Subscribe to MzEllen – For the Life of Me Subscribe to MzEllen – For the Life of Me's comments

It’s official…I cannot write a one-page paper. At least I don’t have any sense of “completion”.

The assignment: Did the Buddha establish a new religion? Why or why not? The papers (10 in a semester) are to be no more than one page and are not graded – you either turn them in and get full credit or you don’t.

Here is mine:

The answer is no…and yes. The Buddha did not…and did…institute a new religion. It all depends on what definition of “religion” you use. Even Buddhists say that Buddhism can be either a religion or a philosophy: “We believe that for those who observe and follow the ceremonies of Buddhism, then it is a religion. For those who observe and follow the morality of Buddhism, then it is a philosophy of life”. http://www.fundamentalbuddhism.com/buddhist.htm#FAQ00001

The first definition of “religion” is: “Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe” (http://dictionary.com). Using this definition, the Buddha did not institute a new religion since the Buddha did not teach about a supernatural power. Buddhism is about ceremony and morality, not about worshipping the Creator. The end of life brings “nirvana” (“extinction” – the soteriological goal of Buddhism; the final cessation of rebirth into suffering existence.”; http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Glossary.htm), not eternity in the presence of the Creator.

The other main definitions of “religion” are: “A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader” and “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” Using these definitions, the Buddha did institute a new religion, since he was a spiritual leader who taught beliefs, values and practices with zeal and conscientious devotion. However, since these beliefs and values can be applied to most world religions, it is hard to promote Buddhism as “the way”.

In short, depending on what definitions you prefer and how you use Buddhist teachings, Buddhism can be a philosophy, a religion or both.

Yes, I know that McLaren and Driscoll are on “Out of Ur” but that’s not what I’m writing about.

I firmly believe that homosexualty actions are wrong – sin. Of course, so are a lot of other things that are right out in the open at church. How homosexuals should be treated should very much depend on whether or not they are in the church (professing Christians).

Wherever they are at, whatever they are doing, our motive should be love.

But on to the real topic.
…and my struggle with gentleness…I’m going to be writing a letter to the editor and need to focus on gentleness and respect. My first letter “went away” when somebody rebooted the computer before I saved it and I think God’s hand was in that.

I got my February copy of “The Banner” and read a couple of things that kind of mystified me.

The First Christian Reformed Church in Toronto, Ontario announced three years ago that it would allow its members living in committed gay and lesbian relationships to be nominated as elders and deacons.

In December 2005, after being on the brink of being disaffiliated, “The Council of First Christian Reformed Church, Toronto…resolved[s] to acknowledge the CRC guidelines with respect to homosexuality and agrees to tailor its ministry accordingly.”

So far so good. Next up: First CRC plans ask the synod to revisit the CRC’s position on homosexuality. So, they’re going to go through the normal channels to get gays and lesbians into the formal leadership of their church. (Here’s where I start to lose the “gentleness” thing.

I’m not mystified by this; I’m glad that the denomination’s structure brought enough pressure to bring the church into line. The structure did its job.

What mystifies me is another article on “General and Special Revelation in Conversation” by Dr. Donald Oppewal at Calvin College (words from the article in blue. Special revelation is the Bible and general revelation is:
- an embodiment of the divine thought in the phenomona of nature;
- the general composition of the human mind and
- the facts of experience or history.

Oppewal maintains that special revelation alone is inadequate; the two sources are interdependent and…that general revelation promotes a proper understanding of special revelation.”

(This is where I really start to lose my gentleness – not with sinners, but with the denomination)

Oppewal’s final paragraph reads: “The Spirit moves most surely among us when Christians read the “facts of experience or history” as well as when we read the Bible. Christian thinkers in the vaeious disciplines, including theology, can give us counsel as we try to walk together toward that day when we shall all see more clearly the will of God for our communal lives, both in church and in society.”

(Here’s where I have to work to stay focused on gentleness)

Apply that final paragraph to Oppewal’s final point.

“It remains to be seen how the question of homosexuality as a lifestyle comports with a Christian view of sexuality. But we can hope that the church will examine the evidence from general revelation just as seriously as it does the evidence from special revelation.

“Without also considering the evidence from biology concerning how sexuality is shaped, and without turning to the actual sociological evidence about same-sex relations, we’ll end up doing only half our homework as Reformed Christians.”

What Oppewal appears to be saying is that we have to look at God’s Word through the lens of “sociological evidence” – not the other way around.

My desire is (with gentleness and respect) state clearly that we should be looking at the world through God’s lens – not looking at God’s Word through the lens of the world.

Let’s see…

Thanks to all the readers that stopped by!

Now for “life’s tidbits”

I have to get a new copy of “Paedofaith” – I gave mine to my pastor. He tells me that there are compelling reasons to invite small children who have been baptized into covenant families to the table of God.

Our professor was out sick today – so no test (way cool). This means I can watch the show that I shouldn’t watch, but like anyway…CSI.

A package arrived – a memory card reader from my dear friend. The camera and card will arrive tomorrow!

My February copy of “The Banner” arrived today. Page 36: “General and Special Revelation in Conversation.”

My son can play “Happy Birthday” on his new Manolin. This is significant because my dad turned 71 yesterday and Tom played for him.

My other class has a writing assignment: “Do you believe that the Bhudda started a new religion? Why or why not?” These writing assignments (weekly) are going to be hard for me – because there is a one-page limit. Double spaced.

I’m a couple of days behind on my Bible reading. My sleep cycle gets messed up very easily and it got messed up a couple of days ago. I’m not as far behind as my sidebar says – I just haven’t updated my sidebar.

Right now, I’m heading to my room – with a writing tablet (philosophy assignment and grocery list), my “Banner” and a beer.

Last – I tried a new beer – “Bar Harbor Blueberry Ale” – not my favorite; I’ll stick to my “Young’s Double Chocolate Stout” or Guiness Extra Stout.
;-) Ellen

The meeting went very well. There are still some concerns on my part, but I’m content with the general direction the church is headed.

I asked if I were the only one who had brought forward concerns – the answer is no, there were a lot of concerns brought up in small groups that Sunday and they were addressed in church the week that we were out of town.

I asked the pastor if he had looked at the Firehouse Family Ministries website and he told me that he didn’t even know they had a website. I explained what I had found and gave him a printout of my post from here. Ok…

He also told me that our church did not know, when the work team headed for New Orleans, who they would be helping. The context of the work team was that they were working through another evangelical disater relief organization. The “hookup” with Firehouse was not planned ahead of time.

He could somewhat anticipate my questions because of all the concerns brought up by others.

No, we are not “going all Pentecostal”
No, we are not going “word faith”
No, we are not going “Five fold ministry”

Parts of the service were not expected – the Shelton’s had come to give a “thank you” message.

Yes, the pastors are, at their core, very reformed (I ate dinner at the “all church supper” with Pastor Brian with a couple who is new to the church – they decided that there were things in Roman Catholic teaching that are not in the Bible so they left that religion – and we talked about “election” for about 45 minutes)

We went over what I discovered by just poking around and he agrees with what I found, other than his take on “language barriers” – sometimes the words that we use “sound like” what other people are using, but we don’t mean the same thing. Yeah. Then don’t use the words that have been co-opted by heretics.

There are big plans for our church and they are definitely talking about a singles ministry! Brian asked me what I thought would be the best route to take – a ministry that targets specific needs, or a general social group? I told him, why not both? with our small group system in place, a single person could have their social needs met, while addressing specific needs in a small group setting that targets their circumstance.

Anyway, there were a couple of other things (minor) that we talked about and I left feeling pretty good about the whole thing.
;-)

I’m going to post a “Carnival Reminder” and then for the next few days (at least) my time blogging will be devoted (unless something really major comes up) to the events at my church.

My heart is hurting and I don’t know what is going to happen. I meet with one of my pastors tomorrow afternoon and I don’t expect that I will be effectual. I do know that God’s will will be done.

There will be a new post on MzEllenWrites (a writing assignment for my Tuesday night class), but other than that, this blog will be devoted to Sunshine news.

thanks all – I covet your prayers and support.

The more I dig, the more I find.

Question: at what point is a church (or at least the church leadership) “apostate”?

I hope somebody has an answer.

What do you all think of this quote?

“People of prayer like Daniel are those that are pursuing intimacy with God – Intimacy that is possible through Jesus Christ and only through a yielding to the Holy Spirit. What comes out of this intimacy is a trust in the authorities that God puts in our lives. Sometimes these authorities act and talk in ways that don’t represent us, yet to trust God is to submit to their leadership.

If you rebel against this prayer thought…ask God about it, he put the authorities in place.”

I’ll be meeting with my pastor (and his wife) on Wednesday at 5:00 (eastern). I’d sure appreciate prayers. This pastor’s wife is the one that the “prophet” “imparted” the gift of prophecy to.

- that my personality would disappear and that anything that is not of God remain unsaid.
- that only God’s Word would be used
- that only God would be glorified
- that I would remain unflustered and calm so that God can work in me and through me.

I’m working on “talking points” and a paper to leave with him.

Please feel free to tell a bit of the story and pass the word. I don’t feel worried or concerned – but I am working on being prepped.

thanks…

You Are an Espresso

At your best, you are: straight shooting, ambitious, and energetic

At your worst, you are: anxious and high strung

You drink coffee when: anytime you’re not sleeping

Your caffeine addiction level: high

I’ve been pondering the final message of the book “Paedofaith” by Rich Lusk.

Two songs come to mind: “Faith of Our Fathers” and “Jesus Loves Me” (see the bottom of the post).

In an Arminian church, a parent “knows” that their children are “born saved” – because of the “age of accountability” – and at some point they lose that coverage and are as lost as the pagan’s kids next door. Parents are in the position of raising children to be young Christians, while simultaneously trying to get them to become young Christians. Do we disciple them or convert them?

Now, with a better sense of what a “covenant family” should be, I realize that the promises of God, like His promise to Abraham, are for our children. It is right and proper for us to baptize our babies into the family of God.

But the implications of this are “interesting” if you follow the trail.

Do I believe that baptism is what saves us? No.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism says:

Q. 94. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[193] doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.[194]

Here are the questions:

What benefits of the covenant of grace does baptism allow our children to partake of?
Do we baptize our babies to welcome them into the covenant and then keep them in some sort of stasis until they are able to understand the rest?

Are our babies in the covenant or out of the covenant? Are they part of the covenant, or are they anathema?
There are two spiritual “places”. You are either anathema or you are in the covenant of God. If our children are in the covenant, do we allow them the benefits? If they are not in the covenant, on what basis can we baptize them?

How do we provide spiritual nourishment to those in the covenant?

Q. 96. What is the Lord’s Supper?
A. The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, his death is showed forth;[197] and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.[198]

If we do not give our children this spiritual nourishment, are we sending the message that they’re part of the family, but they can’t eat at the table with us?
We (on one hand) baptize babies through the parents’ covenantal faith – but that same faith doesn’t cover the nourishment. Would we adopt a child but not let him or her eat with us?

If we believe the Bible when it says that we must have the faith of a child, how can we then say that children don’t have enough faith to eat at the same table as we do?
When I bought “Paedofaith”, I didn’t realize that it would open yet another can of worms for me. And this can of worms has been around in the Christian Reformed Church.

The final question is “Are we bringing our children fully into the covenant, or into a “halfway house” where they are “sort of in, but not all the way”?

“FAITH OF OUR FATHERS”
Frederick W. Faber

Faith of our fathers, living still,In spite of dungeon, fire and sword;O how our hearts beat high with joyWhenever we hear that glorious Word!
Faith of our fathers, holy faith!We will be true to thee till death.

“JESUS LOVES ME”
Words by Anna B. WarnerMusic by Wm. B. Bradbury

Jesus loves me! This I know,
For the Bible tells me so.
Little ones to Him belong,
They are weak but He is strong.

Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.

When I thought about the next Carnival of Beauty I thought and thought. I don’t have a specific ministry in my church – what I feeled called to do, they don’t have a place for. I asked, “How do I serve?”

But I’m thinking that there is another question that is just as important: WHO do you serve?

My job involves working with kids that don’t know “thank you”. But if we believe that those who cannot understand (infants, unborn or mentally impaired) are elect and will go to heaven if they die – the children I work with belong to God.

By serving His children, I serve Him.

I work with very low functioning students with autism. This year I’ve cleaned up all sorts of body fluids and come away feeling like it’s just part of my job. But it isn’t just part of my job – I should keep in mind (in the front of my mind) that what I’m doing, I’m doing for the Lord and I should be doing it as unto the Lord.

1 Corinthians 10:31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

Service isn’t only about what I do for other people, it’s about whether or not I’m doing it for the glory of God. That I need to work on.

Mark 10:14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God beongs to such as these.

I picked my daughter up from her Wednesday night youth group and they covered (drumroll….) TULIP.

She has a pretty good grasp – limited atonement sort of eludes her and she doesn’t really like the doctrine of election. Then again, neither do I, but I accept it as truth.

I’m glad that they’re covering these issues – but it makes it very frustrating to know that on one hand, the youth are covering Reformed doctrine – and on the other hand, there are “apostolic oneness” prophets and apostles invited into our pulpit. What is the message that we are sending?

Ok, so I got a little irritated at my co-worker. Let’s call it “righteous indignation”.

I work with a woman who is a minister’s wife (Pentacostal church). I was on a short break one day last week (it’s taken me this long to post about it) and when I walked back into the classroom, this woman was saying something about “single women”. With her being a minister’s wife and all, I thought she would be (silly me) talking about ministering to singles. So I asked.

She said (this is very close to a direct quote): “I just don’t think that…you know…single women should be hanging out with married people.”

You know – if you stick in any other demographic it would be appalling – sinful. If you deliberately exclude any other demographic…well, let’s try.

If you heard, “I just don’t think it’s appropriate for black people to hang out with white people” – how would you feel?

Or “I just don’t think it’s appropriate for mentally impaired (old, young, empty-nesters, blind, fat, short) people to be hanging out with (people like me).

Do I just hear this more often because my ears are more attuned because I feel this is where God is calling me? Or does anybody else get this feeling?

I was reading a few things on the situation between the International Missions Board (Southern Baptist Church) and Wade Burleson. I’m not going to get into the controversy – if anybody wants to read about it, it’s easy enough to find. This post is really just kicking around a couple of thoughts that a friend and I talked about – in relation to modern technology.

What I want to hone in on is this paragraph from Mr. Burleson’s blog

(3). Most trustees are fifty or older. Some are in their seventies. I am not sure how many have ever read my blog, but some think a blog is like “computer pornography” (an actual quote). I really think if the trustees took time to hear my motives, communicate with me, and recognize that even though I am “new,” effectual work could be accomplished.

Mr. Burleson has been vocal (on his blog) about his disagreement with a policy of the board. There is a certain type of person who will not even listen to any defense for the sole reason that they might have to sit down in front of a computer.

There are a lot of folks in the church (and church leadership) who are behind the times – technically speaking. I suppose we could call them “techno-phobes”.

The “prophet” at our church last Sunday – I found out all I needed to know just by poking around their website a little bit. I believe I remember that one of our pastor’s is not exactly computer-savvy – is this why these folks could slip by? I need to find out (from Pastor Brian’s mouth) if he knew what these people are – or if he just didn’t know enough to find out.

That’s kind of what Mr. Burleson is saying about the age 50+ trustees. They sure don’t appear to have a very good comprehension about what a blog is – much less how Mr. Burleson was using his.

Did their lack of computer knowledge have an effect on the decisions that have been made? If so, what kind of effect? Can a person who does not even know what a blog is (and who has never read one) really make an informed decision about what a man wrote on his blog?

If some of the trustees have not read Mr. Burleson’s blog – how can they come to a truly informed decision about what he wrote there?

Which I lost yesterday morning.

A really nice one that I think I dropped in the parking lot at school. It’s 5 weeks before one of the contracts expires so I can get a new one (I got the phone from a friend so I don’t have insurance on it).

In the grand scheme of things, just a little annoyance

I just posted on hope – and how knowing the future can interfere with it.

It’s Wednesday now and I’ve had a little more “processing time” after seeing the “prophet” at my church. I’ve been waiting on a call from my pastor since Monday (sometimes it takes a while to get through his assistant, who was out of the office).

I’ve led a sheltered life. This is the first time that I’ve seen (in person) a “modern day prophet” in action.

I didn’t trust her. Here’s what happened. The “apostle’s” wife (the prophet) came up on the stage at the end of the service and offered a prophecy to the pastors and their wives. She had talked about the time they had all spent together and the prophecy didn’t seem like anything that she would not have gleaned just from being with these people for several hours over dinner. Then she “prophesied” over the church. Basically, follow your leaders. (I think there might be a reason for that.)

Then, after the congregation was released, she stayed on the stage and “prophesied” over individuals. Some things I’m pretty sure that she could not have known, others she might have asked a question or two and found out something.

But there was a crowd of people who wanted to know what was in their future. Is this what God wants for us – really?

Does He really want us chasing after the Christian equivalent of fortune tellers, or does He want us leaning on Him; trusting in His goodness?

God didn’t send His prophets to tell His people that they (as individuals) were going to marry this man or that woman; that they were going to move to a different city, that they were going to change jobs or that their future was rosy.

No.

When God sent His prophets, they told the people exactly what they did not want to hear.

The woman I saw on Sunday told people only good things. And vague things. And things that will be forgotten in a short time.

