Acts20.com

I was just thinking that the Anthanasian Creed basically damns those who disagree with it. It seems like we can divide a lot of churches in the greater Protestant movement into 'historical orthodoxy' and 'Biblical orthodoxy' categories. Liberals should probably go in a third basket, but they would have come from one of the other two categories historically.Historical orthodoxy is concerned with creeds, church councils, etc. Biblical orthodoxy is concerned with the Bible. Historical orthodoxy folks are concerned with the Bible, too, of course. But Biblical orthodoxy folks aren't always concerned with creeds and church councils.The early COG movement started with a tiny church that cared little or nothing for creeds that divide and wanted to accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice. So, historically, the COG started from 'Biblical orthodoxy' roots, but developed doctrinal statements, minutes, etc. over time.The Pentecostal Holiness denomination was once 'The Methodist Church of North Carolina'. I saw one of the books they give pastoral candidates and it said they affirmed a number of church councils. I remember Chalcedon being mentioned. I wonder if they affirm the nonChristological aspects of the council, like rules for monestaries and convents. I suspect not.Nicea also apparently condemned a clergyman accepting 1% interest. May people focus on the parts of these councils that relate to the Trinity. Should Pentecostals be too concerned with historical Orthodoxy? Can we really say that if some early Jew heard Peter's Pentecost sermon, and held to Ebionite or Arian type beliefs, that Peter's sermon would have overturned that? Would he really not have been saved? Did early Christians who had the epistles of Paul really have a clear understanding of all the intricacies of Trinitarian doctrine with it's talk of being of the same 'substance' and co-equality and all such things. Weren't these people saved? Can we really believe in that last bit of the Athanasian Creed? Could the doctrine of the trinity be a bit overdefined, at least as it relates to what is required of salvation.And the way I hear a lot of 'trinitarian' Pentecostals talk, they don't sound very trinitarian. Jesus is God seems to be the limit of some individuals' understanding of the nature of the Godhead, even in the 'trinitarian' groups.Should Pentecostals be concerned with adhering to historical church councils? If so, do we really want to go all the way and accept determinations on the role of monestaries in the middle ages? What side do we come down on on the issue of whether the bishop of Constantinople was equal to the bishop of Rome. The non-Roman groups apparently agreed to it, while Rome did not