Aaron,
You wrote:
"Calvinism (for instance) is false and I don't want it taught in my church. I am not talking about a Calvinist coming into my church. I have no problem with that and I would welcome them and they would be viewed by me as a bro or sister. But when it comes to them speaking (teaching or preaching) in my church - I want no part of that."
I think I finally discovered where you and I are not connecting on this issue. According to your post (cited above), you think the church is your church. Therefore, it is only natural for you to have the right to pick and choose whether people who disagree with you should be allowed into your pulpit.
I am not interested in being in your church...nor in mine! I just want to be in Christ's church (you know, that one where He's the Head of everything and everybody?). In His church, He decides who is included, not you or I, nor even our pastors.
You would not permit a Calvinist to teach in your church, but I wonder, would you allow a Calvinist to preach in Christ's church? I don't agree with Calvinism any more than you do, but I would rather be in Christ's church than in yours, and He has a lot of Calvinist preachers in His.
If you had lived in England in the 1800's, would you have boycotted Spurgeon's assemblies? God showed up there as nowhere else at the time. If you had been in London, in a different church, listening to a non-Calvinistic preacher at that time, you would very likely have missed out on what God was doing. In fact, your approach to theologically-uniform fellowship may cause you to miss out on what God is doing today.
At least, however, you won't have to take the risk of getting confused.
Unity and the Early Church
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_anothersteve
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:30 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Homer,
I don't have the ultimate answer but I have seen what you're looking for, to a degree, at a church I attended a few years ago.
They had about 1000 attending and now have 1300 and also started a church plant. The unique thing about them is that I've never seen a church that has so many different theological positions within it. There are Calvinists and non-Calvinists...eternal punishment and conditional mortality...healing in the atonement and not etc....
In fact there are at least two people (there may be more) that I know of who are in leadership positions who can't in good conscience sign on to their statement of faith.
The leadership reasons that if someone like a J.I. Packer or a John Stott, who differ on their postion of baptism for example, were to end up in their congregation they wouldn't want to let that stop them from serving. If God wanted them to serve in a teaching/leadership role why stand in the way over an issue like that?
I actually try to make it out to some of their men's meetings still. I really enjoy talking about different "hot potato" issues in a non-threating environment.
May I also add that they are a very strong missionary church and have sent several of their congregants to some very diffucult to reach Muslim areas of the world. Perhaps this kind of focus helps them to see past some of these other issues.
I just wanted to add one other positive experience I had about 20 years ago or so. I was at a church where for 3 Sunday nights they had 3 different speakers share their different views on the end times. They were all futurist views but the pastor felt it would be healthy for the congregation to hear what each had to say. The pastor (who was the son of Oswald J Smith) spoke the first night from the traditional view the church had held. I remember Marvin Rosenthal speaking one night as well.
I was a young Christian at the time and almost all of what each man said has long faded from my memory. I do remember appreciating the chance to hear these different views. It made me feel like it was OK to ask questions and consider differnent views.
Steve
I don't have the ultimate answer but I have seen what you're looking for, to a degree, at a church I attended a few years ago.
They had about 1000 attending and now have 1300 and also started a church plant. The unique thing about them is that I've never seen a church that has so many different theological positions within it. There are Calvinists and non-Calvinists...eternal punishment and conditional mortality...healing in the atonement and not etc....
In fact there are at least two people (there may be more) that I know of who are in leadership positions who can't in good conscience sign on to their statement of faith.
The leadership reasons that if someone like a J.I. Packer or a John Stott, who differ on their postion of baptism for example, were to end up in their congregation they wouldn't want to let that stop them from serving. If God wanted them to serve in a teaching/leadership role why stand in the way over an issue like that?
I actually try to make it out to some of their men's meetings still. I really enjoy talking about different "hot potato" issues in a non-threating environment.
May I also add that they are a very strong missionary church and have sent several of their congregants to some very diffucult to reach Muslim areas of the world. Perhaps this kind of focus helps them to see past some of these other issues.
