Do all churches/denominations compromise?

[Santos]

I'm not sure that this is the right place for my post or if my title is sufficient for my question(s). But here it is. Over the last year and a half or so my family and I have become reformed in our theology and practice and we continue to grow in the reformed tradition. We drive several towns over to attend a reformed church each Lord's day with the exception of illness or vehicle troubles. I have begun to catechise my children using the Westminster Shorter Catechism. (Starting question 19 tonight) We listen to reformed sermons, read reformed books (currently working my way through The Institutes) but we are beginning to find some of the same troublesome trends in the reformed church that we attend, that we previously encountered in our seeker sensitive, liberal, Arminian local congregation. Things such as the RUF minister quoting liberal/woke preachers. And the church teaming up with non-reformed and even heretical (Pentecostal/prosperity) churches for city wide men's groups. Or joining up with non reformed missions groups to share in resources. Books in the church lobby for sale by liberal "reformed" preachers. And the likes of these.

So is this everywhere? Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? Is this all there is? Shouldn't reformed congregations oppose ecumenism? Should I not be able to trust that whomever the elders recommend in the way of theology, preaching, and teaching are not solid beyond question? And if your answer is no to any or all of these then what is the answer? Where do we go from here? Can you recommend a church planter? Can someone help us please?

Grace and peace,
Santos

 

[Pergamum]

The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to his will.

100% of churches compromise SOMEWHERE.


Be a Berean.

If the Bereans searched the Scriptures daily to double-check on the APOSTLE Paul, then you should triple-check your own local reformed elders.

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.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

So is this everywhere? Not necessarily. Being "subject" to error doesn't mean "in compromise." Every church is subject to it, but every church doesn't necessarily compromise. (Like every Christian is subject to temptation, but not necessarily in every sin tempted to.)

Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? Not necessarily; it depends on the compromise and what the leaders are compromsing on. Is it the color of the hymnal, or is it the mission of the church? Those are very different things.

Is this all there is? I dont know what you are getting at. Do you mean "we have to play the cards we are dealt?" Its just the way it is? No. That's why we pray for revival and reform. Or we are used by God to enact it.

Shouldn't reformed congregations oppose ecumenism? Depends on the ecumenical aspects. Would I let a liberal preach in our church? No. An Arminian? No. An independent? Depends on the independent. Jeremiah Burroughs....all day long. I've personally preached in churches that have asked me to send them my sermon outline before preaching. That's a good practice. They are being careful.

Should I not be able to trust that whomever the elders recommend in the way of theology, preaching, and teaching are not solid beyond question? Yes, you should be able to trust them. Leaders in any church ought to be vetting who takes over their pulpit, to watch over the well being of the church. That includes materials in the foyer, or books they recommend. They should be ashamed if they're not doing that faithfully, because they're not doing what Christ specifically requires of them as one who watches over the flock. 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. As well as Gal. 1:9-11. Wolves abound!

And if your answer is no to any or all of these then what is the answer? There are a great many answers here, but the first and most simple is 1 Thess. 5:17.

Where do we go from here? 1 Thess 5:17.

On this issue of compromise, everyone (especially ministers) should take time to read through the sermons of the puritans on covenanting and vows. Calamy, Manton, etc. In regards to upholding one's vows, exception taking from historic Christian truth (contra confessional subscriptionalism) will continue and churches will slowly, or quickly in some cases, degenerate into synagogues of Satan.
Revelation 2:5, "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent."

I can tell you from personal experience, as a parishioner in churches under very famous presbyterian and reformed baptist ministers at different times, those you would know today, that I couldn't reside there very long because of the compromise that stretched from the foyer (with horribly deviant Arminian books and pamphlets), to the compromise in new members classes, to watered down preaching in the pulpit, to General compromising conversation among the elders, to just the overall terrible nature how the church conducts herself today in order to keep the peace among the people so that they can afford big buildings and big ministries by playing the nicety card. Running the church like a business always leads there, and its disgusting when it occurs. You might ask, in those churches was there anything good? They were, at the time, the "best church I could find in my area." You might ask, were you blessed by them? In the Presbyerian church at that time, no. Literally, it was a difficult time all around, a fight for the bible and WCF every week. (And they closed up shop). In the Reformed Baptist church, yes, blessed in MANY ways, even though I disagreed with the elders on certain issues where they departed from the 1689 confession at the time.

