Archive for the ‘Doctrinal Statements’ Category

The Importance of Doctrinal Statements: Part 4 “The Baptist Distinctives”

Posted: April 19, 2010 in Doctrinal Statements, Pastoral Theology
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
8

spurgeonThe late Dr. Colon Smith, in a Baptist Bulletin article, thought the acrostic B-A-P-T-I-S-T is harmful in teaching the Baptist distinctives rather than helpful. For example, Dr. Smith asks, “Where is the “C” for congregational rule in the acrostic?” Dr. Smith tells of a church that changed its form of government from congregational to elder rule. The pastor sent a challenging letter to the state association, saying congregational church government is unbiblical. This pastor further claimed that our fellowship must not believe in congregational government because there’s no “C” in the B-A-P-T-I-S-T acrostic. Apparently someone actually took the B-A-P-T-I-S-T acrostic as the official definition of the Baptist distinctive, and not simply a handy, artificial memory device!

The Baptist Distinctives should aid us in understanding the doctrine of the church with a logical progression. There is no logical progressive from

Biblical Authority to the

Autonomy of the local church to the

Priesthood of every believer to

Two Officers to

Individual Soul Liberty to

Separation of Church and State to

Two Ordinances and then by adding another “S” to

Saved Church Membership

1. Biblical Authority

A. Biblical Authority is not the same as believing the inspiration of Scripture because the RCC also holds to this doctrine. But the RCC does not believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for faith and practice. For RCC the traditions of church have greater authority than Scripture. For example, the doctrine of purgatory is not found in Scripture but still adhered to in the tradition of the RCC.

B. The Bible is the supreme authority for faith and practice not the sole authority. There are other authorities such as parents, government, that God has ordained in His Word. These only have authority, however, because the Word of God has invested them with authority. God’s Word is the supreme authority.

2. Saved or Regenerate Church Membership

A. It is the Word of God that regenerates (1 Peter 1:23).

B. If there is no regenerate church membership there is no Biblical authority (1 Cor 2:9-14). It is impossible to get unsaved people to love God, His Word, His people (Rom 8:1-4). Therefore a regenerate church membership flows out of Biblical Authority.

3. Priesthood of the Believer

A. Every believer has access to God because of regeneration (Rom 5:1-2).

B. Every believer is a Believer Priest through whom God works (1 Pet 2:5, 9).

C. Every believer is a Believer Priest with no human high priest which calls for congregational rule (Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5).

D. Every believer is taught of God (1 John 2:27).

E. Every believer offers the sacrifices of praise (Heb 13:15) purse (Heb 13:16) and person (Rom 12:1-2). The Priesthood of the believers is based on Biblical authority and a regenerate church membership which results in congregational rule.

4. Congregational Rule

A.  In Acts 1:26, before Pentecost officers were chosen by lot. That was the Jewish way.

B.  In Acts 6, after Pentecost (when every believer is a believer priest) officers were chosen by the congregation. Congregational rule is seen in Matthew 18:15-19, when Jesus prescribed church discipline only when the unrepentent offender is treated as a heathen by a church decision. The final court of appeal is the congregation not elders or a Bishop.

5. Two Officers

A. Pastor: 1Tim 3:1-7 Elected by the congregational rule. This position is synonymous with elder and bishop. Because the three terms are used interchangebly in Scripture (Acts 20:17-28) there is not a third office of Bishop that eventually developed in church history.

B. Deacons: 1Tim 3:8-12 Elected by the congregational rule as seen in Acts 6:1-7.

6. Two Ordinances

A. Baptism demonstrates regenerated membership and union with Christ. As F. F. Bruce said in his commentary on the book of Acts that there are no unbaptized believers in the book of Acts. We are first Spirit baptized into and identified with the Universal Church (1 Cor 12:13) and then water baptized into and identified with a local church.

B. Lord’s Supper demonstrates regenerated membership and communion with Christ and His Church (1 Cor 10:16).

7. Individual Soul Liberty

A. We have individual soul liberty because of the priesthood of every believer.

B. Soul liberty is the truth that every believer answers only to God and his or her conscience (Acts 5:29).

C. Government does not force us to believe or practice what we believe against our conscience therefore we also believe another Baptist Distinctive: Separation of church and state (Matthew 22:21). You cannot have the autonomy of the local church (another Baptist Distinctive) without separation of church and state and you must have separation of church and state because of soul liberty.

