Is Cal/Non-Cal important enough to divide?

[12strings]

Tom recently described the SBC, and his church, thusly:

(Originally Posted by Tom Butler) I think it is correct to say that Calvinism is growing among Southern Baptists. And, at one time, I thought that this would be the next big battle issue for the Convention. And although there are occasional potshots here and that, that battle has not yet materialized on a significant scale. My own congregation is sort of a microcosm of the convention. We have a number of DoGs, including at least three deacons. On occasion the subject will come up in discussion, but so far it has not been a divisive issue.

In fact, we all get along quite nicely. Just like all those diverse churches in the SBC, who are wiling to cooperate for the sake of the gospel.

-Main Question: Is this a positive state for an individual church, or a group of churches as a whole, to be in? I for one would say yes, as it also described my church. (also SBC)

-Icon responded to Tom with this statement:

Sadly there are many who do not know the bible well enough to even know what is at issue.

-If I am reading Icon correctly, it seems he would say that this is not really a good state for things to be in, as it means the Cals are not being direct enough in their attemts to convince everyone else of the truth and importance of their beliefs. (if I have mis-read Icon, I appologize, but I'm sure there are others who would say this as well).

-If you are Cal, should Cals force the Cal issue in their churches and denominations?

-If you are non-cal, should we simply form separate churches and conventions for the Cals?

 

[mandym]

-If you are non-cal, should we simply form separate churches and conventions for the Cals?

Depends. It becomes necessary to divide when we see the militant attitudes that we see on this board. Division is never created because of the differences between the two. But because of the attitude by some.

When you take the position that Calvinism is the gospel then there is not room for unity.

 

[12strings]

Depends. It becomes necessary to divide when we see the militant attitudes that we see on this board. Division is never created because of the differences between the two. But because of the attitude by some.

When you take the position that Calvinism is the gospel then there is not room for unity.

-There is much truth in what you say. Are you basically saying that it is sinful attitudes that necessitate divide, or could there be a case in which two groups peacefully and respectfully decide to divide a church because the members who love and care for each other cannot agree on this issue, and it distracts from other ministry?

-For example, I heard of one person at a conference (who would probably be described as being aggresivly calvinist) say that we may need to see some "good" church splits on this issue for the good of the people and churches involved. He got a lot of flack for saying that, but does he have a point?

 

[mandym]

There is much truth in what you say. Are you basically saying that it is sinful attitudes that necessitate divide, or could there be a case in which two groups peacefully and respectfully decide to divide a church because the members who love and care for each other cannot agree on this issue, and it distracts from other ministry?

The latter could be true but the first one is usually the scenario. Claiming that Calvinism is the gospel is not a doctrine. It is an attitude and it divides.

 

[convicted1]

Tom recently described the SBC, and his church, thusly:



-Main Question: Is this a positive state for an individual church, or a group of churches as a whole, to be in? I for one would say yes, as it also described my church. (also SBC)

-Icon responded to Tom with this statement:


-If I am reading Icon correctly, it seems he would say that this is not really a good state for things to be in, as it means the Cals are not being direct enough in their attemts to convince everyone else of the truth and importance of their beliefs. (if I have mis-read Icon, I appologize, but I'm sure there are others who would say this as well).

-If you are Cal, should Cals force the Cal issue in their churches and denominations?

-If you are non-cal, should we simply form separate churches and conventions for the Cals?

Regardless of how much each church loves one another, we all will disagree on certain things. Take for instance, in the ORB associations, some churches will exclude a woman for cutting her hair, while others do not. Some will exclude a woman for wearing pants/shorts, others may not. I am not taking the "legalist route", just giving an example, so please do not think I am rabbitt trailing here. At my home church, we disagree on certain things, but we don't sweat the small stuff. We all agree that Jesus IS Lord, and that He is our Saviour as well. Now, we all agree that we disagree with Calvinism, but if someone did agree with it, I see no reason to excommunicate them on that basis alone. There is way too much to be in agreement with to let something like Cal Vs Non-Cal cause a division; provided neither side tries to push their agenda on the other side.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello 12 strings,

-Icon responded to Tom with this statement:

Quote:
Sadly there are many who do not know the bible well enough to even know what is at issue.

If I am reading Icon correctly, it seems he would say that this is not really a good state for things to be in, as it means the Cals are not being direct enough in their attemts to convince everyone else of the truth and importance of their beliefs. (if I have mis-read Icon, I appologize, but I'm sure there are others who would say this as well).

This is a large topic for discussion. I am not certain that there is any one correct response. I have been a member in 4 different churches as a christian,and have had an opportunity to visit many others throughout the country.

12Strings.....what I meant was that I would like to see all churches stronger biblically than what I have observed. It is really a mix sometimes.

