Was The Church You Attend Built by Jesus?

[HankD]

So I'm not a full-fledged Landmarker, but I confess that I do have Landmark tendencies. So does a tendency taint the whole loaf?

NO!

HankD

 

[michael-acts17:11]

The Biblical church & Body of Christ cannot be referring to the type of local church which we have within our culture. God added to the church those who were being saved. So, does God add unregenerates to His church? The church is made up of regenerate persons who are in a covenant relationship with God through the sacrifice of His Son & sealed by the Spirit. This could NOT have applied to the apostles before Christ died or the Spirit was sent. Christ referred to the church in the future tense. The New Testament Church could not begin until the Law was fulfilled. Christ died under the Law in order to free us from the Law. The true church, while visible when believers assemble, is a spiritual body bound by the Holy Spirit, not by handwritten roles & man-made covenants. Modern churches more resemble small businesses & social clubs than the Biblical church. Which First Century church identified itself by any other name than the name of Christ? What is on our church signs? This may seem like nitpicking, but I'm making a point.

Acts 2:47 ...the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Matthew 16:18 ....upon this rock I will build my church

When is the local church a church? Only when they assemble? If they are still the church when not assembled, then when do they become a true church & when do they cease to be the church? What are the Biblical requirements for a local assembly to be what you believe to be a true church?

 

[DHK]

The Biblical church & Body of Christ cannot be referring to the type of local church which we have within our culture.

"within our culture"???
Do you allow culture to dictate the interpretation of the Word of God?
If it means one thing in one culture does the meaning of the Word of God change in another culture? Are we that accommodating? Is that like using goat's milk for an element of the Lord's Table because one culture is more familiar with the milk of a goat than they are with the juice of a grape. We just accommodate the Bible to their culture; change it according to the culture. That is not my way rightly dividing the word of truth.

God added to the church those who were being saved.

Context shows that God added to the local church at Jerusalem those who were being saved. It was that particular church being spoken of, not some nebulous universal undefinable church.

So, does God add unregenerates to His church?

Who made that claim? I suppose that might be true of a universal church.

The church is made up of regenerate persons who are in a covenant relationship with God through the sacrifice of His Son & sealed by the Spirit.

Which is true of MY local church. If it is not true of your local church you are in big trouble. Is your local church full of unregenerates?

This could NOT have applied to the apostles before Christ died or the Spirit was sent. Christ referred to the church in the future tense. The New Testament Church could not begin until the Law was fulfilled. Christ died under the Law in order to free us from the Law.

The word church simply means "assembly." The entire book of Acts is a book of transition. The pastoral epistles gave more information and more order to the churches, information that the churches before that time didn't have. But that didn't disqualify those previous churches as churches did it?

The true church,

My church is the true church; does that make your church a false church. You are in trouble aren't you. We are true to Christ and to his word, as every Bible-believing church should be. Use the world "assembly." The true assembly? Which assembly is true? They all are if Christ is the head, and the Word of God is kept faithfully. You use this word out of context.

while visible when believers assemble, is a spiritual body bound by the Holy Spirit, not by handwritten roles & man-made covenants.

The ekklesia (assembly) is only visible. It is an assembly. Yes, we are spiritually bound by the Holy Spirit. The reason we have a statement of faith is that people like yourself might know that we are not Charismatic or associated with any other group. You can read our statement of faith quickly and discern that we believe the Bible, and that Christ is our head. Do you really believe that is wrong?

Modern churches more resemble small businesses & social clubs than the Biblical church.

I feel sorry for you if you belong to a church that is defined like that. Ours isn't. It has a purpose to carry out the Great Commission and also the two ordinances that Christ gave us (Baptism and the Lord's Supper).

Which First Century church identified itself by any other name than the name of Christ? What is on our church signs? This may seem like nitpicking, but I'm making a point.

Yes you are making a point. Your point is that you have just turned to the church fathers as your authority instead of the Bible.

Acts 2:47 ...the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Context--the local church at Jerusalem

Matthew 16:18 ....upon this rock I will build my church

And he has. Every Bible-believing church is his church. He is the head. And he is the foundation. 1Cor.3:11. Without him the church is not a church.

When is the local church a church? Only when they assemble? If they are still the church when not assembled, then when do they become a true church & when do they cease to be the church? What are the Biblical requirements for a local assembly to be what you believe to be a true church?

