Heretic Hunters #2

While I disagree with Lutheranism, I don't disagree with the following (from Bonhoeffer)

Cheap Grace

"Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like a cheapjack's wares.  The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut-rate prices.  Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits.  Grace without price; grace without cost!  And the essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing.  Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite.  What would grace be, if it were not cheap?
        . . .  In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin. . .
        Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the center.  Grace alone does everything, they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. "{ p. 42}
. . .
        "Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, (it is) baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession.  Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate."{ p. 43-4}


(True) Costly Grace
Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has.  It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods.  It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake of one will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.
        Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.
        Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ.  It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life.  It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner.  Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: "ye were bought at a price," and and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us.  Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. . . 
        . . .   Grace is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him;  it is grace because Jesus says:  "my yoke is easy and my burden light."

"Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. "All for sin could not atone." Well, then, let the Christian live like the rest of the world, let him model himself on the world’s standards in every sphere of life, and not presumptuously aspire to live a different life under grace from his old life under sin. That was the heresy of the enthusiasts, the Anabaptists and their kind…."

 

Preceeding post brought to you direct from:

http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/cheapgrace.html

 

Jude,

There are "rightious" people now. Me, you, and every other person who has ever been born of the Spirit. We are made "rightious" when we are born again because Christs rightiousness has been imputed to us...

"But they being ignorant of Gods rightiousness, and seeking to establish their own rightiousness, have not submitted to the rightiousness of God. For Christ is the end of the Law for rightiousness to those who believe."

And...

"He made Him who knew no sin, to become sin, so that we might become the rightiousness of God, in Him"

No, the scriptures tell you that. Paul himself said that now "we see through a mirrror, dimly".

Nobody, but nobody is 100% protected from error but the Lord Jesus Christ, and the scriptures.

Yes it can. You dont think that eating meat sacrificed to demons was a big issue? That was no small thing, like whther we immerse of pour when baptising.

No they dont. What sometimes becomes problematic is sectariansim, and "look down my nose at others ism". When we stick only with "ours and no others" rather than considering all who are born again to be our brothers and sisters and then treat them that way.

Not the differences in some teachings, but rather the attitude we have towards who are not in our little group.

Its an attitude problem, not a "different conviction" problem.

I realise that.

Obviously, you feel it does, and you are free to your opinions on that.

There was false doctrine and heresy creeping into the christian community as the scriptures themselves were being written, so why would anyone place confidence in writings that came after that? When I read any of those writings I do the same thing as anything else...I filter it through the grid of Gods only unchanging standard of truth, the scriptures.

That which lines up might be interesting to read, and maybe somewhat profitable.

That which does not line up will be completly rejected.

I am 100% unconcerned with support from flawed men, but rather support from Gods perfect and unchanging truth standard...Gods scriptures.

Its the only wise thing to do.

Grace and Peace,

Mike

 

Those 'flawed men' created the NT canon. Those 'flawed men' developed the historic Creeds. Those 'flawed men' developed the historic doctrines of our Church.

Of course there was heresy in the Church. Certainly, those heretics were used, by God, to help develop sound doctrine. The question is whether there was a pure church or not. Jesus said, "I will be with you always..." I just happen to believe Him.
You, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Joseph Smith just don't happen to believe His promise.

The whole notion of righteousness -infused or imputed- is clearly one that divides the church.
You happen to believe in a God who calls someone 'righteous' that really is not. I believe in a God who can MAKE someone righteous, that a person really can BECOME holy. Again, the whole notion of 'imputed righteousness' is NOT in Scripture, nor is it found in the teachings -anywhere- of the early Church.

You said, "When I read any of those writings I do the same thing as anything else...I filter it through the grid of Gods only unchanging standard of truth, the scriptures."

Problem is, we all have different 'filters'. You think that your 'filter' is objective, and it is clearly not. Your filter is 'sola fide'. Your filter is 'imputed righteousness'. Again, we all start with the notion of God's Word as fully-inspired and inerrant. The problem is the assumptions/filter we take to the Word of God. That's why we need an infallible guide to them. Your 'infallible' guide is yourself. (People like you, criticize the Pope, yet fail to see that in many cases, Protestantism has created/allowed every man to be a Pope.) Mine is the witness of the Church from 33 A.D. on. Many of your doctrines have no support from the teachings of the early Church. Mine do.

How do we determine heresy? Not from our own subjective viewpoint, but from the collective witness of the 'Catholic' faith. The only reason you use the 'flawed men' argument is that that is your ONLY recourse, since the early Church did not hold to many of the things you hold as 'Bible truth'.

 

from the article cited by Ed...

"Although the Roman Catholic Church doesn't suffer from the "cheap grace" syndrome, it does suffer from a very similar problem, which might be called "cheap sacraments", the belief that its priests have the power to wipe sin out with a mere sign of the cross over a penitent and the mumbling of the words: 'I forgive you, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.'"

Christ gave His Church the ability to 'forgive' sins in His Name. The problem is not with absolution, but in the one to whom it is given. Amendment of life MUST follow. 

John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

I did appreciate the author's contention that the teaching of 'cheap grace' led/contributed to the fertile ground that made Naziism possible. In this country, 'cheap grace' has led to a church that is so worldly, one can hardly tell the difference between a 'Church-goer' and a pagan.

 

Jude,

They most certainly did not. God is responsible for giving to us His scriptures. He used people as instruments for the purpose.

So what?

Most creeds I've read say some things that are true, but those creeds are only re-stating some of Gods truth. Creeds have probably served some purpose, but they are not found in the scriptures(written out word for word as they are now) and they are not really all that important.

No they didnt.

God is the one who has given us the great truths found in the scriptures. He only used men as instruments.

It is the scriptures of God, and the great truths and doctrines of God.

God bless,

Mike

 

Jude,

It was only during my years as a RC that I encountered a proliferation of those kinds of people. What blew me away 22 years ago as I was under conviction and God was sending His Spirit born people my way was the evangelicals who were crossing my path.

For the 1st time, I was encountering people who knew God, and it showed. They had been changed for the better, and the Holy Spirits residence in their hearts and lives was exceedingly evident.

During my 1st 24 years of physical life, I really cant recall a single RC, not my parents, all my friends parents and siblings, the teachers at my parochial school, nor any of the nuns, priests, or the monsignor at our parish who in any way caused me to think there was anything more to Jesus Christ than just a wretchedly hanging dead person on a crucifix all the time.

The difference between those to camps was overwhelming, with the evangelicals being the ones who were clearly "different" as a result of their relationship with Christ.

Blessings,

Mike

 

—despite themselves. There were plenty of "gospels", "acts" and "epistles" floating around that taught many of the doctrines they held. The fact that these weren't added proves to me, that God worked the canon through them. There had already been a general consensus on the books of the NT, with some questions that were eventually settled, so it was not these men who were reponsible for putting together the Bible. Else, you would see a lot more in there.

There was no "episcopal Church" back then. So what do you believe? That this true organization was the RCC, until the Anglicans broke off? Or at least until the RCC crossed a certain line of error, then it was smaller groups like the Waldensians? but then this is usd by Protestant denominations and even cults! So basically, your organization is just another group that broke off. And before the hersesy was fully recognized in the post-apostolic Church, it had gained ground, and began influencing those who succeeded the offices. I'm willing to say that even though they may have been a bit deviant, they still continued the true church. That may not be the way it was supposed to be, but it was apart of the apostasy that prophecy foretold. But you are the one assuming that "the pure church" was what we saw in those post apostolic father, and therefore projecting it back to the NT.