First church I was in was a Conservative Baptist church....the doctrinal statement was shallow like this one.
http://www.cbamerica.org/cba_Resources/Doctrinal_Statement.php

I was able to learn and grow there.....but eventually it became necessary to move out of that church:applause: 3-4 years
As my understanding grew....I sought out like-minded brethren.
I was given pastoral advise that it might be better to do so.Several of us were getting quite fired up, doctrinally and evangelistically but it was becoming an issue on several fronts.
I have several interesting anecdotal stories....but here is some issues that came into play
1] bible studies had some very strange reactions ....several of us were being silenced by the deacons:laugh:
2] the Pastor avoided many texts ,so as to not offend people

3] one time when called to a members house to help witness to mormon missionaries.....the church members almost got more startled than the confused mormon missionaries...when we spoke of God's eternal purpose:love2:
4]we put the pastor in an awkward position without even trying to! He liked all of us because we were active at the nursing home ministry, sunday school, etc,,,, but we were hungry for more teaching and some of the deacons were not up to speed...it was embarassing
5] several deacons wanted him to meet with us...we did...they asked questions....we answered biblically.....they were speechless...it got awkward.
6]eventually went to a few churches and family bible conferences where we met other mature more mature saints who helped us understand what was taking place:1_grouphug:
7] we made a godly appeal to some of the leaders.....they could not grasp what was important to us....they did not see any of the issues...instead they made many unbiblical statements

12 strings...when I visit an evangelical church.....I am not shocked when I hear these other views. I have been exposed to them before.

There are many biblical principles that come into play...that need to be in the fore-front....here are some...

12Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

13Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

14And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.
15And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.

16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

17And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

16Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

I do not believe that it is a calvinists job to convince those who are in an unteachable mode...that is to cast pearls before swine.mt7:6.....We are to serve the Lord and be faithful to His truth...and to give a reason for the hope that is in us.

I can blend in with other christians......sometimes that might mean taking a back seat and just praying for them...for example

Lets say...webdog, or QF is in a bagel store witnessing to two random persons...and using evidential apologetics,jn 3:16, and 2 pet.3:9 out of context...but they explain that we are all sinners,and Jesus came to save sinners. I will be supportive of their efforts for the gospels sake...as much as is possible. I will not oppose or correct their presentation like might take place in here.
I know that God is sovereign....so any mistakes , or error will be overcome if the Spirit is drawing them anyway.

Having been in three calvinistic churches....I am saddened that some of the members do not seem to have a sense of urgency about several areas of the christian life as I believe we are called to. It is better to have a common confession of faith...yes....but that is no guarentee of snooth sailing either.

 

[convicted1]

Brother Iconoclast,

It's posts like yours that ignites the flames that will devour a church in a case such as the OP speaks about. Your post comes across as DoG=spiritual maturity, and anything else=spiritual immaturity. It's like the "strong meat" is Calvinism, and the sincere milk is anything else. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but that is the way your post came across to me.

I used to work with a woman who was the pen-ultimate WoF/charismatic you'd ever dread meeting. She made the same sort of came that your post implies, only she used the "name it claim it, blab it grab it". She stated that once you got the that level of "spiritualality" she had(paraphrasing what she stated), you'll never want to go back. It's seems that is what you were implying. However, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. If I am wrong, please accept my sincerest apology.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Brother Iconoclast,

It's posts like yours that ignites the flames that will devour a church in a case such as the OP speaks about. Your post comes across as DoG=spiritual maturity, and anything else=spiritual immaturity. It's like the "strong meat" is Calvinism, and the sincere milk is anything else. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but that is the way your post came across to me.

I used to work with a woman who was the pen-ultimate WoF/charismatic you'd ever dread meeting. She made the same sort of came that your post implies, only she used the "name it claim it, blab it grab it". She stated that once you got the that level of "spiritualality" she had(paraphrasing what she stated), you'll never want to go back. It's seems that is what you were implying. However, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. If I am wrong, please accept my sincerest apology.

Well Well Willis....the man is telling you what he believes & that offends you in some way does it? I happen to agree with the brother. I have had similar experiences, people who sit in churches without absorbing the bible. pastors avoiding clear teaching of scripture so as not to offend anyone ....even had a pastor asking me why I wanted to pursue the orthodox historical Christianity ....he meant DoG. And yes Ive had to leave & I admonished a brother for wanting to stay there. Therefore I do not go to blended churches. In summation, you go to your church & I will go to mine.Thats religious liberty, right.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

-If I am reading Icon correctly, it seems he would say that this is not really a good state for things to be in, as it means the Cals are not being direct enough in their attempts to convince everyone else of the truth and importance of their beliefs. (if I have mis-read Icon, I appologize, but I'm sure there are others who would say this as well).

BINGO!

 

[Winman]

What did God himself say?

Amo 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

 

[jonathan.borland]

When you take the position that Calvinism is the gospel then there is not room for unity.

