More Than Advent Christian… Christian: A response to the defense of the Enduring Resolution for the 2026 Advent Christian Ministers

Disclaimer: This is a response to Tom Loghry’s response to my article, critiquing the Enduring Resolution for the 2026 Advent Christian Ministers.

Tom,

Your leadership over the last year on the issues of doctrinal clarity and Advent Christian identity has remained steadfast in your pursuit, which is why I’m so troubled by this proposal. You desire to provide an orderly course forward that shows charity during a season of transition while protecting the future direction of the Advent Christian General Conference through the DOP 26. I share your concern that Ministerial Committees should not be forced into informal or bending standards. However, your proposed resolution has serious weaknesses that undermine the clarity you intend for DOP 26. Here are my concerns.

Defining the Limits of Tolerable Difference

What is an acceptable variation among credentialed ministers once the denomination adopts these clearer standards? Those tolerable differences were included in the proposed Declaration of Principles on purpose–I believe. The proposed by-law changes codified the DOP 26 as the theological standard for regions, conferences, and clergy. The new proposal nullifies that change, provided a minister acknowledges their differences. You propose, for now, that the NAE Statement of Faith serves as a sufficient boundary because it captures a broad evangelical consensus. This approach, however, creates some significant problems.

The Problem with Using the NAE Statement of Faith as the Boundary

As shocking as it may seem, the NAE SOF has never functioned as a formal definition of evangelical identity; at no point has it served as the outer limits of acceptable ministerial belief within a confessional body. Evangelicalism has always been a broad movement whose boundaries shift and are debated precisely because it lacks a single, authoritative standard. In contrast, the ecumenical creeds (that were included in your original DOP 26 proposal, which has since been removed), particularly the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Definition, have long served the church as historical markers of fundamental Christian belief regarding the Trinity and Christology. These creeds were written to exclude the very errors you seek to permit. It’s as if you’d think it reasonable for one of the original thirteen colonies to return to the British Empire, even 250 years later, if they so choose. Instead, your proposal allows Advent Christian pastors to remain in bondage to Satan’s heretical teachings. To be clear, I do not think this is your intent, but it is the outcome.

You are seeking to be more than evangelical; I thought we were striving to at least be Christian.

Concerns with Specific Doctrinal Positions

Your proposal explicitly permits ministers to hold “alternative forms of Trinitarianism” and to affirm the full divinity and humanity of Christ while denying that he possesses two natures and two wills. If this is a secondary difference, then so must the various moral teachings of Scripture be. Should we allow alternative forms of monogamy? Should we call debauchery an alternative practice of righteousness? That is what you are proposing with this resolution. To be clear, Social Trinitarianism is Tritheism by another name. We might disagree on that matter, but I assure you that if one is a Tritheist, they will claim it as Social Trinitarianism.

Denial of Two Natures and Two Wills

The denial that Christ possesses two natures and two wills, while still claiming “full divinity and full humanity,” revives problems the early church rejected on soteriological grounds. As Stephen Wellum explains, Apollinarianism was condemned because it ascribed to Christ an incomplete human nature, consequently undermining his ability to represent and redeem humanity fully (Wellum 2016, 297–311). Similarly, Eutychianism (which confuses the natures into a single composite) and Nestorianism (which separates them into two persons or subjects) make the same fatal mistake. Modern versions of one will in Christ (monothelitism) claim the full humanity of Christ face serious difficulties as well. DeWeese observes that such models remain suspect because they depart from the dyothelity position affirmed by the Third Council of Constantinople. The church consistently held throughout the centuries that proper Christology is necessary for a proper soteriology; Christ must be fully God and fully man with a complete human nature and human will, if he is to serve as our federal head and substitute (Wellum 2016, 338-348). Therefore, the Apollinarian, Eutychian, and Nestorian Christ that this resolution allows is a Christ that does not save, restore, or return. Instead of preaching life only in Christ to a dying world, we are condemning the world by preaching a poisonous message to those already condemned to death.

Criticism of Contemporary Evangelical Theologians

I understand that my apprehensions concerning the positions held by popular theologians and apologists William Lane Craig, Wayne Grudem, J.P. Moreland, Stanley Grenz, and Bruce Ware is surprising to some. However, this is not a novel criticism made up by Erik Reynolds. This is a longstanding criticism from Classical Trinitarians from various denominations. Those most dedicated to the proper understanding and theological retrieval of Classical Trinitarianism and Christology have brought these concerns forward for well over a decade. You can read more about the 2016 Trinity Controversy here. The linked article from Batzig quotes a Bruce Ware lecture, in which Ware stated, “It is the Father’s prerogative to sanctify and send the Son into the world, and by this he demonstrates that the Son is “inferior” to the Father . . . the Son follows the Father’s command and submits to the Father’s will.” 

That is heresy, plain and simple. Kevin Giles, who is quoted in Batzig’s article, states, “To teach that the Son must obey the Father, and the Spirit must obey the Father and the Son, implies each has their own will. For all eternity the Son must submit his will to the Father's will, and the Spirit his will to the Father and the Son. Three separated 'persons,' each with their own will, is the error of tritheism. It is the breaching of divine unity. At the 2006 Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting held in Washington, DC, Dr Ware publicly admitted he believed that each divine person had their own will.” You can find his full article here.

As the Declaration of Principles 2026 would agree with the church’s testimony that such beliefs are heresy and outside the bounds of the Christian faith, the proposed resolution grandfathers current clergy who hold and teach such beliefs in their local congregations. In essence, we would state that such beliefs lead toward perdition and that’s okay with us. Make no mistake and do not misunderstand me, such heretical teaching presents a gospel that does not save because it points to a Christ that does not exist.

Long-Term Consequences for the 2026 Declaration of Principles

Perhaps most concerning is that the resolution appears to undo much of the potential good of the 2026 DOP. By creating a permanent, protected category for currently credentialed ministers who differ on these basic matters, the proposal effectively shields certain errors from future correction. This protected class includes not only forms of Social Trinitarianism but also views that approximate Apollinarianism (incomplete humanity), Eutychianism (confusion of natures), Nestorianism (separation into two subjects), and even Open Theism (by redefining divine attributes and relations in ways incompatible with classical theism). Rather than strengthening our doctrinal identity, the resolution risks institutionalizing managed divergence at the very moment the denomination is attempting to articulate clearer standards.

Handling Practical Concerns About Governance

You rightly note the danger that ministerial committees might otherwise bend standards informally behind closed doors. However, creating an official and ongoing exception for serious doctrinal differences does not solve this governance problem; it normalizes it. A healthier approach would preserve clear standards while still allowing pastoral wisdom and appropriate processes during transition (for example, requiring eventual alignment or restricting teaching on disputed matters until alignment occurs). Charity does not require the permanent institutionalization of exceptions to core orthodoxy.

Conclusion

I remain grateful for your leadership in developing the 2026 Declaration of Principles and for your commitment to the future health of the Advent Christian General Conference. My concern is not that we show too much charity, but that this particular form of charity comes at too high a cost to long-term doctrinal clarity and consistency. I pray that we can pursue both truth and grace in a way that strengthens, rather than weakens, the convictions we seek to uphold.

For this reason, my friend, I will not vote in favor of the proposed resolution. Above all, I pray the Lord continues his work in the Advent Christian General Conference by softening hearts, removing scales from our eyes, and causing us to collectively see the truth of who he is. May the false teachers see their error and how their teaching is damaging Christ’s bride and leading people towards death.

Appendix

If you are wondering how one might affirm the NAE Statement of Faith and hold heretical beliefs, here is a quick argument from each perspective.

Social Trinitarianism: Can affirm “one God in three persons” while redefining “persons” as distinct centers of consciousness and will that relate socially. The statement’s lack of precise language about eternal relations of origin or divine simplicity permits this reinterpretation.

Apollinarianism: Can affirm that Christ is “fully God and fully man” while meaning that he possesses a human body but lacks a fully human rational soul or will (the Logos replacing the human mind). The statement does not define what constitutes a complete human nature.

Eutychianism/Monophysitism: Can affirm Christ’s full deity and humanity while understanding the union as a merging or absorption of the human nature into the divine, resulting in one composite nature. The statement’s brevity allows this without requiring the Chalcedonian distinctions of “without confusion, without change.”

Nestorianism: Can affirm two natures while treating them as belonging to two distinct personal subjects or centers of action that cooperate externally. The statement does not explicitly require the hypostatic union as one person subsisting in two natures.

Monothelitism: Can affirm Christ’s full humanity while denying a distinct human will, locating all willing in the single divine person. The statement does not address the will debate or demand dyothelitism.

Open Theism: Can affirm God’s omniscience and sovereignty in general terms while redefining these attributes so that God does not possess exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future free actions. The statement’s language is broad enough to accommodate such reinterpretations.

In each case, the individual can sign the NAE Statement of Faith in good conscience by endorsing its language while holding a significantly different perception of the underlying realities, because the statement lacks the precise creedal and conciliar language needed to exclude these errors. This is why relying on it as the sole boundary for credentialed ministers amid this transition is insufficient to protect the doctrinal clarity the 2026 DOP intends to establish.