Many of you are already aware that the church undertook the process of ordaining me to the ministry during June. The council of pastors that examined me occurred on the 19th and the ceremony itself on the 29th. The council lasted over three hours, at times grueling and pointed in the questions, and at times even a little passionate in the debate. These sorts of councils are supposed to be like this after a fashion, to test the mettle of the person being examined. While I admit that I have no problem with the debate itself there was one aspect of the discussion that I feel the need to address here briefly. The focus of much of the discussion that night was Ecumenism (church unity) as it relates to the Catholic Church. Most reasonable Protestants have little difficulty feeling Christian brotherhood toward a Methodist or a Reformed Christian, but we tend to get a little nervous when it comes to Orthodox or Catholic Christians. The phrase that was brought up during the council was, “unity for unity’s sake”. I would certainly not advocate that we claim brotherhood for its own sake, far from it. I actually feel compelled to foster Christian brotherhood because of the repeated teachings of Scripture (John 17:20-23 for one) in spite of all of the difficulties of the past and in spite of the ongoing doctrinal difficulties we have. If we fail to achieve Christian brotherhood (and history shows we’ve done poorly), it is certainly not the fault of our Lord or his Church, it must be that we are to blame because the foolishness and sinfulness of Christians has allowed us to become this divided. I’m not saying that we should seek total unity, we still have a lot of things to discuss (and we may never achieve the unity the church had prior to the East-West split in 1054), but we certainly need to start NOW with the attitude and the love that should be there. Let love come first so that we do not sin by denouncing someone whom God calls his own child. (Doctrinal divides do not have to equal hatred, we can still show the world the love we have for our brothers and sisters in the Lord especially when we disagree about important things. What a Gospel witness that is!)
I want to end with a word of thanks to those who participated in the council and the ceremony, especially the help that my wife Nicole was to me and the words she spoke from the heart on both occasions. It was amazing for me to have my family, my old church family from Galilee, and my new church family from Palo all there at the same time. I love you all and appreciate so much the support you’ve given me as I strive to make the most of the ministry opportunity that God has placed before me at the First Baptist Church of Palo. Thank you.
This blog serves as an outreach for Pastor Randy Powell of the First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA. Feel free to ask questions or send me an e-mail at pastorpowell@hotmail.com
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Romans 8:28 "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him.."
“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” – Romans 8:28 This popular verse of Scripture is full of opportunities for us to miss entirely what Paul was trying to say about God’s will. For many, the problem begins when we define “the good” by our own standards. My hopes, my dreams, my happiness; all of these must be “good” right? Unfortunately, the answer to that is no. Often times, the hopes and dreams that I have for my life would NOT lead to my own good if they came true. A more common mistake is to see this verse as being about ME, when in fact it’s actually about US. God works for the good (his definition, not ours) of his people, not just me. The verse concludes by talking about “his purpose” and Paul goes on in 8:29-30 to explain that the purpose God has in mind for each one of us is to conform us to the image of his son. In other words, God is going to make all Christians Christ-like; that’s his plan, that’s his purpose; that, is what God defines as “good” for you. Now, becoming more Christ-like just might interfere with those hopes and dreams that I’ve been counting on, in fact, they may be the opposite of what is necessary for me to become more Christ-like; and when you combine that possibility with the idea that God isn’t just concerned with me, his focus includes all Christians (including those not yet born or not yet believing); is it any wonder that God’s plan for us all doesn’t always match up with my plan for me? It may be necessary for us to miss out on something we’ve been desperate to get, or to lose something we can’t imagine parting with precisely because it will further the process of making us Christ-like OR it will further the process of making one (or more) of our fellow Christians more Christ-like. We may never understand that choices God makes as he works to mold and sculpt us during our lives, and we may never see the influence we have on the lives of others; it is for this reason that we must accept and believe by FAITH that God is indeed working “all things…for the good of those who love him”. Would you want your future in the hands of anyone less loving or less knowledgeable; including your own? It is for our benefit and for our future that God’s will is in control.
James 4:17 "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins."
You ever have a phrase or saying that always seems to pop into your head, whether or not you’ve thought about it recently? Perhaps something like, “early bird gets the worm”, or “blood is thicker than water”. What about Scripture? Does a particular verse pop into your head at the appropriate time, reminding you of what you should be doing? For me, that verse has always been James 4:17, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” I’m not sure when I first became connected to that verse, but it’s always been there to prod me to action at times when doing nothing may seem normal. Let me give you an example: People stranded on the side of the road. Do I always stop? Almost always; do I know why? Yep, it’s James 4:17, that verse pops into my head every time I see a car broken down on the highway. Does guilt make me stop? Sometimes; but more often than not it’s simply a sense that Scripture wouldn’t be in my head for no reason. God wanted me to learn something from this verse, and this time it stuck.
Another example: Stopping to grab a branch or garbage can that has partially blocked the road. Sure, it’s easy to go around, but for some reason James 4:17 always reminds me that there is some good that I ought to do. Here’s a weird aspect to this story…On one trip home from Nicole’s Grandma’s house in Muskegon I noticed car after car swerving around a couple of big cardboard boxes in the road; it was dark, an accident waiting to happen. So I stopped. What was in the boxes? A brand new set of iron lawn chairs. That was unexpected, but there was no address no label, just a brand name on the boxes; what should I do now? Did God put those boxes there to teach me to always do good when I can, especially when there isn’t any reward? Probably not, but the lesson stuck on me either way; I’ll have to ponder that question sitting in my lawn chair on the porch this summer.
Another example: Stopping to grab a branch or garbage can that has partially blocked the road. Sure, it’s easy to go around, but for some reason James 4:17 always reminds me that there is some good that I ought to do. Here’s a weird aspect to this story…On one trip home from Nicole’s Grandma’s house in Muskegon I noticed car after car swerving around a couple of big cardboard boxes in the road; it was dark, an accident waiting to happen. So I stopped. What was in the boxes? A brand new set of iron lawn chairs. That was unexpected, but there was no address no label, just a brand name on the boxes; what should I do now? Did God put those boxes there to teach me to always do good when I can, especially when there isn’t any reward? Probably not, but the lesson stuck on me either way; I’ll have to ponder that question sitting in my lawn chair on the porch this summer.
What I believe...derived from the Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
He came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered death and was buried.
On the third day He rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father.*
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
*Roman Catholics and Protestants add ‘and the Son’ at this point.
The more that I’ve read about the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives and the history of ecumenical issues, the more I’ve come to appreciate the Nicene Creed. I grew up in a Baptist Church, one that didn’t use the Nicene Creed (we were never big on creeds as such), so my introduction to the Creed came later, when I started attending Mass with my girlfriend (now wife). The Creed was at once familiar, but also contained that dreaded word, “Catholic”. I had a similar reaction (typically omitting that one phrase) to that of Brian McLaren’s church when they
Began using the Nicene Creed in our public worship. For the first year or two, we edited one word in the creed, changing “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church,” to “We believe in one holy universal and apostolic church”, embarrassed to use the word catholic for fear we would be accused of latent papacy. [1]
The word that hung us both up was of course catholic. The problem was that we were both assuming that catholic meant Roman Catholic, which made it feel like the Creed was saying that the ONLY Church was the Catholic church. However, that’s not what the word means at all (and certainly not what the Catholic Church means by it, especially after Vatican II). “The word doesn’t mean Roman Catholic; it means universal.” [2] (the Creed having been written long before the East/West split, let alone the Protestant Reformation) That being the case, we should all believe in one universal Church, especially compared to the fragmented church that we have today. The point then is that Christians believe in a universal Church (note the big “C”) even though they are divided up into a bunch of local churches (notice the little “c”). We are united in Spirit, if not in fact; that’s an important point to remember.
Why bring up the Nicene Creed at all, doesn’t it add a layer of complication to the Biblical truth themselves? That seems unlikely, but I certainly am not going to say that this Creed supersedes Scripture in any way, but this Creed is also very important from a historical viewpoint in that it reveals the level of doctrinal unity that was achieved by the early Church, and because the Creed “continues to be uttered in all the major traditions of Christendom, exemplifying this common bond of unity.” [3] As such, the Nicene Creed may represent a glimpse at the future (by way of the past) in that it offers a fairly simple belief statement that most of today’s Christians already accept (excepting the filioque added in the West, not accepted in the East). We need to strip bare the walls that we’ve built upon the foundation of Christ that the Gospel proclaims; when we’ve let go of our prejudices and can embrace each other as true believers we will be able to rebuild on that foundation. The Nicene Creed shows us an example of what we should rebuild.
What was the original purpose of the Creed? When the First Ecumenical Council was convened in A.D. 325 at Nicaea, the Church was struggling with the divisive influence of the beliefs of the Arian faction. Arian had taught, in essence, that Jesus Christ was not really a divine being (not really God), but rather a created being (like ourselves and angels).
The aim of the council was to protect the truth of the gospel. Thus the council set for a necessarium of Christian belief without presenting a compendium of theological truths. The council sought to emphasize the fundamental truth inherent in the gospel, with scripture as the essential guideline to the apostolic mind. [4]
Thus the Nicene Creed was seen by the early Church as a minimum of belief (not an exhaustive explanation) that everyone who was truly a Christian could agree to. The Council’s work in formulating the creed turned out to be enormously successful in that it was the faith of an undivided Christendom until the eleventh century.
As a test of belief, the Nicene Creed goes a long way toward providing a platform that nearly all of the world’s Christians can agree to. In theological controversies, Christological issues are always central (as nearly all heresies attack the understanding of the person of Christ), thus the bedrock nature of any test of faith. However, when we are capable of speaking and acting in terms of unity the Church will be grateful that we have the Nicene Creed as a benchmark.
A commentary on the Nicene Creed
We believe
– the ideal of any Christian creed should be acceptance by as much of Christendom as possible. The Nicene creed offers nearly universal acceptance by all branches of the Church that have a minimum of Christian orthodoxy. Any basic theology should appeal to everyone who has a legitimate claim to Christianity, it should not turn off large segments of the Church nor should it emphasize the particular preferences or grudges that have shaped so many of our churches. We need to emphasize the whole Gospel, but not all of the asterisks and caveats that we like to include with it.
in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
– The nature of Christ is the subject of endless controversy and heresy. The divinity and humanity of Christ are absolutely necessary for a true Gospel and cannot be compromised. Christ must be fully God and fully man in order to be the sacrifice that fulfills the O.T. requirements of the Law, an acceptable sacrifice (the theme of Hebrews) in every way. This section of the Creed clearly states that Jesus Christ is eternally the Son of God, of exactly the same substance of the Father and in no way created (as in John 1:1-2)
Through Him all things were made.
– The role of Christ in Creation (John 1:3), in cooperation with the Father, as part of the eternal plan that would lead to the Incarnation. Christ was Creating, not created.
For us and for our salvation
He came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
– The purpose of the Incarnation was the salvation of humanity through the cross and resurrection. Just as Jesus must be fully God, he must also be fully man. Through the Holy Spirit Jesus was born of Mary, of the line of David (in keeping God’s promises to Abraham, David, etc.), of God’s chosen people, the Hebrews. The Virgin Birth was part of the salvation plan agreed upon by the member of the Trinity before the world was created.
For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
- The crucifixion of Christ was no accident, as Jesus went willingly to the cross knowing it to be the fulfillment of Scripture, the will of the Father, and necessary for the salvation of mankind. Christ would not have gone to the cross if there had been any other way to save mankind from rebellion against God. We are entirely incapable of effecting our own salvation, or of pleasing God apart from Christ. (Romans 3:23, 4:25, 5:6-9, 6:23)
He suffered death and was buried.
– No room for the slander that Jesus merely “swooned” on the Cross and was later revived. He was dead and buried in the tomb for three days. Only by suffering death could the power of God through Christ conquer death once and for all.
On the third day He rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
- the resurrection is entirely necessary for the Gospel (I Corinthians 15:3-4,12-21), it was the confirmation that Jesus’ sacrifice was accepted by the Father, that our sins had indeed been paid for, and that death was truly defeated. The historical fact of the resurrection cannot in any way be compromised by the Church to satisfy those who don’t believe in miracles, without it, the Gospel is meaningless.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
– When Christ completed his work of salvation he returned to the Father, having finished his work once and for all (Hebrews 9:26-28); nothing else is needed for salvation, the way to the Father now stands open through Christ.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.
– There is no end to the foolish pronouncements about when Christ will return, nor to the fixation by those in the Church with the subject. However, the Scriptures clearly state that nobody but the Father knows the day or hour. The truth that we acknowledge is simply that Christ will return and set up his kingdom.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father.*
- The third member of the trinity, the Holy Spirit who seals believers (Ephesians 4:30) and intercedes on our behalf to the Father (Romans 8:26-27) It is at this point that the Church in the West adds “and the Son”, it was not part of the original creed and is thus not accepted in the East.
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.
– The Holy Spirit is co-equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and equally God.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
– The Holy Spirit was instrumental in the writing of the Scriptures, inspiring those who wrote them to ensure that they contain Truth without error (factual or theological, the Scriptures are infallible on each subject that they address). There are many books that contain wisdom, but none that have the same authority or enduring power of the Scriptures.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
– The Church should be united in fact as it is in Spirit. That it is not is a human failing, not the design of the Father. Any and all efforts should be made to foster ecumenical unity, denouncing animosity and hatred within the Church, and seeking to present a united front to the lost (for the sake of the Gospel). The reality of the multitudes of churches today makes any formal unity unlikely, but the Church will be united under Christ when he returns (whether we like it or not). In the same vein, we all trace our Christian ancestry to the work of the Apostles who set up the original church as a model and guide for later generations of believers.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
– The mode and means of Baptism is certainly an area full of divisiveness, but the Early Church acknowledged one baptism as a public profession of faith (Romans 10:9), in the tradition of John the Baptist who used baptism to signify the rejection of sin and the renewal of the commitment of those who came to him to follow the LORD.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
– Those who have died in Christ will be resurrected to life eternal in the presence of the Father. There is no other path available to the Father, through other religions or individual effort, which can be successful; only Christ offers resurrection to life to all who believe in him.
[1] McLaren, Brian D., A Generous Orthodoxy, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2004, P. 222.
[2] Ibid. P. 224.
[3] Calian, Carnegie Samuel, Theology Without Borders: Encounters of Easter Orthodoxy and Western Tradition, Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, 1992, P. 4.
[4] Ibid. P. 5.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
He came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered death and was buried.
On the third day He rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father.*
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
*Roman Catholics and Protestants add ‘and the Son’ at this point.
The more that I’ve read about the Catholic and Orthodox perspectives and the history of ecumenical issues, the more I’ve come to appreciate the Nicene Creed. I grew up in a Baptist Church, one that didn’t use the Nicene Creed (we were never big on creeds as such), so my introduction to the Creed came later, when I started attending Mass with my girlfriend (now wife). The Creed was at once familiar, but also contained that dreaded word, “Catholic”. I had a similar reaction (typically omitting that one phrase) to that of Brian McLaren’s church when they
Began using the Nicene Creed in our public worship. For the first year or two, we edited one word in the creed, changing “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church,” to “We believe in one holy universal and apostolic church”, embarrassed to use the word catholic for fear we would be accused of latent papacy. [1]
The word that hung us both up was of course catholic. The problem was that we were both assuming that catholic meant Roman Catholic, which made it feel like the Creed was saying that the ONLY Church was the Catholic church. However, that’s not what the word means at all (and certainly not what the Catholic Church means by it, especially after Vatican II). “The word doesn’t mean Roman Catholic; it means universal.” [2] (the Creed having been written long before the East/West split, let alone the Protestant Reformation) That being the case, we should all believe in one universal Church, especially compared to the fragmented church that we have today. The point then is that Christians believe in a universal Church (note the big “C”) even though they are divided up into a bunch of local churches (notice the little “c”). We are united in Spirit, if not in fact; that’s an important point to remember.
Why bring up the Nicene Creed at all, doesn’t it add a layer of complication to the Biblical truth themselves? That seems unlikely, but I certainly am not going to say that this Creed supersedes Scripture in any way, but this Creed is also very important from a historical viewpoint in that it reveals the level of doctrinal unity that was achieved by the early Church, and because the Creed “continues to be uttered in all the major traditions of Christendom, exemplifying this common bond of unity.” [3] As such, the Nicene Creed may represent a glimpse at the future (by way of the past) in that it offers a fairly simple belief statement that most of today’s Christians already accept (excepting the filioque added in the West, not accepted in the East). We need to strip bare the walls that we’ve built upon the foundation of Christ that the Gospel proclaims; when we’ve let go of our prejudices and can embrace each other as true believers we will be able to rebuild on that foundation. The Nicene Creed shows us an example of what we should rebuild.
What was the original purpose of the Creed? When the First Ecumenical Council was convened in A.D. 325 at Nicaea, the Church was struggling with the divisive influence of the beliefs of the Arian faction. Arian had taught, in essence, that Jesus Christ was not really a divine being (not really God), but rather a created being (like ourselves and angels).
The aim of the council was to protect the truth of the gospel. Thus the council set for a necessarium of Christian belief without presenting a compendium of theological truths. The council sought to emphasize the fundamental truth inherent in the gospel, with scripture as the essential guideline to the apostolic mind. [4]
Thus the Nicene Creed was seen by the early Church as a minimum of belief (not an exhaustive explanation) that everyone who was truly a Christian could agree to. The Council’s work in formulating the creed turned out to be enormously successful in that it was the faith of an undivided Christendom until the eleventh century.
As a test of belief, the Nicene Creed goes a long way toward providing a platform that nearly all of the world’s Christians can agree to. In theological controversies, Christological issues are always central (as nearly all heresies attack the understanding of the person of Christ), thus the bedrock nature of any test of faith. However, when we are capable of speaking and acting in terms of unity the Church will be grateful that we have the Nicene Creed as a benchmark.
A commentary on the Nicene Creed
We believe
– the ideal of any Christian creed should be acceptance by as much of Christendom as possible. The Nicene creed offers nearly universal acceptance by all branches of the Church that have a minimum of Christian orthodoxy. Any basic theology should appeal to everyone who has a legitimate claim to Christianity, it should not turn off large segments of the Church nor should it emphasize the particular preferences or grudges that have shaped so many of our churches. We need to emphasize the whole Gospel, but not all of the asterisks and caveats that we like to include with it.
in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
– The nature of Christ is the subject of endless controversy and heresy. The divinity and humanity of Christ are absolutely necessary for a true Gospel and cannot be compromised. Christ must be fully God and fully man in order to be the sacrifice that fulfills the O.T. requirements of the Law, an acceptable sacrifice (the theme of Hebrews) in every way. This section of the Creed clearly states that Jesus Christ is eternally the Son of God, of exactly the same substance of the Father and in no way created (as in John 1:1-2)
Through Him all things were made.
– The role of Christ in Creation (John 1:3), in cooperation with the Father, as part of the eternal plan that would lead to the Incarnation. Christ was Creating, not created.
For us and for our salvation
He came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
– The purpose of the Incarnation was the salvation of humanity through the cross and resurrection. Just as Jesus must be fully God, he must also be fully man. Through the Holy Spirit Jesus was born of Mary, of the line of David (in keeping God’s promises to Abraham, David, etc.), of God’s chosen people, the Hebrews. The Virgin Birth was part of the salvation plan agreed upon by the member of the Trinity before the world was created.
For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
- The crucifixion of Christ was no accident, as Jesus went willingly to the cross knowing it to be the fulfillment of Scripture, the will of the Father, and necessary for the salvation of mankind. Christ would not have gone to the cross if there had been any other way to save mankind from rebellion against God. We are entirely incapable of effecting our own salvation, or of pleasing God apart from Christ. (Romans 3:23, 4:25, 5:6-9, 6:23)
He suffered death and was buried.
