Answer: They have all raised serious issues concerning the doctrine of the Trinity.

If you’re not aware of all the hoopla that has been taking place in regards to the above mentioned organization, church, and event just do a quick Google search and you’ll find all sorts of information on the blogosphere (the good, the bad, and the ugly information, so use discretion).

While there has already been much said about the doctrinal issues and lines that have been crossed by those mentioned above, it is ironic and a bit frustrating to me that many of my fellow brothers and sisters who are quick to criticize those who are in the wrong have never taken the time to adequately educate themselves or their congregations on the importance of the Trinity. As one of my students insightfully pointed out to me, when I was critiquing Elevation Church for having T. D. Jakes, who is a Modalist [1], come and preach at their “revival” meetings, that in our church they have never heard a message on the Trinity [2]. Thankfully other students in the class where able to come to my defense by noting that just a few months ago I spent three weeks teaching on the subject [3], but the insight was still valid and relevant to my point!

If my fellow apologists and pastors took seriously the Apostolic example of proclaiming the whole council of God (Acts 20:27), even the difficult aspects such as the Trinity and the Incarnation, then perhaps some of the above problems would not have occurred or when they did occur we would not come across as reactionaries, but rather consistent lovers and defenders of the truth.

While I do hope and pray that Wycliffe, Elevation, and those involved in the Elephant Room 2 will repent of what they have done wrong and do the right thing, which it appears Wycliffe is attempting to do. [4] My greater desire is that these events will serve as a wakeup call to Christians everywhere to study the Scriptures, the ecumenical creeds, and the great theological works that are available on the Trinity [5] and as a result they will reaffirm their own commitment to this essential doctrine and their love for the Triune God!    

May God Bless You!

Jeremy (Jn. 3:30)

John Webster, Holiness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons (New York: T & T Clark, 2006).

Part I: Introduction

Before addressing Professor Jefferson’s four arguments against Christians who claim the Bible is opposed to same-sex marriage, I found it to be very interesting and telling how
he portrayed the issue. He begins by noting:

“Such opposition quite often utilizes religion as a bruising hammer to drive home their message, and often the Bible is invoked to justify any anti-gay argument. Groups opposed to same-sex marriage cite Biblical passages to endorse their rejection of any marriage
amendment while condemning same-sex practice in general on the basis that the
Bible ‘says’ it is wrong.”

While I will admit and agree with Professor Jefferson that some Christians do use, “religion as a bruising hammer,” and have used the Bible to justify any “anti-gay argument,” there are many others who do not do either of these things. There are numerous Christians who have responded to this issue with compassion and well reasoned arguments, however, there is no mention of this larger segment of the Christian population in this article. To me this raises the question, why is that? Is Professor Jefferson purposefully painting all Bible believing Christians with one broad-brush
stroke of being ignorant and anti-gay in order to poison the well? Is he merely
picking on Christianity’s low hanging fruit instead of seriously dealing with Christianity’s
best spokesmen on the issue? After a careful reading of the article I cannot help but conclude that Professor Jefferson is indeed guilty of the fallacies I raised above. While I hope this was done out of ignorance rather than insolence, I fear it is the later (although as you will see there is plenty of ignorance on display as well)!

Jefferson concludes his above claim by noting the real reason behind the article is to call into question the use of the Bible as an authoritative source. He states:

“If anything, this exercise questions whether we should develop stances based upon what the Bible ‘says’. Simply put, the Bible is a complicated collection of documents that was never meant to ‘speak’ to our contemporary situation, but groups often speak through the lens of the Bible and lob textual grenades on issues like same-sex marriage.”

In other words, Jefferson believes that anyone who would use the Bible as a source of authority today is incapable of understanding the “complicated” nature of the Bible itself, let alone the nature of our “contemporary situation.” As a result of this lack of comprehension demonstrated by Bible believing Christians anything they have to say on the issue of same-sex marriage or same-sex relationships should be ignored and their
arguments should be rejected prima facie! These presuppositions of Jefferson’s are further buttressed by the fact that he offers no reasons for holding his position concerning the nature of the Bible, nor does he have any further discussion or dialogue on the issue of authority. He is right and Bible believing Christians are wrong. He is an authority and
the Bible is not. And this is how he prefaced his arguments against the Christians position. Once again, Professor Jefferson is guilty of another fallacy known as stacking the deck. Under this conditions nothing the other side has to say can or will be correct, while everything he has to say will be!

Early on in ministry I used to try to convince myself (and my wife) that things would eventually slow down. I would tell myself, “Once we make it past this event… when the school year is finished…after this sermon series is over…” But things never did slow down! There always seemed to be a never ending stream of important things that came up that had to be dealt with, and it has become clear to me that there always will be something that “must be done” or “dealt with immediately” unless there is a radical change within the church itself. You may ask what would this radical change involve or what would it look like? And the answer is shockingly simple it would involve the church actually implementing the Biblical model of leadership.

