should all pastors be reformed?

[Matthew1344]

I am not a very good exegete. I want to be. I am currently going to school to learn how to do it better. So please forgive me if I am very wrong about what I see in this passage.

Here is the passage...
For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

there are many things to be seen here! what I am wondering is can a case be made that some should not be a pastor if he cannot understand, articulate, and proclaim the doctrines of Grace?

currently my close friends and I are in a sequence of meetings with the pastors at our church to ask them if they think it would be better to only have reformed pastors in the office. The head pastors are reformed but over the years they have had no problems hiring arminians. Now, they are only hiring people that just don't hate reformed doctrine but seem willing to be taught. If they find someone like that that they like, they make him a pastor. I believe to see some negative side effects because of this so I am concerned and am meeting with the pastors now about the situation.

One thing they are saying to me that my stance that reformed doctrine is "sound doctrine" and being abe to properly teach the evilness of man, election, the work of Christ, regeneration, and eternal security is a must for "able to teach" Is just my prefrence, not a biblical mandate for an overseer.

So I have taken what they have said to heart and once more searched the scriptures to see if it does teach that sound doctrine would be reformed doctrine or if able to teach has anything to do with teaching the doctrines of grace and sovereignty of God.

And I think this passage teaches that as a pastor you must be able to teach these things, not only because it is faithful to God but also because it is most beneficial to the flock.

In it is see all points of tulip. And then it says for him to insist on these things. It even says they are excellent and profitable.

So would this be a good scripture to being up in the meeting to pushing back on the idea of it being a prefrence and actually showing that it is biblical for a pastor to believe, articulate, and proclaim these things. And if he cannot he is not fit for the office of a pastor at that time?

Another passage is 2 Tim 2 when he tells him to teachieve what has been entrusted to him to faithful men. And what was entrusted to him? I think it is what was taught in Chapter 1. It speaks about the testimony of God and how he saved us by the gospel. Speaks of some of the points of doctrines of grace.

What do you think about what I am saying. and do you think that I am being extrabiblical and a Pharisee by adding to the bible?

 

[aadebayo]

I believe that the reformed doctrine is the only true and genuine doctrine. Arminianism is a form of heresy, because it in someway deviates from biblical doctrine. Scripture says that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. So any Arminian recruitment now will cause problems in the future.

 

[Andres]

Agreed with my brother above. Yes, of course all pastors should be reformed in their doctrine/theology. Reformed theology is biblical theology so why would anyone want/encourage a "minister" with aberrant theology.

 

[Matthew1344]

I also looked up the Greek word for sound and it means healthy. and arminianism leads to man centered salvation, pride, and a weak God. There is no way that theology is healthy. Therefore it would be unsound.

So, then wouldn't that go against the qualifications?

 

[Matthew1344]

Can this Titus scripture be used to back up what we believe?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I think we need to make a distinction here between should and must. We could certainly make a good case for the former, but as far as the latter, such a requirement would disqualify the good majority of pastors.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

To the OP. How many pastors do you have in your one local church? Just curious. Also, if the "head pastor" is really Reformed, why in the world would he put Arminians in pastoral leadership roles? It seems to me that the leadership should model the doctrinal unity that is desired for the body at large.

 

[TylerRay]

There has to be an agreed-upon standard of doctrine (i. e., confession of faith) by which ministerial candidates are judged. Only men who meet that standard of doctrine are to be ordained. That is the reason that Reformed churches are confessional.

 

[Gforce9]

To the OP. How many pastors do you have in your one local church? Just curious. Also, if the "head pastor" is really Reformed, why in the world would he put Arminians in pastoral leadership roles? It seems to me that the leadership should model the doctrinal unity that is desired for the body at large.

Good call, Jim. I came from an EFree church. The EFree still has an ecclesiological feet firmly planted in mid-air. Some congregations still have no elders.....to my knowledge, it isn't a prerequisite. The congregation I left had an elder board with two staunch Calvinists, a staunch more Semi-Pelagian-than-Arminian Dispensationalist, and men who are all points in between. I don't understand how there is any real unity in such a scenario....

 

[Matthew1344]

as of 7 months ago, we are no longer hiring any hard core arminians. If someone is underdeveloped in reformed doctrine and says "I'm not opposed to it. I believe most of it And I'm interested in learning more," and we like him, we would hire him. Right now we are at a place where we hire someone who claims they are a 4 pointer (doesn't agree with L), but pastor thinks they really do belive it but just can't articulate it and grasp it fully.

I don't know how many elders we have. I'm not real sure if we have any. I think we have a board but they primarily do buisness stuff.

But to the OP, MUST pastors be able to understand articulate and proclaim reformed doctrine in regards to God's gospel and regeneration? Is knowing it and not being able to articulate it someone who is fit for an overseer?

so far we have "if they do that would disqualify most preachers". This is a right observation. But do you think above scripture and 2 timothy 1 and 2 make a case for reformed gospel is a must?

 

[Matthew1344]

Thank you for all of your posts!

and we hold to thishttp://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp

 

[Matthew1344]

So it's not like we are going against what we believe about hiring ministers. I am wondering if I have any scriptural ground to make a case that it would be of best interest of our church to change what we believe about how we do it.

I have been told my belief is only a preference but not a biblical requirement. So I went home to look. But I know that it is easy to just see what you want to see in the bible and make stuff up. So I wanted to ask you guys if you think I am doing that.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Matt, I don't think these proof texts you think to show the pastors are to the point. Rather, throughout the Scriptures the so-called 5 points of Calvinism are exclusively taught. God is sovereign over all things pertaining to our salvation, and we are dead to Him and His kingdom except He regenerate us. And after He regenerates a person He keeps them so they cannot be lost again—enabling them (sometimes through serious discipline) to persevere in faith and holiness to the end of their lives on earth. Pastors who are Arminian think a person may come to Christ by simply deciding to do so, and may also be lost again if they decide to walk away.

The Reformed believe God chooses His people; Arminians believe people choose God.

Other churches may interpret the Scriptures differently (i.e., erroneously), which is why we have Confessional standards to make clear what we believe the Bible teaches. And, as has been noted above, there is more to God's sovereignty than just the issues of salvation.

 

[Don Kistler]

Jesus certainly seemed to think so. He said to Nicodemus, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?" He was referring to the new birth being something that God did from above, and not something that man could initiate on his own. And in saying this, He certainly seems to be saying that if someone did NOT understand this he should not be a teacher of Israel.

 

[TylerRay]

Matt, I have just looked up your church's confession of faith: http://www.lifepointchurch.org/about (scroll to "what we believe")

The statement on salvation seems to allow for both views:

About Salvation

Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God’s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin’s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith.

Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 14:6, 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1

But the statement concerning Jesus Christ seems to disallow the Reformed position pretty explicitly:

About Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is co-equal with the Father. Jesus lived a sinless human life and offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all men by dying on a cross. He arose from the dead after three days to demonstrate His power over sin and death. He ascended to Heaven’s glory and will return again to earth to reign as King of kings, and Lord of lords.

Matthew 1:22,23; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-5, 14:10-30; Hebrews 4:14,15; 1 Corinthians 15:3,4; Romans 1:3,4; Acts 1:9-11; Timothy 6:14,15; Titus 2:13

 

[TylerRay]

Matt, I have just looked up your church's confession of faith: About LifePoint (scroll to "what we believe")

The statement on salvation seems to allow for both views:

About Salvation

Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God’s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin’s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith.

Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 14:6, 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1

But the statement concerning Jesus Christ seems to disallow the Reformed position pretty explicitly:

About Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is co-equal with the Father. Jesus lived a sinless human life and offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all men by dying on a cross. He arose from the dead after three days to demonstrate His power over sin and death. He ascended to Heaven’s glory and will return again to earth to reign as King of kings, and Lord of lords.

Matthew 1:22,23; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-5, 14:10-30; Hebrews 4:14,15; 1 Corinthians 15:3,4; Romans 1:3,4; Acts 1:9-11; Timothy 6:14,15; Titus 2:13

I only bring this out because if your church is going to only ordain men who agree with their statement of faith, Reformed men seem to be necessarily excluded.

 

[Matthew1344]

Jesus certainly seemed to think so. He said to Nicodemus, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?" He was referring to the new birth being something that God did from above, and not something that man could initiate on his own. And in saying this, He certainly seems to be saying that if someone did NOT understand this he should not be a teacher of Israel.

I said this the other day to some people but totally forgot! Thanks!

 

[Matthew1344]

Matt, I have just looked up your church's confession of faith: About LifePoint (scroll to "what we believe")

The statement on salvation seems to allow for both views:

About Salvation

Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God’s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin’s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith.

Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 14:6, 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1

But the statement concerning Jesus Christ seems to disallow the Reformed position pretty explicitly:

About Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is co-equal with the Father. Jesus lived a sinless human life and offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all men by dying on a cross. He arose from the dead after three days to demonstrate His power over sin and death. He ascended to Heaven’s glory and will return again to earth to reign as King of kings, and Lord of lords.

Matthew 1:22,23; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-5, 14:10-30; Hebrews 4:14,15; 1 Corinthians 15:3,4; Romans 1:3,4; Acts 1:9-11; Timothy 6:14,15; Titus 2:13

I only bring this out because if your church is going to only ordain men who agree with their statement of faith, Reformed men seem to be necessarily excluded.

Maybe they mean all types of men. I'll ask them! Thank you.

 

[Matthew1344]

Matt, I don't think these proof texts you think to show the pastors are to the point. Rather, throughout the Scriptures the so-called 5 points of Calvinism are exclusively taught. God is sovereign over all things pertaining to our salvation, and we are dead to Him and His kingdom except He regenerate us. And after He regenerates a person He keeps them so they cannot be lost again—enabling them (sometimes through serious discipline) to persevere in faith and holiness to the end of their lives on earth. Pastors who are Arminian think a person may come to Christ by simply deciding to do so, and may also be lost again if they decide to walk away.

The Reformed believe God chooses His people; Arminians believe people choose God.

Other churches may interpret the Scriptures differently (i.e., erroneously), which is why we have Confessional standards to make clear what we believe the Bible teaches. And, as has been noted above, there is more to God's sovereignty than just the issues of salvation.

And our pastors said that they do not hire arminians anymore but we do hire people that cannot articulate God's sovereignty In all things.

This is my issue. I believe someone who leads a flock must be able to guide people under the banner that God is Lord over all.

My pastors said that is a prefrence but not scripture.

 

[Cymro]

Being Reformed

Spurgeon wrote, "there is nothing new in theology save that which is false."
With a bucketful of poison you can poison a reservoir, and little foxes spoil
the vine. Someone else wrote,"truth tolerates no error." You cannot have
contrary doctrine in the same pulpit, for if the trumpet sound an uncertain sound
who can prepare himself for the battle. There is nothing apart from sin as infectious
as Arminianism.

 

[TylerRay]

Thank you for all of your posts!

and we hold to thishttp://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp

I didn't see this before! Sorry!

The BFM has a more inclusive statement on Christ's atoning work than your particular congregation's:

He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin

Notice it says "redemption of men," rather than "for the sins of all men."

The BFM goes on to say:

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

Hi Mr. Ford,

If a pastor is a teacher and that is who a pastor is, then the question is what is the pastor going to teach?

I know you mentioned that the current pastors on the board (pastor's correct, not just ruling elders?) said they desire a docile pastor (docile is good), but a docile pastor? The pastor is somebody who teaches others and if he is docile and not ready to be steadfast in the Lord's teaching, then I would say that is a problem. Now maybe he is ready to stay steadfast in the Lord's teaching, but just needs to be instructed as to what the Lord's teaching is, then that is good, but that person is not a pastor. He is still a student. I mean what is he going to teach if he still has to be taught so he himself needs a teacher and therefore is not a teacher.

Is this a matter of trying to plant churches faster than the availability of pastor's to oversee the church? Are there that many churches without a minister? A shortage of ministers (pastors) is a historical problem, I mean Christ had to come to find his sheep for the current priesthood (during Christ's time) was not there for God but for their own sinful self-improvement (the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees).

A working out of ones own salvation is not a simple problem of how they think on paper or how they are applying and teaching others to work out their salvation (without God). It is the core issue of redemptive history. I mean this is what life is all about in the end. Yet there is more to what that kind of teaching and application in life demonstrates, especially upon others around them. If a person is only looking out for their own self in what is as precious as the blood of Christ for it was He who took it upon Himself to save others. So His blood is precious and has a real influence in the fulfillment by God and His covenant with His people. If that precious blood that God shed in His own Son is the central purpose of God's actions for His people. If that core reality of all realities - redemptive history in which God is redeeming His people by the cross and resurrection of Christ. The focal point of history itself being the cross and Christ's resurrection until He returns again. And somebody thinks they can do it on their own (Arminian) and teaches others that way. That person at his core where our pulse of life begins and ends in Christ - that person rejecting all of that - that person is selfish. Think about it. If a person does not understand Christ did it for them. If they can not teach that, then they are teaching prideful and arrogant things. That will lead to such a disaster not just on the doctrine of Christ but how people approach life in general. They will either be taught to look to God or themselves and when I am with somebody else I hope he is not solely just looking out for himself.

I have pride. I do arrogant things. Yet I thank God that He has enabled me to point to Christ. I pray that others attention will be brought to Christ by what I say and do because when I am - yes when I am - not pointing to Christ during that crucial time in another's life, I hope I am not impressing upon them my sin. For to look to ourselves and only our sinful ways is hopeless and does not encourage others in Christ. I hope that something of Christ and not of me is shared by me. I am tired of sin and this world. I yearn for Christ and His blessings and when there will be sin no more. I would rather be of company with people who desire the same so instead of trying to push others out of the way, we are looking out for each other.

Why could not such docile, potentially future pastors be taught first, then if they did learn, then come back before the board and demonstrate their teaching skill? I would hope the board would be involved in their instruction if they see such future pastors need that first. I mean the board from what you say knows what it is such potential pastors need in order to teach soundly. Or at least they could recommend godly instructors. If they are not taught what to teach, then to repeat what I said earlier - what will they teach?

Ambiguity only encourages sinful, selfish maturity, instead of the clarity of Christ and His gospel. Ambiguity leaves to much up to our sinful interpretation whereas the crisp, clear sound doctrine of Christ comes from God and He leads us away from our sinful, turbulent self toward a God who knows, understands, is truth, is our certainty, and loves.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

"And our pastors said that they do not hire arminians anymore but we do hire people that cannot articulate God's sovereignty In all things.
This is my issue. I believe someone who leads a flock must be able to guide people under the banner that God is Lord over all.
My pastors said that is a prefrence but not scripture." Quoted from Matt Ford above.
---------
A Pastor, Overseer, Elder must be able to teach (Titus 1:9; 1 Tim 3:2)

All of the other qualifications given for overseers are character qualities. The "ability to teach" is the only ability-based requirement. He is to be able to teach sound doctrine, not just be able to communicate in an excellent manner. His teaching can be to one or two, to twenty, to a hundred or to a thousand. Most of the churches in Crete were house churches. The elders were to defend the faith once delivered to the saints against the numerous false teachers that arose.

So, Matt, it is not just a "preference."

 

[TylerRay]

Matt,

To apply what I've been saying to your current situation:

Yes, all pastors should be Reformed, in my opinion. But your church has already settled that matter in their standard of doctrine. There is nothing to hold them accountable to Reformed teaching. They have already agreed not to be a Reformed church, constitutionally (i. e., confessionally). They may fit some Reformed doctrine into their confession, but it by means holds them to it. I certainly sympathize with you, but you and your friends there at the church have no reason to expect Reformed pastors.

 

[Matthew1344]

Matt,

To apply what I've been saying to your current situation:

Yes, all pastors should be Reformed, in my opinion. But your church has already settled that matter in their standard of doctrine. There is nothing to hold them accountable to Reformed teaching. They have already agreed not to be a Reformed church, constitutionally (i. e., confessionally). They may fit some Reformed doctrine into their confession, but it by means holds them to it. I certainly sympathize with you, but you and your friends there at the church have no reason to expect Reformed pastors.

I agree with this. This is why I said earlier that my church isn't compromising what we believe. But I would like to prompt us that we should change what we believe. But before I do ask them to change what we believe and what we do, I want to make sure that what I will ask us to believe is true. I don't want to go into a meeting and challenge the church to be extrabibiblical if extra biblical is what I am.being.

 

[joebonni63]

I believe that the reformed doctrine is the only true and genuine doctrine. Arminianism is a form of heresy, because it in someway deviates from biblical doctrine. Scripture says that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. So any Arminian recruitment now will cause problems in the future.

coming out of a arminian church i see it as a cult so everything other than the reformed church is heresy.........

 

[Matthew1344]

I believe that the reformed doctrine is the only true and genuine doctrine. Arminianism is a form of heresy, because it in someway deviates from biblical doctrine. Scripture says that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. So any Arminian recruitment now will cause problems in the future.

coming out of a arminian church i see it as a cult so everything other than the reformed church is heresy.........

Is this a little extreme?

 

[Justified]

I believe that the reformed doctrine is the only true and genuine doctrine. Arminianism is a form of heresy, because it in someway deviates from biblical doctrine. Scripture says that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. So any Arminian recruitment now will cause problems in the future.

coming out of a arminian church i see it as a cult so everything other than the reformed church is heresy.........

Is this a little extreme?

Yes, it definitely is extreme. First, Arminianism isn't a cult; it has no characteristics of what it is to be a cult. Secondly, I wouldn't call it heresy simply because it's false. If that was the case, we would all be heretics; for each of us are human beings, and because we are sinful, our knowledge isn't perfect. I'd reserve heresy for much more grievous error.

 

[joebonni63]

How come you guys are not in a church that preaches that doctrine hey i know lets not be extreme Mormons and JW's I guess they are in tune also and bet you just love Benny Hinn he would never be called a heretic wow what was I thinking. Real simple if think reformed is off in theology what do you base your faith on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bill The Baptist]

How come you guys are not in a church that preaches that doctrine hey i know lets not be extreme Mormons and JW's I guess they are in tune also and bet you just love Benny Hinn he would never be called a heretic wow what was I thinking. Real simple if think reformed is off in theology what do you base your faith on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, one of the signs of cultic thinking is that
you think EVERYONE else is in a cult.