– No room for the slander that Jesus merely “swooned” on the Cross and was later revived. He was dead and buried in the tomb for three days. Only by suffering death could the power of God through Christ conquer death once and for all.
On the third day He rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
- the resurrection is entirely necessary for the Gospel (I Corinthians 15:3-4,12-21), it was the confirmation that Jesus’ sacrifice was accepted by the Father, that our sins had indeed been paid for, and that death was truly defeated. The historical fact of the resurrection cannot in any way be compromised by the Church to satisfy those who don’t believe in miracles, without it, the Gospel is meaningless.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
– When Christ completed his work of salvation he returned to the Father, having finished his work once and for all (Hebrews 9:26-28); nothing else is needed for salvation, the way to the Father now stands open through Christ.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.
– There is no end to the foolish pronouncements about when Christ will return, nor to the fixation by those in the Church with the subject. However, the Scriptures clearly state that nobody but the Father knows the day or hour. The truth that we acknowledge is simply that Christ will return and set up his kingdom.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father.*
- The third member of the trinity, the Holy Spirit who seals believers (Ephesians 4:30) and intercedes on our behalf to the Father (Romans 8:26-27) It is at this point that the Church in the West adds “and the Son”, it was not part of the original creed and is thus not accepted in the East.
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.
– The Holy Spirit is co-equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and equally God.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
– The Holy Spirit was instrumental in the writing of the Scriptures, inspiring those who wrote them to ensure that they contain Truth without error (factual or theological, the Scriptures are infallible on each subject that they address). There are many books that contain wisdom, but none that have the same authority or enduring power of the Scriptures.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
– The Church should be united in fact as it is in Spirit. That it is not is a human failing, not the design of the Father. Any and all efforts should be made to foster ecumenical unity, denouncing animosity and hatred within the Church, and seeking to present a united front to the lost (for the sake of the Gospel). The reality of the multitudes of churches today makes any formal unity unlikely, but the Church will be united under Christ when he returns (whether we like it or not). In the same vein, we all trace our Christian ancestry to the work of the Apostles who set up the original church as a model and guide for later generations of believers.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
– The mode and means of Baptism is certainly an area full of divisiveness, but the Early Church acknowledged one baptism as a public profession of faith (Romans 10:9), in the tradition of John the Baptist who used baptism to signify the rejection of sin and the renewal of the commitment of those who came to him to follow the LORD.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.
– Those who have died in Christ will be resurrected to life eternal in the presence of the Father. There is no other path available to the Father, through other religions or individual effort, which can be successful; only Christ offers resurrection to life to all who believe in him.
[1] McLaren, Brian D., A Generous Orthodoxy, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2004, P. 222.
[2] Ibid. P. 224.
[3] Calian, Carnegie Samuel, Theology Without Borders: Encounters of Easter Orthodoxy and Western Tradition, Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, 1992, P. 4.
[4] Ibid. P. 5.
My Wife Nicole
Nicole and I are together because of the U.S.S. Platonic. That's not an actual ship, but rather the name of the play that we began co-writing while friends, and finished writing in love. I never thought that Nicole and I could be together because I'm a Baptist pastor (at the time looking for a new church gig) and she's a commited Catholic. When we first started dating we knew that the "M" word was on the horizon and it set me to search my soul and my conscience to find out what I really believed about Christian Ecumenism (the notion that all churches are part of the Church if they believe in Jesus). In the end, I loved her, and I knew that our lives would be an amazing example of the divides that the love of Christ can bridge. It hasn't always been easy to be a Baptist Pastor with a Catholic wife, but my appreciation for the richness and fullness of God's mercy and redemptive work in our world is a blessing that knowing Nicole has helped me to see. (In a related note, I decided to write a "book" about the subject of Christian Ecumenism titled "Christianity's Big Tent" from I John, it's 150 pages of Word, so I can't post it, but I'm happy to e-mail it to anyone who asks for a copy).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)