For better or for worse the Protestant branch of Christianity has led to the democratization of doctrine. It seems that whenever someone claims something to be an essential doctrine of Christianity it is responded to with a huff and a puff. Everyone wants to be Martin Luther and anyone who suggest that this or that doctrine is not available for reconsideration is considered a semi-Papist. If you say the deity of Christ is a non-negotiable to orthodoxy you receive a smart remark congratulating you on having it “all figured out”.
It seems much more popular to put everything on the table. There is nothing safe. There is nothing untouchable. The only way one can be open-minded is to adopt the individualistic stance that it cannot be proven true until I affirm it. As long as I am unsure about it everyone else is being dogmatic.
Is there anything that you would consider to be a non-negotiable as concerns Christian orthodoxy or do you think everything and anything is open to criticism? When someone says that something should not be made available for reconsideration does this bother you? I am directing this question more so to those who understand themselves to be Christians in some shape or form since I assume non-Christians deny any “orthodoxy”.
August 12, 2010 at 12:48 pm
I would stick with the Nicene-Constantinople Creed as the absolute essentials of the faith. It seems to encapsulate the earliest Christian confessions and to deny one of its aspects would place one outside of orthodoxy. Also, it has the added bonus of being affirmed by Protestants, Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.
August 12, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Daniel,
I would say the same thing but I wonder what justification we have at stopping at the second ecumenical council when there are arguably seven.
August 12, 2010 at 12:58 pm
We can be certain about things that are certainly clear in Scripture.
“Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God” This is the minimum confession. That Jesus is God (divine) in flesh (huiman).
That we are saved by grace through faith. If you insist on election or not, that’s a minimum.
I think the Jesus Manifesto so beautifully states it all. Simple and profound.
It’s not wrong to have these open dialogues of refining certain truths about the Church. But when we make them issues of closed doors, it’s concerning. Let’s all be disciples. Let’s all follow after Jesus. Jesus is the only mountain I’d rather die on.
It’s not an issue of “theological laziness.” Be astute. Study. I’m a big fan of that, and will gladly enter those conversations. However, defining things so absolutely that are not so absolutely clear create needless obstacles for peoplet to fellowship and follow Jesus.
The Jews had a great way of discussing Torah, debating and arguing, and at the end of the day, shaking hands and embracing as brothers.
August 12, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Subjecting ourselves to creeds is not the answer.
Appreciating the value of creeds is beautiful. Making them the authoritative voice on all subjects is not.
August 12, 2010 at 1:06 pm
James,
I am all for shaking hands after a debate and then walking away (at least I better be considering I have signed up for student memberships with SBL and ETS). Nevertheless, I don’t think in the life of the church it can ever be this easy. This does not lead to discipleship. It leads to individualism. It leads to a million disciples with a million models of Jesus all doing there own thing. The core of orthodoxy doesn’t have to be as broad as some make it but it surely isn’t this small.
On another note, what “Jews” are we talking about? Jewish debate could be civil and it could be downright violent. Some didn’t like what Stephen said and he was martyred for it! Paul got beat up often. Jesus crucified. I am sure our harshest debates don’t come close.
August 12, 2010 at 1:07 pm
James,
What is wrong with the creeds? What prevents “every man from doing what is right in his own eyes”? What prevents as many “Christianies” as there are Christians?
August 12, 2010 at 1:28 pm
I like the creeds too, particularly the N-C creed. Of course, that does put me in an awkward position as a Protestant, since it does seem kinda arbitrary. I don’t really have a good answer I guess.
August 12, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Alex,
Can we think of anything in the third through seventh councils that should be contested as unorthodox? I can’t off the top of my head. At least the core affirmations. Maybe the extra ecclesiastical stuff?
August 12, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Brian,
I argue for a much more narrowed orthodoxy.
I disagree that the alternative is individualism. Having a common eschatology, an articulate creed to define the godhead and the implication of salvation (in terms of OSAS or otherwise) are not essentials. When we dogmatize them, we make them essentials.
