Is a doctrinal statement or the Scriptures the starting point for your church?

[Amanuensis]

Interesting thoughts -- not sure about the "similar to the AG"? But there might be something to be said here.

But does the AG allow diversity within its ranks? I guess I still don't understand why you have to have a separate "statement of faith" if you are clearly teaching Scripture and only Scripture.

Because It would be helpful if I was looking for a church in a new area to attend and I could find out your basic doctrinal beliefs before I visit.

Obviously those who say that tongues have ceased are not "just preaching the scriptures only" and I don't want to argue with them about it. I will find a church who is preaching the scriptures only and the Full Gospel.

Now saying that they both are just preaching scriptures can't actually be true so we like to know their positions on these matter so we don't waste our time.

 

[Amanuensis]

Interesting thoughts -- not sure about the "similar to the AG"? But there might be something to be said here.

But does the AG allow diversity within its ranks? I guess I still don't understand why you have to have a separate "statement of faith" if you are clearly teaching Scripture and only Scripture.

AG ministers have to agree to the statements to receive credentials. AG members have to agree to the statements to be voting members.


We believe that God wants us to preach healing is provided in the atonement. We want our ministers to preach it and to pray for the sick to get healed. If a minister does not agree he should go elsewhere, people that attend an AG church expect to be prayed for by believing brothers and sisters and are not interested in hearing a message about how it has ceased.

Statements of beliefs help them find the right church.

 

[Amanuensis]

You are probably right that most pastors say they would begin with the Scriptures. And I am sure most do teach the Scriptures and probably many do well at this.

But the point is still this: if you are a part of a denomination with a doctrinal statement: the doctrinal statement comes before the Word. You dare not interpret any Scripture against the plain statements of the denominational beliefs. But if a Scripture does contradict (or even might seem to contradict) the doctrinal statement, it is not even "possible" that interpretation could be correct!

Well that would be a sin. An idol of denomination. Lets hope they repent of that before the judgment.

 

[Amanuensis]

I like your thoughts here, but in practicality how does this work?

Suppose I pastor a church and make a doctrinal statement that says:

(1) We believe salvation is by grace through faith, and not by works

(2) We believe in the ordinance of baptism

(3) We believe that tongues is a gift of the Spirit.

(Note that this is only three points corresponding with the three points mentioned in post #1)
(And I did not try to put Scriptures to these, those I suppose one could do that)

Would you support this approach to a doctrinal statement?

That is pretty much how most websites do it. Plus a couple of verse for each.
The fewer words the better.

There is a need because you want to know what you are walking into.

If they believe women should wear head covering you want to know that so your wife can tell you, you must be crazy and you can mark it off your list. LOL

 

[Chester]

AG ministers have to agree to the statements to receive credentials. AG members have to agree to the statements to be voting members.


We believe that God wants us to preach healing is provided in the atonement. We want our ministers to preach it and to pray for the sick to get healed. If a minister does not agree he should go elsewhere, people that attend an AG church expect to be prayed for by believing brothers and sisters and are not interested in hearing a message about how it has ceased.

Statements of beliefs help them find the right church.

Ok, so now I know I understand much more about AG than I did before.

So AG is clearly a denomination that begins with a doctrinal statement that both lay members and minsters have to agree to. One of the key doctrinal statements is that healing is provided in the atonement and this should be preached.

You say that if a minister does not agree with this they should go elsewhere . . . so I guess I need to move on . . . .

And so you obviously are sure that healing is in the atonement and the Bible says so . . . --- and I assume that no one in AG dare interpret any Scripture to say that healing is not in the atonement.

My point is not so much about the doctrinal issue: but what we have here just again clearly highlights the issue I am raising and looking for an answer for!

 

[Chester]

That is pretty much how most websites do it. Plus a couple of verse for each.
The fewer words the better.

There is a need because you want to know what you are walking into.

If they believe women should wear head covering you want to know that so your wife can tell you, you must be crazy and you can mark it off your list. LOL

So what about a doctrinal statement that reads:
(1) Every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head (I Cor. 11:5)

Would you agree with that doctrinal statement?