Most churches today believe they are following the Bible’s teaching on leadership, when in fact the church culture they have created is actually abrogating it. The Bible makes it clear that men are to be the spiritual leaders of their homes (Joshua 24:15; Ephesians 5:25), in fact this is a prerequisite for serving as a leader in the church (1 Timothy 3:4; 12), however, the church expects so much out of their leaders (especially pastors) that they are hardly ever home. But how can they love their wives and children if they are never with them? How can they manage their homes when they are never there? If the church truly desires to honor God and follow the Biblical model of leadership they must make the things that “must be done” and “dealt with immediately” the things God mandates and not what we think they should be. The church must make it clear they would rather have a leader who leads the way God desires him to lead rather than a leader who leads like a CEO of a fortune 500 company! God’s way is always the best way and the church would do well to follow it, especially in the area of Biblical leadership!

On the one hand, confession means to declare publicly a personal relationship with and allegiance to God. It is an act of open joyful commitment made to God in the presence of the world, by which a congregation or individuals bind themselves in loyalty to God or Jesus Christ. It is an avowal of faith which can have eternal eschatological consequences. On the other hand, it means to acknowledge sin and guilt in the light of God’s revelation, and is thus generally an outward sign of repentance and faith. (1)

In the process of leading the church in the positive aspect of confession I had us read the Nicene Creed together. While this creed is full of deep theological truths the one phrase that stuck out to many people in our congregation was the line, “the one holy catholic apostolic church.” Several people approached deacons afterwards expressing concern over us using the word “catholic,” in fact, one member of our congregation told me that they wouldn’t even say the term and chose to mumble over the phrase instead! As a result of the confusion surrounding this phrase, I thought it would be helpful if I took some time to briefly explain the history behind the Nicene Creed itself and the meaning of the phrase, “the one holy catholic apostolic church.”

The Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed derives its name from the Council of Nicaea, which was held in 325 A.D. At this counsel 318 bishops coming from churches from both the East and West gathered together for over two months to discuss important theological issues that were confronting their churches at the time. The primary concern they were to address was raised by a presbyter named Arius. Arius and many other church leaders were claiming that Jesus was the first begotten of the Father but he was not God! As Arius put it:

This one God, for all time, begot his only – begotten son, through whom he made the ages and the universe He begot him not just in appearance, but in fact; by his own will. He made his son to subsist and he made him unchangeable and unalterable. God’s perfect creature, he is unlike any other creature; begotten, yes, but unique in the manner of his begetting:  But we say that he was created by God’s will, before all ages; from the Father he received being and life, and in creating him the Father conferred his own glory on him. Yet the Father, in giving all things into his possession, did not despoil himself of them: he contains all things himself in an on begotten way, for he is the source of all things. (2)

Thankfully Arius’ view did not prevail at the council and this position was condemned as heresy. (3) As the Nicene Creed makes clear Jesus was fully God:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

And fully man:

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man. (4)

With this brief historical sketch in place we can now turn to the word, “catholic” and the phrase, “the one holy catholic apostolic church,” and better understand what they mean.

“Catholic”

The term “catholic” for many Protestant Christians automatically is preceded by the word “Roman” and conjures up pictures of large hats, the mass, and the worship of Mary. This, however, is not what the term originally meant, nor is it what those at the  Council of Nicaea wanted to convey (5) As Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary notes catholic means:

Catholic (Gk., general, universal) 1. Worldwide and universal. Distinguished from sectarian. 2. Belonging to the “One True, Holy, Catholic” church. According to Ignatius, “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” According to Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Church is called Catholic because she is throughout the whole world, from one end of the world to the other; because she teaches universally and without fail all the doctrines that ought to be preached to the knowledge of men concerning the visible and the invisible, in heaven and on earth; because she subjects to her faith the whole of mankind . . .” (6)

In other words, the term “catholic” in the Nicene creed can be used interchangeably with the word “universal.” Hence the phrase, “the one holy catholic apostolic church” can be seen as stressing that the doctrinal truth coming from the Apostles (via Scripture) must be taught and accepted by believers across the globe and throughout the ages. As Harold O. J. Brown notes:

Each of the major churches accepted the great ecumenical creeds, the Apostles’, Nicene, and Chalcedonian symbols, and was persuaded that the doctrine they express is both true and necessary. They differed among themselves about what else might be required, but there was no doubt among them that at least the doctrines of the ecumenical creeds were required.” (7)

As a result of this knowledge every Protestant Christian should not be bothered by the term “catholic” as it is used in the Nicene Creed! In fact, we can and should join with our brothers and sisters in Christ from all ages in making a positive confession of our faith in the Triune God of Scripture and his gracious gift of salvation (Rev. 5:9ff)!