Featured What Doctrines should we separate over?

It could be all of those or none of those depending on the extent of the disagreement.

 

Jordan, "middle knowledge" is a descriptor of molinism. A theological and philosophical position or marriage between the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man.

I don't feel qualified to comment on modalism.

 

This is no exaggeration, I saw a (Baptist) church split into what today is two churches over tearing out carpet in the sanctuary and replacing it with a different color. There was nothing wrong with the original carpet, but so and so clique in the church decided they wanted another color. That is sad, and one reason I think division or causing division in a local church must be over a very serious issue. Things like open or closed communion, KJVO, free will, the invitation are not battles or issues on the same magnitude, I am willing to split a church over.

 

No Jordan, it is much more robust than that.

Here is one the great apologists and christian philosophers on Molinism.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-and-divine-election

 

No sure what these prior posts are talking about. Molinism is simply the biblical view that God knows how an individual will react or choose, given a circumstance. For example, had the people in this town seen Christ's miracles, they would have repented. I think everybody agrees with this view.

In the article linked by QF, an argument is made that election for salvation is corporate, i.e. God elected the body of Christ, and we as individuals choose by putting our faith in Christ, to automatically put ourselves in the group, thus becoming an elect of God. The idea is that God arranges a circumstance where we have the opportunity to put our faith in Christ and become elect, but we can also choose not to put our faith in Christ.

The whole premise is bogus. Election for salvation is individual, with God Himself choosing who to put in Christ based on crediting or not our faith as righteousness. Thus salvation does not depend on the man that wills (which it does in the mistaken article) but on God alone.

 

“Modalism” has no relationship whatsoever to “Molinism” in case that’s how you read it.
Modalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

Middle Knowledge/Molinism attempts to explain how God’s knowledge is more complex that the simplistic definition offered through the holders of Classical Theistic views which limits God’s foreknowledge ability to finite expectations which does not allow for true free will/human volition and assumes because God has foreknowledge of all things that He must have pre-determined all things from before creation. This Classical Theistic view unavoidably logically concludes that since God foreknows all things He determined all things which in turn unavoidably logically leads to fatalistic theology due to attributing evil to God. The Molinist/Middle knowledge view logically explains how God maintains all truths within His Divine knowledge.

Those that have said they would separate over this view have previously clearly demonstrated that they are ignorant of the Molinist’ view. Some will also ignorantly claim it equates to Open Theism.

AS per the Op, personally I would separate from those holding to the hyper-deterministic views which leads to the false doctrines by which they attempt to support the TULIP with or IOW’s today's typical Neo-Calvinistic views concerning predestination.

 

Molinism is complex nonsense --I have listened to William Lane Craig expound on his "take" and it's utter gibberish. He refuses to let the Scriptures have their say. It is mind-numbingly muddled thinking.

 

Says you...

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Though it certainly needs fine tuning, I think my view has some merits for this discussion (of the OP, not molinism or modalism).

Fundamental issues, gospel issues, are the only thing that I would say demand or are commanded to separate for. That is a hill I am dying on, so to speak. That is category 1 stuff. Of course the debate then is what goes into this category.

Secondary issues, issues that affect our creeds as well as our practice can be left to the conscience choice of the believer (see Rom. 13). It is not commanded, but if it bothers you, then you are free to separate. Example, female elders. I am opposed, but it is not a gospel issue. In my conscience, it is a clear violation of Scripture, therefore I separate. Not all believers feel this way.

The third category would be doctrines that are really only creedal and have little to no outworking in practice. Example: eschatology. Now one might argue (and I would agree to some extent) that eschatology is very practical. However, a premill and an amill will practice Christianity quite similarly (all other things being equal). I might even put Calvinism (not hyper) and Semi-Pelagianism here: both practice evangelism. But both differ on how they confess the involvement of God's sovereign work. A creedal difference. Now this could leak over to category 2 because of how the gospel is preached which leads to practice (such as the practice of invitations and sinners prayer stuff). But generally speaking, this is category 3, especially in para-church organizations like Christian schools.

This is my model for now. Thoughts?

 

Are false teachers to be tolerated and condoned because they only teach falsehoods about issues we do not give a fig about?

 

Are they teaching things that we do give a fig about... like the gospel? Phil 1:18 (and context of course!) "whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice."

 

You already said we should separate about things we do give a fig about, i.e. #1 stuff on your tree of truth. The question was what about a false teacher of items on the third level, stuff we do not give a fig about. Should we tolerate a false teacher of that stuff?

Bottom line we worship Truth.

 

Maybe I should add that 3rd level stuff are only creedal and mainly disputed in interpretation. I've heard many biblical arguments for young earth creationism and old earth creationism. Neither really affect the way we evangelize. So they are not tier 2 stuff. And thus, the term "false teacher" may be incorrectly applied to these various 3rd category views since such a term connotes more serious aberrations.

 

Would say that we can do a secondary seperation, as in not being involved in their ministries/outreach, but being friendly, meet together, discuss, and also is primary seperation, where no contact at all is amde!

Secondary could be over spiritual gifts/tongues/baptisism Holy Ghost
Women ordained as pastors
calvinist/Arminian
Worship/Music styles
Bible versions
Eshatology
Modes of baptism
Primary seperation issues would include

Bible not inspired/not infallible
Denying trinity, especially Jesus as God
Denying the Cross/His resurrection
Deny saved by daith alone/thu faith alone
hold to Baptismal regeneration

 

A traveling salesman was driving through a distant town when he saw to identical Baptist churches, right across the street from each other.

His curiosity stirred, he stopped at a downtown cafe, walked in and asked the owner if he could explain those churches.

One of the breakfast club guys sitting nearby heard the question and volunteered the answer.

"They had a falling out and one group left and formed their own church.

The church on this side of the street believes Pharaoh's daughter found Moses iin the bulrushes. The church across the street believes that's HER story."

Then there was the Primitive Baptist church which split over footwashing. Half the church believed that the same person who washed the feet ought to dry; the other half believed a different person ought to get dry.

 

The essentials of Christian Faith to avoid splitting of a Church are or should be:

1. The deity of Jesus Christ

2. The nature of the Triune God only as revealed in Scripture with nothing added

3. The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ

4. The substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ as the only way man can be reconciled to God

5. The rebellion of Adam and Eve is a historical event and because of that rebellion all mankind is subject to the wrath of God

6.Salvation is by grace through faith alone [works have no part either in salvation or keeping salvation]

7. Jesus Christ is the only mediator between man and God

8. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ

9. The resurrection of Jesus Christ as the surety of the believers bodily resurrection

10. Rejection of open theism as contrary to Scripture and #2 above and heretical

11 Rejection of Hyper Dispensationalism as contrary to Scripture and heretical

12. The visible return of Jesus Christ

13. Baptism is by immersion and only for those who have experienced salvation in jesus Christ [Only for Baptist Churches}

If I think of more I will add them, it is bedtime!

 

That is a good list. The reasons I changed from Presbyterian to Baptist some 36 years ago was Baptism mainly, but on a lesser degree, the type of local church government and a hierarchy. However, what does connect the two faiths in a major way is the sovereignty of God, eternal security, and covenant theology instead of dispy.