A church is composed of baptized (immersed) believers who have voluntarily assembled themselves together for the purpose of obeying the Great Commission and carrying out the ordinances of Christ (the Lord's Supper and Baptism).

My children go to school. They are members of the school they go to. Are they members only when the school is in session, or are they members when school is out. Are they members 24/7 or just the actual 30 hours a week that they are being taught. Which one?

When a man takes out a membership at a rec. center, it doesn't mean that they spend every waking hour there.

When you sign a contract with your employer, you may have a 40 hour work week and are an employee, but you don't "meet" at your workplace 24/7.

I don't see why this should pose any logistical problems for you when the same concept is carried out in every other facet of your life??
We assemble together every time the church or assembly assembles.

"Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together."
That is the command that is given to us.

 

[J.D.]

The highlighted part caught my attention, because I thought a pre-tribber by definition was a U-churcher (the Church distinct from Israel).

Don't want to derail the discussion, just an observation.

I grew up in West Tennessee, which was ground zero for Landmarkism. Nobody had to teach it; it was so pervasive, it didn't have to be taught.

The main thing I remember being taught is that Baptists were basically apostolic in origin. That we could trace our ancestry all the way back. And that every other denomination was a Johnny-come-lately.

The two big things were successionism and perpetuity, as I remember.

I'm a perpetuity kind of guy,but succession is not a hill on which I'm ready to die.

So I'm not a full-fledged Landmarker, but I confess that I do have Landmark tendencies. So does a tendency taint the whole loaf?

Again, my experience points to just the opposite. [edit: I guess that shows us how badly we all need to speak to each other, comparing our regional experiences to grow together). All of the dispy pastors I've had were also strong local-church-onlyists. In fact, one of them almost refused our call because our statement of faith defined the church as both universal and local. I don't think any of them were full-on Landmarkers (I think full Landmarkers are also "Baptist Briders", as was JR Graves) but all of them fully endorsed and recommended Carroll's "Trail of Blood".

I dropped perpetuity due to the difficulty of connecting the amorphous continential anabaptists with the well-organized and definable English Baptists. But as you said, that is getting a little off topic and is not the hill I want to die on either.

 

[J.D.]

I don't believe that there are two people anywhere that agree on every point of doctrine. If there are then one of two things has happened: one) the person is mindless (he doesn't think for himself), or two) he is a copycat, a dedicated follower of a man instead of Christ. Both are wrong.

Being one in Christ doesn't mean we check our minds at the door of the church. We can still have our doctrinal differences. It simply means that we are all one in Christ. I believe it refers that we are all the true sheep in Christ and that there are no pretenders among us.

Your words are true and I hope that you and your church puts that into practice. I know that the majority of Baptist churches are not the type of extreme separatists I'm concerned about, but I also know that the extremists are around.

Fundamentalism has come to be known not by what it stands for, but by who it is against, and the against-list too often includes people that are sound bible-believing christians - not liberal at all - but who differ on some doctrinal issue. Which is why I find myself identifying as a fundamentalist less and less.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

DHK: Scripture says "the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved". I see nothing of baptism or of a vote of men in that verse. Do you also believe in baptism for salvation? When God adds us to the Body, we are not signing a contract which can be made or broken by us. We are added(done to us, not by us) to THE church, not A church. Any local church can & may have unregenerate members. Anyone can claim salvation, whether rightly or wrongly, and be accepted into membership. Such membership is not an act of God; but of men. Also remember that just because two passages or doctrines seem to be in contradiction does not mean that they are not both right. Use God’s wisdom when faced with such paradoxes. Examples of which would be Christ’s deity and humanity, God’s grace and justice, man’s total depravity and longing for a Savior, God’s unity and Trinity, and many others. The church is the Body of Christ, made up of individual believers who assemble(originally informally) for exhortation & ministry.

Many well meaning persons use the societal or dictionary meaning of ekklesia as the foundation of their doctrine of a local church membership and a local body of Christ. This method excludes the art of Biblical interpretation by the comparison of Scripture with Scripture and excludes direct teachings by the apostle Paul on the terms of church membership. How would scripture on the body and church of Christ be interpreted if the word οἰκοδομή(building), which is interpreted as a physical structure, were used in its strictest meaning? It would fundamentally change the meaning of 1 Corinthians 3:9, 2 Corinthians 5:1, and Ephesians 2:21. Or what if the meaning of βαπτίζω(baptiso), which means to immerse or to wash , was always interpreted as physical water baptism? Then what of the baptism in the Holy Spirit by Christ? Words have definite meanings, but their meanings cannot always be interpreted concretely when God uses them to describe spiritual concepts; especially when He uses those same words in contexts which do not perfectly fit their primary physical meaning.
According to man's wisdom, a church is a religious organization where one must attend in order to serve and worship God. The church has various rules governing general conduct, what days of the week members are commanded to assemble, how members are or are not to worship, and how often members must attend to be "in good standing" with the church and with God. To join with such a church, one must receive water baptism by a church of that denomination, take an oath with the church, and receive a majority vote of the currently assembled members. Not only are there absolutely no passages in Scripture which soundly support these doctrines, but God’s Word clearly contradicts or condemns such teachings. God performs the act of uniting us with the Body of Christ through the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Scripture states that Christ gave Himself for the assembly and that we are all members of His Body. When modern doctrines are consistently applied, what would be the state of one who has renounced his membership with a local church? Would he no longer be one for whom Jesus gave Himself? Would he no longer be a part of the Body of Christ? If the local church is the local Body of Christ (versus universal Body of all believers), then he would be outside of the Body. What God has accomplished, no man can annul! How can a doctrine be correct when its logical conclusion is absurd? It may be absurd, but it is exactly what the Catholic Church believe concerning the Body and the “Church”. This fact alone should cause us to pause and examine our church doctrines. God has proclaimed the doctrines of the church through the apostle Paul in no uncertain terms.
The only Scriptures which deal with church membership state that it is an act of God by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The only Scriptural covenant is that of the Blood of Christ. Any man-made church covenant, vote of men, or water baptism (for church membership) is to His Covenant as baptismal regeneration is to salvation. A church covenant is a statement that we must be bound by something more than the blood and brotherhood of Christ; by something of our own devices. These devices are man’s attempt to acquire authority which God never gave us. When the church at Corinth disciplined a member of their assembly, they ceased communication with him. This was the only option they had because they did not have the modern view of church membership. Becoming a member of the Body/church is an act of God, just as salvation is an act of God.
Christ’s church is described as a local assembly, all believers in a city, all believers in a region, and all members of the Body of Christ. Biblical examples of the local assembly do not invalidate its teachings on the church as the universal and visible Body of Christ; the rejection of which is based upon the fear of becoming ecumenical or of resembling the universal doctrine of the Catholic Church rather than an honest study and total acceptance of Scripture. God's Word also clearly demonstrates the freedom of believers to assemble and worship on whatever day and in whatever way we choose (Rom 14:1-6). The course and manner of worship in many of today’s churches is based solely upon tradition and not command, and yet we are told that we will not be “right with God” if we fail to assemble at the appointed times. God has outlined freedom and authority of the individual, not rules and authority of any religious group. If He had, then the Pharisees, Catholic Church, and Protestant churches would have it right.

 

[DHK]

DHK: Scripture says "the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved". I see nothing of baptism or of a vote of men in that verse. Do you also believe in baptism for salvation? When God adds us to the Body, we are not signing a contract which can be made or broken by us. We are added(done to us, not by us) to THE church, not A church.

You are very wrong on this. People are added to the local church, and people are taken out of the local church, such as was done in 1Cor.5:1 on the strong advice of Paul. The offending member, who had committed incest, was by the membership of the entire church,
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5:4-5)
--He was voted out of the local church at Corinth, and would stay out until he had repented, and the fruit of repentance could be seen.
--As for the church located in Jerusalem (there was only one), when people got saved they were added to it after they were baptized.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)
--Baptism is a command to be obeyed after one is saved. It is not a requirement for salvation.
Paul writing to the church at Corinth said this:

Now *ye* are Christ's body, and members in particular. (1 Corinthians 12:27) Darby
--The definite article describing "body" is not in the Greek.
It could say: "Now ye are a body in Christ and members in particular.
The fact is that every Biblical church is a body of Christ, and that is what Paul was demonstrating in that chapter. Every church has members. Every member has gifts which need to be used if the body, the church or assembly is going to be effective. It is obvious that he is speaking of a local assembly.

