Church Unity Is More Important Than Being Theologically Correct

I would not refuse friendly association (fellowship) with anyone provided such a relationship is God-honoring. Is such a relationship likely given the circle of people I spend time with? No.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

And we wonder why Christianity in the U.S. is in demise.

 

And how is my response to you cringe-worthy enough to lament the demise of Christianity in the U.S.? Do you want to have deep, meaningful relationships with other believers? Invest yourself in the lives of the saints in your local church. We use the term "church family" for a reason. There is plenty to do in the service of the Lord under the auspices of the local church to keep your ministry and fellowship calendar full. That is how it should be.

Outside the church? I am not going to go banging on church doors asking to have fellowship with people if that is what you are suggesting. I am friendly with quite a few people outside of my local church. I know my neighbors because I serve on the HOA board. My wife and I are friendly with a number of couples who go to a Missionary Baptist Church in town (a church that is diametrically opposed to Monergistic theology).

Does my church cooperate with other churches? Yes. We work together on food drives, gospel summer camp programs, hurricane relief efforts (I live in Florida) et. al. Gospel cooperation? That is a bit more guarded. Having a Tasters Choice moment between churches may be great if you are going to gather around a fire and toast marshmallows while singing Kumbaya but it could lead to certain problems if the church you are cooperating with opposes what you believe. You may not like or agree with that but it is what it is.

 

I think that the biblical model is that we can and need to have on full agreement on the Primary doctrines of the scriptures/Faith, but that we should be tolerant and understand that their are indeed secondary issues that we can agree to disagree on and with each other.
Fir example, I have friends who are Amil/preMil/Post Mil positions, some Calvinist, some not, but we are all in agreement on the person of Jesus Christ and the scriptures.

 

The main problem here is just what represents an issue that rises up to the level of dividing over?
Being a Calvinist or not or not does not to me, nor does End time views, but denying the trinity, and Jesus alone can save us would rise to for me!

 

I would not, not unless they had gone all the way over to a full pel viewpoint!

 

I have found that when we focus on jesus, and the scriptures major truths, that most of our disagreements boil down to elevating preferences and convictions to doctrines...

 

The latter would be a primary doctrine.

 

I would not be a part of a church that taught what we find in the tulip. I would spend too much time correct the theology with my family every week. As a pastor I will not allow it to be taught in our church. In fact it is what I do teach not to do.

 

Well, you are dividing over a secondary doctrine.

 

There are some that I would. Other like the gap theory, preterism, amillenialism etc.

 

Agreed, as would things such as one must speak in tongues to be saved, but whether we hold to that being for us today , speaking in tongues, would be another secondary issue for me!

 

I have no problem with that. What I am saying is that most of my Christian-to-Christian relationships are within my local church because that is where I spend the majority of my time.

 

Can one be a member of your church and hold to Tulip, as long as they do not become derisive in teaching it?

 

If I was a member of His church, and decided to make it my "duty for the Lord", to just hammer away all the time on Calvinism, and to bad mouth him after each sermon, that is indeed wrong. On the other hand, if I am just talking to others after the service, or during bible studies, i should be allowed to discuss this as long as staying civil and in the scriptures .I should be granted right to hold my positions!

 

Makes sense to me....

 

I come from a very conservative and fundamental Baptist church and I agree with you. Amen!

 

That is pretty sad. I understand reaching people in the name of love for the sake of Christ, but to say that we worship the same God? that is pretty sad coming from a very influential pastor.

 

Exactly, tongues is a secondary doctrine. Salvation depending on tongues is a primary false doctrine.

 

Would you be a member of a church that has historically practiced/endorsed speaking in tongues but does not make it a requirement for membership?