Uniting Against False Gospels

[Reformed]

Let me start this thread by bringing up a negative, something I wish I did not need to do. This thread is not a Monergist vs. Synergist thread. There is a forum for that and there is never a shortage of opinions on that topic. This post is motivated by a recent thread on false gospels. I will appreciate it if you give me some slack here and allow me to make my point and possibly spur an edifying conversation.

If any of you follow some of the debates that take place within Christianity, no two individuals are less vocal than Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. James White. Dr. Brown is a Continualist and a Synergist. Dr. White is a Cessationist and a Monergist. They have debated each other. You can view their debate on predestination here: Predestination Debate. What I find most interesting is that both men have developed an affection for each other in Christ. More than that, they have joined together to oppose the issue of false gospels. Neither of them has yielded to the other on their theological distinctives. Both of them think the other is wrong when it comes to Monergism vs. Synergism and the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit. However, they recognize that justification by faith in Christ alone is what separated biblical Christianity from the errors of Rome, the Watchtower Society, Mormonism, and even liberal-progressive Christianity. Recently they joined together in debating two LGBT pastors. You can view that debate here: Debate on LGBT and the Consistency of the Gospel.

Both men have been viciously attacked by people from their own side. This is to be expected. What I find fascinating is that these two men recognize a common enemy and decided to unite on areas in which they are in agreement in order to oppose the enemy. At the risk of being redundant, their unity in one area does not negate their differences in another area. Their differences over the items mentioned previously would make partnership within a local church difficult or impossible. They both know that. But they also know that even though they have differences over some aspects about how the gospel functions*, they are agreed that the gospel is the good news and calls for sinners to repent and believe. Anything contrary to that is a false gospel and deserves to be opposed.

Is this limited unity between Dr's. Brown and White a good thing? If so, why? Is it a bad thing? Again, if so, why? What can we take from their partnership against the false gospel?

*Both men differ on their respective views on predestination and election.

 

[TCassidy]

I presently attend a church that is either primarily synergistic, or the membership has, for the most part, never even considered the question.

We get along fine simply because we don't make it a cause for separation nor a hindrance of fellowship.

Both groups believe the Gospel is that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried, and rose again according to the scriptures."

Our point of commonality is that we are in Christ, not how we got there.

 

[Reformed]

I suppose a lot of that depends on how much importance a particular church or denomination places on a point of doctrine. For instance, I don't think a free will Baptist Church would take kindly to a perserverance of the saints contingent. But I have in mind cooperation among believers on common areas of belief.

I presently attend a church that is either primarily synergistic, or the membership has, for the most part, never even considered the question.

We get along fine simply because we don't make it a cause for separation nor a hindrance of fellowship.

Both groups believe the Gospel is that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried, and rose again according to the scriptures."

Our point of commonality is that we are in Christ, not how we got there.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

I presently attend a church that is either primarily synergistic, or the membership has, for the most part, never even considered the question.

We get along fine simply because we don't make it a cause for separation nor a hindrance of fellowship.

Both groups believe the Gospel is that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried, and rose again according to the scriptures."

Our point of commonality is that we are in Christ, not how we got there.

My Baptist church as 2 pastors who are non Cals, one who is a Cal, and elders who are also a mixture of each!

 

[Yeshua1]

I suppose a lot of that depends on how much importance a particular church or denomination places on a point of doctrine. For instance, I don't think a free will Baptist Church would take kindly to a perserverance of the saints contingent. But I have in mind cooperation among believers on common areas of belief.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

My senior Pastor would take for example a Dr Grudem/D A carson take on thespiritual gifts, so while we do not ahve any gifts such as tongues or prophecy opersting in the assembly, do not have a formal cannot speak in tongues at home, but we do insist no one tries to "push it" the church or in cell groups...

 

[Yeshua1]

Let me start this thread by bringing up a negative, something I wish I did not need to do. This thread is not a Monergist vs. Synergist thread. There is a forum for that and there is never a shortage of opinions on that topic. This post is motivated by a recent thread on false gospels. I will appreciate it if you give me some slack here and allow me to make my point and possibly spur an edifying conversation.

