GC and the NAE

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[puff of purple smoke]

Good work Puff, how'd you figure that out anyways? : )

It's on the online form. Just select your membership type and it tells you how much you owe.

[theresearchpersona]

The little things, hugh? Thanks. : )

[AgathaL'Orange]

I'd chip in ten bucks.

[AgathaL'Orange]

Um.  I'm Orthodox and I agree with that statement of faith, researchpersona.  I'm not sure where you think we would differ.

[theresearchpersona]

Just checking...the definitions aren't always the same. Glad you do. : )

[AgathaL'Orange]

No problem, RP.  Anyway, I love the idea of joining. It's great.

[MidnightRider]

Um.  I'm Orthodox and I agree with that statement of faith, researchpersona.  I'm not sure where you think we would differ.

Agatha,

If you are Orthodox, you would not go along with the first point:

"We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the ***ONLY*** infallible, authoritative Word of God."

[AgathaL'Orange]

Here is an Orthodox position on the Bible:

The Bible is central in the life of the Church and gives both form and content to the Church's liturgical and sacramental worship, just as to its theology and spiritual life. Nothing in the Orthodox Church can be opposed to what is revealed in the Bible. Everything in the Church must be biblical."

[AgathaL'Orange]

Post deleted because I really don't want to argue with anyone...

[G_Prince]

Oh no! I sense another church split coming. We haven't even joined NAE yet and already The Worldwide, Apostolic De-Commissioned Church of the Open Bible (WADCOB) is splintering at the seams. Brothers and Sisters let us not stray into dissension, but let us unite around our common cause, the De-Commissioning of this world for Christ!

As it says in the second book of Gene, Chapter four - verse 6, "And though Zebelika strode forth into the temple with difficult and exceptionally truncated theological questions he was warmly greeted by the high priest and enjoyed a very nice wheel of Camembert and afterwards forgot he even had questions." So in essence, lets eat some cheese.

[theresearchpersona]

Brothers and Sisters let us not stray into dissension, but let us unite around our common cause, the De-Commissioning of this world for Christ!

Don't forget THAT'S how GCM manipulates people, they say "unite" around a "cause", but WHO's cause is it? You see Jesus said to teach his word, and the apostles said proclaim it.

And where God says in the psalms that He has exalted His Word above all else, and interestingly translations take the "name" part of that verse and superimpose it while interjecting conjectural emendations because, they say, "he couldn't possibly mean his word above his name" (NIV is a good example since we all probably have at least one...but many translations do this), that's exactly what the Hebrew says (and they forget WHO the "Word" is). Why is that important? Because, as Agatha mentioned [now deleted], there are those who exalt tradition over scripture and subjegate it...it's entirely possible to interpret scripture without ecclesiastical meddling: by relying on God's Holy Spirit to teach us "all things" in the word, just as Christ promised...yet the Word lays the stress in commands upon studying it...we have to strive too. And frankly "tradition" is not a dirty word...so long as the tradition is not only subject, but entirely in agreement and derived from, the scriptures; but when it is exalted over, or changes, the scriptures' meaning, then we have a problem.

Doctrine divides: Christ said he comes to send division; and what did he say he gave us? The Words of His Father; and those he sent us to proclaim.

That's why the NAE thing could be a problem...because not all here could agree; and maybe Agatha could, however the way the NAE uses those terms, and the official positions of the orthodox Church in defining those terms, is entirely different. One group attempts to use the science...the linguistics and use of those terms not only in their times, but moreso in the contexts in which they're found...which happens to be intimately tied to how scripture in the OT uses terms too, and in the LXX: no suprise as (1) it's Jews writing (2) it's the Spirit's inspiration.

I've seen on this blog people saying they have a difficult time with the thought of "inerrancy"; but the protestant doctrine is "verbal-plenary innerancy"; the NAE is an inheritor of that, though more ambiguous, as they say only "inerrancy", however since they appeal to the Word as the final Authority, in which Paul writes that the very words are not those of men, but those given by God, they inadvertantly do appeal to it, though it's been more and more neglected implicitly and even explicity by men ignoring Paul's words and arguing only the thoughts count.

Yet if we do want to appeal to tradition, then, we may find an edifying remark by Jerome, entirely scriptural:

“ubi ipse verborum ordo mysterium est”

“For I myself not only admit but freely proclaim that in translating from the Greek I render sense for sense and not word for word, except in the case of the Holy Scriptures, where even the order of the words is a mystery.”

— Jerome to Pammachius, on the Best Method of Translating.

And then what about the different Cannons? If we appeal to very earliest tradition (of which the Orthodox make a claim to...because these were Greek writers), the oldest Councils (including those of the late OT prophets) determine the Apocryphal books aren't scripture, HOWEVER the early Church said that because they were in the LXX they were like boundary-stones inherited from fathers...and the Church since has usually said they are uninspired, and uncanonical, but valuable to read; Jerome too said they were not scripture, and refused to translate them; the Pope of the time asked him to translate them (as far as I know never affirming their status as anything extraordinary against the tradition) and so Jerome did it "under protest". Throughout the century the Catholic Church officially declared (just as Protestants do today) they are "not scripture, but valuable to read", but because of Trent they officially declared that anyone who denied their status as Scripture was "anathema".

When we have Evangelical, Neo-Evangelical, Protestant, Protestant Mainline-Liberal, Orthodox, and Catholic persons on this forum, even the basic details of the canon come into question; those statements have more involved than just skimming them and being inconsiderate; we have to be honest. That's why I think it would be a great idea...but we need to be honest about signing or agreeing to anything if we can't legitimately. That's why we should, if we do that, determine who can do what without erring in it.

