In succeeding years, the sentiment of this early statement continued…

David Roebuck interprets the history of the COG in a progressive sanctification lens. “As long as something is not contrary to the New Testament, Christians should give one another “equal rights and privileges to read, believe and practice for themselves in all matters of religion . . ..”

“In the 1940s deep division arose between proponents of differing views of sanctification. Charles W. Conn characterized the ensuing debate as “centered not so much on the reality of sanctification as on the time and process of its inception in the human heart. Some held vigorously that it is an instantaneous or ‘definite,’ work of grace, and others believed it to be continual and progressive.”[27] In the midst of this debate, the church saw the need for a clarifying statement of faith and adopted the following Declaration of Faith in 1948.

This declaration was not considered a new doctrine or an exhaustive creed but simply a statement of what the church had always believed was taught in the New Testament. The language on sanctification remained Wesleyan-holiness, but the church allowed individuals the right to interpret “subsequent” as logical rather than temporal.[28]”

This is relative rationale. It does not matter what you believe as long as your heart is in the right place!

What are your thoughts?

In succeeding years, the sentiment of this early statement continued to guide the theological life of the movement. Occasionally, needs for further statements arose in the on-going life of the church, however. In 1910, the Assembly appointed a committee to prepare examination questions and biblica…

Facebook Comments