I just wanted to add one other positive experience I had about 20 years ago or so. I was at a church where for 3 Sunday nights they had 3 different speakers share their different views on the end times. They were all futurist views but the pastor felt it would be healthy for the congregation to hear what each had to say. The pastor (who was the son of Oswald J Smith) spoke the first night from the traditional view the church had held. I remember Marvin Rosenthal speaking one night as well.
I was a young Christian at the time and almost all of what each man said has long faded from my memory. I do remember appreciating the chance to hear these different views. It made me feel like it was OK to ask questions and consider differnent views.
Steve
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
As Homer implied it appears that, to a large extent, unity in the early centered around solid doctrine (repentance, baptism, perserverance).
As I said before, IF the Spirit is still leading us to the truth, then we have a problem.
Are we to simply accept what is false and could potentially lead a brother away from the Truth?
But one will argue how can I be so sure that I have the truth?
Again, it's that Spirit (who by the way still leads one to the truth) that is going to great lengths to teach His followers what is right.
Is it prideful to think that I hear and learn from the Spirit better than my Christian friend? Why should I believe that?
Maybe one should consider taking it up with the Spirit (who leads Christians to the truth) rather than those who appear to be enemies of unity. After all, it is the Spirit that has lead a person to believe what they teach is important and part and parcel of the Faith.
Brian
As I said before, IF the Spirit is still leading us to the truth, then we have a problem.
Are we to simply accept what is false and could potentially lead a brother away from the Truth?
But one will argue how can I be so sure that I have the truth?
Again, it's that Spirit (who by the way still leads one to the truth) that is going to great lengths to teach His followers what is right.
Is it prideful to think that I hear and learn from the Spirit better than my Christian friend? Why should I believe that?
Maybe one should consider taking it up with the Spirit (who leads Christians to the truth) rather than those who appear to be enemies of unity. After all, it is the Spirit that has lead a person to believe what they teach is important and part and parcel of the Faith.
Brian
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Brian,
I am unclear on a couple of things in your post.
First, who are the "enemies of unity" to whom you refer?
Second, why would it not be reasonable to assume that the Spirit, who leads us all into all truth, intends to lead us collectively into all truth as a community, through the medium of free, interaction among all the members of the body in an atmosphere of acceptance and love?
I am unclear on a couple of things in your post.
First, who are the "enemies of unity" to whom you refer?
Second, why would it not be reasonable to assume that the Spirit, who leads us all into all truth, intends to lead us collectively into all truth as a community, through the medium of free, interaction among all the members of the body in an atmosphere of acceptance and love?
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hi Steve,
IMO it still stands that some are not willing (either by ignorance or stubborness) to accept "the truth" that the Spirit is trying to communicate. And to say that "that's ok because they are still Christians anyway" one must ASSUME that incorrect doctrine could never lead a Christian away from the "faith once delivered unto the saints."
Brian
I probably wrote this part too hastily. Really, I meant those who would not wholeheartedly subscribe to the consensus on this thread concerning WHAT unity and HOW it should be practiced. From what I gather, the consensus would be you, Chris, Paidon, Sean, etc.. The detractors from this position would be me, Aaron, and perhaps Homer.who are the "enemies of unity" to whom you refer?
I see no problem asserting that the Spirit would work in this manner. For sure, it takes time for spiritual babies to derive proper doctrine, and IMO interaction is key to one's formation of truth. However, even from your own experience, Steve, when part of the Oregon fellowship (your best ever "Church" experience), apparently through "the medium of free, interaction among all the members of the body in an atmosphere of acceptance and love" the Spirit was not too sucessful in leading followers to "the truth." Did the various interactions among believers allow the Spirit to convey what should be the proper teaching?why would it not be reasonable to assume that the Spirit, who leads us all into all truth, intends to lead us collectively into all truth as a community, through the medium of free, interaction among all the members of the body in an atmosphere of acceptance and love?