(Side note: Some people will tell you to move where there is a good church, a faithful church. That could be an answer, but only after a good amount of counsel and prayer. A lot of people will tell you to do that who won't do it themselves. Ideally, it may be an option, but its very difficult to do practically. There are some threads dealing with that here on the board that have good counsel in them.)

 

[Jake]

Every single church I am in has had something I disagreed with. I've been a member of the church since I was a very young child and have regularly attended and been members of several churches, including Reformed churches for my adult life. There have been problems with sin, there have been disagreements I've had with the leadership, there have been differences I've had with how the church worshipped.

But as Pergamum quoted from the WCF/LBCF above, every church is indeed subject to a mixture of error. I could easily focus on the disagreements I've had, but I've also been blessed by every church I've been in. Even the non-Reformed church I grew up in, which was still an Evangelical church, still did many things right and had many great Christian folks in it, even though it had some big blindspots. I've learned from older Christians, from the elders God has placed over me, and grown in grace in Christ's church even among those whom I disagree. That said, I have been blessed in the Reformed churches I have been in for there to be far more good than bad, but it can be easy to focus on the bad which is not edifying.

What I recommend to people is to find the best church you can in your local area and stick with it. If it's not somewhere you can worship and serve in good conscience, then move or work on finding people to plant a church in your area (but keep attending the best church you can find in the meantime). But make sure you are serving too. Get to know the people in your church, volunteer (every church of every size has a need for people to volunteer), and use your gifts as God has equipped you.

 

[Kinghezy]

What I recommend to people is to find the best church you can in your local area and stick with it.

I agree. I have in my head (cannot track down quickly) that this advice is something either Robert Godfrey and/or R Scott Clark has given. It was at least from someone who I would put in the "Truly Reformed" camp. If it is something that you can live with, being involved in the church you may be able to help influence practices.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I would echo what has been said thus far. Though, in an absolute sense, as Amos writes:

Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Amos 3:3

It is hard for my family to 'walk together' w/ our church (absolutely) in that they are not EP nor do they serve wine in the supper; Some accommodations have been made by my pastor in that my family sits somewhat separated from the congregation (in the last row of the balcony area) and a elder brings us a special tray w/ wine. No one has asked us why we don't sing the hymns nor "What is the elder bringing you during the supper?" The confession is a whole another subject.

Digressing, I agree w/ Jake above; I have never been in a church where I agreed with every jot and tittle anyways. I would never say that my being a member makes the church any better than it was. The body is a fragile organism and God has shown me grace in being tolerant of the weakness she has. I am far from perfect and the last thing I would want is anyone getting into my underwear drawer, vetting all the garbage still in my heart and life. So yea, it's better to be in a church, even a weak one, than not being in one at all.

Lastly, on the subject of compromise; the term needs some defining; most all PCA churches, along w/ their GA, would say that they do not compromise in the way that they have discerned what Westminster meant by this and that. In reformed settings, the PCA would be considered a tad liberal (some more liberal than others), when compared to the OPC, RPCNA etc. Can it really be said that they are compromising? I don't believe they are compromising the main tenets of the faith. They have their 3 marks; so 'compromise' would be graded on curves based on wisdom and knowledge given them by Christ. I can't rightfully fault these weaker congregations based on a conviction that they do not truly hold to.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This point has to be more appreciated by strictly confessional types as the danger most faced by Presbyterians who take its core principles seriously tends to be falling into Separatism of some sort. I.e. that we somehow partake of the sins of an imperfect church by being in it and that physical separation is the only cure rather than simply refraining from a specific practice (i.e. if an exclusive psalm singer, not singing the hymns). We can argue and disagree over when one is free to move on to a better church, whether commitments to the not so better demand more consideration etc., but separation only becomes necessary when membership requires us to sin against conscience (i.e. if the elders insist you have to sing whatever they approve; and there are churches that operate like that).