We laugh at the “prophet” on the street corner. You know – the one that doesn’t look the way we think a prophet should look. The one that probably looks the way John the Baptist looked after living in the desert and eating grasshoppers for a few months. The one that tells us that the end is near. Yeah. That one.

But the pretty one in the nice suit, we flock to. You know – the one that tells us that everything is going to be good. The one that tells us we’re going to lose weight. Or that we’re not going to be alone. Yeah. That one.

It brings doubts to my mind when we only embrace the “prophet” that tells us the pretty things.

thought?

I have days when I feel like I have no future. It’s not that it’s not there…it’s just that I can’t see it. And that’s a good thing. Not so long ago I thought that I knew what my future would be. It might not have been great, but it was at least consistent.

Now – not so. I don’t know what the future holds – it’s hidden from me. And that’s a good thing.

We had a “prophet” at our church on Sunday. It disturbed me. A lot.

I sat in the sanctuary for the time that she was speaking (after the service) and just watched. I’d really like to be able to look into the future and see how a couple of different things turn out – but I didn’t want to ask a “prophet”. There were other reasons, but my spirit just wouldn’t let me.

It dawned on me yesterday. It’s hope.

If you already know what is ahead of you on this earth – there is no reason to hope.

Romans 8:24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?”

We run around like mice worrying about the future.

Matthew 6:27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life ?”

Planning this way and that way.

Matthew 6:34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”

Planning our own plans, going our own way, but we just don’t get it.

Proverbs 20:24A man’s steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way?”

Who do you (I) trust?

Psalm 52:8But I am like an olive tree flourishing in the house of God; I trust in God’s unfailing love for ever and ever.”

Do we really trust God?

Psalm 91:2I will say of the LORD, “He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust.”

Are you (am I) in a hurry, or do we rest (wait) in the promised of God?

Psalm 130:5I wait for the LORD, my soul waits, and in his word I put my hope.”

How do you (I) get this hope? It is through the trials of life.

Romans 5:3-4 “And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint… “

Is it really worth it – all this “hope”?

Romans 5:5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.”

A long time ago, I had a friend whose brother died at age 29 of a heart attack. She went with her sister to consult a psychic. He told them what they wanted to hear and he sent them away with hope.

On Sunday, I went to church and saw people crowd around a “prophet”, who told them largely what they wanted to hear and she sent them away with hope.

But that is not where our hope should be. We don’t need to know the future – in fact, if we do know the future, we are less dependent on God’s promises!

People can (and will) disappoint us. The “prophets” of today can (and will) disappoint us. Ecclesiastes 8:7Since no man knows the future, who can tell him what is to come?”

But hope will never disappoint us.

Read that last verse again – “Hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out His love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom He has given us.”

Today, I do not have my future. God does. My hope lies in Him.

I don’t need a prophet to tell me that God holds my future in His hands. That’s what I’d really like to sink in (for me).

I don’t know what lies ahead for me – but my trust is in God.

Psalm 13:5But I trust in your unfailing love; my heart rejoices in your salvation.”

I got the original story here: Beggars All: Reformation and Apologetics: Pope Making Friends With 75 Million Reformed Christians

First, I think it’s important to note that the partnership with Rome involves social justice, not doctrine.

And that when Bishop of Rome talks about ecumenicalism, he means that he wants to bring all protestants back under the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.

We are “separated brethren”. Referring to the Roman Catholic faithful, Vatican II says, Their ecumenical action must be fully and sincerely Catholic”

Also in Vatican II, “Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism…” (my take on this – ok…we’re saved, but we’re not that saved)

Vatican II says that “The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.” (Again, we’re saved, but Christ’s finished work on the cross isn’t finished unless we’re under the leadership of Rome)

Bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI said, in his first messages as Bishop of Rome, “But what is most urgently needed is that “purification of memory”, so often recalled by John Paul II, which alone can dispose souls to accept the full truth of Christ.” (Who has the “full truth of Christ”? According to Rome, the Roman Church is the church that has the full truth)

My questions are: Whose memory needs to be purified? What do they need to forget in order to “accept [Rome's] full truth of Christ”?

Firehouse Family Ministries (Guest Speakers at my Church)

“Apostle” Sherman L. Shelton and “Prophet” Corrine Shelton of “Firehouse Family Ministries” in New Orleans, LA.

I have concerns. BIG concerns.

I’m not quite sure where I stand on “prophetic gifts” and one thing I’ve said pretty consistently is that whether “gifts” are active today or not – the Pentecostals are doing it wrong (according to the Bible). But that’s for another day.