 

[Nehemiah6]

So what about a doctrinal statement that reads: (1) Every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head (I Cor. 11:5) Would you agree with that doctrinal statement?

What the doctrinal statement would say is " We believe Christian women must cover their heads and hair during worship" and then quote as much Scripture as necessary.

 

[Amanuensis]

So what about a doctrinal statement that reads:
(1) Every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head (I Cor. 11:5)

Would you agree with that doctrinal statement?

No. Because it would be incomplete without "we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God"

See. This is why we have different churches. We don't agree on interpretations.

 

[CS1]

It seems that for most churches (at least denominational ones) once doctrine is written down, then that becomes the starting point.

For example, if I become a pastor in a Southern Baptist Church, or a Lutheran Church, or a Holiness Church, etc., dare I start my teaching by going to the Word and teaching what (I) think it says? No, I must begin with that church's doctrinal statement. I have liberty of Scriptural interpretation as long as I abide by the doctrinal statement.

I can't pastor a Southern Baptist Church unless I begin with OSAS
I can't pastor a Holiness Church unless I begin without OSAS
I can't pastor a Lutheran Church unless I begin with infant baptism
I can't pastor a Baptist church if I baptize infants
I can't pastor an Assemblies of God church if I preach tongues was for Acts only
I can't pastor most fundamental evangelical churches if I preach that tongues is needed to be filled with the Spirit

I don't want this thread to be just another discussion of these doctrinal issues; that is not the point here.

The question is how to resolve this dilimma? Of course, this is done by unaffiliated, independent churches. But what is the solution at a denominational level? What denominations actually begin with Scripture rather than doctrinal statements?

your understanding in the thread of a doctrine is missing one very important point. "Doctrine" means teaching which is from the word of God.

Traditions have been woven into doctrine or positional stands and have been eliticized to make a few verses of the house of cards authoritative.

the word of God doesn't leave the liberty of individual interpretation but there are many applications.

There are foundational truths that you have listed in their doctrinal positions.

Baptists, assemblies of god, Lutherans, and holiness all say Jesus is the only way of salvation. all three hold the verbal plenary expression of the word of God as fully and completely inspired, and the authoritative word of God. The foundational truth that which is any is not the truth the Christian faith would crumble if one was not true.

• the virgin birth
• the death, burial, and resurrection
• of the sinless life of Christ
• conceived by the will of man and not by the Holy Spirit

 

[Amanuensis]

Ok, so now I know I understand much more about AG than I did before.

So AG is clearly a denomination that begins with a doctrinal statement that both lay members and minsters have to agree to. One of the key doctrinal statements is that healing is provided in the atonement and this should be preached.

You say that if a minister does not agree with this they should go elsewhere . . . so I guess I need to move on . . . .

And so you obviously are sure that healing is in the atonement and the Bible says so . . . --- and I assume that no one in AG dare interpret any Scripture to say that healing is not in the atonement.

My point is not so much about the doctrinal issue: but what we have here just again clearly highlights the issue I am raising and looking for an answer for!

So now you see the reason for the statements.
It helps people who agree, and those who dont agree find the church they think fits their theology.

This is not a problem it is a good solution.

Unity without standards is not unity, it is universalism and not pleasing to God.

Sometimes you have to declare something as bad interpretation and avoid it. We don't need to just embrace everyone's beliefs for the sake of unity.

I love that I can find churches everywhere that believe like I do. It's a great thing. I know how to avoid the ones that I don't agree with by reading their statements, but also I can listen to the preaching and videos now days and that is good also. It helps to get a read on the culture of that church. All this is great to me. I see no problem here.

 

[Amanuensis]

Ok, so now I know I understand much more about AG than I did before.

So AG is clearly a denomination that begins with a doctrinal statement that both lay members and minsters have to agree to. One of the key doctrinal statements is that healing is provided in the atonement and this should be preached.

You say that if a minister does not agree with this they should go elsewhere . . . so I guess I need to move on . . . .

And so you obviously are sure that healing is in the atonement and the Bible says so . . . --- and I assume that no one in AG dare interpret any Scripture to say that healing is not in the atonement.

