Crossing the Heretical Line

Also, isn’t there a difference between heresy and heretical teaching? I think the former would fall under #1 and the latter, under #2.

Tenant != Tenet.

Sorry — pet peeve of mine. Otherwise, good article, which leaves me wondering: are you really that sure that “all Christians, of all time, everywhere” believed in the Trinity as post-Nicene Christians do?

Jason:

I’m not sure that the Trinity as defined in the Councils met St. Vincent’s criteria:

http://www.westernorthodox.com/commonitory.html

The Commonitory of St. Vincent of Lérins

Chapter II

A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

(con’t next)

(cont’d)

I suspect that the belief in the Real Presence (i.e., that the bread and wine are/become the real body and blood of Christ) and in baptismal regeneration (and/or the belief that baptism was the means by which one was joined to Christ and the Church) were more widely and commonly held by all or most Christians than a certain view of the Trinity.

If so, then using St. Vincent’s criteria (adopted by CMP here for determining the sine qua non of the Faith), it seems to me that the case could be made that Evangelicals who claim to be orthodox Trinitarians, but who deny/reject the Real Presence and baptismal regeneration (and/or baptism as the means by which one is placed into Christ and the Church), are heretics.

And if one is himself or herself a heretic, how valid is it for such a one to call another person a heretic, or to define “heresy”? 🙂

YMMV

It becomes even more complicated because traditional beliefs can be understood differently. For example, omniscience means that God knows everything that can be known. But what is the scope of what can be known? There are some things that cannot be known (e.g., zero divided by any number) because they are nonsensical, just as omnipotence has scope (can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it is a nonsensical question and does not affect his omnipotence). Hence, open theists adhere to omniscience but define differently the scope of what it is possible to know.

For a second example, think of inerrancy. Walton’s new book on Genesis or Peter Enns book on Inspiration–both believe in inerrancy but define it very differently from fundamentalists and there are christians who would argue that their views do not fall within the scope of “inerrancy”.

regards,
#John

Isn’t there something a little self-fulfilling, or circular, about suggesting that orthodoxy, basic tenets, are held universally by all Christians?

Consider this scenario: there were indeed many called themselves Christians, who held different doctrines. Later their beliefs and they themselves were judged to be heretics … and ejected from Christianity, by some. But in the meantime, for some time, they 1) were often believed to be Christians; and 2) held beliefs different from those later held to be orthodox and “universal.”

No doubt there is something logically circular about this; maybe John’s expertise in logic could describe this better.

(We reject any beliefs that don’t match our own, as heresies, as not Christian; therefore not Christian; and so now we have a Christianity that has only core tenets in it. While anything else is now defined as “not Christian.” But after all … isn’t that because we so defined it? First we limit Christianity … and then we appeal to its limitations as definitive. As if we ourselves did not create them.)

Michael,

It seems to me that your definition of historical Christian orthodoxy is circular, because you define it in terms of what was held by all Christians of all time, everywhere. But such a definition presupposes already knowing who was a Christian and who was not. And such knowledge requires knowing what is historical Christian orthodoxy and what is not.

In the peace of Christ,

– Bryan

Hey, Michael, it’s good to know that no matter how my beliefs in some areas may differ from some other Christians’ beliefs, it looks like I am still within the “Historic Christian Orthodoxy” group.

Is there a difference between someone who explicitly rejects a doctrine of historic Christian orthodoxy, and one who simply does not affirm it (out of ignorance)?

Take for example, the deity of Christ. While I am a firm believer in the deity of Christ, I’m not convinced that one must embrace this doctrine in order to experience salvation (initial salvation, not necessarily final salvation)? As I read Acts, it does not appear to me that the apostles included this doctrine in their evangelistic preaching. While there are intimations of His deity, and in some places they make it clear that He is no ordinary human being, by no means was Christ’s full deity made explicit. If anything, Jesus was presented more as a man (and God’s agent) than as God. Given what Luke records, I have no reason to believe that the people who listened to the apostles’ evangelistic messages would have walked away with the understanding that Jesus was God incarnate, and yet they responded to the message, and received salvation!

