Heresy, by definition is any teaching that denies the essential elements of the Christian faith, as contained in the Symbol of Faith (i.e. the Creed) finalized in 381 AD:
I agree with everything in the Creed, with the possible exception of the intent of the Baptism clause:
"I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
I presume this refers to Acts 2:38, and of course we all know that I do not believe that baptism is salvific. The key word in this verse is "for". In Greek, "eis". It has multiple legitimate meanings, just as "for" does for us. For example:
Matt 12:41 : The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.
The word here "at" is also "eis" and clearly means here "because of". So, it's a matter of interpretation. But in any event, the point is that while I basically agree with the Creed, I still get called a heretic all the time for disagreeing with issues not covered at all in the Creed! :) So, what you're saying confuses me a little.
Dogma does not evolve and does not change. Dogma is a statement of truth known to the Church, expressed by a general or local council, in response to heresies. Note: the Catholic Church departed from this after the Schism and proclaimed dogma without clear and present heresies.
Thanks, I was unaware of the connection to heresies as a prerequisite.
Doctrine can evolve but not change. One can disagree with individual fathers' speculations (theological hypotheses or theologoumenna) but not with consensus patrum because that represents the collective knowledge and unanimous doctrinal agreement of the whole Church.
OK, then in the Orthodox Church, has the consensus patrum manifested itself since the 7 Councils? I gather that the Councils proclaimed Dogma, and I'm trying to understand the difference with doctrine. Has doctrine actually evolved in Orthodoxy?
Then what do you believe?
OK, then in the Orthodox Church, has the consensus patrum manifested itself since the 7 Councils?
When faced with theological issues that have to be dealt with, we go back to the Holy Tradition (Bible, Councils, Patristic writings, liturgical texts) to make sure we do not formulate something contrary or unknown to the life of the Church as it was from the beginning. Thus, yes, consensus patrum is part of the living Church.
I gather that the Councils proclaimed Dogma, and I'm trying to understand the difference with doctrine. Has doctrine actually evolved in Orthodoxy?
Dogma is a short statement of the truth known to the Church, formulated in response to a specific heresy. The Church knows what is orthodox, otherwise it couldn't recognize a heresy. But dogmatic statements are insufficient to teach.
For instance, dogma is a definition: Christ is fully God and Fully Man. Obviously, this is not enough to offer as a self-evident truth.
Doctrine is used to explain dogma, to support dogma through God's revelation, and to make it 'intelligible' in human terms.