And if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; and if one member be glorified, all the members rejoice with it. (1 Corinthians 12:26)
--You don't suffer when the members of the church in Timbuktu suffer. In fact you don't even know about it. How could you? You suffer when the members of your local church suffer. We had a death in our church recently. We all suffered. In other words we were there to comfort the family of the one that was grieving for their loved one. It affected everyone. But it didn't affect anyone in your church. In fact you didn't even care. Why? Because you didn't know. The verse can only apply to a local church, as do all the previous verses.

Any local church can & may have unregenerate members.

Not true. Man can fool man, but he cannot fool God. A local church is composed of regenerated baptized members. If a person is not regenerated he is not a member by default. God knows he is not a member; he is only a pretender.

The same truth is repeated by John:
They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have surely remained with us, but that they might be made manifest that none are of us. (1 John 2:19)

Anyone can claim salvation, whether rightly or wrongly, and be accepted into membership. Such membership is not an act of God; but of men.

Their carnality will be found out. They will not stay. I trust the Word of God in these matters. I have been around long enough to know that the carnality of the unsaved cannot exist among those that are saved.

Also remember that just because two passages or doctrines seem to be in contradiction does not mean that they are not both right.

That is why there is no such thing as an unassembled assembly. There is no contradiction in the Bible. The invention of this doctrine comes from adding to the English word "church" other meanings that are not in the Greek. Like I have already mentioned, you won't find "universal church" in any first century koine Greek or classical Greek literature anywhere. You can't demonstrate your case. Words have meanings. Ekklesia means assembly all the time.

Use God’s wisdom when faced with such paradoxes. Examples of which would be Christ’s deity and humanity, God’s grace and justice, man’s total depravity and longing for a Savior, God’s unity and Trinity, and many others. The church is the Body of Christ, made up of individual believers who assemble(originally informally) for exhortation & ministry.

You almost got it right. "The church (assembly) is A body of Christ made of individual believers who assemble for exhortation and ministry." Very good. The key word is assemble. They must assemble.

Many well meaning persons use the societal or dictionary meaning of ekklesia as the foundation of their doctrine of a local church membership and a local body of Christ. This method excludes the art of Biblical interpretation by the comparison of Scripture with Scripture and excludes direct teachings by the apostle Paul on the terms of church membership.

No it does not. It excludes heretical meanings of Johnny-come-lately's who want to force interpretations that are not Biblical. The word ekklesia means assembly, congregation, and that is all. Demonstrate to me that it means anything else but. Show me through Greek lexicons going back to the first century in Biblical and classical literature that it had any other meaning but a physical and local assembly. The only thing that you are doing is reading your own bias into the Scriptures.

How would scripture on the body and church of Christ be interpreted if the word οἰκοδομή(building), which is interpreted as a physical structure, were used in its strictest meaning?

Interpret it as it should be--according to the context it is used in. Church buildings were not used until approximately 300 years after the apostles death. So your point is moot. The fact that the word "church" in modern English terminology can have about half a dozen meanings has no bearing on this topic. The question is what does "ekklesia" mean. That is the word that is translated "church" consistently. And every time that it is used it means assembly. It always means assembly.

It would fundamentally change the meaning of 1 Corinthians 3:9, 2 Corinthians 5:1, and Ephesians 2:21.

We aren't speaking of those words are we?

Or what if the meaning of βαπτίζω(baptiso), which means to immerse or to wash , was always interpreted as physical water baptism? Then what of the baptism in the Holy Spirit by Christ? Words have definite meanings, but their meanings cannot always be interpreted concretely when God uses them to describe spiritual concepts; especially when He uses those same words in contexts which do not perfectly fit their primary physical meaning.

Baptism does mean immerse, and I don't know any place where it could not be translated immerse either. Why does this cause a problem for you. It seems that you are hung up on phrases that you are not used to, instead of looking behind the theology that the phrase represents.

According to man's wisdom, a church is a religious organization where one must attend in order to serve and worship God. The church has various rules governing general conduct, what days of the week members are commanded to assemble, how members are or are not to worship, and how often members must attend to be "in good standing" with the church and with God. To join with such a church, one must receive water baptism by a church of that denomination, take an oath with the church, and receive a majority vote of the currently assembled members. Not only are there absolutely no passages in Scripture which soundly support these doctrines, but God’s Word clearly contradicts or condemns such teachings. God performs the act of uniting us with the Body of Christ through the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

That is your definition wherein you have added some things that are not Biblical and I would definitely disagree with.
But your last statement is just as wrong. An ekklesia (assembly) cannot be universal. And its membership is not contingent on the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

[DHK]

Scripture states that Christ gave Himself for the assembly and that we are all members of His Body.