IMO it still stands that some are not willing (either by ignorance or stubborness) to accept "the truth" that the Spirit is trying to communicate. And to say that "that's ok because they are still Christians anyway" one must ASSUME that incorrect doctrine could never lead a Christian away from the "faith once delivered unto the saints."
Brian
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Brian,
The church experience in Oregon, and the one in Idaho, both followed the ideals that I am currently advocating, and they were wonderful fellowship and growth experiences. I am not sure what failure on their part you are referring to.
The Oregon group only existed for two years because it was a home group of ten families and nine of the families moved away, leaving the remaining family in Oregon to reinvent the group with new members. I was not geographically a part of the newly formed group, though I visited and taught there once or twice. I don't know of any problems in the group that would lead me to label it a failure.
The Idaho group followed the same principles for over three years, with about 30 families. It remained a near-perfect fellowship until a teacher from the outside began to introduce the idea that the church needed to have 1) a name, 2) tithing membership, 3) appointed leaders and 4) a statement of faith.
Not everyone in the fellowship agreed with this, but the immature were taken-in by this divisive teaching, and, as a result, the group eventually splintered. All of that happened after I had left the group. Most of the people who were in the group have gone on serving the Lord, and have formed smaller home groups. The failure in this case could probably have been averted, if not for the fact that I had stepped out of the teaching ministry (due to my wife's departure), and there were few teachers in the church who knew enough of the Bible to resist the heretical teaching that came in from outside.
It is not my contention that a church that is open to all Christians will be a perfect church—only that it will be a more-biblical model of church than any that we presently see around us that reject the open fellowship of all brethren.
Where there is spiritual immaturity and small-mindedness among the believers, no structure or paradigm will maintain unity or guarantee the progress (or even the survival) of the church. However, denominational churches have had five hundred years to demonstrate their ability to promote spiritual progress in the lives of their members, and the observable results are more and more abysmal with the passing of every decade.
A new paradigm is not the whole answer. It is only a part of what is required in making the church more biblical. New concepts will not work without a new mindset among the participants. Progress toward a more-biblical idea of "church" requires the re-education of traditional thinkers, and that is the stage at which we presently find ourselves in the development of the Body of Christ. That is what this thread, and even this whole forum, is endeavoring to promote.
I am not ambitious with reference to what this forum or even my whole ministry may accomplish. It is God that must bring the church to its maturity. My role in this may be negligible (or even counterproductive). However, the future of the church does not hinge on the success or influence of any one man, ministry or denomination. It depends upon the maturing of the saints through the embracing of more of the truth that God's word has long been proclaiming to a hearing-impaired church (Eph.4:11-15).
The church experience in Oregon, and the one in Idaho, both followed the ideals that I am currently advocating, and they were wonderful fellowship and growth experiences. I am not sure what failure on their part you are referring to.
The Oregon group only existed for two years because it was a home group of ten families and nine of the families moved away, leaving the remaining family in Oregon to reinvent the group with new members. I was not geographically a part of the newly formed group, though I visited and taught there once or twice. I don't know of any problems in the group that would lead me to label it a failure.
The Idaho group followed the same principles for over three years, with about 30 families. It remained a near-perfect fellowship until a teacher from the outside began to introduce the idea that the church needed to have 1) a name, 2) tithing membership, 3) appointed leaders and 4) a statement of faith.
Not everyone in the fellowship agreed with this, but the immature were taken-in by this divisive teaching, and, as a result, the group eventually splintered. All of that happened after I had left the group. Most of the people who were in the group have gone on serving the Lord, and have formed smaller home groups. The failure in this case could probably have been averted, if not for the fact that I had stepped out of the teaching ministry (due to my wife's departure), and there were few teachers in the church who knew enough of the Bible to resist the heretical teaching that came in from outside.
It is not my contention that a church that is open to all Christians will be a perfect church—only that it will be a more-biblical model of church than any that we presently see around us that reject the open fellowship of all brethren.
