Know Why You Believe What You Believe (Part Two, Conclusion)

So I assume you've gotten through Part One of this teaching without any struggles, doubts or confusion and are ready for Part Two. I'm kidding of course! I know Part One contained lots of material and Part Two contains equally as much materially as well as a number of doctrines that can be controversial and have often proven to be divisive. As a reminder, this exercise is not intended to create division between Christians who hold different positions from different Christian traditions. Instead, the purpose of this exercise is to get you to think about what you say you believe and begin to build a strong foundation that supports why you believe what you believe.

There is, of course, another reason I have provided so much information in this lesson—I won't be available to post again for 2 weeks. I will be leaving on a short term mission trip to Mexico with my daughters. Since I won't be able to communicate with you for a few weeks, I'd like to ask you to please pray for our safety and that we would serve with humility and love and that those to whom we are sent would know with certainty that God has not forgotten them and loves them deeply.

Now that I’ve gotten at bit of business out of the way, let’s get started on our next set of doctrines. Blessings to you and I hope to post again in 2 weeks!

Part Two

Doctrine of Creation

The doctrine of creation is fundamentally expressed in the opening chapters of Genesis. In contrast to pantheism, God is distinct from his creation (Psalm 90:2). In contrast to deism, God continues to be personally involved in creation—he upholds, sustains, and preserves it (Colossians 1:17). According to the creation narrative, God did not use any existing matter to create but instead created all things from nothing simply by speaking them into existence. God’s initial creative work was completed in six epoch periods as opposed to six actual days. This is based on the fact that the concept of a “day” in the sense of a twenty-four hour period that coincides with the orientation of the celestial bodies could not have occurred until the fourth “day” (Genesis 1:14-19). Also, the creation narrative records that the land produced vegetation on the third “day.” The plants produced seeds for reproduction and the trees produced fruit with seeds for reproduction (Genesis 1:9-13). There is, of course, no known vegetation that matures fully in a twenty-four hour “day.” Furthermore, “Yom,” the Hebrew word for “day,” is not always translated or understood as the equivalent of a twenty-four hour period (2 Peter 3:8). For example, “Yom” has been translated as: “time” (Genesis 4:3); “years” (1 Kings 1:1); “season” (Genesis 40:4); and “evermore” (Deuteronomy 28:29). Therefore, based on biblical evidence, the “day” referred to in the creation narrative must have been longer than a twenty-four hour day even if it is unclear just how long such a “day” may have been.

Humanity is the crowning jewel of God’s creation. Humanity, unlike anything else created by God, was created in the image of God and therefore enjoys the opportunity to be in a special relationship with God. Furthermore, humanity is appointed by God to have dominion over all of creation (Genesis 1:26). Such dominion, however, is in no way intended to be a conveyance of ownership of creation but is instead intended to establish a relationship of responsible stewardship over creation.

Doctrine of Humanity

The Psalmist reminds us that humanity occupies a special place in God's creation (Psalm 8:3-5). While the opening chapter of Genesis establishes this high-water mark of God’s creative work, Genesis 3 quickly marks the downfall of humanity. Christianity is unique in its understanding that these early chapters of Genesis introduce a dichotomy that humanity has since struggled with—the dichotomy of knowing what is right yet failing to do what is right (Romans 7:18-19).

Human beings are unique among God's creatures because they are made in the "image" or "likeness" of God (Genesis 1:26-27, James 3:9). The "substantive view" understands the "image of God" in a variety of psychological or spiritual attributes. Most notable are the human attributes of reason, will and emotion. The “relational view” understands the “image of God” in terms of humanity’s ability to live in relationship with God and other human beings. Finally, the “functional view” understands the “image of God” from the perspective that humanity can do certain things that God does, such as exercising dominion over creation (Genesis 1:26-30). I believe, however, that the “image of God” in humanity can be understood as a combination of all three views. Humanity can reason and will, by God’s grace, to be in relationship with God and other human beings in the work of caring for God’s creation. The “image of God” is universal within the human race. It has not been completely lost as a result of sin. Instead, it may be best to think of the “image of God” as primarily structural. It is something in the very nature of humanity; something humanity is, not something humanity has or does.

Doctrine of Sin

The Greek word used most frequently for “sin” is hamartia, which means; “Missing the mark.” Paul uses the verbal form of the word when he wrote, “For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). God has established His standard of perfection and humanity has “missed the mark.” Missing the mark includes sins of commission and sins of omission (James 4:17). Sin is not limited to doing or saying the wrong things but extends to humanity’s failure to do what, in God’s standard, is perfectly right. Sin originated with Adam and Eve (Genesis 3) and is therefore understood as “original sin” or the “Fall of Man.” Thereafter, sin became inherited, through birth, by humanity and is referred to as humanity’s “sin nature.” This inheritance of sin has led to humanity’s depravity or proclivity to do what is wrong.

Doctrine of Salvation

Salvation is entirely the work of God by which He seeks to rescue humanity from the ruin, doom, and power of sin. In its place God bestows his grace that encompasses eternal life (John 3:16). The Greek word, soteria, communicates the thought of deliverance, safety, preservation, soundness, restoration, and healing. Theologically, its major use is to denote a work of God on behalf of humanity, enveloping the principles of redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, conviction, repentance, faith, regeneration, forgiveness, justification, sanctification, preservation, and glorification. God’s work of salvation reveals his love (John 3:16) and demonstrates his grace (Ephesians 2:7-9).

Salvation has three observable phases. Phase 1—The past tense of salvation is salvation from sin’s penalty. (Ephesians 2:5). Phase 2—The present tense of salvation is deliverance from the power of sin in the lives of believers (Romans 6:11-23). Phase 3—The future tense of salvation refers to the deliverance of all believers through a glorified resurrected body (1 Peter 1:5).

The Ordo Salutis, order of salvation, varies depending on whether a person has a Calvanistic or Arminian theological perspective. I adhere to an Arminian Ordo Salutis which broadly consists in a salvation progression of: 1) Prevenient Grace (This makes it possible to respond to God’s call to humanity to respond, either positively or negatively, to his offer of salvation); 2) Confession/Repentance; 3) Profession of Faith; 4) Union with Christ [Predestination]; 5) Justification; 6) Regeneration; 7) Sanctification; and 8) Glorification. “Predestination” in an Arminian context is not speaking of God’s predetermination of certain sinners to become believers (Calvinism), but is instead a reference to the predetermined destiny of believers through their union with Christ. As such, believers have been predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ through the process of sanctification and glorification.

Doctrine of Sanctification

Sanctification originates from the Greek word hagiazo, which means to be "separate" or to be "set apart." In Scripture, sanctification generally relates to a sovereign act of God whereby he "sets apart" a person, place (Exodus 29:43), or thing (Genesis 2:3) in order that his purposes may be accomplished.

It is important to differentiate between salvation and sanctification. Believers are saved because of what Christ has already done. We can do nothing to earn salvation (Ephesians 2:7-9). Sanctification occurs as a result of salvation. The three aspects of sanctification are: 1) Positional Sanctification--Occurs immediately upon being saved (1 Corinthians 6:11); 2) Experiential or Progressive Sanctification--Is a lifelong process of following Christ (2 Corinthians 7:1); and 3) Ultimate or Perfect Sanctification--Occurs at our glorification when Christ returns (1 John 3:2-3). During the time between Positional Sanctification and Perfect Sanctification, believers are still able to sin. Although believers do not lose their salvation as a result of these failures, it is necessary for believers who sin to confess their sins to one another, repent (turn away from their sin) and be forgiven (1 John 1:9). This is an important aspect within Progressive Sanctification.

Nature of the Gospel

The Gospel is the complete revelation of God from the beginning of creation until the end of the age. The Gospel can roughly be divided into six general components. 1) Who is God? Genesis 1-2 describes God as the uncaused first cause and as the creator of all things; 2) Who are we? Humanity is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27); 3) What is the problem? Sin was introduced into the world (Genesis 3); 4) What is at stake? Humanity’s fallen state has created a barrier to being in proper relationship with God or one another (Romans 1:18-32); 5) Is there hope? John gives directions for God’s plan for reconciliation (John 3:16-18); and 6) What must we do? Paul makes it clear that a confession of faith in Jesus Christ is the only means by which the “problem” as identified above can be addressed (Romans 10:9-13).

Issues of Social Concern

Various ethnic and/or minority groups who believe they have been oppressed in some way by social, economic or political forces see the Gospel as a means for liberation. Although the Gospel speaks to issues of equality and liberation (Galatians 3:28), this is not specifically the trajectory of the Gospel. Instead, the Gospel must be understood in the broad context of God’s intimate relationship with humanity prior to the Fall of Man and God’s continuing process of paving the way for humanity to be able to return to that ideal state of intimate relationship since the Fall of Man. Reconciliation with God should be the primary goal in the trajectory of trying to create lasting social reconciliation.

Doctrine of the Church

The Church is an organization created by Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:17-19). The Church began at Pentecost when believers received and were indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). The purpose of the Church was clearly expressed by Jesus Christ when he said the Church was to make disciples, baptize them and teach them to obey his commands (Matthew 28:18-20). Consequently, the Church is a balance of evangelism and discipleship.

Church Government

It seems foolish not to admit that Scripture is not very clear on precisely how the church was supposed to organize and structure itself. The various forms of government that currently exist all seem to have some strengths and some weaknesses. Generally, there are three forms of church governance: 1) Hierarchical Form of Government; 2) Congregational Form of Government; and 3) Representative Form of Government. I believe the “representative” model is more readily identifiable in Scripture. Specifically, certain representatives (i.e. Paul, Timothy and Titus) managed the affairs of churches in different geographical areas. Today, this organizational style utilizes duly appointed representatives of local churches, usually grouped geographically. Representatives of a local group of churches come under the supervision and direction of a larger body, usually referred to as a synod, and in turn the synod comes under the larger body of a general assembly. While rules and extent of power vary, the idea is that duly appointed representatives constitute the authority of the church.

Offices of the Church

To begin with, Jesus Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23). However, there are various other positions, or offices, within the Church. It must, however, be understood that these positions are merely different positions of servanthood within the church. Consequently, the offices of the church should be understood as “roles” as opposed to “titles.” The offices of the church (and some of their synonyms) are: 1) Apostle (ambassador); 2) Evangelist (minister, preacher, teacher); 3) Elder (bishop, pastor, shepherd, presbyter); 4) Deacon; and 5) Christian (saint, priest).

Gender Roles

Scripture is clear that men and women are valued equally by God (Galatians 3:28). They are both created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Both men and women will prophesy (Acts 2:17). Finally, all believers, men and women, are equipped by the Holy Spirit to minister in some way in the Church without qualification to gender (1 Corinthians 12:7). However, many people point to Paul’s instruction to Timothy as the definitive last word in Scripture with respect to women in church leadership (1 Timothy 2:12). Proponents of this view claim that Paul’s mention of Adam and Eve suggests that he is talking about an aspect of gender and human nature that has been constant throughout history since the Fall of Man. However, others insist that this passage is an instruction that applies to first century Christians in Ephesus, and not necessarily to our twenty-first century culture. I am not convinced that Scripture overall prohibits women from being in a position of leadership or teaching in the church. I see no evidence from Scripture that God cannot or will not use women in positions of leadership or teaching inside or outside the church. Therefore I do not support the position that women should be barred from leadership or teaching in the church.

Baptism

Variations in Christian baptismal practices is yet another issue that has divided the Church throughout history. Specifically at issue is whether or not baptism plays a role in the process of salvation or whether it is a public pronouncement of the gift of salvation that has already been received. It is the difference between baptism prior to a confession of faith (i.e. infant baptism) that requires a personal confirmation of that faith at some later point and a public confession of faith by a person who can grasp the concept of saving grace and thereafter being baptized publicly as a pronouncement of that decision (i.e. adult, believer’s baptism). It is important to note that the New Testament contains no examples where infants are specifically baptized. The people who were baptized were ones who had been taught what they needed to do in order to receive salvation (Acts 2:37-38). They were the people who could hear and understand the Word of God (Acts 10:34-48), believe, and devote themselves to the ministry of the saints (1 Corinthians 16:15). Consequently, adult, believers baptism has the clearest explicit biblical support.

The Lord’s Supper

Like baptism, the Lord’s Supper (“Eucharist”) is another practice that varies widely within Christian churches. In this case, the interpretive issues revolve around the physical characteristics of the Eucharistic elements themselves (the bread and the wine), the frequency of the practice and finally, the efficacy of the practice with respect to the believer’s salvation. Instituted by Jesus Christ (Luke 22:13-20), Jesus broke the bread of the Passover using it as a symbol to foretell how his body would be broken on the cross and thereafter using the wine of the Passover feast to symbolize the shedding of his blood as the price for humanity’s salvation. The bread and wine do not become the actual body and blood of Christ (“transubstantiation”). Furthermore, while the Lord’s Supper is admittedly an important practice of the Church, nowhere does Scripture teach, implicitly or explicitly, that participation in the Lord’s Supper is necessary to gain or maintain our salvation in any way. Instead, the Lord’s Supper, in Jesus’ own words, is a ceremony intended to be a reminder—to remind us of what Jesus did in the past, a symbol of our present relationship with him and a promise of what he will do in the future (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). Furthermore, Scripture is silent as to the frequency of the practice of the Lord’s Supper. I have attended churches where the Lord’s Supper is practiced weekly as well as a church where it is practiced in a self-serve fashion at communion stations placed around the church. Both are extremes as far as I’m concerned. Practiced weekly, the Lord’s Supper often loses its significance and practiced infrequently or in a self-serve fashion it becomes a novelty at best and unbiblical at worst. Therefore, I believe practicing the Lord’s Supper once or twice per month or more often during certain seasons and always as a community of believers provides a balance to both extremes.

The Doctrine of Last Things

Referred to as “eschatology,” the doctrine of last things revolves specifically around the return of Jesus Christ (the “Second Coming”). Jesus spoke of his return during his earthly ministry (John 14:3, Matthew 24:29-31). Outside of the Gospels, Jesus’ return was initially proclaimed by two men dressed in white (presumably angels) at his ascension (Acts 1:8-11). Thereafter, the epistles continue to teach of Jesus’ anticipated return (1 Corinthians 15:51-55, 1 Thessalonians 4:16; 1 John 2:28). There are events associated with his return that are not quite as clear and have consequently been interpreted in various ways. Specifically at issue is the teaching about the “tribulation” and the “millennial kingdom.” Generally speaking, there are three views with respect to the tribulation and three views with respect to the millennial kingdom:

The Millennial Kingdom

1) Amillennialism—Suggests the millennial kingdom is figurative; 2) Postmillennialism—Suggests that we are living in the midst of the millennial kingdom; and 3) Premillennialism—This view contends that Christ will return to earth prior to establishing the millennial kingdom.

Of all these views, premillennialism seems to more accurately reflect Scripture (Revelation 20:2-7). To insist that the millennial kingdom is figurative or that we are somewhere in the midst of the millennial kingdom seems to contradict Scripture (Revelation 20:2-7).

The Tribulation

1) Pretribulation—This view contends that Christians will be taken to heaven (“raptured”) by Christ prior to the seven year period of time when God finalizes his judgment of an unbelieving world (the “tribulation” Revelation 6-18); 2) Midtribulation—Suggests that Christ will remove the Church half way through the tribulation right before the “great tribulation”; and 3) Posttribulation—Suggests that Christ will remove the Church at the end of the great tribulation.

It is somewhat difficult to be completely definitive on this matter particularly in light of Jesus’ teaching that only the Father knows the time of Jesus’ return (Mark 13:32). Nevertheless, there is at least one Scripture reference that hints at Jesus’ return at the end of the age “after the tribulation” (Matthew 24:29). Furthermore, in the case of the Pretribulation and Midtribulation views, Christ must return multiple times, once to rapture his Church prior to or in the middle of the tribulation respectively and then again at the end of the tribulation for his final judgment and to inaugurate the millennial kingdom. Scripture does not seem to support either of these views. The Posttribulation view sees all these events as occurring at the end of the tribulation overall. The Old Testament, especially the Book of Daniel provides considerable detail to support this view (Daniel 10-12). It is only after the devastation described by Daniel’s prophecy that God says, “you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance” (Daniel 12: 13). Thereafter, except for the reference to the specific time of “after the tribulation,” Paul’s description of Christ’s return is consistent with the words of Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 cf. Matthew 24:29-31). Paul does not specify that the Church will be spared any of the tribulation only that Christ’s return will be sudden and that the dead in Christ will be the first to be raised to life and thereafter Christ will gather his Church. Additionally, Peter describes the events of “the day of the Lord” in catastrophic language similar to Jesus as the heavens will disappear and earth’s elements are destroyed (2 Peter 3:10-12). Peter does not claim that the Church will be spared any tribulation but only that they should be ready for the coming of that day. Therefore, combined with the teaching of the millennial kingdom, I believe that Scripture largely supports the end-times position of premillennialsm/posttribulation.

Judgment

Scripture is clear that all of humanity will face God’s judgment (Hebrews 9:27, Daniel 12:2). However, there is a crucial difference in God’s judgment between Christians and non-Christians. Christians have been deemed righteous because of Jesus’ atoning sacrifice. Therefore a Christian’s judgment is not for the purpose of condemnation (John 5:24). Instead, Christians will be judged by Christ for their works on earth. Some work will be deemed superficial and will be destroyed even while the believer is saved (1 Corinthians 3:10-15). These works are judged to determine the believer’s heavenly rewards but have no bearing on the believer’s salvation. The judgment of unbelievers is far more dire and does, in fact, end in condemnation. This judgment is referred to as the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15). Jesus sits as judge on this throne as well and only unbelievers, the “wicked,” stand before him there. No unbeliever escapes this judgment or is acquitted. It is before the Great White Throne Judgment that the wicked are finally condemned and cast into the “lake of fire” which is understood to be hell. This is the absolute and certain judgment that awaits all those who reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Heaven and Hell

Heaven is a real place. It is difficult to describe with clear specificity. However, Jesus promised that he is preparing a place [heaven] for those who believe in him with the explicit purpose of taking us there to be with him (John 14:1-4). Revelation also provides some vivid details about heaven (Revelation 21, 22). Clearly, heaven is a place where believers will dwell with God and enjoy Him for all eternity.

Hell is also a place. The Old Testament Hebrew word “Sheol” means “the grave” (Genesis 37:35) and describes a place where the dead reside. Sheol is divided into a place of torment for the wicked and a place of comfort for the righteous (Luke 16:19-31). The Greek parallel for Sheol in the New Testament would be Hades which also means “grave” (Acts 2:31). However, the New Testament uses the word Gehenna to describe a place of torment, fire, brimstone and punishment (Matthew 5:29-30, Matthew 13:40-42, 2 Peter 3:7). It is difficult to determine if the fire and brimstone of hell is literal or figurative. However, what is certain is that hell, which was created for the final punishment of Satan and his demons (Matthew 25:41) and is the final destiny of all unbelievers, is the eternal separation from God’s goodness, love and grace and there can be no greater punishment than that.

Know Why You Believe What You Believe (Part One)

Before I could graduate from Seminary, I had to write one final paper detailing my position on a myriad of prescribed doctrines. Thereafter, I had to defend those doctrines before an oral board of brilliant theologians and educators. What I learned in the process of writing the paper was that I had a difficult time articulating what I believed. I knew what I believed in abstract, but I couldn't really sit across from you and tell you succinctly what I believed on the various doctrines let alone why I believed it. Therefore, the process, while painfully time consuming, was tremendously helpful because it forced me to organize my thoughts about what I believed and why I believe what I believe. Maybe you're like me in that you know what you believe but you can't really articulate it very well. Therefore, I want to challenge you to go through the process yourself. To help you, I'm posting my position on these doctrines for you to consider. It's alright if you disagree with my position. However, you need to be able to defend your position as though you had to sit before an oral board like I did. Make sure you have sound biblical support for your position—multiple sources within the biblical text makes your position stronger (especially if it's from both the Old and New Testaments). Similarly, don't discount my position without first considering it. This is often very difficult when you encounter a position that is different than your own, especially if you've held your position for a long time. Again, this is not an exercise to try and get you to change your position on these matters but to force you to be able to defend your position. The positions we hold on these various doctrines are very important. My experience is that those who insist that doctrines merely serve to divide people usually have poor doctrinal positions. However, I always refer to this quote from the Constitution of the Moravian church (“Grounds of Unity”) as wise and instructive: “In the essentials—Unity; In the non-essentials—Liberty; In all things—Charity!”