Well said, brother!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well said, brother!

how bout if you take the position that you see the teachings of salvation by grace in the gospel?

 

[seekingthetruth]

If a gay person started coming to our church, I would favor welcoming them, but not letting them join as a member, which in effect would condone their beliefs. I would encourage them to keep coming so that they can absorb the truth of saving Grace available to all men that come.

It should be the same for Calvinists. I would strongly disagree with allowing a Calvinist join our church as a member, which in effect would condone their beliefs. But I would strongly encourage them to keep coming so that they can absorb the truth of saving Grace that is available to all men that come.

I would also say the same for people that believe in conditional salvation. If they don't believe that a saved person is sealed for eternity by the HS, and that salvation is based on faith plus works, then they need to absorb some truths before they join our church as a member.

John

 

[preacher4truth]

If a gay person started coming to our church, I would favor welcoming them, but not letting them join as a member, which in effect would condone their beliefs. I would encourage them to keep coming so that they can absorb the truth of saving Grace available to all men that come.

It should be the same for Calvinists. I would strongly disagree with allowing a Calvinist join our church as a member, which in effect would condone their beliefs. But I would strongly encourage them to keep coming so that they can absorb the truth of saving Grace that is available to all men that come.

I would also say the same for people that believe in conditional salvation. If they don't believe that a saved person is sealed for eternity by the HS, and that salvation is based on faith plus works, then they need to absorb some truths before they join our church as a member.

John

So you've just called the salvation of Calvinists into question, and lump them in as lost in the same sense of a practicing ______________.

You're out of control here and this is where I will draw the line with you. You've just named a great deal of Christians as being lost.

Tell you what, with your spirit here, I wouldn't allow you to join the church until you bore fruit of repentance and of a heart that has experienced regenerating grace. I wouldn't want to condone your behavior as being Christian and give others the wrong idea.

 

[seekingthetruth]

So you've just called the salvation of Calvinists into question, and lump them in as lost in the same sense of a practicing ______________.

You're out of control here and this is where I will draw the line with you. You've just named a great deal of Christians as being lost.

Tell you what, with your spirit here, I wouldn't allow you to join the church until you bore fruit of repentance and of a heart that has experienced regenerating grace. I wouldn't want to condone your behavior as being Christian and give others the wrong idea.

I never said they were lost.

There are alot of practicing RCC's that are saved, but i would not want them to join our church and infest our members with RCC rituals as long as they are still practicing those rituals.

Same with Calvinists. I am not questioning their salvation, just their teachings. And i would not want our church to be infested with Calvinistic teachings, whether saved or not!

So yes, i favor denying membership to any CHRISTIAN that believes in a different path to salvation than we do. If they teach contrary to what we teach then they need to find a "like-minded" church, not ours.

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

So you've just called the salvation of Calvinists into question, and lump them in as lost in the same sense of a practicing ______________.

You're out of control here and this is where I will draw the line with you. You've just named a great deal of Christians as being lost.

Tell you what, with your spirit here, I wouldn't allow you to join the church until you bore fruit of repentance and of a heart that has experienced regenerating grace. I wouldn't want to condone your behavior as being Christian and give others the wrong idea.

Pastor, respectfully, I think the world of you, but i would not attend your church, much less want to join it while it teaches a doctrine that I believe to be unbiblical.

I would find a like-minded church.

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

This is just a theory of mine, based on the attitudes of the BB.

It seems to me that Calvinists would try to infiltrate a regular church in order to convert the regular church to Calvinism. That seems to be the goal here on the BB.

Regular Christians would just find a regular church, and leave the Cals alone.

John

 

[jonathan.borland]

how bout if you take the position that you see the teachings of salvation by grace in the gospel?

Of course salvation is by grace through faith. No Christian denies that!

 

[seekingthetruth]

So you've just called the salvation of Calvinists into question, and lump them in as lost in the same sense of a practicing ______________.

You're out of control here and this is where I will draw the line with you. You've just named a great deal of Christians as being lost.

Tell you what, with your spirit here, I wouldn't allow you to join the church until you bore fruit of repentance and of a heart that has experienced regenerating grace. I wouldn't want to condone your behavior as being Christian and give others the wrong idea.

It just occured to me that you are asumming that all gay people are lost.

Christians struggle with all kinds of immorality. We don't allow a Christian couple to join our church if they are living together without marriage.

There are Christians struggling with all kinds of sinful addictions and lifestyles.

We accept all Christians as members, but not while they are practicing their immorality. They need to hear the truth and repent before they join our church.

Same with Calvinists. That was my point. I consider the teachings of Calvinism as dangerous to our congregation as RCC rituals, sexual immorality, and conditional salvation.

John

 

[jonathan.borland]

Calvinism's not a sin; it's simply an exercise of the academic talents with which God endued man. I think it's a flawed exercise, but an exercise nonetheless.