Where there is spiritual immaturity and small-mindedness among the believers, no structure or paradigm will maintain unity or guarantee the progress (or even the survival) of the church. However, denominational churches have had five hundred years to demonstrate their ability to promote spiritual progress in the lives of their members, and the observable results are more and more abysmal with the passing of every decade.
A new paradigm is not the whole answer. It is only a part of what is required in making the church more biblical. New concepts will not work without a new mindset among the participants. Progress toward a more-biblical idea of "church" requires the re-education of traditional thinkers, and that is the stage at which we presently find ourselves in the development of the Body of Christ. That is what this thread, and even this whole forum, is endeavoring to promote.
I am not ambitious with reference to what this forum or even my whole ministry may accomplish. It is God that must bring the church to its maturity. My role in this may be negligible (or even counterproductive). However, the future of the church does not hinge on the success or influence of any one man, ministry or denomination. It depends upon the maturing of the saints through the embracing of more of the truth that God's word has long been proclaiming to a hearing-impaired church (Eph.4:11-15).
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
just a quick observation..
it seems in many local churches (likely including the one i attend) that there is an "unspoken agreement" not to bring up potentially controversial theological subjects, out of either respect or desire not to stir up dissension. its kind of like the idea that "in mixed company you shouldnt discuss religion or politics" has carried over into the local church. for this reason, i think as a practical matter, the problems raised by Aaron hardly ever occur. for e.g., I attend a non-calvinist denomination, but the pastor hardly ever speaks on the merits of non-calvinism. he will occasionally disagree with the once save always saved position from the pulpit but that is about it. i just cant imagine having a guest speaker whose sermon would be "the 5 points of calvinism." if this happened, probably 80% of the attenders would likely have never even heard of "Tulip."
of course, that is one of the problems with the church i attend-- it's strong on bringing people in and not judging people, but rather weak in deeper teaching. some of us are trying to change this. and perhaps for this reason, many people wouldnt know contorversial doctrine if it was looking them in the face.
i heard steve mention today on his teaching about "how to study the scriptures" that a disappointingly large number of churchgoers really know quite little about the Bible. i know for a fact this is the case. i was involved with our youth group a couple of years ago and i devised what i thought was a rather basic "Bible Knowledge quiz" of about 50 multiple choice questions regarding basic OT and NT stories, basic doctrine, etc. the average score was about 30% right. not very impressive, because i honestly feel i could have probably scored at least a 90% when i was their age. something has happened in the church, but i am not entirely sure what. i am sure it has a great deal to do with the "seeker sensitive" movement, which creates churches, in most cases, a mile wide but about a foot deep.
TK
it seems in many local churches (likely including the one i attend) that there is an "unspoken agreement" not to bring up potentially controversial theological subjects, out of either respect or desire not to stir up dissension. its kind of like the idea that "in mixed company you shouldnt discuss religion or politics" has carried over into the local church. for this reason, i think as a practical matter, the problems raised by Aaron hardly ever occur. for e.g., I attend a non-calvinist denomination, but the pastor hardly ever speaks on the merits of non-calvinism. he will occasionally disagree with the once save always saved position from the pulpit but that is about it. i just cant imagine having a guest speaker whose sermon would be "the 5 points of calvinism." if this happened, probably 80% of the attenders would likely have never even heard of "Tulip."
of course, that is one of the problems with the church i attend-- it's strong on bringing people in and not judging people, but rather weak in deeper teaching. some of us are trying to change this. and perhaps for this reason, many people wouldnt know contorversial doctrine if it was looking them in the face.
