What I Believe

Still a Spirit-filled, born-again, conservative Christian

Overview

What I believe...

I believe the claims of Christianity are true.
I believe the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed.
I believe the dogmas and moral teaching of the Catholic Church except those statements that are provably false.
I believe the Protestant Reformation corrupted dogmas and moral teaching but that believing Protestants are Christians.
I believe the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church have become corrupt in some of their practices and disciplines; that some of the church leaders are corrupt and unholy; and that some of the church leaders may not even be Christians at all.
I believe that the Catholic disciplines have no absolute authority over anyone except Catholics who wish to remain in unity with the Catholic institutional church.
I believe every local church must have leaders and that members of these local communities must be loyal and obedient to these leaders to preserve unity.
I believe liberal Christian thought to be false and corrupting (the Bible is myth; Jesus was merely a good man, a good example, but not deity; all will end up in heaven; we are not sinners in need of salvation)
I believe Christians are to be loving; to live holy lives; and to know and believe the truth.
I believe there is a large category of possible beliefs which are not infallibly true but which God honors.
I believe that in the early days of the church, there was only one unified church. This church battled heresy, determined the canon of scripture, and developed true doctrine and moral teachings. Christians were to submit to these church leaders. But over time some (many) bishops and popes became corrupt resulting in disunity. The Protestant Reformation was a visible manifestation of this trend. Now, us Christians are left with no apostolic leaders — we must accept merely humanly-ordained leaders.
I believe that today Christians are free to believe anything they want as long as they adhere to the essential doctrines and avoid heretical doctrines.
I believe that when the church got tangled up with the state there were undesirable side-effects. The church began to think of herself as a state in her own right and that she could and should govern and control the lives of her members.
I believe that the schism of east and west (1054 A.D. and before) marks the time in which all is not right with the church.
I believe that the doctrines of the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches are both true, and that core doctrines which directly contradict one another are flawed. Thus, the Catholic view of the papacy is flawed because the Orthodox Churches reject it.
I believe the church went bad, but that it is still bad. The Protestant Reformation did not fix anything at all. Unity is permanently shattered, false doctrines are taught as if true, Christians kill Christians, etc.

Featured article: My Visions and Ideas | Related article: About Me

One Apostolic Church | North Forest Home | Top of page

Philosophical Underpinings...

Christianity is true.

The unity of the church was shattered long ago. In our day the only unity is mystical. We are unified because we are members of the body of Christ. There was a time in the past in which there was a single unified institutional church but this was shattered when the leaders of this church stopped being holy and stopped believing and teaching the true faith passed-down from the apostles.

The Protestant Reformation did not fix the problem at all. They split from the Catholic Church — this was necessary. Then they changed doctrine and practice — this was useless. But they had bloody wars with the Catholics — this was unfortunate and led to the rejection of religion by many who noticed that religion caused so much bloodshed.

Most Catholic doctrine and moral teaching is true (but it is stated in an idealized manner which doesn't always reflect reality — examples, (1) that bishops are the teachers and defenders of the faith, and (2) that Catholic teaching was passed down from the apostles.) This would indeed all be true if all bishops were holy and Spirit-filled but many were wordly and political.

Many churches have authority of governance, and members should obey for unity's sake — but none of these forms of authority or governance are absolute truths.

Two aspects of Catholic teaching ...

Dogma, moral teaching — but they are idealistic and I accept them in this idealized form.
Disciplines — I have no loyalty to these, I will pick and choose as I see fit.

The following passage demonstrates that even someone who is committing a mortal sin (killing the Messiah) can be a prophet of God.

Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation. (John 11:50,51)

Certainly those who determined the foundational dogmas and moral teachings of the church were flawed humans as everyone is. But in the case of the high priest, the people at large should not have followed his disciplinary judgments (to kill Jesus) even though in this case his prophecy was true. This illustrates my point: that we are to believe the true foundational dogmas and moral teachings while at the same time we must judge whether or not to obey the commands of unrighteous leaders based on our sensibilities.

