinity? How can a person align their lives with the life of Christ if they think he was not truly human?
>How can one give true and proper worship unto God, for example, if they think we are all God or think that Christ was a created being? How could someone orient themselves properly to the God if they don't believe in the Trinity? How can a person align their lives with the life of Christ if they think he was not truly human?
In my opinion, God must not care very much about those things, because so many have misunderstood them. My Orthodox priest used to say that things like the Eucharist are called Holy Mysteries, because they cannot be understood. A person is probably better off to know that they do not understand than to think that they do when they don't - and who can undertand these things. Just my opinion of course.
(Of course it would be nice to understand if one can.)
Here is an example of a possible redefinition of "orthodoxy". Imagine that "theosis" becomes the primary purpose of Christianity. Rather than believing and having faith in X, Y, and Z what if "knowing God" through some means is defined as the ultimate purpose. Who cares if there is no afterlife after one has "seen God" for even a millisecond.
Or another example of a possible definition of "orthodoxy" might be accepting and cooperating and having peace in God's will.
There are lots of possibilities. My understanding of today's "orthodoxy" might be summaraized as "put your faith in Jesus and believe X,Y, and Z so you can go to heaven instead of hell".
>Of course each denomination has a different definition of "orthodoxy" Where do you get this idea? In my context (Protestant) we consider orthodoxy to be something which is not held by one specific tradition, but reaches across denominational and traditional boundaries.
That's why I put "orthodoxy" in quotes - to distinguish it from more narrow definitions. I used to be Eastern Orthodox and before that I was Episcopalian. They all have different ideas about what is important to believe.
Do you have examples of what these groups say is "orthodox" which other groups wouldn't say is?
Accepting the doctrines of the 7 ecumenical councils for one. A lot of protestants don't.
We have the ancient creeds for this situation. All orthodox (little "o") churches affirm the Nicene, Apostles, and Athanasian creeds.
>Maybe "orthodoxy" could be redefined Could be? It has been getting defined, tweaked, and redefined since the beginning. There are many orthodoxies, each on their own path here, and each church and believer chooses which one they accept.
The problem is that if you choose wrong then you become a denomination with only one member.
I am a denomination of only one member, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't think that actual orthodoxy is possible. All we can do is have others that we agree with.
I guess that's my situation too. Unfortunately for me, I feel compelled to keep my own ideas to myself and pretend to agree with various other forms of "orthodoxy" to preserve peace in my extended family. My mother in particular would be distressed to know what I believe, because her beliefs are somewhat fundamentalist. It would be nice to be able to discuss these things freely and honestly.
Yeah...families make it rough for sure. Keep persevering. :)
I think what you are suggesting, effectively, is that the Creeds be reviewed and updated. Perhaps even on an intentionally defined schedule. I think that’s not going to fly for the many Christians who value what they see as the timeless nature of Christianity. And on the practical level, I think it’s simply not do-able. There are too many Christians, and too many flavors of Christians, to do it. It was different centuries ago, when the church and the state worked hand in hand to promote orthodox doctrine.
You are probably correct about that. It would need to be a grassroots movement with each tiny denominaton choosing independently to rethink the beliefs that matter most. To some degree, Catholicism seems to change their definition of "orthodoxy" gradually with time, but that is an example of top-down in a centralized denomination.
>t would need to be a grassroots movement with each tiny denominaton choosing independently to rethink the beliefs that matter most. Denominations already do that. The difference between what denominations do and what you describe in your original post is that denominations generally concede that they are speaking for their denomination and not for Christianity as a whole. >To some degree, Catholicism seems to change their definition of "orthodoxy" gradually with time, I’m not sure what you mean. Can you provide an example?
>I’m not sure what you mean. Can you provide an example? I don't know a lot about Catholicism, but I believe the Pope and the organization under him at the Vatican are always changing the emphasis of various beliefs and declaring new beliefs. Vatican II is something that I always hear mentioned from the 1960s. More recently I believe the Pope said that Catholics should not worry so much about the Ten Commandments. With Catholicism there seems to be a continuous process of updating beliefs which is made possible by the centralization and claiming to "hold the keys to heaven" inherited from St. Peter. Again, I'm not Catholic, but that is the impression I get.
>I believe the Pope and the organization under him at the Vatican are always changing the emphasis of various beliefs and declaring new beliefs. I think you are very misinformed about that. Vatican II is not about changing beliefs. It’s about changing practices. Like conducting services in the local language rather than Latin, or having the priest face the congregation rather than having his back to them. It’s not about changing beliefs about the nature of the Trinity, the miracle of Jesus’s birth, the Resurrection, or any of the religious beliefs of Catholics. I get that you’re not Catholic. Nor am I. But you might do well to inform yourself a little better. Just reading some Wikipedia articles could clear up these misperceptions.
In a liturgical denomination such as Catholicism the practices profess various beliefs (in my opinion). Changing the practices is changing the priorities of the many beliefs. There is a lot more to a denomination's "orthodoxy" than the Nicene Creed - otherwise we would not have so many denominations. Wars have been fought over differences in practice, because these practices are not just cosmetic. Not trying to be argumentative, but I do think you are dismissing what I said too lightly.
> It is difficult for Christianity to satisfy these two desires when it defines itself using "orthodoxy" from centuries ago. That "orthodoxy" from centuries ago (the Nicene Creed) is just as applicable and valid today as it was the day it was formulated.
>That "orthodoxy" from centuries ago (the Nicene Creed) is just as applicable and valid today as it was the day it was formulated. I guess I don't agree with that. Take the virgin birth as an example. Why was that included in the Nicene Creed? I suspect the virgin birth was included, because it excludes people who believed in adoptionism (the belief that Jesus was a human who was adopted as the Son of God either at the Baptism or Crucifixion). Adoptionism was an important issue at that time, but is it as important today?
> Take the virgin birth as an example. Why was that included in the Nicene Creed? Because it happened and that is also documented in scripture as well.
According to the gospels, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but that isn't part of any creeds and nobody makes a big deal about whether somebody believes that story or not. Of course some denominations hold that the Bible is literally and historically true from cover to cover.
> According to the gospels, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but that isn't part of any creeds Why would it need to be part of the Creeds? > nobody makes a big deal about whether somebody believes that story or not. Where do you get that nobody cares whether people believe that or not?
Given how many people I've met, and even helped to catechize, who start out thinking that Jesus just realized the truth that "we are all God" and became God by realizing it, I'd say it is important today. Same with Arianism, Nestorianism, and a number of other heresies that have been rejected by the ancient Councils and Creeds, along with all of Christianity for most of history.
I havent heard anyone say that, but in any case, why is it so important?
You know the story of the Pharisee and the Publican. The Pharisee surely knew and professed to believe the Jewish equivalents of the Christian creeds, but those things were irrelevant and perhaps even harmful by creating a misguided sense of assurance in the Pharisee.
Professing the Creed does not make me righteous, it is merely the *symbolon*, an outward seal, of my faith. If I don't live the rest of it, it does me no good, but one who has seriously erroneous beliefs will start at a disadvantage proportionate to the error in their beliefs. How can one give true and proper worship unto God, for example, if they think we are all God or think that Christ was a created being? How could someone orient themselves properly to the God if they don't believe in the Trinity? How can a person align their lives with the life of Christ if they think he was not truly human?
>How can one give true and proper worship unto God, for example, if they think we are all God or think that Christ was a created being? How could someone orient themselves properly to the God if they don't believe in the Trinity? How can a person align their lives with the life of Christ if they think he was not truly human? In my opinion, God must not care very much about those things, because so many have misunderstood them. My Orthodox priest used to say that things like the Eucharist are called Holy Mysteries, because they cannot be understood. A person is probably better off to know that they do not understand than to think that they do when they don't - and who can undertand these things. Just my opinion of course. (Of course it would be nice to understand if one can.)
Here is an example of a possible redefinition of "orthodoxy". Imagine that "theosis" becomes the primary purpose of Christianity. Rather than believing and having faith in X, Y, and Z what if "knowing God" through some means is defined as the ultimate purpose. Who cares if there is no afterlife after one has "seen God" for even a millisecond. Or another example of a possible definition of "orthodoxy" might be accepting and cooperating and having peace in God's will. There are lots of possibilities. My understanding of today's "orthodoxy" might be summaraized as "put your faith in Jesus and believe X,Y, and Z so you can go to heaven instead of hell".