What Is Christian Orthodoxy?

[R. S. Martin]

This topic arose on the thread in the Lions Den about "A Serious Concern About Doctrine Being Taught In Some Churches." Starting about Post 173 it was suggested moving to the Colosseum. I don't see it anywhere and I am interested in a discussion so here goes.

 

I'll start from scratch with my own ideas. If anyone wishes to move their posts/ideas over here from the other thread, that is their choice. However, please see conditions below.

 

Let's begin with a definition of the word "orthodox." Dictionary.com provides a good listing. It can be used to describe a variety of things, not just Christianity. The word originated from the Latin around 1575 and meant "right belief."

 

As we know, everyone thinks they have the "right belief." So let's look deeper. In Definition #5, they say: conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.

 

The "early church" normally refers to what eventually became the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Church, and the Coptic Church. To the best of my knowledge, these are the only churches in existence today that originated during the early centuries of the Common Era (CE, of after Christ). This being the case, it stands to reason that all other churches are heresy.

 

Since this is the Colosseum, let's try to stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks. Also, I prefer that there be no preaching, though sharing of one's ideas/beliefs is acceptable so long as one says, "This is my personal belief/position/opinion," etc. Thank you.

[Guest end3]

The way I see it Ruby.....I think we could compare our lives with Christs in that our need for rules needs to be fulfilled before we move on to a greater understanding. I would think that there is somehow a combination of predestination vs. free will in this endeavor. Each of us being unique in creation, how can we define orthodox in anything but a faithful sense.

[florduh]

Each of us being unique in creation, how can we define orthodox in anything but a faithful sense.

What is being discussed is official church doctrines and how to categorize them in relation to the earliest pronouncements of the church. As you know, church doctrine has nothing to do with personal spiritual quests.

[TenthDoctor]

This topic arose on the thread in the Lions Den about "A Serious Concern About Doctrine Being Taught In Some Churches." Starting about Post 173 it was suggested moving to the Colosseum. I don't see it anywhere and I am interested in a discussion so here goes.

 

I'll start from scratch with my own ideas. If anyone wishes to move their posts/ideas over here from the other thread, that is their choice. However, please see conditions below.

 

Let's begin with a definition of the word "orthodox." Dictionary.com provides a good listing. It can be used to describe a variety of things, not just Christianity. The word originated from the Latin around 1575 and meant "right belief."

 

As we know, everyone thinks they have the "right belief." So let's look deeper. In Definition #5, they say: conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.

 

The "early church" normally refers to what eventually became the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Church, and the Coptic Church. To the best of my knowledge, these are the only churches in existence today that originated during the early centuries of the Common Era (CE, of after Christ). This being the case, it stands to reason that all other churches are heresy.

 

Since this is the Colosseum, let's try to stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks. Also, I prefer that there be no preaching, though sharing of one's ideas/beliefs is acceptable so long as one says, "This is my personal belief/position/opinion," etc. Thank you.

 

Thanks for starting this topic

 

From my own reading in apologetics literature, I'd say that the creeds of the early church that they are referring to in that definition are the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Chalcedonian Creed.

 

I say this because in all discussions about Christian orthodoxy in apolgetic literature (whether on books or online), this is the definition of orthodoxy that is always given.

 

The Apostles Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth,

and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell.

 

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,

whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

 

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,

the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

 

Amen.

 

 

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

 

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

 

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

*this is the Eastern version of the creed. Interesting, as when I normally do a search for the text, I get the Western version. The Western version is identical to the Eastern version, except on the line where it's talking about the Holy Spirit. "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

 

Chalcedonian Creed

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

[TenthDoctor]

Let me copy and paste a post I made in the other forum to kind of explain what I see as being the function of the creeds in defining what Christian orthodoxy is:

 

. I see this as a necessity for any belief system to have clearly defined beliefs, otherwise, what is the point of saying that someone would identify with any group? If there are no boundaries, then it is completely meaningless. This isn't just with Christianity, or any religion, but also with things like political organizations, non-profits, civic clubs, any group.

 

I see certain beliefs within Christianity as being kind of like the "mission statement" of an organization.

 

It is my position that these beliefs define what Christian belief is. This is my understanding of what Christian orthodoxy is.