Things Jesus taught which are important to a spiritual life ...

Loving God and neighbor
Being holy in heart and mind
Living without sin
Having very high standards of holiness
Desiring heaven
Desiring communion with God moment by moment
Living a devotional, prayerful life
Living sacrifically
Studying and meditating on scripture (Old Testament — by application for us today, also New Testament)
Performing rites and rituals with proper attitude and disposition
No divorce
Live virtuously, avoid vice
Trust God
Suffer for God
Be Spirit-filled
Follow Jesus with fulness of purpose and determination as if we were carrying a cross to be crucified for Him
Correct knowledge about God, Jesus, heaven, hell, salvation
Excommunication (Mat 18:17)
Fellowship, corporate worship — but He doesn't specify the form this is to take.
Dedicate our lives to God
Follow existing religious traditions (blind man to show his cure to the priest)

Things Jesus taught but which are not significant factors in a spiritual life ...

Obedience to government — we should obey our government (when it is not immoral to do so) because this is proper. In Old Testament Israel governance was mixed with the spiritual institution and it certainly got tangled up during times of church history. However, Jesus never intended the church to be Christendom or like Calvin's Geneva — The Catholic Church expects Catholics to accept the Catholic Church as if it is true government, but I don't believe it is.
Rites and rituals
Keeping laws which harm people (David ate shewbread, we are to pull our oxen from the pit on sabbath)
The thinking that following rules, laws, rites, rituals are necessary for salvation (against the Pharisees, hand washing, cup washing, tithes of the smallest things)
Traditions which violate the 10 commandments, the natural law, and which hurt people (Corban)
Showing-off in religious rites, rituals — to be seen by men
Killing prophets
Fighting with swords to defend the truth
Dead — tradition-bound

Things Jesus didn't teach at all ...

Joining a church (he never asked anyone to join anything)
Bureaucratic, administrative, red-tape — he created none of this. Institutions run by bureaucrats, administrators and clerks; rules for getting married (but the existing society already had this, presumably he thought the rules and procedures were OK as they were)
Churchiness — emphasis on feast days, priests and seminaries, clergy rather than devotional life.
The rules of rites (Latin, Byzantine, etc.)
Membership in the synagogue — membership in anything at all
Jesus didn't talk about the topics that Catholics talk about — feast days; the meaning of rites and rituals; how to bow / genuflect / etc. (but the people already knew how to do these things); how to become a priest (vocation); why priests should be celibate; Eucharist (he only spoke about it when pressed to the extreme); sacraments and sacramental actions.

One Apostolic Church | North Forest Home | Top of page

Holy Orders ...

General comments ...

The ordination spoken of in the New Testament was for the purpose of ordaining orthodox, holy, faith-filled men.
There is no evidence that the ordination in the New Testament was considered a sacrament.
In the very early church we are told that Christians are to unite behind their bishops. But again, these particular bishops were orthodox, holy, faith-filled men. No one ever suggested that Christians should unite behind corrupt, spiritually lukewarm, unbelieving, unorthodox bishops.
In the very early church there were plenty of heretical bishops (for example, the Arians which for decades were in the majority). Certainly Christians followed them. But in fighting heresy the church demonstrated that we should not follow "bad" bishops.
As time went on the orthodoxy of bishops as a whole began to slip. There are no shortage of examples of corrupt, spiritually lukewarm, unbelieving, unorthodox bishops. (But there is also no shortage of Godly, orthodox, on-fire-for-Jesus, holy bishops).
Neither the New Testament, the early church fathers, nor the early church councils teach that there must be a succession of ordination. In fact, there are examples of holy men who learned the faith and established congregations who were not ordained at all (or they were ordained long after they began their ministry).
Even if there were such a thing a succession of ordination, certainly corrupt, spiritually lukewarm, unbelieving, unorthodox bishops would break the chain. How can one of these represent God's truth?
Just as in the other sacraments, ordination is only valid when the person receiving the sacrament (in this case the deacons, priests, and bishops) are faith-filled and have the proper disposition. Certainly a wolf among sheep will not receive any sacramental grace at all.
My conclusion is that corrupt, spiritually lukewarm, unbelieving, unorthodox bishops cannot teach and defend the faith even in church councils. Their opinions and votes are to be ignored.
As time progressed the value of bishops to the church in general decreased (because so many were corrupt, spiritually lukewarm, unbelieving, unorthodox). The Protestant Reformers were right in rejecting their teachings.
I believe that ordination is valid for anyone fulfilling the following criteria ...
- They believe, teach, and practice the essential truths of the faith.
- They have a pastor's heart.
- They are acknowledged by those in their faith community as being their leader.
I believe that ordination is necessary for someone to administer most sacraments (see next section).