D. This is another reason we do not practice infant baptism because infant baptism violates individual soul liberty (Acts 16:31-34). The church is forcing its identity on the infant without consent. I agree with the late Dr. Colon Smith that this is the way to teach the Baptist Distincitives rather than the artiflical acrostic.

There are 32 references to doctrine, teaching, teachers and teach in the Pastoral Epistles emphasizing the necessity of knowing doctrine. In 1 Timothy 1, Paul lays out the three fold purpose of the church:

1. Teach Doctrine (1:1-11)

2. Win the Lost (1:12-17)

3. Defend the Truth (1:18-20)

A clear doctrinal statement can help us accomplish these three practical goals. All four posts on The Importance of Doctrinal Statements are under Category “Doctrinal Statements.”

The Importance of Doctrinal Statements, Part Three

Posted: April 19, 2010 in Doctrinal Statements, Pastoral Theology
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

international-council-on-biblical-inerrancy-77850651Fuller Theological Seminary illustrates the effect of a Christian institution or local church abandoning a solid doctrinal statement. The Domino Effect took place at Fuller Theological Seminary which was founded in 1947 by Charles Fuller.

Fuller’s first doctrinal statement read:

“The books which form the canon of the Old and New Testaments as originally given are plenarily inspired and free from all error in the whole and in the part. These books constitute the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” I think you will agree with me, this is a solid Biblical statement.

Every faculty member was to sign without mental reservation or voluntarily leave. In 1962, one board member denied inerrancy and nothing was done. Later two faculty members denied inerrancy and nothing was done.

In 1972, Fuller adopted a new doctrinal statement:

“Scripture is an essential part and trustworthy record of this divine disclosure. All the books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, are the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” One all important statement is omitted from the first statement: “free from all error in the whole and in the part.” Thus you have the denial of inerrancy.

Five years later (1977) Fuller’s professor Paul King Jewett in his Man as Male and Female said Paul’s teaching about the subordination of woman to male leadership in Ephesians 5 is an error and in contradiction to Galatians 3:28. In other words, now at Fuller, according to Jewett’s view, the Scripture is infallible only in the area of faith or salvation.

Look at the downward spiral which took place at Fuller.

1. Fuller went from believing the infallibility and the inerrancy of all Scripture (in their first doctrinal statement).

2. Fuller then moved to believing the infallibility of the Scripture only in faith and practice and no longer in inerrancy (seen in second doctrinal statement).

3. Finally, Fuller moved to believing the infallibility of Scripture only in the area of salvation (Jewett’s view). Or the Scripture is only inerrant when it speaks of salvation.

Neo-Orthodoxy made its influence on Fuller through Daniel Fuller who went to Bazil, Switzerland, to study under Neo-Orthodox theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), who did not believe in inerrancy. Barth wrote about his view of errancy in his Church Dogmatics: “The Bible witnesses to a revelation from God …..The prophets and apostles are actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word” (Church Dogmatics pp. 507, 528, 529).

“The illustration that the Neo-Orthodox usually gives is that the Bible is like a minister preaching the Gospel. Although there may be many mistakes in his sermon, he is still witnessing to the truth, and this is sufficient to secure salvation for men” (Steward Custer, Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy, p. 75.).

In 1978, the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy met at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago consisting of 300 noted scholars, including Wayne Grudem, Homer Kent, Jr., John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, John Whitcomb, etc. to combat this heresy and produced The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. Article XI reads, “We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.”

This view of infallibility and inerrancy being the same is challenged today. Some would say that the Bible is infallible in areas of “Faith and Practice” or that the Bible is without error when it teaches us how to be saved and how to live the Christian life. The reason the Bible is infallible in these two areas, they say, is because this is the reason the Bible was written. But in areas of history and science the Bible is not inerrant. This is the view of Jack B. Rogers and Donald McKim in The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible.

What is our response to this reasoning that does not see the infallibility and inerrancy as equally important? 

The Bible declares that “all Scripture is inspired.” The term “Scripture” includes the O.T. (Lk. 24:44), the gospels (Lk. 4:21) and the N.T. epistles (2nd Pet. 3:16). The New Testament authors trusted the smallest historical details from the Old Testament.

Hebrew 11:3 makes a scientific statement that must be accepted by faith. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

These conservative theologians at the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy not only saw the error that resulted from a doctrinal statement abandoned, they not only cursed the darkness, they lit a light and forged another solid doctrinal statement that now must be practiced and defended.

