I have an interesting thought: did the ecumenical councils fail? Their purpose was to unify the faith, but after the council of Chalcedon ( council #4), there have been a number of Church splits. The Oriental Orthodox, Coptic, Ethiopian Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, just to name a few. This is a failure to maintain the unity, and since the Church fathers couldn't figure out how not to pour gasoline on a bonfire, they never really succeeded in holding onto the fath. That's my thinking on the topic. What's yours?

@Russell Mukes asked a question about the early ecumenical councils that had me studying them the last few days. Why I responded to his post saying I think it's a bit of a mixed bag as far as results go, I have to say I really liked one thing about them. I liked that they cared deeply about standing on right doctrine. They would bring hundreds of leaders from all over the world to gather to debate and discuss, and then let the most Biblical teachings win. They would recognize good doctrine and practice and rebuke wrong doctrines and practice. We could use a little more of that in our Protestant churches. It will always be a fallible process this side of eternity. Thus why there were mixed results from the original council's. Yet, I think we need a fresh desire and willingness to hold "firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9). We can disagree on minor issues, but come together to support core doctrines and rebuke doctrines that do not align with Scripture and cause harm to the Church. Not for "doctrines sake", but because when we believe rightly about God, we will be more inclined to live rightly for Him, grow to maturity in Christ and build up the Church.

In the early Church, it was the practice of the early Apostles, like Paul, to appoint church elders in each area where they planted churches. These were the ones who had the responsibility of governing local church affairs and the teaching responsibilities in the church. They couldn't be just anybody in the church. They had to meet certain qualifications that would make them suitable for such a role. 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-9 gives us the lists of qualifications for choosing local church elders. "Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil." 1 Timothy 3:2-7 https://www.bible.com/bible/59/1TI.3.2-7 "If anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." Titus 1:6-9 https://www.bible.com/bible/59/TIT.1.6-9 Here I've combined the passages into one list: 1) Above reproach- means they much live a life that their actions would not be called into question.

Let us know how you would finish the sentence. I'll go first. God wants us to pray because it expresses our faith and trust in Him.

Across protestant denominations, there are many beliefs about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Baptism of the Spirit is usually used to describe a second experience after becoming a Christian where a believer receives empowerment and gifting from the Holy Spirit for ministry and their walk with Christ. It's often accompanied by speaking in tongues. There are some branches of Christianity that believe some of the gifts of the Spirit ceased with the apostles, and there are some branches who believe they did not. Thereby they do not give much credit to this experience. I grew up in mixed tradition of Baptist and Pentecostal. I can see where both sides are coming from, but no doubt take the position of a "continuationist". That means I believe that the gifts of the Spirit (all of them) are still active today in the Church. I will explain how I've come to that conclusion in another post. For purposes of this post, I wanted to point out an interesting distinction that Wayne Grudem makes in Systematic Theology. He argues that the baptism of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture is actually what happens when we come to Christ. ("For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free- and all were made to drink of one Spirit"- 1 Cor. 12:13). He argues it's a one time experience that happens at salvation in almost all cases. He argues that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" that many Christians have experienced later after becoming a Christian is really the "filling of the Holy Spirit" where they have greater empowerment for ministry, repentance and such. It's a bit of semantics. He argues it's important because some Christians will tend to believe that aren't "full Christians" if they haven't experienced the "baptism of the Holy Spirit". I think his distinction is good. What do you guys think?