Some of your “church fathers” weren’t too far removed from those that murdered Stephen. Let’s count the body bags of those who were burned for not affirming creeds.
And if I’m a heretic to you, what then?
August 12, 2010 at 1:41 pm
BTW, we actually DO have a million models of people worshipping Jesus in a diversity of ways. How do you suppose we “fix” this “problem?”
These creeds worked well for Rome, when if you disagreed, you were burned at the stake. A nice, monolithic, tidy theology.
August 12, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Re this question: What is wrong with the creeds? What prevents “every man from doing what is right in his own eyes”?
I don’t think the scripture reference you put in quotes has anything to do with defending creeds and establishing broader dogmas… just guessing
August 12, 2010 at 1:48 pm
James,
C’mon, you are parroting on this one. Who did Athanasius kill? Who did Basil kill? Who did the Gregories kill? Stop repeating what you have heard and tell me what they actually did. You may have something of Cyril of Alexandria but you are acting as if the whole era was one major scandal. You sound as paranoid as Bart Ehrman.
What is your alternative James? Dogmatize nothing? Nothing is essential? What is Christianity? In the end you have everyone believing what is right in their own eyes.
Furthermore, you are taking this individualism to the extreme. It is as bankrupt an argument as saying, “Because we cannot fully, fully, fully know something without doubting we can know nothing at all.” Only difference is you are suggesting because each individual has a nuance there can be nothing shared. That is absurd. Can none of us see the color “green” either since it may be slightly different to each of us?
August 12, 2010 at 1:49 pm
James,
Very clever. If you noticed I didn’t cite a Scripture reference. I used the language. Big difference.
August 12, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Great post and subject.
Creeds are good ideas and simple forms of communicating what should be Biblical truth, therefore if a Creed is seen as authority above or instead of the actual Scripture than there is a problem. It seems that in some periods the fear of man kept men from questioning or double checking the scriptural basis on which creeds or doctrines were made thus they accepted it without question.
I don’t think you should ever NOT discuss things that are considered fundamental such as Christ is the only source of salvation etc because it’s good to discuss those things. However recognizing them as fundamental is the beginning point to having correct enough doctrine. Something that I ask myself is what is -enough- correctness? If you get detailed and literal Jesus laid out about 10 different things that one must do to inherit the kingdom. What if you do 8 of them? What if you’re a Mormon who believes in Christ with their heart and confesses with their mouth? I simply don’t know yet.
To answer one of your questions it bothers me when a Religious leader puts his own human stamp of divine approval on a belief and says you can’t challenge these because I’m from God and I’m divinely right in this. One bothersome example of this is the Catechism and meetings that the Roman Catholic Church held.
August 12, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Groveonline,
Thank you for contributing. One concern that I have had is with the attitude that the creeds may be corrupted because of the imperfection of the early church but that the canon is not to be as suspect using the same criteria. Why do we feel comfortable denying their doctrinal statements while accepting their list of approved books to be considered Scripture? I am wrestling with this so I am not sure if I have a great answer but I don’t know if I feel comfortable with the approach I just mention that accepts the canon and chastises the creeds.
August 12, 2010 at 2:20 pm
I’ll give it to you that you just got out of a class studying these guys and I haven’t.
That said, when I refer to punishments given to heretics, I’m referring collectively to the established Church. I’m not taking away from Athansius, Basil, or any other. That wasn’t the intent of what I said. But neither do I consider them the lone arbiter of truth once and for all.
I also am skeptical at how open the debate truly was. Socrates Scholasticus writes of some very disturbing violence post-council for dissenters.
That doesn’t mean I’m “parroting” anymore than the next guy.
As far as “dogmatize nothing” and “nothing is essential” you are making up assumptions that I’ve already addressed on my original response. I do believe we can “share” ideas and views and have some things in common. I don’t believe I’ve said contrary.