So yea, it's better to be in a church, even a weak one, than not being in one at all.

 

[TheInquirer]

Some great wisdom given so far. I think many of us feel this tension continually in one way or another. You start to see more problem areas the more you grow in knowledge and maturity in the faith.

From what you mentioned, I would be concerned about what your church is doing and it may be worth a respectful conversation with the pastor and ask why and how those actions cohere (or not) with their stated beliefs.

Geographical limitations are a real concern. You only have access to the churches you can reasonably transport yourself and your family to on a regular basis. We make the best choices with the options we have. I agree that moving may or may not be the answer. Moving is a big decision with a lot of factors to consider.

I was reminded this week that God often forms his people through conflict and tension. You look at so many of the great theological works and what kind of soil they grew out of - almost always tension and conflict.

Since I cannot control the actions of others, I need to keep asking myself regularly - "How is God shaping me through this? What kind of convictions is he building in me through this current conflict?"

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

if the elders insist you have to sing whatever they approve; and there are churches that operate like that).

Yes, I've been in that very situation, sadly.

 

[Edward]

Over the last year and a half or so my family and I have become reformed in our theology and practice and we continue to grow in the reformed tradition.

Sounds like there is a possibility that you may still be 'cage stage'.

Some of your concerns sound like they may have a legitimate basis, others don't. There is not really sufficient detail in your report to assess most of your complaints.

Most churches lack the resources to go it alone, and it can be poor stewardship to try to duplicate successful operations. So when it comes to ministering to the hungry - are you going to say 1) that's not something we care about, 2) let's open a competing soup kitchen although we aren't as well located as the existing operation and it means we'll have to cut the budget for most other mission activities or 3) let's cooperate with the successful operation run by the well located PCUSA church that will let us come in periodically with the reformed truths.

 

[Santos]

Sounds like there is a possibility that you may still be 'cage stage'.

Some of your concerns sound like they may have a legitimate basis, others don't. There is not really sufficient detail in your report to assess most of your complaints.

Most churches lack the resources to go it alone, and it can be poor stewardship to try to duplicate successful operations. So when it comes to ministering to the hungry - are you going to say 1) that's not something we care about, 2) let's open a competing soup kitchen although we aren't as well located as the existing operation and it means we'll have to cut the budget for most other mission activities or 3) let's cooperate with the successful operation run by the well located PCUSA church that will let us come in periodically with the reformed truths.

Ah, the dreaded cage stage. Perhaps. But I don't think that I'm being very unreasonable. Let me out of this cage and we'll see.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Santos, you mentioned an RUF minister but have a Baptist Church in your signature. Which do you attend?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

RC Sproul told an account of his ordination where he and another candidate were going for ordination. Before being examined, the other candidate said to him, "should I go with the resurrection or not?" Sproul agast, said, "Of course. But dont you believe in the resurrection?" The fellow said, "Of course not." Sproul told him that when he's questioned about it, he should "tell the truth." The guy told him after the fact that he answered afirming it, but had his fingers crossed, so as to be able to uphold his lie genuinely.

That can be somewhat applicable to the difficulty of why there are so many compromises, in so many areas, in so many churches. If the difficulty with truth begins with crossed fingered pastors, what will become of the unsuspecting sheep?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I don't know much about your church, but the four things I read I wouldn't be too concerned about unless your see bad doctrine and bad living in the life of the leaders. I think it's fine to qoute any Christian as long as it's truth. One of my favorite authors will quote Calvin, Edwards, then Max Lucado on the same page. To me that shows that he is very researched. As long as a church isn't heretical, they should assist each other in service and missions. This is a good thing as we are called to unite as one body in Christ. As far as books, if a book is good and biblical, it doesn't matter who wrote it in a sense. My pastor is very precise, and we've read through books from authors he doesn't agree with everything about, but because they wrote a good book on a certain subject, we would read it.

I don't know all the details, but those things don't sound major. Are your leaders godly and doctrinally sound? If so, I would probably back down a bit and ask yourself if part of this is zeal without much formed wisdom.

I wish you the best.

 

[JTB.SDG]

I agree with Ed, there's more information needed to assess.

Paul quoted from pagan poets, so I don't see anything necessarily inherently wrong in quoting a more liberal preacher. Though personally I would want to qualify it; and I wouldn't try to recommend it; but I see nothing at all inherently wrong quoting someone with significantly different views if the quote is good. C.S. Lewis had some pretty strange theology at points, etc, but I'll quote him. The city-wide men group thing, I also don't see that as inherently wrong, though I would understand why you wouldn't want to use your time for that. So just don't go? I also don't see anything wrong in sharing resources, if they're worth their weight.

A lot of these sound like personal convictions to me. If they bug you maybe the place to start is going to leadership and voicing your concerns.

 

[Pergamum]

Being overseas I am just happy to meet a Christian of any stripe and would be glad to worship with them.

In the USA, by contrast, I've met folks trying to plant "Truly Reformed" churches in major cities in the US, sometimes claiming "there is no true gospel witness in this city" - (a blatant lie).

The BEST homework I was given during missionary training was to find a church in my area which troubled me. This church would not be apostate or heretical but would contain very different doctrine and worship styles. My assignment was to attend this "Different Church" for 3 months and to simply love the people and refrain from sitting in judgment of them. This was excellent practice for moving overseas.

I ended up going to a Full Gospel Church and even preaching for them (on the sufficiency of the Word of God, done in a non-confrontational way that was not polemical and in a way that they could yell "amen" to my message....and boy, did they ever yell AMEN a lot in that church...and got up and jumped up and down). Besides some of the tastiest food I ever ate, I do believe there were many true Christians in that church despite their gymnastics in the pew and their near-aerobic workouts during the singing. And they never minded that I just stood there to sing instead of swaying about.

I believe many of the Reformed equate holiness with strictness of doctrine and rigidity instead of love to God and the brethren. This creates a strictness and tendency to judge in the name of discernment. But the Apostle Paul in Romans 14 seems to tell us that love towards the brethren is more important than minor theological matters such as days, etc.

If we believe we are the stronger brother, then we can bear with the weaker brother by loving his church despite its faults (and without always pushing...pushing...pushing...a hidden agenda to "reform it" through constant complaint or protest). All who love the Lord Jesus are saved, despite some major shortcomings in doctrine. Therefore, we ought to love them.

The time is coming when our grandchildren will be glad to be "mere Christians" defending one another against persecution and prosecution in the West for not worshipping the Beast. They will not care about EP or non-EP; they will merely be glad to have a friendly ally in the fight as our foes hound us and take away, first, our social media rights and free speech, then our jobs, then our homes and our children for not indocrinating them in the State Religion, and, finally, our lives. In that day we will be glad for merely knowing others who love Christ.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Things such as the RUF minister quoting liberal/woke preachers. And the church teaming up with non-reformed and even heretical (Pentecostal/prosperity) churches for city wide men's groups. Or joining up with non reformed missions groups to share in resources. Books in the church lobby for sale by liberal "reformed" preachers. And the likes of these.

How exactly are you defining liberal? I get the impression from your comments that you are referring to the likes of Tim Keller et al. These people are problematic in some respects, but they are hardly liberals. Besides, if the quote is a good one, does it really matter who the source is?

Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill?

Some of the things that you mention perhaps ought to be gently discouraged, but I suspect that, yes, you probably are making a mountain out of a molehill. Besides, as someone who is new to the Reformed faith (and if you are a Baptist you are not Reformed), you especially should be more swift to listen than to speak.

