Pastor, the creed of Christ never needed reforming. Like the understanding of baptism or communion you can always point to historical theological variations, but the physical water or bread and wine always did and continue to remain. The principal meets in the physical. The arrogance would be to remove the physical because we have a more mature and full understanding of the theological. "Shall we deny the physical resurrection of Christ just because we have come to understand its theological meaning? We dare not pit the historical aspect against the theological aspect (Jordan). The very name of Christ and His headship is nothing to be mocked at, as if in a category of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
"This is not wrong, per se, but it indicates that apart from distinct creedal issues, dogmatic practices like segregated seating and variance on eschatology existed throughout the early church on matters outside the creeds. "
Pastor Brito. As the church matures, by the Holy Spirit, it deepens its understanding, appreciation and awe of Christ our creator and redeemer. No doubt early fathers would stand in wonder at the depth of knowledge gifted by God that we now possess of His word. But no matter how mature the church might develop, that maturity will always be reflected in the symbols God gives us such as water, bread and wine. The very early church had little maturity in the word, but we now have two centuries to appreciate and glean from. However, that maturity will always come back to where the principals of said maturity meet with the physical. We can't discard let's say the bread and wine pretending we actually are partaking of communion. Likewise, the very name of Jesus and all that we have now come to understand of Him, still resides in the confessional symbol that Christ is the head. God's creed must come first, and then man's. Pastor, you have a very unique opportunity to reform the church. Creation - Confession of Creation - Communion. Garden to garden, the same Edenic pattern of worship.
Pastor, the creed of Christ never needed reforming. Like the understanding of baptism or communion you can always point to historical theological variations, but the physical water or bread and wine always did and continue to remain. The principal meets in the physical. The arrogance would be to remove the physical because we have a more mature and full understanding of the theological. "Shall we deny the physical resurrection of Christ just because we have come to understand its theological meaning? We dare not pit the historical aspect against the theological aspect (Jordan). The very name of Christ and His headship is nothing to be mocked at, as if in a category of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Right, which is why I wrote:
"This is not wrong, per se, but it indicates that apart from distinct creedal issues, dogmatic practices like segregated seating and variance on eschatology existed throughout the early church on matters outside the creeds. "
Pastor Brito. As the church matures, by the Holy Spirit, it deepens its understanding, appreciation and awe of Christ our creator and redeemer. No doubt early fathers would stand in wonder at the depth of knowledge gifted by God that we now possess of His word. But no matter how mature the church might develop, that maturity will always be reflected in the symbols God gives us such as water, bread and wine. The very early church had little maturity in the word, but we now have two centuries to appreciate and glean from. However, that maturity will always come back to where the principals of said maturity meet with the physical. We can't discard let's say the bread and wine pretending we actually are partaking of communion. Likewise, the very name of Jesus and all that we have now come to understand of Him, still resides in the confessional symbol that Christ is the head. God's creed must come first, and then man's. Pastor, you have a very unique opportunity to reform the church. Creation - Confession of Creation - Communion. Garden to garden, the same Edenic pattern of worship.