My Doctrinal Statement is finished! doc attached~

jamdrew

New Member
I goto a Bible college and for Systematic Theology we had to write a doctrinal statement on various topics, but not all the topics of scripture

It's an 8 page paper of my beliefs in case your interested :P

If you want more explanation of my beliefs or have some convictions of your own to share please do i'd love to read!

anyhow enjoy...
 
wow. I can't read this. I tried saving it and everything but I just get these random symbol nonsence..... : /
 
Doctrinal Statement

Doctrinal Statement​
Systematic Theology is the process used to help us clearly organize the ideas and principles written in the Bible. It ascribes terms sometimes not seen in scripture to help summarize themes found throughout the Bible. Below are my personal convictions about what the scriptures say. I pray that as my faith grows my theology will develop and that my convictions will continue to come from what is written in the Bible, not my emotions or flawed human mind. I submit that much of what I believe stems from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Belgic Confession of Faith and Heidelberg Catechism. I believe these three confessions are not inspired but do a successful job in clearly organizing the teachings of the Bible.

Bibliology
The 66 Books of the Bible starting with Genesis and ending with Revelation is the word of God. I believe these books have a divine authorship and are words directly given to us from God (2 Pet. 1:20-21). These words are from God, but these words were written by man. In light of this, I believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture. The people who composed scripture were guided and purified by the Holy Ghost (2 Pet 1:21). The writings gave us sufficient knowledge of who God is and that a life of eternal salvation comes through believing in Jesus Christ as our savior. It is only through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that a person can properly understand and interpret the dogmatic stems of Christianity (Eph. 1:17). I believe that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all believers have the ability to understand the Gospel message. I believe the Bible gives us sufficient knowledge of who God is, what God has done for us, and what God will do for us in the coming age. I believe that anything learned about God that isn’t rooted in scripture is errant (Gal. 1:8). The Bible gives us adequate knowledge of whom God is, but does not give us an exhaustive understanding of who God is.

What is God?
Through scriptures, we understand that there is only one almighty God. God is Spirit (John 4:24), in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious and abundant in goodness and truth. There is only one God. (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9) God is one being, distinct in three persons: Father, Son and Spirit. These three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; but distinguished by their personal properties. The Father begets the son, and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity. The trinity is mentioned directly by the apostles in many verses. (Matt. 28:19, 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 2 Cor. 13:14, Eph. 4:4-7, 1 Pet. 1:2)

Revelation
Revelation is the content and process of God making Himself known to people. All knowledge of God comes by way of revelation (Rom. 1:20). God reveals Himself to people through two modes; special and general revelation. General revelation is the knowledge of God’s existence, character and moral law which comes through creation to all humanity. General revelation is understood by observing nature, history or an inner sense of God’s existence and that he has placed his laws inside every person. General revelation only gives limited knowledge of who God is. A person cannot understand the gospel through general revelation. For a person to fully understand God’s character, one must receive Special revelation. Special Revelation is that which is given to us through Prophets, the Bible, and even visions and dreams (Num. 12:6-8). The ultimate in revelation is the incarnation of Jesus because He came to reveal the Father to us (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; Heb. 1:1-3) and to communicate to us the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4) by which comes salvation.

Christology
Christ has come to do the will of the Father (John 6:38), to save sinners (Luke 19:10), to fulfill the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17), to destroy the works of Satan (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8), and to give life (John 10:10,28). Christ is holy (Luke 1:35), righteous (Isaiah 53:11), sinless (2 Cor. 5:21), humble (Phil. 2:5-8), and forgiving (Luke 5:20; 7:48; 23:34).
Christ is a part of the Trinitarian union. I believe Christ has two distinct natures, noted as the hypostatic union of Christ; He is both 100% man and 100% God. (John 1:1,14) God became a man by taking on a true body, being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance and physically birthed by her, yet without sin. Christ was born without a sinful nature. Due to Christ’s divine nature, I believe Christ was unable to sin.

It was required that Christ was a man so he could fulfill the role of the second Adam. It was required that Chris was fully God and man in one person so that the proper work of each nature might be accepted of God for us and relied on by us as the works of the whole person to fulfill the law and remove the curse of the law from us. Through Christ’s fulfillment of the law we are now under the covenant of Grace. God’s grace is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provides and offers to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; requiring faith as the condition to interest them in his promises (Heb. 13:20). God gives His Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces (Rom. 8:9-14; Gal. 4:6).


Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is part of the Trinitarian union. The Holy Spirit is fully God. The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father in Spirit in His work. The work of the Holy Spirit is to manifest the active presence of God in the world, and especially in the church. (John 15:26) The Spirit demonstrates his purpose in aiding believers to do God’s work in the world. The Spirit aided the authors of the Bible (2 Pet. 1:20-21). To unbelievers, the Holy Spirit works to convict the world of sin (John 16:8-11). To believers, the Holy Spirit cleanses us from sin and sanctifies us (Rom. 15:16). In scripture, the Holy Spirit gave revelation to Prophets and Apostles. The Holy Spirit empowers believers (1 Thess. 1:5). The Spirit gives us access to God in prayer (Eph. 2:18). I believe the Holy Spirit gives evidence of God’s presence (Gal. 4:6). I believe the Holy Spirit guides and direct God’s people to fulfill God’s holy will (John 16:13; Rom. 8:14). I believe the Holy Spirit provides a Godlike Atmosphere when he manifests his presence (John 16:8-11). I believe the Spirit gives us assurance that we are children of God united in Christ. The Spirit guides believers in interpreting Scripture (1 Cor. 2:1,1 1 Cor. 2:1,14; Eph. 1:17)

God’s Providence
I believe God’s providence are his most holy (Psalms 145:17), wise and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures (Nehemiah 9:6); ordering them (Joshua 7:14), and all their actions to his own glory. These actions monitored are not meticulous. Through this, I believe in libertarian free will; we have the ability to choose what we wear, who we marry, what our careers will be etc. I believe that inside of our free will, humanity does not have the ability to alter or destroy God’s holy plan to redeem the Church at the end of the age (1 Kings 22:30). God in his providence makes use of means yet is free to work without, above and against them. God’s infinite goodness manifests in all things including the first fall and all other sins of angels and men. God does not approve of sin. All men and creatures are bound to their sins in full responsibility. God does not retain the ability to sin as it goes against his nature, God is holy and righteous and could not be the author or approver of sin. God does often times leave his own children to manifold temptations and the corruption of their own hearts to chastise them of their former sins and humble them. God then raises man’s dependence up to a more close and constant state to make them more aware of future sin and other just and holy ends.

I agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith upon God’s providence to non-believers that, “God as a righteous judge, for former sins, blinds and hardens hearts; from them he not only withholds his grace, where they might have been enlightened in their understandings and wrought upon their hearts; but sometimes also withdraws the gifts that they had; and exposes them to such objects as their corruption, makes occasion of sin; and withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, where it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for the softening of others” I also believe that God’s grace applies to believers. God still provides for non-believers food and clothing. He also allows them to freely live according to their wants and allows them to succumb to their lustrous desires.
Conclusively God’s providence reaches out to all creatures (Psalms 145:9), but in a special way, His providence takes care of His Church and disposes all things in order to achieve ultimate goodness according to His standards (Proverbs 16:9).

God’s Providence toward man
God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of the man (Genesis 2:7). He gave men living and immortal souls. God created man his own image. God gave man knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. God placed the law on everyone’s hearts and power to fulfill the law of God
I believe God’s original providence toward man was placing man in paradise, appointing him to dwell in it, giving him freedom on earth. God put the creatures under his dominion and ordained marriage for man’s help. Furthermore, I believe God’s providence had a condition, man needed to obey God’s one decree; don’t eat from the tree of knowledge. Even though created in the image of God, man possessed the ability to fall and disobey God’s law. Adam, the first man, created in God’s image disobeyed God’s only rule – forbiddance from eating of the tree of knowledge. (Gen. 2:15-17) Adam disobeyed this decree, so all of mankind was brought into an estate of sin and misery. Sin is the want to conform against any law of God.
The penalty for breaking God’s decree was death. (Rom. 6:23). God’s ongoing providence is shown through the work of the Spirit, ongoing fulfillment of His second covenant and manifestation of His work until the end of the age.


Anthropology
In Genesis, God created man in His image (Genesis 1:21). Man possessed the ability to sin. Our first parents, seduced by the temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. By the sin, man fell from their righteousness and communion with God, so became dead in sin, and defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. Adam and Even being the root of mankind, the guilt of sin was imputed and the same death in sin and corrupted human nature conveyed to all their posterity (Rom. 5:12-15). Their sins descend to us through each generation. From this original sin, we are totally sinful, disabled and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil do proceed all actual transgression. Even though our natures were corrupted, we still retained the image of God. We can see this practically in our ability to experience emotions; just as God has emotions, as well as in our ability to reason; just as God reasons. Scripturally, the image of God is revealed in Christ (2 Cor. 4:4). The corruption of human nature during our human lives remain in those that are regenerated and although it be through Christ pardoned, yet all the things we do are truly and properly sin. Every sin, both original and actual is a transgression to God’s righteous law and brings guilt upon every sinner where all of man is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the law. Because of this all people are subject to death with all miseries, spiritual temporal and eternal.

The distance between God and people is so great that we could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward (Isaiah 59:2). Man is incapable of seeking after God (Rom. 3:10-12). Man is slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20). I believe that it is only by God’s voluntary will that he is pleased with any of us by way of covenant. The first covenant of works is where life was promised to Adam and in his posterity Adam was called to be perfect in obedience to the lord. Man, by the fall, made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was freely made a second covenant of grace; He freely offered sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ (John 1:12-13; 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10). He requires us to have faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give to those that are ordained by Him by his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. God’s covenant of grace is set forth in the Bible in reference to the death of Christ and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it. The covenant of grace was given to us differently in the Old Testament and New Testament. In the Old Testament it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb and other types of decrees delivered to the Jews, all pointing to the coming of Christ, which were for that time sufficient for the Spirit to come through, instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promises Messiah, by whom they had full forgiveness of sin and eternal salvation. In the New Testament, when the ordinances of grace are full dispensed in preaching the Word and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

In Reference to MBI Doctrinal Statement
On the listed topics I believe I have a tendency to agree with the Moody doctrinal statement. As a non-denominational school the doctrinal statement is not rigorous or tedious. This is because Moody’s main goal is to preach the word to non-believers and reach out to them for Christ. Even though Moody’s doctrinal statement is not rigorous it does a good job defining the dogmatic principles that makes this school Christian.

As far as the employee doctrinal statement on the given topics I also agree with most of them with the exception to doctrinal parts of article V. However, the parts I disagree with were not mentioned in my doctrinal statement so no need to explain (eschatology). I believe the doctrinal statement does a good job of listing the dogmatic truths about Scripture, Christ , humanity etc. There are no major contentions that I have.
 
Overall, this looks good. A few points, though.

Adam and Even being the root

In the Anthropology section, I believe this was a reference to Adam and Eve. If it's not too late to correct this before submitting your paper...

Also, in the first paragraph of God's Providence, you state that you believe in a free will. However, in the second paragraph,

I agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith upon God’s providence to non-believers that, “God as a righteous judge, for former sins, blinds and hardens hearts; from them he not only withholds his grace, where they might have been enlightened in their understandings and wrought upon their hearts;

How can you reconcile the ideas of a loving God, free will, and Him hardening hearts. I'm not trolling, I'm exploring this very conundrum in my theology class, and wanted to get another perspective.

Lastly, I'm curious, you mention in your last statement that the doctrinal statement does a good job of listing the dogmatic truths, and that you have no major contentions.

What lesser contentions do you have? I'm assuming that since you have no issues with the dogma, your disagreements exist with doctrinal statements?
 
How can you reconcile the ideas of a loving God, free will, and Him hardening hearts. I'm not trolling, I'm exploring this very conundrum in my theology class, and wanted to get another perspective.

What perspective have you heard, i have a few different ideas of how to answer this, but curious of what the class has taught/said.



As far as doctrinal disagreements

The doctrinal statements I'm in agreement with dogma and disagreement in some doctrine is found here (top one is more rigorous and bottom one is for students)

http://www.moodyministries.net/crp_MainPage.aspx?id=334
http://www.moody.edu/edu_MainPage.aspx?id=3470

I don't agree with MBI eschatology. I'm amillenial and don't believe in a secret rapture. So i disagree with basically all of article V

I also disagree with the introductory paragraph that explains the institute is dispensational. I don't think dispensationalism is a strong biblical position and feel there are some major hermeneutical errors in allowing the old testament to interpret the new testament.
 
So many big words. Go go gadget Google!

Word is still out on what I believe about the amillenial aspect of scripture. Good to see I'm not the only one who doesn't believe in the rapture though. Looking at the types and shadows from the previous biblical generations, God would always raise up an empire to persecute his people, both to strengthen them, and to see who was really His. Not once did He say "oh hay, I'll zip you to heaven" (disregarding... two prophets in the OT?), so I can see that type of tribulation as happening in the next decade(s) for modern Christians. If anything, a "rapture" would come at the tail end of everything. But that's just what I believe so far.
 
Encouraged by your statement of beliefs. Good move to avoid the eschatology. Historically Moody has been a very dispensational school.
 
I understand the tribulation differently too...listen to Kim Riddlebarger's Amillenialism teaching ...hes basically my hero

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/

Riddlebarger is a pastor of a Unite Reformed Church and also has written Case for Amillenialism and Man of Sin

both of these books are really good reads, i would highly recommend them if you are into trying to understand the end times
 
Well I avoided writing about the end times because that wasn't required for the assignment

we were told to write just on the topics i listed. my full doctrinal statement would probably be around 20 pages and this one was just over 8. I haven't written a full doctrinal statement before, i will probably have to write one if i want to goto seminary or divinity school...

westminster west if i do! but probably wont :(
 
Historically Moody has been a very dispensational school.

Yea it makes me want to throw up a little bit each day~ jokes...but seriously :D

How can someone read the Bible holistically and actually think to themselves "yea dispensationalism is the best system for understanding the Bible...":eek:

yay grudem~
 
Last edited:
What perspective have you heard, i have a few different ideas of how to answer this, but curious of what the class has taught/said.

I've heard a few that don't explain it very well, and that's why I was asking. Perhaps the one that makes the most sense is based on Romans 8:29 ("For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son"). The key point remains in foreknowledge, leaving free will intact.

So when Exodus says God hardened Pharaoh's heart, it's less of God's changing Pharaoh's heart and more about forcing Pharaoh to act upon his existing beliefs and opinions. To put it in a modern perspective, if there were some major set of catastrophes centered around me, I have the choice to either
1) get mad at God and rebel
2) realize that I have sinned and need to repent.​

Pharaoh chose to get mad at God and rebel because he did not believe in our God.

I also disagree with the introductory paragraph that explains the institute is dispensational.
I'm strictly and categorically undecided how I stand on this particular point. I have seen several dispensation models, and they just don't make sense to me. Frankly, I'm not sure that we can ever figure them out correctly. They seem to be models of how we would judge people in the past, based on which covenant was active at the time. In the end, it's man trying to play God, and I don't care to play that game. There were several points along the way that the covenants were adjusted by God, and I think that each step was important in showing mankind that we could not get holy enough on our own. I get that part, and I willing to admit that I don't need to know any more.

there are some major hermeneutical errors in allowing the old testament to interpret the new testament.

Now you've really got me curious, can you give a better explanation of what you mean here? If I'm reading it correctly, it'll lead to a much deeper discussion, because what I *think* you said has some difficult implications.

I don't agree with MBI eschatology. I'm amillenial and don't believe in a secret rapture. So i disagree with basically all of article V
I can agree to disagree here, because I really don't know what to believe about premillenial raptures, et al. I've read all the various positions and their Biblical support. They all make decent cases. But this is another area that I'm willing to accept that we aren't going to figure the whole thing out. If you look back at the Jews in Jesus' time, they thought they had all the answers, and yet the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes had all guessed wrong. I won't sit here today and claim that I have all the answers (if nothing else, I learned from their mistakes on that)
 
Not once did He say "oh hay, I'll zip you to heaven" (disregarding... two prophets in the OT?), so I can see that type of tribulation as happening in the next decade(s) for modern Christians. If anything, a "rapture" would come at the tail end of everything. But that's just what I believe so far.