Do you know what this would mean? do you know what it would REALLY mean? Are you perfect? Are you actually SINLESS? If you say, "no, but God through His grace is working on me", or something like that, then you have fallen into the same thing you charged us with: "God calls someone 'righteous' that really is not". Where do you draw the line with the sin in your life? Else, you have to confess that you are not saved, and you don't know when you will ever be, because you don't know when you will ever reach actual perfection. Maybe never. Or, you have to proclaim someone (yourself) righteous (perfect) despite everything, (instead of God doing it!) That is the pitfall of works-righteousness. No one is actually perfect (1 John 1:8-10), so we imagine we're doing good enough to earn salvation. This is the fruit of your 'catholic' type thinking as much as it is liberal protestantism. I am told that to do penance presuming forgiveness while they continue to live in sin is not what you promote, but then it is equally unfair to blame OSAS for all the worldliness in the church. People are abusing it, and they may not even understand the Gospel in a saving way. But your system is more likely to produce such antinomianism, because man becomes the one who sets the standard. "I do this, this, this, this and this, so I am holy". But what about that, that, that, that and the other over there you didn't realize was sin? Or we slide in one area because we are doing so good otherwise. Such a view really doesn't grasp that "perfect" to God really means "perfect", WITHOUT spot or blemish. (And we have much more than that). In order to bring ourselves up through works righteousness, we end up bringing God's standard down, even if we don't realize it. We have to. There is no other way to justify ourselves through works. So to me, it is much better (and scriptural) to say He imputes us. Then He still makes us (actually) holy as we grow as well, so nobody is denying that.

 

EricB,

You said, concerning Judes objection to "imputed rightiousness"...

Its been quite a while since I have heard that position stated so well.

Interesting. When I read that same statement from Jude...adressed to me by the way...I for some weird reason didnt post back to him concerning it, although it is the sort of thing I would ordinarily jump on like a "dog on a bone".

Now I know why.

God knew you were coming behind me, and you would say it so well.

Isnt God good?

God bless,

Mike

 

"Those 'flawed men' created the NT canon."They most certainly did not.
You said,
"God is responsible for giving to us His scriptures. He used people as instruments for the purpose."

But these people were NOT robots. They exercised free will and rationality. These men decided what was to be included/excluded in the NT canon.




"Those 'flawed men' developed the historic Creeds."
you said,
"So what?" "...really not that important"
SO WHAT? Not that important? These creeds represent the essentials of our faith. Before persons were baptized, they had to affirm them. These truly ecumenical Creeds determined who was a Christian. Read about St Athanasius and the suffering he endured for orthodoxy. These men paid a heavy price for the doctrines we hold-dear today. Don't let your negative experience with the Roman Catholics become the 'filter' through which you view Church history.
[/QB][/QUOTE]

I will say, though, that your experience in the Roman Church is not unusual. There ARE many devout, Spirit-filled Roman Catholics, both clergy and laity. But largely, this Church is not what it should be. I've detected the same 'lifelessness' that you have in many of my encounters with the RCC. And of course, I don't believe, as they do, that they are the only 'true Church'. The RCC is a 'true' Church, but so are others that are 'Catholic'. What I fear, as I've said before, is that you have allowed your negative view/experience with the RCC to bias you toward any honest evaluation of what God was doing during the first 1500 years of His Church. The English Reformation might also be good for you to study--it was different from the Continental Reformations. The English Reformers were critical of the Roman Church, not because she was Catholic, (as I've said in another post somewhere else on BB), but because she wasn't Catholic enough. The English Reformers wished to show themselves to be the Catholic Church of Britain, with a renewed focus on the sovereignty of God's grace, an historic episcopate, a life defined by the Holy Scriptures, and the witness of the undivided Church of the first 5 centuries.

 

Eric said,
"Do you know what this would mean? do you know what it would REALLY mean? Are you perfect? Are you actually SINLESS?,,, That is the pitfall of works-righteousness. No one is actually perfect (1 John 1:8-10), so we imagine we're doing good enough to earn salvation. This is the fruit of your 'catholic' type thinking as much as it is liberal protestantism...
[/QB][/QUOTE]
My 'Catholic' thinking (and I thank you for that compliment) only reflects the teaching of the Church from the beginning. Nowhere in the history of the Church do you see ANYONE promoting 'imputed righteousness.' No one. That was a later corruption put-forth by some of the Reformers.