If any of you follow some of the debates that take place within Christianity, no two individuals are less vocal than Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. James White. Dr. Brown is a Continualist and a Synergist. Dr. White is a Cessationist and a Monergist. They have debated each other. You can view their debate on predestination here: Predestination Debate. What I find most interesting is that both men have developed an affection for each other in Christ. More than that, they have joined together to oppose the issue of false gospels. Neither of them has yielded to the other on their theological distinctives. Both of them think the other is wrong when it comes to Monergism vs. Synergism and the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit. However, they recognize that justification by faith in Christ alone is what separated biblical Christianity from the errors of Rome, the Watchtower Society, Mormonism, and even liberal-progressive Christianity. Recently they joined together in debating two LGBT pastors. You can view that debate here: Debate on LGBT and the Consistency of the Gospel.

Both men have been viciously attacked by people from their own side. This is to be expected. What I find fascinating is that these two men recognize a common enemy and decided to unite on areas in which they are in agreement in order to oppose the enemy. At the risk of being redundant, their unity in one area does not negate their differences in another area. Their differences over the items mentioned previously would make partnership within a local church difficult or impossible. They both know that. But they also know that even though they have differences over some aspects about how the gospel functions*, they are agreed that the gospel is the good news and calls for sinners to repent and believe. Anything contrary to that is a false gospel and deserves to be opposed.

Is this limited unity between Dr's. Brown and White a good thing? If so, why? Is it a bad thing? Again, if so, why? What can we take from their partnership against the false gospel?

*Both men differ on their respective views on predestination and election.

My pastor will be interview 9/25 on the daily radio broadcast of Dr Borown, in regards to his recent book on the Deity of Jesus in the Gospel of John.
Ialso thingk Dr Sproul and Dr MacArthur would be living examples of those who sre great friends, and yets till kept and respected their differences in theology.
Classic pai would be calvinistGeorge Whitefield and John Wesley!

 

[Reformed]

Interesting. Does your church have an official doctrinal position? Do they disagree with each other through their teaching or do they avoid the topic?

My Baptist church as 2 pastors who are non Cals, one who is a Cal, and elders who are also a mixture of each!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

Our church ascribes to the BFM/1963 and the New Hampshire Confession of Faith.

 

[Yeshua1]

Interesting. Does your church have an official doctrinal position? Do they disagree with each other through their teaching or do they avoid the topic?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

https://stonycreek.church/Documents/StatementofBeliefs_Doc.pdf

I am in the process of starting up the CFC group in the church [Christians for Christ]

 

[Reformed]

Our church ascribes to the BFM/1963 and the New Hampshire Confession of Faith.

The church I attend subscribes to the New Hampshire Confession as well. The area I live in is not known for Reformed Baptist churches. My views are not in the mainstream, so I keep a low profile in order to preserve harmony with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Reformed]

I will use my own situation as an example. I am willing to stand side-by-side with other believers in my church for the sake of the Gospel, even though we disagree on certain doctrines. I will continue to do so with a clear conscience unless/until my own convictions would be compromised. I am not looking for something like to happen, but I am wise enough to know that anything is possible. Church leadership changes, and with new leadership often times comes new ways of doing things. Partnering with other believers outside of the local church is a different matter. Not all of us have public apologetics ministries like Dr. White and Dr. Brown. However, there are ministry opportunities at crisis pregnancy centers, Christian food banks, and Christian summer camps, just to name a few. There are also ministries such as the Gideons International which has members from various theological persuasions within Christianity. To the extent that these ministries correctly present the Gospel, they provide ways in which believers can labor together, even if they disagree on certain things.

 

[37818]

False gospels are typically not understanding the truth of the gospel of Christ and the unmerited salvation God gives to those who believe its truth.

Understanding and knowing the concept of 1 + 1 = 2 does not take cooperation on the part of anyone understanding and believing it. So it is with the true gospel of Christ. It is God who provides the means and does the saving and the keeping on His terms.