The Heretic,
James
August 12, 2010 at 2:23 pm
The canon speaks for itself. It was already in full use by the time some council in the 4th Century decided to call it a canon. The Church already had it in common. It was already going on.
The Creeds take Scripture to “the next level” and tend to serve as an “interpretative final word” on Scripture.
I think it’s perfectly rational to have suspicions about the integrity of early RCC leaders and processes and still accept the canon.
August 12, 2010 at 2:29 pm
James,
Yes, there were some disturbing events following the councils, but it hardly was “orthodoxy” suppressing the poor, little, good heart-ed mystic Christians who weren’t concerned about bloody dogma. If this was so the great Bishop Athanasius would not have been exiled seven times! If the emperor was Arian this did not change Athanasius. The creeds were not the result of mere violence and politics. Often it was the orthodox on the run, not the other way around.
Again, the canon was not set earlier than the Nicene Creed. Athanasius is the first to mention the twenty-seven books. Even then books like Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, and even Revelation were being batted back and forth as accepted or disregarded. Oddly enough this very Athanasius was the foremost defender of Nicene language and the fact that what came from that Creed best reflects what was handed to him from the generation before him and to that generation to the one before it. Yes, the language changed because the questions being asked by each generation had not been asked by the one before, but this is hardly a mishap evolution of dogma or worst a corruption.
August 12, 2010 at 2:32 pm
James,
I will concede one thing to you though. If you are willing to be as skeptical about the canonical status of books like Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, James, and Revelation you can be consistently as skeptical about the creedal language being accepted around the same time.
August 12, 2010 at 2:44 pm
The canon was mostly in tact long before these guys showed up late to the scene and declared it “the canon.” The church had been using it since the 1st century.
Not all the RCC detractors were violent Arianists or mystics. That’s a straw man.
I’m not suggesting throwing out it all because of the sin and corruption surrounding these Church Fathers and the Church in general, I’m giving you reasons why I don’t grant them the authority to be the ultimate authority on issues the canon is not clear concerning, and issues Jesus or Paul failed to articulate any clearer. From there, I see value in creeds. Sure. I see value in studying and developing a robust theology, but I pray my theology is always wrapped up in a humility, free from the hubris of dogma. And I certainly won’t affirm something just because these others tell me to.
Final question: Am I still a brother to you? I don’t affirm the Trinitarian doctrine in its entirety. I reject the current notion of “persons.” I also admit, I’m not entirely sure on how the mystery of the godhead works, but believe Jesus is the Son of God, both human and divine. Other than the heretic label, and I doomed, Brian? Do Heretics get to inherit eternal life?
August 12, 2010 at 3:02 pm
As far as you thinking I’m indicting all Church Fathers, theologians of history, you’ve got me all wrong.
My point about the crime, evils, murder, extortion, compulsion at the threat of excommunication (social stigma), imprisonment or death point out the skeptism that should apply. This wrestling match over who would be in charge of the Church, who would further it’s theology, etc is all completely ancillary to the invitation of Jesus to follow Him.
To place any “supreme” authority on post-Apostolic characters is absurd. It makes sense to a RC because of their belief of Apostolic Succession (and then pope’s “correcting” other pope’s and on and on).
I value being challenged, learning and growing theologically. But I refuse to be pushed into a box of so-called orthodoxy else be called a “heretic.” I also refuse to divide the Body any further than it has been mutiliated and cut up. We have in common the indwelled presence of a Savior that called us by Grace to believe and trust in Him, His work, His Story and His ultimate triumph at the Resurrection.
When you’re done demanding how others must understand the mystery of the godhead let me know.
August 12, 2010 at 3:12 pm
James,
The canon was mostly in-tact? Does that settle the discussion we are having here? Yes, I agree there are “canons” that come close to ours, but not a defined one. The “Rule of Faith” passed down from generation to generation is what held the church together. For a good tool to see how the canon evolved I recommend going here: http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=540
Why do you continue to reference the post-fourth century church as the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). It was not the Roman Catholic Church. The “Great Schism” didn’t occur until the eleventh century. There was merely one catholic church–not a “Roman Catholic Church”. We don’t have the beginning of a “Roman Catholic” and an “Eastern Orthodox” church until after this happens.
