The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Moving toward orthopraxy

I read an interesting paragraph in today's Tabletalk about how all other relgions are known as 'religions of orthopraxy' (religions of right practice) whereas Christianity is a 'religion of orthodoxy' (religion of right belief). If we consider the above statements to be true, then are we moving toward orthopraxy? The reason why I ask that is it appears as we are more concern with everything Christian except doctrine today. Can we say we are moving away from orthodoxy?

Now, to this issue I wonder if Christianity has been more about orthopraxy until the Reformation. And the Reformation with the emphasis on orthodoxy, may be the outlier on all this.

Any thoughts and clarification on this?

John,

Who was the author of that article?... just curious.

Secondly, how did the author conclude that all other religions other than Christianity are known as "reilgions of orthopraxy" (religions of right practice)? Did he/she mean that they are more consistent with their respective 'orthodoxy'?

Thirdly, one cannot practice 'orthopraxy' without 'orthodoxy'. How does know how to live unless there is a set of laws and guidelines that instructs the adherent how to act?

Lastly, I don't see historic Christianity as one which was initially concerned with orthopraxy over orthodoxy before the Reformation. In Paul's Epistles, he most often starts with right doctrine and then applies those doctrines to life. Think of all the Creeds and controversies that were written over orthodoxy before the Reformation.

1) It is the March 2, 2012 devotional for Ligonier's Tabletalk magazine. There is probably an editorial team that writes the daily devotionals.

2) I think the reason why they are using is that in most other religions it is an outward expression. They do no require much of, if any, belief in the doctrine underlying the actions.

3)The only thing I can think of here is people 'play act', and the writers of the devotional are attempting to say that true Christianity is based on a belief system.

4)It seems to me that the dominant Church position before Reformation was being more concern with getting people to fall in line. The church was less concern with making sure people believe correctly inwardly. It just wanted an outward allegiance.

Isn't 2 and 3 basically the same for both 'other religions' as well as modern Christianity? Don't most professing Christians play 'churchianity'; they learn the 'lingo', attend the expected events, and outwardly conform to what their respected pastor/congregation expects from its members?

1. I would like to know what source(s) you used to come to that conclusion?

2. A expectation of people "falling in line" is the responsibility of the Church in matters of doctrine. As I stated before, prior to the Reformation, there was an emphasis upon theological and doctrinal matters. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, the Creed of Chalcedon, the Council of Orange, etc., etc., didn't come into existence due to a group of 'talking heads' getting together and deciding to put together these Creeds out of boredom. They were ALL born out of controversy over doctrine.

3. It is impossible to "make sure people believe correctly inwardly. The best you can hope for is that people confess the true faith outwardly with understanding... and then hopefully with sincerity and conviction. It is also the responsibility of the Church to make sure that its members conform to the truth professed outwardly in their lives. And, the Church has the power to exercise discipline on those who are errant in either doctrine and life.

4. The modern church has a serious problem with BOTH doctrine and practice and this includes those churches/denominations who wear the label of "Reformed". There is and has been for quite a number of years now, a falling away from historic Protestantism (aka: Calvinism). It just happens to be in vogue at the present time to question the Reformed heritage in both doctrine and life. "Assimilation" of spurious doctrines, even core doctrines, worship and a heterodox sanctification are a few areas where this can be clearly seen.

The modern "Church" is in serious trouble.

Yes, modern day Christianity is similar to other religions on that regard. That is why the thread subject question. Would you agree that Christianity (true Christianity) places more emphasis on 'right belief', than the others. Or at least the others regulate 'right belief' as less importance as when we get down to it, they do not belief in the incarnate God who came to take our sins away.


Sorry about this, but the source is my understanding as feeble as it must be. My impression is the the RCC controlled the dominant Christian positions before the Reformation, and they were in grave errors over many doctrines. Let me ask a question. Was it a gradual move in its heresy or was their one particular event that cause the move toward heresy. When did the RCC take control over Christianity. They were right in many of their early creeds and council results, but did any of the councils address the 5 Solas. What about grace alone. Did any creed or council addressed that? Maybe I need a good lesson on the development of doctrine before the Reformation.

As a side not, Jeff - Read the devotional as the point I asked was not the major thrust of the devotional, and i think you would not have any disagreements if the whole devotional is taken as a whole, and not my side point observation.

No, I really cannot agree that "(true Christianity) places more emphasis on 'right belief' than others". As I tried to relate previously, the true Church has emphasized BOTH right doctrine as its foundation and proper application of that doctrine to life. Since you mentioned the post-Reformation church as having more emphasis upon doctrine, let me counter that by holding up the Puritans as exemplary dogmaticians who also stressed living in holiness before God. They are sometimes referred to as "doctors of the soul" who focused upon the inner man. Again, let me point out that it was the Reformers and Puritans who wrote the great Reformed confessions and catechisms AND who made great efforts to distinguish between a true confession and false profession by the examination of one's life. So, it was BOTH and not either/or.


1. Yes, Roman Catholicism was the dominant force before the Reformation but there were other powerful forces as well, e.g., Eastern Orthodoxy which rejected Rome's taking authority in the West in the 11th century. Both claim to be the "original" Christianity dating back to Christ. But it was around 440 AD that Pope Leo established his dominance over the Latin churches while Pope Dioscorus, St. Cyril's successor as Pope of Alexandria was head of the eastern, mostly Greek, churches. But wasn't until 604 that Gregory I was declared to be the "universal Bishop", but refused the title of "Pope". His second successor Boniface III, however, assumed the title in 607.

2. Heresy most always is a gradual falling away, and continues to be so in our own day. Doubtless, this is why it succeeds as it has. The entrance of heretical doctrine and/or practice begins with very small steps, e.g., the simply questioning of the established doctrine of the Church, progressing to "discussions" of possible alternatives and eventually to the open repudiation of them. The major heresies of the RCC surprisingly did not appear until much later. Here are just some of the later developments within the RCC:

1. 1079 - Celibacy
2. 1090 - Rosary
3. 1215 - Transubstantiation
4. 1439 - Purgatory and the Seven Sacraments
5. 1545 - Declaration that Tradition was of equal authority with the Bible
6. 1854 - Immaculate Conception of Mary
7. 1870 - Infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals
8. 1965 - Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church

There is, or course, a lengthy list of additional errors, but the ones above should be sufficient to show the gradual decline within the RCC from orthodoxy.

3. I do not recall an early official Creed that dealt with the issue of Sola Gratia or Sola Fide. History does record various groups who opposed the synergistic soteriology (semi-Pelagianism) of Rome before the Reformation. It was then that this latent opposition came to a head thanks to Martin Luther and a few other less known individuals. The rallying around Luther demonstrates that Luther was not a 'Lone Ranger' in his objections. But he was raised up by God to be the one who openly and publicly challenged Rome's errors in doctrine and practice.

4. There are several excellent books that would provide the history of doctrinal development, e.g., Louis Berkhof's The History of Christian Doctrines, Phillip Schaff's large History of the Christian Church, and others.