[1 John 5:1; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

For about 5 years around the start of WW2, Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a Calvinist, shared the pulpit at Westminster Chapel, London with Dr Campbell-Morgan, an Arminian. According to M. L-J's biographer, they got on very well.

I don't have too many problems with a true Arminian; the only real difference is that he would tell sinners that Christ died for them, whereas I would say that He died for people such as them.

Some here will know that I am a member of the Gideons. To be a Gideon, one has to be a member of a Protestant church, to believe that the Bible in its entirety is the word of God, in the necessity of the New Birth, in the doctrine of eternal punishment of unrepentant sinners and not to be a member of a secret society (Freemasons, not CIA). While there are some local Gideons whom I wouldn't want as members of my church, our main activity is handing out NTs or placing Bibles and I find that I can easily cooperate with them at that level. Extreme charismatics don't tend to join the Gideons and liberals don't meet the requirements. It's actually very good to get outside one's own holy huddle for a while and to discover that there are some fine Christians in unlikely churches.

 

[Yeshua1]

I will use my own situation as an example. I am willing to stand side-by-side with other believers in my church for the sake of the Gospel, even though we disagree on certain doctrines. I will continue to do so with a clear conscience unless/until my own convictions would be compromised. I am not looking for something like to happen, but I am wise enough to know that anything is possible. Church leadership changes, and with new leadership often times comes new ways of doing things. Partnering with other believers outside of the local church is a different matter. Not all of us have public apologetics ministries like Dr. White and Dr. Brown. However, there are ministry opportunities at crisis pregnancy centers, Christian food banks, and Christian summer camps, just to name a few. There are also ministries such as the Gideons International which has members from various theological persuasions within Christianity. To the extent that these ministries correctly present the Gospel, they provide ways in which believers can labor together, even if they disagree on certain things.

I think that where it becomes very difficult to be working among and with those who are also Christians, but hold to a differing view on certain doctrines, is when they elevate their views to being THE view all should hold, as theirs is the infallible one. I have had dealings with persons who see tongues, eschatology, which transaltions to use, as being for them the deal breaker!

 

[Yeshua1]

For about 5 years around the start of WW2, Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a Calvinist, shared the pulpit at Westminster Chapel, London with Dr Campbell-Morgan, an Arminian. According to M. L-J's biographer, they got on very well.

I don't have too many problems with a true Arminian; the only real difference is that he would tell sinners that Christ died for them, whereas I would say that He died for people such as them.

Some here will know that I am a member of the Gideons. To be a Gideon, one has to be a member of a Protestant church, to believe that the Bible in its entirety is the word of God, in the necessity of the New Birth, in the doctrine of eternal punishment of unrepentant sinners and not to be a member of a secret society (Freemasons, not CIA). While there are some local Gideons whom I wouldn't want as members of my church, our main activity is handing out NTs or placing Bibles and I find that I can easily cooperate with them at that level. Extreme charismatics don't tend to join the Gideons and liberals don't meet the requirements. It's actually very good to get outside one's own holy huddle for a while and to discover that there are some fine Christians in unlikely churches.

Those 2 groups that you mentioned are nornmally the ones that make it really hard to fellowship with and to work with! If Geroge Whitefield and John Wesley got along, why can't we?

 

[Salty]

Our church ascribes to the BFM/1963 and the New Hampshire Confession of Faith.

I trust this is not too far off OP - buy any particular reason your church does not ascribes to the 2000 BFM?

 

[TCassidy]

I trust this is not too far off OP - buy any particular reason your church does not ascribes to the 2000 BFM?

The 2000 BFM elevates pastoral authority and limits congregational authority. As Baptists we believe in Congregational Government through Pastoral Leadership. Not Pastoral Government through Congregational Leadership (board led).

 

[Salty]

The 2000 BFM elevates pastoral authority and limits congregational authority. As Baptists we believe in Congregational Government through Pastoral Leadership. Not Pastoral Government through Congregational Leadership (board led).

thank you - will look at that a bit closer