The need for an Ecumenical Council from all Conservative Churches

Status
Not open for further replies.

0isez

Puritan Board Freshman
Back in the day, the councils of reformists dealt with heresies directly related to attacks against traditional bible doctrines and went down on record as calling a heretic a heretic and condemning heretical practices. Back then, these scholars and clergymen met together to defeat what they believed to be a danger to the true faith. They were vigilant and quick to root out heresies while establishing clear and concise doctrines that led to holiness.
It's been a long long time since any major ecumenical councils had convened, and what I mean by major is; all those who hold scripture as the inerrant Word of God regardless of denomination or culture should hold a council weighing these issues against scripture and establishing their findings as doctrine.
Now, we do have small pockets of denominations, synods and churches who dare to stand up against some of the modern day heresies and publish online "what we believe" notices. But certainly not the tsunami of protests that should have arisen as one voice from the Evangelical wing in modern times.
Here are some of the issues that should be addressed in a modern day universal council as a threat to Christianity:
1. Marxism (Materialism)
2. Social Justice (capital S and capital J)
3. Sexual Identity Crises
4. Egalitarianism
5. Evolution
6. Scientism (excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques)
7. Radical Existentialism
I for one would be happy to see a universal statement rebuking the issues above replete with bible verses. Yeah, I know that in times past most of the heresies were from within the church, but everything above represents a new threat from without but no less destructive to the church.





AEdFTp58dUHl_z-7WNlAPS0-vHZCT7pG13F5iqHMueHc=s40-p
ReplyForward
 
What no one wants to talk about is that major synods like the kind you're talking about have been the result of the summons of a godly magistrate 100% of the time. Constantine called Nicea, and later emperors called the next 6 ecumenical councils. The Roman Catholic councils were obviously called by Popes, but they stunk. The civil authority in the Netherlands called the Synod of Dort and Parliament called the Westminster Assembly. Who is going to call this one? All the Protestants in the whole world aren't going to get together for a Synod on their own. For better or for worse, that's the truth.
Also, from a standpoint of church order, does it make sense to call a Synod of those condemned by previous Synods in order to condemn some other error? Re-baptism has been condemned as Donatism by previous Synods, ancient and modern, and it was outlawed under the Justinian Code, which, historically, is part of why they (baptists) don't have synods. So should I ignore those synods in order to call another synod? To me that doesn't make a lot of sense.
If we could call a NAPARC Synod to unite the Reformed Churches in the USA, to me that would be a more realistic goal. The Baptists aren't going to get on board. They don't do Synods. I love them as brothers in Christ, but I accept that, unless they become Presbyterians, they're going to be part of independent churches.
 
Last edited:
If we could call a NAPARC Synod to unite the Reformed Churches in the USA, to me that would be a more realistic goal. The Baptists aren't going to get on board.

Dozens of the micro R&P denominations outside NAPARC wouldn't get on board either. Gotta' protect those all-important distinctives after all...
 
Last edited:
A great point was made about secular magistrates calling these councils and not the religious leaders in Protestantism. Realistically, I see all of your points, however, its a sad commentary when Christians have only other Christians in their gun sights especially in the face of a clear and present danger( That was a movie title too). As much as I detest Arminianism, I would put those issues aside to support any Arminian church that fights against the insane madness listed above. I would even go so far (and I hate to admit it ) and stand shoulder to shoulder with the "Name it and Claim" it crowd if they were to publicly take a stand against the items above (they probably wouldn't though, too big of a financial risk). So much for a great idea with no legs. Where is the World Council Of Churches when you need them?
 
Back in the day, the councils of reformists dealt with heresies directly related to attacks against traditional bible doctrines and went down on record as calling a heretic a heretic and condemning heretical practices. Back then, these scholars and clergymen met together to defeat what they believed to be a danger to the true faith. They were vigilant and quick to root out heresies while establishing clear and concise doctrines that led to holiness.
It's been a long long time since any major ecumenical councils had convened, and what I mean by major is; all those who hold scripture as the inerrant Word of God regardless of denomination or culture should hold a council weighing these issues against scripture and establishing their findings as doctrine.
Now, we do have small pockets of denominations, synods and churches who dare to stand up against some of the modern day heresies and publish online "what we believe" notices. But certainly not the tsunami of protests that should have arisen as one voice from the Evangelical wing in modern times.
Here are some of the issues that should be addressed in a modern day universal council as a threat to Christianity:

Dear brother Ken,

While sympathetic to your desire, I want to say some words on just why this can not be done in our present reality.