A couple of verses used by Catholics to support the idea of a sacrament of Holy Orders ...

Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. (1 Timothy 4:14)

The claim is that the word "gift" is grace, the sacramental grace of Holy Orders. But this word is the same greek word used for the other gifts of the Spirit.

Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:6)

Just because a ritual is used doesn't mean that it is the ritual that confers the grace or power. Faith is required on the part of the recipient for any sacrament to be effective ...

Baptism is seen as connected with faith: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (Catechism of the Catholic Church). Justified by faith in Baptism (Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Just as a person without faith who is baptized does not receive salvation via baptism, so also a person who is ordained does not receive the grace of Holy Orders unless they are holy, orthodox believers who are committed disciples of Christ.

One Apostolic Church | North Forest Home | Top of page

Sacraments ...

The doctrine of sacraments was not taught by the early church (but it was taught by the time of Augustine). Therefore, sacraments are not essential to the life of a Christian. However, I believe that the sacraments have great value for those Christians who know of them, who have faith in them, and who receive them in faith.

Comments about each sacrament ...

Baptism
The early church taught (1) that sins are remitted during baptism, and (2) that a person is joined to the church, the body of Christ, by baptism. However the person must have faith. It is not necessary for a priest or even a Christian to administer the baptism as long as it is performed with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I am amazed that most Protestant denominations (and non-denominational denominations) which practice baptism use the correct rite, even when they believe that baptism is merely a symbol.

The consideration of infant baptism did not occur until later, therefore it is not a significant issue.
Confirmation
I once thought that this was equivalent to the falling of the Holy Spirit described several times in the book of Acts. I now wonder whether it is a sacrament at all. Perhaps the Charismatics have it right, that we can receive the Holy Spirit and be filled with His power and grace.

The early church included the rite of confirmation along with the rite of baptism.
Eucharist (Communion / the Last Supper)
Clearly this was taught by Jesus, and the early church believed it and practiced it. In order to be valid it must follow the general form of the early church (act of contrition, scripture reading, homily, confession of faith, prayers, Eucharist).

Clearly the early church believed that Christ's presence was in the elements of communion and that they remained for a period of time (the host was taken to people who could not attend mass.) In order to partake you needed to be in good standing with the Lord and free from mortal sin.

For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 11:29,30)
Confession / Reconciliation
There was nothing like this in the early church. There was a general confession of sins as part of the mass. There was a lengthy public penance for apostates.
Anointing of the Sick
There was nothing like this in the early church although there is clear biblical teaching about it ...

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. (James 5:14,15)
Holy Orders
There was ordination in the early church but there was no concept of the sacrament of holy orders or of apostolic succession. Presumably only those who were ordained could ordain others. Based on that rule, therefore, apostolic succession is the logical result. But when "bad" bishops are ordained or "bad" bishops ordain others, apostolic succession becomes corrupt and useless.

I suppose you could make the claim that ordinations are invalid unless the person ordaining the other has an unbroken chain of ordination traceable back to the apostles. The Catholic Church claims to have this but I doubt the truth of it since many bishops were ordained by secular rulers.

As a result of this I think that valid ordination exists outside the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Since the purpose of ordination is to allow for valid sacraments, only those churches which believe and practice sacraments require such a thing. See the section on Holy Orders for more on this topic.
Marriage
The sacrament of marriage does not require an ordained priest. In fact, it does not require anybody except the bride and groom, the husband and wife. The Church and the State interfere with this but it is because they impose laws and rules upon those who wish to be married.
Others
In the history of the church many other sacraments have been suggested. Therefore, the Catholic idea that there are only seven sacraments is arbitrary.

Some non-Catholic churches have sacraments (Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran, etc). I believe their sacraments are valid within the limits of their teaching and faith in these sacraments. Examples of this ...

Some non-Catholics and non-Orthodox believe in only two sacraments — baptism and Eucharist. Therefore, God does not honor other sacraments for these churches.
Lutherans believe that the presence of Christ exists in the Eucharist, but only during the service. Therefore, the presence of Christ is not present in the elements once the Eucharistic service ends.
Protestant denominations (and non-denominational denominations) that believe baptism to be merely a symbol still receive the graces of this sacrament even though they do not believe in the sacramental efficacy of baptism.

I discuss my views about the sacraments here ...

Eucharist ...

I believe the Eucharist is valid for all who believe in it when practiced in the context of a church service of a Christian community that believes and teaches that the Eucharist is truly a sacrament. The Eucharist celebrated by the Anglican, Episcopalian, and Lutheran churches are valid for those who believe in the sacrament since these churches believe it.

I believe that Catholics who don't believe that the bread and wine become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ Himself do not receive Him when partaking of the elements.

What happens when the host is desecrated, for example, if it is tossed into a sewer? I believe that Christ can inhabit or vacate the articles of communion at will. Therefore, he inhabits the host in the presence of a believer and he vacates the host in the presence of a non-believer. I believe that those in mortal sin or those who do not believe that Christ is present do not truly receive Christ when partaking of communion. They are judged by God not for consuming the elements, but for their lack of faith and their practice of mortal sin.

Papacy ...

I believe the Orthodox Churches basically have the correct view of the papacy (read more here and here)

Yes, there is a pope. He is the spokesman for the Church to the world. I've noticed that what he says gets more news coverage than any other Christian leader. He truly is the spokesman for the Church.

The pope should spend more time cleaning up the abuses in the Catholic Church and less time with politics in the world stage.

Binding and Loosing ...

God honors things we do in faith. The leaders of the church can proclaim things and God will honor them.

See related article ...

One Apostolic Church | North Forest Home | Top of page

Miscellaneous ...

As a Catholic I was not following this verse...

Not forsaking [neglecting] the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another. (Hebrews 10:25)

I was faithfully attending mass every week but I had no interaction with anyone, no opportunity to exhort others or to be exhorted myself.

Regarding Saints: Each group has their own. I was surprised to learn the the Orthodox Church had different Saints than the Catholic Church. Protestants don't call them Saints.

Various rites and rituals are fine unless performed without the Spirit or if it is thought that we are saved by them. Icons, images, statues, relics, sacred objects, sacred myths and stories, all of these are OK.

Holy Fire of the Orthodox Church. The miraculous fire that only appears for the Orthodox. That is because it is their tradition. There is no point for Catholics to wish they had the Holy Fire — it is not for them. God honors our traditions.

Regarding Martyrs: I personally don't see why the early Christians couldn't offer a pinch of incense. It was obvious that no one really thought that the emperor was deity — it was merely a way of showing loyalty to the state.

Apparitions: I believe they are valid.

Contraception: I believe that contraception is not inherently sinful but that there are no good methods available — all have side-effects such as mutilation of the body (surgical), health risks (the pill, IUD's), and extreme inconvenience. (read more)

Abortion

Homosexuality: Acts are sinful unless in the context of a lifelong, committed relationship.

Sexual sins: I believe sexual activity outside of marriage (between one man and one woman) is a mortal sin with the following exceptions: (1) self-abuse/masterbation without mental images or pornography, and (2) homosexual activity in the context of a lifelong, committed relationship .

