ECT Statement of Faith

[Nang]

The following is a Statement of Faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as presented by the Charles Simeon Trust organization, that I find sound, thorough, and agreeable.

Are there others here on TOL who would agree with this SoF?


"1. We affirm that the Gospel entrusted to the Church is, in the first instance, God’s Gospel (Mark 1:14, Rom 1:1). God is its author and He reveals it to us in and by His word. Its authority and trust rest on Him alone.

We deny that the truth or authority of the Gospel derives from any human insight or invention (Gal 1:1-11). We also deny that the truth or authority of the Gospel rests on the authority of any particular church or human institution.

2. We affirm that the Gospel is the saving power of God in that the Gospel effects salvation to everyone who believes, without distinction (Rom 1:16). This efficacy of the Gospel is by the power of God Himself.

We deny that the power of the Gospel rests in the eloquence of the preacher, the technique of the evangelist or the persuasion of rational argument (1 Cor 1:21, 2:1-5).

3. We affirm that all men and women are created in the image of God, after his likeness and together exercising dominion over all creation. We likewise affirm that the gospel diagnoses the universal human condition, after the Fall, as one of sinful rebellion against God, which if unchanged, will lead each person to eternal loss under God’s condemnation (Gen 1:26-28, Rom 3:9-26).

We deny any rejection of the creation of men and women in God’s image or, subsequently, the fallenness of human nature. We likewise deny that, with respect to justification by faith from such fallenness, there is any distinction among ethnicities, social statuses, or genders (Rom 5:18-21, Gal 3:23-28).

4. We affirm that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation, the only mediator between God and humanity (John 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5).

We deny that anyone is saved in any other way than by Jesus Christ and His Gospel. The Bible offers no hope that sincere worshippers of other religions will be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ.

5. We affirm that the Church is commanded by God and is therefore under divine obligation to preach the Gospel to every living person (Luke 24:47; Matt 28:18-19).

We deny that any particular class or group of persons, whatever their ethnic or cultural identity, may be ignored or passed over in the preaching of the Gospel (1 Cor 9:19-22). God purposes a global Church made up from people of every tribe, language and nation (Rev 7:9).

6. We affirm that faith in Jesus Christ as the divine Word (or Logos, John 1:1), the second Person of the Trinity, co-eternal and co-essential with the Father and the Holy Spirit (Heb 1:3) is foundational to faith in the Gospel.

We deny that any view of Jesus Christ which reduces or rejects his full deity is Gospel faith or will avail to salvation.

7. We affirm that Jesus Christ is God incarnate (John 1:14). The virgin-born descendant of David (Rom 1:3), he had a true human nature, was subject to the Law of God (Gal 4:5), and was like us at all points, except without sin (Heb 2:17, 7:26-28). We affirm that faith in the true humanity of Christ is essential to faith in the Gospel.

We deny that anyone who rejects the humanity of Christ, his incarnation, or his sinlessness, or who maintains that these truths are not essential to the Gospel, will be saved (1 John 4:2-3).

8. We affirm that the atonement of Christ by which, in his obedience, he offered a perfect sacrifice, propitiating the Father by paying for our sins and satisfying divine justice on our behalf according to God’s eternal plan, is an essential element of the Gospel.

We deny that any view of the atonement that rejects the substitutionary satisfaction of divine justice, accomplished vicariously for believers, is compatible with the teaching of the Gospel.

9. We affirm that Christ’s saving work included both his life and his death on our behalf (Gal 3:13). We declare that faith in the perfect obedience of Christ by which he fulfilled all the demand of the Law of God in our behalf is essential to the Gospel.

We deny that our salvation was achieved merely or exclusively by the death of Christ without reference to his life of perfect righteousness.

10. We affirm that the bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead is essential to the biblical Gospel (1 Cor 15:14).

We deny the validity of any so-called gospel that denies the historical reality of the bodily resurrection of Christ.

11. We affirm that the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone is essential to the Gospel (Rom 3:28 and 4:5, Gal 2:16).

We deny that any person can believe the biblical Gospel and at the same time reject the apostolic teaching of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. We also deny that there is more than one true Gospel (Gal 1:6-9).

12. We affirm that the doctrine of the imputation (reckoning or counting) both of our sins to Christ and of his righteousness to us, whereby our sins are fully forgiven and we are fully accepted, is essential to the biblical Gospel (2 Cor 5:19-21).

We deny that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ infused into us or by any righteousness that is thought to inhere within us.

13. We affirm that the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified is properly his own, which he achieved apart from us, in and by his perfect obedience. This righteousness is counted, reckoned, or imputed to us by the forensic (that is, legal) declaration of God, as the sole ground of our justification.

We deny that any works we perform at any stage of our existence add to the merit of Christ or earn for us any merit that contributes in any way to the ground of our justification (Gal 2:16, Eph 2:8-9, Titus 3:5).

14. We affirm that while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and are in the process of being made holy and conformed to the image of Christ, those consequences of justification are not its ground. God declares us just, remits our sins and adopts us as His children, by His grace alone, and through faith alone, because of Christ alone, while we are still sinners (Rom 4:5).

We deny that believers must be inherently righteous by virtue of their cooperation with God’s life-transforming grace before God will declare them justified in Christ. We are justified while we are still sinners.

15. We affirm that saving faith results in sanctification, the transformation of life in growing conformity to Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. Sanctification means ongoing repentance, a life of turning from sin to serve Jesus Christ in grateful reliance on him as one’s Lord and Master (Gal 5:22-25, Rom 8:4, 13-14).

We reject any view of justification which divorces it from our sanctifying union with Christ and our increasing conformity to his image through prayer, repentance, cross-bearing and life in the Spirit.

16. We affirm that saving faith includes mental assent to the content of the Gospel, acknowledgment of our own sin and need and personal trust and reliance upon Christ and his work.

We deny that saving faith includes only mental acceptance of the Gospel, and that, justification is secured by a mere outward profession of faith. We further deny that any element of saving faith is a meritorious work or earns salvation for us.

17. We affirm that although true doctrine is vital for spiritual health and well-being, we are not saved by doctrine. Doctrine is necessary to inform us how we may be saved by Christ, but it is Christ who saves.

We deny that the doctrines of the Gospel can be rejected without harm. Denial of the Gospel brings spiritual ruin and exposes us to God’s judgment.

18. We affirm that Jesus Christ commands his followers to proclaim the Gospel to all living persons, evangelizing everyone everywhere, and discipling believers within the fellowship of the Church. A full and faithful witness to Christ includes the witness of personal testimony, godly living, and acts of mercy and charity to our neighbor, without which the preaching of the Gospel appears barren.

We deny that the witness of personal testimony, godly living, and acts of mercy and charity to our neighbors constitute evangelism apart from the proclamation of the Gospel.

19. We affirm that all Christian men and women should be engaged in and trained for ministry. We also affirm that some men and some women are gifted to teach and lead various ministries of the Word for the benefit of the Church (Eph 4:11-13, 2 Tim 2:2, Titus 2:3-5).

We deny that any woman should be engaged in the specific tasks of teaching or preaching the Word to men in a corporate gathering of the Church or otherwise exercising pastoral authority over men in the Church (1 Tim 2:12-15, 1 Cor 14:34b-38).

20. We affirm that Adam and Eve were made to complement each other in a one-flesh union of marriage that establishes God’s intended pattern for sexual relations between one man and one woman. Accordingly, both homosexual and adulterous acts are sinful (1 Cor 6:9-11).

We deny that unrepentant homosexual or adulterous acts do no harm to public and private ministry. Rather, such acts constitute grounds for dismissal from ministry."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Nicely done. Would have liked to have seen something about biblical inerrancy, the total inability of the fallen, scope of the atonement, and end times views.

AMR

 

[Nang]

Nicely done. Would have liked to have seen something about biblical inerrancy, the total inability of the fallen, scope of the atonement, and end times views.

AMR

Yes, this would be necessary if the emphasis of the organization was systematic theology, but the Charles Simeon Trust ministry and purpose is present-day evangelism; thus the more immediate confines of subject matter in this Statement.

I am just learning of them and only beginning to investigate their mission.

Would like to hear more of the group, if there are others familiar with them . . .

 

[God's Truth]

What happens to your statement of faith if you learn something later and find out that you believed something wrong and now corrected it?

Statements of faith are not given to us as a command or example from the Bible.

 

[Nang]

What happens to your statement of faith if you learn something later and find out that you believed something wrong and now corrected it?

Statements of faith are not given to us as a command or example from the Bible.

Depending upon whether a SoF adheres to the authority of Holy Scripture or not, is one good way to evaluate a ministry.

 

[God's Truth]

Depending upon whether a SoF adheres to the authority of Holy Scripture or not, is one good way to evaluate a ministry.

Any ministry that has a statement of faith is doing so on their own authority not God's.

 

[Nang]

Any ministry that has a statement of faith is doing so on their own authority not God's.

You continuously declare your SoF on this site. So now we know, your beliefs are not of God, eh?

 

[jsanford108]

Obviously, I disagree with elements of the first point, as well as 11, and further points that weave point 11 into them. However, I do believe that it is a good summary of what many people believe/accept doctrine-wise.

I do agree with AMR, when he suggests an inerrant Bible clause, because without it, any clause that claims an "absolute truth" is open for debate. This would trickle down to interpretation, then authority, etc. An inerrant Bible would thus enable all further points, especially ones concerning doctrine, to be held against Scriptural scrutiny.

 

[Danoh]

Obviously, I disagree with elements of the first point, as well as 11, and further points that weave point 11 into them. However, I do believe that it is a good summary of what many people believe/accept doctrine-wise.

I do agree with AMR, when he suggests an inerrant Bible clause, because without it, any clause that claims an "absolute truth" is open for debate. This would trickle down to interpretation, then authority, etc. An inerrant Bible would thus enable all further points, especially ones concerning doctrine, to be held against Scriptural scrutiny.

Question:

What is the point of having and, or holding to there being an inerrant Bible; only to continually supplant it with the creeds and traditions of men?

And as accepted, standard Orthodoxy one is to adhere to as the Traditions of supposed Fathers, or face their charge of herecy?

Traditions of men steeped in the Scholastic Mysticism of men who fused how Greeks sought out truth with the Scripture?

In this, Reformed Theology is no different in how enamoured it's originators, thinkers, writers and followers ever are with their own reasoning into a thing....

...then how enamoured the typical Roman Catholic is with his own interpretation that that huge, hollow space of building he walks into is "o wow; the very presence of God in His house..."

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[God's Truth]

You continuously declare your SoF on this site. So now we know, your beliefs are not of God, eh?

You know it is not the same as what denominations do.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Confessing What One Believes is Biblical

Confessing What One Believes is Biblical

Statements of faith are not given to us as a command or example from the Bible.

Scripture teaches us to hold fast to the patterns of teaching therein, hence, having formulated what exactly one believes is not out of bounds.

A categorical leap has been made from fallibility to failure when someone appeals to the errors of man. That men "can" err does not mean that they "have" erred. The fact of error requires demonstration. This is especially the case in theology, where we are taught to rely on the promise of the Spirit of truth, and to recognize that there is a spirit of truth in contrast to the spirit of error. The "Just Me and My Bible" attitude has no warrant from Scripture.

When persons reject the Confessional process, and pretend that they are being more "Scriptural" by not having a Confession, they effectively make themselves something more than an interpreter of Scripture. They have gone beyond the right of private judgement and have claimed the authority of Scripture itself for their beliefs. Because they have set themselves up above that subordinate and mediate place which the Confession occupies, they assume a supreme and immediate relationship with Scripture which makes their teaching the very voice of the Holy Spirit Himself.

The Confessional approach is taught in Scripture in plain terms. 2 Corinthians 4:2 states, "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God."

The Confession manifests the truth in a way that others can plainly judge it for themselves; it does not hide the truth under a blanket of implicit authority whereby the truth can be turned into whatever suits the individual. Furthermore, Scripture testifies to the function of the ministry to teach the truth in a form of words which can be learned, taught to others, and entrusted to others to teach it. 2 Timothy 1:13 states,
"Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus."
1 Tim 2:2 continues, "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

First, it’s impossible not to be confessional. Everyone is confessional; yet, whether it’s written and whether it’s biblical is another matter. Just claiming "I have no confession" is, well, a confession.

Similarly, everyone is a theologian, even the people who say theology is bad. It’s always better when we’re clear on our theology, and for that nothing beats writing it down on paper. Writing does not guarantee infallibility, of course, but it does make it easier to determine whether the doctrine we’re confessing aligns with Scripture.