A few points.

First, be careful about saying "it doesn't say that in the Bible." There are several words that you'll be surprised to find out they're not in the Bible, and yet we use them "as gospel." The big one that comes to mind is "Trinity." Nowhere does that word exist in original texts. It was, however, added by some scribe back in the dark ages to one of John's epistles, but was removed in later editions because scholars found it didn't exist in early manuscripts.

Second, congrats on remembering there were two - Enoch and Elijah. I had to look it up because I could only remember Elijah.

Third, I'm not sure that a rapture at the end would be necessary. If Jesus has already returned and emptied the graves for judgment, there would be no need to rapture everyone away.

we were told to write just on the topics i listed. my full doctrinal statement would probably be around 20 pages and this one was just over 8. I haven't written a full doctrinal statement before, i will probably have to write one if i want to goto seminary or divinity school...

westminster west if i do! but probably wont :(

If I understand the process correctly, most seminary or divinity schools won't accept you if you don't completely agree with their creed, statements of faith, etc. Have you found this to be true? I don't know the first thing about Westminster, but would disagreements keep you from enrolling or graduating there?
 
I've heard a few that don't explain it very well, and that's why I was asking. Perhaps the one that makes the most sense is based on Romans 8:29 ("For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son"). The key point remains in foreknowledge, leaving free will intact.

I think it's important to remember first our presuppositions about scripture and the nature of God. That he is all knowing, all loving, all powerful, all merciful etc etc etc. The key thing to note is you cannot take one attribute and raise them against one another or emphasize one over another. When looking at your specific case of God hardening the heart of pharoh you have to take into consideration the amount of love it took for God to tolerate his behavior before that point.

This principle also applies to the rest of mankind. God manifests his love through grace. He gives special grace to the elect in salvation and general grace to the rest of mankind as he allows them to live their life according to their lustrous desires and at the same time provides them with food, shelter, clothing etc.

I have seen several dispensation models, and they just don't make sense to me.

Hey that makes two of us. I touches on this a little bit...I follow a reformed mindset when looking at the Bible though

Now you've really got me curious, can you give a better explanation of what you mean here? If I'm reading it correctly, it'll lead to a much deeper discussion, because what I *think* you said has some difficult implications.

I think it's pretty simple. The new testament interprets the old testament...not the other way around.

Michael Horton does such a good job of explaining this position in real depth and clearity...

http://www.modernreformation.org/de...ay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1150&var3=main&var4=Home

Jesus himself told us how to read the Bible--all of it. The Pharisees were the guardians of the Bible. For their followers, they were its authoritative interpreters. Yet for them the Bible was primarily a story about Sinai: the covenant that Israel pledged to fulfill all of the commands of his law. It was not the subplot--the "schoolmaster" leading to Christ, as Paul described--but the main thing. When the Messiah finally arrived, he would drive out the Romans and reinstitute the Jewish theocracy. The Messiah was a means to an end, not--as Paul called Christ--"the end of the law."

Jesus himself told the religious leaders, "You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life" (John 5:39). Jesus taught his disciples to read the whole Bible (at that point, the Old Testament) in terms of promise and fulfillment, with himself as the central character (Luke 24:25-27; 44-45). No matter how well they had memorized certain Bible verses or how quickly they could recall key moments in Israel's history, the Bible was a mystery to them before Jesus explained it as his story. - Michael Horton

Why would we use prophecy written in the Old Testament to help us develop our view of Revelation...Christ didn't do it and we shouldn't either~



I can agree to disagree here, because I really don't know what to believe about premillenial raptures

The premillenial position is so complicated and doesn't ever make sense to me. It doesn't follow any Biblical theme. God has never plucked his people in the sky to avoid danger. And to interpret Revelation as literal historic is to submit that you don't understand much about the nature of apocalyptic literature.