On another note, there are many things that Jesus (who never wrote anything, all his words are through the interpretation of the evangelist) and Paul did not say. Do we never expound? Never theologize? Is the only way to determine orthodoxy to simple quote what they said word for word? This makes no sense James! We must interpret! There must be thought about the implications of what they said.
August 12, 2010 at 3:18 pm
James,
Furthermore, I am not saying heresy = lack of salvation. We all adopt a little heresy here and there. I am sure I am included. But your exceptionally “generous orthodoxy” (and don’t get me wrong, I think there is a lot of generosity to go around) sounds like someone who just wants everyone and anyone to be considered OK-as-is. Doctrine doesn’t matter. The history of the church doesn’t matter. What matters is that we all get along in the end.
Orthodoxy is about being part of God’s people. It is about realizing some doctrine is healthy, some is not. Yes, some can lead to judgment but we don’t seek to understand the truth to avoid judgment.
I welcome you skipping past the creeds to Paul and the others but that does not free you from interpretation. You are still accountable there. You still believe something.
August 12, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Brian,
Respectfully, you’re assumptions are out of control. I’ll check out your link on canonization. I am vaguely familiar with the process in my own undergrad studies as well.
Regarding the correction of RCC language (those terms “Catholic Church” and “Roman Catholic Church” are often used interchangeably) I say “touche.” Although the RCC would make no such distinction of course. I refer to this organized body that called themselves the Universal Church.
I’m surprised that because I don’t believe on making a bridge full of absolutes and dogmas, that you continually interpret that to mean I don’t believe in “theologizing” or otherwise setting sail into adventurous waters of theology.
I also agree that interpretation is necessary, and whether others like it or not, it’s involuntary (everyone is interpreting on some level, whether rightly or wrongly). I also realize our uncovering about some things still leaves us short of certainty.
For example, reading the Scripture about the godhead, we can form many beautiful conclusions. Minimizing that into a concise doctrine that some decided to call the Trinity, to me, is unneccessary. And what happens is future generations read scripture to defend their creed, instead of a powerful interaction in the Text without needless presuppositions. To think we can take all of God and place him in a box is humorous. We can theologize, just as the scientist can hypothecize. The scientists is able to make certain conclusions, but about many things he/she is limited.
Regarding my “generous orthodoxy,” therein I stated the minimums for what I believe are salvation and discipleship. These others matters, I can respectfully disagree and agree with brothers and sisters concerning. This is where theologizing comes into play big-time! Still, there are some areas we must be honest enough to say “we don’t know” instead of forming apologetics for creeds. I appreciate the brotherhood. Whether everyone is “A-Okay” is not for me to decide, if it is with their belief system, this is something we can work together at as a community. To be certain, my theology is more broad than the statement I said at the start. If the salvific gun is off the head, I would advance a slightly broader view of theology for a community. Even then, those waters I venture into, (though hopefully carefully exegeted, studied, prepared), I do so humbly and willing to admit that I could be wrong. These topics would range from pneumatology to doxology.
I come from the extreme and exact opposite in my life. Blame it on that, but I am careful to dogmatize things that are not necessary.
I use, without permission, the Augustinian quote: In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty, In all things love.
What I place into the “essentials” category sounds disagreeable to what you think should be there perhaps.
August 12, 2010 at 3:59 pm
I’m further surprised that a viewpoint that confesses Jesus as fully divine and human, the Son of God and one with God is somehow heretical.
What makes it heretical to you is that it disagrees with a creed you hold as authoritative.
August 12, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Just caught up on my Twitter. That clarified further my understanding of where you are coming from.
Be well, Brian!
