The Wizard of Is
There was a genius about John Winebrenner, the sort of genius that empowers a person break tradition and live boldly in a new way. I am a passionate student of paradigm breaking. I could read up on Einstein and Louis Armstrong--two amazing 20th century paradigm breakers--every day.
There's a quality that Einstein and Armstrong possessed that Winebrenner had. It's something that I can feel but not put into words very well: An ability to exist without being constrained by the nooses around the necks of everyone else? I don't know. But, there's something about the way Einstein was about to think about light and what Armstrong could do when he put his cornet to his lips that is true about the way Winebrenner functioned in the Body of Christ.
It may be the CGGC's greatest sin that we refuse to embrace Winebrenner's prophetic genius and that we force him into the mold invented by Emperor Constantine.
We force him into that mold in many ways. You know by now that it angers me that one of the ways we assault Winebrenner's genius is by pretending that his brilliant 1844 articulation* of "THE FAITH AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD" in twenty seven points is the CGGC's first "Statement of Faith."
To do that is a crime against truth because Winebrenner says as straightforwardly as he can:
The Church of God has no authoritative constitution, ritual, creed, catechism, book of discipline, or church standard, but the Bible. The Bible she believes to be the only creed, discipline church standard, the test-book, which God ever intended his church to have.
What may be more important than that crime against truth is our crime against Winebrenner's spiritual genius that we commit when we ignore the third statement that introduces his description of the faith and practice of the Church of God. He says,
Nevertheless, it may not be inexpedient, pro bono publico, to exhibit a short manifesto, or declaration, showing her views, as to what may be called leading matters of faith, experience and practice.
Winebrenner's was a man of is. His genius was to see that, while creating a creed or discipline or any other humanly-devised standard for the the church is unspiritual, that being honest about who you are and what you do is profoundly spiritual. And so, Winebrenner determined to describe the actual truth about the Church of God. In 1844 he recorded the 'Is-es' of the Church of God in twenty seven points.
What he did not do. What he refused to do. What he would never do is record the 'shoulds' of the Church of God--an idealized image of what we might be or could be or should be. Those things are what is recorded in a Statement of Faith.
To call Winebrenner's brilliant and profoundly spiritual 1844 document a Statement of Faith is a sin against is!
It seems to me that the one thing that separates the CGGC from Winebrenner's Church of God is that Winebrenner was into reality. He was into is. And, that we are into wishes. We are into shoulds and mights and coulds.
Those 27 points are ises--truths. They describe reality.
Our Mission and Vision Statement don't, in any way, describe reality. For us they don't have to represent truth because we are no longer people of is. We are people of should.
The difference between the Church of God and the CGGC is that we have no intention of building churches on the New Testament plan. We have produced not one sprout of fruit in establishing churches on the New Testament plan. But, when Winebrenner said on the day we came into existence, that the church of God is about establishing churches on the New Testament plan, he did things to make a New Testament church exist. Winebrenner lived in the world in which is matters.
So, understand that there is a difference of paradigm between Winebrenner's 1844 document and all the Statements of Faith and Doctrinal Statements that have followed. It is the difference between is and should.
There's a world of difference between saying, "Jesus is Lord" and "Jesus should be Lord." The difference is eternal.
Winebrenner's 1844 statement of THE FAITH AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD is an indictment against the CGGC because it does nothing but describe twenty seven ises. It's an indictment because most of those twenty seven ises, for the CGGC, are now ain'ts. Some of them are no longer even shoulds.
I encourage you to look look over those twenty seven 1844 Church of God ises and ask yourself two questions:
- Is this an is for the CGGC today?
- What are the 2011 CGGC ises?
I'm doing that myself right now and, for me, it's a powerful and challenging exercise.
On February 21, 2011 CGGCers are going to assemble to begin to work on revising a doctrinal statement, despite what John Winebrenner said about the authority of the Bible.
Our leaders tried to have such a revision in place to be approved by the General Conference in session in 2010. They were not able to achieve consensus over the proposed document in time to bring it to the General Conference floor. So, now we have nearly three years until we can attempt to achieve that task again.
Can we begin that process at the level of is?
It's time for us, perhaps for the first time since 1844, to put on a page a summary of what is true about the CGGC in our time and at this place. We can worry about what we'd like to be true after we come to grips with what is.