Is that Acts 20:28 you are referring to? He was speaking to the assembly at Ephesus, or to the leaders of that assembly. And we are not all members of the assembly at Ephesus are we? We are not all members of that body of believers at Ephesus. Your statement does not make sense according to Scripture. It is a man-made theology with no basis in Scripture.

When modern doctrines are consistently applied,

That is the problem. You have a modern doctrine. I stick to the Bible, not modern and revised doctrines.

what would be the state of one who has renounced his membership with a local church? Would he no longer be one for whom Jesus gave Himself? Would he no longer be a part of the Body of Christ?

We had a person transfer his membership from one local body of believers to our local assembly. Does this baffle you? Both assemblies have Christ as the foundation of the assembly (1Cor.3:11), and are Biblically based, as all churches should be.

If the local church is the local Body of Christ (versus universal Body of all believers), then he would be outside of the Body.

You are stuck on this word "body." He would be outside a body of Christ, a body of believers, an assembly of believers, a local church, and only if he failed to transfer his membership, in which case he would be being disobedient to the Lord.
However he would not be: outside of the Bride of Christ, outside the family of God, outside the Kingdom of God, not one of the children of God, etc. He would not be disowned by God. What makes you think that?

What God has accomplished, no man can annul!

Never inferred that man could.

How can a doctrine be correct when its logical conclusion is absurd?

It isn't absurd. What is absurd is to believe in terminology that is impossible when put together: unassembled assembly; to believe in an assembly that cannot function and has no purpose.

It may be absurd, but it is exactly what the Catholic Church believe concerning the Body and the “Church”. This fact alone should cause us to pause and examine our church doctrines. God has proclaimed the doctrines of the church through the apostle Paul in no uncertain terms.

Your belief in a universal puts your beliefs more in common with the RCC than me. I believe in a local church, not in the creed of the RCC which says; "and in the holy "Catholic church" world without end, amen." That is part of their creed, and apparently yours also. I used to be Catholic. The word means "universal." Paul, not once in any of his epistles, teaches anything close to a universal church. The word means assembly. If only you can see that.

The only Scriptures which deal with church membership state that it is an act of God by the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

1Cor.5:1ff tell us otherwise.
Christ tells us otherwise in Matthew 18 when he tells us the steps of church discipline. Have you not read these passages?
Acts 1:15
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
--Notice: the number of names, not the number of people--indicating a membership roll or something similar. There was a reason for the word "names" being used.

The only Scriptural covenant is that of the Blood of Christ. Any man-made church covenant, vote of men, or water baptism (for church membership) is to His Covenant as baptismal regeneration is to salvation.

If you are accusing me of believing in baptismal regeneration it is a false accusation, and something that ought not to be raised on a Baptist forum. Why would you even suggest this?
--Many churches have covenants. Many don't. Your opinion is noted.
--Show me a church throughout history that has not used baptism as a door to church membership: Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, etc. Virtually every church Protestant and Catholic all throughout the centuries have used baptism as a door for church membership. And so did the early churches. See Acts 2:41. You have both history and Scripture against you.

A church covenant is a statement that we must be bound by something more than the blood and brotherhood of Christ; by something of our own devices. These devices are man’s attempt to acquire authority which God never gave us. When the church at Corinth disciplined a member of their assembly, they ceased communication with him. This was the only option they had because they did not have the modern view of church membership. Becoming a member of the Body/church is an act of God, just as salvation is an act of God.

I don't think you have a very good idea of what a church covenant is. I have been a member of a few churches, all of which had a church covenant. If you are not well-acquainted with them, you are in no position to speak on them. BTW, where do you work? Have you ever signed a contract with a company (covenant)?
--You believe the church at Corinth was not Biblically based? News to me.

Christ’s church is described as a local assembly, all believers in a city, all believers in a region, and all members of the Body of Christ.

Who is the pastor? His name? Address? Phone #?
Who are the deacons? What is the address of the church?
I would like to see where the members assemble--a place large enough to accommodate all the believers of the world?? That is quite a trick!!
An assembly must assemble. You deceive yourself by the very words that you use. If it is an assembly where does it assemble? Be truthful.