I think this would be one of the worst times in the history of the Church for such actions. The fact that we don't do as the Reformers did indicates that we are not fit for such endeavors. The Church is so terribly fragmented, weak, and often ungodly, mixed with a lack of decisiveness in what exactly Truth is. Here is a list of adjectives beginning or including the letter 'd.' As a group, our present-day Church is characterized by disjointedness, disconnectedness, disruption, and disunion. That we are not decisive, definite, determined, or deliberate is undeniable, indisputable, and undisputed.

I consider it beyond dispute that we are NOT living in Synodical times. Where, pray tell, would we find 120+ divines of a similar mind and depth of knowledge and decided purpose that would dedicate ten years of their lives to a cause remotely equal to that of The Westminster Assembly? How utterly impossible for such a group to be countenanced by the civil magistrate? In the days of the Assembly, there were, for all purposes, only two camps contending for their party. Those who followed the Roman Antichrist and the Reformed who followed the Lamb wherever He went. Today in the US, there are very conservatively well over 200 denominations, of which the Reformed are a small minority.

What we need is an unprecedented, massive, and mighty work of God coming down (as they used to say) to us in our deplorable mess. A work of the Spirit that is rarely thought possible and is seldom prayed for. Instead, we have unmanly eschatologies of defeat that ease our consciences for are near uselessness in the Kingdom of God.

But, what I say we need, may not be what we get. It would be a righteous thing with God to brush us aside as Jesus did the 600,000 men of war from 20 years old and up, condemning them to die in the wilderness for their unbelief and disobedience of the sure promises of God.

Now, will somebody say, "Hey, Ed, tell us what you really think?"
 
Doing the UN's business and trying to sue believers who leave apostate denominations.

This wasn't a joke, btw. To be sure, it was funny in a bitter sense. Since my denomination, for all of its flaws, came from the PCUSA, I am learning more on the background of PCUSA presbyteries. Those people were truly evil in the strictest sense of the word.
 
Re-baptism has been condemned as Donatism by previous Synods, ancient and modern, and it was outlawed under the Justinian Code, which, historically, is part of why they (baptists) don't have synods. So should I ignore those synods in order to call another synod?

There is an important difference to note here: Donatists invalidated baptism based on the supposed faith of the administrator; Baptists (most) may deem baptism invalid based on the supposed faith of the recipient. The councils, synods, Justinian Code, and patristic writers that addressed the issue of rebaptism all did so in the context of Donatism, or where similar heretical issues were involved. Nor were they entirely consistent among themselves in what they determined.
 
There is an important difference to note here: Donatists invalidated baptism based on the supposed faith of the administrator; Baptists (most) may deem baptism invalid based on the supposed faith of the recipient. The councils, synods, Justinian Code, and patristic writers that addressed the issue of rebaptism all did so in the context of Donatism, or where similar heretical issues were involved. Nor were they entirely consistent among themselves in what they determined.
While you are correct about the context, the consequence is the same, which is that people doubt of the validity of their baptism that they received as a child, and they seek to repeat it. Of course, once anabaptism arose, synods dealt with credobaptist ideas more directly.
 
While you are correct about the context, the consequence is the same, which is that people doubt of the validity of their baptism that they received as a child, and they seek to repeat it.

Actually, a good number of writing indicate that it was the baptism of adult catechumens that was often, if not usually in question. Infant baptism in patristic times wasn't nearly as monolithic as some suppose. In addition to many pagan converts still coming into the church, some notable church fathers (like Gregory Nazianzum, Chrysostom, and Augustine) that had Christian upbringings were also not baptized before being catechized.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how we could reasonably expect such a council/synod to act with wisdom regarding the issues described in the OP when most wouldn't even agree on the abiding validity of the moral law.

As just one example, a church or denomination can have all the correct statements and positions on the current worldliness and evil in our culture, posted loudly and proudly on their website, but if they have them listed next to an image of the Messiah, perhaps their priorities are a bit confused.
 
Realistic scenario: a Republican wins presidency (disregarding, of course, the fallacy in thinking the people who count votes are fair). He (or she) will have come to power based on the support from low-church evangelicals and charismatics. That means the people invited to draft a statement would be people like Todd Bentley and Paula White.
 
Back in the day, the councils of reformists dealt with heresies directly related to attacks against traditional bible doctrines and went down on record as calling a heretic a heretic and condemning heretical practices. Back then, these scholars and clergymen met together to defeat what they believed to be a danger to the true faith. They were vigilant and quick to root out heresies while establishing clear and concise doctrines that led to holiness.
It's been a long long time since any major ecumenical councils had convened, and what I mean by major is; all those who hold scripture as the inerrant Word of God regardless of denomination or culture should hold a council weighing these issues against scripture and establishing their findings as doctrine.
Now, we do have small pockets of denominations, synods and churches who dare to stand up against some of the modern day heresies and publish online "what we believe" notices. But certainly not the tsunami of protests that should have arisen as one voice from the Evangelical wing in modern times.
Here are some of the issues that should be addressed in a modern day universal council as a threat to Christianity:
1. Marxism (Materialism)
2. Social Justice (capital S and capital J)
3. Sexual Identity Crises
4. Egalitarianism
5. Evolution
6. Scientism (excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques)
7. Radical Existentialism
I for one would be happy to see a universal statement rebuking the issues above replete with bible verses. Yeah, I know that in times past most of the heresies were from within the church, but everything above represents a new threat from without but no less destructive to the church.





AEdFTp58dUHl_z-7WNlAPS0-vHZCT7pG13F5iqHMueHc=s40-p
ReplyForward

A Reformed Dream
 
I don't see this happening. With extremely rare exceptions, the Reformed tradition runs bottom-up and not top-down-command-and-control. This is the case among Presbyterian, Baptist, Continental, and Congregational traditions. There will not be a World Reformed Forum to straighten everyone out and we'll still be relatively okay despite our problems. The gates of hell will not prevail.
 
There will not be a World Reformed Forum to straighten everyone out and we'll still be relatively okay despite our problems. The gates of hell will not prevail.

This is true enough on the whole, except maybe the."we'll still be relatively okay" part. Do you think we are okay now?
 
The gates of hell have not prevailed..

What if the word 'prevail' is not really the best interpretation?
What do 'gates' represent as the word is used in Scripture?

I don't know if the Greek for 'prevail' will bear this interpretation, but I do know that, in the Bible, gates are never on the attack. Gates are both taken as the center of government and law, but never anywhere else defensive.

Below is a quote I found to this point.

Basically, most translations say: "gates of Hades will not overpower [the church]", one translation (Aramaic Bible in Plain English) says "gates of Sheol will not withstand it".​
My understanding of gates is that they protect property, they do not attack. If true, this means the church is on the attack, as opposed to the other translations where the gates are on the attack and the church is on the defense. As my greek is non-existent, can someone please say whether "withstand" could be an acceptable translation?​
Does the greek say clearly whether "the church is attacking" or whether "the church is being attacked", or is this open to the viewpoint of the translator?​
Basically, could this passage be translated to something to effect that the Church is on the attack and that no principalities, not even the very gates of hell can resist the attack?​
Edit: While walking my little Welsh Corgi this morning, this verse came to me as evidence that it is the Church on the offensive, and not the devil and his forces. (for you @MyCrows & @Polanus1561 )

2 Corinthians 10:3-6
For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
Revelation 12:7-12
Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.
Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”
 
Last edited:
What if the word 'prevail' is not really the best interpretation?
What do 'gates' represent as the word is used in Scripture?

I don't know if the Greek for 'prevail' will bear this interpretation, but I do know that, in the Bible, gates are never on the attack. Gates are both taken as the center of government and law, but never anywhere else defensive.

Below is a quote I found to this point.

Basically most translations say: "gates of Hades will not overpower [the church]", one translation (Aramaic Bible in Plain English) says "gates of Sheol will not withstand it".​
My understanding of gates, is that they protect property, they do not attack. If true, this means the church is on the attack, as opposed to the other translations where the gates are on the attack and the church is on the defense. As my greek is non-existent, can someone please say whether "withstand" could be an acceptable translation?​
Does the greek say clearly whether "the church is attacking" or whether "the church is being attacked", or is this open to the viewpoint of the translator?​
Basically, could this passage be translated to something to effect that the church is on the attack and that no principalities, not even the very gates of hell can resist the attack?​
Correct Ed. I think you ought to make a thread on this misunderstood meaning. It has huge implications for how look at gospel power around the world.
 

(not affirming if I personally support the above or not, just an example)

This statement was not widely held and quickly forgotten. Anything we can learn from this?
Thanks Polanus 1561 for pointing that statement out. I was unaware of it. It was met with the expected resistance within but I like that fact that they went on record as resisting those awful mandates.
 
We get Danvers and Nashville statements all the time. They are paper tigers. They might have good things to say, but the people believing them already believe them. The feminists don't. And some of those writing them are functional Arians.

