[quote:c3bb921443]If you're saying that modern Rome is a true church, I would have to disagree with you there.[/quote:c3bb921443]

That will make for another thread... :P

[quote:c3bb921443]I do not think we need to rethink our ideas of orthodoxy. Remaining within a church and acknowledging it as a true church (which I agree that we need to do more) is one thing; but calling it "orthodox" is another. I actually think we grant denominations (i.e. non-Reformed ones) the status of "orthodox" too willingly. I believe we need more tolerance in our view of what is a true church and where we should stay, but regarding our willingness to call churches "orthodox" I think that if anything we need less tolerance.[/quote:c3bb921443]

I am going to be posting a thread on what determines "orthodoxy", mainly to hear people's takes on the issue.

Should we "rethink" orthodoxy? I was referring to how alot of modern "Reformed" people treat orthodoxy. The problem is that people have changed the [b:c3bb921443]criteria[/b:c3bb921443] of orthodoxy, and therefore [i:c3bb921443]they[/i:c3bb921443] are the ones who need to rethink.

I will argue that [i:c3bb921443]standards[/i:c3bb921443] is not another word for orthodox. We have increased our understanding of Scripture and have therefore increased our standards. But it does not follow that if someone didn't uphold those standards, that they are unorthodox. What we must do is [i:c3bb921443]figure out what determines orthodoxy[/i:c3bb921443]. The universal Church must agree for something to be orthodox. [b:c3bb921443]I will stop here and start a NEW thread on this. Please respond on that thread so all can see.[/b:c3bb921443]

Paul

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by rembrandt]