 

[Kinghezy]

Are you a member of this church? (I think not based on OP but cannot tell for certain.)

If not,

1. you have more freedom for looking at another church. I think other posts have done a great job of showing that you probably will not find the ideal. @Scott Bushey '' example struck me with how he is so convinced of the communion administration that their family is "set apart" (not necessarily in a good way) with how it is taken. (Sidenote: my church has those platters for the small cups, and puts the wine in the center and the grape juice at the outside. I cannot tell how it is distributed, but I wonder if that would be a less ostracizing compromise.)
2. You should be even more careful with how much you push on them without having taken a oath that you are committed.

If you are a member, vice versus.
​

Are you a member of another church? If so, have you talked to/informed an elder (or whatever the term is at that church) that you are considering leaving? Have you considered if maybe you should stay at that church?

That itself is not a decision to take lightly.​

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I think there is a lot of compromise in many churches and denominations, much of it unintentional (especially on the part of laypeople).

I think there’s a better way to think about this very real problem other than the two choices of “get over it and learn to love people” and “I can’t worship with these people.” We shouldn’t get over it when God’s will for the church and how she is to worship him is the issue. We should long for and pray that he will bring reformation and revive us in his ways, for his glory and our good. But we have to find a way to live in peace in our particular circumstances (his Providence). This is where seeking to be content in it comes in; we can be comforted in knowing that our prayers for God’s ways to be made known will be used by God for the good of his church. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with praying for a work of reformation in one’s area, or joining up with one if you find that there is one- we just have to watch our hearts and seek the peace and good of the brothers and sisters we may part from.

 

[Dachaser]

I'm not sure that this is the right place for my post or if my title is sufficient for my question(s). But here it is. Over the last year and a half or so my family and I have become reformed in our theology and practice and we continue to grow in the reformed tradition. We drive several towns over to attend a reformed church each Lord's day with the exception of illness or vehicle troubles. I have begun to catechise my children using the Westminster Shorter Catechism. (Starting question 19 tonight) We listen to reformed sermons, read reformed books (currently working my way through The Institutes) but we are beginning to find some of the same troublesome trends in the reformed church that we attend, that we previously encountered in our seeker sensitive, liberal, Arminian local congregation. Things such as the RUF minister quoting liberal/woke preachers. And the church teaming up with non-reformed and even heretical (Pentecostal/prosperity) churches for city wide men's groups. Or joining up with non reformed missions groups to share in resources. Books in the church lobby for sale by liberal "reformed" preachers. And the likes of these.

So is this everywhere? Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? Is this all there is? Shouldn't reformed congregations oppose ecumenism? Should I not be able to trust that whomever the elders recommend in the way of theology, preaching, and teaching are not solid beyond question? And if your answer is no to any or all of these then what is the answer? Where do we go from here? Can you recommend a church planter? Can someone help us please?

Grace and peace,
Santos

All churches have some degree of mixing between the saved and the lost, so there would be areas falling short of the Biblical model for the church, but would also add that we need to be united and in support for the cause of Christ among like minded Christians. Those holding to Word of faith, Health and Wealth, and modern day Charismatic chaos would not qualify as being like minded.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I believe many of the Reformed equate holiness with strictness of doctrine and rigidity instead of love to God and the brethren.

I thought this sentence was good enough to get an AMEN in a separate post.
AMEN!

 

[Dachaser]

Being overseas I am just happy to meet a Christian of any stripe and would be glad to worship with them.

In the USA, by contrast, I've met folks trying to plant "Truly Reformed" churches in major cities in the US, sometimes claiming "there is no true gospel witness in this city" - (a blatant lie).

The BEST homework I was given during missionary training was to find a church in my area which troubled me. This church would not be apostate or heretical but would contain very different doctrine and worship styles. My assignment was to attend this "Different Church" for 3 months and to simply love the people and refrain from sitting in judgment of them. This was excellent practice for moving overseas.

I ended up going to a Full Gospel Church and even preaching for them (on the sufficiency of the Word of God, done in a non-confrontational way that was not polemical and in a way that they could yell "amen" to my message....and boy, did they ever yell AMEN a lot in that church...and got up and jumped up and down). Besides some of the tastiest food I ever ate, I do believe there were many true Christians in that church despite their gymnastics in the pew and their near-aerobic workouts during the singing. And they never minded that I just stood there to sing instead of swaying about.

I believe many of the Reformed equate holiness with strictness of doctrine and rigidity instead of love to God and the brethren. This creates a strictness and tendency to judge in the name of discernment. But the Apostle Paul in Romans 14 seems to tell us that love towards the brethren is more important than minor theological matters such as days, etc.

If we believe we are the stronger brother, then we can bear with the weaker brother by loving his church despite its faults (and without always pushing...pushing...pushing...a hidden agenda to "reform it" through constant complaint or protest). All who love the Lord Jesus are saved, despite some major shortcomings in doctrine. Therefore, we ought to love them.

The time is coming when our grandchildren will be glad to be "mere Christians" defending one another against persecution and prosecution in the West for not worshipping the Beast. They will not care about EP or non-EP; they will merely be glad to have a friendly ally in the fight as our foes hound us and take away, first, our social media rights and free speech, then our jobs, then our homes and our children for not indocrinating them in the State Religion, and, finally, our lives. In that day we will be glad for merely knowing others who love Christ.

We need to see the biblical mandate that we are all brothers and sisters in the Lord if we claim the same Jesus and the same Gospel, and I am curious as to which full Gospel group you ministered with, as I was part of the Assemblies of God 10 years, but would really not desire to be with those holding to word of faith or name it and claim it theology.

 

[Santos]

How exactly are you defining liberal? I get the impression from your comments that you are referring to the likes of Tim Keller et al. These people are problematic in some respects, but they are hardly liberals. Besides, if the quote is a good one, does it really matter who the source is?

I am not only speaking of Tim Keller, although if he's not a liberal than I'm no Texan (<-----Seventh generation Texan) I was actually speaking of Tony Evans who is rather liberal and name it and claim it quasi charismatic/Baptist guy. But yes I find Keller offensive. I find his inability to call sin what is sin and to define the lost as under the wrath of God (Q19 WSC) .

Let me further tell you why I find Tim Keller's type of waffling and back peddling so offensive. My former church, the one in my signature that I will be sure to change, had a youth pastor who quoted all kinds of liberal teachers and also could not/ would not take a stand against the sin of homosexuality.
My son who was struggling with this same sex attraction who was still fighting the fight went to this "pastor" with his problems and shortly after stopped fighting and gave in. Now I'm not sure what this "pastor" told him but I know two things:

That "youth pastor" attended this "men's" retreat this weekend
http://www.theliturgists.com/retreats/kin-men

And my son Caleb is HIV positive after "living out" for the last 2 years.

Seriously, what does it matter where the quote came from as long as it's a good one? Do you really mean that? Here is how it matters. A pastor or elder is speaking to the church with a mixed crowd of mature and immature (call that me if you wish) Christians and unbelievers in attendance and he quotes a questionable "teacher" with no caveats, does this pastor not lend his credibility to this errant teacher?


Some of the things that you mention perhaps ought to be gently discouraged, but I suspect that, yes, you probably are making a mountain out of a molehill. Besides, as someone who is new to the Reformed faith (and if you are a Baptist you are not Reformed), you especially should be more swift to listen than to speak.

I find it interesting that you won't label Tim Keller a liberal although he would appear to be old earth, won't call sodomy a sin or sodomites sinners, and won't say that sin leads to death and eternal damnation.
Yet you won't grant me a reformed label because I yet to decide where I am on oikobaptism. Due to my conscience.

Is this reformed wisdom?

