Home
« Home | Next: A Well Balanced Perspective »
| Next: The News from India »
| Next: Awards »
| Next: Would you think it wise? »
| Next: Behind Enemy Lines? »
| Next: Mission to India »
| Next: A Continuation »
| Next: Bible Study »
| Next: What is sin? »
| Next: Are you Judgmental? »

Thoughts

Topics

Archives


Subscribe

Feed Link

Study Help

Real Help

    Needed Prayers


Links

About

About Kc


Awards

Quotes

    "You are really cool you are married to an European!! How cooler can you be??"
    Fisherman Pecheur

    "Smarty Pants"
    Mad Matt

    "Oh, you did not ask for Bonhoeffer's opinion did you? You wanted mine..."
    the SOFYST

    "You are like the master at this "feelings" stuff!
    Kind Kristi

    "I enjoy your comments, but they are always delightfully enigmatic"
    Dyspraxic Fundamentalist


Friday, October 19, 2007

For Discussion

"...what is orthodox is contained in the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. I find no other authority to establish orthodoxy beyond this. That would mean I consider that any theology cannot be considered as orthodoxy no matter how true it may be."

me ;-)

Labels: , ,

16 Comments:

Blogger Missy said...

I thought I agreed, but just to be sure, I checked some terminology. Orthodoxy is a powerful word, and is so often used very lightly. We tend to use it more in the sense of "traditional" - but that's not really what it means.

"orthodox." (Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian):

1581, from L.L. orthodoxus, from Gk. orthodoxos "having the right opinion," from orthos "right, true, straight" + doxa "opinion, praise," from dokein "to seem," from PIE base *dek- "to take, accept" (see decent). As the name of the Eastern Church, first recorded in Eng. 1772; in the sense of branch of Judaism, first recorded 1853.

In the light of that definition, it is my opinion that you are orthodox.

10/19/2007 09:46:00 AM  
Blogger pecheur said...

I am fighting on two fronts now. =)

I'll get back to you. =)

10/19/2007 02:35:00 PM  
Blogger pecheur said...

Just my two cents here. Thinking out loud. Not tried this out.

I think the majority would agree that we as Christians want orthodoxy and that orthodoxy stems from "the teachings of Christ and the disciples."

What we disagree on is the interpretation of said "teachings of Christ and the disciples (Apostles").

Not to mention the sources for what constitute the teachings of Christ and his followers.

Surely, the JW's believe they are just as Orthodox as I think I am. We both base our perception of orthodoxy on a Book, possibly coming from God (or in their case a god).

Now who has the right to interpretation? I propose the entire community of faith--those living and dead. The consequence of this will be exclusion of those who fall outside orthodoxy. Conformity to certain theologies is not necessarily the same thing as conformity to orthodox teaching (which is having for its base the teachings of Christ and his apostles but being interpreted by the community of faith).

I think we really are in agreement. We may just be coming to the same conclusion from a very slight different vantage point.

10/19/2007 04:50:00 PM  
Blogger Kc said...

Missy I agree. It’s far too easy to find three that agree and then declare they are orthodox. Thanks for giving the etymology. With respect to Christian orthodoxy I would say only God’s opinion is orthodox. ;-)

Pech, sorry! I didn’t mean to divide you with this I only hoped to isolate this particular topic.

As you know, your two cents are priceless to me. ;-)

I would go so far as to say that we, the Church, desperately need orthodoxy in faith and practice but not in theology. In faith the belief that Jesus is Christ the savior, the Son of God is orthodox and in practice only the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Now if two men would understand those teachings differently yet abide in what they agree then what lacks can be resolved in time with prayer and study through the Holy Spirit. If they refuse to abide then there can be no resolution and the Church is divided.

With respect to the sources for the Apostle’s Doctrine I think it wise that we constantly reevaluate each source for the edification of the body.

“Now who has the right to interpretation? I propose the entire community of faith--those living and dead. The consequence of this will be exclusion of those who fall outside orthodoxy. Conformity to certain theologies is not necessarily the same thing as conformity to orthodox teaching (which is having for its base the teachings of Christ and his apostles but being interpreted by the community of faith).

I think we really are in agreement. We may just be coming to the same conclusion from a very slight different vantage point.”


I totally agree with your comment and observation. I would also point out that interpretation is not only our right but our responsibility as well though I find that some are gifted and charged with a more full understanding than others.

10/19/2007 06:10:00 PM  
Blogger jeff said...

KC,

Would you mind giving your definition of "orthodoxy"?

"Theology"?

Thx.

10/19/2007 10:50:00 PM  
Blogger Kc said...

Jeff I find Christian "orthodox" faith and practice to mean that which is to be accepted and/as applicable to all and theology to be mans attempt to understand God.

10/20/2007 05:01:00 AM  
Blogger Rose~ said...

Good thoughs, KC. I agree!

10/20/2007 09:28:00 AM  
Blogger Rose~ said...

I think I just read on another blog recently a discussion about "orthodox." I can't remember which one.

10/20/2007 09:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Gordon Cloud said...

I like the way you stated this, KC. If "orthodoxy" is intended be a baseline for theological agreement, then there is no better place to begin or end than what you have said.

Have a great weekend.

10/20/2007 09:33:00 AM  
Blogger Kc said...

Thanks so much Sis. I'm shocked again! ;-)

Preacher I can't help but wonder how different the fellowship of believers would be if we could all find agreement in this. ;-)

10/20/2007 09:57:00 AM  
Blogger jeff said...

...what is [accepted and/as applicable to all] is contained in the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. I find no other authority to establish [that which is to be accepted and/as applicable to all] beyond this. That would mean I consider that any [mans attempt to understand God] cannot be considered as [accepted and/as applicable to all] no matter how true it may be.

Well said. Thanks for the clarifiction of two terms that have, unfortunately, become quite subjective in their definitions, in reent years...

10/20/2007 09:48:00 PM  
Blogger dorsey said...

Well, according to my research, Ortho=large producer of fertilizer and lawn care products, and Doxy=tetracyclene-type antibiotic.

Clearly, I'm in way over my head here.

10/20/2007 10:33:00 PM  
Blogger Missy said...

Ahh, poisonous AND healing at the same time...

Very deep, Dorsey.

10/21/2007 08:12:00 PM  
Blogger Kc said...

Did I dream I responded or are the comment gremlins at work here again??? Whatever the reason I’m so sorry to seem so slow to respond!

Jeff thanks so much but when you put it that way I’m not so sure I agree! (hehe) I really do know exactly what you mean. I would say most define orthodoxy as “my theology” and “my theology” as “the mind of God”. Given these definitions the conclusion would then be:

“...what is orthodox is contained in the teachings of me. I find no other authority to establish orthodoxy beyond this. That would mean I consider that your theology cannot be considered.”

Dorse I would think a postmodern approach to your etymology might prove helpful. (hehe)

Missy it seems you always enjoy a good paradox! (grin)

10/23/2007 12:00:00 PM  
Blogger Todd said...

Kc,
Well...amen to that.

11/02/2007 09:23:00 AM  
Blogger Kc said...

Todd thanks for the reassurance!
;-)

11/05/2007 03:11:00 AM  

Post a Comment