13.02.2013 Views

A History of Christian Doctrine #3 - Online Christian Library

A History of Christian Doctrine #3 - Online Christian Library

A History of Christian Doctrine #3 - Online Christian Library

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

A <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> <strong>Doctrine</strong><br />

in places. Its position on a number <strong>of</strong> issues is quite controversial,<br />

and its appeal to historical authority is inconsistent. Here<br />

are some examples:<br />

• It relies heavily on postbiblical tradition to support<br />

the doctrine <strong>of</strong> the trinity and trinitarian baptism, when<br />

Scripture alone should be our doctrinal authority, in practice<br />

as well as in theory. For the “basic statement <strong>of</strong> the doctrine<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Trinity” it quotes the Athanasian Creed instead <strong>of</strong><br />

Scripture (pages 42-43). It asserts, “The proper formula for<br />

water baptism is triune,” and as pro<strong>of</strong> it cites the following<br />

authorities: Matthew 28:19, the Didache, Justin, Irenaeus,<br />

Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and the church historians<br />

Sozomen and Socrates (pages 71-72).<br />

• Ironically, on other subjects the booklet ignores<br />

prominent and even majority teachings in church history,<br />

thereby falsely portraying its views as the only “historic,<br />

orthodox” ones. For instance, most <strong>of</strong> the writers it cites as<br />

authorities for the baptismal formula taught that baptism<br />

effects the remission <strong>of</strong> sins and is part <strong>of</strong> the new birth. So<br />

taught Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and<br />

many more. 348 It vehemently denounces as cultic the teaching<br />

that baptism is part <strong>of</strong> the experience <strong>of</strong> salvation, yet it conveniently<br />

omits that throughout history and even today most<br />

pr<strong>of</strong>essing <strong>Christian</strong>s have affirmed this very doctrine, including<br />

Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutherans (the<br />

first Protestants). The Nicene Creed affirms “one baptism for<br />

the remission <strong>of</strong> sins,” and the framers clearly meant that in the<br />

ceremony <strong>of</strong> water baptism God washes away sins.<br />

If the creeds and the ancient writers known as the church<br />

fathers represent so-called historic orthodoxy on the doctrine<br />

<strong>of</strong> God, why do they not equally represent historic orthodoxy<br />

on the doctrine <strong>of</strong> water baptism? The truth is that the author<br />

is highly selective in what he deems orthodoxy. To support the<br />

doctrine <strong>of</strong> the trinity he invokes the creeds and fathers and<br />

denounces anyone who would deviate from their supposed<br />

354

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!