I'm not saying amillenialism is perfect, but I would strongly suggest it is the strongest position out of premil/amil/postmil
 
Last edited:
If I understand the process correctly, most seminary or divinity schools won't accept you if you don't completely agree with their creed, statements of faith, etc. Have you found this to be true? I don't know the first thing about Westminster, but would disagreements keep you from enrolling or graduating there?

For most Christian Colleges you must sign off on a doctrinal statement in order to graduate yes. Most undergrad schools have a very brief and vague doctrinal statement and Most postgrad/seminary/divinity have very rigorous doctrinal statements. After going through undergrad at Moody I would definitely not goto Dallas as they teach the same things as Moody does in more depth. I wouldn't be able to sign off on their doctrinal statement at the end, so to answer your question I wouldn't enroll there.

Westminster West is a Reformed/Presbyterian College in Southern California. Most of their graduates becomes pastors of United Reformed Churches, Orthodox Presbyterian Churches and a few PCA Churches. I would goto Westminster because I agree with basically all of their doctrine.
 
First it's like 40,000 a year to attend that school. Second I don't know if i'm being called to become a pastor, i feel more inclined to start a youth center or international missions. Third I have a new wife wife I'd like to make some money for before going to seminary and moving to California would be pretty expensive.

all and all we'll see!
 
A few points.

First, be careful about saying "it doesn't say that in the Bible." There are several words that you'll be surprised to find out they're not in the Bible, and yet we use them "as gospel." The big one that comes to mind is "Trinity." Nowhere does that word exist in original texts. It was, however, added by some scribe back in the dark ages to one of John's epistles, but was removed in later editions because scholars found it didn't exist in early manuscripts.

Second, congrats on remembering there were two - Enoch and Elijah. I had to look it up because I could only remember Elijah.

Right, and that's understandable. But the Trinity is fairly central to the faith, whereas God beaming everyone up to heaven is not exactly required knowledge, nor that pertinent to a believer. If it happens, coolies. If not, we need to be doing what God asks of us, regardless of when (or if) the spiritual egg timer goes off.

And I had a feeling it was Elijah, but then remembered someone else was caught up too. Been reading the NT through these past few months, kinda shady on who it was. :p

Also, 40k for a year is expensive. Only paying about 6~8k a year here at U. of Fairbanks, Alaska. @_@
 
Last edited:
Why would we use prophecy written in the Old Testament to help us develop our view of Revelation...Christ didn't do it and we shouldn't either~

A bit tongue-in-cheek here, but Jesus only quoted 24 (maybe 26? the exact number escapes me) of the Old Testament books. Does that make the remainder of them any less important?

But I understand your point, to a point. Apocalyptic text is impossible to understand without proper interpretation. There's a reason that Nebuchadnezzar needed Daniel. John's Revelation is just as difficult to understand.

I think it's pretty simple. The new testament interprets the old testament...not the other way around.
Okay, that's not the implication I thought you were going to make. However, I disagree slightly with the position. We know that God does not change (Malachi 3:6), so with every general or specific revelation, we have to read it within the confines about what we already know to be true about God. Likewise, as Horton indicates, we can use those new revelations to clarify or reevaluate positions that were incomplete or inaccurate about God in the first place.

i feel more inclined to start a youth center or international missions.
The youth pastor at my church is a recent graduate, and what he told me will go along well with your thoughts. However, it's just something to keep in mind, but God's direction is the ultimate guide.

Joel told me that he found out that people that only have missionary and pastors degrees are not allowed into many foreign countries for evangelical purposes. However, people that had business, nursing, education... pretty much any degree in addition to their ministry/missionary degree could come in because they are educated workers.

One of the missionaries that my church supports has been in Serbia for 5 or 6 years now. He told us a few months ago that most of the missionaries were kicked out, but he was able to remain because he had a general business degree and owned/operated a tourism business, which he uses to support his missionary work.
 
Fantastic Job Mr. Jam! I agree with your statement and you did a great job on this paper! *Zerglings applaud with their wings*
 
Back
Top