*Thanks to Andrew for the editing advice.
posted by bill Sloat at 7:01 AM
46 Comments:
Bill said,
You know by now that it angers me that one of the ways we assault Winebrenner's genius is by pretending that his brilliant 1844
statement of "THE FAITH
AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD" in twenty seven points is the CGGC's first
"Statement of Faith.
Are you saying that Winebrenner's statement of faith was not a statement of faith?
Andrew,
I am saying that, for Winebrenner, the only Statement of Faith was the Bible.
Nevertheless, it may not be inexpedient, pro bono publico, to exhibit a short manifesto, or DECLARATION, showing her views, as to what may be called leading matters OF FAITH, experience and practice.
Winebrenner made a declaration of faith, an "articulation" of faith, a statement of faith... Where's my thesaurus?
Andrew who?
Bill,
I think that we could agree that Winebrenner saw a tension between holding the authority of the Bible and the benefit of making a declaration of faith. That is why he uses the term "nevertheless"
The Church of God has no authoritative constitution, ritual, creed, catechism, book of discipline, or church standard, but the Bible. The Bible she believes to be the only creed, discipline church standard, the test-book, which God ever intended his church to have.
Nevertheless,
it may not be inexpedient, pro bono publico, to exhibit a short manifesto, or declaration, showing her views, as to what may be called leading matters of faith, experience and practice.
Winebrenner wanted a statement of faith that was not authoritative.
I wanted to point out your logical inconsistency in posting that Winebrenner did not want a statement of faith at all.
Andrew Griffith
reposting for bill (was in the wrong thread):
Andrew,
Thanks for the last name.
Winebrenner wanted a statement of faith that was not authoritative.
You are raising a crucial point. I disagree, though, that that's what Winebrenner wanted.
A Statement of Faith or Doctrinal Statement is, as I understand it, for internal consumption. So are all those other things that Winebrenner said that the Church of God doesn't have, e.g., creeds or disciplines, etc., because the ONLY (internal) authority for the Church of God is the Bible.
Winebrenner wanted people outside the movement to know what the Church of God's 'ises' are in both belief and action. Because he was so thoroughly externally focused, he saw value in letting others know anything they wanted to know about us.
Those ises have no authority over anyone inside or outside the Church of God. They were nothing more than descriptions.
When we gather in Findlay for the symposium designed to address the issue of what our beliefs are, it would be very Winebrennerian to ask: What can we say about what we believe that would help an outsider understand us?
That's not what a Statement of Faith does.
That's not what We Believe does.
bill,
i'm curious as to your feelings about guys like athanasius, who were crucial in things like the council of nicaea and fought hard for the truths proclaimed there and the extinguishing of heresies like arianism. he was influential in the forming of the creed, and spend a large chunk of his life on the run for proclaiming our Triune God, and not the one made in the image of heretics. yet you and winebrenner seem vehemently opposed to creeds. so what do you say about guys like him?
I'm a big fan of Athansius. He was a man of truth. He lived for truth and he would have easily died for truth.
I just don't think that his version of truth is superior to Scripture's. And, I'd guess that Winebrenner would have agreed with me.
Bill,
I'm not sure that you will find anyone in the CGGC who thinks that "We Believe" is superior to Scripture. I have yet to encounter, having being raised in the CGGC, anyone that conastantly/consistently quotes "We Believe" as an authorative means of revelation or Christian living.
With so many communities of believers holding Scripture as their authoritative basis for faith, we still end up with many interpretations of Scripture. By example we could consider the classic debate of Calvinism/Arminianism. Both hold Scripture as their source of information but come to differnt ends. Without a clear statement of how Scripture is understood, we would find ourselves in the company of brothers with whom we have irreconcilable differences. Perhaps eventually finding us in a school of accepting all interpretation because the Scripture is our only statement of faith.
Unfortunately, I don't think that we can ignore statements of faith as a means of identifying our understanding of Scripture, the only foundation of our faith.
Sola Scriptura, Brother,
Brandon
Brandon brings up a good question.
Is Calvinism/Arminianism a hill to die on? Does the CGGC feel so sure we are right about this one that we irreconcilable to Calvinist brothers?
Is feetwashing?
So is We Believe a document of where we are leaning? Should we call it We Are Leaning rather than We Believe?
I'm not trying to stir up trouble; this post just makes me think -- what is essential? And maybe, what is essential that may not be overly clear in the Bible?
