Thread: Orthdoxy / Unorthdoxy?

Machen wrote on that question:

Your Weekly Machen Fix: What is Orthodoxy? Geneva Redux

“Orthodoxy means ‘my doxy’ and heterodoxy means ‘the other man’s doxy’”.

Great quote from Machen, and it really illustrates the problem encountered with the terminology.

Originally Posted by Michael Butterfield

What does it mean to be unorthodox? If you are saying a man is unorthodox in a particular view, what are you saying about him? Does unorthodox = error or does unorthodox = heresy? Or are these overly simplistic equations? What is unorthodoxy?

I would say both. Unorthodox = not orthodox, so it can be quite broad to include both error and heresy. But then this also relates to what is orthodox and who defines it. Is orthodoxy defined by Nicea, Rome, Canterbury, or Westminster? Then as Luther noted, church counsels can and have erred and often contradicted themselves.

That Machen article is great; especially when read with knowledge of his context. The paragraphs on the terms fundamentalism, conservative, and evangelical are worth their weight in gold.

Some, and perhaps especially those outside Christianity, see "Christian orthodoxy" as defined in the early ecumenical councils and expressed in the Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. In this view, Protestants, the RCC, and the Eastern churches would/could all be seen as orthodox.

Orthodox according to the 16th century Reformers was certainy more definitive . . . and in my view more correct. But as noted in the Machen link and above, it depends on who is attempting to define the terms.

Okay, let me ask it a different way. Machen whose article cited already is helpful, did not hold to a 6-days-of-ordinary-length view of creation. Is he therefore unorthodox? Would you not allow him into your presbytery as a minister? Would you refuse to call him as your minister?

het·er·o·dox (htr--dks)
adj.
1. Not in agreement with accepted beliefs, especially in church doctrine or dogma.

Originally Posted by Michael Butterfield

Okay, let me ask it a different way. Machen whose article cited already is helpful, did not hold to a 6-days-of-ordinary-length view of creation. Is he therefore unorthodox? Would you not allow him into your presbytery as a minister? Would you refuse to call him as your minister?

Unorthodox compared to what???? Those who hold to a literal 6-day creation? The WCF? Are not ministers in presbyterian churches accepted having taken exceptions to certain elements of the WCF? Is that a matter of Orthodoxy, or Confessional fidelity, or is there a difference? Do you say that all who are not strict subscriptionists are unorthodox? Is that your question? You would have done better to simply put it that way.

If the WCF defines orthodoxy, then you have answered the question for yourself. Apply it as strictly as you want. Others may (and do) look at it differently. Therefore I think your question is unanswerable in any general or universal sense.

Originally Posted by Michael Butterfield

Okay, let me ask it a different way. Machen whose article cited already is helpful, did not hold to a 6-days-of-ordinary-length view of creation. Is he therefore unorthodox? Would you not allow him into your presbytery as a minister? Would you refuse to call him as your minister?

According to the definition that Machen gave (which I think is good) orthodoxy is determined by the plumb line of Scripture. Therefore any creation view out of accord with Scripture is unorthodox.

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Originally Posted by Michael Butterfield

Okay, let me ask it a different way. Machen whose article cited already is helpful, did not hold to a 6-days-of-ordinary-length view of creation. Is he therefore unorthodox? Would you not allow him into your presbytery as a minister? Would you refuse to call him as your minister?

Unorthodox compared to what???? Those who hold to a literal 6-day creation? The WCF? Are not ministers in presbyterian churches accepted having taken exceptions to certain elements of the WCF? Is that a matter of Orthodoxy, or Confessional fidelity, or is there a difference? Do you say that all who are not strict subscriptionists are unorthodox? Is that your question? You would have done better to simply put it that way.

If the WCF defines orthodoxy, then you have answered the question for yourself. Apply it as strictly as you want. Others may (and do) look at it differently. Therefore I think your question is unanswerable in any general or universal sense.

Jim, you may have asked the pertinent question here. Yes, unorthodox compared to what? Let us just take it from this point of view, since I am asking about Machen and let me throw in E. J. Young for good measure. Two men who obviously were adherents to the WCF, but two men who did not hold to a 6-days-of-ordinary-length view of creation. Were they unorthodox men? Were the outside the pale of orthodoxy? That is really my question.

Originally Posted by Michael Butterfield

Jim, you may have asked the pertinent question here. Yes, unorthodox compared to what? Let us just take it from this point of view, since I am asking about Machen and let me throw in E. J. Young for good measure. Two men who obviously were adherents to the WCF, but two men who did not hold to a 6-days-of-ordinary-length view of creation. Were they unorthodox men? Were the outside the pale of orthodoxy? That is really my question.