Given Acts, I lean toward the position that one need not believe in the deity of Christ in order to be born again, even though the deity of Christ is a sine qua non of Christianity. Of course, new converts who had not been taught about the deity of Christ prior to salvation need to be taught this doctrine as part of their discipleship. But going back to my original question, what happens if that person rejects the doctrine once it is presented to him and he understands it? Does his post-conversion rejection of the deity of Christ mean he is no longer saved?

I recognize that part of the answer hinges on the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, but please don’t turn this question into a debate on that topic. The larger issue is whether one can experience salvation without believing in the deity of Christ, and what the status of that individual is if they later come to reject this doctrine upon learning it.

Jason Dulle:

How about the full Personhood of the Holy Spirit? It’s more inferred or derived than stated in the New Testament, and it’s barely there at all, if at all, in the Old Testament.

I.e., in addition to believing in the deity of Christ, must one also believe in the deity and person-ness/personhood of the Holy Spirit? Can a Sola Scriptura (or Solo Scriptura) approach insist that the Bible clearly teaches that Christ is as fully God as the Father is fully God, or that the Holy Spirit is a Person?

Can Evangelicals require – as a condition or test of salvation or as a condition of being considered an “orthodox” Christian or one who can take communion or one with whom one can take communion – a person to affirm or confess a belief about Christ or the Holy Spirit that isn’t explicit in Scripture?

Inquiring minds want to know!

I also wonder if there’s a difference in what some would call ‘soft’ heresy, which I have heard defined in various terms as well.

Soft heresy, as I have observed it, seems to be based more upon agreeing with anyone’s personal interpretation that falls most in line with our individual emotional beliefs. It is sort of a “if it sounds right it must be, or if it feels good it must also be right” kind of thing. It can be the result of bad or incomplete teaching, political disagreement, unfulfilled personal needs, or any number of things we may individually believe that just don’t quite fit in with the ‘norm’ as we know it in Christianity. However, at the time, it feels much more right for us.

Although this mostly experiential spiritual practice certainly doesn’t always result in rank heresy, over time it can result in a very subtle gradual chipping away at the core tenets of a person’s faith by over emphasis on emotional experiences rather than sound teaching. I ran into this phenomenon quite often in the different areas of the charismatic and emerging churches I ministered in over the years. For a time I was taken in by it, simply because of the sincerity with which those who preached it believed it themselves.

‘Truth’ was whatever was felt on any given Sunday. Heresy, in that emotionally charged setting often happened by default.

Michael, is there such a thing as ‘divine orthodoxy’ to add to your trio?
I rather doubt it. In fact, for reasons that #John points out, all of our understandings and beliefs may fall short of true orthodoxy, if there is such a thing. Orthodoxy and heresy may be useful notions for preserving church communities, but they cannot be used to define all Christianity. Fortunately for us, God is primarily interested in a life of righteousness and love, not in orthodoxy.

Raynor-

“Fortunately for us, God is primarily interested in a life of righteousness and love, not in orthodoxy.”

Who is God?

God, according to what orthodoxy?

Does anyone have a response to the charge that orthodoxy, defined as that which all Christians have always held, is circular?

Indeed, on this definition, could the doctrines of the original church be called “orthodox” given the fact that the church had just begun?

While I understand the practical need for defining orthodoxy as that which all Christians have always held, it seems better to define orthodoxy as simply “right teaching,” and define right teaching as whatever was taught by Jesus and His disciples. Granted, while we would expect to find those teachings believed all throughout church history, the mere fact that something was believed going all the way back to the 2nd century does not necessarily mean it is orthodox.

Jason (#16),

it seems better to define orthodoxy as simply “right teaching,” and define right teaching as whatever was taught by Jesus and His disciples.

Every heretic in the history of the Church would have loved that definition, because they could each affirm it, and thus count as orthodox. Heretics typically claimed to be believing and teaching whatever was taught by Jesus and His disciples.

In the peace of Christ,

– Bryan

Raynor-

“God, according to what orthodoxy?”

How about the One in which you said, ” God is primarily interested in a life of righteousness and love”.

That One.

I always have appreciated what Dan Kimball once wrote:

“Right beliefs (ORTHODOXY) without the Spirit changing us with those beliefs (even the devil believed there is one God – James 2:19) doesn’t mean we will be a Spirit-filled Christian demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5).

But then the other extreme is having good ORTHOPRAXY (straight or right living/action/practice) but losing ORTHODOXY. We can live good lives, be kind, gentle, help the poor – but we can have that if we join the Peace Corps or even be athiest and have good practice of living. So it has to be both. The Spirit should use ORTHODOXY to produce ORTHOPRAXY. One without the other is not good.”

Orthodoxy means the “classic creeds.”

If we pursue the wisdom of the creeds, it will mean that the first defense of orthodoxy begins by trusting that the God of history has guided his people into all truth through the Paraclete. In other words, it is to have a robust pneumatology and ecclesiology and a bibliology that follows from both…
It is instinctual for us to appeal to John 16:13: “When the Holy Spirit comes he will guide you into all truth.” One who has struggled with this verse is the English Evangelical, Stephen Holmes, of King’s College London, and he concludes on this text the following:

‘Just so, in theological work, the promise that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth does not announce an overcoming of all problems or a final solution to every question, but instead an assurance where the truth or relevance of the gospel is at stake that God will not abandon us but will work providentially through the messiness of very human arguments and decisions to ensure that the decisions taken are not disastrous. [and he calls this]… a relative, dependent and partial authority, but authority nonetheless.’
Two pages later he observes:

‘I find it difficult to envisage a situation in which there could be sufficient evidence to doubt the Nicene Creed…. Its authority comes [not] only from the recognition that it is a remarkably successful repetition of central truths found already in the Bible, but because of that it has genuine authority as a privileged interpretation of Scripture, against which other claimed interpretations may be measured and tested…. That the Creed says x is sufficient reason to assert that x is true, theologically.’

Scot McKnight goes on:
“I’m appealing, the way a mouse does before a lion, for Evangelicals to enlargen the latter end of this process and reconsider its relationship to both the orthodox creeds and to the powerful processes that were established in such creeds. This little heresy of mine can be called orthodoxy. If we do this, and if we recognize that there is a drama played on different stages in different locations to different tunes, we will come to terms with three things: (1) the authority of the canon, (2) the sacredness of the creeds, and (3) the need to engage each culture with that canon in light of those creeds.

I see only two live options for us: either we embrace canon and creed as a singular moment when God was at work through his Spirit in the history of the Church, or we relativize both canon and creed and throw everything back on history or individual conscience.”

Sorry. #20 is a quote by Prof. Scot McKnight, which then carries on into #21.

Rick, that one suits me. I’m trying to say that God doesn’t judge people’s orthodoxy; He judges the way they live their lives under the guidance of the Spirit. As Michael has shown, there isn’t just one orthodoxy.

Rayner-

So it does not matter what people believe, or think of God, as long as they are doing the “right” things?

‘I find it difficult to envisage a situation in which there could be sufficient evidence to doubt the Nicene Creed….

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed means what the authors meant and understood it to mean, not what we read into it or change about it.

