Ambient Orthodoxy

I don’t think inerrancy qualifies, at least using that term, as not everyone could accept the same definition. NT Wright has suggested that “authoritative” is the best word, and I think that would work.

It would seem that what you are talking about with “ambient” beliefs could fall under the Eastern Orthodox concept of “tradition.”

Yes, I think all forms of orthodoxy will fall under the category of tradition in some form or another. We have often referred to this as The Great Tradition. But this is trying to further break down the Vincention Canon (“what has been believed always, everywhere, and by all), the earliest definition of orthodoxy that I know of (besides the canon veritas and the regula fide).

Hi Mike,

Long time, no comment!

I don’t think that Creation Ex Nihilo belongs in this list. Two primary reasons that come to mind. Creation in Scripture usually talks about creation coming from another form – water, chaos, etc. Secondly, the Hebrew word for create “bara” has the idea of forming or shaping. In fact if you intensify the word, it can mean to cut down (as in a tree), probably showing intense forming or shaping! So the word itself lends itself against Ex Nihilo.

Eternality of Hell: Again, judgment is spoken of in the creeds, but not its nature or duration. Nevertheless historic Christianity has always believed that hell is bad and it is eternal.

This is probably correct, but many traditionalists would (incorrectly, I think) place this in your category of dogmatic orthodoxy, citing the Second Council of Constantinople for support.

How is this helpfully different from your “Essentials and Non-Essentials”?

The Belgic Confession Article 12 says: “We believe that the Father created heaven and earth and all other creatures from nothing, when it seemed good to him, by his Word—that is to say, by his Son.”

Would this support the doctrinal orthodoxy of creation Ex Nihilo? Probably not universally, but it would in the reformed tradition.

It seems that the “Eternal nature of God” is part of the Great Tradition, not by creed, council, or confession, but by prayer.
“Lex Orandi, lex credendi.”

The “Eternal nature of God” seem to be part of point of the Gloria Patria.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son :
and to the Holy Spirit;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be :
world without end.

@ Paul’s comment 6:
I think CMP is hinting at the idea that just because a doctrine is not explicitly “dogmatized” in a creed, it may be no less true, and maybe even no less essential. IOW, a doctrine can be both true and essential, though not specifically articulated. For example, the deity of Christ was still true and essential before being articulated at Nicea.

I think he’s right, but I also think that the church got the most important stuff hammered out fairly early (relatively speaking), so there are probably not many unarticulated essentials floating around today.

This is just fantastic! Definitely look forward to reading further thoughts on this…

Locations:

heaven above , hell below (above and below what? Land or earth)

Part of the problem is that you’re taking creeds as if the meaning of terms were not fixed in a specific context. Second, you’re privileging controversial theological claims as if they were part of Doctrinal Orthodoxy. Sola Fide and a Penal model of the atonement are rejected by the vast majority of Christians living today and in the past as Doctrinal Heresy. Universal sinfulness of man is quite vague as well. Does that include Mary? Does this mean Total Depravity? If so, then the majority of Christians are out again too since this is a protestant distinctive.
Even if “Ambient” were a coherent notion, some of its members won’t wash. Creation ex nihilo was challenged by the pagans, time and time again. The Apologists didn’t defend it for nothing. (PUN!) It was also an implication of Sabellianism and Origenism too, both of which were condemned formally. Hence the statement that God is creator of all things, visible and invisible.

Same goes for the “No Exit” thesis and eternality of hell as defended by the Fifth Council over against Origenistic universalism. The Noetusian heresy denied the eternalityof Christ’s kingdom in a similar way to some full preterists, hence the line in the creeds “kingdom shall have no end.”
As for Dogmatic orthodoxy, it is too vague to really be workable. By the Trinity if we mean Nicene Trinitarianism, well the Reformed are out. If we mean Chalcedonian Christology the Reformed are out again, not to mention a good number of Anabaptists. Divine unity isn’t isomorphic across traditions either. How about the Filioque?
Some other things don’t seem to be on the lists like baptismal regeneration which is taught by a number of ecumenical councils, like the perpetual virginity of Mary as well.

The real question is what these phrases meant to the persons who wrote them, not what the average reader thinks they mean or can make them mean today. If the former, then terms like “Apostolic” will pick out the polity of those people who framed the terms which doesn’t bode well for Protestants.

…Since you mentioned the Vincentian Canon…

When I was at a Christian college, way back in the dark ages, we signed a code of conduct that called out drinking, dancing, smoking and R+ rated movies. No mention of drugs or premartial sex.

So you might add some of those to ambient orthodoxy in the category of personal conduct.

Maybe some of the items weren’t included because scripture already made God’s position on the subject clear. Many would put homosexuality in this category. No need to include it in a separate document. The Bible already made a clear statement on the subject.