My point is not so much about the doctrinal issue: but what we have here just again clearly highlights the issue I am raising and looking for an answer for!

I would agree with most of that. The statements are not optional for the minister to hold credentials. If they don't agree with them then why are they pursuing credentials with the AG? There are other groups they could go to that believe the way they do.

This is not a problem, it is a solution.

 

[Angela53510]

It seems that for most churches (at least denominational ones) once doctrine is written down, then that becomes the starting point.

For example, if I become a pastor in a Southern Baptist Church, or a Lutheran Church, or a Holiness Church, etc., dare I start my teaching by going to the Word and teaching what (I) think it says? No, I must begin with that church's doctrinal statement. I have liberty of Scriptural interpretation as long as I abide by the doctrinal statement.

I can't pastor a Southern Baptist Church unless I begin with OSAS
I can't pastor a Holiness Church unless I begin without OSAS
I can't pastor a Lutheran Church unless I begin with infant baptism
I can't pastor a Baptist church if I baptize infants
I can't pastor an Assemblies of God church if I preach tongues was for Acts only
I can't pastor most fundamental evangelical churches if I preach that tongues is needed to be filled with the Spirit

I don't want this thread to be just another discussion of these doctrinal issues; that is not the point here.

The question is how to resolve this dilimma? Of course, this is done by unaffiliated, independent churches. But what is the solution at a denominational level? What denominations actually begin with Scripture rather than doctrinal statements?

I have an MDiv from a Southern Baptist Seminary. We were taught the original languages, hermeneutics and exegesis. In theology, we were told about 4 end times scenerio, pick which one we thought was the right one, but be prepared to share with your congregation why you support it. Same for every other doctrinal subject. We were to start with Scripture, and back it up.

One of my big papers was on women in Ministry. Of course, the SBC do not allow women to be ordained. Although when I interview the head of the CSBC, he admitted there were women that had been ordained, and serving in ministry.

My paper was a huge defence of women in ministry. I got an A+, because I used Scripture, even if I totally disagree with the doctrine of the church. I could give you many more examples of people who preached against church doctrine, which were not disciplined.

As far as OSAS, I have believed that a long time after really searching the Bible. Yet I know others who didn't believe in OSAS, and we agreed to disagree.

You have obviously never been to seminary! My seminary had people from many denominations. Our professors were excellent and so was the library, spiritual formation, etc. We had people who were Anglican, Methodist, Mennonite, Lutheran, a few varieties of Baptists. And even some charismatics who took summer courses with us. No one was ever told to start with doctrine. We were told for every paper, every sermon, every Bible study to start with the Bible and show support. We also had some very interesting conversations during breaks & over lunch. One Reformed pastor was shocked when another pastor introduced himself as Reformed charismatic. A very interesting discussion, came out of that!

So the next time you start throwing around nonsense and misinformation like doctrine is first, I'm sure that might be true in some places. I'm working on a PhD in theology from an American theological institute. We also have people of many denominations. No one would ever dream of forcing doctrines on such a wide variety of people. As I studied theology my supervisor always had me read from a variety of sources that disagreed. I had to use my knowledge of the Bible to agree or disagree with many world renowned scholars. It always comes back to the Bible!

 

[Chester]

I have an MDiv from a Southern Baptist Seminary. We were taught the original languages, hermeneutics and exegesis. In theology, we were told about 4 end times scenerio, pick which one we thought was the right one, but be prepared to share with your congregation why you support it. Same for every other doctrinal subject. We were to start with Scripture, and back it up.

One of my big papers was on women in Ministry. Of course, the SBC do not allow women to be ordained. Although when I interview the head of the CSBC, he admitted there were women that had been ordained, and serving in ministry.

My paper was a huge defence of women in ministry. I got an A+, because I used Scripture, even if I totally disagree with the doctrine of the church. I could give you many more examples of people who preached against church doctrine, which were not disciplined.

As far as OSAS, I have believed that a long time after really searching the Bible. Yet I know others who didn't believe in OSAS, and we agreed to disagree.