[Antlerman]

I'll be reading and jumping in here later for thoughts, but I want to state at the outset that the rules of this forum will be applied in this topic. Disagreements are fine, but I ask participants refrain from ad-hominem insults and discuss differences respectfully. If she is uncomfortable having Jesus call Jebus, or the Bible the Bable, or God Gawd, then I would ask in the interest of keeping this discussion on focus that we refrain from that sort of banter in this thread.

 

Thanks in advance!

[TenthDoctor]

I'll be reading and jumping in here later for thoughts, but I want to state at the outset that the rules of this forum will be applied in this topic. Disagreements are fine, but I ask participants refrain from ad-hominem insults and discuss differences respectfully. If she is uncomfortable having Jesus call Jebus, or the Bible the Bable, or God Gawd, then I would ask in the interest of keep the discussion on focus that we refrain from that sort of banter in this thread. Thanks in advance!

 

Thank you

[R. S. Martin]

Disagreements are fine, but I ask participants refrain from ad-hominem insults and discuss differences respectfully. If she is uncomfortable having Jesus call Jebus, or the Bible the Bable, or God Gawd, then I would ask in the interest of keeping this discussion on focus that we refrain from that sort of banter in this thread.

 

Thanks so much, Antlerman. I did not know if TenthDoctor would participate here. I had been fascinated with the variety of ideas expressed by people on the other thread and hoped for a respectful and serious discussion. I think we're off to a good start.

[R. S. Martin]

TD, thanks for posting those creeds. I agree that that would probably be what Dictionary.com meant by the creeds of the early church.

 

However, I have also read that a certain passage in Paul was an even earlier creed. I'm not sure where it is. Is it in Corinthians or Romans? I looked just now and can't find it.

 

I'm sure someone on these forums knows what I'm talking about because I have in mind it was on these forums that I learned about it. Possibly it was discovered by a New Testament scholar such as Bart Ehrman, though I don't know.

[R. S. Martin]

Each of us being unique in creation, how can we define orthodox in anything but a faithful sense.

What is being discussed is official church doctrines and how to categorize them in relation to the earliest pronouncements of the church. As you know, church doctrine has nothing to do with personal spiritual quests.

 

Florduh, thanks for this clarification. It helps me focus.

[Deva]

Well I used to argue with liberal Christians on this site about "beliefs common to most Christians" that they were throwing overboard. What I used to consider "orthodox" were the creeds - Nicene Creed, and those others mentioned by TenthDoctor. I said that so-called Christians who did not adhere to these basic ideas were not truly Christian and were being intellectually dishonest by still identifying themselves as such when technically they were heretics.

 

I don't really see it that way anymore. When I read the works of Bart Ehrman and other Biblical scholars, when I read church history and I see how full of division Christianity was from the very beginning - all these distinctions become irrelevant. So-called orthodoxy was put together by bishops of later centuries. It was arbitrary, it did not last - the eastern church took issue with the Nicene creed (and other things) and broke away. There was always division. It was quite an effort to keep the church together, it took state power and persecution to do it.

 

Orthodoxy is pretty much meaningless since we have no idea what Christ would have thought of it if he had known about it.

[TenthDoctor]

TD, thanks for posting those creeds. I agree that that would probably be what Dictionary.com meant by the creeds of the early church.

 

However, I have also read that a certain passage in Paul was an even earlier creed. I'm not sure where it is. Is it in Corinthians or Romans? I looked just now and can't find it.

 

I'm sure someone on these forums knows what I'm talking about because I have in mind it was on these forums that I learned about it. Possibly it was discovered by a New Testament scholar such as Bart Ehrman, though I don't know.

 

I might know what you're talking about. There are several passages that could fit this.

 

Let me do a quick search, and I'll post them here.

 

1 Timothy 3:14-16

¹⁴ I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; ¹⁵ but ^[k]in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how ^[l]one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. ¹⁶ By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:

He who was revealed in the flesh,

Was ^[m]vindicated ^[n]in the Spirit,

Seen by angels,

Proclaimed among the nations,

Believed on in the world,

Taken up in glory.

 

Is that what you meant? Or was it something else?

[TenthDoctor]

Well I used to argue with liberal Christians on this site about "beliefs common to most Christians" that they were throwing overboard. What I used to consider "orthodox" were the creeds - Nicene Creed, and those others mentioned by TenthDoctor. I said that so-called Christians who did not adhere to these basic ideas were not truly Christian and were being intellectually dishonest by still identifying themselves as such when technically they were heretics.

