"All the saved compose the Universal church," he says.Originally posted by WallyGator:
rufus,
Could you explain "Nature of the church" and how MacArthur is "goofed-up" about it.
WallyGator
The nature of the "church" is LOCAL!
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!
"All the saved compose the Universal church," he says.Originally posted by WallyGator:
rufus,
Could you explain "Nature of the church" and how MacArthur is "goofed-up" about it.
WallyGator
By and large, No, it isn't good. One of the reasons for separation was the pressure it put on a person to act biblically, and public rebuke served as a warning to others. I am not arguing we should be heavy handed. Nor am I arguing that we should be separating over silly stuff. But the truth of hte Scripture (all of it, not just five truths) are important and necessary for life and godliness. We dare not trifle with them, nor encourage others too.Originally posted by superdave:
So setting aside the discussion about definitions of what fundamentalism WAS, is this change a necessarily good or bad thing? In your opinion.
So you think Paul would allow disobedience to the word in churches other than Thessalonica? I am not sure how you make the claim that this is speculative. 1 Cor 5, Titus 3 both make the same point.Originally posted by Siegfried:
Nevertheless, I reject the exegesis of the 2 Thess. passages that applies them to all of Paul's teaching to all the churches. I think that is speculative.
Becuase they are inconsistent. I completely agree that oftentimes, our associations are far too broad. Having said that, there is room for difference on some matters and not others. We might legitimately differ with people who view church polity differently. We cannot legitimately differ on the word-faith/third wave charismatic issues. One is not clearly revealed. The other is.If so, why do those who hold this view of separation not separate over ALL doctrine, not just the "fundamentals" plus the doctrine of separation. In practice, it seems that many proclaimed fundamentalists are much broader doctrinally in their cooperative ventures with other fundamentalists than someone like MacArthur would be.
True, but remember that there is a broader room for certain associations than in other things. Two schools might play a soccer game, even though one is pre trib and the other is not. That does not mean that they will trade faculty for an eschatology conference. For certain high schools to meet together for musical competition is different than meeting together for other purposes.Organizations like AACS and IFB colleges, mission boards and camps are hotbeds of inconsistency on this matter, when supporting churches have vastly different views of theology proper, soteriology, pneumatology and bibliology.
True, in some ways ... probably not in others. I have often lamented that our fellowship is too often based on mutual separation (we don't like the same things) than common purpose (we do like the same things). That is unfortunate.What often holds supporting churches together is not common theology but similarities in who they separate from. In that sense both MacArthur and I (if I can put my name with his in the same sentence) would be much more separatistic than most self-proclaimed fundamentalists, but many fundamentalists would no doubt call me a neo.
I have dealt with this personally by acknowledging that each must make his own decision about it. I don't know that there is a good "stopping point." I do believe there is no way to defend the alternative. The Scripture is too clear on that, IMO. As to the application of particularities, we must grant liberty. That doesn't mean we have to grant fellowship. I can acknowlege the good facets of MacArthur's ministry (or Warren, or Chappel, etc) without condoning their disobedience in other areas. I can benefit from their ministry without fellowshipping with their ministry. I can say "This is good about them; This is an area of disbodience." But when I say that, I should make the biblical case for it.By the way, I really think you do need to deal with the question of how far to take the "degrees" of separation, even if you do know a fancy Latin name for a logical fallacy. This is a weakness that I have never heard anyone willing to deal with cogently.
I'm Scripturally "goofed up." Yeppers, I am!Originally posted by Daniel David:
Ummm, rufus, that is where you are goofed up. He he.
Don't tell me YOU'VE bought the "universal church" farm, too!Originally posted by Daniel David:
The church is the body of Christ. To be local church only would have bodies of Christ. Yep, that is goofy.
Seeins how Pastor Larry is in Michigan, and runs in some of the same circles as I, he would have to agree with this statement. It is absolutely the case among many IFBs here in the promised land.What often holds supporting churches together is not common theology but similarities in who they separate from.
I don't think we're comparing apples to apples. This was an issue within the church in one city. I think this has much more in common with a church discipline issue than an ecclesiastical separation issue.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
So you think Paul would allow disobedience to the word in churches other than Thessalonica? I am not sure how you make the claim that this is speculative. 1 Cor 5, Titus 3 both make the same point.
I generally agree, but I think the nature of the association must be taken into account along with the nature of the difference. Paul was dealing with a specific case that he had addressed directly. I think that left less room for diversity than we might have today given the historical distance that has piled up.I completely agree that oftentimes, our associations are far too broad. Having said that, there is room for difference on some matters and not others. We might legitimately differ with people who view church polity differently. We cannot legitimately differ on the word-faith/third wave charismatic issues. One is not clearly revealed. The other is.
I agree with your premise, but I don't think that your illustration is comparable to the examples I noted. It seems that you are hedging so as to provide yourself some wiggle room in your doctrine. Consistent application of your exegesis would force you to repudiate all these associations and separate from anyone who engages in such.True, but remember that there is a broader room for certain associations than in other things. Two schools might play a soccer game, even though one is pre trib and the other is not. That does not mean that they will trade faculty for an eschatology conference. For certain high schools to meet together for musical competition is different than meeting together for other purposes.
I guess I would have to know the ways you believe my statement is not true in order to interact with it.True, in some ways ... probably not in others. I have often lamented that our fellowship is too often based on mutual separation (we don't like the same things) than common purpose (we do like the same things). That is unfortunate.
This is where I begin to see that we may be talking about two different issues. You seem to be describing "non-cooperation" as the doctrine of separation. I will probably never cooperate with a whole multitude of churches and ministries that I would not separate from in the sense of "mark and avoid" or "admonish" to walk in obedience. I think we generally agree, even though you need to grow in your capacity to express your beliefs in my terminology.I have dealt with this personally by acknowledging that each must make his own decision about it. I don't know that there is a good "stopping point." I do believe there is no way to defend the alternative. The Scripture is too clear on that, IMO. As to the application of particularities, we must grant liberty. That doesn't mean we have to grant fellowship. I can acknowlege the good facets of MacArthur's ministry (or Warren, or Chappel, etc) without condoning their disobedience in other areas. I can benefit from their ministry without fellowshipping with their ministry. I can say "This is good about them; This is an area of disbodience." But when I say that, I should make the biblical case for it.
It is virtually impossible to be perfectly consistent. We can be largely consistent however, and we should be.
Now that was funnyI think we generally agree, even though you need to grow in your capacity to express your beliefs in my terminology. [Wink]
Pastor Larry,That doesn't mean we have to grant fellowship. I can acknowlege the good facets of MacArthur's ministry (or Warren, or Chappel, etc) without condoning their disobedience in other areas. I can benefit from their ministry without fellowshipping with their ministry. I can say "This is good about them;