"Works-righteousness" is a common attack-word used by Protestants against anyone -'Catholic' or perhaps even Arminian- who suggests that God demands holiness...which of course, He does.

Perfect, like God? I don't think so. But I can be righteous in His sight. In John 15, Jesus says 'abide in me'. And how do we KNOW that we ABIDE in Him? 15.10 says by our OBEDIENCE.

Read 1 John. The word 'know' is used a lot. How can we 'know' we are saved (or in a state of grace)? OBEDIENCE.


1John 1.5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin...

1John 2.3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4 The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

"Walk" means obedience. You would call this 'works righteousness'. The Bible would call this 'righteous works'. There are WORKS that profit nothing. Paul eludes to them, when he talks about works of the Jewish Law, or works that (rom.4)seek to make God obligated to 'reward' our good behavior. But their ARE righteous works, which are annointed by His Grace, done in His wisdom, done for His glory. As James says, 'faith WITHOUT WORKS is dead,' and 'works complete our salvation'. This isn't 'Roman Catholicism' or 'liberal Protestantism'*, it is the plain teaching of Scripture. We must 'work out our salvation in fear and trembling'. (Why 'fear' if OSAS is true? Why 'fear' if it is all just a 'response' to all that He has done for us?) Why did Jesus say, 'the one who endures to the end will be saved' if OSAS is true, if 'works' are not important, are not necessary?

Rom.2.7-8 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

*liberal Protestantism and 'Catholic' theology are light-years apart. Liberal Protestantism is essentially unitarian, and believes we're all in. Traditional Catholic theology says 'we must be holy'.

 

Still, same thing. What level of "obedience" is required? PERFECT LIKE GOD!! With all you have just posted, you left out "Be ye PERFECT even as the Father is perfect". But can you? Or is it just "as good as I can be". You accuse others of denying that God demands holiness, but the reason we teach as we do, is because we realize the level of holiness God really demands, and realize that we, as still fallen men, don't measure up. Once again, the only way to say what you say and think that you are living up to it, is to bring God's level of holiness and obedience down. If you think you are holy or obedient enough to be saved, then you do of a necessity think God owes you a reward, and this is why we call it "works righteousness".

All agree on this (except of course, the liberals), but still, we are never to think that we are actually doing this enough and therefore meeting God's requirement.

For one thing, that is "work OUT your salvation, not "work FOR your salvation". This speaks of a response. God has saved us, but not to keep on sinning, as Paul says elsewhere. So once again, none of us says that works are "unnecessary". Just that we are not to try to do works and think that we have possibly done enough that this is what saves us, or keeps ourselves saved. We do good works to show that we love Him (John 14:15 1 John 5:3), not to try to "persevere until the end" to secure our salvation.

To understand "enduring to the end", we must remember that many people in the New Testament, beginning with the ministry of Jesus Himself while still here, were hastily accepting Christ, but they did not understand what the purpose of His mission was. So they "believed" (John 8:31), but eventually their true fruits surfaced (v.37ff). Most others of this class, while not disputing Jesus to His face would show their true colors when persecution would come and they quickly abandoned Him. It's in this context that we have all the scriptures on perseverance until the end. Like the others, these people "believed" and followed for the wrong reasons. Remember, Israel was looking for a Messiah for mostly political reasons, so many really did not understand His Gospel message—that they needed to be saved from sin; not the sin of the pagans, but their own sin. They still thought of themselves as the "good guys" waiting for God to put down the "bad guys", yet they were just as sinful as the ruthless pagans. As soon as He began speaking of dying, it knocked their whole agenda for a loop, and even the disciples were ready to deny Him and run and hide. Why believe in Him if He's only going to die and not rise up and crush the Romans and restore the kingdom to Israel right now? Many gentiles had also fallen into a similar misunderstanding or misuse as well. (Such as those described who would rise up and apostasize, drawing away their own following, thus using the Church for control). Yet if people "persevered" in faith, then it would have shown that they truly understood Christ's purpose (i.e. the true Gospel).