 

I don't really see it that way anymore. When I read the works of Bart Ehrman and other Biblical scholars, when I read church history and I see how full of division Christianity was from the very beginning - all these distinctions become irrelevant. So-called orthodoxy was put together by bishops of later centuries. It was arbitrary, it did not last - the eastern church took issue with the Nicene creed (and other things) and broke away. There was always division. It was quite an effort to keep the church together, it took state power and persecution to do it.

 

Orthodoxy is pretty much meaningless since we have no idea what Christ would have thought of it if he had known about it.

 

I thought that Bart Ehrman was pretty much an atheist himself. Am I right on that? I'll be back in a bit. I'm going to go eat now. I'll finish this response when I'm back.

[Deva]

I thought that Bart Ehrman was pretty much an atheist himself. Am I right on that? I'll be back in a bit. I'm going to go eat now. I'll finish this response when I'm back.

 

I don't know.

[florduh]

I thought that Bart Ehrman was pretty much an atheist himself.

Does it matter? Must a Biblical scholar be Christian, or might that even be a handicap?

 

Actually, Ehrman began as a Fundy and through study, evolved to agnostic. Too much knowledge seems to frequently do that to a Biblical scholar and thinker.

[TenthDoctor]

Well I used to argue with liberal Christians on this site about "beliefs common to most Christians" that they were throwing overboard. What I used to consider "orthodox" were the creeds - Nicene Creed, and those others mentioned by TenthDoctor. I said that so-called Christians who did not adhere to these basic ideas were not truly Christian and were being intellectually dishonest by still identifying themselves as such when technically they were heretics.

 

I don't really see it that way anymore. When I read the works of Bart Ehrman and other Biblical scholars, when I read church history and I see how full of division Christianity was from the very beginning - all these distinctions become irrelevant. So-called orthodoxy was put together by bishops of later centuries. It was arbitrary, it did not last - the eastern church took issue with the Nicene creed (and other things) and broke away. There was always division. It was quite an effort to keep the church together, it took state power and persecution to do it.

 

Orthodoxy is pretty much meaningless since we have no idea what Christ would have thought of it if he had known about it.

 

Hmmm...maybe it seems that it hasn't lasted (and it is true that there are many theologically liberal Christians who deny the creeds, and whom I would consider to be heretics), but officially all of the mainline denominations still have these beliefs as part of their faith. Most non-denominational churches would also adhere to these creeds.

 

Even though the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches have their differences, they all officially still adhere to these creeds.

 

 

 

 

Does it matter? Must a Biblical scholar be Christian, or might that even be a handicap?

 

Actually, Ehrman began as a Fundy and through study, evolved to agnostic. Too much knowledge seems to frequently do that to a Biblical scholar and thinker.

 

No, it doesn't matter -- just asking because I'd read something he wrote. Also, not all biblical scholars are theologically liberal, agnostic, or atheist. There are also theologically conservative biblical scholars. But all of that is off topic. Sorry about getting us sidetracked with my comment.

[Guest end3]

Orthodoxy is pretty much meaningless since we have no idea what Christ would have thought of it if he had known about it.

 

Which would be my thoughts......I don't know that this thread has much value other than opinion as the definition, even with definitives, lacks the ability to define the Spiritual aspect of man.....for example, the interpretations of the creeds.

[Deva]

Hmmm...maybe it seems that it hasn't lasted (and it is true that there are many theologically liberal Christians who deny the creeds, and whom I would consider to be heretics), but officially all of the mainline denominations still have these beliefs as part of their faith. Most non-denominational churches would also adhere to these creeds.

 

Even though the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches have their differences, they all officially still adhere to these creeds.

 

They may "officially still adhere to these creeds" but my point was that it doesn't matter.

[Deva]

Orthodoxy is pretty much meaningless since we have no idea what Christ would have thought of it if he had known about it.

 

Which would be my thoughts......I don't know that this thread has much value other than opinion as the definition, even with definitives, lacks the ability to define the Spiritual aspect of man.....for example, the interpretations of the creeds.

 

Yep, End, I think we are on the same page with this.

[agnosticator]

TD, thanks for posting those creeds. I agree that that would probably be what Dictionary.com meant by the creeds of the early church.

 

However, I have also read that a certain passage in Paul was an even earlier creed. I'm not sure where it is. Is it in Corinthians or Romans? I looked just now and can't find it.