[AgathaL'Orange]

1.  It was sort of a joke, I think, to join NAE.  GC likes to say, "We're mainstream because we're members of the NAE."  So I thought it would be funny if we said, "Ha Ha we are too... so obviously that doesn't really mean anything."  But I see where that is maybe too flippant and not so funny to some.

2.  As much as I love a good debate... and I do!!!  I think maybe we should find another place to debate, like an evangelical/orthodoxy discussion site.  Or I guess we could move it to the "Just for Fun" section or the "Weird Section."  

Love to everyone.

[theresearchpersona]

Understandable.

Though I don't think it's actually a bad idea. This site is a collection of people either ex-members or current who are concerned...or the in-betweens, and of course "other".

If it did actually do something like that it would be interesting because since we are concerned with GC*, and I do think many people here want it to hear and that it stop abuse and conform to scripture, repent of its demons, and renounce those who mis-taught (unless they too repent), then it would be interesting to send a message that "we love you...we aren't going away".

That's the point of what GC* is doing though...not directly part of our interest and "mission": GO AWAY. Though they do it seemingly nicely; you can discern this from early on.

Anyways, I leave it to everyone to continue considering...and I'm already doing some work you guys might be interested in some day...but it'll be a while.

I'm glad that you're here Aggy. : )

[MidnightRider]

Here is an Orthodox position on the Bible:

The Bible is central in the life of the Church and gives both form and content to the Church's liturgical and sacramental worship, just as to its theology and spiritual life. Nothing in the Orthodox Church can be opposed to what is revealed in the Bible. Everything in the Church must be biblical."

Agatha,

While I have nothing against a good argument, that was not the point of my earlier post. The Orthodox believe their Holy Tradition is as inspired as the Bible. In Orthodoxy, the Bible is a product of Holy Tradition. The Orthodox have all sorts of beliefs and practices that are part of their Holy Tradition, yet have little or no connection to the Bible.

I am not claiming that the Orthodox do not believe the Bible, only that they reject the _sola Scriptura_ of the Protestants. The NAE statement of belief is not consistent with Eastern Orthodoxy because of that.

[AgathaL'Orange]

In all fairness, I hardly think the NAE statement is a perfect summation of sola scriptura.

Lots of evangelical people think the Holy Spirit speaks to them.  Are you saying they aren't abiding by sola scriptura?

[AgathaL'Orange]

And NO, I don't believe in the reformational view of sola scriptura, so don't think that I do.

I just didn't think that the NAE statement was saying that per se.  It doesn't matter really what I think.  I don't think anyone really wants to join it anyway.

If the NAE wanted for the first point to mean sola scriptura, they should have said it.  But I think they deliberately worded it ambiguously so that there would be more of a meeting on common ground.

Do I consider myself an evangelical?  I guess so.  Am I an evangelical protestant?  No.

[AgathaL'Orange]

What I really think is that GC itself doesn't abide by sola scriptura either!!!!  But instead of having a three legged stool of sorts (apostolic oral tradition, scripture, and the "watchdog" bishops) they have the scripture and whatever they are currently saying about the scripture.  If you don't follow their directives and "ways of doing things," you're not following God... in their view.

So they can't really say they follow the NAE statement either.... only they don't even know it, and they couldn't tell you why.  

Apostolic tradition is a wonderful safeguard to keep schisms, wacky interpretations, and false doctrine at bay.  

But it's good to hammer out these beliefs.  Honestly, it's great that we can have these conversations really.  It's so much better than just taking everything that ONE or TWO people say as truth.  And yet, that's what GC asked of us all the time.

[namaste]

Agatha-
I COMPLETELY agree with you on this!

It always cracked me up that GCx pastors would go on and on and on about sola scriptura, and then elevate _The Purpose Driven Life_, _Growing Up Whitney_ to higher than gospel authority.

Maybe if they had more theological education, they wouldn't make such silly gaffes.

[Linda]

they have the scripture and whatever they are currently saying about the scripture

This is so true.

In fact, to me, it sometimes seems like (and I know GCM would deny this) the leader's words supercede the Bible. Especially when they get into the "obey us" mode.

Oddly, I hadn't thought much about sola scriptura till leaving GCM. I do believe that the word of God is the final authority on Earth, but say that only so people will know where I am coming from, not to start a debate or put anyone down.

I'm guessing that most GCM leaders have no idea what many of these terms even mean. I know one who didn't know what Calvinism or Arminianism were. They certainly don't know about church government since I've seen their teaching. What do you think the chances are that they have ever heard of sola scriptura? These are all terms that any seminarian would be fluent in. So, what chance do they have of knowing church history, or what the difference is between Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant?

When you say that people are to give the controls of their life to the men God works through, you have entered territory that neither the Catholics, Orthodox, or Protestants believe (except I suppose when the Pope speaks ex cathedra).

[G_Prince]

Agatha,

I always find it funny when people tell us what we believe. I really had no idea until now.

Personally, while I find theology to be highly interesting, I think it is only really useful in making others feel inferior.

What is really important is doing what Jesus said on the mountain. Be good to others, love everyone, even your enemies, love God, and your neighbor. While this is relatively simplistic, it is much harder than postulating some abstract theological principle. I think we tend to gravitate towards the theoretical because it is easier believing in a metaphysical idea of love and goodness than actually acting good and loving each other. Faith without works is dead (James 2:20).

I am not saying that anyone on this forum is not practicing their faith on a practical level. I simply believe that theology is a very bad way to judge someone's character, and spirituality.