Also, "fear" means reverance, not that we're living our whole Christian life terrified of hell and hoping we are good enough to "make it" to Heaven.

[ April 27, 2004, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Jude,

You said...

I said...

You now say...

Yes, thats right.

And where did those "essentials of our faith" originate? In Gods scriptures. We are not called to be reciters of creeds, but rather students of Gods word. I have been born again now for 22 years, and have never been a part of any church that recited creeds. I dont recall ever reciting one at any time in my 22 years as a born again person. Yet every fellowship I have ever been a part of has had multitudes of well grounded, evangelistic, fruit bearing christians.

But I probably recited creeds regulary as a catholic. How much good did it do me? None. I was as lost as satan himself. It was not the reciting of creeds that got me saved, it was the witness of christians and time in Gods word.

Why? I'm not necesarrily saying its a bad thing to say one then, but if someone has encountered the resurrected Lord, and has been born again, they are going to "grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ"...with or without creeds.

I recited one all the time as a lost catholic, and I was no christian. Since then I do not recall ever reciting one, and now I am a christian.

Dont misunderstand Jude, I'm not saying they are evil. Every one I have ever seen says things that are true. No doubt about that. But I just get the feeling that in some circles they are a sort of "holy cow" as they say. As if the great ((((CREEDS!!!))) were somehow lowered from heaven by angelic hosts and given to mankind with heavenly trumpets announcing their arrival.

If you get a newly born again person grounded in truth...they will be hungry for the meat of Gods living word...those creeds just wont be necesarry. He'll be growing by leaps and bounds and he'll understand the foundations of the faith.

You are right, for 2000 years now there have been people suffering, and sometimes martyred, because of their relationship with Jesus Christ. More than likely in the last 24 hours someone has lost their life because they would not renounce Christ.(kind of a sobering thing, every time I think about that)

What does that have to do with creeds? Am I missing something here?

I've read several church history books, and I do make the effort to not do that.

God bless,

Mike

 

From Ryan Renfro...

Nicene Creed

            “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”[1]  With this statement Jesus appointed Peter as the leader of his new Church and foretold that evil, or heresy as well as later Church fathers would come to see this verse, would not prevail against it. 

(Anglicans, Orthodox and others don't necessarily agree with this analysis, since most believe the 'rock' is the faith expressed by Peter.)

The early Christian community was one which struggled to survive in an empire which failed to acknowledge it as practicing a legitimate religion, but that had by the fourth century become the official religion of the Roman Empire.  By this time the Christian Community was ill-organized and contained a great number of vastly differing ideas.  A unification was needed; some statement of faith that would define what it was to be a Christian.  The Emperor Constantine thus summoned the Church fathers at Nicea in 325 who wrote the first draft of what today is known as the Nicene Creed, a statement of orthodox faith in opposition to certain heresies such as Arianism and Gnosticism.

(Arius' end, his death, is quite interesting...)