-Trinitarianism
-Jesus as God (which goes with trinity)
-Jesus lived, died, and literally rose again
-The Bible is the Word of God
-God's purpose is to reconcile all things to Himself. Therefore heaven is a city, where everyone is in close community.
-The church is God's agent in the world to promote justice, mercy, and faithfulness. (Matt 23; Micah 6:8)
-Jesus is coming back
Is this enough to separate us from those who we believe won't make it to heaven?
Any other essentials that are not overly clear in the Bible?
I wonder if we don't secretly fear that the Bible is not sufficient and that we need to make sure we have it safely defined.
In some ways it's actually easier to fall back on doctrinal points described in detail then it is to continually wrestle with the Scriptures.
One problem with doctrtinal statements, it seems to me, is that they end discussions that should be beginning and ongoing.
Brandon,
I'm not sure that you will find anyone in the CGGC who thinks that "We Believe" is superior to Scripture. I have yet to encounter, having being raised in the CGGC, anyone that conastantly/consistently quotes "We Believe" as an authorative means of revelation or Christian living.
I hope you can't produce something that I wrote in which I was so sloppy that I could leave that impression. I also know of no one in the CGGC who thinks WB is superior to Scripture. In fact, I find us lying to ourselves about it. Most of us, on one hand, simply ignore it yet, on the other, officially it is the standard we use to define ourselves.
Without a clear statement of how Scripture is understood, we would find ourselves in the company of brothers with whom we have irreconcilable differences. Perhaps eventually finding us in a school of accepting all interpretation because the Scripture is our only statement of faith.
All I can say to that is that you're seeing a problem that didn't surface when the Church of God was a vital, spiritual and growing movement in the days of John Winebrenner. In fact, the reality seems to be that it is since we started writing Doctrinal Statements that we've experienced doctrinal chaos.
It seems to me it is since we started creating our own doctrinal formulations and, therefore, relied less heavily on the raw truth of the Word itself, that who we are in the content of our faith has become diluted. It's ironic, but that's the truth I see.
Unfortunately, I don't think that we can ignore statements of faith as a means of identifying our understanding of Scripture, the only foundation of our faith.
That sound you hear is John Winebrenner spinning in his grave.
There is no doubt that we have to come to grips with who we have been. We will never have a peace about who we are until we do.
Brian,
I'm not trying to stir up trouble; this post just makes me think -- what is essential?
That was my point is suggesting my replacement for We Believe as:
Because the Scriptures are its only rule of faith and practice, the Churches of God, General Conference proclaims:
*That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
*That he was buried,
*That he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
*And that he appeared to people,
which is how Paul described the content of the gospel he preached.
That was Paul's definition of what is essential.
dan,
your comment causes great unrest in me, as i want to believe the Bible is sufficient, and am troubled by the idea that i might not believe that.
you're right, it's easier to call up a doctrinal statement quote that nice and neat then dig through Scripture, which probably leads to a general lack of confidence or interest in the Word. may God rekindle in our hearts a love for and trust in His Word as sufficient.
that being said, i think there is some expedient, to quote winebrenner, in writing out something abbreviated for the public, and also for baby Christians. after all, you don't start a kindergardener on calculus, or shakespeare. perhaps this could be nothing more than a series of Biblical quotes.
nevertheless, many heresies have come from those who have little to no background in true doctrine, and then dig in deeply to the Word, which they then twist to their own distruction (cf. 2 Peter 3). thus God appoints teachers, and might not a method of teaching be through writing?
but i'm coming to see more and more what bill et al mean in saying that we have no authoritative document but Scripture. i do think we need to have a serious discussion on how to run the sub-authorities the Scripture sets up, and can see a written document as perhaps being useful, but there is a need to submit even that document or those authorities to the continued scrutiny of Scripture. that's what i mean when i say prima Scriptura.
M,
I wonder if we don't secretly fear that the Bible is not sufficient and that we need to make sure we have it safely defined.
This is precisely what I have tried not to say because I've feared that I'd seem/be arrogant. I struggle against reaching the conclusion that many of us lack Winebrenner's courage to rely on the Word and nothing else.
A synonym for Restorationism is Primitivism. It take courage to say that that which is most primitive is best. Winebrenner said that every day of his life from 1829 on. I'm afraid that some of us--for whatever reason--can't say that.
