Can the church and the pastor have different views on this doctrine?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How do you tell your Baptist Church is....
- Thread starter joey
- Start date
Can the church and the pastor have different views on this doctrine?
seekingthetruth
New Member
Probably not for the long term. This isssue is so divisive, and each side is so dogmatic about their beliefs that it would come to a head sooner than later. One side or the other will eventually push the issue.
Why would a DoG pastor want to pastor a freewill church unless his intention was to convert them to Calvinism?
And why would a freewill congregation hire a DoG pastor?
Or a DoG congregation hire a freewill pastor?
John
I agree with you John & thats why I do not like blended churches & many SBC churches are just that (trying to find one in North Jersey is another issue) So if you have Reformed Belief leanings then simply go to a Reformed or Presbyterian Church & if you be Free Will or IFB etc, then just do the same. I like the, you go to your church & I will go to my church mentality.
glfredrick
New Member
I am a DoG pastor and I lead an Arminian (to a fault!) General Baptist church for 6 years. Not only that, but I was also elected as moderator of their association for 3 of those years, during which time I preached my most intentionally Calvinistic sermon -- ever -- based on the text of 1 Peter 1 to the Associational annual meeting. The people were standing up and cheering God during the sermon.
I am fairly sure that they never even gave it a thought that what I was preaching was in direct opposition to their published articles of doctrine in several points. What they saw was God exegeted from the Scriptures, something that they could neither deny nor refute. They celebrated God who is fully God, not a limited God who can only do as man allows.
In the church we got into regular and lengthy conversations, especially during the Sunday school hour, which I taught to the adults of the church, on the matter. Especially when one church member after another came to the class looking for forgiveness and some way to restore their salvation, which they felt they had lost for some sin or another. when I laid out that they were only confessing the sins they knew (and care to make public) they became somewhat despondent until I offered a remedy from Scripture. The remedy is the once and for all righteousness imputed to us by Christ when He died ONCE upon a cross for the sin of humankind. Neither do we crucify Christ over and again, nor loose what He alone can give based on more sin that is already forgive, but to be sure, we do not sin more merely because of grace. Paul spoke clearly to that issue.
Oh, and I was magnitudes more evangelistic than my Arminian brethren. I was ultimately brought before the deacon board and subjected to a vote of confidence (which I declined, I chose to resign effective immediate) because the head deacon had to share his faith in my absence (I was away on a mission trip to Newfoundland). That was his first time... And, everyone "knew" that sharing the gospel with a lost person was the pastor's job. :BangHead:
I am fairly sure that they never even gave it a thought that what I was preaching was in direct opposition to their published articles of doctrine in several points. What they saw was God exegeted from the Scriptures, something that they could neither deny nor refute. They celebrated God who is fully God, not a limited God who can only do as man allows.
In the church we got into regular and lengthy conversations, especially during the Sunday school hour, which I taught to the adults of the church, on the matter. Especially when one church member after another came to the class looking for forgiveness and some way to restore their salvation, which they felt they had lost for some sin or another. when I laid out that they were only confessing the sins they knew (and care to make public) they became somewhat despondent until I offered a remedy from Scripture. The remedy is the once and for all righteousness imputed to us by Christ when He died ONCE upon a cross for the sin of humankind. Neither do we crucify Christ over and again, nor loose what He alone can give based on more sin that is already forgive, but to be sure, we do not sin more merely because of grace. Paul spoke clearly to that issue.
Oh, and I was magnitudes more evangelistic than my Arminian brethren. I was ultimately brought before the deacon board and subjected to a vote of confidence (which I declined, I chose to resign effective immediate) because the head deacon had to share his faith in my absence (I was away on a mission trip to Newfoundland). That was his first time... And, everyone "knew" that sharing the gospel with a lost person was the pastor's job. :BangHead:
glfredrick
New Member
At the end of the day, I doubt that 90+ % of Baptist congregations in America could articulate the issues between the Doctrines of Grace and some other system of soteriology than can most on this board, so the issue is a non-issue, save for the fact that everyone can get on board with hating a word -- Calvinism -- even if they don't know what it means.
And, yes, in fact I am calling a lot of people ignorant and uninformed. See it in virtually every debate on this issue on this board and in the local church.
Additionally, to be ignorant and uninformed on accident is excusable, but when it is intentional -- as it well appears to be here and elsewhere -- it becomes directly "STUPID."
And, please note before you get on your soapbox or bandwagon to blast me out of the water. I have not called anyone, specifically, STUPID. I have allowed one to self-define, however, based on his or her own ability and willingness to investigate this issue fully enough to speak intelligently about it instead of parroting stereotypes and straw man arguments.
And, yes, in fact I am calling a lot of people ignorant and uninformed. See it in virtually every debate on this issue on this board and in the local church.
Additionally, to be ignorant and uninformed on accident is excusable, but when it is intentional -- as it well appears to be here and elsewhere -- it becomes directly "STUPID."
And, please note before you get on your soapbox or bandwagon to blast me out of the water. I have not called anyone, specifically, STUPID. I have allowed one to self-define, however, based on his or her own ability and willingness to investigate this issue fully enough to speak intelligently about it instead of parroting stereotypes and straw man arguments.
Odd really and just my personal observations on the matter, so no scientific method here. I seem to see many Calvinistic bent preachers trying to "convert" churches with a history of free-will doctrine, yet not the other way around. Again this is just my observations, but is this true for anyone else?
