Featured What Doctrines should we separate over?

I've never believed that we should separate over Calvinism but the more posts I read here and on that trashheap, OnlineBaptist, the more I believe that if the Finneyists want to separate, I wouldn't exactly rush to stop them.

Not in and of itself, but there are some KJVO folks I could do without.

No.

I'd have to know more.

 

As I get older the list gets shorter.

Basically for me it surrounds the person of Jesus. Do you believe Jesus is who he claimed to be, did what he claimed to do and will do what he said he will do?

 

Nothing except the very basics of the gospel and the nature and character of God Himself are worth "separating over." Even though I don't consider the "signs and wonders" crowd to have a biblical basis for their beliefs, they adhere to salvation through faith in Christ's life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection, by and through the grace of God. Therefore, they are not outside the body of Christ. Those who deny the Trinity would also be excluded from the Body.

On the other hand, the Mormons, JWs, and others deny the deity of Christ, believing Him to be just a man, therefore they are not my brothers. Nothing you've mentioned is worth "separating" over.

 

Modalism, middle knowledge are two that come to mind. Also open theism...

 

I agree..........................

 

Funny you should mention Modalism. I'm currently reading about Phillips, Craig, and Dean performing for the SBC.

 

It depends on what you mean by separate. I have friends outside of my church that I fellowship with that hold to doctrines that would not be allowed inside our church.

 

I would put it this way, there are 3 levels of truth and which dictate the answer to this question: 1 fundamental essentials to the faith, 2 doctrines that affect our practice, & 3 doctrines that really only show up in confession.

If 3, then no don't separate. If 2, then let your conscience be your guide. I couldn't go to a church w/ women elders b/c that is a doctrine that affects practice. But there are others that may not rangle my feathers. If 1, then I would say yes, but these are gospel essential truths.

 

I am not Baptist so I really should not be posting a here. I'm hoping you might indulge one question & then I will just follow the thread & not continue to post here.

I have read that Calvinism is embraced by about 30% of all SBC affiliated churches. I have also read that it threatens to divide the convention. Would it be Calvinism's tolerance (some Calvinists traditions) of women pastors that is the main concern? Or would it be the question of salvation that makes many un-comfortable with the growing number of SBC churches embracing this theology?

I graduated from an SBC college before the purge of liberals (was very happy to see that happen) back 30 yrs ago or so, and many of the professors at that time supported women's ordination. At that time Calvinism didn't seem to be much of a concern. The reasons given for their support of WO were primarily sociological and not theological. Again, I will respect the rules of the Board and not continue to post in this forum but would appreciate hearing board members take on this.

 

John Calvin's comments in his commentary on 1 Timothy 2:12 may be helpful here:

12. But I permit not a woman to teach. Paul is not taking from women their duty to instruct their family, but is only excluding them from the office of teaching (a munere docendi), which God has committed exclusively to men. This is a subject we have already gone into in relation to I Corinthians. If anyone challenges this ruling by citing the case of Deborah and other women of whom we are told that God at one time appointed them to govern the people, the obvious answer is that God's extraordinary acts do not annul the ordinary rules by which He wishes us to be bound. Thus, if at some time women held the office of prophets and teachers and were led to do so by God's Spirit, He who is above all law might do this, but being an extraordinary case, it does not conflict with the constant and accustomed rule."

John Calvin, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries: A New Translation, Vol. 10 (Eerdmans, 1964), p. 217.

In conclusion Calvinist would not approve of women elders :wavey:

Ps: I believe the convention as a whole has agreed to disagree and let bygones be bygones

 

In my opinion, the only teaching that matters as far as salvation is concerned is what is taught about how to be saved. If it has nothing to do with being saved, it isn't worth arguing about or separating from other Christians--especially when there is no clear teaching on it.

 

I separated myself from what I once was as I was a free willer and believed in a universal atonement. When the Lord began to reveal to me his sovereign grace I could no longer stand in the pulpit and preach another gospel without being condemned and sick at heart. I walked away, burned my bridges and never looked back.

 

The Baptists separated over the issue of slavery, with one side seeing slave ownership as indicating the person was less than a follower of Christ.

Today, we have abortion, and some would see being pro-choice as indicating a person was less than a follower of Christ.

The conclusion might be if anyone votes for Democrats, they are voting for anti-Christs. It was the Democrats who were pro-slavery, pro-Jim Crow, pro-KKK, and pro-abortion.

But do we separate? Nope, we would rather belittle those Catholics who fight against abortion.

 

Only the essentials of the faith are worth separating over. That is

Christ is God
The Bible is the word of God
The trinity
Salvation by Grace
Justification by Faith
The Virgin Birth
The reality of Hell
etc..

Eschatology, bible translations, music, and the like are NOT WORTH IT

 

Separate over location, first.

 

Should we separate over salvation by grace and not grace and works?
Should we separate over salvation by grace through faith, and not salvation by grace then given faith?

 

We separated ourselves when we decided to become Baptist. Baptists themselves have clear distinctives. I cannot think of anything else to separate over. The subjects so hotly debated here are not worth a separation of a local church.

 

This is a pretty good list. I would add one more. Security of the believer.

 

So you are saying we should separate from people like TD Jakes (modalist) and William L. Craig (Middle knowledge)?