[If you have experienced spiritual abuse at The Crossing or any other church, you can contact Jeremy Rogahn from the Facebook page, Back Door Ministries Support Group. This group meets every Friday evening to help deal with the grief, anger, and wounds that result from spiritual abuse. This is a GREAT group of people and will give you full support and help your healing process regardless of your situation]
=====================================================================
WHAT'S GOING ON...
In the last few posts of my series on exposing THE CODE of The Crossing church, I have been distracted away from focusing on The Code; instead my focus has been on exposing a serious problem between different points in The Crossing's "Statement of Faith". If you need to play some catch up, then follow this link PREVIEW: EXPOSING "THE CODE" OF THE CROSSING CHURCH-PART FIVE
SUMMARY
In my prior two posts in the series, I demonstrated that the Crossing's belief that, "...each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority"...is not supported by Scripture.
In part four I provided implicit proofs that the above statement is not supported by Scripture. And then in part five I provided explicit proofs that the above statement is not supported by Scripture.
Now I will put a stake through the heart of The Crossing's belief as stated above by looking through the lens of logic and reason. I will compare the statement...
".....each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority",
...with point number one....
"We believe that the Bible is the verbally and totally inspired Word of God, inerrant in it's original manuscripts. The Bible is our supreme and final authority in faith and life. (2Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21).
...and demonstrate that these two statements contradict each other.
EXPOSING THIS PROBLEM LOGICALLY
If you don't know what a contradiction is, it is essential to understand, because it is a critical component of logically exposing the problem at hand. You can read my page, THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION FOR DUMMIES!
If you don't know what a contradiction is, it is essential to understand, because it is a critical component of logically exposing the problem at hand. You can read my page, THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION FOR DUMMIES!
As I have stated before, I have no problem with point number one which states truthfully,
"We believe that the Bible is the verbally and totally inspired Word of God, inerrant in it's original manuscripts. The Bible is our supreme and final authority in faith and life. (2Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21)
I do have a problem with the last part of point number twelve as it is stated here,
".....each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority",
APPLYING THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION
Recall that the formula for the Law of Non-Contradiction is as follows:
- A cannot be B and non-B at the same time and in the same sense.
Now let's fill in the variables as it pertains to the particular problem I posited...
- "A"=Scripture, the Bible, the Word of God
- "B"="Our final authority"
- "Non-B"= "Is not our final authority"
- The Bible is The Crossing's final authority
- The Bible in not The Crossing's final authority
Now it's obvious that both propositions cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense. Point number one of The Crossing's Statement of Faith rightly states....
"We believe that the Bible is the verbally and totally inspired Word of God, inerrant in it's original manuscripts. The Bible is our supreme and final authority in faith and life. (2Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21).
Then the last part of point number twelve states...
".....each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority"
WHAT IS THE "SENSE" IN WHICH THE CROSSING STATES POINT NUMBER TWELVE?
This is an important question. The problem with the last part of point number twelve is that it lacks specificity and definition. In my last two posts in this series I posited the sense of the statement,".....each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority".
As I have pointed before, I believe the sense in which it was written is that each church is not subject to any outside biblical authority that might challenge their teachings and practices.
If the sense in which The Crossing wrote point number one and point number twelve are in accordance with my analysis, then they have committed a bona-fide contradiction, and here's why.
In point number one they rightly state...
"We believe that the Bible is the verbally and totally inspired Word of God, inerrant in it's original manuscripts. The Bible is our supreme and final authority in faith and life." (2Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21).
The sense in which this statement is crystal clear. The Crossing Statement of Faith even provides 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 as accurate proof texts.
In point number twelve they state that, ".....each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority." There are no proof texts provided to defend this position.
If what they mean by that statement is that all Christians, both inside or outside of their church walls, have absolutely no authority whatsoever to interfere in their affairs and use the Scriptures in order to teach doctrine, warn, correct, rebuke or otherwise point out The Crossing's errors, then they have clearly contradicted point number one.
That's because the Scriptures call all Christians to apply the principle of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as taught by the apostle Paul...
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, tor correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Now notice that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is a proof text supplied in The Crossing Statement of Faith in point number one.
NOW LET'S BE HONEST....
It is actually possible that both of The Crossing's points as stated above do not contradict each other. Let me explain.
If the "sense" in which point number twelve is different than the one I inferred previously, then there is no contradiction. Oddly, I found a similar doctrinal position in the Statement of Faith of a Baptist church in the north metro area. It makes the same claims, but with some important differences....
It is actually possible that both of The Crossing's points as stated above do not contradict each other. Let me explain.
If the "sense" in which point number twelve is different than the one I inferred previously, then there is no contradiction. Oddly, I found a similar doctrinal position in the Statement of Faith of a Baptist church in the north metro area. It makes the same claims, but with some important differences....
"that every human being has direct relations with God, and is responsible to God alone in all matters of faith; that each church is independent and must be free from interference by an ecclesiastical or political authority; that, therefore, Church and State must be kept separate as having different functions, each fulfilling its duties free from dictation or patronage of the other."
Now let's compare that statement with the one made by The Crossing in point number twelve, quoted in it's entirety...
"We believe all Christians have direct relations with God through Jesus Christ, are responsible to God alone, and that each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority".
Notice there is an eerie similarity between the two points. In fact, it It is obvious that one church borrowed from the other church, or that both churches borrowed from some other source. That itself doesn't matter.
What does matter is the clarity and specificity of each point made by the respective churches. Let's look at that first point again...
"that every human being has direct relations with God, and is responsible to God alone in all matters of faith; that each church is independent and must be free from interference by an ecclesiastical or political authority; that, therefore, Church and State must be kept separate as having different functions, each fulfilling its duties free from dictation or patronage of the other."
After studying and reflecting on the above point, I think I understand the sense in which it was written. Let's chop this up into a few pieces.
- "that every human being has direct relations with God...". I think that The Crossing's statement is more accurate because it adds, "through Jesus Christ". This is true because the only way sinful human beings can have access to the biblical God is through Jesus Christ.
- "...and is responsible to God alone in all matters of faith." This statement probably means that every human being is responsible to God in the ultimate sense, it in no way refutes the principle of 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
- "...that each church is independent and must be free from interference by an ecclesiastical or political authority...". Again, there is a stark similarity with this point and point number twelve in The Crossings Statement of Faith. The distinction, however, is very important. The Crossing dogmatically states, "each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority", and then leaves it at that, without any explanation as to what constitutes "an outside authority". The other church statement goes beyond this ambiguous statement and clarifies what each church must be free from, that being, "ecclesiastical or political authority..."
- "Ecclesiastical authority" is defined as a governing church establishment in which all daughter churches subsumed under it must submit to the church's interpretation of Scripture, doctrine, bylaws, ordinances, and practices; this supersedes God's supreme authority imbued in the Scriptures. The Roman Catholic church is a prime example of ecclesiastical authority. I would argue that Eric Dykstra is trying to establish his own ecclesiastical authority through The Crossing church and the establishment of it's many daughter campuses that must do things the way Eric Dykstra dictates.
- What is probably meant by "political authority" is a Theocracy; which is both a political system of government and a religious governing body combined into a single entity. In the Old Testament God maintained the order and the preservation of the Jewish people through theocracies. King David was a political king whose governance was influenced by God's revelation in whatever Scriptures were available at that time.
- "...Therefore, Church and State must be kept separate as having different functions, each fulfilling its duties free from dictation or patronage of the other." Any time you see the word "Therefore", you must ask, 'What's the "Therefore" there for? With the institution of the New Covenant, the Old-Covenant in which God ordained theocracies became obsolete...
....Since the founding of the Christian church, there is to be no such thing as a "Christian theocracy". Christian churches are not theocracies with one ruling head which all Christians must submit to. Each church is independent in that they conduct their ministry in accordance with Scriptural imperatives, not to be influenced by any organized religious or political entity. The implication is that if a Christian observes a church or another professing Christian in error, then they can use Scripture to correct that error.....
....State power (a governing political body) must be obeyed; that's in the Scriptures. Obey, as long as the government does not tell you to do something which God prohibits, or tells you not to do something which God commands that you do.
[This is a difficult subject to tackle. For example, The Bible says that we must pay our taxes, but what if those taxes go to fund the murder of the unborn a.k.a. abortion? That's not an easy question to answer, and I think other Scripture texts must be taken into consideration when answering difficult questions like that.Or how about illegally smuggling Bibles into a country that prohibits such an action? It is clear in Scripture that we obey God and disobey the government in this situation because God's command Christians to preach the Gospel to all nations; this imperative from the Lord supersedes that of government.]
ERIC DYKSTRA CANNOT WIN THIS ONE
Let me lay out the huge problem Eric Dykstra has on his hands.
ON THE ONE HAND...
...if Eric Dykstra agrees with point number one...
"We believe that the Bible is the verbally and totally inspired Word of God, inerrant in it's original manuscripts. The Bible is our supreme and final authority in faith and life." (2Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21).
...and point number twelve...
"We believe all Christians have direct relations with God through Jesus Christ, are responsible to God alone, and that each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority".
...in the sense that I described in numerical points one through six above, then he is bound to the supreme authority Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures and mediated through His true disciples.Translation? Any Christian has the authority of Christ to challenge any and all of Eric Dykstra's teachings and practices with the Scriptures. If he has nothing to hide, then he actually ought to welcome any and all criticism, and provide proof texts for what he believes is true.
If he is found in error, and he is a genuine Christian, then he ought to receive rebuke and correction with a humble, mourning heart, repent (turn away from) of his current teachings and practices, and submit himself solely to the teachings of the Lord found in the Scriptures.
If Eric Dykstra is defensive and stubbornly refuses to listen to any Scripture-based arguments, if refuses to be reproved, and he threatens any who criticize his teachings and practices with "church discipline", if he refuses to acknowledge the spiritual abuses he is responsible for and will not ask for forgiveness of specific people he has damaged, then Eric Dykstra is refusing to submit to the supreme Lordship of Christ through the Scriptures. He is a law unto himself and therefore under the just condemnation of Almighty God.
ON THE OTHER HAND......
if Eric Dykstra agrees with point one...
"We believe that the Bible is the verbally and totally inspired Word of God, inerrant in it's original manuscripts. The Bible is our supreme and final authority in faith and life." (2Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21).
...and point number twelve...
"We believe all Christians have direct relations with God through Jesus Christ, are responsible to God alone, [and that each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority]".
...In the sense that the last part of point number twelve [in brackets] rejects any and all outside criticism rooted in the authority of the Scriptures, then he is stuck in a bona-fide contradiction. He would have you believe the ridiculous notion that both propositions...
- The Bible is The Crossing's final authority
- The Bible in not The Crossing's final authority
...are true at the same time and in the same sense. And that is a logical absurdity.
By logic and reason both points cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense: It is impossible!
So Eric Dykstra is caught in a terribly awkward situation that he cannot win. His only way out is to confess his sins to Christ, repent of his false, deceptive ways, and submit to Christ's supreme authority.
FINAL SUMMARY
This post will finally put to rest my detour away from my point by point critique of The Code that I haven't even started yet. I will have one more preview related to The Code, and then I can press on to the important task of the getting into the nitty gritty details of The Code. Until then, adios and God bless, Casey
No comments:
Post a Comment