UPDATE 11/19/15 – I realize many of my blogs may be perceived as “in your face”, naming names. My main beef is with the Evangelical Friends (EFCI), the denomination I grew up in. I want to emphasize, I have no problems with EFCI personalities, just doctrinal issues. I’m currently trying to smooth out relationships with some individuals I may have inadvertently offended, especially in the EFCI.
I want to point out, I do not feel I am compromising or changing my current doctrinal positions. However, I may take blogs offline from time to time, to tone down unnecessarily accusatory or inflammatory language. I am attempting to be more diplomatic and tactful, softening language particularly in cases where I name names. My intent has never been to attack individuals; I believe all human beings (nonchristians and Christians) are brethren in Adam, if not brethren in Christ. Also, with both nonchristians and Christians, I am trying to follow the Golden Rule, treating others as I would want to be treated.
In warning people of what I believe are false doctrines (see Scripture passage below), I am attempting to “speak the Truth in love”; this can be a double-edged sword (harsh Truth plus tough love). Often in this discernment ministry I feel I need “the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job”!
” 14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 ) But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:” (Eph. 4:14-15)
Also, I have reposted articles from various writers. In some cases, I have closely followed the copyright policies at the bottom of their articles – for example reposting articles with credit to the authors and links to the articles’ original sites. In other cases, I have reposted articles without getting permission from the authors. I’m discovering that, when NO copyright info/instructions are given below articles, this does not necessarily give readers the right to repost articles. I will be taking various blogs offline, either to: 1) get repost permission from the authors, or 2) revise my blogs to include excerpts from articles, rather than entire reposts of articles.
————————————————
(Note – I am still in the process of developing the Doctrinal Statement below.)
————————————————
I started blogging in October 2010, mostly about Spiritual Formation’s heretical contemplative Richard Foster. Foster was closely tied to the denomination I grew up in – the Evanglical Friends Church International (EFCI). Amazingly, I found very few members of the EFCI who were speaking out against Foster or any of the other postmodern (Emerging/Emergent/Emergence) adjunct professors who were/are at George Fox University and George Fox Evangelical Seminary, in Northwest Yearly Meeting. These professors include Richard Foster, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, Dan Kimball, Leonard Sweet, etc.
I have learned a great deal about the EFCI – to which the EFC-ER (formerly the “Gurneyite” Wesleyan Holiness Ohio Yearly Meeting) belongs. I believe Ohio Yearly Meeting was biblically sound between approx. 1854-1965. I have learned much from the examples of many biblically sound relatives who served in Ohio Yearly Meeting during those years. In many of my blogs, I’m attempting to help reverse the damage caused to evangelical denominations by liberal/heretical individuals (especially Richard Foster) associated with Northwest Yearly Meeting of the EFCI.
To locate me on Facebook, click here.
Theologically, I would label myself primarily as independent, separatist (point #4 below), fundamentalist (point #5 below), and (s0 far at least) Conservative Holiness (point #6 below). I don’t consider myself perfectly aligned with any one denomination. I admire many traits of 1) Conservative Holiness denominations, 2) Free Will Baptists, and 3) Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) churches (particularly those listed by David Cloud).
I’m engaged in “militant separatism” from the “mainstream” Wesleyan Holiness denominations, which are each year becoming increasingly postmodern (Emerging/ Emergent/ Emergence). I am a “work in progress”, moving closer to various IB (Independent Baptist) doctrines in recent years. I don’t want to offend or alienate any IB people, yet I must be honest below in pointing out where my beliefs differ from theirs, in my thinking at this time. Even discussing my few differences is agonizing for me, since I love the King James Bible, the evangelistic hymns, the zeal for soulwinning, the militant separatism, etc. of IB people.
Interestingly, there are many “streams”, many groups, many affiliations of IB churches, including IFB and Independent Unaffiliated Baptist churches. In this article David Cloud does a good job of describing the various kinds of IB churches. Although David Cloud’s doctrinal stance differs somewhat from my own, his sentiments in this same article match my own:
“… I know some truly godly Independent Baptist churches that are not biblically shallow; that are careful about presenting the gospel to the unsaved, seeking genuine conversions and not mere professions; that are not near-cultic or idolatrous in regard to pastoral authority, honoring the pastor after a scriptural fashion but not putting him on an untouchable pedestal; that are striving for true godliness and not mere conformity to a list of external standards; that establish and test standards by biblical principles rather than by mere tradition; that are trying to produce real disciples for Christ rather than religious clones; that don’t have their heads in the sand but are striving to educate the people properly about major issues affecting us today; that are not blushing in their stand for separation but are bold and unapologetic.
… The bottom line is that I don’t have to agree with most Independent Baptists. As an Independent Baptist I have the liberty to fellowship with the 10% or whatever that I do agree with and ignore the rest! Independent Baptist is not a denomination.”
More details on my beliefs (I am hoping to further develop all the points below)
1) Saved – a converted, born again Christian (John Chapter 3). I strongly oppose baptismal regeneration. I also oppose “Easy Prayerism” (“Easy Believism”); I agree with David Cloud’s criticisms Easy Prayerism here. Repentance must involve a confession and turning from sin, turning one’s life over from self to Christ – not parroting the words of the Sinners Prayer, mouthing an insincere repentance and insincere belief in Christ, trying to get “fire insurance”. (Click here for another article regarding this, with which I agree.)
2) Sanctified – striving to live a life of “personal holiness” (as opposed to “social holiness”), separated from worldly sins, totally committed to the Lord (Romans 12:1-2). The Wesleyan Holiness movement I grew up in (and still feel close to) traditionally held for the most part to “Christian perfection” aka “sinless perfection”. I personally do not believe it is possible to reach Christian perfection in this life. I DO think we can have “victorious” Christian lives, i.e. having victory over sin through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. But we will still stumble and give in to temptation and sin from time to time. On this issue I would thus be more aligned with the Keswick (Higher Life) movement. When we stumble and sin, we need to confess it to God, sincerely repent, and move on in our Christian walk. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (I John 1:9)
3) Soul winning – passionately witnessing to people, carrying out the Great Commission. This does not include the Great Commandment, which postmoderns have twisted into a social gospel combined with the Great Commission. Yes, we should love our neighbor, but compassion/social justice/being missional will not get people saved – they have to hear the gospel message of Christ and Calvary, a message of what I call “the Blood and the Cross”.
4) Separatist and militant – practicing primary and secondary ecclesiastical separation from those who teach heresies/false teachings/doctrinal errors. But separation is not enough, for example if we merely slink away from a backsliding, apostate church without revealing why we’re leaving its membership. For an explanation of the term “militant” click here. “Militant” to me means “fighting” false teachings, taking a stand, speaking up, protesting, exposing, confronting, etc. Done of course in Christian love as much as possible – diplomatically, politely and tactfully, not attacking personally, not using slurs or name calling.
5) Fundamentalist – Among other things, adhering to most of the articles in The Fundamentals of 1910-1915. There are a few articles I do not consider to be biblically sound, such as an article compromising with evolution – for more on this compromise click here. For me “Fundamentalist” means far more than adhering to the five fundamental, essential Christian doctrines. I take the position of this article by David Cloud.
6) Conservative Holiness – of the Wesleyan Holiness denominations, I most closely identify with those in the Conservative Holiness movement. I realize a key trait of many Conservative Holiness denominations is simplicity/modesty/Christlikeness in dress (no short hair for women, no jewelry not even wedding rings, etc.). I have no problem accepting these standards (which many blindly label as legalistic rather than obedience to God’s Word – see Rom. 12:1-2). But as a married couple my wife and I are working through this practical, everyday call to Christlike appearance… On a related note, I miss the times when many evangelical denominations opposed dancing, going to movie theaters, working on Sundays, drinking, etc. We have lost many godly behaviors as born again Christians in these End Times. Truly tragic, how most evangelical churches have compromised since the 1960s, in these and many other ways.
7) King James Bible/Textus Receptus only (KJB/TR) – I look to the KJB as my rock, my authority in the English language. Like other KJB/TR people, I strongly oppose Peter Ruckman (click here and here). With his hateful spirit and bizarre teachings, Ruckman has terribly tarnished the King James Bible defense. (Some of Ruckman’s teachings are spot on, but others are way out there.) The KJB emphasis began over 100 years before Ruckman’s twisting of it, with groups such as the Trinitarian Bible Society.
As a KJB/TR person, unlike Ruckman, I believe that ideally every language (over 8,000) should have one “authorized version” of God’s inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved Word (the Textus Receptus New Testament and Masoretic Old Testament). For English speakers, this authorized version should be the KJB. In other languages, the Bible should be translated directly from the TR NT and Masoretic OT.
I consider my stance on Bible versions as virtually identical to that of David Cloud. Some others David Cloud lists as holding this view are: WILLIAM ABERHARD — CLINTON BRANINE — MARK BUCH
EVERETT FOWLER — EDWARD F. HILLS — DON JASMIN
BRUCE LACKEY — PHILIP MAURO — IAN PAISLEY
THOMAS STROUSE — TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY — DONALD WAITE (a president of the Dean Burgon Society). For more info on my view click here.
I do refer to many TR/MT English translations – although I believe they are on shaky ground and should be used only as Bible study aids to the KJB. The most helpful I’ve found so far (since I don’t know TR Greek and MT Hebrew) is Young’s Literal Translation (the 1862 and 1898 editions, not the 1887 corrupted edition based on the 1881 Westcott-Hort text).
8) Premillenial, leaning towards Post-Trib, but I am not dogmatic about the timing of the Rapture (Pre, Mid, Pre-Wrath, or Post). I love all born again Christians who look forward to Christ’s soon return, regardless of the exact timing of the Rapture. I like the saying “hope for the best” [a Pre-Trib Rapture] but expect the worst [the Tribulation]”… Fact is, every second of life is uncertain. Our next breath could be our last, and we would pass away into eternity even before Christ returns. We need to be born again and be right with God this very second. (Click here for a sermon reminding us that “now is the day of salvation”.)
9) Spirit filled – Like most Wesleyan Holiness people, I prefer this to the term Spirit baptized. I like many of the teachings of “Classic Pentecostals” (“First Wave Pentecostals”) such as the late David Wilkerson, but unlike Classic Pentecostals I do not hold to tongues as the IPE (initial physical evidence) of being baptized/filled with the Holy Spirit. I believe tongues do exist today, but they are a gift from the Holy Spirit, a gift rarely given today (many tongues speakers are fakes – many are unsaved Catholics and many others are unsaved mainline/liberal Protestants). I do not believe tongues are required for being Spirit baptized/filled. My view on tongues is very similar to that of Pentecostal Rick Walston. Regarding supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, I would consider myself a “soft cessationist” (see link under “The Holy Ghost” in the Statement of Beliefs below). I believe many Pentecostals have promoted very heretical views; these heresies are increasing in popularity today, and have greatly harmed the born again Body of Christ. Interestingly the tongues issue has faded somewhat compared to these other heresies; I would say the largest Pentecostal heresy currently is the New Apostolic Reformation (which includes Elijah’s List).
Statement of Beliefs
[Note – I have taken the liberty of adapting the following Statement of Beliefs from the Statement of Beliefs of Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection (Original Allegheny Conference), originally found here. I am still working on adapting it and adding to it. Changes and additions have been inserted, [bracketed and bolded in orange]. The AWMC is one of my favorite Conservative Holiness denominations. However, there are some sections below which I differ on, such as the “sacraments” (ordinances) being described as a “means of grace”. Also note: I have inserted a few excerpts from Independent Fundamentalist David Cloud, [bracketed and bolded in pink].
I. Faith in the Holy Trinity
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons of one substance, power, and eternity-the Father, the Son (the Word), and the Holy Ghost.
Gen. 1:1; 17:1; Exod. 3:13-15; 33:20; Dent. 6:4; Ps. 90:2; 104:24; Isa. 9:6; Jer. 10:10; John 1:1-2; 4:24-5:18; 10:30; 16:13; 17:3; Acts 5:3-4; Rom. 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:16; 1 Tim. 1:17;1 John 5:7, 20; Rev. 19:13.
II. The Son of God
The only begotten Son of God was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried-to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for the actual sins of men, and to reconcile us to God.
Mark 15; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; John 1:14, 18; 3:16-17; Acts 4:12; Rom. 5:10, 18; 1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:18-19; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph. 5:2; 1 Tim. 1:15; Heb. 2:17; 7:27; 9:28; 10:12;1 Pet. 2:24;1 John 2:2; 4:14.
III. The Resurrection of Christ
Christ did truly rise again from the dead, taking His body with all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature, wherewith He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until He returns to judge all men at the last day.
Ps. 16:8-10; Matt. 27:62-66; 28:5-9, 16-17; Mark 16:6-7,12; Luke 24:4-8,23; John 20:26-29; 21:1-25; Acts 12; 2:24-31;10:40; Rom. 8:34; 14:9-10; 1 Cor. 15:6, 14; Heb. 13:20.
IV. The Holy Ghost
The Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.
Job 33:4; Matt. 28:19; John 4:24-26; Acts 5:3-4, Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 4:6.
[Regarding the “supernatural gifts” click here for an article which matches my position: soft cessationism. I especially like this excerpt:
… based on my belief in Sola Scriptura, I find myself standing on a position of “soft cessationism”. God’s will cannot be thwarted. If tongues, healing, prophecy or other miraculous gifts are “required” in order to accomplish that end, then they will happen. I believe that God has done just that in the presence of some in order to either bring them to him, or to strengthen their faith. However, I do not believe that this is a common practice and that everyone walking around claiming these gifts is [authentic]…
And click here for the Wikipedia article on various types of cessationism.]
V. The Sufficiency and Full Authority of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scriptures, we so understand the books of the Old and New Testaments. These Scriptures we do hold to be the inspired and infallibly written Word of God, fully inerrant in their original manuscript and preserved, and superior to all human authority:
The canonical books [consist of the 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books in our King James Bible].
Ps. 19:7; Luke 24:27; John 17:17; Acts 17:2, 11; Rom. 1:2; 15:4; 16:26; Gal. 1:8; 1 Thes. 2;13; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Heb. 4:12; Jas. 1:21;1 Pet. 1:23; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Rev. 22:14, 19.
[David Cloud: The Bible, with its 66 books, is the very Word of God. The Bible is verbally and plenarily inspired as originally given and it is divinely preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Received Text. The Bible is our sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. The King James Version in English is an example of an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts; we believe it can be used with confidence. We reject modern textual criticism and the modern versions that this pseudo-science has produced, such as the American Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, and the New International Version). We also reject the dynamic equivalency method of Bible translation which results in a careless version that only contains the general ideas rather than the very words of God. Examples of dynamic equivalency versions are the Today’s English Version, the Living Bible, and The Message.
2 Samuel 23:2; Psalm 12:6-7; Proverbs 30:5-6; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; John 17:17; Acts 1:16; 3:21; 1 Corinthians 2:7-16; 2 Timothy 3:15- 17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; Revelation 22:18-19]
VI. The Old Testament
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testaments everlasting life is offered to mankind through Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard who feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth, yet notwithstanding no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.
Matt. 5:17-19; 22:37-40; Luke 24:27-44; John 1:45; 5:46; Rom. 15:8; 2 Con 1:20; Eph. 2:15-16; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 10:1; 11:39; 1 John 2:3-7.
VII. Relative Duties
20. Those two great commandments which require us to love the Lord our God with all the heart, and our neighbors as ourselves, contain the sum of the divine law as it is revealed in the Scriptures: they are the measure and perfect rule of human duty, as well as the ordering and directing of families and nations, and all other social bodies, as for individual acts, by which we are required to acknowledge God as our only Supreme Ruler, and all men as created by Him, equal in all natural rights. Wherefore all men are bound so to order all their individual, social, and political acts as to render to God entire and absolute obedience, and to secure to all men the enjoyment of every natural right, as well as to promote the greatest happiness of each in the possession and exercise of such rights.
Lev. 19:18, 34; Dent. 1:15,17; 2 Sam. 23:3; Job 29:16; 31:13-14; Jer. 21:12; 22:3; Matt. 5:44-47; 7:12; Luke 6:27-29,35; John 13:34-35; Acts 10:34-35; 17:26; Rom. 12:9; 13:1, 7-8,10; Gal. 5:14; 6:10; Tit. 3:1; Jas. 2:8; 1 Pet. 2:17; 1 John 2:5; 4:12-13; 2 John 6.
[David Cloud: VIIa. The Creation
We believe in the Genesis account of Creation and that it is to be accepted literally and not figuratively; that the world was made in six 24-hour days; that man was created directly in God’s own image and did not evolve from any lower form of life; that all animal and vegetable life was made directly and made subject to God’s law that they bring forth only “after their kind.”
Genesis 1; Nehemiah 9:6; Job 38:4-41; Ps. 104:24-30; Jn. 1:1-3; Acts 14:15; 17:24-26; Rom. 1:18-21; Col. 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:1-3; 11:3]
VIII. Original or Birth Sin
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is wholly gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.
Gen. 8:21, Ps. 51:5; Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:12,18-19; Eph. 2:1-3.
IX. Free Will
The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and work, in faith and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ working in us, that we may have a good will, working with us when we have that good will.
Prov. 16:1; 20:24; Jer. 10:23; Matt. 16:17; John 6:44, 65; 15:5; Rom. 5:6-8; Eph. 2:5-9; Phil. 2:13; 4:13.
X. Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, by faith, and not our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort.
Acts 13:38-39;15:11;16:31; Rom. 3:28; 4:2-5; 5:1-2,9; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 3:9.
XI. Good Works
Although good works, which are the fruit of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God’s judgment, yet they are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and spring out of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree is discerned by its fruit.
Matt. 5:16; 7:16-20; John 15:8; Rom. 3:20; 4:2,4,6; Gal. 2:160; Phil. 1:11; Tit. 3:5; Jas. 2:18,22; 1 Pet. 2:9,10.
XII. Sin After Justification
25. Not every sin willingly committed after justification is the sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore repentance is not denied to such as fall into sin after justification. After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given and fall into sin, and by the grace of God rise again to amend our lives. And therefore, they are to be condemned who say they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.
Ps. 32:5; 95:7,11; Ecd. 7:20; Jer. 3:13-15; Matt. 24:12; John 5:14; Gal. 5:4,7; Eph. 5:14; Heb. 3:7-13,15; Jas. 3:2,8; 1 John 1:8-9; 2:12; Rev. 2:5.
[Now for a few comments on the “Once Saved Always Saved” (OSAS) teaching, also referred to “eternal security” or “perseverance of the saints”. Coming from a Wesleyan Holiness upbringing, I have always been taught that a truly born again Christian can indeed lose his or her salvation. That being said, I would say that many seemingly born again Christians who appear to lose their salvation never really knew Christ in the first place. So for these individuals the issue is a mute point. They did not “lose” their salvation, because they never had salvation in the first place.
Interestingly, not all Baptists hold to the OSAS position. There are a number of Baptist denominations which support conditional eternal security. This Wikipedia article discusses three views regarding eternal security: the Calvinist view (eternal security), the Free Grace view (Baptist, eternal security), and the Arminian view (conditional eternal security). I hope to expand further on my current view in a separate blog; in the meantime, click here for an article that summarizes the Arminian view. I’m searching (with little success so far) for books and articles which present all the sides of this issue in one document, in a debate/discussion format.]
Y XIII. Regeneration
26. Regeneration is that work of the Holy Spirit by which the pardoned sinner becomes a child of God; this work is received through faith in Jesus Christ, whereby the regenerate are delivered from the power of sin which reigns over all the unregenerate, so that they love God and through grace serve Him with the will and affections of the heart receiving the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry; Abba, Father.
John 1:12-13; 3:3,5; Rom. 8:15,17; Gal. 3:26; 4:5,7; Eph. 1:5; 2:5,19; 4:24; Col. 3:10; Tit. 3:5; Jas. 1:18;1 Pet. 1:3-4; 2 Pet 1:4; 1 John 3:1.
XIV. Entire Sanctification
27. Entire sanctification is that work of the Holy Spirit by which the child of God is cleansed from all inbred sin through faith in Jesus Christ. It is subsequent to regeneration, and is wrought when the believer presents himself a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God, and is thus enabled through grace to love God with all the heart and to walk in His holy commandments blameless.
Gen. 17:1; Dent. 30:6; Ps. 130:8; Ezek. 36:25-29; Matt. 5:48; Luke 1:74-75; John 17:2-23; Rom. 8:3-4;11:26; 1 Cor. 6:11;14:20; Eph. 4:13, 24; 5:25-27; Phil. 2:5,7; Col. 4:12; Thes. 3:10; 5:23; 2 Thes. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:17; Tit. 2:12; Heb. 9:13-14; 10:14,18-22; Jas. 1:27; 4:8;1 Pet. 1:10; 2 Pet. 1:4; 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:8-9; 4:17-18; Jude 24.
[I believe in a “second work of grace” or “second blessing” (without requiring tongues). Following are several articles on the subject:
Second Work of Grace (Wikipedia article)
The Second Blessing in Experience, in Theology, and in the Bible, by Aaron Hill (warning – while giving a good history of the “second blessing” teaching, this article recommends a few heretics, such as George Fox; I am looking for a more biblically sound history)]
[David Cloud: XIVa. Separation
SEPARATION FROM HERESY AND APOSTASY
We believe that the Bible requires separation from all forms of heresy and ecclesiastical apostasy (Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 1 Thess. 3:6; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 3:5; Titus 3:10-11; 2 John 10-11; Rev. 18:4). We are commanded to try them, mark them, rebuke them, have no fellowship with them, withdraw ourselves, receive them not, have no company with them, reject them, and separate ourselves from them. The Bible teaches that the course of the church age is characterized by increasing apostasy (2 Timothy 3:1 – 4:6).