In some ways it's actually easier to fall back on doctrinal points described in detail then it is to continually wrestle with the Scriptures
Winebrenner biographers describe Winebrenner as reading the Scriptures on his knees between 1825 and the publication of A Brief Scriptural View of The Church of God in 1829. Doing what he did hurts.
One problem with doctrtinal statements, it seems to me, is that they end discussions that should be beginning and ongoing.
And, that describes the difference I see between the vitality of the Church of God in its first generations and what it has become since we penned our first Doctrinal Statement.
bill,
That was Paul's definition of what is essential.
while 1 Cor. 15:3f is one of paul's summaries of the Gospel, it certainly was not his only one, nor was it complete in several senses. it speaks of Jesus dying for our sins, which might cover justification, propitiation, and expiation, but it speaks not to adoption or sanctification or glorification.
it also is certainly not the fullness of what paul says is "the whole counsel of God", which he taught to the ephesians (cf. Acts 20).
i think you do a disservice to Scripture when you pull those few verses out of their context and try to make them something that they are not, namely, a "modern" "statement of faith". (and i can now understand why your fingers were shaking as you typed it the first time.)
walt,
i think you do a disservice to Scripture when you pull those few verses out of their context and try to make them something that they are not, namely, a "modern" "statement of faith". (and i can now understand why your fingers were shaking as you typed it the first time.)
Of course they are not a 'modern' 'statement of faith.'
But, your observation seems to assume that such a thing is a good thing.
As far as I can tell, primitivism worked for the Church of God as long as we tried it.
bill,
i'm becoming less and less certain that a statement of faith is a good thing.
however, i do feel what several others have mentioned, namely, how do we deal with issues of different (and sometimes heretical) interpretations of Scripture, without reinventing the creeds or canons of the ancient church (nicaea, chalcedon, ephesus, etc.)? one problem with primitivism is that we cannot exactly imitate the earliest church, because we are missing at least one vital thing: the apostles, in the flesh, able to directly deal with heresies et al. i don't think we can go the route that rome went (papacy, etc.). and if not creedal/doctrinal statements, what is our alternative?
Question -- Should We Believe speak of the Trinity? It required a creed to settle the matter for the early church. But we have no creeds.
This was my point about Calvinism and Brandon's comment. What do we feel is essential to establish who we are?
brian,
i think the Trinity is a crucial point of doctrine, and that to deny it is to misrepresent God in a central way.
without it, we lose a great deal of our understanding who God is. if we ditch it (not saying you're suggesting this, i'm just saying it's a possibility if we don't hold it as essential), then we lose either the idea that there is one true God (monotheism), and therefore that He alone is to be worshiped, and open ourselves up for a whole slue of other gods, etc. or we lose the incarnation, God being one of us, and thus lose much of our understanding of the atonement and of Christ's mediatorship as the God-man.
those are just the misrepresentations off the top of my head that come if we don't hold on to the doctrine of the Trinity.
-----------------------
also, you say "It required a creed to settle the matter for the early church." i think bill would argue that a creed, a written document, was not necessary (though i agree it was at least helpful, though some may disagree).
-----------------------
on a side note, your last bit re-enters the question on the purpose of the statement. are we trying to describe who we are, or what is true? and i didn't say "what we believe" for a reason: we as Christians make the "arrogant" claim to really know truth about such things, and not merely our personal opinions. there may be benefit to describing who we are, but there is an intentionality about that that differs from a statement of fact. but i digress...
Brian,
Question -- Should We Believe speak of the Trinity? It required a creed to settle the matter for the early church. But we have no creeds.
This, I think, is among the best sort of questions to be asked.
And, to be honest, I had to read over Winebrenner's Twenty Seven Points to be sure how he answered your question. My suspicion is that he didn't describe our faith by using the term Trinity.
As I usually am, I was correct. ; - )
Here's how Winebrenner handled it:
2. She believes in one Supreme God, consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that these three are co-equal and co-eternal. (Mt 28:19 2Co 13:14 1Jo 5:7.)
(Note: This is point 2. The point about the Word was number 1 for Winebrenner.)
He did not use the term Trinity. And, if we honor our Mission Statement, we will not describe our faith by using the term either. It is perfectly appropriate to use language like Winebrenner's not because it is in Creeds but because it is in the Word.
On a side note, if I'd ever compromise principle, which I never do--to a fault, this is a place I'd be tempted. The term Trinity was the invention of Tertullian, one of my top five heroes from church history. But even for the original Mr T I won't give in.
Brian & walt,
on a side note, your last bit re-enters the question on the purpose of the statement. are we trying to describe who we are, or what is true? and i didn't say "what we believe" for a reason: we as Christians make the "arrogant" claim to really know truth about such things, and not merely our personal opinions. there may be benefit to describing who we are, but there is an intentionality about that that differs from a statement of fact. but i digress... --walt
Bingo.
One of my many objections to the original proposed revision is that I can't figure out what it hopes to accomplish.
Ed says repeatedly that it is a 'teaching document' but it is a horrible teaching document to use in a local congregation. The people I gather with can barely understand even one of its sentences.
One of the seven habits of highly effective people is: Begin with the end in mind.
Whatever else comes about in that symposium, I hope we begin by determining what we want to have when we are finished.
If we're not confident that the Bible teaches three persons to be equally God but still believe it, we ought to have a statement about it.
If we believe that Scripture is clear, what's the point of demanding a statement about it?
Dan,
There are key figures in the church today who question belief in the Trinity.
Like who?
People who believe in the truth and sufficiency of the Scriptures?
Brian,
There are key figures in the church today who question belief in the Trinity.
Can you give us an ever-so-brief summary?
There's a point that Ben make months, perhaps a year ago, that pointed out that ancient Christendom notions could be at risk today. He's right.
When Kenneth Kinghorn was the resource person at what became IMPACT, he pointed out that many Pentecostals do, in reality, affirm the Trinity but, rather, hold a belief that amounts to what he called 'Tri-Theism.'
I suspect that the people gathered for our symposium won't have an interest in putting every doctrine on the table. We are, however, living in very interesting times in the progression of Christian thought.
OK, I've got to weigh in on this one. It's true that the word "Trinity" doesn't occur in the Bible, but "we believe" (irony intended) scripture affirms it unequivocally. If we don't believe it (and I say this as trenchantly as possible), then we part company with the historic, catholic Church.
This is why I have defended the use of creeds as summaries of biblical doctrines, namely the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene. We can reword them to make them more understandable to a modern generation if we want, but we dare not change their content.
Regarding the Trinity, I'll never forget a Jehovah's Witness telling me that "God wouldn't want to confuse us" with the idea of three being one and one being three. "God is simple," he declared, ever so confident in his unitarian interpretation of Scripture.
I'm horrified to hear Brian say that some "key figures in the church today question belief in the Trinity." Label me as a defender of christendom or a part of the "shepherd mafia," but belief in a trinitarian view of God is a litmus test for me. Athanasius and the Nicene fathers all went to the mat to defend it, and I want to be in their company. And so, I hope and pray, does the CGGC.
-- Ben
well said, ben.
Ben,
Perhaps I should clarify, and perhaps I overused the word "key." TD Jakes has been under fire lately for not supporting the doctrine of the trinity.
And in fact, I am suggesting that it is important that we would have such a statement or acknowledge the creeds.
As we have started to get at, we need to know why we have We Believe.
Dan,
I'm probably out of my depth, and as a precursor, I believe in the doctrine of the trinity.
But... the Bible does not say there is a trinity. That is why the early church wrote a creed because there was disagreement on interpretation.
And CGGC does not recognize creeds.
brian,
if the Bible doesn't say that is Triune (and i mean conceptually, not verbatim), then why do you believe it?
Personally, I affirm the content of most of the creeds. What is helpful is that believing the creeds ties us together with other Christians and is not 'sectarian.'
They are helpful distillations of core Christian beliefs. Why should they be authoritative though?
The problem with statements of doctrine (as well as systematic theologies) is when they became authoritative in and of themselves. When we ultimately look to creeds or 'we believe' to find the truth, we're in the wrong place.
I don't personally know any Christians who deny the Trinity (I've heard about the T.D. Jakes thing but not looked into it). Jehovah's witnesses do not find their authority from the Bible. They import their own bad theology to the point that they needed their own 'translation' Nobody opens the Bible from the beginning and decides to be a Jehovah's witness.
It is true that people who study the Scriptures have different understandings (Calvinist/Arminianism is one example as well as views of women's leadership roles). I agree that it may be helpful for us to have a statement of what we hear the Scriptures to be saying, but why should such a statement be authoritative?
