• 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!

Theological Differences in the Local Church

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In another thread, there was much discussion about fellowship among believers who have different theologies. I am using the word theology instead of doctrine (although the two are often interchangeable) because how we look at and understand God (theology) affects the things we are taught/learn/believe (doctrine).

A textbook definition of the word fellowship is:

"The sense of unity, community, and participation in the lives of others that emerges among Christians and in the church from the common experience of faith in Jesus Christ." (Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms)

The key word in that definition (which is drawn from the Greek word for fellowship, "koinonia") is "common". In another thread, it was suggested that faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient enough for fellowship and that theological differences cause unnecessary division among Christians and in the church. This thread is about testing whether that assertion is true.

A point I want to make right up front is that just because two people claim to be Christians does not mean they have a lot in common. In other words, not every two Christians become friends. It does not mean they are enemies, it just means that there are no natural bonds of affection between them. Friendship and fellowship are not always the same. I can have fellowship with another believer in my local church that I am not friends with. I know a man in my previous church who has a personality that is 180 degrees opposite of mine. Outside of our shared faith, we have nothing in common. We have different doctrinal beliefs on important issues. We have been in each other's company numerous times and always have pleasant conversations. However, we are night and day apart on certain things. That said, he is a brother in Christ and I stood by him as such. If he ever had a need that I could meet I would not hesitate to do so and I would do it in a spirit of brotherly love. So, whereas we did not have a vibrant friendship, we were able to have Christian fellowship with each other precisely because of the bond of our common faith.

So, what do we do about theological differences in the local church? How does that affect our participation in the church and our interpersonal relationships? To begin with, how important is sound doctrine? Let me make a point by emphasizing what happens when sound doctrine is absent:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

As if to underscore Paul's words to Timothy, in the book of Titus, Paul writes:

Titus 2:1 1 But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.

Sound doctrine is critical for the health of a local church because it is rooted in a theology that elevates truth over error. Truth builds (edifies) whereas error destroys:

2 Peter 2:1 1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Is it possible to share a similar theology while disagreeing on points of doctrine? I am an Amillennialist and a Covenant Theologian. My pastor is a Premillennialist and a Dispensationalist. Our doctrine differs sharply. However, we share the same soteriology and he is not antagonistic towards my doctrinal distinctives. He also has a high view of God's word and preaches it with power and conviction. My beliefs do not preclude me from teaching in the church. He has a high view of God and his holiness, something that we both share. Before I chose this church I visited another church that was antagonistic towards my beliefs. The preaching was much different and my beliefs would have left me as an outsider. Should I have joined that church in spite of my theological differences? No. Does this mean I cannot have a friendship with individuals who go to that church? Of course not. I can separate individual relationships from that of an entire church.

continued...
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
...continued

To a degree this topic is subjective. What theological differences must exist for you to say, “I can longer remain in my church?” The same question can be asked if you are looking for a church. “What theological differences can I accept and still join a church?” For some, a church that practices the sign gifts (tongues, prophecies, words of knowledge, healings) is a line that they will not cross. For others, those things are fine. Some Christians can accept Arminian teaching if they are a Calvinist whereas others cannot (and vice versa). Still, others are accepting of social justice messages from the pulpit while others are adamantly opposed to them. Who is right? Well, that depends on one’s theology. How a person views God, and the doctrines that flow from that, determines the things they embrace, reject, and tolerate. So, when someone criticizes another believer because he chooses to leave a church that just accepted the practice of tongues, what that person is really doing is criticizing the other believer’s theological convictions. In other words, I am right, and you are wrong. While one or the other may indeed be right or wrong in their theology, it is not the prevue of any of us to bind the conscience of another. We should pray for one another and lovingly confront one another if we believe the other person is wrong, but in the end, we should allow them to depart in peace for another church, so long as they are not forsaking the faith or embracing heresy.


Considering how much emphasis the biblical writers placed on sound doctrine, sound doctrine it is not unimportant.
 
Last edited:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In another thread, there was much discussion about fellowship among believers who have different theologies. I am using the word theology instead of doctrine (although the two are often interchangeable) because how we look at and understand God (theology) affects the things we are taught/learn/believe (doctrine).

A textbook definition of the word fellowship is:

"The sense of unity, community, and participation in the lives of others that emerges among Christians and in the church from the common experience of faith in Jesus Christ." (Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms)

The key word in that definition (which is drawn from the Greek word for fellowship, "koinonia") is "common". In another thread, it was suggested that faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient enough for fellowship and that theological differences cause unnecessary division among Christians and in the church. This thread is about testing whether that assertion is true.

A point I want to make right up front is that just because two people claim to be Christians does not mean they have a lot in common. In other words, not every two Christians become friends. It does not mean they are enemies, it just means that there are no natural bonds of affection between them. Friendship and fellowship are not always the same. I can have fellowship with another believer in my local church that I am not friends with. I know a man in my previous church who has a personality that is 180 degrees opposite of mine. Outside of our shared faith, we have nothing in common. We have different doctrinal beliefs on important issues. We have been in each other's company numerous times and always have pleasant conversations. However, we are night and day apart on certain things. That said, he is a brother in Christ and I stood by him as such. If he ever had a need that I could meet I would not hesitate to do so and I would do it in a spirit of brotherly love. So, whereas we did not have a vibrant friendship, we were able to have Christian fellowship with each other precisely because of the bond of our common faith.