That's why the ecumenical councils were not only called by magistrates, but enforced by them. That is a two-edged sword, as Athanasius learned.
 
It sometimes strikes me just how precarious and sometimes even transitory (from a human perspective) conciliar history can really be.

Take the results of the Council of Nicea, for example, which had both great staying power, yet also nearly dissipated within ten years. Yes, the Nicene Creed has proven a timeless theological bulwark, but only when history is viewed through a wide-lens.

Despite the Creed having been approved by all but two attendant bishops (of some 318 total - with the Bishop of Rome notably not among them...), within ten short years Arianism nonetheless became the dominant theology within Christendom. Constantine came to effectively oppose the primary Orthodox bishop of his era, Athanasius, and had him exiled - while Arius was readmitted to good-standing within the church. Constantine was ultimately baptized by an Arian bishop - one of the two that had originally dissented from the Creed.

The next two emperors were effectively Arian, and during their reigns the Orthodox were mostly on the defensive. Athanasius remained the face and leading preserver of Orthodoxy during this era, but suffered much persecution and endured several more exiles.

Then, after Athanasius' death, Orthodoxy suddenly rebounded under the emperor Theodosius, with the Nicene faction now being led by the Archbishop of Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus. Those two provided the main impetus for the Council of Constantinople (381), where Nicene Trinitarianism finally (re)prevailed.

As they say, history is often stranger than fiction...
 
Last edited:
Then, after Athanasis' death, Orthodoxy suddenly rebounded under the emperor Theodosius, with the Nicene faction now being led the Archbishop of Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus. Those two provided the main impetus for the Council of Constantinople (381), where Nicene Trinitarianism finally (re)prevailed.

True, and even funnier is when Gregory got mad at 381 and when he threatened to leave, the bishops said "Bye."
 
Here are some of the issues that should be addressed in a modern day universal council as a threat to Christianity:
1. Marxism (Materialism)
2. Social Justice (capital S and capital J)
3. Sexual Identity Crises
4. Egalitarianism
5. Evolution
6. Scientism (excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques)
7. Radical Existentialism
Those are political and societal-thinking threats. They are dangers from outside the church. Certainly, outside philosophies are a constant threat also to worm their way into the church and have always been so, since biblical times. But the historical councils we most admire today for their lasting guidance have clarified theological comforts (Who is Christ? How does salvation work?), not denounced the always-changing political and social movements of their day.

Even if there were someone to enforce the rulings of such a council today (and there isn't), I wouldn't put that council in the same category with Nicaea, Chalcedon, Dordt, etc. I suspect its rulings would mostly just feed believers' hope in this world's politics to become more conservative, rather than deepen our hope in Christ amid whatever the world throws at us.
 
Those are political and societal-thinking threats. They are dangers from outside the church. Certainly, outside philosophies are a constant threat also to worm their way into the church and have always been so, since biblical times. But the historical councils we most admire today for their lasting guidance have clarified theological comforts (Who is Christ? How does salvation work?), not denounced the always-changing political and social movements of their day.

Even if there were someone to enforce the rulings of such a council today (and there isn't), I wouldn't put that council in the same category with Nicaea, Chalcedon, Dordt, etc. I suspect its rulings would mostly just feed believers' hope in this world's politics to become more conservative, rather than deepen our hope in Christ amid whatever the world throws at us.
Hi Jack, Thanks for the perspective. I would agree, however, most of the people I know are stuck in these pseudo-intellectual mindsets. But I advise this council not for political reasons but for very spiritual reasons because it is important to understand the worldview of many or our people today in order to be a more effective witness. To have guys a lot smarter than me take each subject matter and break it down as to why it is contrary to biblical standards would be a wonderful foundation giving Christians insight on how to proceed verbally to this new breed of unbelievers. Understanding the basic foundations of the mindsets they stand on would make it easier to crumble the stage. You can't play chess with a guy who's playing checkers and you can't argue the Trinity with a guy who is convinced that the earth is doomed ecologically. The relevancy of these evil issues are spiritual and are blocking even the slightest contemplation of a living God for many people. We should approach these people knowing what objections are gonna be thrown at us when we have an opportunity to witness. I could be wrong, but it seems only theologians are equipped to argue these items with folks now. Laymen should be equipped with this knowledge too. Your average college educated pagan on the street has been thoroughly indoctrinated in most if not all of the mentioned subjects and can and have eaten most layman Christians alive when confronted with the Bible. So we need to look at these issues as spiritual and not only political, taking advantage and applying biblical knowledge to refute and bring to light the Gospel and its relevancy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top