I'm not so sure that pharmacists can't administer contraceptives or abortifacients. It is morally no different than participating in making nuclear weapons.

Doctors who must prescribe contraceptives. I suppose a doctor should not do this if they believe it is morally wrong.

Doctors who must perform abortions. They certainly must not do this if the embryo / fetus is conscious or capable of experiencing pain.

No one should assist in any way with euthanisia.

Embryonic stem cell research is a mortal sin, not because it kills embryos but because of the implications for society if this became the norm (where would the embryos come from — from poor women?).

How to know what is true? (link)

The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God.

I don't believe that the disciplinary aspects of the Catholic Church are worthy of following.

I believe that Mary was conceived sinless.

I believe that Jesus had no blood brothers because Mary was a virgin for her whole life.

I'm fine with Catholic orders — it seems like a good way to have many sub-groups in unity to the Catholic Church.

Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses — abandoned Christian tradition and doctrines.

Binding and loosing. The Catholic Church teaches that there are two meanings of this phrase...

Whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God. (1445)
Certainly church leaders have the power and authority to exclude individuals from active communion with their community. The assumption which I challenge is that the Catholic Church is "the church.. For example, just because Martin Luther was excommunicated by the Catholic Church doesn't mean that he went to hell — in fact, I consider him to be a great man of God.
An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. (1478)
I believe that the Catholic doctrine of indulgences is valid and true.

The keys of Peter. The Catholic Church teaches that the pope is the head of the church based on the keys given to Peter by Jesus.

Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter. . . . The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (553)

There have been many popes throughout history who did not "feed the sheep" at all. Certainly these popes did not possess the "power of the keys". Why would the Holy Spirit assist these popes in destroying the church?

Note the power to "bind and loose" given to the pope and bishops. But how can corrupt, unholy, and unbelieving bishops correctly determine true doctrine? I believe that these claims only apply to holy, orthodox, devout bishops. When the church started appointing bishops who did not have these qualities the powers of "binding and loosing" are invalidated. Certainly the sacraments don't work for people without faith or who have unrepentant sin in their lives. This same applies to bishops.

I believe the doctrine of the Eucharist. There is strong support for it in the New Testament and the practice of the early church. After mass they would take the host (Christ in the form of bread) to those who couldn't attend. What possible use would this have unless they believed that Jesus was present?

I always wondered whether an unbelieving priest or a priest living in mortal sin could confect the Eucharist. Because of this I avoid going to mass in parishes unless I suspect the priest is orthodox. But the nagging question remains — how can I know for sure the beliefs and intentions of the priest?

The Catholic Church solves this by teaching that there are two necessary factors for a valid Eucharist: (1) valid orders and (2) proper external form in celebrating the rite.

Since Jesus instituted the Eucharist and since he expects us to worship him in the Eucharist is it important that we know for sure that he is truly present, otherwise we would be guilty of idolatry.

I believe that Luthren and Anglican/Episcopalian communion is valid. But they believe that the presence of Christ in the elements of bread and wine only last during the service; they don't believe that the host can be put aside and later adored as Christ fully present.

I believe that Jesus honors our faith and that he often limits his blessings to those things that our faith will allow. The full Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is available but most churches choose to not believe aspects of this — and this limits Christ's blessing.

My scheme has similarities to that of the Anglican Church. They look to the church fathers to determine doctrines and practices and adopt those as true Christianity. I do the same but I add the stipulation that we must reject teachings from corrupt, spiritually lukewarm, unbelieving, unorthodox bishops. In addition I acknowledge that church councils and the papacy had a role until the great schism of 1054 AD.

Article originally written in April 2, 2009.

Statement of Faith | About the author

One Apostolic Church | North Forest Home | Top of page

John Shepard

email: js18@northforest.org

http://www.northforest.org/ApostolicReformation/WhatIBelieve.html

Revised: July 2, 2011