– If you don’t believe that there will be no end to Christ’s kingdom (per Isaiah 9:7), but believe (per 1 Cor 15:24) that He at the end delivers it up to the God and Father;
– If you don’t believe that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and that baptism effects forgiveness of sins or is an instrumental part of it, but believe baptism is just an outward symbol;
– If you don’t believe that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic – i.e., holding the beliefs and structure of what the early church fathers meant by “the Catholic church” – hierarchical, episcopal, sacramental, liturgical, led by those who are in physical and named/appointed succession from the Apostles, and teaching the same faith once-for-all delivered to the saints, including a central belief in the Real Presence – but believe in a different form or pattern of church meeting, or a different way of choosing leadership;

then how can you NOT doubt the Nicene Creed? Isn’t Evangelicalism itself a prima facie case of doubting the Nicene Creed?

I’m arguing as a so-called Evangelical/non-denominational Christian. I’m not arguing for the RCC or EOC.

“Isn’t Evangelicalism itself a prima facie case of doubting the Nicene Creed?”

So how and what does Evangelicalism determine as the essentials?

So how and what does Evangelicalism determine as the essentials?

That’s CMP’s and my and every non-denominational Evangelical’s or Evangelical spokesperson’s dilemma/conundrum. 😀

CMP seems to be trying in various posts here to determine that. I suspect that this exercise has been performed by many, many persons.

Bryan Cross (2nd #7),

That may be so, but the Bible seems to be a better standard for orthodoxy than sustained majority opinion. Sustained majority opinion can be wrong, and has been wrong.

That’s not to say that we should not attach considerable weight to what the majority of Christians have believed down through the ages, but surely that cannot trump Biblical teaching. Luther understood this. That’s why he rejected the ~1200 year old Christian teaching on justification (which would be orthodoxy given the standard definition). He understood that the Bible is the ultimate standard for right doctrine, not the traditional teaching of the church down through the ages. It would be ridiculous for someone to say that Luther’s doctrine of justification must be considered unorthodox, simply because it was not what the church had believed throughout the centuries.

Whose to say what the standard for determining what orthodoxy is, is? Is it the Bible, what Christians have always believed, the Creeds, or something else? It seems somewhat arbitrary to say it’s only this or only that. I get the feeling that people tend to choose the standard that they think best supports what they believe as being orthodoxy!

I still haven’t seen anyone respond to the circularity charge. I am very interested in hearing a response.

I would also like to see someone respond to my questions in comment #0, as to whether there a difference between someone who explicitly rejects a doctrine of historic Christian orthodoxy, and one who simply does not affirm it (out of ignorance).

Jason,

I agree with you about “majority opinion”. I wasn’t suggesting that orthodoxy is determined by majority opinion.

I’m simply saying that virtually every heretic in the history of the Church would have been delighted at the notion that the standard for orthodoxy is the Bible. The Arians would have rejoiced, since if the Bible is the only standard, then the council of Nicea has no authority (nor does the Creed). The Macedonians would have rejoiced, so would the Montanists and the modalists, the Nestorians, and the monophysites and the Pelagians and so on. All heretics quote Scripture, and appeal to Scripture, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Vincent of Lerins pointed out. So, if the Church had said, “All you need to affirm is that you believe the Bible,” then all these heresies would have agreed, and there would have been no such thing as heresy, only apostasy.

Regarding your other point, I do not subscribe to ecclesial deism. And regarding the “who is to say?” question you raise, I would answer that question by starting with this: To whom did Jesus give the keys of the Kingdom, and where did they go from there?

In the peace of Christ,

– Bryan

We have no record that Peter passed the keys to anyone. If he thought it was so important, he ought to have said something about it in the canon. In fact, the keys are never mentioned in the canon again. It seems like everyone ignored the whole idea.

Rick, it matters for particular churches what their people believe about God, but God judges sins and sins are behaviors. We all fail that judgment, and that’s when we appeal to our trust in Christ.

Rayner-

“it matters for particular churches what their people believe about God, but God judges sins and sins are behaviors.”

So it is not about our relationship with God, and getting to know Him better/deeper; it is all about His judgement. ?

I’m saying orthodoxy is not about God’s judgment; God doesn’t have a checklist of orthodox beliefs for us to adhere to.

