Church Unity Is More Important Than Being Theologically Correct

[Reformed]

Would you refuse to fellowship with a "free will" Baptist?

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

 

[Reynolds]

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.

 

[Reformed]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

Doctrine does divide. It just does. Often the division is never seen because people tend to choose churches with which they are in substantial agreement with. Because I am a Calvinist, a Covenant Theologian, and an Amillennialist I am not going to find too many Baptist churches that will welcome me with open arms. If I were to join a church that believes different than me, I would have to remain silent so as not to sow division. It is better for me to attend a church in which I am in doctrinal agreement on most major issues.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

I already explained it to you.
Calvinism vs non Calvinism is a secondary doctrine. Should a church take a vote on how many Cals vs Non Cals they have and purge the minority? Should a church split over the issue? Should two Baptist Churches refuse to fellowship with each other over the issue?
How about grape juice vs alcoholic wine at communion?

Do you even understand Romans 16:17?
Romans 16:17 NIV
"I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them."

It does not even remotely say you have to agree on all doctrine.

Take Calvinism vs Non Calvinism. It is not a problem for Cals and Non Cals to fellowship. It is not a problem for them to be members of the same church. The problem would arise if I, a Classical Arminian, joined a Calvinist church and began to intentionally sow discord and attempt to convert and divide that local body.
Calvinism nor Arminianism are false doctrines. They are different doctrines. One is more right than the other. Which is more right will not be settled until we see Jesus face to face, but neither are false.

Romans 16:17 is talking about blatent false doctrine such as salvation through works.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

Would you refuse to fellowship with a "free will" Baptist?

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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 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...

 

[Reynolds]

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!

The latter would be a primary doctrine.

 

[Revmitchell]

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 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.

 

[Reynolds]

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

Well, you are dividing over a secondary doctrine.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

The latter would be a primary doctrine.

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!

 

[Reformed]

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.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, you are dividing over a secondary doctrine.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Makes sense to me....

 

[Felipe Rios]

It depends on what you consider "Doctrine". The definition for Doctrine is "teaching; Instruction". It can be argued (and probably should be argued) that many people have made "doctrines" out of nothing. For Example: The Doctrine of "Who should eat the bread and drink the Juice when taking communion." Should it only be "Official Church members of the local body?" What if they "haven't joined yet" but are part of the Body of Christ? That brings up another doctrine: Is there a "Universal Church Body?" Or is the Church Body only represented by Single,Local Churches?

I believe there are very specific doctrinal points we should be unified about--"The Faith Once Delivered to the Saints." The necessary Truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that brings forth Salvation.

Dividing over some of these issues is, IMO, ridiculous. And I know several Baptist (Fundamental) Churches in the area that will separate from Godly, Healthy Christian Fellowship because of "secondary doctrinal issues." And Yes, it is worth repeating...That is ridiculous.

And I'll just say this--I've had pastors that will not allow me to pray or even speak at their services because I do not belong to a fundamental Baptist Church, yet will call/text me for prayer and advice all throughout the week.

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

 

[Felipe Rios]

"An article in the Orange County Register reports that Rick Warren, the man dubbed “America’s Pastor,” has launched a new program called “King’s Way,” the purpose of which is to promote peace and unity between Muslims and Christians.

As part of their effort to promote their mutual goals, Warren’s pastoral staff and local Muslim leaders have co-authored a document outlining the points of agreement between Muslims and Christians. It affirms that both Muslims and Christians together believe in “one God” and share the “love of God” and “love of neighbor.”

From: Rick Warren’s Tower of Babel

Rev 3:16 KJV - So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

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.

 

[Reynolds]

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!

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

 

[Wesley Briggman]

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?