You have obviously never been to seminary! My seminary had people from many denominations. Our professors were excellent and so was the library, spiritual formation, etc. We had people who were Anglican, Methodist, Mennonite, Lutheran, a few varieties of Baptists. And even some charismatics who took summer courses with us. No one was ever told to start with doctrine. We were told for every paper, every sermon, every Bible study to start with the Bible and show support. We also had some very interesting conversations during breaks & over lunch. One Reformed pastor was shocked when another pastor introduced himself as Reformed charismatic. A very interesting discussion, came out of that!

So the next time you start throwing around nonsense and misinformation like doctrine is first, I'm sure that might be true in some places. I'm working on a PhD in theology from an American theological institute. We also have people of many denominations. No one would ever dream of forcing doctrines on such a wide variety of people. As I studied theology my supervisor always had me read from a variety of sources that disagreed. I had to use my knowledge of the Bible to agree or disagree with many world renowned scholars. It always comes back to the Bible!

I am glad for your experience in seminary and the denominational interaction. Your experience in seminary is obviously quite different from what I have experienced in local pastoring situations. And it is quite different from the entire tenor of my experience in local church interactions and relations.

 

[Chester]

What the doctrinal statement would say is " We believe Christian women must cover their heads and hair during worship" and then quote as much Scripture as necessary.

But where does the text say "during worship"? How can you document something with a prooftext when the text does not say it directly?

 

[Chester]

So now you see the reason for the statements.
It helps people who agree, and those who dont agree find the church they think fits their theology.

This is not a problem it is a good solution.

Unity without standards is not unity, it is universalism and not pleasing to God.

Sometimes you have to declare something as bad interpretation and avoid it. We don't need to just embrace everyone's beliefs for the sake of unity.

I love that I can find churches everywhere that believe like I do. It's a great thing. I know how to avoid the ones that I don't agree with by reading their statements, but also I can listen to the preaching and videos now days and that is good also. It helps to get a read on the culture of that church. All this is great to me. I see no problem here.

I think your answer shows some clear practical wisdom: but it is also an admission of the issue . . .

 

[ResidentAlien]

When are you leaving your denomination?

Why do you ask?

 

[Nehemiah6]

But where does the text say "during worship"? How can you document something with a prooftext when the text does not say it directly?

Of course the text says that directly, but does not use those exact words. Now note carefully what Paul said to arrive at that conclusion: 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church... 20 When ye come together therefore into one place... Why do Christians come together, and when do they partake of the Lord's Supper?

 

[Amanuensis]

I think your answer shows some clear practical wisdom: but it is also an admission of the issue . . .

Before I respond, what is "the issue?" Unity? The AG has 70 million members and is the largest missionary organization in the world, all in agreement and one mind and continuing the book of Acts. They seem to be an excellent modern day example of unity and agreement and preaching the whole counsel of God. I don't believe they are guilty of division by having agreed upon statements of faith. It is simply for agreement not for control.

I don't think it is sound logic to suggest that if an organization like the AG does not allow their ministers to teach that tongues has ceased that they are being divisive.

 

[Amanuensis]

I am glad for your experience in seminary and the denominational interaction. Your experience in seminary is obviously quite different from what I have experienced in local pastoring situations. And it is quite different from the entire tenor of my experience in local church interactions and relations.

Because most people, non scholars, do start with their pet doctrines. But not those who have read a book on hermeneutics and put it into practice.
The solution is exegesis and hermeneutics. You will never persuade a person to abandon a traditional view until you can walk through the scriptures step by step and often the person you are talking to is not open to do that. When you find someone who is sincerely interested in only what the scriptures mean they will go through the hermeneutical exercise with you and see the light. Assuming that you are correct in your exegesis of course.

 

[Amanuensis]

My solution? Forget these denominations, move on, they're hindering the Spirit.

I am going to guess that most nondenominational churches will have similar beliefs that are like an existing denomination. A Bible Fellowship has a particular culture that you can pick up on when you go to a non denominational church where the pastor has a Bible Fellowship background. The same with Reformed. The reformed culture will show up in a non denominational church where the leadership is reformed.

Will the visiting believer really experience anything different when they visit a nondenominational reformed church vs a denominational one? Besides a full band copying charismatic music without the charismatic part?