And yes what we know of God is shown in our beliefs, but in different churches people may know Him somewhat differently because of their different orthodoxies. Michael is trying to discover an orthodoxy of all Christianity. It may not work; what will come out is just a least common denominator in which one gets to know Him minimally.

Rayner-

Since God spent so much time and effort revealing Himself, I do think our orthodoxy does matter to God (ex: “I am God”, “The Lord is One”, “The Word is God”, “Jesus is Lord”, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”, etc…).

As mentioned in earlier comments, and although salvation is not necessarily impacted by ignorance of all aspects of orthodoxy, as we mature in Christ is does impact our orthopraxy as well as our “pneumatology and ecclesiology and a bibliology” (I would also add missiology).

Further, to say that their is not a basic, historic orthodoxy is to potentially question the Holy Spirit’s leading in Truth. One aspect of unity with His Bride (the church), would there not need to be common agreement on the basics/essentials of who this God is? As you stated, it may be a minimal understanding, and it is this that I consider the goal of historic orthodoxies. What you call other orthodoxies, I consider just additions to historic orthodoxy.

At first we may think that the Holy Spirit should lead all Christians in agreement to the same statements of truth, but that is not necessarily the case and it certainly is not what we have seen in the actual history of the church. I think variety does not deny the Holy Spirit’s leading. It is not surprising that we differ. Do we presume that truth about God can be encompassed in one set of views or even in human language at all? It is the ‘basics’ that are the most difficult for humans to define: E.g., Who or what is God? What does fully God and fully man actually mean?

In compiling a corpus of orthodox beliefs, we must first define what Christianity is. It then becomes circular so that the beliefs lead us back to our definition of Christianity. Christianity cannot be entirely defined by beliefs. In a broader view, any who are sufficiently inspired by Jesus’s life and teachings to guide their lives by His can be called Christians.

Rayner-

I agree that variety does not mean the Holy Spirit is not involved, but I also think He clarified some core, unifying beliefs from which to build on. These are no more than summaries of what had been already taught in Scripture (you and I will probably disagree to some degree on epistemology).

And if we call Christians those who are inspired by the life and teachings of Jesus, then we must include His teachings about Himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit- and our relationship to Him.

As Michael once wrote (in regards to passages in Hebrews & Jeremiah):

“We are not to boast in our supposed wisdom, strength, or riches. But we can boast in our relationship with God. This relationship is defined very particularly in this passage. It requires knowledge and understanding. We can only know and be satisfied in God to the degree that our understanding of Him is growing. The Hebrew word here for “understand” is one that communicates comprehension based upon reflection. This does not mean that we will exhaustively understand God or any one thing about Him. But it does mean that which He has revealed about Himself is essential to our relationship with Him.

Again, while God cannot be understood exhaustively, he can and must be understood truly. He himself has said as much.

Beliefs are foundational to all else. Don’t ever think you can have right practice (orthopraxy) without right belief (orthodoxy)….

…the early church was well on their way to having a definite set of beliefs that distinguished them from outsiders. They had a definite orthodoxy. The taking of the name Christian had meaning. Yes, it had much to do with the way one lives (orthopraxy), but, as we have seen, it also had to do with what one believes (orthodoxy). The early church was creedal. One’s “membership” in the church was dependent first on what one believed—on how one answered certain questions….

…While I am not in favor of over-defining our orthodoxy to such a degree where, in the end, the only one truly orthodox is your traditional circle (the “us-four-and-no-more-and-I-am-not-sure-about-you-three mentality), there are questions that must be asked. The answer to these questions will divide us from others. Wrong answers to these questions will place one outside of the Christian creedal confession.”

…the early church was well on their way to having a definite set of beliefs that distinguished them from outsiders. They had a definite orthodoxy. The taking of the name Christian had meaning. Yes, it had much to do with the way one lives (orthopraxy), but, as we have seen, it also had to do with what one believes (orthodoxy). The early church was creedal. One’s “membership” in the church was dependent first on what one believed—on how one answered certain questions….

