Besides that you seek to exclude Mormons from "orthodoxy" (another non-biblical term) for a differing view on so called "total depravity" is ridiculous. Arminian and Calvinist Evangelicals disagree wholeheartily on the Doctrine of Total Depravity. So are Arminian Evangelical, Pentacostals, Methodist and some Baptists also outside of your definition of orthodoxy for rejecting total depravity or is it only the Mormons?
The word orthodoxy, from the Greek ortho ('right', 'correct') and doxa ('thought', 'teaching', 'glorification'), is typically used to refer to the correct worship or the correct theological and doctrinal observance of religion, as determined by some overseeing body.
The notion that God is "wholly man and wholly human" is also borrowed from Greek Philosophy. It was in fact considered a heresy outside of "orthodoxy" at one time. It is important to use the exact words of the Bible because Doctrinal innacuracies such as this have been substituted for the actual Biblical words.
Clement's descriptions of God as "wholly" was taken verbatim from Xenophanes a Greek secularist philosopher (probably a liberal too). To understand the underlying theology of the Creeds we have to turn not to the bible text but to earlier Greek Philosophers. (homouosis, ex-nihilo,)
The Creed itself referenced the Greek version of the material world in its explanation and reference to the substance of God.
"not made, being of one substance with the Father" also the reference to incarnate
or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion--all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
[As an aside to our discussion on the material essence of God - What is your opinion of the last phrase of the Creed which many protestants like to leave out?)
Here is a further discussion of how Greek Liberals polluted God's Word.
Restoring_the_Ancient_Church - Chapter 3 - The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man
Specifically, the phrase, "of one substance or essence," expresses a concept that was adopted and adapted from contemporary Greek philosophy, but was foreign to the thought of the original Christianity. This concept may seem strange to the modern reader because Greek philosophy is no longer the predominant system of thought, although it has remained the basis of many aspects of mainstream Christian theology even to the present time. At the time the Nicene Creed was adopted, the predominant philosophy was a hodgepodge of ideas, mostly based on Neoplatonism and a few other schools of thought. These schools, in turn, largely based their ideas on the thought of a few earlier philosophers, notably Plato, Empedocles and Xenophanes. A quick summary of how these philosophers viewed God should make the language of the Nicene Creed clear to the reader. (Although the Christians modified the terminology of the philosophers to fit their purposes, one still cannot make sense of their language without reference to these Hellenistic ideas.)15
There are many Chritian Father's who reject your view of "orthodoxy" including Justin martyr, Origen, Hipollytus etc. Are they Christian?
Can you explain why you do not believe that is so? If you don't believe it is saying that, then what exactly do you think it is saying, in context and why do you think that based on other scriptures?
If God meant total depravity then why doesn't he say so? It's really pretty simple
Many would argue that this is exactly what He is simply saying. Just because YOU say it isn't saying that does not make it so. Give some scritptural proof for these. Who do you think will believe you on just your authority? Do you? Should you?
Rameumptom:”Besides that you seek to exclude Mormons from “orthodoxy” (another non-biblical term) for a differing view on so called “total depravity” is ridiculous.”
This was not the intent of my post. Logophile asked me to define a true Christian. I was not implying that my primary gripe with Mormons is their view of the sinfulness of man. In my earlier post (#64) highlighted my oposition to Mormonism (polytheism).
Rameumptom:”There are many Chritian Father’s who reject your view of “orthodoxy” including Justin martyr, Origen, Hipollytus etc. Are they Christian?”
Luk 18:26 Those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?”
Luk 18:27 But he said, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”
Let us be thankful that what may appear impossible is possible in Christ Jesus. I am not perfect nor is my understanding complete. Yet I do contend without hesitation that Jesus Christ has died for ALL my sins and hence I am forgiven and therefore redeemed.
That being said, I do believe God is not a God of confusion - instead, he is a God of truth, logic and consistency. Therefore, we cannot say two contradictory statements are both true. There is a correct (and absolute) thinking on these theological issues and Paul exhorts us to continually search the Holy Scriptures to discern these truths.
Also consider what Jesus taught:
Luk 12:48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.
I don’t contend that we will ever truly know God fully - not ever. But there is a minimum requirment called out in scripture and those who are disqualified will suffer the eternal wrath of God. Perhaps as Jesus implies in Luke, some may even have more responsibility than “the minimum” to qualify. It may be that some of these “Christian Fathers” fall into this category???