Posts Tagged ‘Fuller Theological Seminary’

Richard Meow Denies Mormons Teach “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.”

Posted: October 9, 2012 in Mormonism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Ronald Huggins in a JETS article refutes Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw’s denial that Mormons still teach, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.”

During his appearance with Ravi Zacharias in the Mormon Tabernacle on November 14, 2004, Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw apologized on behalf of evangelicals for “bearing false witness” against Mormons. When challenged about his remarks, Mouw sent out an e-mail identifying places where he felt evangelicals had misrepresented Mormon teaching. Among these was the claim that “Mormonism teaches that God was once a human being like us, and we can become gods just like God is now,” a belief, Mouw goes on to assure us, that has “no functioning place in present-day Mormon doctrine.” As anyone familiar with Mormonism will immediately recognize, Mouw’s words allude to the famous couplet coined by the fifth LDS Church President Lorenzo Snow:

 As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.

This assertion is contrary to Mormon history. On 7 April 1844 Joseph Smith provided public confirmation to the theology of Snow’s couplet in the famous King Follett Discourse. This is clearly seen in the following excerpts:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea. . . . It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself . . . you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace Eliza R. Snow Smith, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret News, 1884) 10. Ibid. 46.

Mouw’s assertion concerning the teaching of Lorenzo’s Snow’s couplet is remarkable given the fact that (for most of this writer’s lifetime, at least) it has fallen into the category of things Mormons know even if they know nothing else about their faith. The Osmond Brothers even included a song that alluded to this teaching called Before the Beginning on their 1973 album The Plan.

If by “no functioning place” Mouw means that the couplet is no longer taught or mentioned in official and semi-official Mormon publications, then he is again incorrect. On that level all one needs to do is flip through the pages of the LDS Church’s official weekly newspaper, the LDS Church News, in order to find examples of the couplet being taught. The September 13, 1997 issue, for example, included this quotation from Albert E. Brown: “Temple Marriage is not just another form of church wedding; it is a divine covenant with the Lord that if we are faithful to the end, we may become as God now is.”

This passage not only quotes the couplet, it also clearly explains its continuing functioning place as a lynch-pin doctrine of the LDS Church relating to Temple Marriage.

Richard Mouw has served very faithfully as a kind of evangelical statesman, and I believe he has much to contribute to the evangelical/Mormon dialogue in the future. In relation to the continuing currency of Lorenzo Snow’s Couplet, however, Mouw is simply incorrect when he says that it has “no functioning place in present-day Mormon doctrine.” Mouw’s recent apology also places him in a somewhat ambiguous position given the fact that he contributed an enthusiastic preface to a book published in 2002 containing two articles presenting Snow’s couplet as representative of Mormon teaching. In that preface, Mouw offered an apology similar to the one rendered in the Mormon Tabernacle. He stressed how “ashamed” he was “of our record in relating to the Mormon community” and spoke of how “we evangelicals” had been “bearing false witness against our LDS neighbors.”

Against this he set the essays contained in the book, which he represented as “a laudable attempt to set the record straight.” The question raised by Mouw’s more recent apology in the Tabernacle is whether he has changed his mind in the past two years and come to believe that the book he previously praised is guilty of bearing false witness as well, and that he now wishes to distance himself from it.

However that may be, it has been the writer’s purpose in the present article to show that Snow’s couplet is not irrelevant to current Mormon teaching. Unlike relics of old Mormonism such as Brigham Young’s Adam God doctrine or plural marriage,

Lorenzo Snow’s couplet summarizes a truth that still lives at the heart and logical center of the whole Mormon religious system. Evangelicals are not therefore “bearing false witness” when they regard it as representative of Mormon belief and critically discuss it as such.

Mark Driscoll Asks the Question, “Is Mormonism a Cult?”

Posted: October 4, 2012 in Mormonism
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Mark Driscoll ask and answers this question: “Is Mormonism a Cult?” Do you agree? On October 14th at 6:00 pm  at Gospel Baptist Church I will discuss Mormonism. Give me your input on Mormonism.

There’s been a lot of debate lately, thanks to Presidential politics and prospect of the first practicing Mormon president in Mitt Romney, as to whether Mormonism is a cult or not.

Historically, there has been a very clear line drawn between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity, with all leaders of the church across a wide spectrum of Christianity agreeing that Mormonism is not only heretical but also a cult.

But as the wind changes and Mormonism becomes more mainstream, some evangelical leaders are breaking rank. For instance, Rod Dreher, an Eastern Orthodox Christian writing for the The American Conservative, said in a piece entitled, “Mormonism is not a cult, okay?“:

“It is especially offensive, at least to me, to hear Christians speak of Mormonism as a ‘cult.’ Usually when you hear that word being applied to a church or religious group, it’s designed not to describe, but solely to marginalize…In my experience, Mormonism produces exemplary people, the kind who form stable families and strong communities, and who make good neighbors. I do not believe in Mormonism, nor do I have the slightest interest in becoming Mormon. That Mormons tend to be good people does not make their doctrines true. But inasmuch as Mormons—and I’m generalizing here—tend to produce people who are often better Christians, in terms of their behavior, than the more orthodox expressions within the Christian tradition, should make thoughtful Christians consider what truth may exist within Mormonism and what we may learn about how to live well from the Mormon experience. “

And Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, who not long ago publicly defended Rob Bell’s aberrant view of hell, also recently wrote an op-ed for CNN’s Belief Blog entitled, “My Take: This Evangelical Says that Mormonism is not a Cult”, stating that while he differs with Mormons on important issues, they are not a cult in his estimation because they are not isolationist and they have a university. The most telling line from this op-ed states, “While I am not prepared to reclassify Mormonism as possessing undeniably Christian theology, I do accept many of my Mormon friends as genuine followers of the Jesus whom I worship as the divine Savior.”

Is There is a Difference between Infallibility and Inerrancy as Rogers and McKim Believe?

Posted: April 19, 2012 in Bible
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

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.

A Definition of Inerrancy

Wayne Grudem gives a very good definition of inerrancy (the doctrine that there were no errors in the original writning of Scripture): “The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact” (Systematic Theology, page 90). Ryrie adds to this definition: “The Bible tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as these do not contradict” (Basic Theology, page 82).

Importance of Inerrancy

The Domino Effect took place at Fuller Theological Seminary which was founded in 1947 by Charles Fuller when inerrancy was abandoned.

Their 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 agree with me, that this is a 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. The first dimino fell.

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 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 of all Scripture (in their first doctrinal statement).

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

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

Neo-Orthodoxy made it’s influence on Fuller Seminary 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” (pages 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, 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.”

What is the Scriptural teaching on inerrancy?

1. God can not lie (Heb. 6:18)

2. God breathed out (inspired) the Bible (2nd Tim. 3:16)

3. Therefore the Bible is true. “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him” (Prov. 30:5).

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

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.”

On page 94 of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology is a long list of O.T. historical events referred to in the New Testament as true.

As far as the writers of Scripture were concerned, infallibility and inerrancy are equal.

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.

Are There Errors in the Bible?

Posted: September 19, 2009 in Bible
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

A Definition of Inerrancy

Wayne Grudem gives a very good definition of inerrancy (the doctrine that there were no errors in the original writing of Scripture): “The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact” (Systematic Theology, page 90). Ryrie adds to this definition: “The Bible tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as these do not contradict” (Basic Theology, page 82).

Importance of Inerrancy

The Domino Effect took place at Fuller Theological Seminary which was founded in 1947 by Charles Fuller when inerrancy was abandoned.

Their 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 agree with me, that this is a 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. The first dimino fell.

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 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 of all Scripture (in their first doctrinal statement).

2. Fuller then move to believing the infallibility of the Scripture only in faith and practice (seen in second doctrinal statement).

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

Neo-Orthodoxy made its influence on Fuller Seminary 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” (pages 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, 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.”

What is the Scriptural teaching on inerrancy?

1. God can not lie (Heb. 6:18)

2. God breathed out (inspired) the Bible (2nd Tim. 3:16)

3. Therefore the Bible is true. “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him” (Prov. 30:5).

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 the same?

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.”

On page 94 of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology is a long list of O.T. historical events referred to in the New Testament as true.

As far as the writers of Scripture were concerned, infallibility and inerrancy are equal.

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?