SEPARATION FROM THE WORLD
We believe the Bible also requires strict separation from the evil things of the world (Mat. 6:24; Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 6:3; Eph. 5:11; 1 Thess. 5:22; Titus 2:11-14; James 1:27; 4:4; 4:8; 1 John 2:15-17; 5:19)]
XV. The Sacraments Ordinances
[“Some Protestant traditions avoid the word “sacrament”. Reaction against the 19th-century Oxford Movement led Baptists to prefer instead the word “ordinance“,[2] practices ordained by Christ to be permanently observed by the church. “Sacrament” stresses mainly, but not solely, what God does, “ordinance” what the Christians do.[3]” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament]
28. Sacraments Ordinances ordained of Christ are not only tokens of Christian profession, but they are certain signs of grace and God’s good will toward us, by which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him. There are two sacraments ordinances ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel: that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Matt. 26:26-28; 28:19; Mark 14:22-24; Rom. 2:28-29; 4:11; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:23-26; Gal. 3:27.
XVI. Baptism.
29. Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others who are not baptized, but it is also a sign of regeneration or new birth. [Baptism can also be defined as “an outward sign – or witness – of an inward change”.] The baptism of young children is to be retained in the church. [Baptism should not be provided to children younger than the “age of accountability”.]
Num. 8:7; Isa. 52:15; Ezek. 36:25; Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:10; 16:16; John 3:22, 26; 4:12; Acts 2:38,41; 8:12-17; 9:18;16:35;18:8;19:5; 22:16; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-29; Col. 2:11-12; Tit. 3:5.
XVII. The Lord’s Supper.
30. The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament a remembrance of our redemption by Christ’s death, a commemoration of what He did for us on the Cross of Calvary. The Lord’s Supper – Communion – is also an opportunity for us to get right with the Lord, to repent of all known sin prior to partaking; insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily and with faith receive the same, it is made a medium through which God doth communicate grace to the heart.
Luke 22:19-20; John 6:53, 56; 1 Cor. 5:7-8; 10:3-16; 11:28.
XVIII. The One Oblation of Christ Finished Upon the Cross.
[I’m unfamiliar with the term “oblation” – this would not be my word choice.]
31. The offering of Christ, once made, is that perfect redemption and propitiation for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore, to expect salvation on the ground of our own works, or by suffering the pains our sins deserve, either in the present or future state, is derogatory to Christ’s offering for us and a dangerous deceit. :
Acts 4:12; Rom. 5:8; 8:34; Gal. 2:16; 3:2-3,11; 1 Tim. 2:5-6; Heb. 7:23-27; 9:11-15,2428; 10:14.
XIX. The Rites and Ceremonies of Churches.
[I have a problem with section 32 below. I’m not sure what the writers mean by “rites and ceremonies”. I plan to revise section 32, or drop it completely.]
32. It is not necessary that rites and ceremonies should in all places be the same or exactly alike, for they have always been different and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. Every particular church may ordain, change, or abolish rites and ceremonies, so that all things may be done to edification.
Acts 15:10, 28-29; Rom. 14:2-6, 15, 17, 21; 1 Cor. 1:10; 12:25; 14:26; 2 Cor. 13:11; Gal. 5:1,13; Col. 2:16-17; 2 Thes. 3:6,14; 1 Tim. 1:4,6; 1 Pet. 2:16.
XX. The Second Coming of Christ.
33. The doctrine of the second coming of Christ is a very precious truth, and this good hope is a powerful inspiration to holy living and godly effort for the evangelization of the world. We believe the Scriptures teach the coming of Christ to be a bodily return to the earth and that He will cause the fulfillment of all prophecies made concerning His final and complete triumph over all evil. Faith in the imminence of Christ’s return is a rational and inspiring hope to the people of God.
Job 19:25-27; Dan. 12:1-4; Ps. 17:15; Isa. 11:1-12; Zech. 14:1-11; Matt. 24:1-51; 26:64; Mark 13:27-37; Luke 17:26-37; 21:24-36; John 14:1-3; Acts 1:9-11;1 Cor. 1:7, 8; 1 Thes. 4:13-18; Tit. 2:11-14; Heb. 9:27-28; Jas. 5:7-8; 2 Pet. 3:1-14;1 John 3:2-3; Jude 14; Rev. 1:7; 19:11-16; 22:6-7, 12, 20.
Note: It is not to be understood that a dissenting understanding on the subject of the millennium shall be held to break or hinder either church fellowship or membership. [I hold to Premillenialism and lean towards the post-Tribulation return of Christ; however, a dissenting understanding on the timing of the premillenial Rapture/return of Christ shall not break or hinder fellowship with other born again Christians. For info on the post-Tribulation view read this Wikipedia article.]
XXI. The Resurrection of the Dead.
34. We hold the Scriptural statements concerning the resurrection of the dead to be true and worthy of universal acceptance. We believe the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ was a fact of history and a miracle of supreme importance. We understand the manner of the resurrection of mankind to be the resurrection of the righteous dead, at Christ’s second coming, and the resurrection of the wicked at a later time, as stated in Revelation 20:4-6. Resurrection will be the reuniting of soul and body preparatory to final reward or punishment.
Job 19:25-27; Ps. 17:15; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 22:30-32; 28:1-20; Luke 14:14; John 5:28-29; Acts 23:6-8; Rom. 8:11;1 Cor. 15:1-58; 2 Con 4:14; 5:1-11;1 Thes. 4:14-17; Rev. 20:4-6.
XXII. The Judgment of Mankind.
35. The Scriptures reveal God as the Judge of all mankind and the acts of His judgment to be based on His omniscience and eternal justice. His administration of judgment will culminate in the final meeting of mankind before His throne of great majesty and power, where records will be examined and final rewards and punishments will be administered.
Eccl. 12:14; Matt 10:15; 25:31-46; Luke 11:31-32; Acts 10:42;17:31; Rom. 2:16;14:1011; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 9:27; 2 Pet. 3:7; Rev. 20:11-13.
XXIII. Hell
36. The Scriptures reveal hell, the final doom of ungodly unbelievers, as a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, unquenchable fire, outer darkness, everlasting fire, everlasting punishment, and torments in the lake of fire.
Matt. 3:12; 8:12; 25:41,46; Luke 16:23; Rev. 20:15.
XXIV. Heaven.
37. The Scriptures reveal heaven, the final home of every righteous believer. Jesus said it was His Father’s house where He went to prepare a place for us with no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither any more pain, with no more curse and no night there; the Lamb is the light thereof and His servants shall serve Him.
John 14:2; Rev. 21:4,23; 22:3,5.
[Note – The following is not a doctrinal statement. But, it does give the reader a glimpse of the rules/policies of the Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection. Although I would not word policies this way, I do think their positions on these things are excellent.]
Article III. General Rules.
38. It is expected of those who are admitted to our churches that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation:
First, by doing no harm-by avoiding evil of every kind, especially that which is most generally practiced, such as
The taking of the name of God in vain.
The profaning the day of the Lord, either by doing ordinary work therein or by buying or selling.
Drunkenness or the manufacturing, buying, selling, or using intoxicating liquors, unless for mechanical, chemical, or medicinal purposes, or in any way intentionally and knowingly aiding others so to do.
The buying or selling of men, women, or children, with an intention to enslave them, or holding them as slaves, or claiming that it is right so to do.
The giving or taking things on usury, i.e., unlawful interest.
Fighting, quarreling, brawling, brother going to law with brother, returning evil for evil, or railing for railing.
The buying or selling goods that have not paid the duty. Uncharitable or unprofitable conversation.
Doing to others as we would not they should do unto us. Doing what we know is not for the glory of God, as The putting on of gold and costly apparel.
The wearing of apparel which does not modestly and properly clothe the person.
The taking such diversions as cannot be used in the name of the Lord Jesus.
The singing those songs or reading those books which do not tend to the knowledge or love of God.
Softness and needless self-indulgence. Laying up treasure upon earth. Borrowing without a probability of paying, or taking up goods without a probability of paying for them.
39. It is expected of all who continue in these churches that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation:
Second, by doing good; by being, in every kind, merciful after their power; as they have opportunity, doing good of every possible sort, and, as far as possible, to all men.
To their bodies, of the ability which God giveth, by giving food to the hungry, by clothing the naked, by visiting or helping them that are sick or in prison.
To their souls, by instructing, reproving, or exhorting all we have any intercourse with; trampling under foot that enthusiastic doctrine that “we are not to do good unless our hearts be free to it.”
By doing good, especially to them that are of the household of faith or groaning so to be; employing them preferably to others, buying one of another, helping each other in business; and so much the more because the world will love its own and them only.
By all possible diligence and frugality, that the gospel be not blamed. By running with patience the race which is set before them, denying themselves, and taking up their cross daily; submitting to bear the reproach of Christ, to be as the filth and offscouring of the world, and looking that men should say all manner of evil of them falsely for the Lord’s sake.
40. It is expected of all who desire to continue in these churches that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation:
Thirdly, by attending upon all the ordinances of God; such as: The public worship of God.
The ministry of the Word either read or expounded. The Supper of the Lord.
Family and private prayer. Searching the Scriptures. Fasting or abstinence.
41. Further, by abstaining from membership in secret societies. We will on no account tolerate our ministers and members joining or holding fellowship with secret societies, as, in the judgment of the Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection (Original Allegheny Conference), it is inconsistent with our duties to God to hold such relations.
“Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing” (John 18:20).
“Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not” (Matt. 24:26).
“But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation” (James 5:12).
Also see Lev. 5:4-5; Isa. 29:15; Matt. 5:34-36; John 3:19-20; 2 Cor. 4:1-2; 6:14-18; Eph. 5:11-12; 1 John 4:2-3.
Note: This rule on secret societies does not prevent our members from affiliating with unions organized for the purpose of protecting their industrial interests where Christian principles are not violated; and where such principles are violated, members shall be dealt with because of such violation and not because of membership in the union.
42. Further, by abstaining from the use of tobacco. In the judgment of The Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection (Original Allegheny Conference), the use of tobacco is a great evil, unbecoming a Christian, a waste of the Lord’s money, and a defilement of the body, which should be the temple of the Holy Ghost. We do, therefore, most earnestly require our members to refrain from its cultivation, manufacture, and sale, and to abstain from its use in all forms, for Jesus’ sake.
We will not receive as members into our churches nor will we ordain or license to preach or to exhort, persons who use, cultivate, manufacture, or sell tobacco. Using tobacco by a member of a church or of the conference after being received from this date (June 28, 1927) is a violation of the law of the Church, and the offending party should be dealt with according to the Judiciary Rules.
43. Further, by observing the teachings of Scripture regarding marriage and divorce. We regard adultery as the only justifiable cause for divorce. In the case of a divorce for such cause the innocent party may marry again; but the guilty party has by his or her act forfeited membership in the church. In the case of divorce for other cause, neither party shall be permitted to marry again during the lifetime of the other; and violation of this law shall be punished by expulsion from the church (Matt. 5:32; Mark 10:11-12). In the carrying out of these principles, guilt shall be established in accordance with judicial procedures set forth in the Discipline.
44. These are the General Rules of our churches, all of which we are taught of God to observe, even in His written Word, which is the only rule and the sufficient rule both of our faith and practice, And all these we know His Spirit writes on truly awakened hearts. If there be any among us who observe them not, who habitually break any of them, let it be known unto them who watch over that soul, as they who must give account. We will admonish him of the error of his ways. We will bear with him for a season. But if then he repent not, he hath no more place among us; we have delivered our own souls.
FOR FURTHER READING
Other Conservative Holiness doctrinal statements
Wesleyan Nazarene Church, What We Believe
I hope to locate doctrinal statements for all the Conservative Holiness denominations (this list of denominations was found here in Wikipedia):
- Wesleyan Methodist Church (Allegheny Conference)
- Bible Holiness Church
- Bible Methodist Connection of Churches
- Bible Methodist Connection of Tennessee [5]
- Bible Missionary Church
- Calvary Holiness Church Philadelphia [6]
- Central Yearly Meeting of Friends [7]
- Church of God (Holiness) [8]
- Crusaders Churches of America [9]
- Faith Missionary Association
- God’s Missionary Church [10]
- Independent Conservative Holiness Churches
- International Conservative Holiness Association [11]
- Pilgrim Holiness Church (Midwest Conference)
- Pilgrim Holiness Church of New York[12]
- Pilgrim Nazarene Church[13]
- United Holiness Church (Southeast Indiana)
- Wesleyan Holiness Association of Churches
- Wesleyan Holiness Alliance (Bartlesville, Oklahoma)
- Wesleyan Nazarene Church
I am a born-again Christian who came out of Romanism and have spent my life focusing on God’s Word found only in the scriptures. I hope you are my brother in Christ looking for His return for His people in the rapture and His visible return to save His people Israel from destruction and the establishment of His literal Millennial Reign on earth. I was researching Thomas Merton, a Trappist Monk who seems not to have found peace with Jesus, dying as he did trying to combine Buddhism and Christianity.I am alarmed at the deceptions many are falling into, such as Emerging,Church, Replacement Theology, Ecumenism.
Bro. Jerry, thanks for all your great comments. Yes, I believe Christ is coming soon. I agree, it is alarming how so many who profess to be born again Christians are being deceived, in so many ways. I believe this is yet another sign of the end times. God bless you – Dave
Yes, indeed, spiritual formation and the emerging church are teaching a dangerous deception, which many are falling for, among other unbiblical doctrines such as Sunday laws and the secret rapture. Our only safety is in the word of God. Blessings – MS
Dear Sir – While I agree with you that apostasy is existent today and that it is damnable, I disagree with your method of “calling out” individuals as is seen here on this public site. It is our place as Christians to discern (by the Word and the Holy Spirit) truth from falsehood and true doctrine from false doctrine (ie – 2 Tim. 3:16). In other words, as the Bible teaches, we are to learn to make right judgments about such things (truth).
But it is not our business, as the Bible also teaches, to judge or condemn others’ hearts or people individually. That business is God’s and God’s alone. We can say someone’s doctrine is in error, or beliefs about God are in error, or ideas about God are in error, or their actions are in error.
However, it is not ours to say “this person’s heart is in error” or “this person’s life is in error” or “I know that this person is not right with God.” If you would like, I can point out many scriptures that distinguish between making a judgment and being judgmental. In all things, even in speaking the truth, we are to be gentle and loving. I wish you all the best in the Lord and as you seek Him out who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Thanks for the feedback. I hear where you’re coming from. For years I felt it was wrong to criticize men of God. After all, I told myself, they were called of God to be preachers. So who was I to speak against men whom God had called? It was God’s place to correct them, not mine, I told myself.
The turning point came for me when I learned the denomination I grew up in (the Evangelical Friends) had a huge heretic: Richard Foster. Although the Evangelical Friends used to be a strongly evangelical (born again) denomination, apparently no one spoke out strongly against Foster. Perhaps members left because they disliked Foster’s teachings, but if they did leave they left quietly without saying why. Foster basically spread his influence unhindered, wreaking havoc on the Evangelical Friends and many other evangelical denominations. (I realize Foster is not alone – many heretics have led evangelical denominations towards apostacy.)
Feel free to share passages about not naming names or judging individuals, if you wish. Seems to me there are many Bible passages that DO instruct Christians to name names. I would say our greatest role model is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself – he criticized the Pharisees, Sadducees and others by name during His time on Earth. Also, in His words to the seven churches of Revelation, Christ named names of heretical groups and individuals. In this blog I reposted an article that favors naming names and explains why: https://davemosher.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/some-thoughts-on-my-birthright-denomination-and-on-naming-names-is-this-ever-okay/
I am troubled that you do not mention the Nicene Creed in your Doctrinal Statement. Since the fourth century, this creed has facilitated discernment in the Christian church, against which we are promised that “The gates of Hell shall not prevail.” It is this creed (particularly in its Constantinopolitan revision) which forms an ecclesiological line in the sand between Arianism and orthodox Christianity, between heresy and fidelity, and is generally and correctly accepted by the majority of Protestants.
This creed is not to be construed as Catholic, except in the context of the Holy Catholic Church, that is to say, the entire body of right-believing Christians, which has been fragmented since at least the eleventh century Great Schism, The Nicene Creed does however provide a universal point of agreement to which the Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, and Roman Catholic churches can agree, similiar to the broad consensus that exists on the canon of the New Testament. As such, it can be truly and legitimately classified as orthodox, following the definition that orthodoxy is that which has always been, and is everywhere, believed by everyone. Acceptance of the Nicene Creed does not require that one considers the Council of Nicea to be infallible (although many do, particularly in the Eastern churches, on the basis of an apparent prophecy of it contained within the book of Genesis), merely that one agrees with it on the basis of its universal acceptance. Nor does it require making a concession to ecumenism, for surely, many ardent adherents of this creed, such as the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and some of the other fundamentalist Eastern Orthodox Christians, such as the monks of Espigmonou Monastery, are not enthusiastic about the ecumenical movement, to say the least.
Thus, it seems to me that on this key point, if you do accept the Nicene Creed as being correct, even if you do not attribute to it infallibility or divine inspiration (which many do, but surely such a peripheral dogma should not be grounds for division), you should acknowledge and affirm that fact in your creed, to avoid implicating yourself not only as a possible heretic, but also by extension as a hypocrite, for suerly he who attacks others on the basis of heresy yet rejects the Nicene Creed is a hypocrite, and anathema to Christianity. If, on the other hand, you should dare to oppose the Nicene Creed, not only would you be marked by hypocrisy, but also by profound foolishness, for who are you to question the Church Fathers, Luther, Wesley, and the general consensus of Christianity, including Protestant Christianity?
I am also concerned about your insistence upon “Believer’s baptism”. Only Baptists and a few other relatively recent Protestant denominations insist upon this; this doctrine was universally rejected by the united Church before its fragmentation beginning in the fourth century with the council of Ephesus, and continuing at Chalcedon and at the Great Schism of 1054; likewise the dogma of believer’s baptism is rejected by the majority of Protestant denominations, including Methodism, Lutheranism and the Reformed churches. I do not object to people expressing a theological preference for believer’s baptism, even though at the very least on the basis of ecclesiological consensus it would appear to be a heretical doctrine; I do object to any sense that infant baptism is in some way invalid being trumpted as doctrinal truth on a blog that claims its function is the denouncement of heresy. For surely, one who delegitimizes the general consensus of the entire Church on a doctrine such as the sacrament of Baptism is not in a place to polemicize against heresy, especially in the context of Christianity as a whole. At best, if you must adhere to this doctrine, and also to the related concept of Baptism and Holy Communion as being ordinances, rather than sacraments, due to the lack of ecclesiological consensus on these practices, you must proclaim yourself to be an expressly Baptist apologist, as opposed to claiming to be a polemicist against heresy in the Christian church in general, which is a position you cannot legitimately claim on the grounds of the complete lack of ecclesiological consensus in your Doctrinal Statement.
That said, I do agree with some of the specific polemics you have written against specific heretical schismatics who are causing discord, doctrinal erosion and other evil in the Church. However, I would propose you would be in a better position to advance these polemics if you yourself clearly identified yourself as being in agreement with the Nicene creed, and at the same time, regarding infant baptism, even if you have a personal preference against this practice, you at least cannot de-legitimize without de-legitimizing your polemics, in so far as that even though they do attack true heresies, you are not attacking them from the position of orthodox Christianity, as defined by ecclesiological consensus, but are rather setting yourself against the universal Church, and thus your polemics have the same gravitas that they would have if they were authored by Gnostics, Arians or Jehovah’s Witnesses; in other words, they are no more authoritative than that which they condemn on the basis of its lack of authority. I pray that you correct this, that you might be able to polemicize against contemporary heresies from a position of greater authority.
Wow, lots of good comments, Paul – some things I never thought of. I am not very familiar with the various creeds. I’ll check out the Nicene Creed and others, and try to pinpoint the creed that most closely fits my beliefs. Most of my beliefs are Wesleyan Holiness, so I would agree the most with whatever creed the Wesleyan Holiness people hold to.
I don’t totally fit into one Christian doctrinal stance. I like many doctrines of the Wesleyan Holiness movement, but also some doctrines of the Calvinists, some doctrines of the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, etc. On my blog’s About page, I’ll try to explain my doctrinal views in greater detail.
As far as baptism, I would have to say I stand for believers’ baptism. I would not make it a requirement, though, for born again Christians. I come from a background which frowned on baptism of any kind because baptism had become such a ritual (in the Catholic Church for example). I view baptism as a witness to the world that a person has accepted Christ as his Saviour – “an outward sign of an inward change.” Hope that makes sense.
God bless you – Dave
Dave, I just wanted to say how delighted I am to see your reply. I myself am a believer in Wesleyan Holiness; although from the context of a baptized United Methodist who has largely been alienated from the UMC by the very apostasy that you oppose. In the figure of Wesley I see a man who represents a bridge linking Pietist and Evangelical Protestantism with the Catholic faith of the Church of England, and with the sacramental theology of Eastern christianity; holiness, as proposed by Wesley, directly parallels the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis, and Wesley himself is believed to have been secretly ordained a bishop by the Eastern Orthodox bishop Erasmus of Arcadia, in 1763 (when asked about this a decade later, Wesley refused to confirm or deny it; had he confirmed it he would have exposed himself to execution).
Regarding your view on baptism, I am prepared to accept that; my concern would primarily be if you were to deny the validity of infant baptism, or claim that for a Christian to accept it (which was the historic doctrine of the church) would be in any way apostasy. I would say that on the contrary, believer’s baptism is not inadmissible, provided that the extreme view of, for example, the Landmark Baptists, that any other form is a dire heresy preventing salvation, is avoided. It should be stressed that John Wesley, for his part, espoused the traditional Anglican view on Baptism (that is to say, infant baptism) and the sacraments in general, holding Holy Communion as a sacrament and affirming the real presence.
However, like in the case of baptism, I would say that maintaining a memorialist interpretation is not inadmissable, provided you do not scorn those who believe that the body and blood of Christ are actually present, either via the mystery or real presence doctrines of Eastern Christianity and Methodism, or the consubstantiation doctrine of Lutheranism, or for that matter, the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. The important thing about this point, and indeed that of baptism, is that it works in this direction as far as establishing a position of orthodoxy, because those who do maintain the sacramental approach to these ordinances can in general say that they are efficacious ex opere operato, without regard to the conviction in the sacrament by either the presbyter or the communicant.
Regarding the creeds, I would urge you to study the Nicene Creed with greatest scrutiny. Within Protestant and Western Christianity, the Apostle’s Creed and Athanasian Creeds are also widely used, however, Eastern churches do not in any way dispute these; rather, they are merely not used liturgically. The Apostle’s Creed is derived from the baptismal liturgy of the church, and represents a subset of the dogma espoused by the Niceno-Constantinoplean creed of 381; however, it is somewhat weaker than the latter, in that it lacks the emphasis on triadism of the latter. Thus, one could be an Arian or a Oneness Pentecostal, or a Socianian, and adhere to the Apostle’s Creed, whereas the Nicene Creed unambiguously prohibits such. That said, the Apostle’s Creed is beautiful, and more compact than the Nicene Creed, and forms the core of the traditional Western Rite baptism liturgy.
The Athanasian creed, on the other hand, contains almost exactly what the Nicene creed has, albeit written in a style rather more verbose and monotonous. Athanasius for his part was involved in both creeds; he rallied support in favor of the orthodox position at Nicea in 325; subsequently, when some moderate Arians exploited loopholes in the original Nicene Creed, he composed the creed bearing his name to address this problem. Though he died about 8 years before the First Council of Constantinople, his creed advised the theology of it; the revised Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 could be viewed as the Nicene Creed ammended to contain the same Triadism that is espoused in the Athanasian Creed, thus defining the consubstantiality of the Trinity as the essential dogmatic truth of the universal Church. All three creeds, the Apostolic, Athanasian and Nicene, were in use in the Anglican Church during John Wesley’s day, and were accepted by Wesley.
It is my view that in general, for the purpose of refuting apostasy, it is important that we not adopt distinctions that alienate any of the conservative denominations that remain solid in the faith. Thus, in my opinion, if one converts from a Southern Baptist church to a Presbyterian Church in America congregation, or from the latter to Eastern Orthodoxy, or to a high church Anglican parish, none of these inter-denominational movements are in and of themselves apostasy. What is apostasy is the trend of liberal churches to discard Christianity; the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church, USA, and other liberal mainline denominations around the world are simply discarding the historic faith, and embracing Gnosticism, Marcionism, and other historical heresies, or in some case, becoming a form of organized atheism. The Unitarians for example, who by my definition would always have been heretics, by virtue of denying the divinity of Christ, at least historically venerated Christ and affirmed the truth of the Bible; they now do neither, but instead, serve as a gathering place for people of diverse, syncretic religious views which could only be described as “Post Christian”.
There are many heretical pastors in the hierarchy of those denominations which have not entirely succumbed to apostasy, yet are under great pressure to do so; I would cite the United Methodist Church and the Church of England as two examples. I have been debating with a United Methodist pastor who has a despicable blog entitled “Hacking Christianity”, which, as the name might suggest, consists primarily of himself advocating acts of theological violence against the scriptures and church tradition. One remarkable aspect of his blog is that almost nowhere, do either he or his commentators refer to Scripture.
At any rate, God bless you too, and feel free to e-mail me if you have any questions about the creeds. I believe we’re at a point here where we can reach a workable theological consensus, and if we’re able to do that, I would be delighted to consider you an ally in the struggle to preserve the priceless Christian faith we have been entrusted with. The other main concern of mine is helping the beleaguered Christians in the middle east; to this end I’ve become heavily involved with a local Syriac Orthodox and a local Coptic parish, and I must say, I very much love those people; their piety is inspiring to say the least.
Paul, thanks for the detailed comments. There are a number of points I hope to respond to, on which I would beg to differ. That being said, I agree 100% with this comment of yours near the end:
“What is apostasy is the trend of liberal churches to discard Christianity; the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church, USA, and other liberal mainline denominations around the world are simply discarding the historic faith, and embracing Gnosticism, Marcionism, and other historical heresies, or in some case, becoming a form of organized atheism. The Unitarians for example, who by my definition would always have been heretics, by virtue of denying the divinity of Christ, at least historically venerated Christ and affirmed the truth of the Bible; they now do neither, but instead, serve as a gathering place for people of diverse, syncretic religious views which could only be described as “Post Christian”.”
Well that’s it for now – gotta run. God bless you – Dave
Hi there Dave,
I hope all is well with you. Things have been going well for me since we last spoke. I would be very interested to know if you’ve had a chance to study the historic creeds, and what specific objections you might have to their doctrine.
I’ve been reading your blog, and a few observations came to mind.
In one article, you dismiss Augustine, yet a few paragraphs later condemn Pelagianism. Now, Augustine was not alone in refuting Pelagianism, but one should remember that he was the primary polemic opponent of Pelagius (who he referred to as Brito); he is a major saint in Western Christianity and was an inspirational figure to John Wesley among others. In the East he is a minor figure; the east prefers the concept of original sin advocated by St. John Cassian, which denies imputed or hereditary guilt, but instead regards the sin of Adam as creating a degenerate condition in the universe, which causes us invariably to sin, but which does not require unpleasant doctrines, such as Augustine’s rather odious view that infants who die before being baptized are damned. This is not Pelagianism; it does explicitly affirm original sin, it merely denies that we are automatically sinful from birth by virtue of hereditary guilt; it also obviates the need for Roman Catholic doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Now, a more interesting point comes to mind. You are rightly concerned about apostasy; about how this apostasy may lead to a one world religion led by the Antichrist. However, we should remember that this apostasy is nothing new, nor is the presence of the Antichrist; 1 John 4:3 warns us that the Antichrist has already arrived in the world. The Antichrist is undeniably Satan, or a manifestation thereof, although it is a legitimate matter of theological debate as to in who, and to what extent, the Antichrist has thus far manifested himself; one might say that the Biblical warnings about the number of the beast, contained in Revelations, might be directed against Nero, or perhaps both Nero and some unspecified future tyrant before Christ’s second coming. It is dangerous however, in my opinion, to speculate too much about the exact details of Christ’s return; the premillenial view was denounced by the early Church as the heresy of chilliasm, and people like Hal Lindsay or Chuck Smith who warn of an imminent apocalypse are themselves acting in ignorance of Christ’s warning that “No man shall know the day or the hour.” Christ might come tomorrow, or perhaps the human race will endure for over a hundred trillion years, past the very end of the Stelliferous era, as long as this universe, the divine creation of God, remains habitable; Christ might also arrive somewhere in between, or perhaps, at an infinite point in the future.
It seems to me that Christ’s assurance that “very shortly I will be with you” is a promise of our communion with him after death, as opposed to a specific chronological statement regarding the time of his return, and many remarks of his of an apocalyptic nature appear to refer to the Roman destruction of the Temple. However, they might well also refer to a similar event in the future; I feel its important however that we not allow ourselves to be distracted from our own sins and the need to repent thereof, and our prayer to Christ, through excessive speculation about the future. This does not preclude the recreational enjoyment of films such as the fun, if rather silly, Omega Code, which featured an awesome performance by Michael York as a rather Tony Blair like anti-Christ. I saw a snippet of some other film about the Christian end times featuring a British actor portraying an evil anti-Christ, who ordered a pack of dogs to devour some Christian before embarking in a helicopter. It was fun stuff. Yet let us not confuse devotional fiction, such as that, or Ben Hur for that matter, with the actual message of the Gospel.
Now, I’d like to touch on one other point regarding apostasy. The apostasy you describe, I believe due to the influence of the Antichrist, who the Beloved Disciple does warn us is in the world right now, and has been since the First Century, has occurred repeatedly. I would like to cite three examples of religions which I believe represent forms of Christian apostasy.
The Yazidis are a kurdish people, who are endogamous, and who worship the Peacock Angel, Taus Melek. Their religion is clearly of Gnostic origins, but with a syncretic influence from Zoroastrianism and Sufi islam. The Peacock Angel clearly at one time was Christ; through the influence of the Gnostic heresy, the figure of Christ was corrupted in the mind of these believers, and reduced to a figure that closely resembles the Islamic conception of the devil, Shaitan, or Iblis. Taus Melek, in a Gnostic manner, was created as the reflection of God, who, like the Valentinian originator-deity Bythus, is remote and rather impassable. God then created six other archangels, and placed Taus Melek at the head of them. This story precisely parallels the Islamic story of Shaitan, or Iblis.
Now, here, the two faiths diverge. In Islam, God then created man, and ordered Shaitan or Iblis to bow before him; Shaitan refused, and was cast into Hell as punishment, where he remains as the adversary and tempter of mankind. In Yazidism, God intended this test of Taus Melek as a moral challenge; Taus Melek refused, and thus made the correct choice that God intended, and in so doing, extinguished the fires of Hell. This is a clear Christological parallel, yet it also betrays a Luciferian influence; the fact that Christ and Lucifer have been apparently conjoined in the figure of the Peacock Angel is a disturbing example of the destructive power of the Gnostic heresy.
Mandaism is another Gnostic religion; here the figure of Christ as the savior, delivering us from the evil material world into spiritual bliss, is replaced by John the Baptist. Mandaeans consider themselves to be the true followers of John the Baptist; its possible this may be at least in part correct, as the Gospel suggests that not all of John the Baptist’s disciples chose to follow Christ (although Andrew and Simon Peter certainly did). The other disciples may well have persisted as a small sect, which later may have syncretically adopted a Gnostic faith; however, I think its rather more likely that under the strain of the Gnostic heresy, a Christian Gnostic sect degenerated to a point where they rejected Christ in favor of His forerunner. Mandaeans historically considered Christ a false prophet, and regard the Holy Spirit as evil. They baptize themselves weekly to wash away the stains of sin, believing water to be spiritually purifying.
Both Mandaeans and Yazidis are somewhat friendly to Christians; this may be because Christians do not mistreat them the way Muslims do, or it may also suggest their Christian heritage. Yazidis sheltered Armenians during the genocide of 1915; Mandaeans have in recent decades sought to develop an ecumenical relationship with Christianity through a strange exegesis of their own scriptures, written in the Mandaic dialect of Syriac. Their scripture describes Christ as a “False messiah”, but the word used for “False” also means “Book”, so in a baffling hermeneutic, for the sake of friendship, the Mandaeans are now saying that they really believe Christ to be a “Book messiah”, although I cannot presume to know what that obscure and bizarre designation actually means. However, I will say that, in contrast to the Yazidis, who are known to practice honor killings, and who I would not want to be around after dark, to put it mildly, the Mandaeans are an extremely gentle and peaceful people.
The Peacock Angel has Luciferian overtones, even from within Christianity; while not as obviously diabolical as it would appear to a Muslim, you nonetheless can see in the Peacock Angel how the Gnostic heresy infinitely disfigured Christ by combining His identity with attributes of Satan. The Yazidis are exceedingly xenophobic; they believe, in a manner resembling the Gnostic creation myth of the world being the aborted offspring of Sophia, that they alone are descended from the asexually-reproduced son of Adam, who mated with a Houri, whereas the Jews and the rest of mankind are descended from the sexually reproduced offspring of Adam and Eve. In contrast, the Mandaeans are an Abrahamic faith which does not hold any doctrines as bizarre or offensive. However, one can clearly see how in Mandaism, under the corrupting influence of the Gnostic delusion, Christ was deprecated in favor of John the Baptist, who by his own words, was not worthy to untie the sandals of our Savior.