But was being creedal the right way for the church to be(come)? Reading this, I’m reminded of the formerly-blind man’s response to the Pharisees and Jewish leaders in John 9:17,25, and his later response (both in word and action) to Jesus in 9:35-38, as well as the responses of all the others in the Gospels who came to Jesus and received healing and wholeness and life from Him.

Given a choice between being part of a group of people who have been and continue to be profoundly and life-changingly impacted by the life and power of Jesus Christ, yet whose Christology is and remains somewhat inchoate or ragged around the edges, and a group that mostly knows and says all the right and Biblical things about who Jesus and God are, I’m not sure I wouldn’t prefer the former.

EricW-

“But was being creedal the right way for the church to be(come)?”

We already see early creedal formulations in the New Testament.

In regards to which group you would rather be associated with, there is no doubt that orthopraxy is important and should be stressed. I think people such as Michael, Dan Kimball, Scot McKnight, etc… are clear in emphasizing that in their discussions about the importance of orthodoxy.

That “We already see early creedal formulations in the New Testament” still leaves my question “But was being creedal the right way for the church to be(come)?” somewhat unanswered. However, it appears that the epistle writers in a sense put their imprimatur on such creedal/confessional statements by stating/reciting them in their writings and/or using them for their arguments.

But I wonder if such creeds should remain somewhat minimalist and primitive (e.g., re: Christology), and whether it was right or necessary for them to develop into such things as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Chalcedon Statement, etc.? Church history shows or explains the necessity and inevitability of the development of the creeds, but I wonder what church history would have been like if such things had not been considered necessary? What if Christology had been allowed to (continue to) be loosely defined? What if the Quartodeciman controversy hadn’t been considered important enough to mandate a uniform practice? Would the increase of God’s Kingdom have been thwarted?

EricW-

“…I wonder what church history would have been like if such things had not been considered necessary?”

It is interesting to consider the alternative, but the fact of the matter is that it was seen as necessary. We have a God who revealed Himself, and the early church (I focusing on the early creeds here) wanted to make sure that revelation was not distorted as years began to separate it more and more from Jesus and the Apostles.

I am all for keeping the creeds as “primitive” as possible, and focusing mainly on Christology and Trinitarian issues.

“Would the increase of God’s Kingdom have been thwarted?” If such diversity led to the worshipping a false key perception of God, then possibly. It would, however, likely led to having false gospels (I see Kingdom and Gospel as overlapping in many, but not all, ways).

Since Jesus in the Gospels and the Apostles in the Epistles made the point over and over that right doctrine was very important, I don’t know how or why the church today sometimes seems determined to minimize it’s importance.

Romans 16:17-18 says, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent.”

I Timothy 4:13, “Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine”

And I TImothy 4:16 “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.”

The list could go go….

RE quote from post 37, “Beliefs are foundational to all else. Don’t ever think you can have right practice (orthopraxy) without right belief (orthodoxy)…”

Don’t need much orthodoxy, though. The early church did very well without works of systematic theology or commentaries on each book of the Bible. They were better at missions. They gave more, and more of them held their goods in common. They also had problems, but didn’t solve them by going to conferences with a list of speakers and books to buy.

regards,
#John

rick wrote:

We have a God who revealed Himself, and the early church (I focusing on the early creeds here) wanted to make sure that revelation was not distorted as years began to separate it more and more from Jesus and the Apostles.

rick and cheryl u:

Would you say that the early church (i.e., 2nd-3rd century) view of the Eucharist as the real body and blood of Jesus and baptism as regenerative and sin-cleansing, and the practice of having bishops in charge of churches, was in conformance with the “right doctrine” of the Apostles and epistles, or a deviation from it?

If a deviation, on what basis do you say that? After all, the authors of the early authoritative Creeds held those views and had those practices.

If not a deviation, do you hold to those same views and practices? Why or why not?

I think it is significant that the creeds were reactive to destructive doctrines that sought to taint the message the apostles sought to uphold. I agree with Cheryl that the defense of what the creeds sought to do was really a continuation of defense we see in Scripture, contending for the faith and all that (Jude 3).

I also think the systemization of doctrine was reactive also in order to defend God’s self-disclosure and should not be seen as the villian but a facilitator to understand what has been handed down once for all.

What would have happened had the creeds not been formulated? Well I can only speculate that the divisions and blurry lines of orthodoxy would have manifested themselves much earlier in history than they did. I think that says something about the significance of the creeds.

I actually am working on a post about this very issue. Stay tuned.

Lisa:

I’m looking forward to reading your post. However, I don’t think the Creeds can be properly understood or interpreted apart from the ecclesiastical understanding and practices of the formulators of the Creeds – e.g., what THEY meant by “one holy, catholic and apostolic church”; “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”; etc. It was not simply confession/profession of the “right teachings/beliefs” that assured one’s orthodoxy as a Christian; being a properly-initiated and obedient and practicing and communicating member of the one true church counted as much as all the “right doctrine,” methinks. How do we non-Catholic/non-EO Christians reconcile our promotion of and subscription to the Creeds with our rejection of the Creed-writers’ understanding of the church, whose protection and strengthening was the reason for the Creeds?

EricW-

“After all, the authors of the early authoritative Creeds held those views and had those practices.”

But those issues are not in those creeds. The main theme of those early creeds was about who God is. We are talking basic essentials.

I like what Scot McKnight once wrote:

“Is it possible to speak of “Christian faith” or “gospel” without some kind of basic articulation? And there is a chaser to the first question: What did those earliest creed-like statements concern themselves with?….there are already in the NT the beginnings of creedal formulations to express the core content of the Christian faith.

These creed-like NT statements gave rise to the classical creeds. The classical creeds are not inspired; they are not infallible. Instead, they are claims made by wide segments of the Church that say these statements express what the Church thinks is at the heart of the Bible in light of challenges to the faith. Creeds were used for confession at baptism and in liturgy, they were used for instruction in the faith, and they were useful for theological debates.”

“Essentially, “orthodoxy” believes that there is an identifiable content to the Christian faith and that it can be articulated. No one has ever explained the creeds as expressing all of that faith, but it has always been a conviction that the central creedal statements are at the core of that faith. Denial of which jeopardizes Christian faith.”

Again, the main themes are what is important, or as McKnight says, “the central creedal statements”.

EricW-
“How do we non-Catholic/non-EO Christians reconcile our promotion of and subscription to the Creeds with our rejection of the Creed-writers’ understanding of the church, whose protection and strengthening was the reason for the Creeds?”

Really? It was a power play? Acoording to _____?

Or was it actually their attempt to defend the true faith and doctrine?

Lisa R-

Looking forward to your post.

Sorry Eric,

I am afraid it would take a book to answer all of your questions above! I don’t have time to go into all of that at this time.

Besides, all that I meant to do by making any statement on this thread was to say that I don’t think the current downplay of the importance of doctrine in some of the current church is Biblical.

rick:

To ignore the ecclesiology and soteriology of the framers/authors of the Creed is to lift them from their historical and theological context and remake them in our image. “Who God is” for those people included the things they didn’t feel the need to creedalize, but it was nevertheless just as much a part of their faith as the doctrines in the Creeds. To ignore that and use the Creeds apart from that understood mindset and culture is potentially to misread/misunderstand/misapply the Creeds, no matter how independent their wording seems to be from those things.

YMMV

Eric, I hear what you’re saying. But the problem is that the creeds were not formulated in defense of ecclesiology, they were formed in defense of Christology. It sounds like you are suggesting that the defense was to support ecclesiological structure that existed. I can see that but not sure I agree. I think the church was seen as the conduit through which the defense should be supported not that the defense would support the church. Big difference.