Justin Holcomb for the most part gives an accurate summary of the ICBI or CBSI. I disagree, however, with his caricature of fundamentalism as the following quotes shows. While all liberals downplay the role supernatural role in the writing of Scripture, not all fundamentalists downplay the human role in dual authorship as Holcomb accuses.

While not to be given creedal status, the CBSI is an important statement that Christians ought to affirm. One of the reasons is, the CBSI navigates between liberalism and fundamentalism. Liberalism so analyzes and assesses the historical background and literary features of a text (the human features) that the text’s authenticity and factuality is negated in the process. Fundamentalism so emphasizes the Holy Spirit’s activity in the writing of the Scriptures (the divine features) that the human authorship of the text is severely minimized or denied.

You can read about important doctrinal statements in Part 1, Part 2, Part 4.

The Importance of Doctrinal Statements, Part Two

Posted: April 25, 2009 in Doctrinal Statements, Pastoral Theology
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
9

0128xA church member once said to me, “Catholics are Christians.” I tried to explain the difference between what the Catholic Church and the Bible teaches about salvation. I explained that while it is possible for a Catholic to be a believer it is not possible for a Catholic to be a believer and adhere to what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation.

Then I read Wayne Grudem in his popular Systematic Theology who quotes a Catholic theologian as representative of “the traditional Roman Catholic understanding of justification.” The Catholic theologian is Ludwig Ott, who wrote in 1960, “According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, justification is ‘sanctifying and renewing of the inner man.’” This quote is from Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma on page 257 and of course confuses justification and sanctification.

Grudem disagrees with the Roman Catholic view quoted from Ott, but then Grudem makes a follow-up comment about which I have questions: “It should be noted that Ott represents more traditional, pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, and that many contemporary Roman Catholics have sought an understanding of justification that is closer to a Protestant view” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994, p. 727). My question is, on what basis does Grudem say that contemporary Roman Catholics are closer to the Protestant view of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone? Has there been a recent RCC council that has rewritten the RCC doctrine found in the Council of Trent of 1560s? Has there been a Papal decree that documents Catholicism’s move to the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone? (For an excellent defense of the reformation’s sola fide or doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone see R.C. Sproul’s Faith Alone.)

The Council of Trent of the 1560s

The Roman Catholic Church’s doctrinal statement was written clearly at the Council of Trent (1545-63) and has not changed. The following is Canon 24 from the Council of Trent (The RCC’s doctrinal statement): 

“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining of the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema” (Canon 9 of the Council of Trent, see also Canon 14).

The Vatican II of the 1960s

The Vatican Council, Second, 1962-65, the 21st ecumenical council which was attended by 2,400 Catholic bishops did not change the Roman Catholic Council of Trent’s view on works for salvation:

For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, ‘the work of our redemption is accomplished,’ and it is through the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, para.2).

“Thus by Baptism men are grafted into the paschal mystery of Christ. . . . They receive the adoption as sons” (Vatican II, Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, Chapter I, para. 6).

At Mark Driscoll’s website Resurgence, pastor Justin Holcomb posts a very dangerous evaluation of the Second Vatican Council.

Here is one of the favorable comments by Holcomb concerning the Second Vatican Council:

The Council also sought to foster dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and other faiths and Christian denominations. In fact, the Council stated in regard to Eastern faiths, “the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions.” Yet, the Council still held to the fact that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).

“Protestants can glean wisdom from some of the formulations of the Second Vatican Council. Perhaps most importantly, we can look to the Council’s urging for us to be the church to the world in a relevant and faithful way. This is an affirmation that emphasizes an understanding of the gospel expressed in evangelism and in loving action to the world. So, while there may be elements of Vatican II with which we disagree, there is also that plenty we would affirm.” Holcomb says “there may be elements of Vatican II with which we disagree.” Does he not disagree with Vatican II’s baptismal regeneration? Paul had a very severe view of works for salvation as expressed in Galatians 1:6-9.

Justin Holcomb also presents a very weak summary of the Council of Trent. He seeks to find common ground with this RCC anathema of justification by faith alone rather than exposing this document as false teaching.

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992

The Roman Catholic Church’s doctrinal position on salvation has not changed since The Vatican Council II in the mid-sixties as the new Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992 declared: “The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us ‘the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ’ and through Baptism” article 1987.

