This is a wonderful endeavor, and I’m looking forward to reading your walkthrough of the early church history from the perspective of the creeds.
One question, though: are you asserting that all the Syriac churches (e.g. the Church of the East, the Syriac Orthodox Church, etc.) are not Christians? I ask because you included Chalcedon (and implicitly Ephesus); also, you mentioned only Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.
I am by no means writing off anyone. It's fairly commonplace to refer to Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics as the three branches of Christendom. Obviously there are small sects would degree from those, but to list them all would be tedious.
I do think to reject the Definition of Chalcedon is to be in serious error and I would call it heresy. Does that mean, absolutely, that they are damned? I don't go so far. I think anyone who confesses the Apostle's Creed with sincerity is at least within broader Christendom and their justification before God I will not try to delineate. I think it's possible to be dead wrong about important doctrines and still love Christ and be seeking him and his kingdom. I am thankful not to be anyone's final judge.
Even so, I will argue from Scripture and encourage my brethren towards faithfulness to it. I think these four creeds articulate well the truths of Scripture on the points they touch and that everyone should heartily affirm them.
Thank you for your reply. I also affirm Chalcedon, and I appreciate your desire to be faithful to Scripture and the creeds.
Where I’m coming from is that the early schisms at Ephesus and Chalcedon are crucial chapters in the history of the creeds. In a study of that history, it seems prudent to include those events, especially given how deeply they shaped the Christian world.
Also, I think referring to the Oriental churches as “small sects” isn’t quite charitable. The Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Indian churches represent ancient Christian traditions, with around 50–60 million adherents today. Even though you and I may not agree with them theologically, these communities have endured great hardship to remain faithful to Christ, and they would certainly consider themselves full members of the body of Christ.
Again, I’m not trying to attack anyone. To be honest, I didn’t know their numbers. Church history, while of great interest to me, is not my major area of study. I’m still learning myself. I grew up not even knowing what a creed is. Still learning and thinking through these things. I’m researching and writing on this presently so as to be able to teach my own students about the creeds. I appreciate the feedback.
I would again say I default to the Apostles Creed as the baseline for Christendom. We can be wrong about important matters and still saved. I think the big question is, if a person denies certain claims about who Christ is at what point are they not worshipping the Jesus of the Bible? We would all reject Mormonism, and I don’t say this is exactly the same by any means, but to what degree can we talk about Jesus differently and still mean the same Jesus? Islam also believes in Jesus (in a way) but obviously they think he is a mere man who performed miracles.
Like I said before, I just want to encourage my brethren towards faithfulness and affirmation of biblical teaching. I don’t need to damn anyone nor do I want anyone to be damned. I just want people to know and be known by the God-man, our lord and savior Jesus Christ.
I agree with you—this is indeed a difficult line to draw. For what it’s worth, I didn’t take your comments as an attack, and I hope my responses didn’t come across as antagonistic or accusatory. As you aptly said, “I am thankful not to be anyone's final judge,” and I fully share that sentiment.
Your proposal of the Apostles’ Creed as the baseline for Christendom is compelling. At the same time, I wonder how that functions in practice, since the Apostles’ Creed doesn’t explicitly articulate the unity of the Trinity—understandably so, given that the first ecumenical councils, which of course all came after the Apostles' Creed was formulated, were convened precisely to clarify the doctrines of the Trinity.
In other words, while this creed is interpreted by trinitarians to affirm the complete divinity of Christ and His oneness with the Father, I think that is debatable. "Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord" is not necessarily saying that Jesus is God per se.
So that leads me to the question—do you need to believe that Jesus is God to be Christian? If our answer is "yes", then I think we would need to set a later creed as the minimum for our definition of Christian. In my view, the Nicene Creed would historically be the best candidate; however, there are certain doctrines in the Nicene Creed that one could arguably disagree with and still be Christian.
Great work.
“It’s because we agree on so much that we enabled disagree so ardently on matters which are further upstream in the minutia of Christian theology.”
“Fire” passage. This is a truism for all Christians who can’t seem to grasp unity with their brethren.
Thanks brother!
This is a wonderful endeavor, and I’m looking forward to reading your walkthrough of the early church history from the perspective of the creeds.
One question, though: are you asserting that all the Syriac churches (e.g. the Church of the East, the Syriac Orthodox Church, etc.) are not Christians? I ask because you included Chalcedon (and implicitly Ephesus); also, you mentioned only Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.
Hello,
I am by no means writing off anyone. It's fairly commonplace to refer to Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics as the three branches of Christendom. Obviously there are small sects would degree from those, but to list them all would be tedious.
I do think to reject the Definition of Chalcedon is to be in serious error and I would call it heresy. Does that mean, absolutely, that they are damned? I don't go so far. I think anyone who confesses the Apostle's Creed with sincerity is at least within broader Christendom and their justification before God I will not try to delineate. I think it's possible to be dead wrong about important doctrines and still love Christ and be seeking him and his kingdom. I am thankful not to be anyone's final judge.
Even so, I will argue from Scripture and encourage my brethren towards faithfulness to it. I think these four creeds articulate well the truths of Scripture on the points they touch and that everyone should heartily affirm them.
Thank you for your reply. I also affirm Chalcedon, and I appreciate your desire to be faithful to Scripture and the creeds.
Where I’m coming from is that the early schisms at Ephesus and Chalcedon are crucial chapters in the history of the creeds. In a study of that history, it seems prudent to include those events, especially given how deeply they shaped the Christian world.
Also, I think referring to the Oriental churches as “small sects” isn’t quite charitable. The Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Indian churches represent ancient Christian traditions, with around 50–60 million adherents today. Even though you and I may not agree with them theologically, these communities have endured great hardship to remain faithful to Christ, and they would certainly consider themselves full members of the body of Christ.
Again, I’m not trying to attack anyone. To be honest, I didn’t know their numbers. Church history, while of great interest to me, is not my major area of study. I’m still learning myself. I grew up not even knowing what a creed is. Still learning and thinking through these things. I’m researching and writing on this presently so as to be able to teach my own students about the creeds. I appreciate the feedback.
I would again say I default to the Apostles Creed as the baseline for Christendom. We can be wrong about important matters and still saved. I think the big question is, if a person denies certain claims about who Christ is at what point are they not worshipping the Jesus of the Bible? We would all reject Mormonism, and I don’t say this is exactly the same by any means, but to what degree can we talk about Jesus differently and still mean the same Jesus? Islam also believes in Jesus (in a way) but obviously they think he is a mere man who performed miracles.
Like I said before, I just want to encourage my brethren towards faithfulness and affirmation of biblical teaching. I don’t need to damn anyone nor do I want anyone to be damned. I just want people to know and be known by the God-man, our lord and savior Jesus Christ.
I agree with you—this is indeed a difficult line to draw. For what it’s worth, I didn’t take your comments as an attack, and I hope my responses didn’t come across as antagonistic or accusatory. As you aptly said, “I am thankful not to be anyone's final judge,” and I fully share that sentiment.
Your proposal of the Apostles’ Creed as the baseline for Christendom is compelling. At the same time, I wonder how that functions in practice, since the Apostles’ Creed doesn’t explicitly articulate the unity of the Trinity—understandably so, given that the first ecumenical councils, which of course all came after the Apostles' Creed was formulated, were convened precisely to clarify the doctrines of the Trinity.
In other words, while this creed is interpreted by trinitarians to affirm the complete divinity of Christ and His oneness with the Father, I think that is debatable. "Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord" is not necessarily saying that Jesus is God per se.
So that leads me to the question—do you need to believe that Jesus is God to be Christian? If our answer is "yes", then I think we would need to set a later creed as the minimum for our definition of Christian. In my view, the Nicene Creed would historically be the best candidate; however, there are certain doctrines in the Nicene Creed that one could arguably disagree with and still be Christian.
This is quite a challenging endeavor!