Another historic example of apostasy can be found in the devil-worshipping cult of El Tio in Bolivia. Miners in the silver mines, who are, above ground, practitioners of Roman Catholicism, believe that the dominion of God does not extend below the surface of the earth. The silver mines in Potosi are either the dominion of the devil himself, or his brother, or a related devil-like diety, depending on which miner you ask; this character is referred to as El Tio, literally, the Uncle. The miners believe that El Tio must be appeased in order for them to find rich deposits of silver; failure to please El Tio will result in disaster, such as cave-ins. The miners make sacrifices to statues of El Tio located throughout the mines, placating him with gifts of cigars, coca leaves and alcoholic libations. It is viewed as especially dangerous to enter a part of the mine where an El Tio statue exists, that has not recently been ministered to. These statues depict a horned devil, with a huge erect penis, and distinctly Spanish ethnic features, a reference to the cruel Imperial overseers of the mine during its sixteenth century heydey, when it was the primary source of wealth for the Spanish Empire at the height of its power. The most unpleasant aspect of El Tio worshippers is that, once a year, they sacrifice innocent llamas to these diabolical cult statues, in an act that ought to be repulsive to any Christian.
Yet the Roman church here fails, as it so often does, to stamp out indigenous beliefs that are patently offensive or utterly incompatible with the Orthodox Christian faith. Although the miners who seek to placate him are of Inca ethnicity, the diabolical attributes of El Tio are clearly of European origin, and his very name is the Spanish for “The Uncle”. Thus, one can see here how even within a church that promotes doctrines that are, with some prominent exceptions, compatible with the Apostolic faith of the Nicene fathers, poor catechesis leads to the delusion the Russians refer to as “Prelest”, resulting here in the monstrosity of Incas who are Christians above ground, and devil worshippers below ground. This staggering incongruiity is rationalized by the general aversion of the miners to practicing forms of devotion to El Tio above ground; in like manner, It is believed that any miner who dares to sell his soul to El Tio, in a bid to gain access to greater riches in the mines, will die within a month’s time, owing to the vindictive and evil nature of this figure.
it is an absolute taboo to mention Jesus, the names of the saints, or the Virgin Mary below ground, as doing so it is feared will lead to a deadly disaster, such as a mineshaft collapse. This taboo, in the intensity of its observance, resembles the extreme aversion British actors in the West End have to mentioning the name Macbeth, or quoting from what is euphemistically referred to as “The Scottish play.” Theater workers, no matter how high their rank, who violate this taboo, except during an actual performance of Macbeth (itself regarded as unlucky) must leave the theater and perform a purification ritual before re-entering; this was hillariously satirized in an episode of the Rowan Atkinson comedy Blackadder the Third.
Thus we can see how apostasy is not new; it has occurred since the very inception of the church. The Antichrist might well have acted through the person of Simon Magus, then Nero, then Titus, then Marcion, then Valentinus, then the cruel Emperors such as Diocletian, then in the person of Arians. Surely the hand of the antichrist was at work when the Mongolian despot Tamerlane killed 95% of the members of the Church of the East, including all of their parishioners in China, Tibet and Central Asia. In the same manner, one can see the work of the Antichrist in the mass murder of Armenian, Assyrian and West Syriac Christians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire in 1915.
I feel that for this reason it is extremely important that, with a contrite heart, we earnestly seek the faith of the Apostles and their successors in the early Church, who literally wrote the book on how to fight Satan, and the demonic corruption of our faith, that leads horribly degenerate post-Christian religions such as Mandaism, Yazidism, El Tio worship, and in more recent times, the Unitarian Universalist community.
Many great points, Paul. Much to study and respond to.
Regarding your comment: “In one article, you dismiss Augustine, yet a few paragraphs later condemn Pelagianism.”
I’m wondering which article this was. With so many blogs written, it’s getting hard for me to keep track of them all! I’m thinking the article you’re referring to was one of my reposts of someone else’s article. Is this it?: https://davemosher.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/repost-john-henderson-a-response-to-i-am-a-concerned-nazarene-article-in-holiness-today/
Well that’s it for now. God bless you – Dave
Hey David,
It’s actually the one entitled A repost with comments: Dr. Norman Geisler’s critique of Emergent theology
It may have been Norman Geisler rather than yourself, the post decried Augustine as a “Catholic Mystic.” Regardless of who said it, the problem with saying that about any of the fourth century Church Fathers is that the Roman Catholic church did not exist as a stand-alone entity, isolated from the rest of Christendom, until 1054, so if Augustine is a Catholic mystic, then so are Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyassa, Athanasius, Ambrose of Milan, Jerome, Ephraim the Syrian, and a huge swathe of other Patristic authorities. Now I myself disagree with a lot of what Augustine had to say, but I would say that he was neither terribly mystical (certainly nowhere near as much of a mystic, as say, Gregory of Nazianzus or Ephraim the Syrian), nor can he easily be discounted without throwing out the rest of the crucially important fourth century Fathers.
If you throw them out, the question then becomes, where do you stop? Irenaeus? Tertullian (who actually did succumb to heresy in the form of Montanism)? Justin Martyr? Polycarp? Ignatius of Antioch? Eventually the entire cloud of witnesses surrounding the early church gets whittled back, until you yourself wind up in apostasy along with the so-called ‘Jesusists’ who discount everything in the Bible except the “red letter verses” attributed to Christ in the Gospels.
That said, I do view Augustine as being overrated amongst the fourth century fathers, primarily because I see him being overly motivated by his own guilt at the excesses of his early life as a follower of the heretical Manichaen Gnostic sect, which was the main rival to Christianity in the Roman Empire in the fourth century (by which time Paganism was essentially dying out, in spite of efforts of Julian the Apostate to revive it). Nonetheless, Augustine was the main opponent of Pelagius; Augustine refuted the false doctrines of Pelagius, although with Pelagius thus refuted, I personally prefer the interpretation made availalible from Augustine’s contemporary John Cassian, which is basically original sin, but without imputed hereditary guilt. Cassian’s conception of original sin is that Adam’s action caused a sort of degenerate condition across creation, in which our sinning is inevitable, but it does not require us to write infants off as sinners, and thus say that unbaptized infants are damned, which is what Augustine said. The Augustinian guilt-driven theology I see as the accidental cause of much of what one might term the “Bondage and discipline theology” of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. the use of cilices).
Thanks again for all the great comments, Paul.
I do have a question about this comment of yours:
“Regardless of who said it [decrying Augustine as a “Catholic Mystic”], the problem with saying that about any of the fourth century Church Fathers is that the Roman Catholic church did not exist as a stand-alone entity, isolated from the rest of Christendom, until 1054…”
You then mentioned a number of early Church fathers, and asked a good question – which if any do we throw out for being heretical? I’m no expert on church history – far from it. I am unfamiliar with most of the names you mentioned. But it seems to me there had to be heretical early Church fathers, in spite of what date the Roman Catholic church officially became established. (I found this listing of early Church fathers – I’ll work on learning more about them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers).
Consider the following heretical teachings and practices, found here:
http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/romes-heretical-inventions If all of these heretical teachings and practices came into being between 300 A.D. and 1054 A.D., then I would think there were early Church fathers in the fourth century (the 300s) that we must view as heretical.
300 A.D. – Prayers for the dead.*
300 A.D. – Making the sign of the Cross.
320 A.D. – Wax candles.*
375 A.D. – Veneration of angels and dead saints, and the use of images.
394 A.D. – The mass, as a daily celebration.
431 A.D. – Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term ‘Mother of God’ first applied to Mary by the Council of Ephesus.
500 A.D. – Priests differentiated from the common man by dress (clothing).
526 A.D. – Extreme Unction.
593 A.D. – The doctrine of purgatory established by Gregory I.
600 A.D. – Latin language, used in prayer and worship, imposed by Gregory I.
600 A.D. – Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints and angels.*
607 A.D. – Title of pope, or universal bishop, given to Boniface III by Emperor Phocas.
709 A.D. – Kissing the pope’s foot, began with Constantine.
750 A.D. – Temporal power of the popes conferred by Pepin, king of the Franks.
786 A.D. – Authorised worship of the cross, images and relics.
850 A.D. – Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest.
890 A.D. – Worship of Saint Joseph.
927 A.D. – College of the Cardinals established.
965 A.D. – Baptism of Bells, instituted by Pope John XIII.
995 A.D. – Canonization of dead saints, by Pope John XV.
998 A.D. – Fasting on Fridays and during Lent.
Also, I’m wondering about this statement of yours:
“Eventually the entire cloud of witnesses surrounding the early church gets whittled back, until you yourself wind up in apostasy along with the so-called ‘Jesusists’ who discount everything in the Bible except the “red letter verses” attributed to Christ in the Gospels.”
Don’t you think this is a bit of an over-reaction? Certainly we have a right, as discerning Christians, to point out legitimate heretical Church Fathers in the fourth century, if they did exist. Again, see especially the heresies between 300 A.D. and 394 A.D. in the timetable above. My question should probably be, did any early Church fathers assist in coming up with these heresies? Perhaps an equally valid question would be, did any early Church fathers OPPOSE the formation of these heresies?
As far as ‘Jesusists’, personally I haven’t met any Christians who throw out all of the Bible and follow only the words Jesus spoke…. Hmmm, I just learned something new here – there are indeed professing Christians who view the Bible this way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism
Anyway, thanks for the great discussion. Feel free to give any feedback – I’ll try to respond nicely 🙂 God bless you – Dave
Well what I’d like to first mention is that the majority of the items on your list were instituted after the Fourth Century, and it is my opinion a huge decline did occur in the Fifth Century around the time of the Nestorian Schism. The Church of the East, which was separated from the rest of the church at Ephesus, is still extant, whereas the Arians who were condemned at Nicaea disappeared in a few hundred years; likewise, the anti-Chalcedonian Miaphysite party condemned at Chalcedon is alive and well, consisting of ten million Copts, several million Ethiopians and Armenians, and a hundred thousand Syriacs, plus a few million Christians in India. So clearly, God did not lift his grace from these communities; they cannot be said to be in a state of apostasy like that of the Gnostics, the Ebionites, or the Arians, who have either disappeared outright or completely rejected Christianity (in the case of the two surviving Gnostic sects). So clearly, I would say due to the political intervention of the Byzantine empire, and a poisonous power struggle between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome that ultimately led to the Great Schism of 1054, a change for the worse did happen in the early Fifth century.
Now, lets go over each of the items on your list, because its my view that many of these cannot be considered as heretical even from an extreme Protestant position:
Prayers for the dead, and making the sign of the cross, probably predate 300 AD by a substantial degree. The sign of the cross was originally of purely Christological reference, and remained so in Russia until the forcible reforms of Patriarch Nikhon; it probably originated as a means for early Christians to identify themselves, initially as a secret sign similiar to the Icthys, and later, as a means of showing their Christian identity in defiance of the Roman empire, perhaps as they were about to be crucified. In like manner, prayers for the dead doubtless originated with the persecutions; it would be appalling to suggest that the early Church would not be justified in praying for the safety of those who they had just witnessed being decapitated for proclaiming the Gospel of Christ (including many child martyrs, such as Abanoub).