Today, let’s talk about doctrine.

I’m “reformed”. Not “Truly Reformed”, but reformed, so I’m coming at this from the reformed direction. I won’t be quoting the Confessions or Catechisms as though they are the Bible, but as a summation of what we believe the Bible teaches.

(words from Firehouse Family Ministries will be in green)

Section 1. The Scriptures Inspired.The Bible is the inspired Word of God, a revelation from God to man, the infallible rule of faith and conduct, and is superior to c onscience and reason, but not contrary to reason. (II Timothy 3:15-17; I Peter 1:15-17; Heb 4:12)

The Westminster Confession says, “IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”

The last of the Scripture they list here (Hebrews 4:21) says: “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”

This is important, because it says the Bible judges my thoughts and attitudes. I don’t know about anybody else, but my thoughts and attitudes (and thus, my reason) are contrary to Scripture on a regular basis. By saying that Scripture is not contrary to (man’s) reason, we are using our own humanity as a God’s judge. Not a good plan. As the Confession says, the authority of the Holy Scripture does not depend on the testimony (or reason) of any man.

This is important, because antitrinitarians claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to reason; their statement of faith says that the Bible cannot be contrary to reason, therefore the doctrine of the Trinity is false.


Section 2. The One True Godhead. The triune Godhead is comprised of three (3) separate and distinct personalities, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, who are eternally self-existent, self-revealed and function as one entity. Jesus Christ, who is God manifested in the flesh, is the second member of the Godhead, co-equal and co-eternal with The Father and The Holy Spirit.

It is not entirely clear here whether this church is anti-Trinitarian. I suspect that they are. Key phrase is “three (3) separate and distinct personalities”. A Website that Firehouse Ministries links to says that “We believe in one God, eternal and self existent, self-revealed and manifested to man as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” This denies the Trinity, in that they deny three persons – instead claiming “personalities”.

As the “United Pentecostal Church” website asks and answers, “Do these titles (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as used in Matthew 28:19 mean that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead? No, they refer to three offices, roles, or relationship to humanity.”

The Westminster Confession states: “In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.”

I’ll let you decide where you think Firehouse Family Ministries fall.

Section 4. The Salvation of Man.

Man’s only hope of redemption is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. On the cross Jesus Christ became sin and sickness providing both salvation and divine healing for all mankind.

Key phrase: “sin and sickness” – providing both salvation and divine healing. This opens the door for “Word Faith”.

2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

There is no mention of Christ becoming “sickness”.

Section 8. The Evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The full consummation of the Baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance,

At least some of the early Christians spoke in tongues. There is not Biblical evidence to say that all believers spoke in tongues or that it is the “initial physical sign”.

1 Corinthians 12: 29-31 asks, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts.”

The answer is clearly, “no.” Not every Christian in the apostles’ day spoke in tongues – thus it could not have bee the evidence of the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit”.

Paul goes on to say, “And now I will show you the most excellent way.” This way is love, not tonuges.

Section 10. Total Prosperity.

“Name it and claim it”. “Blab it and grab it”. “Health and wealth” Gospel.

Section 14. Five-Fold Ministry. We believe that in order for the Church to truly reach God’s expectations we must have the presence and influence of the Apostle, the Prophet, the Evangelist, the Pastor and the Teacher operating through us. (Eph 4:7-16)

This is the sole passage for the “five fold ministry”. Here is a great article on apologeticsindex.org.

There are 15 sections; these are the most problematic. Thoughts, anybody?

Lifelines

My daughter learned an important lesson last night – always remember your cell phone.

She was at church (I came home – my bad) and when I tried to leave to pick her up I had a flat tire. I tried to call her, but the back seat rang.

I tried to call the church, but all the phones go through the main switchboard, which was closed, so I couldn’t get through.

I tried to call her friend, but she didn’t answer her phone and by the time she did, she was home.

This was my son’s first time at changing a tire and he had trouble with the jack, then he had trouble getting the tire off. He did eventually get it done – and he understood my point in making him do it – this way his first tire change was in our driveway, not on the highway.

My daughter called, “Mom – are you coming to get me?”

I explained and reminded her that this was one of the reasons that I want her to carry her phone. Always. Someday, it might be her lifeline.

I think that we treat God like that sometimes. He’s nice to have around when we think we might need Him, but otherwise, He’s like that lifeline.

The more we depend on Him (even when times are good), the more we’ll lean on Him first when times are not so good.