Mark 8:27-29

²⁷ Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?” ²⁸ They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” ²⁹ “But what about you?” he asked “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ.”

Jesus wasn’t just asking who people were saying he was, he wanted to see if the disciples were following him or following the crowd. Were they following what was popular or what was true? Jesus asks the same of us today. Are we following what is popular or what is true? This is a tricky matter in the case of Christian doctrines because many doctrines have multiple positions with adequate biblical support. In these cases, the issue is not whether we are right while others are wrong but instead, can we defend our respective positions with proper biblical support. When I say "proper biblical support," remember the rules for biblical interpretation (see right hand column): CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!

Because this topic covers so many different doctrines and will require some homework on your part (which I trust you will do with great diligence), I’ve divided it into two parts. My hope is that when you are done with this exercise, you will not only know what you believe, but why you believe what you believe!

Part One

Doctrine of Revelation

General Revelation

General revelation is God’s revelation of himself to all people through his creation. It is general because it is readily perceived and accessible by all people whether they believe in him or not. For example, sunshine, rain, the celestial bodies are all readily perceived and accessible, as well as beneficial, to all regardless of whether or not they believe in him as the creator of these things. This understanding of God’s general revelation is well documented in both the Old and New Testaments (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:19-20, Acts 14:17). Additionally in the New Testament, Paul reminds us that God has placed the general revelation of himself in our hearts as is evidenced by human morality (Romans 2:14-15). Specifically, people have a sense of right and wrong and good and bad even though they may define those terms differently. The fact that the concept of right and wrong and good and bad even exists is a source of general revelation that there is a Moral Giver.

Specific/Special Revelation

Special revelation, also referred to as specific revelation, is God’s supernatural intervention in the affairs of humanity in order to reveal himself and/or his saving will in a way that is not possible through general revelation. God communicated to Moses through a voice emanating from a burning bush that was not consumed by the flame (Exodus 3:1-6). Later, yet still during the Old Testament, God communicated with humanity through prophets. This pattern of communication and instruction with humanity continued throughout the Old Testament.

The period of the New Testament inaugurated the most dramatic and deeply personal interaction of God with humanity. The incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ is the quintessential special revelation. During Jesus’ earthly ministry, God revealed himself, interacted and communicated directly with humanity in and through the person of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-3).

The Scriptures which include the writings of both the Old and New Testaments make it possible for us to know about the dealings of God with humanity in history and his interactive methodology with humanity in our world today. Although transmitted through humanity, the original manuscripts of the sixty-six books contained in the Protestant Bible are properly canonized as God-inspired and as a result are inerrant carrying with them supreme authority over the lives of all humanity (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

While it is true that the methodology used by Jews to accept the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament has been lost to antiquity, it is not unreasonable to accept that the Protestant Old Testament canon is based on the fact that the Apostles and the Jews during the time of Jesus included those same thirty-nine books in their Scriptures. Canonicity in the New Testament is subject to three specific criteria: Apostolicity, orthodoxy, and catholicity. Apostolicity includes writings directly from apostles (i.e. Matthew, John, and Peter) and others from the apostolic age who were also closely associated with those who were apostles (i.e. Paul, Mark and Luke) as well as those who were closely associated with Jesus (i.e. James and Jude). The criteria of orthodoxy required that the theology and ethics were consistent throughout the canon. Finally, the criteria of catholicity required that accepted texts were used by the majority of churches from the earliest times of Christianity to the time when the canon was finally established. Although the canon is technically still open, it is difficult to see how any texts discovered today could meet the criteria of catholicity even if it meets the criteria of apostolicity and orthodoxy. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, the canon is closed.

Doctrine of God: The Trinity

Adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity is essential to orthodox Christianity (See previous posting—Label: Theology—Title: “Defending the Trinity” Date: 12/7, 13 & 28/11). However, reaching a complete “understanding” of the Trinity can be problematic. Specifically at issue is the apparent contradiction between the clear teaching that God is “one” (Deuteronomy 6:4) while at the same time experiencing God’s revelation of himself as three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17, Isaiah 11:1-2). However, the difficulty with the Trinity, in addition to being mysterious, is largely rooted in a misunderstanding of grammar.

Opponents of the doctrine insist that God as three and one contradicts the laws of logic. However, since God is the creator of all things, it necessarily exempts him from being bound by the laws of nature. That’s not to say that God never works within the bounds of nature, but his miracles testify to the fact that he is not constrained to work within those laws. Nevertheless, critics of the Trinity apply the principle of transitivity to the Trinity to demonstrate its logical inconsistency. The argument goes something like this: If Jesus is God and the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God then it follows that Jesus is the Father or the Father is the Holy Spirit or Jesus is the Holy Spirit. However, at issue is the easily overlooked word “is.” Grammatically, “is” can either be used as one of identity or as one of predication. With respect to a statement using the “is” of identity, what is to the left of the “is” is identical to what is to the right of the “is.” When using the “is” of predication, what is to the right of the “is” describes something about what is to the left of the “is.” Consequently when we make claims such as the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, we are not using the “is” of identity but the “is” of predication. It is, however, important to remember that distinction in the three “persons” of the Trinity in no way affects the ontological unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The three fully embody, without division and for all eternity (past, present and future), the same divine essence.

Doctrine of God: Nature and Attributes

Scripture reveals certain aspects of God to us. Those aspects can be broadly identified as either God’s metaphysical attributes or his moral attributes. God’s metaphysical attributes can be defined as those qualities that he alone embodies in their entirety. These qualities are “essential” for God to possess in order to be God. God’s moral attributes define his moral character. God’s metaphysical attributes and moral attributes can be generally categorized as follows:

Metaphysical Attributes

1) God is Spirit—God transcends the physical universe and is not limited by matter (John 4:24); 2) God is Eternal—God transcends time (Psalm 90:2); 3) God is Immeasurable—God transcends space (1 Kings 8:27); 4) God is Omnipotent—God is all-powerful (Jeremiah 32:27; Matthew 19:26); 5) God is Omniscient—God is all-knowing (Isaiah 46:9-10); 6) God is Omnipresent—God is present everywhere in his complete being (Psalm 139:9-10); and 7) God is Unique—God is unique because he stands outside the created order with the ability to order the universe according to his will (Isaiah 40:25).

Moral Attributes

1) God is Good—God’s character is the antithesis of evil (Psalm 145:9); 2) God is Holy—God’s holiness requires that he remain completely separate from evil (1 Peter 1:15-16); 3) God is Faithful and True—God’s is completely trustworthy and reliable in all things and at all times (Isaiah 25:1); 4) God is Sovereign—God’s sovereignty speaks to his moral authority and absolute right to order the universe however he sees fit (Proverbs 16:4); 5) God is Love—Out of the intrinsic goodness of His character, God loves us with a perfect love (1 John 4:8); 6) God is Just—God is perfectly just in all his dealings with humanity (2 Thessalonians 1:6); 7) God is Life—God honors His gracious and merciful promise to restore us to Himself and thereby to eternal life (John 14:6); and 8) God is Perfect—All of God’s moral attributes coalesce into his perfect character. God's perfect character will never be less than the highest, the best and the purest that the human mind can comprehend (Matthew 5:48).

Doctrine of God the Father

God has revealed himself as existing in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. God the Father is seen throughout the Old Testament as desperately seeking to be in relationship with his chosen people. He is depicted as a loving, protective parent and the source of salvation and redemption (Psalm 89:26, Isaiah 63:16, Jeremiah 3:19). In the New Testament, God the Father initiates the process of salvation by drawing humanity toward Christ (John 6:44). After being drawn to Christ and accepting the Father’s gift of salvation through Christ, believers enter into a special relationship with the Father. These believers are thereafter adopted as sons and daughters (1 John 3:1). As his children, God the Father blesses us with spiritual blessings (Ephesians 1:3). Believers who have entered into a relationship with God the Father so as to be called children of God are also strengthened by him (Ephesians 3:14, 16). Like every good father, God the Father disciplines his children in order to develop in us holiness, righteousness and peace (Hebrews 12:5-11). At the request of Jesus, the Father sends the Spirit to live within those who are believers (John 14:26).

Doctrine of Christ

Christology rests at the very heart of Christian theology by focusing on God’s method of dealing with humanity’s sin and providing a means of reconciliation through the second person of the Trinity—Jesus Christ. I believe the Book of Philippians provides the clearest Christological summary contained in any one statement in the Bible (Philippians 2:6-11).

Christ’s Humanity

Many believe that Christ’s deity is the primary element in Christology. However, his complete humanity is equally as important. Scripture provides ample evidence of Christ’s humanity: 1) Mary went through a full term pregnancy and the natural child birth of Jesus (Luke 2:6-7); 2) Christ matured and grew like any other human being (Luke 2:40, 52); 3) He had a human body of flesh and blood (John 19:34); 4) He grew tired (Mark 4:38), hungry (Matthew 4:2), and thirsty (John 19:28); and 5) He is called a man (1 Timothy 2:5).

There are a number of reasons why Christ’s humanity is important in God’s plan for humanity’s redemption: 1) Christ’s humanity allows for him to be our brother and redeemer (Hebrews 2:11-17, cf. kinsman redeemer of Leviticus 25:25); 2) Christ’s humanity allows for him to die (Hebrews 2:9). Since the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), Christ needed to be able to die and that would only be possible if he were fully human; 3) Christ’s humanity fulfills Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 7:14, Psalm 22:16-18, Isaiah 53). Christ’s humanity is essential in developing a coherent understanding of God’s plan to redeem humanity through Christ.

Christ’s Deity

            Although Christ’s humanity is a crucial aspect of his person, his divinity is equally as important. Because only God can forgive sin, Christ’s divinity is essential in God’s plan of redemption for humanity. Scripture is replete with evidence of Christ’s divinity. 1) John confessed Christ to be divine (John 1:1); 2) Peter makes a confession of Christ’s divinity (Matthew 16:16); 3) Paul, who penned the clear Christological summary in his letter to the Philippians as referenced above, makes another very clear and succinct confession of Christ’s divinity in his letter to the church at Colossae (Colossians 1:15-19); and 4) Jesus himself attests to his own divinity when he is brought before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:61-62).

Incarnation

Some 700 years before the birth of Christ, Isaiah and Micah foretold the virgin birth of Christ in Bethlehem (Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2). Thereafter, Matthew magnificently records the fulfillment of these Old Testament prophecies when he writes about the virgin birth of Christ in the city of Bethlehem (Matthew 1:18-2:6). The virgin birth is essential to our understanding of Christ’s humanity and his divinity. The virgin birth demonstrates that salvation must come from God alone. God brought about the birth of Christ by his power and not through human effort. It was also the means by which the full deity of God and fullness of humanity could coalesce in the person of Jesus Christ. Finally, the virgin birth makes it possible for Christ’s humanity to exist without inheriting the sin nature of Adam. Specifically, the line of descent from Adam was partially interrupted because Jesus had no earthly father. Consequently, Jesus did not inherit the legal guilt or sin nature passed down from and through the first Adam.

Kenosis

Kenosis is a Greek word used with a theological significance meaning “emptying.” How is it possible for Christ to be fully human yet fully divine at the same time? Paul’s letter to the Philippians describes what “kenosis” attempts to explain. In order to accomplish God’s will of redemption for humanity, Christ willingly set aside the independent use of his divine attributes. Clearly, he did not empty himself of his divinity since he was able to see into the future in some cases (Matthew 26:34), he healed those who were sick and lame (John 5:2-14), he gave sight to the blind (John 9:1-12), he raised the dead (John 11:41-44), and walked on water (Mark 6:45-52). It is important to note that although miracles performed by Christ provide an example of Christ’s divine attributes, miracles of any kind performed by Christians don’t imply that Christians are divine. Instead, it must be remembered that all miracles performed by Christians are only possible by the power of God and He alone should receive the credit and recognition therefore.

Doctrine of the Holy Spirit

Personality

The Holy Spirit is identified independently along with the Father and the Son (Matthew 28:19). Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit has an independent, divine personality in community as one of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. Nowhere is this distinction clearer than at Jesus’ baptism (Matthew 3:16-17). This scene gives us a clear picture that each person of the Trinity is separate and distinct.

Deity

The natural consequence of the Spirit’s inclusion in the Trinity is His divine equality with the Father and the Son. Scripture attests to the divinity of the Holy Spirit in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 3:16). Even clearer than this is Luke’s record in Acts (Acts 5:3-4).

Work

The Holy Spirit is present throughout Scripture. In the Old Testament, He is present from the very beginning at the creation of the earth (Genesis 1:2). Thereafter, the Spirit can be seen in the lives of the kings of Israel (1 Kings 22:24). Furthermore, the Spirit played a particularly important role in the lives of the Israel’s prophets (Ezekiel 11:5). In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is visible in the lives of humanity since Christ’s ascension to heaven. This is not by chance since Christ specifically promised his disciples that he would ask the Father to send the Spirit in his place after he left them (John 14:16-17, 26). Reminding us of Christ’s teachings is one of the many works undertaken by the Spirit. In addition thereto, the Spirit: 1) Gives spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:7-11); 2) Baptizes the believer into the Church (1 Corinthians 12:12-14); 3) Encourages believers (Acts 9:31); 4) Intercedes on behalf of believers (Romans 8:26-27); 5) Convicts the world about sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:7-8); 6) Gives the power to be a witness to the life and work of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:8); 7) Guides the believer into all truth (John 16:13); and 8) Produces fruit in the life of the believer (Galatians 5:22-23).