The Evangelical Catholics

Evangelical Catholics, like Keith A. Fournier, claim to be Christians who in their thinking is not in contradiction with Catholic tradition and theology. In his book Evangelical Catholics, Fournier writes, “Many Christians misunderstand the Catholic theology of salvation as one of salvation by good works. . . . this view does not represent Catholic theology.” But, then Fournier writes approvingly of the Vatican II: “In their marvelous document entitled the ‘Decree on Ecumenism,’ the Bishops of the Catholic Church show the respect which must properly be afforded to all Christians: ‘. . . All those justified by faith through baptism are incorporated into Christ’” (Keith A. Fournier, Evangelical Catholics, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990, pages 16, 96).

This statement from the Catholic Church clearly teaches salvation by good works and Evangelical Catholic Fournier agrees. You can go to www.evangelicalcatholic.com and read how contemporary Evangelical Catholics speak glowingly about the Vatican II and also state that a believer can be “fully Catholic and fully evangelical.” This is impossible when the RCC teaches salvation by works and conservative evangelicalism teaches salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. It is true that evangelicalism is very board today and includes works righteousness so I must qualify what I mean by evangelicalism.

The problem is that Evangelical Catholics use the vocabulary of Scripture but a different dictionary. This makes it difficult for undiscerning believers to know the difference and thus allow them to think that “Catholics are Christians.” I have dear friends who are Catholics. You cannot judge a church, denomination, or movement by the personalities in it but by the beliefs adhered to in their doctrinal statements.

How is the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of Justification by Works gotten closer to the Biblical doctrine of Justification by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone according to Grudem?

I hope this brief survey of Catholic doctrinal statements will help us answer church members who have questions concerning Catholicism and witness to the unsaved who may be confused about the biblical truth of justification by faith alone.

The Importance of Doctrinal Statements, Part One

Posted: April 24, 2009 in Doctrinal Statements, Pastoral Theology
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
8

creedIn the next several posts, I want to grapple with what is necessary for the preservation of a local church or any Christian institution  i.e. , adhering to a Biblical doctrinal statement. I will eventually discuss Fuller Theological Seminary which slowly abandoned its doctrinal statement and also slowly moved to its present theologically liberal state.  Possessing a Biblical doctrinal statement is only one necessary step to preserving a local church or Christian institution. If the solid doctrinal statement is not adhered to, it is a worthless piece of paper. I would like to survey the inspiring and disappointing history of doctrinal statements and creeds to substantiate my thesis.

Driscoll has a good overview of the major creeds entitled The Concise History of Creeds and Confessions.

The First Two Great Church Councils

The two great ecumenical councils of the fourth century were The Council of Nicaea (325) and The Council of Constantinople (381). The first great controversy that patristic preachers faced was Arianism. Arius was a presbyter in Alexandria who believed in subordinationalism or the denial of the eternal generation of the Son of God. This view contends that the three persons of the Trinity are not of the same essence. Arius believed that the Son was “begotten” of the Father, that is, made or created or as Arius phrased his belief, “there was when he was not.” Because Christ was God’s first creation, the Son was not of the same essence of the Father, Arius advocated. Arius was actually a forerunner of Jehovah Witnesses.

Bishop Alexander of Alexandria fiercely disagreed. Constantine convened the first ecumenical council on June 19, 325 to resolve the conflict in Nicaea in Bithynia. Prior to the council, Arius had the backing of the church’s first historian, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, who had been excommunicated earlier by a synod at Antioch because of his Arian sympathies. At the Council of Nicaea, however, Eusebius introduced a doctrinal statement that he helped forge that included the word homoousios which declared the Son to be of the same essence as the Father and was accepted by Constantine and the Council. The Nicene Creed was the product of the church’s first council and defended the deity of the Son of God. The Nicene Creed or, more properly, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, because of the influence of the Council of Constantinople in 381, reads as follows:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures: he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Impact of Athanasius

One pastor in particular battled Arianism. Athanasius almost singlehandedly battled for the truth of the Trinity in the fourth century and was exiled five times for 17 years for his relentless stand. Largely because of the influence of Athanasius the Council Nicaea met in 325 A.D. with 318 Christian leaders and declared Jesus “of one substance with the Father.” We should not take doctrinal truth for granted but teach and preach doctrine no matter what the outcome.

Read Justin Holcomb on The Nicene Creed.

Does your church have a doctrinal statement? Do you know the content of the doctrinal statement of your church? Do you agree with the doctrinal statement of your church? Do new members have to read and agree to the doctrinal statement of your church?