i heard steve mention today on his teaching about "how to study the scriptures" that a disappointingly large number of churchgoers really know quite little about the Bible. i know for a fact this is the case. i was involved with our youth group a couple of years ago and i devised what i thought was a rather basic "Bible Knowledge quiz" of about 50 multiple choice questions regarding basic OT and NT stories, basic doctrine, etc. the average score was about 30% right. not very impressive, because i honestly feel i could have probably scored at least a 90% when i was their age. something has happened in the church, but i am not entirely sure what. i am sure it has a great deal to do with the "seeker sensitive" movement, which creates churches, in most cases, a mile wide but about a foot deep.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
-
_AARONDISNEY
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:39 pm
- Location: southernINDIANA
Steve,Steve wrote:Aaron,
You wrote:
"Calvinism (for instance) is false and I don't want it taught in my church. I am not talking about a Calvinist coming into my church. I have no problem with that and I would welcome them and they would be viewed by me as a bro or sister. But when it comes to them speaking (teaching or preaching) in my church - I want no part of that."
I think I finally discovered where you and I are not connecting on this issue. According to your post (cited above), you think the church is your church. Therefore, it is only natural for you to have the right to pick and choose whether people who disagree with you should be allowed into your pulpit.
I am not interested in being in your church...nor in mine! I just want to be in Christ's church (you know, that one where He's the Head of everything and everybody?). In His church, He decides who is included, not you or I, nor even our pastors.
You would not permit a Calvinist to teach in your church, but I wonder, would you allow a Calvinist to preach in Christ's church? I don't agree with Calvinism any more than you do, but I would rather be in Christ's church than in yours, and He has a lot of Calvinist preachers in His.
If you had lived in England in the 1800's, would you have boycotted Spurgeon's assemblies? God showed up there as nowhere else at the time. If you had been in London, in a different church, listening to a non-Calvinistic preacher at that time, you would very likely have missed out on what God was doing. In fact, your approach to theologically-uniform fellowship may cause you to miss out on what God is doing today.
At least, however, you won't have to take the risk of getting confused.
You have taken time to point out that I called it "my" church. Maybe that isn't the greatest way to refer to the church congregation that I belong to, but you knew what I meant.
You have got me wrong I believe, or else you know what I'm saying and choose to make it look foolish.
I know that there are a great many Calvinists that the Lord is using to preach his gospel. However when they explain the system by which they believe a man can be saved, I do believe it is another gospel. I don't believe that God wanted us to teach that Jesus died for some of the world (and it may or may not be you or me or my brother, etc.) but that He died for the whole world just as the Word says.
And so of course to protect the new and unlearned Christian from confusion on this point I would not want a Calvinist to teach Calvinist doctrine to people I congregate with in Christ's Church. Why is that so wrong?
I remember when I first got saved I listened to a lot of Christian teaching on the radio, and I listened to David Jeremiah go over Romans 9 and he had me convinced that God chose to send some people to hell apart from any choice they could have made. I was flabbergasted!! He made it sound so true and my concept of God was quite different for awhile. I had a much darker view of the God that I had just come to know, whom I beleived to have been so loving and compassionate. But thanks to the help of my pastor getting me through those scriptures more accurately I came back to the realization that God loves the whole world and died for the sins of the whole world.
This is the kind of confusion I would hope to avoid by not having 2 radically different positions being taught to the same group of people. Some of which may be well versed and some of which may be a babe in Christ such as I was during my confusion.
I will agree with TK, it's sad how little some Christians study the Word of God, but those that don't study so much or are new in Christ don't need to be subjected to contradiction and confusion. It could drive them away.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
But, Aaron, I believe the example you gave about David Jeremiah and your pastor pertfectly makes my point. You heard the wrong view, in my judgment, expressed by Dr. Jeremiah, and were confused until your pastor addressed it and brought balance.
Therefore, whether you had heard Dr. Jeremiah on the radio or in a Sunday School class at your church, it would have made no difference. Your pastor (or anyone else in the church) could simply say, "I have no doubt that Brother David believes that what he is treaching is scriptural, but I see those scriptures differently, in the following way... Now you go study them, with both views in mind, and let the Lord convict you and teach you as to which view is correct." Wouldn't the results be the same, but without the division?