Biblical examples of the local assembly do not invalidate its teachings on the church as the universal and visible Body of Christ;

Yes they do; and not only they, but the fact that there is not example of this so-called universal church, no teaching on it, nothing. It seems to be some modern existential teaching of modern days. It certainly doesn't fit the definition of the word "assembly."

the rejection of which is based upon the fear of becoming ecumenical or of resembling the universal doctrine of the Catholic Church rather than an honest study and total acceptance of Scripture.

It is rejected based on a sound exegesis of Scripture. It is nowhere found in Scripture. The definition you speak of is nowhere found in the Greek. You lack evidence.

God's Word also clearly demonstrates the freedom of believers to assemble and worship on whatever day and in whatever way we choose (Rom 14:1-6). The course and manner of worship in many of today’s churches is based solely upon tradition and not command, and yet we are told that we will not be “right with God” if we fail to assemble at the appointed times.

What does the Scripture say about that?
And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (Hebrews 10:24-25)
--As the manner of some is. That means we assemble ourselves together as our assembly has appointed the time to come together. The assembly can't please everyone, so they have to set times that are suitable. There used to be a time when this nation was being settled that there were circuit riding preachers. The believers had to assemble whenever the preacher could get to their area. They had no other choice if they wanted to hear the Word of God. In our day we have so many luxuries we have become complacent and do more complaining than praising God for the freedom that we do have to worship God. Perhaps if God called you to Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Saudia Arabia, or some of these other countries, you would have a different perspective on when you can meet.

God has outlined freedom and authority of the individual, not rules and authority of any religious group. If He had, then the Pharisees, Catholic Church, and Protestant churches would have it right.

God gave the authority to the local church. God ordained the institution of the local church. The one who fights against the local church fights against God. You would do well not to take up that fight.

 

[Tom Butler]

I don't believe that there are two people anywhere that agree on every point of doctrine. If there are then one of two things has happened: one) the person is mindless (he doesn't think for himself), or two) he is a copycat, a dedicated follower of a man instead of Christ. Both are wrong.

Being one in Christ doesn't mean we check our minds at the door of the church. We can still have our doctrinal differences. It simply means that we are all one in Christ. I believe it refers that we are all the true sheep in Christ and that there are no pretenders among us.

This is an important point for us all. The church I serve is certainly conservative theologically. But from there, it's quite diverse. There are probably a half-dozen open Calvinists in our congregation--a tiny minority.
I would guess that the majority are dispensationalists. There are a few historical pre-mils (I'm one of them), one mid-tribber that I know of, and maybe a closet A-mil or two.

I'm a closed communionist, but I'm certain I don't have much company in my church.

In spite of that diversity, the unity among our members is quite remarkable. Part of the reason is that we place a high priority on that unity. That doesn't mean we sacrifice principles for the sake of unity. But that desire for unity does come into play.

At this point in the life of our church, I would say we are "one" to a degree higher than ever before. Even though we don't all see eye to eye on everything.

 

[DHK]

This is an important point for us all. The church I serve is certainly conservative theologically. But from there, it's quite diverse. There are probably a half-dozen open Calvinists in our congregation--a tiny minority.
I would guess that the majority are dispensationalists. There are a few historical pre-mils (I'm one of them), one mid-tribber that I know of, and maybe a closet A-mil or two.

I'm a closed communionist, but I'm certain I don't have much company in my church.

In spite of that diversity, the unity among our members is quite remarkable. Part of the reason is that we place a high priority on that unity. That doesn't mean we sacrifice principles for the sake of unity. But that desire for unity does come into play.

At this point in the life of our church, I would say we are "one" to a degree higher than ever before. Even though we don't all see eye to eye on everything.

I agree with that. There is nothing wrong with having different opinions on many different topics. We can agree to disagree and still have fellowship one with another. I know that I won't twist arms in my church to sway everyone to my way of thinking on this topic either. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss it and still have unity.

 

[jbh28]

I agree with that. There is nothing wrong with having different opinions on many different topics. We can agree to disagree and still have fellowship one with another. I know that I won't twist arms in my church to sway everyone to my way of thinking on this topic either. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss it and still have unity.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Tom Butler]

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
So I'm not a full-fledged Landmarker, but I confess that I do have Landmark tendencies. So does a tendency taint the whole loaf?

NO!

HankD

Whew! Boy, am I relieved. For a minute there....