Doctrine of Angels

Angels are created beings and not the spirits of departed or glorified human beings. The Psalmist calls on all in the celestial heavens, including the angels, to praise God (Psalm 148:2). Angels have access to the entire universe. They are described as serving in heaven and on earth (Daniel 9:21-23). They are described as “ministering spirits” (Hebrews 1:14). Angels are not subject to death (Luke 20:36). Angels have limitations as compared to humanity. Specifically, angels are not created in the image of God and therefore do not share humanity’s destiny of redemption in Christ. At the end of the age, redeemed humanity will be exalted above angels (1 Corinthians 6:3).

Doctrine of Demons

Satan and his demons are part of the angelic realm originally created by God (Colossians 1:16). Demons are fallen angels who followed Satan at his rebellion against God. A third of the angelic host fell with Satan at his rebellion (Revelation 12:4). Demons are by nature the same kind of spirit beings as angels. They are personal, intelligent beings. However, demons are described as “evil spirits” (Matthew 10:1), and deceitful (1 Timothy 4:1). Demons knew Christ’s identity and power (Mark 1:34). They are also fully aware of their own future judgment (Matthew 8:29). Demons are involved in carrying out Satan’s evil plans (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). Specifically, demons are active in hindering the spiritual progress of believers whenever possible. They are deliberate and organized in these attempts (Ephesians 6:10-17). Demons can possess people and afflict people with physical ailments (Matthew 17:15-16) and mental disorders (Luke 8:26-29). Ultimately, however, as damaging and destructive as Satan and his demons have been and continue to be, their future demise has been foretold in Scripture and is therefore certain.

Admittedly, there’s much to be considered to this point. Again, the purpose of this exercise is not to convince you to have the same position as I do on these matters. Instead, look at it as a challenge for you to formalize what you believe about these matters using sound biblical support (See right hand column for rules to biblical interpretation: CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!) When you’re done, you will know why you believe what you believe on these doctrines and you’ll be ready for the challenge of the next set of doctrines.

What?!? There's Right and Wrong?!?

2 Timothy 4:3-4

            ³ For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. ⁴ They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

            Paul, in his letter to Timothy, speaks the words that race ahead more than 2,000 years as though he's speaking directly to us. I recently read along with a text conversation on a social network between two young men. One young man, a Christian, was giving a very simple yet accurate description of God's saving work through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. The other young man, a ???, claimed that God was obligated to favor those who tried to be good people. Their conversation came to a fairly abrupt end at that point. The American church's unwillingness to take the unpopular position of confronting unorthodox beliefs has spawned heresies that began nearly 200 years ago and are now common in our world and growing! So let's take a look at what it means to be both Christian and orthodox.

When most narrowly defined, “Orthodox” means “Right belief.” However, this does not come close to telling the whole story when we talk about Christian Orthodoxy. Christian Orthodoxy is far more comprehensive than a simplistic idea limited to “Right belief.” Thomas Oden writes, “Orthodoxy…is ancient consensual scriptural teaching…For Christians it means the doctrine taught during the period of ancient ecumenical Christianity…The time-period for such teaching is generally assumed to be the first five centuries of the common era…By ‘consensual,’…I mean the teaching that has been duly confirmed by a process of general consent of the faithful over two millennia…For Christians this means the teaching of the same time-period—the creeds and early liturgies—confirmed by due process especially through the action of ecumenical councils that have been widely acknowledged and received as authoritative by the faithful worldwide.”[1] Donald Bloesch goes much farther when he writes, “Orthodoxy means firm adherence to the true faith, the faith of the apostles, the fathers and the Reformers. It includes humble trust in the power of the Spirit to illumine and inform but also profound respect for the great confessions of faith that have kept the church on the straight and narrow way through the ages[2]…Orthodoxy, right belief, is intimately related to orthopraxis, right action. There can be no apprehension of the gospel apart from obedience to the imperatives of the gospel[3]…Orthodoxy means fidelity to the promises of God and zeal for his glory. It combines steadfast trust in the reliability of the biblical witness concerning God’s truth with an earnest desire to share this truth with others who still wander in the darkness of sin and despair. It also involves purity in worship, for right doctrine cannot be maintained apart from right praise.”[4] Clearly, limiting “Orthodoxy” to the simple definition of “Right belief” doesn’t begin to capture the enormity and complexity of the concept in its entirety. Although the term “Heresy” is rarely used today in the political correctness of our American culture, it is the antithesis of “Orthodoxy.” If orthodoxy is right belief then by necessity, heresy is wrong belief. However like the complexities of orthodoxy as defined above, heresy can similarly not be limited to the simple idea of wrong belief. Therefore, considering these many complexities, how is one to know what is right and what is wrong?

The answer to that question lies behind a combination of what Oden and Bloesch had to say about the definition of orthodoxy. Oden refers to the consensual witness of the first five centuries and Bloesch refers to the great confessions of the faith. Interestingly, the great confessions of the faith were developed during the first five centuries. Specifically, they were developed in response to heretical teachings that had begun to circulate within the Church. At the heart of most of the early doctrinal disputes was the person of Jesus, the role of the Spirit and the understanding of the Trinity (See previous posting—Label: Theology—Title: “Defending the Trinity”—Date: 12/7, 13 & 28/2011). A clear and concise understanding and definition of these very important issues is what will be considered as orthodox and makes believers distinctively Christian. While most twenty first century Christians take the truth of today’s established orthodoxy for granted, Christians prior to the fifth century did not enjoy the benefit of hundreds of years of formal indoctrination on the person of Jesus, the work of the Spirit or the understanding of the Trinity. During the first five centuries, Christianity’s encounter with varying cultures during its dramatic growth created a multiplicity of doctrinal theories reflecting the Church’s cultural diversity. Unfortunately, many unorthodox or heretical doctrines began to circulate. Although many of these issues, such as the nature of Jesus, were inherently understood in the Early Church Era (from Jesus to 430 A.D.), it was critical that the catholic Church develop and articulate a formal doctrine with respect to its Christology or doctrine of the person of Christ to combat the growing popularity of heretical teachings. History would record that while developing the Church’s Christology, the foundation for the development of many of today’s essential Church doctrines on which its Soteriology, or doctrine of salvation, would be built. As a result, developing and articulating a clear understanding of these issues, particularly as they relate to the person of Jesus, was crucial in developing the parameters that make a believer “Christian,” but more importantly, it specifically and accurately delineates the essential elements that define a Christian’s salvation. For example, it was during this era that the Church formalized its understanding of these foundational issues with the consensual development of the Nicene Creed (see right hand column for the Nicene Creed). To illustrate, D. H. Williams writes, “Since the end of the fourth century, Christians have always drawn on the language and theology of the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) and its later expositions that the Son shares the same substance as the Father. The point is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God the Son who possesses the very same divinity as God the Father. This is what makes the salvation offered through Mary’s son a truly divine gift that can restore us to the divine image.”[5] The process of developing the foundational principles that create the boundaries of orthodoxy, boundaries that put the “Christian” in Christianity and draws the Christian map of salvation, was far from easy or quick. Nevertheless, the process was necessary in order to combat the rise of heretical teaching within the Church. The boundaries of orthodoxy made it possible to clearly determine teachings that were antithetical to those boundaries and as such could be confidently deemed as heretical. To illustrate the complexity of that process, let’s take a closer look at some of the major heresies the Church had to deal with during the first five centuries of its existence and how the development of boundaries of orthodoxy served to address those heresies.