Since millions of Christians hold views just like those of David Jeremiah, don't you think it is worthwhile for you (and other young Christians) to hear them, so you will know what your brothers think and why they think it? What harm, then, would there be in both of these men fellowshiping and sharing in the same fellowship? Unless you feel that the truth cannot hold its own against error, in the open marketplace of ideas, you should have no fear of error reigning triumphant in a church that gives every Christian the dignity of thinking for himself and of owning and expressing his own views of scripture.
If you would answer that it is not the lack of good arguments existing in favor of the true point of view, but it is the failure of many churches to have even one person who can articulate the scriptural teaching in the face of challenges from other viewpoints—well, that is indeed another problem in the churches: biblical illiteracy. We are working on that problem as well.
If a church does not have any man wise enough to refute error introduced by unbalanced teachers, then that church has no one who is qualified to lead it. One of the qualifications of a church leader is that he be one capable of "holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught [that is, of course, the apostolic teachings], that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). If a church has not men in it who fit this qualification, the group should disband and its members should join a group that has qualified leadership.
Therefore, whether you had heard Dr. Jeremiah on the radio or in a Sunday School class at your church, it would have made no difference. Your pastor (or anyone else in the church) could simply say, "I have no doubt that Brother David believes that what he is treaching is scriptural, but I see those scriptures differently, in the following way... Now you go study them, with both views in mind, and let the Lord convict you and teach you as to which view is correct." Wouldn't the results be the same, but without the division?
Since millions of Christians hold views just like those of David Jeremiah, don't you think it is worthwhile for you (and other young Christians) to hear them, so you will know what your brothers think and why they think it? What harm, then, would there be in both of these men fellowshiping and sharing in the same fellowship? Unless you feel that the truth cannot hold its own against error, in the open marketplace of ideas, you should have no fear of error reigning triumphant in a church that gives every Christian the dignity of thinking for himself and of owning and expressing his own views of scripture.
If you would answer that it is not the lack of good arguments existing in favor of the true point of view, but it is the failure of many churches to have even one person who can articulate the scriptural teaching in the face of challenges from other viewpoints—well, that is indeed another problem in the churches: biblical illiteracy. We are working on that problem as well.
If a church does not have any man wise enough to refute error introduced by unbalanced teachers, then that church has no one who is qualified to lead it. One of the qualifications of a church leader is that he be one capable of "holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught [that is, of course, the apostolic teachings], that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). If a church has not men in it who fit this qualification, the group should disband and its members should join a group that has qualified leadership.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_AARONDISNEY
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:39 pm
- Location: southernINDIANA
Hello Steve,
I don't see how my example makes perfectly your point
.
Are you saying unlearned baby Christians are better off knowing truth and wrong doctrine.
I thought of an older lady, as I read your post, that attends church with me. She has served the Lord for many decades and is pleasant as can be and lives by the leading of the Spirit. She is not incredibly educated in every false doctrine, but she knows the Lord and follows Him. Introducing wrong doctrine into her life would not help her at all IMHO, I believe she would outright reject Calvinism right away because she knows the loving God she serves.
I appreciate your views and I'm sure they can work well, but I don't think that mixing truth and wrong doctrine is beneficial to a church family in any case.
God bless,
Aaron
I don't see how my example makes perfectly your point
.Are you saying unlearned baby Christians are better off knowing truth and wrong doctrine.
I thought of an older lady, as I read your post, that attends church with me. She has served the Lord for many decades and is pleasant as can be and lives by the leading of the Spirit. She is not incredibly educated in every false doctrine, but she knows the Lord and follows Him. Introducing wrong doctrine into her life would not help her at all IMHO, I believe she would outright reject Calvinism right away because she knows the loving God she serves.
I appreciate your views and I'm sure they can work well, but I don't think that mixing truth and wrong doctrine is beneficial to a church family in any case.
God bless,
Aaron
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: