|
Post by Josh on Aug 27, 2007 15:00:27 GMT -8
"in essentials, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity" anonymous So, a good question to ask is what are the essential Christians doctrines? In other words, what are the teachings and practices that decisively mark out true Christianity from something other than Christianity? Here are some attempts to answer that question: “what most Christians have believed for most of Church history, guided by the Holy Spirit”“ancient consensual scriptural teaching”“the main and plain teachings of Scripture”Each of these statements, I believe, make important points relevant to the search for true Christian orthodoxy. However, each one if it stands alone, has possible weaknesses. It is clear to me that there are essential Christian beliefs, though I believe the border between the essential and the secondary is often times a bit fuzzy. ACF hammered out a doctrinal statement in the hopes of coming as close as possible to a historically conscious, Biblically honest, orthodoxy. This compilation was influenced heavily by the historic creeds of the early Church and observation of the key tenets of faith held by the majority of Christian denominations throughout Church history. Certainly, it’s not an exhaustive list, but I believe it does pretty well at satisfying the main thrust of the above maxims. I submit this list humbly. Nothing here is off limits for dialogue. Too often doctrinal statements become just that: discussion killers. If anyone is interested in discussing why something here should (or shouldn’t) be considered an essential Christian doctrine, I would love to respectfully engage in conversation about that, so please post replies! Doctrinal Statement of Aletheia Christian Fellowship (last updated 12/13) Aletheia Christian Fellowship holds fast to the essential, historically orthodox doctrines of the universal Church, defined further as the clear teachings of Scripture (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Tim. 4:16). Regarding secondary, often debated doctrinal issues, we are a community that encourages freedom of perspective, learning and healthy debate, but never at the cost of love and respect (Prov. 27:17, Prov. 15:22, 1 Tim. 1:3-7, 1 Cor. 8:1, Titus 3:9-11, 1 Cor. 12:4-6, Rom. 14:5-7). Though not an exclusive list, these tenets of faith are intended to outline what Aletheia Christian Fellowship holds to be essential doctrines: 1. THE SCRIPTURES INSPIRED The canonical Scriptures (both Old and New Testament) are the inspired Word of God, a revelation from God to mankind, written by men in cooperation with the Holy Spirit, and are the authoritative rule of faith and conduct (2 Tim. 3:15, 17, 1 Pet. 1:23-25, Heb. 4:12). 2. THE ONE TRIUNE GOD The one true God has revealed Himself as self-existent, eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, omnipresent, holy, righteous, personal, and loving. We affirm that this one God has been made known in Scripture as three co-existent persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Deut. 6:4, Mark 12:29, Isa. 43:10, 11, John 1:1-3, 18, John 10:30, Phil. 2:5-6, Col. 1:15-20, Col. 2:9, Matt. 28:19). The one true God has revealed Himself as self-existent, eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, omnipresent, holy, righteous, personal, and loving. We affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, for He is a triune God; one essence in three distinct persons (Deut. 6:4, Mark 12:29, Isa. 43:10, 11, John 1:1-3, 18, John 10:30, Phil. 2:5-6, Col. 1:15-20, Col. 2:9, Matt. 28:19). 3. MANKIND: CREATION, FALL, AND REDEMPTION THROUGH JESUS Mankind was created good, in the image of God, but by voluntary transgression became spiritually dead. Since this Fall, all humans have inherited the guilt of sin. Our only hope of redemption is in Jesus Christ, who, being fully God and fully human, lived a sinless life and offered himself up for us as an atoning sacrifice. We believe that after Christ died for our sins, he rose bodily from the dead, and ascended to the right hand of the Father (Gen. 1:26-31,; Gen. 3:17-19, Ro. 5:12-21, 1 John 2:1-3, 1 Corinthians 15, Acts 2:32-33). 4. THE SALVATION OF MANKIND A. Means of Salvation Humans are saved by grace, through faith (active trust) in the work of Jesus Christ. This salvation is a gift from God, not based on our own righteousness (Eph. 2:8-9, John 3:16-18, Rom. 10:9-13). However, repentance always accompanies true salvation (Acts 2:38, 2 Timothy 2:19, Luke 13:5). B. Evidences of Salvation The inward evidence to the believer of his salvation is the direct witness of the Spirit. The outward evidence to all men is the process of sanctification in their lives (Ro. 8:16, 1 Thess. 4:7, 2 Tim.1:9, 2 Timothy 2:19, 1 Tim. 5:12-13). 5. BAPTISM IN WATER The ordinance of baptism in water should be observed (as commanded in the Scriptures) by all that have repented of their sins and have sincerely believed in Christ as their Savior and Lord. In doing so, they declare to the world, among other things, that they have died with Christ and have been born again into new life in the Spirit (Matt. 28:19, Rom. 6:4, John 3:1-8). 6. THE LORD’S SUPPER (COMMUNION) The observance of the Lord’s Supper, consisting of the elements (bread and fruit of the vine) is conducted in memory of Jesus’ suffering and death, recognizes Christ’s ongoing presence among us, and celebrates our fellowship with other believers brought about by Christ’s sacrifice. Communion is to be partaken of only by repentant Christians, as Scripture entreats (John 6:48-51, 53-57, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Cor. 11:23-32). 7. SANCTIFICATION By the power of the Holy Spirit we strive to live holy, blameless lives. Though God loves us as we are, and none of us can claim to be completely without sin, sanctification is the will of God for all believers, and holiness is to be earnestly pursued by walking in obedience to God’s Word (1 John 4:19, 1 John 1:8, Heb. 12:14; 1 Pet. 1:15-16; 1 Cor. 1:2, 1 Thess. 5:23-24, 1 John 2:6, 1 John 5:3). 8. SEXUALITY We affirm the Biblical principle that marriage is a monogamous and public commitment between a man and a woman and sex is to be enjoyed only within such a marriage covenant (Heb. 13:4, Heb. 12:16, Matt. 19:5, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 18-20, Eph. 5:3). 9. THE CHURCH The church is the holy Body and Bride of Christ, the dwelling of God through the Spirit, sharing in His authority for the fulfillment of her great commission. Each believer is an integral part of the Church community. Believers in Christ are instructed by the Word of God to meet together with other believers on a regular basis for the strengthening of the Church (1 Cor. 14, Rev. 21:2,10, Heb. 10:25, Matt. 28:18-20, John 20:23, Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:18). 10. MINISTRY The Church is divinely called and scripturally ordained in order to witness of Christ to the world, to make disciples of all nations, to be of practical good to those in need, and to strengthen the existing Body of Christ (Matt. 28: 18-20, Eph. 4:11-13, Matt. 6:10, James 1:27). 11. LAST THINGS We look forward to the Lord’s final return, the resurrection of all the dead, the judgment by Christ of all mankind, and the final establishment of the New Heavens and New Earth as the home of those made righteous through Christ. We believe that at the Last Judgment those who have been saved by Christ will receive everlasting life, but those whose names are not written in the book of life will be separated from the presence of God. (Acts 1:11, 1 Cor. 15:51-52, Rev. 20:11-15, Rev. 21-22:6). We look forward to the Lord’s final return, the resurrection of all the dead, the judgment by Christ of all mankind, and the final establishment of the New Heavens and New Earth as the home of those made righteous through Christ. We believe that after the judgment all those whose names are not written in the book of life will be separated from the presence of God for all eternity (Acts 1:11, 1 Cor. 15:51-52, Rev. 20:11-15, Rev. 21-22:6).Further thoughts on Doctrinal Statements: Clear statements of a Church's position on a variety of Christian doctrines are pretty common for Churches, and are often used as a way to gauge whether a prospective Church body will be a "good fit". Some doctrinal statements are pretty basic, while others might tell you exactly what a Church expects you to believe about "charsimatics gifts", predestination, the Inspiration of Scripture, or even eschatology (end times)! I've felt for a while that we as Christians have often identified ourselves first and formost by our doctrinal distinctives: ie, a particular niche of Christianity, and only secondarily by our allegience to Christ and his one, universal Church. Years of exposure to so many different and vibrant forms of Christianity have solidified in me the promise of reprioritizing. Our doctrinal statement is an attempt to identify the 'main and plain' elements of historic, orthodox Christianity. I know there's a lot there that is not pinned-down. What, exactly, are the 'clear teachings of Scripture'? How do we define a "secondary issue" anyway? Good questions. But I think those questions are best answered for a Church by entering into fellowship with one another, not necessarily by extensive writing and categorizing. In the process of studying the Bible, those distinctives often become more clear. I'd also like to point your attention to the Nicene Creed, which was a source we drew heavily on in the creation of our Doctrinal Statement. This early statement (almost 1700 years old) of Christian beliefs helps us reflect on central Christian beliefs. If you're not familiar with the Nicene Creed, or other like it, please take this link to familiarize yourself: Nicene Creed It is certainly not our approach that particular beliefs about specific doctrines are not important. On the contrary, they are immensely important because beliefs have consequences. But we have found that the healthiest environment for spiritual growth is one that encourages discussion about things that are less than clear, taking the attitude expressed in this helpful (and anonymous) motto: "in essentials unity, in things doubtful liberty, in all things charity" In our Church already you will find those with differing views on predestination, the Inspiration of Scripture, "charismatic gifts", eschatology (end times), politics, etc.. You'll find Christians with Foursquare, Baptist, Covenant, even Quaker backgrounds. But you will also find a diverse group united in their pursuit of Christ, the word of God, and the living out of the Kingdom of God. Come learn, discuss, debate, and grow with us in freedom- grow up into Christ, who is the Head of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Aug 27, 2007 18:02:39 GMT -8
Oh how I love to see things in list format!! Thanks for this compilation, Josh.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 3, 2007 0:51:11 GMT -8
Hi all, IMHO, whatever the essentials are, I suspect that God's list is much shorter than the vast majority of lists that have been offered throughout church history. It seems to me that most of the traditional creeds have become an unfortunate source of division among the brethren. The best list about the essential beliefs that I've seen offered yet, and the one I would currently agree with as far as I can gather strictly from scripture (and I freeely admit that this may be grossly incomplete) is as follows: 1. Jesus has come in the flesh (1John 4:2) 2. Jesus is who He claimed to be (John 8:24) -Messiah (1John 5:1) -Son of God (John 20:31) -Lord (Rom 10:9)[/list] 3. Jesus rose from the dead (Rom 10:9) Although I believe many of the other points of the creeds and doctrinal statements, I don't see God making them conditions of salvation in the bible. For example, although I'm a trinitarian, I don't see Jesus or the apostles explaining that concept as a part of the gospel message and making it an essential belief to be saved. I think it's a reasonable deduction that we arrive at through a variety of scripture passages, but I know others (who I would consider brothers in the Lord) who don't hold that view because they are honestly unconvinced that the evidence points that direction. I'm not willing to divide over it. Only God knows their heart. Another example might be regarding the nature of hell. Although I believe there is an eternal loss (whether eternal torment or conditional immortality I have not yet settled on ) for the unbeliever, I think the bible is vague enough (when researched in original language and context) about the issue to preclude any dogmatic assertions about it. I have friends that believe in universal reconciliation. Although I think it's the least tenable of all the views, the arguments I've seen presented are valid enough to leave room for that possibility. I think in the end....there will be surprises (as C.S. Lewis once wrote). Bottom line for me is, if someone truly loves Jesus and is committed to submit to His lordship, I count him (or her) a brother. I believe the Holy Spirit will eventually lead them in all truth (John 16:13). Otherwise, I think we run the risk of calling unclean something God has cleansed. Anyway, I just wanted to chime in with my humble opinion on what we call "essentials". And again, I would like to re-iterate that I might be completely off my rocker about this. I hope what I said doesn't offend (or shock) anyone . Lord bless.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 4, 2007 20:45:55 GMT -8
Don't worry about shocking us. We kinda like the feeling Your response got me thinking about the importance of distinguishing between a statement of faith for a church body and a "salvation litmus test". I wholeheartedly agree with you that when it comes to salvation, the gospel truth is basic (though of course tough as nails and mysterious as well). All of us are saved despite erroneous or misguided views on some aspects of theology (indeed, in spite of the fact that we can barely apprehend what little information God has given us anyway). Still, I think there are "main and plain" things in Scripture which serve as essential signposts or boundaries for authentic Christian belief-- things well beyond the doctrines pertaining to salvation. The earliest Creeds were hammered out in the face of serious threats to authentic Christianity. It's one thing for an individual to be "fuzzy" on the Trinity, but quite another to have a very persuasive group of individuals such as the Arians trying to undermine the deity of Christ. In regard to the Trinity, though it is not fully articulated explicitly in one specific place in Scripture, it is the only expression of the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that does not contradict any information we have in the New Testament. All other formulations do have to "fudge" Scripture at some point, some worse than others (tri-theism a worse error than modalism perhaps, but all contradicting a statement of Scripture in some way) Going back to my original thought, the list presented here is a compilation of "main and plain" things in Scripture, useful more for the unity of a Christian community than for ascertaining someone's salvation (usually a dubious enterprise, of course ) As to specifics, a couple thoughts: In regard to views on hell, I too have been around the block on that a time or two. Though I tend to lean toward the "eternal conscious punishment" view of hell, I can see some possible wiggle room for "limited punishment ending in eternal destruction, aka eventual annihilation". This debate between these poles was dodged by how we tried to word our statement: [glow=red,2,300]"We believe that after the judgment all those whose names are not written in the book of life will be separated from the presence of God for all eternity"[/glow] This doesn't say what the separation is like, just that it will occur. And there are easily a score of verses to at least back that up. Taken by itself, I wouldn't consider someone not a Christian because they held to universal reconciliation, I would just seriously disagree with them ;D. Another hot button is the Inspiration of Scripture/ Inerrency/ Infallibility. This is a huge dividing ground in many churches. In fact, I felt automatically excluded from many a denomination over issues of conscience on this matter. To me, it's "main and plain" in Scripture that Scripture is inspired (God-breathed), but whether that directly translates to "infallibility or inerrency in every apsect" I think is best to leave up to serious study and freedom of conscience/ informed opinion. So, that's why we just put: [glow=red,2,300]The canonical Scriptures (both Old and New Testament) are the inspired Word of God, a revelation from God to mankind, written by men in cooperation with the Holy Spirit, and are the authoritative rule of faith and conduct (2 Tim. 3:15, 17, 1 Pet. 1:23-25, Heb. 4:12). [/glow] A good word of wisdom. Though I think Scripture does exhort us to find the line between heresy and the boundaries of authentic Christian belief, we must not be "took quick to deal out [death] and judgment" as Gandalf once said. Thoughts on other aspects here? This conversation is helpful in the refining process.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 5, 2007 11:10:49 GMT -8
Hi Josh, Thank you for your response. Great post! In order to avoid lengthy and exhaustive posts for anyone reading, I’ll just pick a topic or two to comment on and maybe pick the others up later. I agree that there are “main and plain” things in scripture, but I also think many of the things we call “main and plain” are really not so. The Trinity, for example, is not so “main and plain” IMO, and I’m not really sure the disciples even really got the concept until much later on in their ministry (see John 14:8-9). If someone was a follower of Jesus under the influence Arius before the Nicean council, and therefore believed that the Logos (Jesus) was the first created thing, they were still counted among the brethren. I’m not sure I would go so far as to say they are now heretics after the council has convened. After all, if I recall correctly, there was a point that almost everyone sided with Arius and only Athanasius (and maybe 1 other) opposed him. We could have all just as easily been JW’s right now . Although I’m solidly a Trinitarian, I can see language in scripture that could lead someone to mistakenly believe that the Logos had a beginning. I know people who are very committed followers of Christ that fall into this category. I’ve been taught that if someone doesn’t believe the Trinity, they’re not Christians and there can be no fellowship with them. I can’t subscribe to that point of view because I don’t see the bible saying that. I would even go so far as to say that there are JW’s who are true Christians . In as much as they are submitted to Jesus with the little light that they have been given, I believe God honors that. A person can submit to the Lordship of Jesus without a knowledge of the nature of God. Of course, once they begin to know the truth and suppress it because of their loyalty to the Watchtower, I believe this is where they begin to fall into deep trouble (Rom 1, 2Thess 2). I would welcome such a person into fellowship and slowly disciple them toward truth. I just don’t see the councils having the same authority as the apostles (Jerusalem council excepted, of course). Some of these councils got incredibly nit-picky about things we can’t even really know. Yet, if you disagreed with them, you were banished or burned at the stake. You wrote: I think I’ll have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I’ve heard this said many times and it sounds good at first glance. But I don’t see the bible defining unity as common beliefs, but rather as a spirit or attitude towards those following the same King (Jesus). Now those that reject the clear teachings of the apostles are indeed heretics and should be rejected (Titus 3:10). But it’s important to remember what the word “heretic” means in original language: NT:141 hairetikos (hahee-ret-ee-kos'); from the same as NT:140; a schismatic:A heretic is someone who is divisive, one who creates schisms. That could be through an opposition to the authoritative teachings of the apostles, but not necessarily so. We can easily be that even if all our doctrine is correct (which is more often the case IMO). By the way, I should say that all of this is not to criticize your statement of faith, it’s as good and solid as any that I’ve seen out there and I appreciate the fact that you left room for the possibility of other views being correct on certain points. That shows a great deal of humility, maturity, and love for truth. My comments are about statements of faith in general. I think they tend to be unnecessarily exclusionary and this could merely be a reflection of my own primitive leanings and biases I freely admit. Anyway, Thanks for the on-going dialog Josh, it’s very educational.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 7, 2007 21:13:02 GMT -8
First off, obviously in regard to "orthodoxy" and "heresy" there are many factors to consider and shades of gray in between.
For instance, I wouldn't consider all those who held to Arius' view as "heretics", though I would consider his view "heresy" nonetheless.
Though the Trinity is very complicated and may not jump off the page in a neat and tidy formulation, I think it is solidly embedded in Scripture and in early Christian tradition.
Why is it important?
Well, I think it is true that ideas have consequences. What might seem like small discrepancies or departures from an orthodox understanding of say, the Trinity, can have big consequences down the road.
Notwithstanding the possibility that individual JWs or Latter-Day Saints, for instance, might be "known by Christ", the heterodox theological structures they have built started off by tweaking with basic fundamentals like the Trinity, or usually more specific, doctrines about the nature of Christ.
As I believe G.K. Chesterton points out, small heresies almost always breed bigger ones, a kind of snowball effect.
Obviously, there is a strong heritage in Paul's writings that the faithful should "watch their life and doctrine closely, for in doing so they will save themselves and their hearers" (paraphrase), and elsewhere that the role of the shepherds of God's flock is to counter false teaching. Since I see Paul arguing strongly about the importance of concepts more complicated than the very extreme basics (as in your list), my minimalism might not be as minimal as others.
I can see how what I said here might be problematic, if largely because it's unclear. I'll have to mull that one over again a bit.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 8, 2007 10:54:40 GMT -8
Hi Josh, Great points! Thanks for your reply. I want to say that, lest I come off appearing to have an axe to grind about this, I’m actually kind of a sell out in regards to my own position here. I work with Prison Fellowship in prison ministry and had to agree to their statement of faith. I found nothing in it that I didn’t agree with in it and it has the basic elements that most Christian organizations have in their creedal statements. Also, I co-lead an open bible forum in Camas once a month in a church up there that one of the members goes to. While the views of the participants vary widely, our group had to come up with a statement of faith to show the church leadership in order to use the facilities. Here’s what was given (warning: it’s kind of long): statement of faith[/u][/url] This was written by a man who is a Christian Universalist (not to be mistaken with Unitarian) who I think might even be open-theist. While most of us are neither of these things, none of us found anything in this statement that we disagreed with and it seems to place the emphasis on knowing and obeying Jesus, which is what I believe Jesus and the apostles emphasized as well. One of my passions is promoting unity in the body of Christ where unnecessary divisions exist. Of course, this can never be at the expense of truth. But that is why I like to encourage people not to define orthodoxy more narrowly than God does. And finding that balance, I think, is the challenge we must continue to strive for. Amen? P.S. Josh, I sent you a pm.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 9, 2007 16:38:27 GMT -8
Some thoughts on the statement of faith you posted: I like that it was more in story form than many statements (btw, I'm curious on your thoughts on the importance of "story" to christian faith and especially our views on scripture. Here's a link to some ground we've covered on this: Inspiration and Interpretation/ Bible as Story) Still, I do see Statements of Faith as having some limited value in short, succinct lists. I just hope that they are just icing on a story-filled cake. I liked the emphasis on using biblical phrases as well. I liked that it was strong on the Incarnation as well, which automatically brings with it some empahsis on "trinitarian" ideas Also, it has the strength of fitting well into what might be considered more "common vernacular". Here's a small little nit-pick that jumped out at me: I probably would be a bit leary on the use of "the fool says in his heart there is no god" just because there are many who wrestle with doubt about the existence of God for pithier reasons than were being floated around millenia ago-- I myself have been through that, and I think it better to affirm the heaviness of that doubt for some rather than dismiss it as trivial- I'd probably be more comfortable with a passage like Romans 1:20 there, but... Yes, statements of faith are interesting creatures to have to think about, work on, crank out, and hold somewhat loosely. BTW, regarding the Trinity, I stumbled on this verse by John Donne, which I think speaks in a funny way to some of this discussion: Donne on the Trinity
|
|
aimee
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by aimee on Dec 11, 2007 22:45:29 GMT -8
Your perspective is interesting Christopher, and in many areas it rings true to what I have felt is right. I especially connect with this:
I have been a member of Baptist, Foursquare, Methodist, and Non-denominational churches, and have attended Prespeterian, Nazarene, and Catholic services as well. From what I've seen of each, when they are teaching scripture and living God's word, there is very little difference between them in essentials.
They are loving, kind, self-controlled people who have God's hand on their lives. It always saddens me when the church or the people in it, get so stuck on the 'unessentials' that they fail to see the important things, like unity, loving one another, and that we are working for a common goal.
I have noticed in my life when I become pre-occupied or superior feeling in my right interpretation or belief, how God gently takes it away and shows me the other side.
Not to say that there aren't important foundations that don't change, but that the differences of opinion on the small stuff aren't worth arguing over.
Conclusion; that I need to follow Jesus in what he is teaching me, and my conscience can be clear. In the end, when sheep are separated from the goats, it isn't my job to say who stays and who goes. That is reserved for Jesus. Matthew 25:31-46
One thing that comes to my mind on this is that the Jews had very certian opinions on 'The Christ' and what he would be like (a King for one) which turned out to look very differently than they expected.
To keep history from repeating itself, sometimes it is good to keep wondering and seeking God's interpretation, rather than being confident in my own. Which is harder, since I like 'arriving' rather than 'searching'.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 14, 2007 7:55:39 GMT -8
Hi Josh, Now that we’re home and things are getting settled, it’s nice to get back to something I love to do….talking about God, and the things of God. I’m writing this as I sit next to my new sleeping baby boy and it just doesn’t get any better than this. ;D You wrote: I believe scripture is exactly that…God’s story. The story of a Creator and His creation and how He redeems it back to Himself. It has comedy and tragedy, peril and risk, a hero and a damsel in distress, a climax, and the hero rides off in the sunset in Acts 1 (ok, so maybe it was a little cloudy). All of the elements that make up a good story, are in the ultimate story of all stories. You wrote: Good analogy. However, I think I might actually classify them as the flour in the cake. Bland by itself, but foundational. That’s why I don’t prefer too many “additives” in the flour to muck up the flavor. I might see the different expressions in the body of Christ as the icing. Each one is sweet in its own right and has a distinct taste to it, and some prefer certain flavors over others. I don’t know that I would say that incarnation necessarily brings with it “Trinitarian” ideas. The UPC believes in the incarnation, yet they are modalist. But I will say that my friend (who is a Trinitarian btw) does emphatically affirm in his statement that Jesus is the express image of the invisible God as Paul would say to the Colossians. I can definitely agree with that. You already know that my statement of faith would be much, much shorter . But in Mike’s defense, I think this was his own personal statement of faith the really wasn’t meant to be shared. The only reason we used it was because we needed one to satisfy the church leadership whose space we were using and the rest of us were just too lazy to come up with anything on our own. So Mike offered it up and it seemed well enough for us to present to the church without limiting discussions in our group. We believe that the truth has the best arguments and, collectively, there is enough of a wealth of knowledge there to be able to defend the essential truths of Christianity. For that reason, we didn’t intend on having a statement of faith at all. But since it was a condition for using the facility, we wanted to limit it from anything that would prevent honest dialog and challenges to disputable matters like the trinity, views of hell, etc. For me, it comes down to simply not wanting to define orthodoxy more narrowly than God has, no matter what any church council has come up with. You wrote: I agree that ideas have consequences. But could you perhaps unpack what consequences you might see resulting from someone not holding the Trinity doctrine? It’s not at all apparent to me what those would be. I know the trinity doctrine is pretty widely accepted as an “essential” of the faith, but it was not always so. I don’t even think the disciples had a clear understanding of it. Also, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that the pre-Christian Jews thought in Trinitarian terms…they only knew of YHWH. If it was that important to God for us to know and embrace it, you would think He would have given us a more thorough and direct teaching of it in scripture. After 2000 years, it remains an enigma to us and something that is deduced from various passages and not from any direct teaching from the apostles or even Jesus Himself. The vast majority of Christians cannot articulate or defend the trinity against challenges. Most simply hold the view because their church tells them that it’s the only “orthodox” view to hold. That’s one of the main reasons why I don’t hold it out as one of the “main and plain” things of the faith. If people can’t read the bible and immediately reach a right understanding of something, it doesn’t strike me as plain. I still have yet to hear an explanation of the trinity that satisfies all the questions I have about it (I think I’ve heard all the egg, water, lemonade, etc. analogies). But still, I hold the view because that’s where scriptural evidence leads me and I’m ok with not understanding it, and I’m also ok with others, in sincerity, reaching different conclusions than me with that same evidence. I think the Holy Spirit will eventually “lead us in all truth”. BTW, I love that verse by Donne you quoted. Thanks for sharing that. Loving the discussion. Lord bless.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 14, 2007 8:06:13 GMT -8
Hello Aimee, Thank you for your response. You wrote: Right you are. Jesus not only commanded it, but said this was the one thing that would cause the world to know we are His disciples (John 13:34, 15:12, 15:17) I think that is the key to unity...seeking to understand the point of view of another. You may not agree in the end, but the “unity of the Spirit” has been retained. Amen to that. Aint that the truth. One thing I’ve had to learn to accept is that it’s OK to be undecided on many things. This rubs against our grain, but it’s actually quite liberating (and sometimes the only honest approach) to be agnostic on certain things that are not clear to us. Stubborn religious dogma has no place in a relational family because it only serves to build up walls of separation that were demolished at the cross (Eph 2:14). I like the way the blind guy in John 9 put it to the Pharisees when they asserted Jesus was a sinner with the tagline of "give God the glory". He answered them: "Whether He is a sinner or not I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see." John 9:25 NKJV Though his theology was obviously unrefined, he was honest about what he did know and admitted what he didn’t. And it was enough for him that He encountered Jesus in a life transforming way. Now that's giving God the glory. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Lord bless.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 21, 2007 17:08:56 GMT -8
Regarding all this, I would just say that there is a difference between believing a heresy and being a heretic. Based on what you said in the last paragraph, aren't you basically admitting that persistence in disbelief in something like Christ's deity would be how one heads down the road to being a heretic? I think we should have a lot of patience for misbelief based on misunderstandings or inabilities to understand, but nevertheless I think that we should contend for the doctrine of the Trinity, speaking the truth in love. I wouldn't make a judgment on someone's salvation who denied some aspect of the Trinity. As a believer, I would be be able to unite with such a person on many levels. As a pastor (bishop/presbyter), however, I don't think that I could in good conscience, ordain or commission someone into a specific ministry in a local church without a committment to a Trinitarian understanding of God. I could see possible partnerships with other pastors or congregations who held divergent views on this, but I do see Scripture as placing a particular onus on the eldership of a church to preserve doctrinal integrity on fundamentals. This dialogue has caused me to think a lot about the difference of perspective on these issues depending on one's vantage point. From the general perspective of a Christian, I have a lot of tolerance. From the specific perspective of a pastor of a particular congregation, and in the context of a specific church environment, that tolerance finds a few (hopefully not a ton) of extra parameters to me. But that's a huge conversation we can get into as things unfold. Also, if I find some time, I'd like to respond some more on what you said regarding whether the Trinity is really main and plain. I did post a bit on this elsewhere, fyi. Here's a link: Threads on the TrinityKeep it up. This is good for me.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 21, 2007 23:07:08 GMT -8
Hi Josh, Great point. Actually, I would make a distinction between disbelief and denial of the truth. I’m talking about a matter of honesty. For example, a JW comes to my house and tries to convince me that the Trinity is false. In the process, I convince him from scripture that his present beliefs are mistaken and the Trinity is indeed true. This is the moment of truth for him. He can either: a) Obey the new light he has been given and renounce his beliefs and follow the truth. b) Reject the new light and go on to the next house because he knows the Watchtower cult does not allow "new" discoveries of truth. c) Throw up his hands and give up the whole thing all together. If he chooses (a), he demonstrates that he is indeed a Christian because he is not disobedient to the truth. If he chooses either (b) or (c), he demonstrates that Jesus is not his Lord, but either the Watchtower or he himself is. However, if I am not able to convince him despite my best efforts, and he still honestly believes the Trinity is a false doctrine at this point, I don’t know that God holds that against him. If Jesus is still his Lord (master), then I believe I’m to regard the man a Christian (albeit a Christian in error). That’s kind of where I’m coming from there. (BTW, I consider JW’s a cult, not because of their erroneous views on the Trinity or the deity of Christ, but because of the thought control and manipulation. The Watchtower is the final authority to them, not Jesus and the apostles. I realize that most Christians would say it’s the denial of the deity of Christ that makes them a cult. However, I believe many so-called “Christian” organizations that affirm the Trinity fit the definition of cult because of their attempt to control the minds and lives of their members.) I agree 100%. And I would add that we should contend with, not only the Trinity, but all truth. However, I’m still curious why the Trinity is a point most Christians feel is worth parting company over. My gut feeling is that it’s generally a paradigm of tradition more than something God wants the church to do. But I may be wrong, and I'm open to being corrected if presented with a compelling reason. Like, what kind of levels? Just out of curiosity, given that the bible does not make this a condition of ordination, what is it that would vex your conscience about this? I think that’s a great approach to take. Being in prison ministry, I have no choice but to work with others of divergent views. Many of the inmates attend whatever “church” services they can get, including SDA, UPC, and many others that hold radically different views than mine, even JW and LDS. On top of that, we are not allowed to speak negatively against other religious groups that come in. We can teach wholeheartedly what we believe (positive arguments for), but we cannot represent other groups in the negative....like refer to JW’s or LDS groups as a cult for instance . I’ve learned over the years which hills are worth dying on and which ones I let the Holy Spirit work out. As far as doctrinal integrity on fundamentals, my limited studies on what the apostles meant by defending “sound doctrine” has led me to conclude that they nearly always meant behavioral things. Some exceptions might be the Paul on resurrection and John disputing Gnosticism in his epistles, but other than that, I can’t think of anything in the writings of the apostles on the nature of God being the doctrine they felt needed defending. It seems to me they were always talking about obeying the commands of Jesus when they spoke of “sound doctrine”…Jesus as the only rightful King. However, I’m open to correction on that if you know of something I have missed. Me too. That is indeed a necessary consequence of any organized entity/group (I don't mean that in any negative sense btw). The challenge is always to find the right balance. Given the present paradigm held in Christendom, I certainly think it is wise to make a point of affirming the Trinity. Most Christian organizations will not work with you or even acknowledge your validity in the body if you are not adamantly Trinitarian. I’ve been strongly cautioned by well meaning brothers about my lax stance on it (sympathy it’s the first step toward heresy they say ). However, I believe that if Jesus is truly my shepherd, he is able to reel me in if I stray too far off. I trust more in His ability to keep me than in Satan’s ability to deceive me. ;D Thanks, I’ll check it out. Me too. I love this stuff. BTW, I’m still interested in hearing exactly what consequences you might think there are for being in error about the Trinity doctrine and why.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 23, 2007 7:50:19 GMT -8
I totally agree with the points in your hypothetical JW scenario- and denial is a much better term than "persistence in disbelief" in making a distinction there.
I do agree with your reason for considering JWs a cult, although I coonsider them a cult on both pyschological and doctrinal grounds. And yes, I think there are some completely "orthodox" (in regard to theology) Christian groups that I'd consider "cultis" due to their attempts to control their members in certain ways.
Friendship. Professionally. Working together for a common good. Discussion boards. Playing Axis and Allies. Watching LOTR. Backpacking. ;D Most things, but, hmmm, wouldn't marry them. Wouldn't ordain them for official ministry.
OK, what's left?
More on why I think the Trinity is essential. What kinds of consequences might come from a false view on the Trinity. Why I wouldn't ordain someone who didn't hold a Trinitarian view.
I'm chomping at the bit, here, man, but Christmas calls!
Soon.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 23, 2007 8:02:46 GMT -8
Perhaps in the meantime you have a response to my post on JWs and the Trinity to further some of this discussion. I'm curious what your thoughts are on what I said there: JWs and the Trinity
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 26, 2007 8:22:31 GMT -8
So, though I'd like to discuss details about the trinity on the What about the Trinity? sub-forum, perhaps we can continue the general discussion about "essential beliefs" here. I have some backlogged comments on stuff you wrote earlier: I'm uncomfortable with this assessment for two reasons: a) it's hard to draw a line between behavior and belief and b) I think huge chunks of the New Testament are basically abstract theology (with, of course, practical application). For instance, Romans devotes an insane amount of space to developing a philosophy on the interaction between the law and grace. In Galatians, Paul uses 'fightin' words over his disagreement with someone else's "abstract" theology. In Hebrews, more than half the space is dedicated to establishing and defending a very theological point. We could go on. But I think Paul summed it up best in 1 Timothy 4:16: Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. [emphasis mine]The New Testament is equally concerned with belief as it is with behavior, ostensibly because behavior flows out of belief. And this leads me to a nagging thought in this discussion. So, let's say we take your 4 point statement and run with it. [/list] 3. Jesus rose from the dead (Rom 10:9)[/quote] Isn't there still so much in Scripture besides these things that is essential? Why pick these 4? Case in point, going back to Galatians, Paul says that if we take on the theology/ philosophy of the Judaizers, then we don't even belong to the true family of the gospel, and that if we spread their view, it would be better for us to be eternally condemned [not my words, but his!]. Here Paul is drawing a line in the sand in regard to an essential that doesn't even make it onto your list:
Galatians 1:6-9 6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
I'm guessing I could find 100 examples of something emphatically insisted on by the apostles in the New Testament as "essential". For this reason, I think it is helpful to have a somewhat more fleshed out idea of essentials. But when I'm talking about "essentials" or a "statement of faith" remember again that I'm not talking about criterion for salvation, I'm just talking about an outline of beliefs that comprise:
“what most Christians have believed for most of Church history, guided by the Holy Spirit” “ancient consensual scriptural teaching” “the main and plain teachings of Scripture”
helpful for the life of the Church, which comprises people in all stages of faith. Again, I primarily see Scripture as a story, and only secondarily (or even further down the list) as a compendium of abstract truths. Still, that doesn't mean I don't think "lists" aren't helpful for new believers, for example, who have all sorts of questions about beliefs and often find it helpful to focus on understanding the "biggies" first.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 26, 2007 8:34:14 GMT -8
You know, I wonder if whether perhaps the most important thing to get right in any "statement of faith" is the INTRODUCTION. It's clear from this discussion (and I hadn't thought much about this before) that a huge part of what might make a "statement of faith" helpful or hurtful or well done or poorly done is probably to be found in a clear articulation of what the statement of faith what designed for in the first place- ie, the purpose of the statement. For example, is it designed to articulate only those things pertaining to salvation? Is it designed to outline the Church's leadership's stance? Are the ideas contained within primarily there to serve as helpful guides or absolutley fixed landmarks? Are the items on the list open to any kind of debate, scrutiny, or change?
All good questions.
|
|