 

[Santos]

All churches have some degree of mixing between the saved and the lost, so there would be areas falling short of the Biblical model for the church, but would also add that we need to be united and in support for the cause of Christ among like minded Christians. Those holding to Word of faith, Health and Wealth, and modern day Charismatic chaos would not qualify as being like minded.

I am the grandson of a Pentecostal preacher. I was raised in Pentecostal churches. I would not consider for a moment attending one now. I don't know if it is even safe to call them a church.

 

[Santos]

Are you a member of this church? (I think not based on OP but cannot tell for certain.)

If not,

1. you have more freedom for looking at another church. I think other posts have done a great job of showing that you probably will not find the ideal. @Scott Bushey '' example struck me with how he is so convinced of the communion administration that their family is "set apart" (not necessarily in a good way) with how it is taken. (Sidenote: my church has those platters for the small cups, and puts the wine in the center and the grape juice at the outside. I cannot tell how it is distributed, but I wonder if that would be a less ostracizing compromise.)

I am not a member of the church yet. That is why I am asking these questions. I have seen this plenty in seeker sensitive churches. I just did not expect to find anything of the sort in Reformed churches.

1. You should be even more careful with how much you push on them without having taken a oath that you are committed.

I agree. That is why I am asking this question here. I was hoping to get some sound advise from folks who could be objective before going any further.
If you are a member, vice versus.
​

Are you a member of another church? No.
If so, have you talked to/informed an elder (or whatever the term is at that church) that you are considering leaving? Have you considered if maybe you should stay at that church?

That itself is not a decision to take lightly.​

 

[Pergamum]

We need to see the biblical mandate that we are all brothers and sister sin the Lord if we claim the same Jesus and the same Gospel, and I am curious as to which full Gospel group you ministered with, as I was part of the Assemblies of God 10 years, but would really not desire to be with those holding to word of faith or name it and claim it theology.

There are primary and secondary doctrines. Most evangelicals trust that God saved them and have never fully considered the process. I know godly Pentecostal and Assemblies of God members and ministers who believe all the cardinal doctrines of Christianity and reject the Prosperity Gospel. Granted there are one-ness Pentecostals who deny the Trinity.

 

[Santos]

Upon further reflection I probably should not have brought my question here. I should have gone straight to the pastor. I will do that. I appreciate each one of you who took the time to answer me seriously.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I find it interesting that you won't label Tim Keller a liberal although he would appear to be old earth, won't call sodomy a sin or sodomites sinners, and won't say that sin leads to death and eternal damnation.

I do not call him a liberal because he is not, by definition, a liberal. I believe OEC and/or theistic evolution is wrong, but that does not, in and of itself, make someone a liberal. Otherwise, we would have to regard B. B. Warfield et al. as liberals. He has made ambiguous comments regarding homosexuality for which we are rightly critical of him, but I do not think that anyone in their right mind would regard him as really believing that homosexuality is not a sin.

Yet you won't grant me a reformed label because I yet to decide where I am on oikobaptism. Due to my conscience.

That is because the Reformed believe in infant baptism, as we can see from consulting the Reformed confessions.

Is this reformed wisdom?

Yes, it is. I have been studying Reformed theology for 19 years, so I consider myself to be tolerably well-informed.

 

[Dachaser]

I am the grandson of a Pentecostal preacher. I was raised in Pentecostal churches. I would not consider for a moment attending one now. I don't know if it is even safe to call them a church.

I would see those in churches such as Assemblies of God real churches, but the ones such as Word of faith and prosperity churches are churches in name only, as most of their theology is aberrant, and many times heretical.

 

[Dachaser]

There are primary and secondary doctrines. Most evangelicals trust that God saved them and have never fully considered the process. I know godly Pentecostal and Assemblies of God members and ministers who believe all the cardinal doctrines of Christianity and reject the Prosperity Gospel. Granted there are one-ness Pentecostals who deny the Trinity.

I reject United Pentecostalism and word of faith/prosperity theology as being of/from the Lord.