 

I'm sure someone on these forums knows what I'm talking about because I have in mind it was on these forums that I learned about it. Possibly it was discovered by a New Testament scholar such as Bart Ehrman, though I don't know.

 

I might know what you're talking about. There are several passages that could fit this.

 

Let me do a quick search, and I'll post them here.

 

1 Timothy 3:14-16

¹⁴ I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; ¹⁵ but ^[k]in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how ^[l]one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. ¹⁶ By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:

He who was revealed in the flesh,

Was ^[m]vindicated ^[n]in the Spirit,

Seen by angels,

Proclaimed among the nations,

Believed on in the world,

Taken up in glory.

 

Is that what you meant? Or was it something else?

 

According to a Wikipedia article, you could add:

The chapter begins with a recitation of a statement of faith that Paul had himself received when he was baptised into the Christian faith. The account of the resurrection appearances of Jesus in verses 3-7 appears to be an early pre-Pauline credal statement:^[1]

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that

Christ

died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of

Cephas

, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of

James

; then of all the

apostles

. (King James Version)

[florduh]

I agree with end3!!!

 

I think this can only end with orthodoxy being defined as the definer's beliefs.

[agnosticator]

Old Roman Creed

 

Main article: Old Roman Creed

The Old Roman Creed is an earlier and shorter version of the Apostles' Creed. It was based on the 2nd century Rules of Faith and the interrogatory declaration of faith for those receiving baptism, which by the 4th century was everywhere tripartite in structure, following Matthew 28:19.

[edit] Nicene Creed

 

Main article: Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed reflects the concerns of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 which had as their chief purpose to establish what Christians believed.^[5]

[edit] Apostles' Creed

 

Main article: Apostles' Creed

The Apostles' Creed is widely used by most Christian denominations for both liturgical and catechetical purposes, most visibly by liturgical Churches of Western tradition, including the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, Lutheranism, the Anglican Communion, and Western Orthodoxy. It is also used by Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists.

[edit] Chalcedonian Creed

 

Main article: Chalcedonian Creed

The Chalcedonian Creed was adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 in Asia Minor. It defines that Christ is 'acknowledged in two natures', which 'come together into one person and hypostasis'.

[edit] Athanasian Creed

 

Main article: Athanasian Creed

The Athanasian Creed (Quicumque vult) is a Christian statement of belief, focusing on Trinitarian doctrine and Christology. It is the first creed in which the equality of the three persons of the Trinity is explicitly stated, and differs from the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds in the inclusion of anathemas, or condemnations of those who disagree with the Creed.

[mymistake]

The "early church" normally refers to what eventually became the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Church, and the Coptic Church. To the best of my knowledge, these are the only churches in existence today that originated during the early centuries of the Common Era (CE, of after Christ). This being the case, it stands to reason that all other churches are heresy.

 

There were many Christian sects in the first and second Centuries. Most did not survive. However it is as you say. The remaining Christian sects came later so they are definitely heresy. Furthermore the Roman Catholic Church used the concept of heresy to define any Christian sect that differed. That is a long standing tradition in Christianity.

[LivingLife]

Wow 2 pages of word salads and really not much of what is orthodox other than the creeds.

 

The research I did specifically dealt with the deification of jesus and the introduction of the holy spirit. There are oodles of texts that most xians follow (Pauline) that deal with the concept that back then, there was at best a binity frame of thought meaning folk surmised jesus was a son of god, some saw him as THE son of god aka only begotten etc.

 

The holy spirit that was "introduced" in the Nicene creed was a later frame of thought that evolved. leading to the trinity doctrine.

 

The issue here was that as paganism was being merged into the state religion, it was adapting those concepts and embellishing any story that may lend credence to the concept that jesus was actually god in the flesh.

 

You have to bounce back between the gospels and paul's crap (usually in his salutations) and see what did jesus allegedly say of himself and what later xians said of him. Jesus' sayings tend to acknowledge the father very strongly as the MMIC (main man in charge) and that he was one of many sons. Then he has statements of "I go to my father" inferring he acknowledges his deification as a man-god/son at minimum.

 

However our visitor really has more concerns with the doctrine of the bullpiteers of prosperity gospel and the obvious charlatans like Bentley and co that ess. make shit up as they see fit and interpret it to fit their own agendas.

 

All of the characters fall in the category of evangelicals and as such evangelicals have no central authority and can in fact make shit up as they feel "led" by the holy spirit. Thus we have varying doctrines within these groups usually focussed around the so called gifts of the hs, the idea you should tithe which will lead to non existent blessings by god, the laying on of hands which suggests that there is a transference of holy spook anointing etc.

 

The evangelical doctrines are a mish-mash of mostly pauline teachings lightly sprinkled with a tad of jesus. The whole pentecostal, charismatic and later movements have moved way beyond the Azuza street days and now fit more of a social/political agenda. The concept of salvation in these groups went from the simple being born again to the insistence that baptism in the hs was/is essential and from this the least of the 9 gifts, tongues is the "sign"

 

Now trying to find any exegesis or central doctrine to the evangelicals is impossible as they all have their own made up one loosely based on the apostles creed. For example when I was designing my last church's website, I had to ask the pastor what was the church's articles/statement of faith AoF/SoF and he got the one on file and simply edited it. At the time gay marriage had been made legal and he inserted a clause suggesting that marriage was between a man and woman only. This is nowhere to be seen in the original creeds.

 

So where are we in this discussion. Our visitor should at least publish her AoF she subscribes to and then we can pull it apart/compare to the originals.

 

So as far as orthodoxy, it seems only the RCC and EOC are ones that have a lineage dating back to when they split that appears to be long standing.

 

We are then faced with the other concepts of doctrine which most claim an oral tradition, forget the RCC name for it, which is used as a standard to interpret texts in a uniform manner. This of course flies in the face of evangelicals that suggest that being led by the hs, one can derive multiple interpretations of a single text; this is akin to an onion being peeled and as such multi-layered and still remains an onion as you pull away each layer yet previous interpretations stand as they are/were still part of the onion. The idea is to get to the sweet core for the real truth™ which never happens OR simply becomes what the pastor states it is. This approach the RCC call sola scriptura and they are dead against it.

 

99.99% of evangelicals have no clue what is in the bible, its origins or how the texts have been altered in translation. They are led to believe this process was hs inspired and this is also a myth. For example the KJV 1611 has over 40000 translation errors in it and this is the version the evangelicals swear on as god's inspired wurd.

 

Schoefield made marginal/foot notes to other texts to reaffirm the authenticity of the bible and many of these notes of his became evangelical doctrine and were simply his opinion. The same is for the cross references between revelation, daniel, ezekiel and psalms wrt eschatology.

 

Two of the constructs wrongly derived concern satan and the concept of hell. Nowhere in Hebrew texts is there a concept of a satanic being, there is no fall of lucifer (that being the biggest mistranslation) and the idea of a dantes inferno hell. Hebrew thought was simply adversary and realm of the dead/grave for satan and hell. Of course this is not a new concept and has been around since the early days. It simply shows that an agenda was there to introduce a fall guy for all the bad shit god allegedly does in the OT and selling a lovie dovie god has a drawing power but no staying power like fear of the unknown hence the fiery pits of hell. Evangelicals are hell bent on proving hell is real and also satan. Without them their doctrine ess has no oomph.

 

Even the best apologists have no knowledge of humanetics and ancient culture to put texts in perspective esp. from the OT, most use the strong's concordance and very little else.

 

What many do not know, most of the marginal notes found in the NT come from some prisoner that made and attempt to connect the dots that were not there. These are now revered as much as the texts themselves as it is a lazy way to cross reference. Nice way to be led by the nose as to what one should believe. When you start to really pull these xrefs apart, you see how thin they really are.

 

If you look at revelation and see how the dragon is compared to the talking snake in genesis and other OT texts, the Hebrew thought is not based on a literal snake or do they see the snake as a fallen angel. All of these dots are based on various pagan constructs that found their way into the christian faith as it was being developed.

 

The OT in itself is also based on earlier influences in their many diasporas where they were exposed to earlier pagan concepts and there are two distinct gods in the OT namely Elohim and Yahweh. These morphed into a single god after undergoing metamorphosis themselves. So making shit up has has a very long and colourful history leavings us with fields of meadow muffins.(thanks Florduh for that)

 

I notice our visitor ignores my posts which suggest to me that this level of discussion is way over her head. When I read this thread I was hoping to have seen a real intense presentation of at least her AoF but as it turns out in so many cases here, the folk have no clue really.

 

This post has taken over an hour to compile and write so let us see if we get a rebuttal to my offerings of equal effort. I am happy for you to pick anything mentioned above if you feel you have anything meaningful to contribute. We can then get into the details of textual criticism and really go down the rabbit hole for a guided tour. It is very deep mind you and you may not like what you find.

[R. S. Martin]

The "early church" normally refers to what eventually became the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Church, and the Coptic Church. To the best of my knowledge, these are the only churches in existence today that originated during the early centuries of the Common Era (CE, of after Christ). This being the case, it stands to reason that all other churches are heresy.

 

There were many Christian sects in the first and second Centuries. Most did not survive. However it is as you say. The remaining Christian sects came later so they are definitely heresy. Furthermore the Roman Catholic Church used the concept of heresy to define any Christian sect that differed. That is a long standing tradition in Christianity.

 

Exactly. There were very, very many groups who called themselves Christian in the first four centuries. In those days, there was no Roman Catholic Church per se. There was the Church in Jerusalem, a Roman Church, the Church in Alexandria, one in North Africa, another in Asia Minor, etc.

 

My NT prof talked about Jesus Followers for the very early church--possibly first century. Then orthodox and others emerged. The large variety of "others" is generally lumped together as "Gnostics," one of which groups was called the Valentinians. The "orthodox" was so called only because it managed to "win" insofar as it killed off all the others and purged the world of its literature and teachings. And the winners/survivors get to tell the story.

 

We know the Gnostics existed for two reasons: 1) The Early Church Fathers quoted them at length in their own writings against the Gnostics. 2) In recent centuries, bits and pieces of Gnostic writings have been discovered in sealed earthenware jars that had been hidden to protect them from the book-burnings of the orthodox Christians two thousand years ago.

 

That is more or less how my devout Christian seminary professor explained the situation. He posited the question: How do we know who the actual orthodox Christians were?

 

After Constantin's conversion in the fourth century there were endless meetings to decide what the official church doctrine should be. The outcome is what became orthodox Christian teaching, or right belief.

 

Since Eastern/Greek Orthodox and Coptic originally were part of Roman Catholic before it was called Roman Catholic, it just seemed to me that they all belonged to Christian orthodoxy. I think it was around the fourth century that the Coptics went to Egypt. Around the tenth or eleventh century, the Eastern and Western church split into Roman Catholic and Eastern/Greek Orthodox.

 

Protestants only arrived on the scene as splinters from the Roman Catholic Church around 1500 and later. Luther started the revival/evangelical movement, more or less, and it hasn't stopped yet. But it's a johnny-come-lately.

 

Do they carry on the orthodox tradition? I think they do in modified versions. Given that the three ancient churches have widely varying traditions, I'm not sure how we can ever hope to define exactly what is "correct belief."

 

I suppose that is why Deva and others say "orthodox" is meaningless" and why we have more than thirty-thousand different Christian denominations today, every single one of which claims to be the One True Church with "correct/orthodox belief."

 

Which brings me back to TenthDoctor's Post 5 in this thread:

 

Let me copy and paste a post I made in the other forum to kind of explain what I see as being the function of the creeds in defining what Christian orthodoxy is:

 

. I see this as a necessity for any belief system to have clearly defined beliefs, otherwise, what is the point of saying that someone would identify with any group? If there are no boundaries, then it is completely meaningless. This isn't just with Christianity, or any religion, but also with things like political organizations, non-profits, civic clubs, any group.

 

I see certain beliefs within Christianity as being kind of like the "mission statement" of an organization.

 

It is my position that these beliefs define what Christian belief is. This is my understanding of what Christian orthodoxy is.

 

The Christian beliefs are clearly defined but very diffuse. There are definite boundaries around what is Christian and what is Hindu and what is Jewish and what is Muslim, etc. But within each religion there is a very wide range of interpretations and manifestations of core beliefs. For example, my own people think to be Christian means to dress in plain homemade Victorian era clothing and use horse and buggy transportation. Other people think to be Christian means listening to Christian music and witnessing door-to-door. My people are sure the others are worldly and lost, while I assume the others think my people are lost and going to hell.

 

That is only one example of what happens when people have clearly defined beliefs based on orthodoxy.

 

So it appears to me. I may be missing something important but I think the historical example of so-called orthodoxy killing off all other Christians and burning their books is another very strong example. It's just so easy to conclude "I'm right" after killing all one's foes and burning their books.

 

Sorry if I've wandered off topic.