Second, the point of a confession of faith is not to put something above Scripture. The point of a confession is to ensure the public teaching of the church is as close to the teaching of Scripture as possible. When we don’t write down our theology and confess it publicly as a church, it leads not to healthy freedom but to unhealthy restriction.

Confessions have historically been used in three ways. First, they’ve defined and defended doctrine and thereby protected the church from false teaching. Second, they’ve been used for catechesis: training and equipping believers with a well-rounded overview of Bible teaching on the main points of religion.

Third, they’ve been used for doxology and worship. Many churches affirm the Apostles’ Creed or Nicene Creed in public worship. Though the main uses of a confession are the first and second, all three together show us how confessions are meant to be employed.

Formal Confessions of faith are always rooted in history. There’s no such thing as a confession without context. They are always situated in the theological and cultural context of their time. Why do the confessions of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon focus so much on the Trinity and the deity of Christ? Because those ideas were under attack at the time.

Why does the Apostles’ Creed labor to affirm the goodness of creation, and the reality of the human life and body of Jesus Christ? Because Gnosticism was denying these truths. We could go through every confession in church history and show that contemporary controversy, along with cultural and theological context, contributed to the content, shape, and topical coverage of the confession. We’ll never have one final human-composed confession, since there are always new challenges that call on the church to confess biblical truth publicly.

And, yes, your confession is not cast in stone, but is a living thing, subject to potential change as you grow in your walk of faith, learning more, knowing more, being illuminated more, depending upon the gifts you have been given.

AMR

 

[jsanford108]

Question:

What is the point of having and, or holding to there being an inerrant Bible; only to continually supplant it with the creeds and traditions of men?

And as accepted, standard Orthodoxy one is to adhere to as the Traditions of supposed Fathers, or face their charge of herecy?

Traditions of men steeped in the Scholastic Mysticism of men who fused how Greeks sought out truth with the Scripture?

In this, Reformed Theology is no different in how enamoured it's originators, thinkers, writers and followers ever are with their own reasoning into a thing....

...then how enamoured the typical Roman Catholic is with his own interpretation that that huge, hollow space of building he walks into is "o wow; the very presence of God in His house..."

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

I will briefly discuss this, but it is suited perhaps for a different thread. Forgive me, Nang. It was not my intention to derail your OP, but to toss in my penny of a thought.

Allow us to examine your first point. "What is the point of having and, or holding to there being an inerrant Bible; only to continually supplant it with the creeds and traditions of men?:" Do you believe in voting? This is a tradition, no? Granted, you are discussing all the "doctrines of man" in Catholicism, no doubt. Most of the doctrines that Catholics hold and teach, have been taught since the times of the Apostles. Is is not possible that Christ said more than is written in the Bible? After all, the very last verse of John says that no book could contain all that Christ said and did. Thus, the Bible can be inerrant, and never touch on any form of tradition, be it religious or secular. So, you point doesn't really have much weight to it. I am sure you have traditions that do not originate in Scripture, yet are based on doctrine. These are no different than "Catholic Traditions." The key difference being that any Catholic Tradition cannot undermine or contradict Scripture, nor other teachings of the Church.

Heresy, by inception and origin, is to be "against the teachings of the Catholic Church." Here, you demonstrate a knowledge of this definition, and I thank you for this. (It always cracks me up when someone calls someone else a heretic for simply disagreeing with their doctrine; simple ignorance) But, as for your question, I do not fully understand what you are asking. I apologize, for I am sure the error and lack of comprehension is on my part.

"In this, Reformed Theology is no different in how enamoured it's originators, thinkers, writers and followers ever are with their own reasoning into a thing...then how enamoured the typical Roman Catholic is with his own interpretation that that huge, hollow space of building he walks into is "o wow; the very presence of God in His house..." I would say this is an adequate statement, yet it once again falls under scrutiny. Reformed Theology, as described by AMR, was started by those who gave themselves authority. They believed that their doctrines were beyond reproach. One need look no further than the "free will" vs "election" debate. There is a dichotomy there, where each side insists the other is completely wrong. But both have Scripture to "back up the claim." So where is the error? Who is wrong? To me, Scripture is very straight forward and simple. If both exist in Scripture, then both exist in reality. If Christ declares it, it is so. This to me seems very clear and concise, yet Reformed thinkers love to do some mental gymnastics to get to some of their points. The "enamouring" is thus, quite different. The huge, hollow space, aligns with Hebrew teachings and Tradition. The idea of God's presence being a reality is traced all the way back to the setting up of the tents in the desert. Solomon's temple was physically visible being "filled with God's presence." (Samuel details this extensively)Being enamored with the heroes of reformed thinking, such as Luther and Calvin, while understandable given the background of denomination, should cease once closer examination of Scripture and reformed theologies, occurs.

 

[Nang]

Question:

What is the point of having and, or holding to there being an inerrant Bible; only to continually supplant it with the creeds and traditions of men?

Supplant? Statements of Faith should be founded upon and reflect the teachings of Holy Scriptures. That is their supposed and only purpose.

And as accepted, standard Orthodoxy one is to adhere to as the Traditions of supposed Fathers, or face their charge of herecy?

Traditions of men steeped in the Scholastic Mysticism of men who fused how Greeks sought out truth with the Scripture?


In this, Reformed Theology is no different in how enamoured it's originators, thinkers, writers and followers ever are with their own reasoning into a thing....

...then how enamoured the typical Roman Catholic is with his own interpretation that that huge, hollow space of building he walks into is "o wow; the very presence of God in His house..."

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

I evaluate any and all SoF by their adherence to Holy Scripture alone. IMO a SoF that reflects human or religious "traditions" is not a legitimate confession of faith at all

 

[Nang]

I will briefly discuss this, but it is suited perhaps for a different thread. Forgive me, Nang. It was not my intention to derail your OP, but to toss in my penny of a thought.

Not to worry . . My threads are not easily allowed to be derailed.

Polite discussion is welcome.

 

[God's Truth]

Scripture teaches us to hold fast to the patterns of teaching therein, hence, having formulated what exactly one believes is not out of bounds.

Statements of faith are actual denominational articles beyond merely stating some truths from the Bible. Statements of faith usually contain false beliefs in them, and are in itself a trap and a snare, for how can one grow and come to a knowledge of the truth if they cannot be corrected on a matter which their choice denomination’s statement of faith claims?

A categorical leap has been made from fallibility to failure when someone appeals to the errors of man. That men "can" err does not mean that they "have" erred. The fact of error requires demonstration. This is especially the case in theology, where we are taught to rely on the promise of the Spirit of truth, and to recognize that there is a spirit of truth in contrast to the spirit of error. The "Just Me and My Bible" attitude has no warrant from Scripture.

All beliefs if true can be proven by the scriptures. When one joins a denomination and adheres to a Statement of Faith, one has tied himself to the possible error of man; or, finds oneself denomination hopping.

When persons reject the Confessional process, and pretend that they are being more "Scriptural" by not having a Confession, they effectively make themselves something more than an interpreter of Scripture. They have gone beyond the right of private judgement and have claimed the authority of Scripture itself for their beliefs. Because they have set themselves up above that subordinate and mediate place which the Confession occupies, they assume a supreme and immediate relationship with Scripture which makes their teaching the very voice of the Holy Spirit Himself.

You describe what one with a denomination does and what a Statement of Faith entails.

The Confessional approach is taught in Scripture in plain terms. 2 Corinthians 4:2 states, "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God."

That is not a Statement of Faith. You prove further my point that a Statement of Faith is not from God, for you are willing find a scripture that does not say what you claim it does, all in the guise of trying to prove a manmade tradition.

The Confession manifests the truth in a way that others can plainly judge it for themselves; it does not hide the truth under a blanket of implicit authority whereby the truth can be turned into whatever suits the individual.

I recon a Statement of Faith as like a sin that goes before one, versus a sin that follows behind one.

Furthermore, Scripture testifies to the function of the ministry to teach the truth in a form of words which can be learned, taught to others, and entrusted to others to teach it. 2 Timothy 1:13 states,
"Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus."
1 Tim 2:2 continues, "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

First, it’s impossible not to be confessional. Everyone is confessional; yet, whether it’s written and whether it’s biblical is another matter. Just claiming "I have no confession" is, well, a confession.

Similarly, everyone is a theologian, even the people who say theology is bad. It’s always better when we’re clear on our theology, and for that nothing beats writing it down on paper. Writing does not guarantee infallibility, of course, but it does make it easier to determine whether the doctrine we’re confessing aligns with Scripture.

Second, the point of a confession of faith is not to put something above Scripture. The point of a confession is to ensure the public teaching of the church is as close to the teaching of Scripture as possible. When we don’t write down our theology and confess it publicly as a church, it leads not to healthy freedom but to unhealthy restriction.

I can prove to you easily that Statements of faith are not given to us as a command or example from the Bible.

Tell me; where in the Bible does it say to make a Statement of Faith?

Where in the Bible does it state what to put in the Statement of Faith?

Third, they’ve been used for doxology and worship. Many churches affirm the Apostles’ Creed or Nicene Creed in public worship. Though the main uses of a confession are the first and second, all three together show us how confessions are meant to be employed.

Another point of how Statements of Faith are erroneous. Churches do glorify their own manmade articles when they use it for worship.

Formal Confessions of faith are always rooted in history. There’s no such thing as a confession without context. They are always situated in the theological and cultural context of their time. Why do the confessions of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon focus so much on the Trinity and the deity of Christ? Because those ideas were under attack at the time.

People have also been tortured and killed for such manmade Statements of Faith.

Why does the Apostles’ Creed labor to affirm the goodness of creation, and the reality of the human life and body of Jesus Christ? Because Gnosticism was denying these truths. We could go through every confession in church history and show that contemporary controversy, along with cultural and theological context, contributed to the content, shape, and topical coverage of the confession.

Just the fact that there is more than one Statement of Faith proves its error.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I recon a Statement of Faith as like a sin that goes before one, versus a sin that follows behind one.

It's "reckon" not "recon" unless you are doing some sort of military reconnaissance. :AMR:

As I said and you amply demonstrate, the statements denying statements of faith are in fact statements of faith. You claim you have none, all evidence to the contrary. Each and every time you post something you believe the Scripture teaches you have made a personal statement of faith. Your protests to the contrary about statements of faith only evidence your double-mindedness and intellectual laziness.

Yes, these personal statements of faith can be wrong. Here is evidence of how wrong you can be:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?97148-One-on-One-AMR-and-God-s-Truth-—-The-Holy-Trinity


AMR

 

[God's Truth]

It's "reckon" not "recon" unless you are doing some sort of military reconnaissance. :AMR:

You are too busy correcting all your grammar errors, how it is you have time for others'?

By the way, I meant it how I said it.

As I said and you amply demonstrate, the statements denying statements of faith are in fact statements of faith. You claim you have none, all evidence to the contrary. Each and every time you post something you believe the Scripture teaches you have made a personal statement of faith. Your protests to the contrary about statements of faith only evidence your double-mindedness and intellectual laziness.

Yes, these personal statements of faith can be wrong. Here is evidence of how wrong you can be:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?97148-One-on-One-AMR-and-God-s-Truth-—-The-Holy-Trinity


AMR

You are steeped in falseness. Show one scripture where we are told to draw up a statement of faith.

Show one scripture that tells us what to put in that statement of faith.

Hahahahahahahaaaa What you have are manmade beliefs and traditions.

Oh how I love the Word of God.

I take such joy in the Spirit.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Show one scripture where we are told to draw up a statement of faith.

Asked and answered.

My kingdom for a person that actually reads and digests what I post. Sigh.

AMR

 

[jsanford108]

In my opinion, GT, there is nothing wrong with a statement of faith. It usually details the exact beliefs held by that group it is attached to. Granted, many will follow blindly these statements. And that is of course, where error enters.

But to simply make a profession of what one's doctrines are is actually a good thing. It allows outsiders to see exactly what a particular group adheres to/believes.

We are never told to make statements of faith in Scripture. But we were also never told the percentage of taxes to pay to corrupt governments. Yes we are told to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," but does that mean if we are being robbed by the government to just keep bending to their will? If that was the case, it is okay to have abortions if you live in China. I know this has gone into somewhat of a tangent, but it just demonstrates that doing "only what is clearly stated in the Bible" is a false argument. Because we all do things, good and necessary, that are not found therein.

In closing, I find no fault in making a statement of faith. The statement may be riddled with falsehoods, but the formulation of the statement is more helpful than hindering to outsiders.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[God's Truth]

Asked and answered.

My kingdom for a person that actually reads and digests what I post. Sigh.

AMR

There is no such scriptures in the Bible that support your manmade statements of faith and what man has decided to put in them.

There also no such scriptures that support your false teacher John Calvin.

Show one scripture that says God saves unbelievers. Lol