August 12, 2010 at 4:15 pm
James,
If we are going to speak of assumption let’s point out that I did not say that confessing the fully divinity and humanity of Christ is heretical. I am not sure where you read that. On a side note, I would point out that you are using creed language here. If we should stop with the language used by the Apostle Paul and others we might say “Jesus is Lord” or “Jesus is Messiah” is the only essential confession. Your statement about Jesus being fully God, fully man is language based on biblical truth captured by the fathers of the church and most specifically the later creeds.
If by RCC you meant the “catholic church” don’t say RCC. There are differences. Maybe Rome does not think so, but there is.
I come from the same extreme side of things as you do. I know of the dangers that you are trying to avoid. I think you see partial similarities and you want to avoid those. I understand it, but I disagree with you.
We will come to the text with presuppositions no matter what. There is no such thing as an “objective” reading. I am comfortable with saying since this is so one thing we should be very, very careful about is deciding we are going to denounce the presupposition of reading with the historical church. If you think the Trinity is wrong you had better be very sure this is so. Likewise, you better be comfortable with going Lone Ranger in your reading of Scripture and you must accept that many of us will be very, very skeptical of where you are going because there is no way to avoid what sounds like the assumption that generation after generation of Christian wisdom coming from people led by the Holy Spirit is something we can easily discard.
I must clarify here that not every doctrine that becomes popular should be part of what I am saying here. But the doctrine of the Trinity and certain Christological affirmations (one you used above) are ecumenical. There was wide spread consensus. There has been agreement ever since and there is good evidence that prior to the creeds forming the ideas were there. Something like the worship of Mary is not one of these things. Let us make sure we don’t throw it all out.
If you are willing to have a broader orthodoxy that is your thing. For one, I can adapt to some extent. I could go to SBL and listen to people from all kinds of perspectives. I can read many perspectives. But when it comes to affirming their doctrine as one option among many that is another step altogether.
If you are OK with JW’s, for example, fine. I am not. Maybe you are not either. In the end most of us have a line somewhere.
August 12, 2010 at 7:25 pm
First seven councils.
August 12, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Nick and Brian,
I stop at the Nicea-Constantinople because the remaining councils get very hairy in interpretation. It is not always clear what is being affirmed and what is being condemned because of the situational context. In addition, some things are condemned and then affirmed and vice versa. The Nicea-Constantinople Creed has been the bedrock that all major denominations of Christianity have affirmed and stood on.
August 12, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Nick: I tend to agree. I cannot think of one thing in those councils with which I disagree.
Daniel: I can see where it would be confusing but after going through the councils in a recent class I think the central tenants of each as in sync and orthodox. Anytime the whole of orthodoxy can come to an agreement on anything we should at least take it seriously.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Defining Orthodoxy: What Doctrines (If Any) are Non-Negotiable | Near Emmaus -- Topsy.com
August 13, 2010 at 8:02 am
Brian -
I think we must stay connected to the historic church. How this all plays out is difficult to articulate, at least for me at this point. But we have come from somewhere. But to stay connected to both the present body of Christ and the historic body of Christ, well, such sounds unimportant in our western culture today. Unfortunate though.
I am fine for affirming the first 7 councils, but most evangelicals struggle affirming the 7th. I don’t have a problem with icons, but don’t know if that council needs to be affirmed for orthodox Christianity.
While I believe we are to stay connected to the historic orthodox church, I wouldn’t say that we cannot still think through our theological beliefs critically. I have even begun to rethink through my Christology recently. Not that I deny Christ’s divinity or humanity, but I desire to just be a little more simple and use biblical language to keep things easier, rather than create so many other theological terms that we have to jump through hoops to maintain.
I don’t pretend to have it all worked out. But I maintain my connection to the historic orthodox church and the present reality of the body today, especially into the circle I am in relationship with. There are plenty of people that can challenge me if I go ‘off the deep end’. Most don’t have that, don’t think they need it, don’t want it. Yikes.