Philippians 2:6-8

            ⁶ Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, ⁷ but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. ⁸ And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!

This Christology, taken from Paul’s letter to the Philippians, was written sometime around 61 A.D. Bruce Shelley was correct when he wrote, “The Event—God in Flesh—has always struck man as religious nonsense.”[6] Very early, the Apostles and early Church fathers would encounter heresies dealing with the person of Jesus. The first was known as “Ebionitism.” This group taught that Jesus was “justified” and became the Messiah through the meticulous observance of the Law. Another teaching was known as “Docetism.” This group taught that Jesus was a “spectral appearance” (a ghost) and that he only “seemed” to suffer and die. Most likely, these very early heresies were dealt with by the Apostles or early Church fathers through direct teaching or written correspondence. Williams writes, “We must not underestimate the importance which the preservation and transmission of the apostolic memory had for the churches of the post-apostolic period and into the third century. The impartation of Christian teaching to inquirers and learners was a constant in the life of these churches. Allusions to this process of instruction in ethical and theological exhortations demonstrate that catechesis ‘served as a control with considerable effect on the understanding of the Christian faith.’”[7] However, these early heresies were just the beginning of numerous teachings that would be deemed heretical and that could not be resolved by ethical or theological exhortations. By the middle of the fifth century, the Church would encounter some very complex and divisive teachings on the person of Jesus.

Because of early Christianity’s explosive growth and the fact that it was so dispersed geographically, it was of paramount importance that a coherent organizational structure be instituted to properly manage and edify the Church. This was Paul’s objective in appointing elders or presbyters (also known as Bishops or pastors respectively), in churches he planted during his missionary journeys. After Paul, Ignatius of Antioch further elevated the office of the Bishop. Under the direction of the Bishop would be presbyters and deacons. Although it took some time, this clerical structure was adopted everywhere. This leadership development would formally be known as the development of the episcopacy. The early Church mirrored the administrative structure of the Roman Empire. The provincial town of the Empire became the “Episcopal” town of the Church which would be the Bishop’s “Diocese.” Within the Diocese would be numerous churches (parishes) served by priests. All this is to say that it was through the office of the Bishop that the church would find its unifying force to stand against the heresies of the day and those to come.

The most controversial dispute, the dispute that would finally tip the scales and force the Church to develop and articulate the boundaries of orthodox Christianity, was centered in the provincial town of Alexandria in Egypt. Arius, an Egyptian, was pastor in one of the churches in Alexandria. A dispute arose between him and his Bishop, Alexander, over the deity of Jesus. Arius’ Christology deemed that Christ was a “created” being and not eternal. Arius taught that Christ was not fully God, and not fully human but instead something in-between. Arius was a gifted communicator and recruited some very influential Bishops to help further his cause, which would be titled Arianism. Arianism expanded throughout the Empire and served to incite riots in the streets between his followers and those who opposed him. Civil unrest was not tolerated by the Roman Government. Emperors went to extremes to ensure the “pax Romana”—the Roman peace.

The Empire was at this point under the imperial rule of Emperor Constantine who claimed to be a Christian. As a result of the riots, Constantine ordered the first church council (Ecumenical Council) to convene at his summer residence in Nicea. In 325 A.D. more than 250 Bishops arrived at Nicea to address the Arian controversy among other matters. Both sides presented their respective case before the council. The Arian position was represented by Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius. The opposing position, later called Nicene, was represented by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his protégé Athanasius, a pastor in Alexandria. The council subtly condemned Arianism through the development of a formalized document setting forth the official position of the Church. This would henceforth be known as the Nicene Creed as previously notated. While some of the fringe elements of the creed have changed slightly, it is still being used today. Thereafter, the Ecumenical Council would be the formal mechanism by which the Church would address such matters and continuously define what would be considered orthodox for the catholic Church. The work done at the Council of Nicea further laid the foundation for the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity which would become the Church’s official position at a future Ecumenical Council.

No sooner had the Council of Nicea settled the matter on the divinity of Christ when his humanity came into question. A pastor from Laodicea named Appolinarius developed an idea that at the Incarnation, God displaced the humanity in Jesus. In essence, God was captive in a shell of the human body of Jesus. Jesus’ body became the “host” for God. Opposition quickly arose and the second Ecumenical Council was convened at Constantinople in 381 A.D. where Apollinarianism was quickly dismissed as heretical. The outcome of this council would be the development of the Doctrine of the Incarnation and the Church’s official adoption of the Doctrine of the Trinity introduced at the Council of Nicea.

At this point, technically, the matter of Jesus’ full divinity and his full humanity was settled. Practically, however, the rulings of Nicea and Constantinople did not address how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. That issue is what led to the next series of conflicts. Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, while holding to the view of the full deity of Christ, regarded the union of God and man in Jesus as a merging of wills as opposed to a union of the person of God and the person of man. Nestorius could not accept that God could be “born” of a woman. Nestorius’ argument inevitably led to defining Jesus as two “beings” in one body. Nestorius drew the ire of Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, for his teachings and also for undermining Cyril’s authority by sympathizing with certain clergy that Cyril had disciplined. Consequently, at the next Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 A.D., convened by then Emperor Theodosius II, Nestorius was deposed. Unfortunately, the issue of the union of God and man in one Jesus was not adequately resolved and would resurrect again in a different kind of heresy.

Eutyches, the leader of a monastery, defended the “one nature in Christ” teaching which would be known as Monophysitism. Eutyches combined the two natures so completely that Christ’s humanity was “lost” in his deity. When Eutyches refused to recant his views before Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople, he was deposed and condemned as a heretic. However, Eutyches found support in his views from Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria. Dioscorus asked Emperor Theodosius II to convene another Ecumenical Council to review the matter. In 449 A.D. another council was convened at Ephesus. Eutyches was summarily reinstated without the support of the rest of the church. Pope Leo I labeled it the “Robber Council”. Pope Leo I called for a new council and the successor to Theodosius, Emperor Marcian convened the fourth official Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451 A.D. Dioscorus was indicted for his actions at the “Robber Council” and the council established a supplement to the Nicene Creed known as the Chalcedonian Creed.[8] This creed clearly communicated the Church’s position that Christ had two natures in one person. This would come to be known as the “Hypostatic Union.” Although the Church would struggle with many issues in the coming centuries, by the end of the fifth century it was firmly rooted in its Christology.  Theologically, the Church had formally and officially established the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy that has guided and directed the Church to this day.

Finally, carrying with it the bulwark of this long heritage of Christian orthodoxy, how should the Church relate to other organizations claiming to be “Christian?” First and foremost, a clear distinction must be made between organizations that do not share the same Christian “traditions” and those whose teachings are clearly inconsistent with the boundaries established by orthodoxy. For example, Roman Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox Church have differing church traditions but all would freely confess the truths outlined by the previously notated creeds. However, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists, even though they have confiscated the language of Christianity, would not confess those same truths. As such, they are not part of the “Christian” Church regardless of how much they adorn themselves with the language of Christianity. From a practical standpoint, engaging with organizations that are distinctly Christian yet differ in tradition is analogous to dealing with family members that have differing lifestyles, ideas and opinions. As Williams writes for example, “Being Protestant is not synonymous with being anti-Catholic in the sense of rejecting the faith as developed prior to the Reformation. For that matter, being Protestant is not the antithesis of being Roman Catholic, though certainly it is in distinction to Roman Catholicism.”[9] Interaction with Christians from other traditions should be mark by love and tolerance. Engaging with Christians from other traditions is not a matter of accepting what they believe about all things as correct but instead accepting the fact that they believe in and are saved by the same Christ that has been Lord of the Church universal throughout its history—it is a continuity of the faith shared by all believers.

With respect to non-Christian organization claiming to be Christian, the Church need not be afraid to engage with these organizations or individuals socially or in the context of Christian ministry in the same way that the Church would engage with any other non-Christian provided it does not compromise its message of the Good News as understood in the context of the orthodox guidelines confessed by the Church throughout its history. Refusing to engage in a cooperative effort to serve those in need, if such an opportunity should present itself, only serves to deprive those who need help. It does nothing to defend the honor or distinctiveness of the Christian faith. Those in need are primarily interested in having their needs met not whether those who are serving them have reached a consensus on the definition of the “Hypostatic Union.” As the French poet, Jean de la Fontaine, once said, “A hungry stomach has no ears.” It is by serving those in need, either independently or as a cooperative effort, that the Church builds upon an existing firm foundation that can never be shaken. Ultimately, most of the major non-Christian organizations that masquerade as Christian were all invented during the 19^th century by some self-proclaimed prophet/charlatan that preyed on people’s theological ignorance. The true Christian Church, however, towers over these other organizations like Mt. Everest over an anthill with its rich heritage that reaches back to Christ himself and has established the boundaries of orthodoxy that have defined Christianity for the Church throughout its history and will serve to defend Christianity until Christ returns.

Guarding Christian Orthodoxy

            Looking back over the last few centuries of the Church generally and the American Church more specifically, a very disturbing trend has emerged. Specifically, it has become acceptable for ministry professionals to forego formal seminary training. The popular argument is that seminary is unnecessary if God has called someone to vocational ministry insisting that if God calls someone to ministry, He will also equip that person for that ministry. While I think there is some historical biblical precedent for this position, I believe that generally speaking, God does not operate this way. For those of you who think I am a proponent of a seminary education because I have a seminary degree, I can assure you that even some seminary students don't think a seminary education is necessary for someone called to vocational ministry! I experienced this personally when, during a particular class on leadership, I voiced my belief that everyone who has been called to vocational ministry should be seminary trained. There were no fewer than 6 fellow students who reacted as though I insulted their mother in some way! I wasn't necessarily surprised by this attitude in light of another experience I had early on during my time at seminary. One of my professors, and now a good friend, asked the class an interesting question. He asked for a show of hands of those who were attending seminary because they believed it would advance their careers both positionally and financially. Now, one of the things Laura and I talked about before I started seminary was the impact vocational ministry would have on our family. We recognized that ministry, most of the time, meant giving up the pursuit of position and financial gain. We accepted the fact that we would probably be going backwards in that respect. So you can imagine how shocked I was when at least 80% of the class raised their hand to the professor’s question! This attitude that seminary is unnecessary or simply a means for personal gain are part of the problem with the Church. The problem is compounded when those in the pews don't really care if the one leading them is seminary educated either. To me, this is unconscionable! Think about this for a minute--if you are sick or hurt and need medical attention, how many of you simply assume that your attending physician is a trained medical professional? No one would accept an explanation from a doctor that since they have been called by God to be a doctor that they therefore don't need formal medical training. That notion is completely ludicrous. Yet we blithely accept that explanation from a ministry leader! Why? Well if we were really honest, it's because our physical well-being is very important because our pain or sickness is tangible while our spiritual well-being is rather abstract. Yet we know that our bodies will eventually die while our souls are eternal! So, at a minimum, we should care for our souls at least as much as we care for our bodies if not more. Therefore, we should require those who care for our souls to be at least as qualified as those who care for our bodies. This is true for all those who pursue vocational ministry—from senior pastors to children pastors. It is amazing how many children and youth pastors have no seminary education. Using the same medical illustration, we would never leave one of our children in the care of a pediatrician that is not highly educated yet we don't think twice about leaving our kids with a children or youth pastor that has little or no seminary training!

There is another negative consequence when we don't insist that our ministry professionals be seminary educated, it leaves those watching us with the impression that we're not really serious about our faith. And if we don't take it seriously, why should anyone else. Furthermore, failure to insist on seminary trained ministry professionals increases the likelihood of having heretical teachings creep into our churches. I previously mentioned three cults that are prolific in our culture today: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness and Christian Scientist. In each of these three cases the founders of these movements were untrained people who deceived others with their heretical teachings. While it's not a fool-proof solution, would these same cults be as prominent today if it was generally accepted that only ministry leaders with a formal seminary education are qualified to be ministry leaders? Unfortunately, we can't change what has already happened. However, that doesn't mean that we should keep making the same mistake in the future. Therefore, I want to challenge you to insist that all your ministry professionals be seminary trained. Insist that any new hires have a seminary degree and pay for your current ministry professionals to go get their seminary degree. Also, graduating from a bible college, while beneficial, is not the same as being seminary trained. For example, my youngest daughter is pursuing a calling as a physician’s assistant. When she finishes her undergraduate work in applied health along with 2,000 clinical hours, she will already have many of the basic tools she will need as a physician’s assistant. However, until she completes the very specific education of a graduate degree specializing in the area of physician’s assistant, she can’t practice her calling.

Do not accept the argument that seminary is very expensive and ministry professionals don’t make much money. Sorry—that’s not a good excuse! I’ll go back to my medical illustration. How many people would accept that excuse from someone wanting to be a doctor? How much money one makes in a given field is irrelevant as to whether they should be properly educated to faithfully carry out their calling. I think you'll find very quickly who is serious about the responsibility to fulfill their “calling” to vocational ministry if you insist that they be seminary trained. This is a serious matter—let's treat it with the proper level of gravity. Remember, if we don’t take the matters of our faith seriously, why should anyone else!

---

[1] Thomas C. Oden, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy, (HarperCollins, New York, NY, 2003), p. 29

[2] Donald G. Bloesch, A Theology of Word and Spirit, (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1992), p. 139

[3] Ibid., p. 141

[4] Ibid., p. 142

[5] D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism, (Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1999), pp. 27-28

[6][6][6] Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plan Language, (Word Publishing, Dallas, TX, 1982), p. 50

[7] Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, p. 77

[8] Chalcedonian Creed: We then following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God of Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

[9] Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, p. 174