So, what do we do about theological differences in the local church? How does that affect our participation in the church and our interpersonal relationships? To begin with, how important is sound doctrine? Let me make a point by emphasizing what happens when sound doctrine is absent:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

As if to underscore Paul's words to Timothy, in the book of Titus, Paul writes:

Titus 2:1 1 But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.

Sound doctrine is critical for the health of a local church because it is rooted in a theology that elevates truth over error. Truth builds (edifies) whereas error destroys:

2 Peter 2:1 1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Is it possible to share a similar theology while disagreeing on points of doctrine? I am an Amillennialist and a Covenant Theologian. My pastor is a Premillennialist and a Dispensationalist. Our doctrine differs sharply. However, we share the same soteriology and he is not antagonistic towards my doctrinal distinctives. He also has a high view of God's word and preaches it with power and conviction. My beliefs do not preclude me from teaching in the church. He has a high view of God and his holiness, something that we both share. Before I chose this church I visited another church that was antagonistic towards my beliefs. The preaching was much different and my beliefs would have left me as an outsider. Should I have joined that church in spite of my theological differences? No. Does this mean I cannot have a friendship with individuals who go to that church? Of course not. I can separate individual relationships from that of an entire church.

continued...
My Pastor holds to the theology of sinners cooperating with Grace of God to have them getting saved, while i am a Calvinist in salvation, so we disagree on that. he also is somewhat more open the Charismatic things than I am, but we do not have nay spiritual gifts like tongues/prophecy in operation. We both affirm the scriptures and Jesus christ, so agree to disagree, as I keep talking to him as a Calvinist, and he smiles and gives me his point on the issue being discussed!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
...continued

To a degree this topic is subjective. What theological differences must exist for you to say, “I can longer remain in my church?” The same question can be asked if you are looking for a church. “What theological differences can I accept and still join a church?” For some, a church that practices the sign gifts (tongues, prophecies, words of knowledge, healings) is a line that they will not cross. For others, those things are fine. Some Christians can accept Arminian teaching if they are a Calvinist whereas others cannot (and vice versa). Still, others are accepting of social justice messages from the pulpit while others are adamantly opposed to them. Who is right? Well, that depends on one’s theology. How a person views God, and the doctrines that flow from that, determines the things they embrace, reject, and tolerate. So, when someone criticizes another believer because he chooses to leave a church that just accepted the practice of tongues, what that person is really doing is criticizing the other believer’s theological convictions. In other words, I am right, and you are wrong. While one or the other may indeed be right or wrong in their theology, it is not the prevue of any of us to bind the conscience of another. We should pray for one another and lovingly confront one another if we believe the other person is wrong, but in the end, we should allow them to depart in peace for another church, so long as they are not forsaking the faith or embracing heresy.


Considering how much emphasis the biblical writers placed on sound doctrine, sound doctrine it is not unimportant.
I think the dividing line would be when any of us elevate seconary issues to being seen as primary ones, and also when we no longer show grace towards each other, as in if I were in a calvinist church, I should not always be trying to undermine what the Pastor preaches, if it is sound and biblical.
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
My Pastor holds to the theology of sinners cooperating with Grace of God to have them getting saved, while i am a Calvinist in salvation, so we disagree on that. he also is somewhat more open the Charismatic things than I am, but we do not have nay spiritual gifts like tongues/prophecy in operation. We both affirm the scriptures and Jesus christ, so agree to disagree, as I keep talking to him as a Calvinist, and he smiles and gives me his point on the issue being discussed!
So long as you are allowed to maintain your beliefs without feeling ostracized and you are peace with it, fine.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I think the dividing line would be when any of us elevate seconary issues to being seen as primary ones, and also when we no longer show grace towards each other, as in if I were in a calvinist church, I should not always be trying to undermine what the Pastor preaches, if it is sound and biblical.
Personally, I do not differentiate between primary and secondary doctrines. There is either sound doctrine or unsound doctrine. All truth is God's truth. That said, not every doctrinal point imperils a person's soul, and I will not seek to cause unnecessary division over something like one's eschatological position. The problem with ranking doctinal positions should be obvious. It is wholly subjective to what we consider to be important.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Personally, I do not differentiate between primary and secondary doctrines. There is either sound doctrine or unsound doctrine. All truth is God's truth. That said, not every doctrinal point imperils a person's soul, and I will not seek to cause unnecessary division over something like one's eschatological position. The problem with ranking doctinal positions should be obvious. It is wholly subjective to what we consider to be important.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
The doctrines that are essential to be held in order to be a Biblical Christian are the ones where I draw the dividing line between Christians...
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Must go back to work soon, but intend to jump in here in a few hours...this is a needful discussion and I would like to stir the pot a bit...:Sick
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In the old P you mentioned that there's a common Bond of fellowship with those in Jesus Christ now that is not always the case as we all know. When people in a local assembly have not been instructed in some of the basic principles of the faith they don't interact at a level of maturity level that they should attain too. What I'm saying is are they practicing Hospitality are they opening themselves up to strangers and visitors that come in in a meaningful way. Not the little meet and greet in the middle of the service
actually investing time and trying to disciple those that come in among them
. Are they instructed well enough in the word of God to be able to carry out those one another responsibilities because if you get a little bit and very little real Fellowship biblical Fellowship
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The challenge given comes when a person has to try to blend in or worship or fellowship with those with the differences. Some Churches and some pastors seem better equipped to handle some of those differences. Others react emotionally and with fear and are not able to assimilate those people into the mainstream of the fellowship
. Some of the pastors rather than being hospitable and trying to work together for a common fellowship or goal put up walls ,become defensive and see the newcomers as a threat and would ask them to move on and look for another fellowship where are they what they believe is exactly held to.
The problem with that is there are many churches that could use help but they declined the very help that they could use because of the fear of the pastor in charge that he will not be able to maintain his his feeling of being in control of the flock under his charge and sometimes without a plurality of Elders it's perceived as a threat rather than people being sent there by the Lord to help that local body
 
Last edited:

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
I align mostly with the London Confession but use other creeds. The Fundamentals, Reformed, Mennonite as general guidelines. But I do not think any single denomination has all of the truth. However if we shop Christendom in general, we come close to finding most of it.
 

David Kent

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The challenge given comes when a person has to try to blend in or worship or fellowship with those with the differences. Some Churches and some pastors seem better equipped to handle some of those differences. Others react emotionally and with fear and are not able to assimilate those people into the mainstream of the fellowship
. Some of the pastors rather than being hospitable and trying to work together for a common fellowship or goal put up walls ,become defensive and see the newcomers as a threat and would ask them to move on and look for another fellowship where are they what they believe is exactly held to.
The problem with that is there are many churches that could use help but they declined the very help that they could use because of the fear of the pastor in charge that he will not be able to maintain his his feeling of being in control of the flock under his charge and sometimes without a plurality of Elders it's perceived as a threat rather than people being sent there by the Lord to help that local body

A pastor should not be in charge. He should be part of a team. An elder amongst elders, a leading elder but an elder all the same.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The challenge given comes when a person has to try to blend in or worship or fellowship with those with the differences. Some Churches and some pastors seem better equipped to handle some of those differences. Others react emotionally and with fear and are not able to assimilate those people into the mainstream of the fellowship
. Some of the pastors rather than being hospitable and trying to work together for a common fellowship or goal put up walls ,become defensive and see the newcomers as a threat and would ask them to move on and look for another fellowship where are they what they believe is exactly held to.
The problem with that is there are many churches that could use help but they declined the very help that they could use because of the fear of the pastor in charge that he will not be able to maintain his his feeling of being in control of the flock under his charge and sometimes without a plurality of Elders it's perceived as a threat rather than people being sent there by the Lord to help that local body
I think that there are churches that can handle divergent viewpoints better , such as some are calvinists, some are non cals, some hold to charasmatic, some do not, some are Rapture, some are not etc!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I align mostly with the London Confession but use other creeds. The Fundamentals, Reformed, Mennonite as general guidelines. But I do not think any single denomination has all of the truth. However if we shop Christendom in general, we come close to finding most of it.
So would identify yourself as being a Reformed Baptist?
 

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
So would identify yourself as being a Reformed Baptist?
Yes for all practical purposes. But I hold to a different form of Amillennialism. And I embrace the Schleitheim Confession (Anabaptist) in matters of Church and State as well as Christian ethics. Also some other Church creeds on certain topics.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes for all practical purposes. But I hold to a different form of Amillennialism. And I embrace the Schleitheim Confession (Anabaptist) in matters of Church and State as well as Christian ethics. Also some other Church creeds on certain topics.
What form of Amil, and what is the main difference between what that Confessions holds and what 1689 Baptist Confession holds with?
 

tyndale1946

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
A pastor should not be in charge. He should be part of a team. An elder amongst elders, a leading elder but an elder all the same.

Agreed... It's the Lords church not the pastors church!... Now lets find scripture for that... Here it is!... Brother Glen:)

1 Peter 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
 

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
What form of Amil, and what is the main difference between what that Confessions holds and what 1689 Baptist Confession holds with?
My position is the church remains invisible until 2 or more meet in Jesus' name. And then returns to invisibility until the next meeting.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed said:
To a degree this topic is subjective. What theological differences must exist for you to say, “I can longer remain in my church?” The same question can be asked if you are looking for a church. “What theological differences can I accept and still join a church?”

The Bereans did this;
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Now..lets say a person relocates from northern portions of the country to the southern half. Some cultural differences exist.
Trying to emulate the Bereans....they raise some doctrinal questions, but the Pastor, or Pastors are reluctant to sit with open bibles and study it out. This is quite troubling.Even worse if this church follows the current "small group" model.

The Pastor does not do what He should be willing to do, that leaves the northern people in an awkward position.
If they speak up in their small group and the people find their teaching biblical...then what? Eventually the desired unity does not happen and if caution is not observed a split could take place.
 
Top