Click here to visit blog

I just had to post this quote from Jaroslav Pelikan’s article “The Will to Beleive and the Need for Creed.” It can (and should) be read in its entirety here.

Shema

But when personal religious faith has exhausted its allotted supply of “the courage to be,” when the only Psalm it can remember is not the one that begins “The Lord is my shepherd” (Ps 23.1) but the one immediately preceding it, which begins “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” (Ps 22.1), then, precisely then, we are not thrown on our own individual and feeble resources of believing or speculating or explaining (or even “experiencing”), such as that may be. Rather, though perhaps in a sense that he may not have intended, it is then that the admission of William James comes through and rings true: “Our faith is faith in some one else’s faith, and in the greatest matters this is most the case.” For then it is time to confess: However much or however little I may be able to believe on my own, existentially, as of this precise moment, I affirm myself to stand, trembling, in the continuity and heritage of that community which has been confessing without interruption for entire millennia, “Shema Yisroel, Adonoi Elohenu, Adonoi Echod; Credo in unum Deum.”

“Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.“

This has been a central tenant of Christianity from the beginning, which was carefully explicated at Chalcedon in order that people have a better understanding of the God who is, both for proper relationship and worship and to refute heresy. Needless to say this is an essential belief of the Church. Therefore it must be taught, believed, defended and held to the highest levels of regard in Christian institutions.

N.B. Unless otherwise noted, when I refer to the creed, I mean the conciliar work from 325 to 451.

Now here is the danger we face when we elevate our preferences for worship style or some minor point of theology over these, the essentials that make us actually Christian, as opposed to something else. First, it unnecessarily divides, and second, it minimized the standard for orthodoxy, which is like opening a window to the swarm of heretics just waiting outside, no, more like opening the front door and inviting them into your Church, or school or other ministry.

Here is a prime example. Some of our free Church evangelical tradition here in America, have placed an undue focus on things like “Premillennial eschatology.” and a “Premil-Rapture.” In the history of the church these are distinctives, not essentials. Yes, it is essential that Christ will return in the flesh, that there will be a resurrection of the dead and a judgement and eternal reign. But the timing of these events have been debated and disputed and are in fact NOT essential. (Be clear, I’m saying the TIMING is not essential.)

So when you see a church interviewing a pastor, or a school a teacher, and they spend an inordinate amount of time and effort making sure the person really feels good about their preferred order of end time events, but then they mention that they don’t care much for the definition of Chalcedon, and this gets a pass, then my friend, we have a problem. What the church just did was to elevate a preference, a distinctive, OVER Christological orthodoxy. The nature of Jesus Christ. Problem? Yes.

We all have our understandings of areas that are important and often debated, and that is great. If your school only wants to hire amil teachers, cudos…do that. But, do not , repete, DO NOT place your institutions preferences over the essentials of the faith of the Church. You do not have the right to do that. Your church is only a small part of the Church. The Creed helps us to do the main thing which is keeping the main thing the main thing. Yea, let’s do that.

In several ways our contemporary evangelical Christian culture has infected our hearts and minds with the traditions of men. Yes, (shock) this is true even in “Bible” churches. When we focus on our exegesis to the point that it leads to private interpretation, we have set aside the tradition of God for the tradition of men. When we “buy” into the “prosperity ecclesiology” which over-emphasizes church growth and programs, likewise, when we accept and adopt a pastoral theology based more on business models than on soul care, we set aside the tradition of God for the traditions of men. This should not be. We need to listen to the tradition of the apostles and the prophets, to valid sources of tradition to ground our understanding of scripture and ground our practice on Gods precepts.

In the opening verses of Mark 7 we see that Israel had Accepted False Tradition from False Authority (7:1-7:4). Now these Scribes and Pharisees were false authorities in that they did not have the appointment by God as Prophet, that is to deliver God’s requirements to his people, nor the appointment by God as Priest, to lead the people before God in worship. Yet the understanding of these ‘interpreters of the Law” was passed on as if it was holy writ, slowly adding to and eventually setting aside the traditions of God for the traditions of men.

You see, they took the levitical requirements for the priests to perform certain ceremonial cleansing before eating food that was offered to God, or before entering his holy sanctuary, and they applied this to all the people. Now this was for a good reason as the initial thinking was that all Israel should be holy before God. This is a good intention. The problem is that when the practice itself becomes the mark of sanctification, above even the condition of the heart, then this false tradition (from false authority) challenges Gods precepts (7:5).

We see the development over time of the unhealthy focus on outward performance of religion, so that these “interpreters of the Law” actually use this ceremonial practice to challenge Jesus about his disciples sanctification in verse 5.
What is the response of Jesus? First he rebukes them by referring to Isaiah the PROPHET (God’s established authority for communicating his precepts.) Jesus shows them how false tradition (from false authority) infects the heart (7:6-7:13)

We my friends are the modern day “interpreters of the Law”. We, like the Scribes and Pharisees, have been given God’s precepts through traditions from his established authorities. Much of what the disciples and Apostles learned about Jesus in the 30s was taught faithfully, orally, and in creedal confessions which became inscripturated in the 60’s and 70’s in the text we are now reading. Unfortunately, many times, we also accept false traditions, or even make up our own which are carelessly separated from God’s precepts. Well, we do not keep to ceremonial cleansing practices like the Scribes and Pharisees, but what does this look like for us?

How about the false authority of “Bible Based?” That woke you up didn’t it? What does “Bible Based” even mean? Is it like that movie I saw the other night that was “based on a true story”, or like the drink my son was drinking while watching it that was “based on a fruit”, while it contained no actual fruit it had the flavor of fruit. That is what we accept many times when we accept some teaching or tradition that professes to be “based on the bible”, what we get is bible flavored, without the nutritional content. You see, unless scripture is correctly interpreted and applied, “bible based” has no meaning. David Koresh knew the bible. EVERYTHING he taught was “bible based.” The heretics know the bible.

That is why the early church did not just use the bible (the texts they had) to refute heresy, but the key was that they could say, here is the the understanding of this scripture that the church received from the Apostles (God’s appointed authority for establishing traditions which communicate his precepts.)

One of our struggles which is very contemporary, is the false authority of “headless spirituality.” The rule in much of our culture is still a post enlightenment anti-intellectualism which places spiritual experience at a premium and denigrates “head knowledge.” Understand that this is a false dichotomy. If you start from the preposition that Jesus rose from the dead, then your careful study scripture, and doctrine (in community with the church) guess what, it helps you come to know the God who IS. How many of you read The Shack? Wow, finally a book about the trinity right? People LOVED this book. They devoured it, talked about how it helped them, even changed their life. Now don’t try to tell these people that the God they are reading about in this work of fiction is not the God of the bible. Their sister had lost a child and this book really helped her and now you want to say something bad about it? “Headless Spirituality” This book is not a representation of the God who IS. Paul instructs Timothy to watch both his walk and his doctrine carefully. 2 Peter 2 says false teachers are counted among the worst transgressors and the destruction of their judgment will be awesome. God cares about what we think about him. It matters.
What we believe and confess matters, so does what we practice.

Like the False Authorities in this story we are susceptible to The false authority of “Contemporary Tradition.” The Scribes and Pharisees were practicing traditions which has become separated from the True Tradition received from the Prophets. When we today practice traditions which have become separate from apostolic teaching, we are setting aside the traditions of God for the traditions of men. When the Apostles teach the church leaders they picked and trained, that the central aspect of worship in the church is communion, and this understanding is unbroken for over 14 centuries, until a french theologian named Zwingly comes along and separates from the apostolic tradition, and announces that the Lords table is just a symbol that is not necessary for worship and we buy it? Luther looked at the apostolic tradition, Calvin looked at the Apostolic and we choose to go with Zwingly? Really? We have set aside the traditions of God for the traditions of men.

Jesus responds to the interpreters of the Law by rebuking them by the Prophet Isaiah, and then he commends the True Tradition of the Prophet Moses (7:10) Jesus gives two examples to address the challenge of sanctification. First, faith and practice should be established according to God’s precepts. The interpreters of the law should have corrected the understanding of Corban, (a Jewish practice of dedicating resources for God) to align with the requirement to honor their father and mother. The tradition is kept pure by grounding practice of Gods precepts as given by his appointed authority. The second illustration about food shows that sanctification is first and primarily about having a “broken and contrite heart.” This takes work of the Holy Spirit as we know that the heart of man is deceitfully evil, wicked above all things. God looks at the heart, this is the precept of God without which any practice is just empty ritual.

This is why the spiritual disciplines are so important, as is the church. Spiritual Formation is IMPOSSIBLE on your own.
Also, our exegesis of scripture and understanding of practice is not subject to our private interpretation, or the philosophical meanderings of post enlightenment, or post modernity. Do you own research to what the Church of God, whom the Holy Spirit is keeping and perfecting has always believed and practiced. We need to break away from our western, American individualism and remember that the Holy Spirit in Community is the place of discipleship and discipline which conforms his Church to the image of Christ, the bride ready for the bridegroom. We need to get back the idea of being accountable to our church elders. Consider for your own faith practice and that of any church you may be a part of the Nicene Creed. The basis for this confession came from the apostles, to the men they taught, was passed on, and has served the Church for centuries to resist heresies and cults and to remember and teach what the Church has always confessed about the God who IS.

“For the “will to believe” it so relentless — or, if I may put it this way, so insidious — that when it is denied or frustrated and when religious toleration, instead of being “justified by faith” (Rom 3.28), is justified by non-faith, belief will (in Dostoevsky’s phrase) go around the locked doors and sneak in through a window, substituting Wotan for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and replacing the Shema, andNicene Creed with the creed of Blut und Erde.”  - Jaroslav Pelikan

Why do we need to confess what the church has always confessed about the nature of God and his redemption? Because we are “prone to wander” but unlike the popular song, we do not often feel it when we do.  This is around the  point where some of my less “confessional” friends will tell me that we do  not need a creed, because we have the bible. The problem with this, I think, is that while we are believer/priests, we are not apostles. By the way, exactly NONE of the “apostolic fathers” considered themselves to be apostles. Every crack-pot heretic and most inventors of religion, read the bible, use the bible, and refer to the bible for their understanding. Some of them also claim to be apostles :> The key word there is understanding. The early church (second century) used whatever scripture they had (many old testament documents and perhaps some new testament writings that were beginning to circulate.) yet the primary thrust of the argument is what do the biblical writers MEAN. The early church was very interested in carefully handling and passing on the understanding of scripture received from apostolic teaching on the meaning of the text.

Sometimes we get confused on the challenge. The real challenge, as Dr. Pelikan notes, is not the will to believe, but the content of that belief.  We so easily are influenced by our culture and do not even see the vacume, nor feel the air of truth replaced with a lighter, more toxic gas. He points out that in the vacuum we cause when we fail to think and teach truth is always filled with something.  Often times this vacuum, though invisible, makes a sucking sound as the air escapes, often preceded by something along the lines of  ”doctrine divides, can’t we just love Jesus” or, “I’m really more spiritual than religious”, or “All that head knowledge puffs up, we need more heart focus.” Yea, the heart, undirected by the knowledge of God always drifts into the stream of heterodoxy, and sometimes heresy.

Sometimes this drift might be harder to see in our carefully written doctrinal statements, but the drift is easier to see in our practice. When we fail to communicate the truth about sin, and leave out the uncomfortable aspect of Gods absolute justice, because it might hurt a seeker’s sensitivities, well we have just drifted from the stream of what has always been taught about salvation. The result is people like popular author William P. Young who don’t believe in substitutionary atonement. Did his readers feel the drift, um, no.

When we have the teaching of the apostles, given to the men they picked to run the churches, that the central element of worship is communion, without which worship does not exist. And we take the Lord’s table and move it to an annex, because the sanctuary has new stadium seating so that we can have a better show, we have drifted. But then the vacuum is filled and we just say that music is what constitutes worship. Try this out, go to some evangelical church websites and click on the link entitled worship. Do you see the communion there? But with all the cool new lights and HD screens and high def sound systems, I think we did not feel the drift.

God has designed the community of the Church to work together throughout time to keep the main thing the main thing. This is what the creed does for our beliefs.  Our practice flows out from these beliefs.

We need the accountability of historical orthodoxy.  Say it out loud! We believe in one God the father, the almighty, maker of heaven and earth….

This brings us to the tension in Edward’s famous sermon. It seems to me that the tension between Justice and Grace is a crucial one that we are failing to provide in our Churches today. Test yourself, read this sermon and see if you are offended by it. I was. But then I paused for a minute and gave my elders their due, and read it again, looking for a biblical reason for offence. There was none. My offence was purely cultural. I was offended by someone being so insensitive as to tell people that without Christ, they are under a sentence of condemnation to hell, and that God’s justice, in fact, “calls aloud for an infinite punishment of their sins.” Why, that is not what our sensitive-seekers want to hear. They want to hear about their friend Jesus who loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life. The problem with no offending them is this. Without a proper understanding of the Justice of God, which responds to Sin with wrath, the sinner is left wondering what is so great about the Grace of God, if in fact, they are better people that some of the really bad sinners they know about. The thing that Jonathan Edwards did, was to paint a vivid picture of the unsaved, suspended over the pit of hell, with no requirement of God that keeps them from dropping to eternal punishment at any second. Insensitive and brutally honest and completely true. Said suspended person is truly in need of a savior. We dishonor Christ when we leave people not understanding S-A-V-I-O-R because they do not apperceive needing to be saved from anything. If you love the lost, then talk about sin. Talk about the wrath of a Holy God. Offend People. Unconform from our culture. Then share the message of Grace that is only ever properly understood in its context.

by Michael J. Svigel

One day my wife sent me to the store to buy peanut butter—specifically, natural peanut butter. In other words, no fake stuff. This seemed simple enough . . . until I arrived in the peanut butter wing of the grocery store. The options overwhelmed me—creamy, chunky, extra chucky, honey-flavored, jelly-filled, low fat, organic, and countless sizes, shapes, brands, and prices! George Washington Carver himself would have shaken his head in despair. I’m sure that managing that isle alone must be a full time job.

So there I stood, paralyzed with indecision, wanting nothing more than to just grab the cheapest jar of peanut butter and dash for the checkout. Instead, showing due diligence, I searched for “natural peanut butter” amidst the flashy brand names that virtually called out from the shelf like brochure-pushers on the Vegas Strip: “Pick me! Pick me! Don’t you remember all those commercials you saw as a kid? All those smiling faces? Those cool special effects showing golden roasted peanuts magically spread into smooth, creamy Jif [or Peter Pan . . . or Skippy]?”

Lured by the flashy labels, my eyes landed on “Skippy” paired with the keyword “Natural”! How convenient!

I snatched it off the shelf.

I felt rather victorious until I got home and took a closer look at the back label. I then discovered that “natural” peanut butter isn’t always a literal designation. Skippy’s “natural” peanut butter does include roasted peanuts, of course. But it also contains sugar, palm oil, and salt. That’s natural? Really? All those things naturally grow on a peanut plant? I guess from one perspective these ingredients are natural as opposed to, say, “supernatural.” And I couldn’t find any unpronouncable names like monosodiumtriglyceraticidipropylol! Furthermore, to be fair to Skippy, if we were to compare Skippy “Natural” to, say, that peanut butter-ish substance in a Reese’s Peanut Butter cup or a Butterfinger candy bar, Skippy looks like pure gold.

But is junk food peanut butter really the standard? When I contrast Skippy “Natural” with something like Krema Natural, I’m a little less forgiving. The ingredients list for Krema simply says, “Peanuts.” No salt, no oil, no emulsifier, no sweetener, no chemicals added to preserve freshness or enhance flavor. Just plain peanuts. Call me naïve, but to me that’s natural whether we like it or not. Shouldn’t peanut butter made of puréed peanuts serve as the standard for what constitutes “natural” peanut butter?

As I obsessed over the out-of-control peanut butter situation for the next several weeks, something struck me. This failure of most peanut butters to actually live up to the “natural” standard reminds me of the out-of-control state of too much Evangelical Christianity. If I were to liken authentic, classic Christian orthodox beliefs and practices to the truly “natural” form of undiluted, unmixed, real peanut butter, then the multiple forms of Christianity that diverge farther and farther from this standard become, well, less and less “natural.”

As Evangelicals, many of us have over the decades become increasingly accustomed to a particular form of Christianity, which, while it is still essentially Christian, has been so “enriched” by non-Christian ingredients meant to “enhance” the faith—or to make the faith more convenient or palatable or marketable—that the essential Christianity has become difficult to discern. And those who have become accustomed to this diluted form of Christianity have all but forgotten what the pure faith actually tastes like. In fact, many who are then exposed to a less adulterated faith—a form without all the unnecessary additives—find themselves disgusted by the original pure flavor, spitting it out and rejecting it as something foreign and inferior. Or at least unpleasant to the palate.

The great irony is that this purer form of Christianity is the authentic faith once for all delivered to the saints! The Gospel purely preached, the sacraments rightly administered, discipline properly maintained—nothing really fancy about these things. In fact, they are so simple to identify and maintain that churches focusing on these fundamentals and freeing themselves from the frills appear to most big-production glitz and galmmor Evangelicals like washed-out has-beens or incompetent wannabes.

To return to my peanut butter analogy, all those peanut butter products do contain peanuts, and so they can genuinely be called “peanut butter.” Similarly, to varying degrees the marks of authentic Christianity are found in most of the products that fill the shelves of the Evangelical church market. And to the degree that they retain those essential marks they are, in fact, Christian. Yet many forms of Evangelical Christianity have been so coated with sweetness . . . so mixed with artificial ingredients . . . or so drenched in candy coating that they are in danger of becoming cheap imitations that serve merely to distract from—not point to—the essential ingredients of the Christian faith. And just like additive-rich peanut butters that appeal to flavor rather than nutrition, far too many Evangelicals shop for me-centered feel-good church experiences rather than Christ-centered worship, discipleship, and authentic community. In fact, like sour faced kids who reject all-natural peanut butter, many Evangelicals turn their noses up at authentic Christianity and would rather keep playing at church than adjust their tastes to the real thing.

This post is from Michael Svigel’s blog: SvigeLand

This conference will be well suited for pastors and theologians and will feature “topics including the significance of the Nicene faith for pastoral work, evangelical worship, the emerging churches, biblical exegesis and vital expressions of orthodox Christian faith around the globe.”

Cost is $95 and includes program fee and two meals (Monday dinner and Tuesday lunch). Find out more here.

Well, I have invented a time machine. Working with my astute son, we have constructed out of star wars lego pieces, aluminum foil and duct tape a functioning time machine. Now, my first thought was to use this to get rich, or at least pay off student loans. But, I decided it would be more fun to use this new power to answer a question that is really caused alot of ruckus in the modern study of Christianity. Inquiring minds want to know. Does our Christian faith derive from an apostolic tradition which goes back to the life and teaching of Christ?” If so, is this tradition a “rule of faith” and is it a consistent measure of orthodoxy? Has this tradition changed substantially over time, or is our confession fundamentally that of the apostles? Much of modern scholarship (without access to a time machine) denies any central orthodoxy to the Christian faith and they say that what we now believe only came about in the third and fourth centuries through much conflict and infighting. What people believed about Jesus was very diverse and what we now think of as “orthodox” was an option among many, and not even the first option available. Well, lets fire up our new invention and take a little trip back in time. Hold on, because we are going to cover a great deal of church history pretty quickly and see if we find mostly consensus on the central belief of the Christian faith, or if we struggle to do so.

Lets begin our journey by setting the time dial all the way back to 33 C.E., the time of the death of Christ. I’m thinking that If he had actually taught some important information about who he was, then his followers would have likely made this important information into brief memorable statements in order to remember and share them.

(Remember, this culture is very oral/aural. They did not have an attention span programmed by the distance of time between TV commercials. In fact, much learning was done by memorizing entire books. This culture was not like ours, they were very good with the faculty of memory.)

Now it is likely these important teachings of Christ were shared and became traditional ways of remembering the essentials of what was believed. It is also likely that the apostles worked to preserve and further spread this traditional list of things believed about Jesus. Since they held a special place as students of Jesus, they would be looked at as the primary source for the tradition, so many would think of the “Apostolic Tradition.” It seems like the “late to the party apostle” Paul believed in this tradition.

1Cor. 15:3 “I passed on to you what I received, which is of the greatest importance: that Christ died for our sins, as written in the Scriptures; 4 that he was buried and that he was raised to life three days later, as written in the Scriptures; 5 that he appeared to Peter and then to all twelve apostles. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred of his followers at once, most of whom are still alive, although some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, and afterward to all the apostles.”

Remember those key elements from what Paul received from the tradition that the Apostles were teaching. Now we had to skip our machine ahead a bit to the early 50s to actually see this letter, only a few years after Jesus death. But remember, Paul states that this was what he received, so the teaching here goes back before the time of writing.

Ok, jump back in the machine and be careful not to knock lego pieces off with your foot! We are going to jump ahead about 40 or 50 years to see one of the earliest writing apostolic fathers. Did he believe in the Apostolic Tradition?

1Clem. 7:2 “Therefore let us abandon empty and futile thoughts, and let us conform to the glorious and holy rule of our tradition”

1Clem. 42:1 “The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ was sent forth from God. 2 So then Christ is from God, and theApostles are from Christ. Both, therefore, came of the will of God in good order.”

Yes, it appears that he did believe in this tradition, but what is the content of these oral statements of belief that made their way into the texts that become the New Testament? Well, we are going to jump back and bounce around a little to look at some of these. Remember that many of these statements were being passed around, and that the writer is putting this tradition, this teaching of the apostle into written form to better preserve it. That means that the actual date of these sayings is earlier that the text we find them recorded in. Keep an eye out for the content of these sayings so that we can compare them to later formulations in the fourth century, when the discussion really heats up.

So we skip along to 52-55 and find the letter to the church at Corinth. BTW, for those who want to get persnickety about these dates, for petes sake my needle is a cat hair held down by chewed bubble gum, it might be a little off, give or take!

1Cor. 8:6 “yet there is for us only one God, the Father, who is the Creator of all things and for whom we live; and there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created and through whom we live.”

1Cor. 12:3 “I want you to know that no one who is led by God’s Spirit can say “A curse on Jesus!” and no one can confess “Jesus is Lord,” without being guided by the Holy Spirit.”

A few years later, another letter to this church

2Cor. 13:13 “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”

We get into the mid to late 50s and find the theological magnum opus:

Rom. 1:3 “It is about his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: as to his humanity, he was born a descendant of David; 4 as to his divine holiness, he was shown with great power to be the Son of God by being raised from death.”

Rom. 10:9 “If you confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from death, you will be saved.”

In the early to mid 60s we here some ancient statements of belief.

Phil. 2:6 “He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God. 7 Instead of this, of his own free will he gave up all he had, and took the nature of a servant. He became like a human being and appeared in human likeness. 8 He was humble and walked the path of obedience all the way to death— his death on the cross. 9 For this reason God raised him to the highest place above and gave him the name that is greater than any other name. 10And so, in honor of the name of Jesus all beings in heaven, on earth, and in the world below will fall on their knees, 11 and all will openly proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

1Tim. 3:16 “No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: He appeared in human form, was shown to be right by the Spirit, and was seen by angels. He was preached among the nations, was believed in throughout the world, and was taken up to heaven.”

Acts 2:36 “All the people of Israel, then, are to know for sure that this Jesus, whom you crucified, is the one that God has made Lord and Messiah!”

Let’s travel to the mid 60s and find the hot off the press Gospel of Mark.

Mark 8:29 “What about you?” he asked them. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”

And, just before 70…

Matt. 28:19 “Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”

OK, now here the ride might get bumpy, we are going to jump ahead to after all the apostles had died, and the men they picked to lead the churches were teaching. Do they know of and adhere to a “Apostolic tradition” concerning Jesus?

Here is a letter written close to 110 by Ignatius. He was a student of the Apostle John and became bishop of Antioch. He died a martyr shortly after writing this letter.

Tral. 9:1 “Be deaf, therefore, whenever anyone speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David, who was the son of Mary; who really was born, who both ate and drank; who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate, who really was crucified and died while those in heaven and on earth and under the earth looked on; 2 who, moreover, really was raised from the dead when his Father raised him up, who—his Father, that is—in the same way will likewise also raise us up in Christ Jesus who believe in him, apart from whom we have no true life.”

How about Irenaeus who wrote around 190. He was bishop of Lyons, and a student of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John.

Against Heresies 1.10.1. “The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.”

Around 150 we find a compilation of creedal confessions and instruction called the Epistula Apostolorum.

“What mean these five loaves? They are the symbol of our faith in the Lord of the Christians (in the great christendom), even in the Father, the Lord Almighty, and in Jesus Christ our redeemer, in the Holy Spirit the paraclete, in the holy church, and in the remission of sins.”

Just a few years later we get to a priest named Tertullian, who writes around 200

Against Praxeas: “We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her-being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas.”

Whew, now we finally get to the. 4th Cent Conciliar creeds and definitions. Much ink has been spilt denying orthodoxy because of the politics and dissention which occured during this time. While much more conflict than we know of is sure to have occured, let us examine the resulting statement of beleif that resulted from the Council of Nicea in 325 and the Constantoplian meetings of 381.

We believe in one God, the Father,

the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,

of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, light from light, true God from true God,

begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father;

through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,

was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father,

who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Now, we do see some interesting things here, there has been much development of thinking from the 50’s and 60’s in relation to Christ. Challenges arose which needed a more nuanced, detailed description of how exactly there is one God and yet Christ the son is also God and man. The church believed this but had never worked through how it all fit together and it’s implications. Some people made mistakes in trying to work this out, for sure. The questions is though, is what this creed says congruent with what has been said before, or is it contradictory?

Yes, there were many debates and challenges to the Apostolic tradition which had been handed down. Lets see if the continued debates caused the Orthodox understanding to chance in a contradictory manner by looing at the definition of Chalcedeon which was written in 451.

“Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.”

Wow, it seems to accord with what has been taught since the first century and it even acknowledges the vehicle of the apostolic tradition in the “creed of the fathers.”

Now I’m pretty tired from our travels, however before we leave I think there is a final question?

But..But , what about all the CONFLICT!  I have read recent authors that say that orthodoxy is just another form of violence! Ok, good question, fair enough. It is good Christian doctrine to posit that these councils were made up of a bunch of sinners who made mistakes and did bad things sometimes. It also seems likely that the process left purely up to man would fail miserably.

But did that happen? You have the text above from the time of Christ, covering over two centuries until the great councils and you can see what they came up with. Is the product from this messy human endeavor orthodox according to the earlier formulation of Christian statements of belief? Could so many modern scholars be wrong?

Here is a great idea, lets pop over to the falafel stand on the corner and ask someone who WAS ACTUALLY THERE. His name is Theodoret and he was a bishop in Syria. He was actually friends with Nestorius and so was intimately involved both in the christological discussions and in the hotly debated controversy. Here is what he says about the apostolic teaching regarding Christ:

“This is the doctrine delivered to us by the divine prophets; this is the doctrine of the company of the holy apostles; this is the doctrine of the great saints of the East and of the West; of the far-famed Ignatius, who received his archpriesthood by the right hand of the great Peter, and for the sake of his confession of Christ was devoured by savage beasts; and of the great Eustathius, who presided over the assembled council, and on account of his fiery zeal for true religion was driven into exile. This doctrine was preached by the illustrious Meletius, at the cost of no less pains, for thrice was he driven from his flock in the cause of the apostles’ doctrines; by Flavianus, glory of the imperial see; and by the admirable Ephraim, instrument of divine grace, who has left us in the Syriac tongue a written heritage of good things; by Cyprian, the illustrious ruler of Carthage and of all Libya, who for Christ’s sake found a death in the fire; by Damasus, bishop of great Rome, and by Ambrose, glory of Milan, who preached and wrote it in the language of Rome.

The same was taught by the great luminaries of Alexandria, Alexander and Athanasius, men of one mind, who underwent sufferings celebrated throughout the world. This was the pasture given to their flocks by the great teachers of the imperial city, byGregory, shining friend and supporter of the truth; by John, teacher of the world, by Atticus, their successor alike in see and in sentiment. By these doctrines Basil, great light of the truth, and Gregory sprung from the same parents, and Amphilochius, who from him received the gift of the high-priesthood, taught their contemporaries, and have left the same to us in their writings for a goodly heritage. Time would fail me to tell of Polycarp, and Irenæus, of Methodius and Hippolytus, and the rest of the teachers of the Church. In a word I assert that I follow the divine oracles and at the same time all these saints. By the grace of the spirit they dived into the depths of God-inspired scripture and both themselves perceived its mind, and made it plain to all that are willing to learn. Difference in tongue has wrought no difference in doctrine, for they were channels of the grace of the divine spirit, using the stream from one and the same fount.”

Well, I’m beat and we’ve almost run out our dilithiam crystal and must get back home. I don’t know about you, but I see alot of uniformity of belief here in these the church as recognized as “Fathers.” So if there was a central and earliest teaching about Christ that correct, that corresponds to truth, then we could call that “Orthodox” If the teachings we have received from all those who struggled, fought and often gave their lives for this message corresponds with this earliest teaching, then we could say that this is also “orthodox.”