I'm not apposed to a list of points or even a lengthier document really, so long as it's evident that the Bible is our authority.
Discussions about what the Bible says need to be started and not ended in our body.
--Ben,
When I first read the Mission Statement, I was thrilled and appalled.
Thrilled because the 'New Testament plan' has been my heart since I read Kern's biography of Winebrenner when I was in college.
Appalled because I was convinced that our Pastor/Priest leaders were dabbling in truth and mission again and that they had no idea of what their words meant, that they wouldn't care if they did and, because I believe that the Lord judges us by our words, they were playing with fire and calling judgment down on us. I was appalled because I immediately saw the radicalism in the Mission Statement.
However, it was something that you said on the blog that helped to realize that the Mission Statement is far more radical than I understood it to be. I can't find your quote so this is not verbatim. You made the observation on the blog here that if we only accept the authority of the New Testament we don't even have a New Testament.
It's true that Christendom settled on the content of the New Testament. It's also true that it, once and for all, determined that the doctrine of the Trinity is the correct understanding of God.
And, I don't think that our Pastor/Priest leaders can deal with that reality. In many ways, they have endangered us and put us in peril as a body.
The truth is, however, that if we really cared about New Testament truth, as the Church of God did in its first decades, we could function perfectly well under the New Testament plan. Our problem is that we don't care about truth in that way.
Tertullian described God as a Trinity long before Constantine or Athanasius were twinkles in their grandfathers' eyes. The small 'c' catholics placed their stamp of approval on an understanding that the church accepted long before catholicism was a twinkle in Constantine's eyes.
We can be people of the New Testament if we really care about biblical truth. From what I can tell our problem is that we don't care enough about biblical truth--or truth as a generic reality at all of that matter--to be people of the New Testament.
The solution to that spiritual problem is not, in my opinion, to become small c catholics. The solution is for us to repent of our Rodney King, "Can we all just get along?" theology and embrace truth for what it means to the Body of Christ.
Brian,
TD Jakes, I believe, is in the tradition that is a part of Pentecostalism that is 'Tri-Theist,' not Trinitarian. There are more people out there whom we regard as brothers and sisters who are Tri Theists than you probably realize.
Here's the challenge for the CGGC which has embraced relationship over truth for far too long:
Do we really believe in the Trinity?
When push comes to shove, my guess is that most of us do not.
Because, if we do and TD Jakes and MILLIONS of others in the Pentecostal tradition are Tri Theists, then we can't call them brothers and sisters. We have to regard them as heretics.
I believe that, if pushed, most in the CGGC would fudge on the Trinity and choose relationship with others in the larger Body.
Tell me that you think I'm wrong if you can.
The CGGC is a mess when it comes to truth. This, as I've tried to say in every way I can think of, is a serious problem for us. It is a spiritual problem that I believe separates us from God's blessing and puts us in a position of being cursed by Him.
So tell me: If TD Jakes is a Tri Theist can you say that he is going to hell as a heretic?
Or, do you say, "Well, maybe the doctrine of the Trinity is not so essential after all."
Gang,
I just want to say that what we're discussing here absolutely PROVES that we need repentance.
We need to take a serious look at ourselves and beg the Spirit to show us what He sees and to give us the courage to hate our sin in the same way He does and then to give us the courage to turn from every form of faithlessness He shows us.
Gang,
I've gotten only a smattering of response off the blog from the people to whom I sent the note about the Mission Statement and the symposia. All of the responses had two elements in common.
One was, "I support having a WE BELIEVE.
The other was, "I ignore it when I don't agree with it and I've been told that it's okay for me to do that."
Now, that second observation is universal in the CGGC as far as I can tell. I myself have been told that I can ignore WE BELIEVE if I don't cause trouble.
The unwritten part of WE BELIEVE is that, for instance, if you don't believe that women should be allowed to be pastors that's alright so long as you are not contentious about your belief. If you don't believe that Feet Washing is an ordinance, that's fine, so long as you are not disruptive. If you would happen to believe that sanctification is a second work of grace but don't divide your congregation over that issue, you are invited, even ENCOURAGED, to ignore WE BELIEVE.
That being the case, how do we know that you can't ignore WE BELIEVE on the Trinity or on the deity of Christ or of the Holy Spirit or on the virgin birth or on the atonement or on the second coming?
As far as I can tell, you can't.
The issue of truth has become a mess in the CGGC.
I would not attribute that belief to Pentecostalism in general, regardless of what T.D. Jakes believes or doesn't believe. The Assembies of God (pentecostal) use the term Trinity on their website statement of beliefs.
Anyway the very idea of heresy and what it is and isn't is a 'man made' idea isn't it? Who says that 'heretics' automatically go to hell? Last time I read the Bible, it says that if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from he dead, you will be saved. Didn't bill just propose 1 Corinth 15 as a statement of faith? doesn't say a thing there about the Triune God.
If there is a better biblical understanding than Trinity, let's hear it. I happen to agree with the councils that there isn't but if T.D. Jakes has what he thinks is a more biblical understanding, let's hear it.
Is our authority the Bible or the creeds?
dan,
Anyway the very idea of heresy and what it is and isn't is a 'man made' idea isn't it? Who says that 'heretics' automatically go to hell?
"but even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a Gospel different than the one we preached to you, let him be accursed (anathema). as we have said before, so now i say again: if anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8-9)
"but false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1)
"there are some things in [the letters of paul] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16)
i could go on and on, but i hope you get the point, that heresy is a Biblical issue, and a damnable thing.
dan,
one more, that i think brings the point of punishment for heresy home:
"i (paul) have confidence in the Lord that you (the galatians) will take no other view than mine (in regards to justification by faith and not by works), and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is." (Gal. 5:10)
bill,
So tell me: If TD Jakes is a Tri Theist can you say that he is going to hell as a heretic?
assumption: tri-theism, as believed by td jakes, is mutually exclusive with the true Triune God.
answer: if he does not repent of his falsehood, he will eternally pay for this treason of his mind, as well as his other sins.
walt, the problem is that we don't define heresy by the Bible, but by the creeds. There can be no doubt that there is the utmost seriousness to denying biblical truth, but we've defined heresy by those who do not affirm our man-made statements.
If someone has a biblical argument, it should be heard, even if it is different than a creed.
You simply cannot take those biblical warnings and apply them to the verbal formulations of the apostles creed or others.
What is the authority, creed or Bible?
Creed seems to be the universally accepted answer.
Anyway the very idea of heresy and what it is and isn't is a 'man made' idea isn't it? Who says that 'heretics' automatically go to hell?
This is a big question, especially for a Rodney King church culture.
I sometimes get the feeling that, for some of the CGGC crowd, having a Creed/Doctrinal Statement is about determining who can be granted credentials in the CGGC and not about truth that is universal and eternal.
That's so internally focused and sectarian that it's scary.
Walt,
assumption: tri-theism, as believed by td jakes, is mutually exclusive with the true Triune God.
answer: if he does not repent of his falsehood, he will eternally pay for this treason of his mind, as well as his other sins.
Your response doesn't surprise me. However, I doubt it will be the universal CGGC response.
M,
walt, the problem is that we don't define heresy by the Bible, but by the creeds
What Paul did was pray that people who preached a different gospel than the one he preached would be eternally condemned. It was, in part, for that reason that I suggested that the CGGC merely affirm Paul's gospel.
But, gang, these are the big-picture issues we have to sort out before we approve our next Creed/Doctrinal Statement.
dan,
What is the authority, creed or Bible?
the creed is, in my understanding, only authoritative inasmuch as it is faithful to Scripture. it is an attempt to say, in summary, the teachings of the Scriptures. and if we can prove that it's unBiblical, then to hell with it.
but if it is correct in its interpretation, then it has the authority that Scripture has, as it is saying what the Scripture says.
here's the issue, i suppose: do we trust our own interpretation more than the interpretation of the early church fathers who wrote the creed and all of those who have affirmed its accuracy to the Scriptures over the millennia?
walt,
I affirm the creed. I don't have a better explaination. I just think we need to be careful when and how we define heretic.
In my understanding of the Bible, if you believe the bibical Gospel and bear fruit of repentance, you have eternal life.
If you deny the divinity of Jesus, you lose the gospel.
But if somebody has a different way to affirm everything in the Bible without using the term Trinity, should they be dismissed as a heretic before even being heard? I think not. If one denies something clearly biblical, then that is a big problem.
I'm not attempting to allow fellowship with people with errant biblical doctrine, I'm just asking that we view the Bible as our true authority and weigh things from there.
Post a Comment
<< Home