This is another repost from sister blog Freedom In Orthodoxy:
I came across an article today that I really appreciated. The folks over at Credo House Ministries have a great blog by C. Michael Patton called Parchment & Pen. They posted this article a couple years back: Six Views of What it Means to Be Orthodox.
While limiting the views to these six may cause a bit of reduction, I think it offers a pretty workable typology for evaluating the spectrum. The six views are (1) aOrthodoxy (2) Scriptural Orthodoxy (3)Paleo-Orthodoxy (4) Dynamic Orthodoxy (5) Developmental Orthodoxy and (6) Reform Orthodoxy.
Similar to Patton's own leanings, I found myself falling somewhere between Paleo-Orthodoxy and Reform (Progressive) Orthodoxy. Though, I think that is largely due to the way he defined them. Paleo-Orthodoxy does not reject that the Church progresses in her Theology, it only claims that the Ancient consensual creeds are the canon (measure) for Orthodoxy. These creeds do not supersede or take the place of Scripture, but they offer faithful interpretations of Holy Writ.
In the same way that the early Church's recognition (you could even say interpretation) of the New Testament writings as Authoritative is understood as trustworthy and God-inspired, so also their expressions in the creeds can be deemed as, in a real sense, authoritative. The Holy Spirit worked in the Church to produce the creeds of old.
I'm still thinking through lots of these ideas, and I'm certainly not set, but as of now I do lean Paleo-Orthodox. I measure Orthodoxy by the consensuses of the early Church.
Where do you fall in Patton's Six Views of Orthodoxy? What tradition/denomination are you a part of? What has led you to your position?
I highly recommend this blog post from Carson Clark at Musings of a Hardlining Moderate: Uneasy Bedfellows: Finding a Home in Two Conflicting Theological Movements.
Clark offers a great primer for those interested in Paleo-Orthodoxy. Coincidentally as well, he hold to post-foundationalism as do I. So reading this post well give you a good introduction to my own Theology/Philosophy of tradition and whatnot.
This is a repost from the blog Freedom In Orthodoxy:
Ben Meyers over at Faith and Theology has written a fascinating post entitled How Does Jesus Save? An Alternative Typology (against Aulen). Meyers critiques Aulen's threefold typology argued in Christus Victor as too simplistic and ultimately misrepresentative of the Christus Victor ransom theory (he overstresses the role of the devil in Patristic writings). Meyers proposes that the dominant understandings of atonement during the Patristic (Classical) period fit in one or more of the following categories: (1) Christ the Second Adam, (2) Christ the Sacrifice, (3) Christ the Teacher, (4) Christ the Brother, (5) Christ the Life-Giver, and (6) Christ the Healer.
Right off the get-go it is evident that the early church had much more theological reflection on Christ's saving work than our current American church. Today, most have settled with Penal Substitutionary atonement as the sole model, and ignored all other models. This is blatant reduction. Clearly, the early Church saw the redemptive work of God as a multi-faceted event. For the church fathers, one theory of atonement was insufficient to make sense of all that Jesus had done.
One of my favorite features in Classical Christianity is the salvific value they place in, not only Christ's death, but also his incarnation, life/ministry, and resurrection. They understood the Gospels as the Gospel. Resurrection was not just a tag-on to the cross--it was the climax. Jesus' person, through and through, brought redemption to the world--not just his cross.
I hope to see the evangelical church embody the reformers' spirit and go Ad Fontes again to recover the richness of Classical atonement theology. We might find ourselves kneeling again in awe at the great mystery that is Salvation.
This is a repost from the blog Freedom In Orthodoxy:
The Apostle's Creed was officially penned at the Council of Milan in about AD 390. While it is popularly thought that Christian doctrine was decided at these councils, Craig Evans (along with a host of other scholars) have argued church councils simply recognized Christian doctrine--they didn't fabricate it. Remarkably, we see strong evidence for this in the case of the Apostle's Creed. Irenaeus of Lyons, writing more than two centuries earlier in Against Heresies, wrote the following:
The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith:
[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.
Now compare that with the Apostle's Creed written 200 years later:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord, Who was conceived by 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 rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence 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 continuity is incredible. What the Church recognized as Orthodoxy in the 2nd century, remained and has continued to remain Orthodoxy throughout the two millennia of Christendom. As we recite the creed we join in the "communion of the saints" across the ages. That's a tradition I can hold to.