Now, I do not agree at all with those who classify candles as heretical; the vast majority of Protestant churches use these. The earliest Christians, meeting in houses before dawn and after dark, doubtless used candles as illumination, also likely in many cases when the Eucharist was celebrated in the Roman cemetaries and catacombs, where Christian martyrs such as Peter were buried. After the edict of Milan, pagan temples were rebuilt as churches, and these structures, being large enough to benefit from some artificial illumination even during the day, would naturally be illuminated by candles. What is more, the use of candles, torches or the burning of incense is common across nearly all human religions to symbolize the ascent of prayers to Heaven; incense was burned in Jewish second temple worship, from which Christianity derived its early liturgy (basically, the early liturgy of the Christian church was a Jewish synagogue service, with the Haftarah reading eventually replaced by a Pauline epistle, the Torah reading, by the Gospel, and the service of holy communion replacing the animal sacrifices of the temples; this is why communion in the older liturgies is described in sacrificial language).
The use of icons likewise also predates the fourth century church; a widespread icon of a human figure looking up to the heavens in prayer was found throughout the Roman cemetaries; the earliest icon according to legend is the Mandylion, an image of Christ that miraculously appeared on a document sent to King Agbar of Edessa; this legend is at least as old as the third century, probably the second, and it might even be true. At any rate, when we look at the huge destruction of cultural heritage that has occurred whenever the heresy of iconoclasm has reared its ugly head, in the eigth century and again in England following the Reformation, it is hard not to agree with the Seventh Ecumenical Council’s condemnation of it, which also explicitly forbids the actual worship of images. Even the Jews, who are more sensitive about iconography than their Christian counterparts, venerate their Torah scrolls, and this veneration is the same as that afforded to icons in the Eastern churches. In most of the western churches, the majority of images take the form of stained glass windows, and I seldom see anyone prostrating themselves before them; they are more of a decorative function. The Seventh Ecumenical council pointed out that God’s incarnation as Christ was itself of a representative aspect; the Jews condemn a belief in this as idolatry; on that basis, by extension, we can say that having visual icons is acceptable, provided the second commandment is not violated and the images are not themselves made the object of worship (which has occasionally happened to the embarrassment of the Church, for example, Our Lady of Fatima).
Now, the designation of Mary as theotokos, literally, “Birth giver to God”, was in response to the Nestorian heresy, which was in fact a heresy in the form condemned at Ephesus. Nestorius insisted that Christ consisted of two persons, one human and one divine, in hypostatic union; that only the human person was born of Mary and died on the cross, and that Mary should therefore be referred to a “christotokos”, Birth giver to Christ. This was dangerously close to the more severe heresy of Adoptionism, and was rightfully condemned. Since Christ is God Incarnate, we can say that Mary did in fact give birth to God; we do not say however that Mary in any sense originated God, and the translation “Mother of God” is inaccurate (and its a huge failure of the Roman Catholic Church that this dangerously misleading translation of “theotokos” is tolerated). If we say, on the other hand, that Mary was not birth giver to God, we either have to resort to Nestorianism, or or deny the divinity of Christ.
Now, regarding clerical vestments, these cannot be said to be heretical in any sense; on the contrary, they represented the humility of the clergy. During the iconoclastic period in Byzantium, these vestments were discarded, and instead the priests and bishops dressed themselves in a flamboyant and ridiculous manner reminiscent of the way modern day preachers in some of the more unpleasant charismatic and Baptist sects dress. On the other hand, the clerical vestments imply humiliation, and separation from the secular world; each aspect of the vestments has a specific theological meaning. Beyond that, it is probable that vestments were in use at least as early as the fourth century, albeit not canonically mandated. Even in churches that do not use vestments, there is typically a visual distinction between clergy and church employees and the laity, which manifests itself, for example, in the distinctive attire of ushers, nametags, and so on. Surely, if its a heresy to visually differentiate the clergy from the laity in any way, then these also fall afoul of it,
In like manner, the liturgical use of the Latin language began as early as the end of the second century, under Pope Victor I. Prior to that, Koine Greek was the primary liturgical language of the Church, aside from the use of Aramaic by isolated pockets of Judeo-Christians such as the Nazarenes and Ebionites. Latin and Syriac began to be used around the same time; Pope Cyril of Alexandria translated the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark into Coptic, and thus began the Coptic liturgical tradition. The beginning of the use of Latin was thus the start of a process whereby the Christian liturgical langauge ceased being an intellectual language known to the few (Koine Greek, the language in which most of the Gospels were undoubtably written, with the possible exception of a lost early form of Matthew), instead to be said in the vernacular. Unfortunately the Roman church later reversed this by insisting on Latin. This was not a problem in the day of Gregory I, when Vulgar Latin remained a lingua Franca, but after the Great Schism, this became a major impediment to the transmission of Christian doctrine to a population increasingly unable to understand any form of Latin.
Fasting on Fridays and Great Lent also certainly predates 998. The Jews fasted on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The early Church, seeking to differentiate itself from Judaic praxis, moved the fasting days to Wednesdays and Fridays, in commemoration of the betrayal and crucifixion of Christ respectively. In like manner, the main feast day was set, very early on, to Sunday, as can be found by a reading of the Apostolic Constitutions of Hippolytus. This was in memory of the resurrection of Christ. The Jewish Sabbath was probably deprecated around the turn of the second century, around the time the Jews expelled Christians from the synagogues and the early Church likewise anathematized those Jews who rejected Christ. The great fast of Lent also significantly predates the tenth century; it was mentioned at the Council of Nicaea, and the fact that all of the surviving branches of the apostolic Church (the Romans, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrians) observe it, confirms its ancient status, for the Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox tend to lack those innovations that occurred after Ephesus and Chalcedon respectively.
Finally, both the Roman and Alexandrian patriarchs were historically referred to as “Pope.” After the Chalcedonian schism, the present condition of two rival Popes presiding over the see of Mark the Evangelist existed, one Greek and the other Coptic, although fortunately, in our present day, they are allies rather than enemies (the Ottoman Khedive who ruled Egypt vetoed a merger between the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox Church in the early 19th century).
I will not respond to the other purported histories you list, either because they are sufficiently controversial in Protestantism so that one might well legitimately regard them as heretical without finding oneself contravening the Ecumenical councils, or else I myself regard them, if not heresies, at least as mistakes. For example, the College of Cardinals, which was created to usurp the legitimate power of the Holy Synod of the Roman Church and consolidate all ecclesiastical control in the Papacy, in violation of the traditions of the ancient Church. The Roman Catholic church can be measured in its heresy effectively by how much it differs from its condition in the Fourth Century, when it existed in a state of ecumenical harmony with the other four ancient Patriarchates (in order of seniority, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem).
Now, do we have a right to arbitrarily write off fourth century fathers as heretics without engaging in apostasy? I would have to say that while, from the standpoint of religious freedom, which I respect, we do have that right, but not if we want to make the claim to be fighting apostasy. If we want to legitimately oppose apostasy, we are at a minimum bound to regard the Council of Nicaea, and the Council of Constantinople of 381, as being imperative to the formation of the Christian religion after the end of persecution under Constantine I; we are obliged to regard as heretics those who they anathematized (such as Arius, Marcion, Valentinus, Pelagius and indeed even poor Nestorius), and at the same time, to not regard as heretics those who were instrumental in refuting said heresies (such as Augustine); however, it is legitimate to express reservations about some aspects of their theology. Thus, while I cannot say Augustine was a heretic, for he fought heresy, I can object to those parts of his teaching which never became the canonical doctrine of the church, for example, the idea of the damnation of unbaptized infants, or the idea that sexual pleasure within marriage is sinful.
I certainly can’t write Augustine off as a “Catholic mystic”, however, because the Roman Catholic church did not exist then, rather, the “Catholic Church” of the fourth century comprised all Christians who had not acceded to the false dogma of the heresiarchs. In the fourth century, if you weren’t Catholic, then you were Arian or Novatian, or a Donatist, or a Manichee (as was Augustine in his youth, before his baptism by Ambrose of Milan). Furthermore, most Protestant churches and the Eastern churches affirm their Catholicity, “Catholic” meaning “Universal.” As I’ve said before, Augustine was also one of the less mystical theologians of his time; I would cite the hymns and metrical homilies of Ephraim the Syrian as the highlight of mystical Christianity in the fourth century.
In a nutshell, there are some questions which are legitimately disputed between the majority of Protestants, and the Orthodox and Catholics, but a lot of the supposed heresies enumerated there aren’t considered heretical by all but the most extreme restorationist groups, which themselves frequently fall into a classically defined heresy in the contrast. If you object to stained glass windows and an altar with candles and a gilt cross, that probably makes you an iconoclast. If you object to Mary’s status as having given birth to God incarnate in the person of Christ, then you’re a Nestorian, and so on.
At any rate, God bless you, and I hope this clarifies my position.
Thanks again for your feedback, Paul. I appreciate your detailed discussion of church history, as well as the explanation of your positions. And yes, as you alluded to in your last sentence, your comments do indeed clarify your position.
There are some points that I still feel uncomfortable with. But until I learn more about the early Church fathers and various Roman Catholic practices, I’ll try not to show my ignorance by criticizing things I know little about 🙂
I am finding websites that vary widely in their views of the early Church fathers, as well as various Roman Catholic practices. Some websites say they are biblically sound. Other websites “tear them to shreds”, condemning them as heretical. I’m finding it difficult to put all the pieces together. (Usually in situations like this, I try to find and read primary historical documents, rather than reading the interpretations of various historians.)
I’m just wondering, are you a professor somewhere? (If you are, you don’t need to mention where – unless you want to.) I’m very impressed with your knowledge of church history and theology. I’m learning a lot from you! BTW, I did a bit of Googling and did find comments by you at several blogs – good job! I think you would be a good blogger – you certainly love to write, and I’m guessing you could generate some good discussions.
I’m also curious what denomination most closely represents your theological positions (if you wish to share this info, that is). My intent is not to criticize, but to better understand where you’re coming from theologically.
Well that’s it for now. God bless you – Dave
Hey Dave, I’m not a professor; I’m a network engineer, but I am a theology student; I’m working on a program in Eastern Christianity and also towards obtaining Lay Servant status in the United Methodist Church, and also a Diaconate in the Syriac Orthodox Church (I’ve become involved with the Syriacs as part of an effort to help them due to the extreme persecution they’re experiencing right now in Syriac; I would say there’s a 33% that they will be basically wiped off the map due to the current war in Syria). My goal is to eventually go to seminary and become a pastor in a few years time. Both my parents are professors however (my father of political philosophy, my mother of music composition and theory). I’m just an IT geek who is also a liturgy geek and a Christianity geek.
