Featured Awesome church experience!

Why is everything with you C vs A?

 

I am actually in the process of considering a change in terms of local church membership. My wife and I have been wrestling with this decision for about 7 years now. The difficulty is that we love our current church (the people) but are dissatisfied in several areas (which is another thread all together). I think we've been led out of that church for years but resisted because of their youth program. Anyway, that's my boring life.

It does feel better in a church that you love. We should, of course, love what ever church in which we find ourselves (but I get what you mean). I am leaving one church that I love for one I believe I belong. I have never attended a "Calvinist" or a "non-Calvinist" church, and I think that I may leave if one defined itself along those boundaries. There is a degree to which I would attend a church and differ with it's doctrine, and there is another degree to where I would leave a church over it's doctrine. Calvinism is not, for me, that deciding point (depending on the overall climate of the church). And, of course, I always strongly hesitate to talk poorly about God's children (regardless of their faults).

 

No, it's not! Good grief!

 

If I were a member....well, then the whole church wouldn't think that I could. And that isn't what I said (I didn't identify what would or would not make me leave a church...and certainly not all non-Calvinistic churches teach that salvation can be lost).

I have noticed that there are some people who have very strong theological convictions, who have astounding clarity of belief, yet their actions seem completely void of any evidence of knowing Christ. They seem to know a lot about Him, but if this knowledge is anything but cognitive there is no evidence.

I’ve noticed other people who have poor theological structures and weak doctrinal understanding, yet who seem to exude a Christlikeness that is both biblical and atypical of normative “Christianity”.

If I had to choose between a church that taught eternal life but belonged to that first category of "believers", then I would much rather worship with those people who live in fear of losing their salvation - at least they have an appreciation of the reality of sin that seems to be lacking in churches today. I could (with a little practice) worship with more charismatic minded people who had a genuine heart and mind for Christ than I could with some "proper" churches who place correct doctrine over knowing Jesus Christ.

 

Nothing ambiguous there, Van....just saying that you'd even be welcomed as a brother .

There is a difference between taking a stand for what one believes and having everyone take a stand for what you believe. Those churches that I spoke of are not exactly ambiguous in doctrine, but I understand how you could have mistaken my comments to indicate they were. The issues that have arisen are not related to the doctrine that is taught.

 

If you are saying that Calvinism is the paramount doctrine that local churches should use to define themselves then we do disagree. In the overall scheme of things, I suppose it is good that there are churches that define themselves along such post-Reformation lines (either for or against Calvinistic doctrine) as the Church as a whole benefits from what both sides may bring out. I just choose (or have been predestined) not to attend a church that finds it's identity along those lines. This does mean that I've had disagreements with some brothers within my own church, but these issues did not result in division as Christ, not Calvinistic soteriology, was the Object of our unity.

So yes, as I understand you, in terms of Calvinism our church is a bit ambiguous. In terms of biblical teaching and walking through Scripture, it is not (regardless as to whether that walk leads to a Calvinistic view, a non-Calvinistic view, or a degree of variance in interpretation).

 

yes...I suppose your rule is normally correct as typically if I ask it's because I think I might have ya wrong.

Yes, I agree. You can normally tell what positions a church affirms or takes a stand on many issues by reading their declaration of belief. If it's not addressed, then the church may very well not take a hard stance on the issue (or they may allow liberty of interpretation on the topic).

The issue may be that what is important to you is not important to the congregation in terms of defining their faith or forming an identity. Many churches could care less about one's Calvinistic leanings. Many do not hold to a specific standard of dress for women. Many don't view contemporary music as evil. Many don't take a hard stance on the rapture...or drinking alcohol....or the extent to which Christ suffered "our punishment",...or a "literal" view of Genesis...or whatever one's pet doctrine/anti-doctrine may be.

Our "pet" doctrines may differ. Mine is more along the lines of rejecting what I believe to be cultural evils. I don't mind if I can't tell what a church believes in terms of Calvinism (they may not have a common ascribed view for the congregation). But I try to see where they land on contemporary issues (such as abortion, SSM, etc.). And when churches are ambiguous about those issues I tend to think the worst and avoid them. So I understand your comment about local churches not drawing a firm line regarding the doctrines you are concerned about here...but at the same time I know that many (most?) churches allow for more liberty than you may feel warranted in those areas.

 

And while we disagree on some points (and agree on others) I do think that you bring out sides of issues that need to be considered. We will never quite agree, for example, on penal substitution (as you've related it as a Trojan horse for limited atonement). But I believe that your position illustrates circumstances where doctrine can be taken out of biblical proportion. You cause me to re-examine my own views and although we disagree I am still the better for the dialogue.

I believe that local churches benefit from diverse understandings/theologies depending on the makeup of the congregation. Anti-Calvinists and Anti-non-Calvinists are probably better suited to like-minded congregations (on that issue). But there exists a much broader landscape than these two types of churches (and these two types of Christians). We all have lines that we have drawn in the doctrinal sand.