Michael, in my view, No, they are not outside the pale of orthodoxy. But I am not a strict WCF subscriptionist. I assume one could say they are outside a strict subscription to the WCF.

Again, when one asks if this or that is orthodox, the best reply would be "orthodox with respect to what standard?"

If one simply says the standard is the Bible, then we have to allow for technically viable interpretations which may differ from ours, hence the problems. There are good Christian men on both sides of many theological issues which I feel are still within the pale of "my orthodoxy."

Peace, brother.

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Originally Posted by Michael Butterfield

Jim, you may have asked the pertinent question here. Yes, unorthodox compared to what? Let us just take it from this point of view, since I am asking about Machen and let me throw in E. J. Young for good measure. Two men who obviously were adherents to the WCF, but two men who did not hold to a 6-days-of-ordinary-length view of creation. Were they unorthodox men? Were the outside the pale of orthodoxy? That is really my question.

Michael, in my view, No, they are not outside the pale of orthodoxy. But I am not a strict WCF subscriptionist. I assume one could say they are outside a strict subscription to the WCF.

Again, when one asks if this or that is orthodox, the best reply would be "orthodox with respect to what standard?"

If one simply says the standard is the Bible, then we have to allow for technically viable interpretations which may differ from ours, hence the problems. There are good Christian men on both sides of many theological issues which I feel are still within the pale of "my orthodoxy."

Peace, brother.

The standard understanding of what Scripture teaches for Machen (being a presbyterian) is the Westminster Standards. The Westminster Standards teach that the Bible teaches that the world was created in six ordinary days. Hence I think you could safely say that he did not hold an orthodox view of creation.

The standard understanding of what Scripture teaches for Machen (being a presbyterian) is the Westminster Standards. The Westminster Standards teach that the Bible teaches that the world was created in six ordinary days. Hence I think you could safely say that he did not hold an orthodox view of creation.

Is Machen unorthodox though? I think some would be prepared to grant your point, but does that make the man unorthodox or just one of his views? And if unorthodox how can he be an orthodox minster of the gospel? What makes a mans view of creation orthodox? What of those who believe the WCF does not teach that the world was created in six-days-of ordinary length? Yes, there are those who believe that the language of "6 days" used in the WCF was not meant to communicate 6-days-or ordinary length. In other words, it was not the "original intent" of the framers of the WCF.

Brothers, I am not casting aspersions on Machen. That is not my point. I believe he is orthodox. I am simply trying to determine what orthodoxy really is. Jim in his humors way says there are good Christian men within the pale of “his orthodoxy.” It seems to me that Jim might be a little closer to the reality (notice I did not say the truth) of the matter. That is my concern. That the idea of orthodoxy vs. unorthodoxy is being used that subjectively, though sincerely. I will ask the question in other way. Would you keep Machen out of your denomination for his views on creation?

Hmmm. I wonder, would you?

The question of "keeping Machen out" seems to me to be the kind of question that is designed to put an answerer on the defensive. It assumes, for instance, that Machen is pulled out of his own time and dropped into ours, and yet retains all his old prejudices unaffected by any further reflections he was denied by not actually living in our time.

Further, it assumes an inversion of who is the "senior". Machen is "coming in" to a place where you have allegedly been already received? But he is who he is, and commands your respect... etc. This further damages the question.

Or, conversely if you are supposedly dropped into his era, and yet you are supposed to be already his "senior" (or peer). And are you supposed to have the same knowledge, beliefs you have now? How did you arrive at them?

If asked the question, I would just respond that I think it is a speculative question implying a lot more contained in ceteris paribus than the questioner seems willing to concede.

But if forced to speculate, then I speculate that Machen would have "evolved" to adopt my positions, or I his, and so I would gladly vote to receive a man with whom I had everything in common. One speculation is as good as another.

Michael,

I think there are two questions here that must be kept distinct:

(1) is the particular view orthodox, and to be promoted in the Church?

(2) is the man profitable to the Church, and acceptable in the entirety of his views to be ordained (accepted)?

My experience is that we mix these two questions far too often, resulting is (a) unorthodox views gaining ground because the man is viewed as "ordainable" in spite of them; and (b) orthodox men kept out because of certain (limited) views. My belief is that the Church (in its Presbytery functions) must answer BOTH these questions. It is true that the answer to question #1 should influence our answer to question #2. But it does not mean that it always definitively answers it. It is also why I believe that the Presbytery has the right to restrict preaching/teaching on certain subjects.