"Orthodoxy" and "Heresy"
Part of last night's Church History lecture was on constructions of "orthodoxy" and "heresy" in the early Church. I found myself getting a bit frustrated at some points, as the Gnostics were portrayed in a rather favorable light at times, and people like Irenaeus were portrayed as deceptive and slight hypocrites because he came up with a new,
( Read more... )
We will know if fully, just not on this side of the curtain. If we left it at that, then gnosticism would have to co-exist with orthodox Christianity. We do know Jesus, he gave himself, he gave the Holy Spirit. When there are teachings at odds with the direction of the Spirit and the scriptures, we have to say goodbye to some of the wolves/snakes/weeds and distance ourselves.
As you know, if we drew a conservative/liberal line in the sand (as we all tried back at Colby), I would be on one side of most things, you on the other. We'd probably switch sides sometimes too. Neither of us has ever thought it necessary to stop communing together or cut off fellowship. I feel that the only force that allows paradox is Christ crucified. There's your "middle ground."
-Chip
Does this cause "identity by exclusion?" Why sure it does. Sometimes, positive affirmations don't do enough and are incomplete. Providing examples of what Christians DON'T believe can be as important as expressing what we hold near and dear.
Reply
Reply
Right. But at the same time, there do seem to be some rather fundamental things that we know.
I feel that the only force that allows paradox is Christ crucified. There's your "middle ground."
Amen!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment