Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Navigating the denominational zone

Image result for denomination
First of all, a background of Scripture:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:13 (KJV)

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. (Acts 15:28 (NIV)

If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.  (1 Timothy 3:15 (NIV)

Now, allow me to intertwine these verses into a logical whole.

We Pentecostals, Charismatics and other Evangelical Protestants come in a variety of theological hues. Some pretty, some not so pretty. For some 1500 years, give or take a little, two branches of Christendom—that is, Eastern Orthodoxy or the Roman Catholic Church, dominated the Christian religious scene. These Christians gave us the great creeds as well as the Scriptures as we know them. 

In brief, to summarize, the first ecumenical council convened in Nicea in the mid and late 4th century and gave us the great (what else?) Nicaean creed (AD 325)—actually, this is officially known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed since the second session convened in Constantinople (AD 381) to put the finishing touches on the original draft.

Interestingly (although, I must say sadly) the  "Nicene Creed" is the only authoritative ecumenical statement of the Christian faith accepted by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and the major Protestant denominations. Primarily the subject matter dealt with the nature and purposes of Christ and the Church He founded. At about that time the canon of Scripture was loosely configured and in circulation. Surprisingly—to some at least—the final verse, and therefore, the complete canon had to wait until the Council of Trent (AD 1545 and 1563) at which time the verses dealing with Jesus and the woman taken in adultery (John 8:1–11) was finally accepted as part of the New Testament thereby fixing the New Testament canon in its present form. From that time forward for all practical purposes both Protestants and Catholics have used the same Bible with the exception of the Apocrypha which is used almost exclusively by the Roman Catholics and Orthodox communities, but also including a few High Anglicans.

Granted, anytime history is condensed or summarized some of the finer details are left wanting; none-the-less, for purposes of understanding the origins of what we Evangelical consider the sole and final source of the Christian faith, this summary will do.

This brings us to the central question: that is, since the church of the living God, is the pillar and foundation of the truth.  (1 Timothy 3:15 (NIV) which church are we talking about? Certainly, not one that has splintered into thousands of shards—yes, you read me right, shards. What else are we to call schismatic who feel comfortable in starting their own brand of Christianity, or morphing a very good one into apostasy? If truth is one (and it is) then where is that true and original Church which Christ founded of which He promised that the gates of Death (Hades) would not overwhelm? 

Now, either, Christ was right or He was not. If the Church apostatized early, as some contend, in the 2nd century; then why accept a canon of Scripture or creeds developed by this apostatized church? Instead of—

 "[Marking] those who cause division, and offences contrary to the doctrine which were learned, and avoid them... (Romans 16:17-18)”

I am afraid that we have for the most part embraced many of them. These are, however, the facts; an open secret, you might say.

As for example, Luther because of his exclusive affinity for the role of faith in salvation never developed a recognizable doctrine of sanctification. Thus, the praxis of faith was never fully appreciated. A shard, you might say. Of course, a natural corollary to that was advanced by Calvin who when overboard and attributed all acts of charity to a sovereign work of irresistible grace, as if the roles personal choice and obedience were a matter of providence; including that first act of faith which is considered by most evangelicals that I know as necessary for our salvation.

This initial act of faith, however, leaves unanswered the matter of salvation for the very young and by implication the severely mentally retarded. Please excuse me if at this point I insert that my God is bigger than that. Would it not be much better if we insisted that it is a willful act of disobedience—that is, going against the Godly sense of morality that excludes us from the Kingdom of God? Could it be that as the whole world died in Adam, so it is that all were made alive in Christ? I think so. This, I believe covers the age of innocence as well as that of ignorance. It does not, however, cover the willful disobedience of those who refuse to repent or live in the light that Scripture says shines in the heart of every man.[i]




[i] Romans 2:1-16; cf. John 1:9

No comments: