-
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!
This Should Unite Us All
- Thread starter AustinC
- Start date
I’ve heard bad things about this guy… the Christian “right” labels him a “leftist”Enemy, so why should I view this… will he lead all Children of God into Satans wilderness?!? LoL … welcome to BB
When did Platt repent of his divisiveness
Ha.I’ve heard bad things about this guy… the Christian “right” labels him a “leftist”Enemy, so why should I view this… will he lead all Children of God into Satans wilderness?!? LoL … welcome to BB
I had listened to an interview with John Piper at T4G and he mentioned David Platts plenary as powerful. So I listened (hadn't heard of Platt) and found his message is one that all of us Christians can agree with. I figure if Piper found it inspiring, it needed to be heard.
I disagree… not worth the price of admission.
On the national scene, the American church is fractured. There are so many competing interests, rivalries, and grudges that it is hard to imagine so many disparate parts coming together. I would like to say that we can at least come together over the Gospel, but just look at the vitriol that takes place on this board among those who have differing soteriologies. At times we attack each other like rabid dogs. Perhaps I am getting too old and crotchety, but it seems to me that unity for the sake of the Gospel starts first in the local church. If the local church gets it right that is what really matters. Replicate that.
The local church is often inward. We budget more for new carpeting, new room designs, etc., than we do for missional action.
I liked Platt's visual demonstration at the end where he had his friends hold hands in a circle, but instead of looking inward at each other, they are looking outward at the world around them.
I liked Mr Platt's fervency for the Gospel, and I'm largely in agreement with him, but I'd like to offer a couple of points for discussion.
1. At what point does Gospel unity become shameful compromise? I hope I've posted enough here for people to know me as an unashamed Calvinist, but I don't have a problem working with Amyraldians or Arminians in Gospel outreach. Arminians may tell sinners that Christ died for them, whereas I will tell them that Christ died for sinners like them, but we will be united in telling them to repent and trust in Christ for salvation. My problem would be with Pelagians and others who deny original sin and those who deny that what the Bible calls sin really is sin. I don't see how I could work with such people or contribute financially to their work; they are promoting another Gospel.
Likewise, I can work with Dispensationalists in Gospel outreach or with any other eschatological viewpoint that looks forward to a future physical return of Christ, but the blessed Return of Christ in glory is part of the Gospel and I don't see how I can support those who deny it. I would also be very uneasy if a missionary group I was asked to support denied Penal Substitution. That again is part of the Gospel so far as I am concerned.
2. I believe that there is vital Gospel work to be done close to home. Perhaps the USA is not yet in such a desperate state as Britain, but a few years ago, the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC) published a list of 50 towns in Britain where there was no Bible-believing church. Churches have now been planted in several of those, but much work remains to be done.. Not too far from were I live, there is a new town being built with about 8,000 houses so far. There is not even a functioning church there at the present time, much less a Bible-believing one! They say that charity begins at home, and in these cases I believe it should.
That is not to say that churches should not also be supporting persecuted Christians and Gospel outreach in North Korea, Afghanistan and Somalia - of course we should! - but we must not do so at the expense of missionary work outside our own front doors, and the situation in some of those countries is so dangerous that it may be a case of supporting radio or internet broadcasts rather that trying to get foreign missionaries in there..
1. At what point does Gospel unity become shameful compromise? I hope I've posted enough here for people to know me as an unashamed Calvinist, but I don't have a problem working with Amyraldians or Arminians in Gospel outreach. Arminians may tell sinners that Christ died for them, whereas I will tell them that Christ died for sinners like them, but we will be united in telling them to repent and trust in Christ for salvation. My problem would be with Pelagians and others who deny original sin and those who deny that what the Bible calls sin really is sin. I don't see how I could work with such people or contribute financially to their work; they are promoting another Gospel.
Likewise, I can work with Dispensationalists in Gospel outreach or with any other eschatological viewpoint that looks forward to a future physical return of Christ, but the blessed Return of Christ in glory is part of the Gospel and I don't see how I can support those who deny it. I would also be very uneasy if a missionary group I was asked to support denied Penal Substitution. That again is part of the Gospel so far as I am concerned.
2. I believe that there is vital Gospel work to be done close to home. Perhaps the USA is not yet in such a desperate state as Britain, but a few years ago, the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC) published a list of 50 towns in Britain where there was no Bible-believing church. Churches have now been planted in several of those, but much work remains to be done.. Not too far from were I live, there is a new town being built with about 8,000 houses so far. There is not even a functioning church there at the present time, much less a Bible-believing one! They say that charity begins at home, and in these cases I believe it should.
That is not to say that churches should not also be supporting persecuted Christians and Gospel outreach in North Korea, Afghanistan and Somalia - of course we should! - but we must not do so at the expense of missionary work outside our own front doors, and the situation in some of those countries is so dangerous that it may be a case of supporting radio or internet broadcasts rather that trying to get foreign missionaries in there..
1. Gospel unity becomes a shameful compromise when that which unites is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
That said, congregations are united by much more than the gospel. This is not necessary a bad thing. Christians unite under a common understanding of the gospel.
Paul's words to the Christians in Rome apply.
Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
But in terms of uniting with those who have different views, that would be the decision of each congregation. Some would view working with any group that was not KJVO wrong. Do they shouldn't. Others would view working with Calvinists wrong. So they shouldn't. Others would not work with Mennonite, the Brethern congregations, Hutterites, etc. because they do not hold the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. So they shouldn't
2. I agree. Too often churches focus on foreign missions (which is not a bad thing) but ignore the mission field where God has placed them.
Perhaps, but the local church is the God-ordained vehicle for equipping saints to do the work of ministry. We pivot around the church at our peril.
Did you hear the message?
No one is pivoting around the church. That is never stated at all.
No, the church is looking outward, while holding hands to strengthen and stay united. The work of the ministry is outward focused. Yet, the vast majority of money, today, is being spent on inward accouterments that are of little value to the Kingdom.
I agree here. I attended a church that had a three million dollar annual budget. Over half of that was staff salaries. Then you had to account for utilities, building upkeep, etc.
Brother, we may be talking past each other. We are probably in agreement that, at altitude, the church does have its problems. At the granular level, some churches are more gospel-focused than others. A good question to ask is what is different in those local churches that are gospel-focused? What are they doing that other churches are not? I wonder if the answer to that question may be found in the first three chapters of Revelation.
Did you listen to David Platt's message?
Yes.
John Wesley tells of a dream he had. In the dream, he was ushered to the gates of Hell. There he asked, "Are there any Presbyterians here?" "Yes!", came the answer. Then he asked, "Are there any Baptists? Any Episcopalians? Any Methodists?" The answer was Yes! each time. Much distressed, Wesley was then ushered to the gates of Heaven. There he asked the same question, and the answer was No! "No?" To this, Wesley asked, "Who then is inside?" The answer came back, "There are only Christians here."
George Whitefield
George Whitefield
Where I live in northern New Jersey, I can’t pinpoint a truly gospel centered church. So with that being said, shouldn’t we be concentrating on planting churches right here?
But of course, you first need a pastor on fire for the lord. I just watched a church near me drone on via reading a script he wrote on baptism for 45 minutes…. Dead, dead, dead. What happened to memorization, to passionately appealing to people, to gospel truth etc. Whitefield was quite successful that way; I was always quite taken with Lloyd-Jones’s intelligence and wit, What these guys today lack is passionate delivery of the gospel and so nobody who is seeing to understand scripture is going to waste their time. If your going to get people interested in the gospel then send them people who are exuberant, animated, intelligent and totally committed to spreading the word of God.