Out of the 7 definitions given in my "Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary" for "orthodox," there's only 1 that I accept (as far as this type of discussion goes; that is, relating to the Church). Here's all 7 with some of my comments:1. of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.-I have no problem with being unorthodox in this regard. What has been the "approved form" has been consistently changing over the years. And I have no desire to "conform" to man's "approved form[s]." 2. of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved. - SOmething that is "generally approved" is not necessarily any more legitimate than something "generally unaproved." In fact, I have found in my own spiritual development that many things that are "generally approved" are often way off. I tend not to give any such idea or doctrine any more weight or influence in my thinking. Whether two or a million people believe it, I think they should be looked at with equal hopes of belief.3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.Uh, no. Unless the establisher is the Lord and it's clear in the Bible, this definition holds no weight with me.*4. sound or correct opinion or doctrine, esp. theological or religious doctrine. Yes, I completely agree we should aim at this. And not necessarily on the basis of what's been deemed "sound or correct" in the past but instead what is found to be "sound and correct" in your own understanding (which may have been faciliatated by past teachings but not necessarily).5. conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Church.- Nope. No automatic conforming. 6. (cap.) of, pertaining to, or designating the Eastern Church, esp. the Greek Orthodox Church.- No.7. (cap.) or, pertaining to, or characteristic of Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Judaism.- No.Quote:"However, I think it is still extremely important to indeed seriously seek out what is "orthodox" according to the revelation of God in the Bible....Because too many times my own Christian growth has been severely cheated by following something/someone who, by an innocent misinterpretation of Scripture, was "off the mark."I agree if the definition of "Orthodox" you are using is #4 above. And I think it is. But you see the danger in using this term. It seems to be a very "loose" term.Quote:" The focus of our seeking out the truth should not be for the truth itself as an end, but for a more intimate experience of Christ through the practical application and experience of those truths."Great point.Quote:"This is exactly why we desperately need to know the scriptures."Yes. And I would add it's why we even more desperately need to know God intimately. Quote:"However, there is a difference between someone teaching the true councel of God and someone preaching another Jesus. And that is where we need to be able to learn to draw the line."Ok, I think that is correct. But can we be so confidant to think we can discern this? I think yes, but very carefully. I have heard it said too rashly that someone is preaching "another Jesus" simply because they don't see Jesus the same way. Perhaps they emphasize one aspect of Jesus "too much" according to some men's understanding... so they say he is preaching "another Jesus." This is tragic. Quote:"How do you do this? Much prayer and study of the Word of God. Read great men of God from the past and see what they taught from the scriptures. Compare their teachings with those of some of the false teachers of today along with what you have been learning in your own studies and prayer time and you will begin to know the difference between good and evil."Here I have to disagree with you. I think those things are good and important, but not enough to discern such things. We must know God intimately. One can do all of those things you mentioned and still be blind to the truth.