            The Nicene Creed can be divided into four sections; each section dealing with a member of the Trinity or the Church.  The doctrine of the Trinity is thus immediately apparent:  Christians believe in one God the father, but the Son and the Holy Ghost as well, all three distinctly different but yet the same single God.  This notion of a Trinity is not seen as a challenge to the belief in Monotheism, rather it is a notion close to that of the Kabbalists’ idea of the Sefirot, only there are three manifestations of the Godhead as opposed to ten.
            The first member of the Trinity which the Creed deals with is the Father.  It calls him the “Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible”[2]  This suggests that he is the all-powerful creator God, existing before all things.  The second half of this statement about objects seen and unseen is denying the Gnostic view that there was somehow two creators and that this world is under the control of the evil god.  It states that only the one God created everything that is seen, or of this world, and invisible, or the heavens.
            The second member which the Creed deals with is the Son, with whom the largest portion of the creed is about because his role was the most controversial.  Jesus is called Christ, which means that he is the messiah or God’s chosen king.  It says he was “begotten of the Father before all worlds…by whom all things were made,”[3] suggesting an eternal relationship between the two and not a relationship such that God created the Logos or Christ at a point in time such as Arius suggested.[4]  Christ is “Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.”[5]  Christ is begotten because it suggests that he somehow comes from the Father, and was not made or created by him, which is important because a created being can not be fully divine because it has the capability of falling from grace.  Christ is fully divine, which contradicts the Arian teaching that the Son is not God in the sense that the Father is God; yet Christ was fully man, which is implied by his incarnation, his birth of the Virgin Mary, and his death as is sometimes included in the creed between his suffering and burial.  The doctrine of Christ’s Incarnation is thus clearly referred to in that he was “incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and was made man.”[6]  The doctrine of the Atonement is implied in that Christ “for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven.”[7]  The doctrine of Atonement states that mankind fell with the sin of Adam, but that Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection are the ultimate atoning sacrifice to God, as Christ had overcome sin and death and thus the belief in him in an assurance of salvation.  The doctrine of the Second Coming is alluded to in the statement that “he shall come again…to judge the quick (the living) and the dead;  Whose kingdom shall have no end.”[8]  Because Christians believe that Christ is the Messiah and that the Messiah must do certain things which Christ did not, he must have a second coming to fulfil the predictions of the scriptures.  This idea of fulfillment of the scriptures is also implied previously in the Creed in “according to the Scriptures,”[9] where Christ is seen as the fulfillment of the messianic figure in the Jewish tradition, for he claimed to fulfill the scriptures, saying “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”[10]
            The last member of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit, who is alluded to as being one with the Son by being referred to as the “Lord” and with the Father by “the Giver of life.”[11]  He is worshipped and glorified along with the Father and the Son, implying that he is also fully divine and part of God because he alone is worthy of worship and glory.  By stating that the Spirit “spoke by the Prophets”[12], it is suggested not only that he existed before Christ’s life on earth because they all lived before him, but also that he is the living aspect of God who will always be the spirit and God’s continual presence in the Church.
            The Nicene Creed is completed with the Church, which is said to be one catholic or universal Church which is apostolic, thus tracing the roots of the Church back to its establishment by Christ.  Jesus named Peter as his successor, and thus established the apostolic tradition of the Church. 

(Most Orthodox and Anglicans DO see that Peter was to 'lead' the Apostolic band)


            ...To conclude the official statement of their belief, which draws a clear distinction between orthodoxy and heretical belief, the Council of Nicea acknowledges “one baptism for the remission of sins,”[13] alluding again to the Doctrine of Atonement and the importance of a life in the way of imitatio Christi since Christ himself was baptized.   They look optimistically toward the future and the Second Coming and the “life of the world to come,”[14] or the establishment of the coming Kingdom of God.  The Nicene Creed is the official statement of belief which resulted from the ultimately successful attempt by the early Church to organize and unify Christian belief. 


[1]Matthew 16: 18
[2] Nicene Creed
[3] Ibid.
[4] Sandra S. Frankiel, Christianity.  P. 14.
[5] Nicene Creed
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Matthew 5:17
[11] Nicene Creed
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.

 

And don't you feel any 'loss of connection' with the history of the church? As an Anglican, I DO feel such a connection/rootedness. It was something I didn't have prior to becoming one.


BTW, here's a quote from the Roman Catholic Catechism...
"Whoever says "I believe" says "I pledge myself to what we believe." Communion in faith needs a common language of faith, normative for all and uniting all in the same confession of faith.
From the beginning, the apostolic Church expressed and handed on her faith in brief formulae normative for all.But already very early on, the Church also wanted to gather the essential elements of her faith into organic and articulated summaries, intended especially for candidates for Baptism:
This synthesis of faith was not made to accord with human opinions, but rather what was of the greatest importance was gathered from all the SCRIPTURES, to present the one teaching of the faith in its entirety. And just as the mustard seed contains a great number of branches in a tiny grain, so too this summary of faith encompassed in a few words the whole knowledge of the true religion contained in the Old and the New Testaments."

I would agree with the above.

I DO have a question...but since D28 is a member of a 'non-denom' church, he may not be able to answer--
1. What was the origin of the Baptist Church? What year did it begin?
2. What are the teachings it holds that are unique to it? What are the essentials of Baptist faith? Is there a human final authority, or a document (creed, statement of faith, etc.) that would represent the same? (apart from Scripture)
What would constitute 'heresy' in the Baptist Church? Can a pastor be brought-up on heresy charges?
3. What early Christian communities believed the same things?

 

Jude,

I DO feel a very real connection to the early church.

Everytime I read where Jesus pointed to someone and said "Come and follow me" and they came, I identify with that.

When I read of the woman at the well, I identify with that.

When I read of Cornelius and his family I identify with that.

When I read of the Ethiopian eunuch, the Phillipian jailer and the Pauls Damascus road experience, I identify with all of those.

God himself, drawing people to Himself. There has been a one by one continuous string of those for 2000 years now, with me being one of them in February of 1982. Children of God in who Gods Holy Spirit dwells, telling others of the good things God has done for them.

And when I read of the early church in the book of Acts(after God caused a dispersion to get them out of the Temple, because they were not getting out of there as he told them to on their own) I feel great connection with that.

Simple gatherings of christians, meeting in peoples homes for worship, fellowship and teaching. With no massive lumbering behemouths of hiearchial control and litugical complexity.

I feel a great connection to the early church.

Blessings,

Mike

 

I agree, in part, with what you said. Christians do, of course, have a 'connection' with the early Church described in Holy Scripture. But the truth is, your 'kind' of Christianity has no-connection with what happened after. Your type of Christianity is a rather-late development in the 2,000 year history of the church. No hierarchal control means exactly what we see in the Protestant world--chaos. Liturgical complexity? I don't get that comment at all.

 

"what happened after" was the corrupting of the simplicity of the Gospel, into among other things, a heirarchical system that was not biblical. (we don't want to be connected with that!) As I said somewhere before, it was a slow return to the original principles that led to all the chaos, with different groups restoring different doctrines. But it was the faul of that church afterwards for moving away from the true NT principles in the frist place.

 

Baptists have their roots in the English Reformation being really the Left Wing of the Puritan movement and also indirectly (perhaps directly) influenced by the Radical Reformation. In a sense the Baptist heritage comes from those 2 sources, though may Landmark friends will disagree. The date of the first Baptist Church was 1609.

There are many but most agree that Baptists greatest unique contribution to human society has been the emphasis on Separation of Church and State which is unique to the Anabaptist/Baptist tradition though now most denominations have come to this position.

The essentials would be basically the same as any other Protestant denomination though differances regarding Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Covenant theology vs Dispensationalism exist. Among Reformed Baptists, the 1644 London, 1689 London seem to be the best expression of their faith and among others it seems the 1833 New Hampshire and the Baptist Faith and Message are the best expressions of faith. If I could site one single document to represent the faith outside scripture, it would be the Apostles' Creed. Interesting the 1678 Orthodox Baptist Creed had the Athanasian, Nicene and Apostles' creed in it.

Denying the Faith...such as the Trinity, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Deity of Christ, teaching work salvation etc...just to name a few. And Yes!

I don't think any Christian Church can claimed theirs is the true Church. Apostolic succession is a fantasy. I believe the early Church as well as the time of the Apostolic Fathers shows similarities to Baptist style free church congregations. That is not to say they were Baptists. Despite the logic of Episcopal style government, it has often shown to fail in stopping heresy within it's midst. I say that not as an attack. If I was not Baptist I would join the Reformed Episcopal Church tommorrow and I think Baptists can learn much from Anglican worship as well as vice versa.

True Apostolic succession is measured by whether a church is teaching the Apostles doctrine not built on some lineage of bishops or churches.

 

Actually, few Protestant churches ARE teaching 'Apostolic Doctrine.'(at least in entirety). And while I have some sympathy with your last statement, you can actually have both.

As far as the Reformed Episcopal Church goes, look for it to join the new alignment going on in the Anglican church.