The Sharp Divide: How to deal with it

[Jerome]

How does my question validate it?

 

[Herald]

I wish my Calvinist Brethren all the best, and I assume most of them wish "Free-Willers" like myself all the best.

Absolutely. It's a shame separation because of doctrine has to occur, but on this side of glory it's inevitable. I love my Presbyterian brethren with whom I agree on much, but we have to separate over baptism and ecclesiology.

 

[Herald]

Proverbs 26:4

 

[humblethinker]

Proverbs 26:4

Herald... could you please provide a link to that verse? I really don't want to have to open my Bible or google it.



;-)

 

[12strings]

I tend to agree with the notion of peaceable dis-association.......I harbour no "ill-will" towards my Calvinist brethren, and I know we shall see one another in glory.......But I cannot abide the differences in Theology.

I assume, they also cannot abide my difference with them.

IT WOULD NOT BE BAD......IMO... for the SBC to peaceably dis-associate on this one. It is inevitable IMO. Amos 3:3

I wish my Calvinist Brethren all the best, and I assume most of them wish "Free-Willers" like myself all the best. But, this issue is too fundamental and too critical. It simply happens to be the question of our time.
My Prediction:

The SBC will (quite peaceably) split on this issue within a decade.......I also have no problem with that.

I really don't think they (we) will. It would have little impact on my particular church, so I don't really have strong feelings about what SHOULD happen...though I lean toward not splitting. I predict either a continued slow decline (for decades...) or a rejuvination centered around missions and the Gospel.

I still think if you asked the vast majority of SBCers on both sides, they would say they don't want a split.

 

[jonathan.borland]

It should be a question the search committee asks. My wife's church asked a Calvie pastor to leave, so it was a big enough issue for them.

For others, like myself, I can't imagine not being around Calvies because I get too much enjoyment from teasing them, but it's all in good jest.

I do think it's interesting that Herald's group basically performed a takeover and makes non-Calvies feel unwelcome before joining. Wow! I never imagined it would be brought up as something never to discuss as a prerequisite to joining a church. Good grief, guess you couldn't even joke about it before being "disciplined". Maybe they'll start asking people if they're traducianists before joining next. Incredible!

 

[humblethinker]

It should be a question the search committee asks. My wife's church asked a Calvie pastor to leave, so it was a big enough issue for them.

For others, like myself, I can't imagine not being around Calvies because I get too much enjoyment from teasing them, but it's all in good jest.

I do think it's interesting that Herald's group basically performed a takeover and makes non-Calvies feel unwelcome before joining.

Listening to Piper's account of how he introduced DoG/TULIP into his church it could be interpreted as a 'take-over'. I don't know if that would be correct but I was surprised to hear his personal testimony of how Piper did it... It's a slow process...

Wow! I never imagined it would be brought up as something never to discuss as a prerequisite to joining a church. Good grief, guess you couldn't even joke about it before being "disciplined". Maybe they'll start asking people if they're traducianists before joining next. Incredible!

Wow, now that's an interesting subject! JB, it's not as if there is a lack of navels to be preoccupied with! and now you have to intraduce this one on the board!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

-If I (mostly calvinistic) were in a city or town with 9 liberal protestant churches, 1 reformed Baptist church that was dying off and had no passion, and one God-fearing passionate, Gospel-preaching Free-will church, I would be at the last one, probably even join.

Are you quite serious?!? You have just nauseated me! You would deny the doctrine of total inability,downplay the doctrine of original sin & insist on a universal atonement!!! WOW, after that statement of yours, I would really question your seriousness as a Reformed believer.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You are correct that having two pastor teaching opposing things on consecutive Sundays would be very confusing to a church, and not helpful...
I do wonder if DoG/Reformed Baptist churches will allow new members who dissagree with their reformed soteriology, but still want to join...I don't know, I may e-mail my reformed-pastor friend and ask.

Now why would a non reformed want to join a Reformed Church?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

They do (we do). A person who does not believe in the DoG is allowed to join our church. The only caveat being that they understand what our church teaches, and they cannot teach/advocate differently without facing church discipline.

So your saying that they knowingly relinquish their existing belief system for reformed beliefs.....at least they know that going in.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is not just his act of murder. It is his writings on infant baptism, and to me, most of all, his writings on the seperation of church and state. Yet, when he was head of state of the city-state of Geneva, he created a theocracy, in direct opposition to his own writings. There are many other issues, but that is another thread.

Ask yourself, why is there no debate in the Presbyterian church on this issue, but, within the Baptist faith, it is a constant debate as evidenced on this board. The nature of a collection of local autonomous churches suggests the argument will never be solved. So why engage in the debate. There is no central authority to decide who is right.

And that is why I dont consider myself a Calvinist. Now Presbyterians & The Reformed (like Dutch Reformed) churches walk lock step with John Calvin & his teaching.....I do not!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The SBC will (quite peaceably) split on this issue within a decade.......I also have no problem with that.

It would be a blessing....one that I am anxious to see happen....the sooner the better!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Van]

I have not read this thread but the premise of separating from our brothers and sisters in Christ is sinful, factious and flys in the face of the spirit of unity in the body.

The problem is not that the Bible is not clear, the problem is that our pride blinds us to the truth. That is why scripture is ignored or rewritten.

 

[Herald]

Mr. Borland,

There was no "take over" of our church. We were a church plant; started by a large FW church in the area. While we were started in the model as our sending church, no one knew the theological leanings of those who started the plant. The pastor charged with overseeing the plant was already leaning towards the DoG. When elders were appointed the issue of the DoG was never brought up. It was the furthest thing from anyone's mind. Eventually we found ourselves in a situation where the DoG'ers came out of the woodwork and they were the majority. I tried explaining this to Jerome but that's like talking to a brick wall. If we were an established church this never would have happened. More than likely those in the minority, who could not abide the majority view, would have left.

 

[saturneptune]

Mr. Borland,

There was no "take over" of our church. We were a church plant; started by a large FW church in the area. While we were started in the model as our sending church, no one knew the theological leanings of those who started the plant. The pastor charged with overseeing the plant was already leaning towards the DoG. When elders were appointed the issue of the DoG was never brought up. It was the furthest thing from anyone's mind. Eventually we found ourselves in a situation where the DoG'ers came out of the woodwork and they were the majority. I tried explaining this to Jerome but that's like talking to a brick wall. If we were an established church this never would have happened. More than likely those in the minority, who could not abide the majority view, would have left.

DoGs is not much of an issue in our church. Those of us who believe that way are a minority. Tom and I are a couple that do. We really do not argue over doctrine much. There are some differences over open and closed communion.

 

[12strings]

Are you quite serious?!? You have just nauseated me! You would deny the doctrine of total inability,downplay the doctrine of original sin & insist on a universal atonement!!! WOW, after that statement of yours, I would really question your seriousness as a Reformed believer.

You're right, I am not as committed to being a reformed believer as I am being a BELIEVER.

I would rather be in a real church that preaches the Gospel that I disagree with on those issues (not denying them, btw), than be in a staunchly reformed church that lifted calvin higher than Jesus (I'm not saying I've encountered such churches...quite the opposite)...but if that were the situation, I believe the need for Chrsitian ommunity outweighs the need for doctrinal purity on this issue. And unlike some reformed folks, I don't believe arminianism is a different Gospel.

If the choice is Gospel-preaching church vs non-gospel-preaching church vs. no church, I believe my choice is clear.

 

[12strings]

Now why would a non reformed want to join a Reformed Church?

Because they may be a serious minded Bible-centric Christian who is comming out of a church that doesn't preach the bible, and they like the gospel & bible focus of the church...perhaps. Perhaps it's not the most important issue to some people.

 

[12strings]

I have not read this thread but the premise of separating from our brothers and sisters in Christ is sinful, factious and flys in the face of the spirit of unity in the body.

The problem is not that the Bible is not clear, the problem is that our pride blinds us to the truth. That is why scripture is ignored or rewritten.

So if you have a church of 200 people, 100 of which believe that the church should be congregationally led and only baptize believers after conversion...and 100 who believe the church should be elder led and baptize infants...should they stay in the same church or form 2 different churches?

 

[Herald]

DoGs is not much of an issue in our church. Those of us who believe that way are a minority. Tom and I are a couple that do. We really do not argue over doctrine much. There are some differences over open and closed communion.

I suppose a person(s) can attend a church that teaches differently than what they believe and be happy there. But the when pulpit preaches, week in and week out the polar opposite of what you believe, it can be trying. That's what happened at our church. Since the pastor and elders all held to the DoG, the DoG was the prevailing doctrinal position. Those who believed otherwise could not abide by it, so they left for churches that believed what they believed. Had the shoe been on the other foot I would have done the same.

 

[Herald]

Now why would a non reformed want to join a Reformed Church?

I can think of a lot of reasons. Chief among them is the fact that it may be the only church in the area that preaches the Word. Not everyone lives in a city or large suburban area. A person may live in the sticks and their choices are few. Also, some people are providentially hindered. They may be in poor health and can't drive far or at all.