BTW, identify with the free-will, Arminian camp - ignorance is bliss, right glfredrick?
BTW, identify with the free-will, Arminian camp - ignorance is bliss, right glfredrick?
Because the same terminology is used with different meanings. So unless you were very specific on definitions then it was most likely understood differently than you intended.
Robert Snow
New Member
I agree. If this church was as non-Calvinistic as he states, I doubt they would stand and cheer Calvinistic teachings. I know I wouldn't. I would sit quietly and wait for an opportunity to leave.
But, in all fairness, our church had an interim pastor for about two years. He had some definite Calvinistic leanings, and identified himself as a Calvinist. I loved and respected him a great deal, but he didn't preach Calvinism from the pulpit, he preached the Word of God. We were all sad to see him leave, but he had retired several years earlier and was not interested in pastoring now.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Very true. Having been on 'both sides' of this debate, I understand that people hear what they want to hear. Typically non-Calvinists can listen to someone like Piper or MacArthur and "Amen" them all the way through. But if you were to stop and explain the full intent of all that was meant by the use of some terms many, if not most, would protest.
Likewise, some Calvinistic believers can hear the sermon of a non-Calvinist and walk away convinced the speaker is Calvinistic because of some phrase they used or point they made.
Think that we have to realise that a Baptist Church can hold to DoG, but not been holding to creeds/confessions of faith, so could not know that it is cal in theology !
Also that a church could be very solid theologically, strong in outreach/missions/teaching etc, but not known a sbeing either a Cal/Arm church, as would tend to 'stay" solid with biblcal teachings/praxctices, yet not "label" their church as being such!
This church is very bible focused and mission-focused as well. I have met more missionaries at this church than any other I have previously attended (However Adelaide is a capital city and not a regional town)!
And one of the missionaries' wife I met much earlier in the year was an American. The only hint I can remember where she was from was that she had had to learn a lot of christian apologetics concerning Mormonism.
My pastor 'too smart' for that trick , as though he has his MDiv/Phd In Min and one for theology, he will answer that type of question with "I have read and studied in botht he english and original language authors such as " and will proceed to list some prominent authors both cals and Non cals!
Think that there are baptists who hold to "just" TULIP as Model of Sotierology, but NOT holding to presby views, JUST taking slavtion view, but rejecting creeds/confessions/ etc!
is this really that much different'effectively" between an Evangelical arminian or an evangelical cal Christian?
As regarding JUST evangeklising/missionaries etc, as BOTH would affirm that must preach Christ the Cross and that we need theLord work work among us to see souls saved by God?
Say this, as sometimes we can have a pastor like mine who "leans" one way, but is very knowledgable on all aspects of Christian theology, having earned 2 Phds in Theology now, but well versed in both cals/Arms Non cals, and can relate to all of the above!
Would have to agree with you here, in the sense that rarely do fellow Christians read up on/study on various doctrines in the Bible, usually just take the church statement of faith and beliefs and memorize them, but not bother to look into why we hold to that...
alsom rarely bother to read and research 'scholars" to see how others view the doctrines, as we can learn even from those of differing interpretations than we would hold to!
glfredrick
New Member
Rarely do people do that level of study before they post here on the board... :smilewinkgrin:
Trevin Wax had a great blog article where he reviewed Ben Witherington's new book, "Is There a Doctor in the House?: An Insider's Story and Advice on becoming a Bible Scholar." Both the book and Trevin's comments are worth a read. http://trevinwax.com/2011/11/14/so-...r-a-look-at-ben-witheringtons-book-of-advice/
Two quotes from Witherington worth repeating:
And:
glfredrick
New Member
When the pastor or teacher is well educated, they tend to (tend to...) come down on the side of the exegetical biblical perspective and will let the text lead them wherever it goes (which, by the way is the ONLY real way to do theology!). But, that being said, I've seen WAY more pastors and teachers who come down on a "side" no matter what the text says. That typically shows most clearly in the altar call time. I've seen some stuff and so has everyone else who has attended more than one church in their life.
The worst? The pastor who, first, preaches his own mind, then pastes a bunch of Bible verses on his own thoughts and says (in essence), "See, the Bible agrees with me..." and second, who goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on with the altar call. First, it is a plea to respond to God. Then, "Every eye closed, every head bowed. Just slip up a hand if God is speaking to you right now. It is okay, no one is looking around. Amen Brother. Right on Sister. God bless you son..." Then, making himself a complete liar, he asks those who raised their hands to come forward and to do some business with God. He continues the pleading, another verse of "Just as I Am," and more cajoling. Then, when not enough people have responded, a story -- a "special story" about someone who did not respond and died on the way home from church, or who saw their mother suffer a heart attack while they were out to lunch after church. This continues on until the pastor is satisfied that either 1) everyone who feels even in the slightest some guilt this morning has made him feel better about his performance, or 2) the majority of the congregation is now sitting in that classic "closed" stance, arms crossed, eyes averted from the pulpit, and visibly moving about with the non-verbal signs every pastor dreads, "Let's wrap this up already, we're done..."
How much more God-honoring to just allow people the opportunity to respond to God as God moves, wherever and whenever they (and He) sees fit, whether at the end of the sermon or not.
And the idea of best study being the times when you are 'forced" to accept that what you assumed to be fully biblcal was not, rings true to me, as I was raised in Pentacostal church after saved by God, and had to study their statements of beliefs to have shown to me that while sincere and Christinas, in their core doctrines, were sincerely wrong!