August 13, 2010 at 10:16 am
Daniel: I can’t stop at Constantinople because the Church didn’t. I’m a member of a body of believers whose faith is rooted in history. If I want to branch out on my own and do my own thing then I can affirm and deny whatever I want and start my own religion. Plenty of folks have done it before. It’s the ecumenical nature of these first seven that allows, or, forces me to affirm them as standards of orthodoxy. It’s the stuff that’s not ecumenical that I have no problem denying (if it merits being denied).
Scott: I’d content that since orthodoxy is defined by those councils then they (all) need to be maintained. One can argue that the councils got it all wrong but then why be a Christian at all and not a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness? They thought they got it wrong too and lashed out on their own to “restore” the foundations of truth in Christianity. And I think I mentioned this on another post yesterday or the day before, but, sticking to biblical language only gets you as far as quoting the Bible. Every heretic and their mother quotes the Bible along with the orthodox. The issue is not over what the Bible says but rather over what it means. Athanasius and Arius could have quoted Proverbs 8:22 back and forth to each other ad infinitum but it wouldn’t have gotten them anywhere without taking the time to reach beyond the language of the text for language to explain the text.
August 13, 2010 at 10:42 am
Nick,
I am not claiming we should “branch out on my own and do my own thing then I can affirm and deny whatever I want and start my own religion.” In addition, the Church did not stop at Nicea II. There is a continual development of teaching even up until today. The reason I stop at Constantinople 381 is because there are things in the following councils that are not clear and have been continually debated by theologians through the present day.
Take Ephesus 431, while I am not one of them there are many Protestant not comfortable with calling Mary “theotokos” or with the icons of Nicea II. While there rejection of the is for less than honorable reasons (the assume it means you worship Mary or the icons), I do not think they are unorthodox for doing so.
In addition, I am not sure some of the Antiochene writings condemned at Constantinople II were denying the divinity of Christ, but simply holding to his humanity as strongly.
Finally, I do not think it was actually clear in what was condemned in terms of monothelitism at Constantinople III. The point was to strongly affirm Christ’s two natures, but if that also condemns those who don’t see to wills in Christ there are a lot of theologians (most distinctly Aquinas) who are not orthodox, including myself.
My point is not to deny that these councils are not important for our history or our faith, but their conclusions are not all rock solid absolute in terms of Biblical data and to absolute some of their claims dictates too much.
August 13, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Oh I think the one non-negotiable is the death and resurrection of Christ. Everything else is additional even if beneficial. His victorious death is all sufficient for what we need to participate in the life of God.
August 13, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Rod,
One clarification I want to make to see if your answer remains the same. By “orthodoxy” I do not mean = saved. I mean right belief that accurately reflects being derived and built on Jesus and the apostles. Or the “faith once delivered to the saints” as Jude wrote. Yes, some of those doctrines may have salvific implications, but not all.
It seems that the death and resurrection as soteriological necessities. We may add the confession that Jesus “came in the flesh” which would by definition assume he is deity that had to come in such a manner.
Other doctrines–like much of what is nailed down in the seven ecumenical councils– may not determine someone’s eternal destiny but that doesn’t mean they don’t determine orthodoxy. What would you say counts toward orthodoxy in this broader sense.
August 15, 2010 at 5:01 am
Brian,
Yes, I would include the incarnation under the whole gamut of theologies concerning Christ’s death. It was crucial the Word became flesh to teach humanity obedience, etc., etc.
I think that the Nicene Creed itself explains what orthodoxy is, as well as the apostles’ creed.I understand the other councils as defining the boundaries of what the Nicene/Apostles creeds meant.
As for claims such as, “the church stops here or didn’t stop here,” I find this difficult to maintain, historically speaking. I like to ask “which church?” because there are churches affirming creeds and statements that I full heartily disagree with. I mean, do we continue with the Council of Dort? Trent? It all really depends on which tradition you come from.
August 15, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Rod, this is more so what I am getting at. In the end we can’t know who is saved because even someone with an orthodox confession may live like Satan, but we should care about orthodoxy because overall it is these doctrines and creeds that you mention that keep us united in fellowship and mission and worship.