An Experto Creed Reader said...
From http://www.upci.org/about.asp, The UPCI holds a fundamental view of the Bible: "The Bible is the only God-given authority which man possesses; therefore all doctrine, faith, hope, and all instructions for the church must be based upon and harmonize with the Bible" (Manual of the United Pentecostal Church, 19). The Bible is the Word of God, and therefore inerrant and infallible. The UPCI rejects all extrabiblical revelations and writings, and views church creeds and articles of faith only as the thinking of men.
They self-describe their manual as the thinking of men, and point to the Bible as the beginning and end of doctrine. Seems very prudent saying, "Hey, this is what we collectively think, but that it is not eternally binding. If you have questions of the eternally binding, go read your Bible. Seems simple enough to me. ;)
You know, the idea of a church taking a stand may scare some people. And the exact scripture you use will be quoted in every instance or everyone that disagrees with whatever that stance may be. It's used by most (not saying you, I don't know you that well) as if they were "get out of jail free" cards to do as they please regardless of sound scripture against. It's the exact same logic "progressive" churches use to justify homosexuality, disregarding what the Bible clearly says, and I'm not talking Old Testament.
Funny, I never read how the councils from 300-500 A.D. attached that same disclaimer to inform us correctly that their trinity doctrine was nothing more than the thinking of men. I bring this up as I see this is one of your interests. So, let me give you one of the challenges to the trinity that I've never seen answered:
Trinitarians argue that the "Trinity" is taught by the bible. And yet, this appears to be a marked departure from the beliefs actually held by anyone in the bible. If this is not true, where are the Trinitarian Jews? If the Trinity is a "further revelation" as some claim to explain why there are no Trinitarian Jews, then obviously it became high controversy and would need to be explained by scripture with real accounts, just like Circumcision had to be dealt with. Jews are strict monotheists, and so any idea of a Trinity would need extremely explanation of why it isn't pagan. Where is such an explanation, or is the thought that Jews just abandoned strict monotheism overnight without explanation?
If we are going to discuss doctrinal policy using Sola Scriptura (meaning "by scripture alone"), how can you explain these discrepancies similarly? Note: I'm sure you are already aware of the beliefs that the "name" (Matt. 28:19) is Jesus (by comparison, and by 'requirements' such as Acts 4:12), and that invalidity of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7). So, beyond basing doctrine off of an invalid scripture (added later) and one that can be interpreted literally (by scripture alone, no private interpretation) to be interchangeable (by the logic that scripture will never contradict) with Acts 2:38, is there any other "water" to the trinity theory?
God bless, and I'll try to keep an eye on this thread if you wish to respond. I do admire those willing to jump into spiritual matters with open arms. Far too many don't care for doctrine or scripture. I'm glad to see your interest.
My Response...
Thank you for your comment. You make some good points and I'm willing to respond to those. Since you seem to be coming at this from a Oneness perspective, perhaps you'd care to take a gander at the questions for Oneness theologians I posed earlier in the blog?
First, with regard to the UPCI Manual, the teachings of the UPCI are widely admitted to be "suggestions" or "nonbinding", as you say. If that's the case, perhaps its strong language should be reworded? The Bible makes it quite clear that convictions are a matter of the heart and left to the guidance of the Holy Spirit; however, the passage from the manual on television I quoted allows for no such ambivalence or personal discretion. Phraseology like "we wholeheartedly disapprove", "admonish all of our people", "taken a positive stand", and "our strong opposition" plainly indicate the stance of the UPCI that, while not biblical itself, is (according to them) drawn from scripture. Yes, there is definitely a difference between the Bible and the UPCI Manual - and that's exactly my point. This passage illustrates an unhealthy, and if I may be bold, an ungodly perspective: legalism. Christians were never called to be legalistic, just as we were never called to be hedonistic.Second, with regard to Trinitarian Jews: there are Trinitarian Jews - Messianic Jews. Orthodox Jews naturally do not believe in the Trinity because they do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. They are not Oneness either. Monotheism and Oneness are not the same, just as Polytheism and Trinitarianism aren't the same. One can't believe in the Trinity and reject the Deity of Jesus Christ. You say that no one in the Bible held the belief on the Trinity, but is that true? What of Paul when he writes, "Grace to you and peace, from God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ" in nearly every one of his Epistles? And what of the multiple passages from Acts, Romans, and Hebrews which speak of Jesus having ascended to Heaven and being seated at the right hand of the Father? And what about John 5? Proverbs 30:4? I Timothy 3:16? I think Oneness errs in church history when they assert that the Trinity came about in 300 A.D. That is, in fact, wrong - that's when the word "trinity" was coined, but the concept, arguably of course, dates back to Genesis 1.
With regard to scripture contradicting Acts 2:38, my response is that while scripture will never contradict itself, it will definitely contradict our interpretation of it. That said, I firmly believe UPC's interpretion of Acts 2:38 is wrong and conflicts with many other scriptures about the necessity and sufficiency of faith and confession. Where in Acts 2:38 does it ever imply salvation? What about the fact that prophecy (not speaking in tongues) is more often linked to Holy Spirit infilling in Acts 2 alone? Isn't it treacherous to balance an entire theology off an interpretation of a single scripture, to the detriment and conflict of the entire rest of the New Testament?
Finally, I agree that too many churches are unwilling to take a stand. My own denomination, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, has nearly doubled in size this year, not because of exponential growth, but because the mainline Presbyterian denomination (PCUSA) has become so unwilling to take a stand on anything, they now are willing to deny the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ and entire churches are leaving en masse for the EPC. However, it would be fallacious for us to say that we ought to move to the other extreme, to take a stand on everything. That, to me, is equally offensive. We were never called to have rules governing every aspect of our lives, or uniform dress codes, just as we were never called to hedonism or complete self-indulgence. There IS a middle ground, and sadly UPC and PCUSA have both missed it entirely, but in very different ways.
Winding up a long response, thank you for your interest, and I look forward to conversing with you on these topics in the future!
2 comments:
So according to the trinitarian belief, would I be correct to say that there WAS One God at the beginning of time, until He added Jesus?
Should we understand "at the right hand of God" literally; could this be figuratively speaking about authority/power?
One major thing that has always confused me about the trinity is if there are 3 distinct personalities of God, how do we know which "person" to pray to?
And why even mention the name of Jesus today, if he served his purpose at the time he was upon the earth to die and wash all sins, then He fulfilled his "role". Now where is "he", or what is His purpose now? Did Jesus now become the "spirit"?
I fully am persuaded He, God, came to this earth Himself. Why would He not? Because He didn't want to? Because He couldn't?
Lastly, I think it is good to keep in mind that the UPCI is an organization of ministers, not saints/church members. This is important when discussing some of the lifestyle standards that the UPCI upholds for their ministers.
-Mother of 3 Beautiful Boys
Hi amb - I responded to your comment with a post. It can be found at http://www.expertocreed.org/2008/10/reader-writes.html
Post a Comment
Post a Comment