Now, I think its very important to consider a few things regarding the early Church Fathers. First of all, the writings we have of theirs are very well historically attested. Its best to not just accept what other people will tell you about them, but rather, to read them yourself. Some of it can be brutal and exhausting, other parts of it (The Sayings of the Desert Fathers), pure bliss. I myself am not uncomfortable with a mystical dimension to Christianity, because I do agree with Gregory of Nazianzus that the actual essense of God is beyond our comprehension, and can only be reasoned with using apophatic terminology; all we know about God comes from the Bible, and I see nothing wrong with praying fervently and with great humility, in an effort to think about God and his gracious love for us.
What I do personally object to in the Roman Catholic church is the fact that they go beyond mysticism, and with their doctrine of scholasticism, attempt to define the ineffable mysteries of God, reducing Holy Communion, for example, to a form of magic ritual. Scholasticism is so overbearing a theology that it makes itself an easy target for assault by atheists; it leaves no room for one to reason about the Gospel on one’s own, guided by the Holy Spirit. At the same time, other Roman Catholics engage in mystical practices that are completely unfounded in scripture, for example, the devotion to the sacred heart of Jesus, which was initially (and correctly) opposed by the Pope as being Nestorian, although his successor, a Jesuit, reversed his ruling, and even worse, the devotion to the sacred heart of Mary. I feel like many Roman Catholics defy the instructions of the Second Council of Nicaea, and actually do worship images and the Virgin Mary, as opposed to merely venerating them. The Roman Catholic church has also often ignored other canons of the Ecumenical councils; a canon of the same council prohibits double monasteries, yet the Pope’s domestic staff consists of German nuns. This to me seems to invite temptation, and is a far cry from the early church, where one monk would be assigned to personally testify to the chastity and celibacy of each Bishop.
In my mind, the First and Second ecumenical councils are absolutely essential to the dogmatic definition of the Christian faith. They determined how we would calculate Easter, what books would comprise the New Testament; they ratified the doctrine of the Trinity, including the consubstantiality and coeternity of Christ and the Father; that there was not a time when Christ was not, in refutation of the Arians. The Third Ecumenical Council is also important, because the idea that Nestorius expressed, that Christ was two persons, in “hypostatic union”, is a really bizarre Christology, although I feel like Nestorius’s error was one made out of clumsiness, and blind adherence to some of the conventions of the Antiochene school of theology, and was also in response to a legitimate concern over an outbreak of Mariolatry that had occurred in Constantinople. In his efforts to shift the focus from Mary to Christ, which were commendable, Nestorius through the baby out with the bathwater, quite literally, by denying that her baby was, before its actual birth, fully Divine, which is something I don’t think we can say at all in light of the doctrines of the Gospel of John. The schism did have a positive outcome however; it caused the Persians to admit the Nestorian Christians into their territory, in order to spite the Byzantine Emperor, who was their enemy, however, in the process, the Assyrian Church of the East evangelized a huge swathe of Asia, and had parishes as far afield as China and Tibet, which lasted until the fourteenth century, when the cruel Mongolian despot Tamerlane killed most of them.
In like manner, the Council of Chalcedon caused an unfortunate schism, which is only now being healed, but it did say one very important thing: Christ is perfectly human and perfectly divine, and His humanity and divnity exist without confusion (as Eutyches would suggest) or division (as Nestorius suggested). This was actually also the doctrine of the Copts and Syriacs; they simply refused to assent to the language of Chalcedon, which described this separation of the humanity and divnity using the formula of two natures, which to them, was effectively Nestorian. The two parties have now largely resolved their differences, albeit not without many years of frankly ridiculous warring between the two factions, which can be found, for example, in this tragicomic quote from the old Byzantine liturgical manual for Lent:
“During this week the accursed Armenians fast from eggs and cheese, but we, to refute their damnable heresy, do eat both eggs and cheese for the entire week.”
It is for that reason, therefore, that I do not object to every item you enumerated as a heresy, even though I don’t agree that all of them are heretical, simply because I feel its important to be prepared to tolerate some degree of divergence. The Second century church tolerated a reasonable range of diverse theological opinions, and found room for four Gospels, each of which contains a somewhat different narrative of Christ’s mission; compare this to the heretic Marcion, who tolerated no theological dissent within his schismatic church (which did not survive the third century), neither did he allow any books to be read, other than a version of Luke and a set of Pauline Epistles that he edited to support his theology (including, some allege, a forged Epistle to the Laodiceans).
Dear Dave,
It’s been a little while now since I had first come across your enlightening and wonderful work here. My interests came following changes occurring in The Salvation Army. Some present leaders are at odds with the very Doctrines which form the founding basis of the organisation itself. Other changes are imposed by “side stepping” due process at church level, (Corps level), and imposing change on the congregation, (including newly formed local mission statements). I began to be concerned on investigating claims that certain advocates of the Emergent Church/New Apostolic Reformation were exerting influence on leaders, and included leaders who were “pro” Emergent/NAR movement.
It would seem that the Emergents/NAR advocates introduce these ideologies at Training College/theology college level, and appear to identify students susceptible or easily influenced, of extreme charismatic or past NAR background. These combinations, coupled with a lack of Christian maturity in students, creates “little followers”, whom “lay low” until given Commission or “Ordination”. On receiving such Ordination, they are then given a ministry – usually a Corps, (Church). The newly appointed subject then lays claim to “their church”, (or Corps).
Having studied modules of Sociology, from a wonderful and gifted Sociology lecturer, (and Independant Methodist pastor), I am well aware of the methodologies used, (throughout history), to spread certain ideologies and the utilization of “subversive” plants. This is probably beginning to sound familiar to many already, and there is probably not much more I can add presently that both you and your readers may not already know. The effect on the Traditional/Orthodox, (If you will), Salvation Army is already being seen as “disastrous” in pockets where these little “autocratic followers” have been planted.
Once “activated” these little extreme autocrats put aside the administrative/shepherding ideology of church/Corps Rank, and use their status to autocratically impose the changes we are familiar with, use their power of “veto” continuously at local council/(Elder Council) level, give orders, or directives to members of the congregation, impose gag orders, on reporting Team leadership (Elder Council) proceedings, discourage and ban any congregational personal testimony input, (as it is considered preaching), dis-fellowship members of the congregation, (usually told to worship somewhere else if autocratic decisions are questioned), and pledge loyalties on paper during meetings, or continued outward requests for public obedience.
In one congregation, Corps of concern at the moment, the congregational numbers have subsequently fallen so much, approximately 45-50%, that tithing is down, regular Corps/Church functions and activities are stalling.
Peer pressure on church members during meetings, (to come down the front and get healing), have resulted in one leaving the church. Another has left after being messed up in the head following “readings” and similar being undertaken on her, and confusing scriptural interpretations. Others have been alarmed at the officers, wailing, crying and twitching at one session. Using hymn books has been banned, and modern music implemented to replace the brass band, and band members. Bongo drums, drum sets and what can only be described as “sensual” rhythmic body movements are encouraged in the services.
These deviations from accepted worship practices are becoming more and more frequently reported. It is disturbing and alarming. As the effected Corps/Churches are usually more isolated, (country towns), visits by any adjacent Corps/Churches doesn’t really occur. This is an added problem for the congregation, as when they complain, the response is.. “that couldn’t possibly be occurring”. Some use stronger language to respond to congregational cries for help. As I said, this is disastrous, and I am of the view that those higher up in “Command” of The Salvation Army who are pro-Emergent/NAR are most likely sitting quietly behind closed doors watching in anticipation, with clasped hands!
I am presently part of a group attempting to expose these impositions and deceits. The group is called “Traditional Salvationists International” We face an “up hill battle”, as many who speak up are “considered disloyal”, gossipers, or just hard to get on with. I am truly concerned with the effect this continued “Emergent Church/NAR movement is having on The Salvation Army and Universal Church as a whole. We have our hands full, counseling and praying for those thrown out of local churches, suffering, “messed up heads” and attempting to support in fellowship those now not able to worship in the Church/Corps in their own communities.
Yours in Christ,
Don.
don.churchresources@hotmail.com
Thanks for the info, Don. Very helpful in seeing what’s going on in The Salvation Army.
One of my current “specialties” if you will is confronting/exposing postmodern teachings invading our mainstream Wesleyan Holiness denominations. The Salvation Army is one of these denominations – see my entire list of the major denominations here: https://davemosher.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/a-directory-of-major-wesleyan-holiness-denominations-falling-for-emergingemergent-heresies/
I would love to see a “counter-Emergent” group formed for each of the above denominations. Glad to hear Salvationists have such a group.
God bless you – Dave
This has to be the most insane so called Christian site I have ever visited. I know you mean well, but you remain deluded. Best to you, I think.
By the way, in case you were unaware, ‘apostate’ is someone you kill for leaving the faith. Are you like that? Muslims are, and the Church used to be until a more secular society emerged. Hope you’re not like that.
Richard, we are obviously on very different wavelengths. I found your bio here: http://www.joyjamboree.com/p/richards-brief-bio-page.html By “spiritual path” I assume you mean a New Age path. And I would never use the phrase “music of Spirit”. I use the phrase “the Holy Spirit”, whom I believe is a unique being, the third Person of the Trinity. And I saw this blog of yours, with a number of New Age-ish blogs: http://www.spiritfeast.blogspot.com/ I also saw your Twitter page – some very caustic comments toward Christians there as well. I’m wondering why you are so angry at born again Christians. You say you speak at churches – what denominations do you agree with? BTW, I have researched the New Age movement over the years, as well as the UCC (United Church of Christ), Unitarian Universalism, atheism, etc. I would be willing to discuss these things (Christianity, New Age teachings, etc.) if we can correspond in a civil manner. I know there are some helpful Facebook Pages and Groups where born again Christians and spiritual people in general try to discuss such topics politely. Let me know if you’re interested – Dave P.S.: I do not advocate killing “apostates” as the Muslims do. In the Old Testament (“the Age of Law”), God the Father commanded the Israelites to kill their enemies. Apparently this was one way God brought judgment on the wicked. But in the New Testament (“the Age of Grace”), our Lord Jesus Christ said to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, etc. And Jesus taught about the wheat and tares living together, with God’s judgment to fall on the wicked when Jesus returns at the Second Coming. Regarding the term “apostate”, the term is used in various ways. I’m using term primarily for Christians who were once born again and biblically sound, but have been led astray by false teachings.
Web surfing on false teachings and the Assemblies of God and came across your blog. I agree with so much of what you present. I have been raised and served in the Assemblies of God my entire life (now 67). My husband and I now atten a non-denominational conservative (more first-wave Pentecostal) church (2 yrs) long story. But our departure had a lot to do with the inroads of the NAR, modern revivalist (Kilpatrick) and Dominion doctrine. I appreciate your dilemma concerning “naming” those whose
Enjoyed your blog — in agreement with much of it. I, too, with an Assemblies of God heritage , am navigating the stormy waters of apologetics. Now attending a nondenominational church (conservative – more first wave Pentecost, if that! … But outstanding Bible exegesis by the Sr. Pastor. I’ve hung with the Pre-Trib Rapture position, but understand how it could possibly be a post/trib situation to truly wake the True church at large. Difficult days