should all pastors be reformed?

[joebonni63]

I don't think everything is a cult but if they are wrong on theology according to the scriptures then what else do we have then why so many demons so who is right I know for fact the reformed is very correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Matthew, you're right in believing that "able to teach"=includes believing and being able to explain the doctrines of grace. Since you have a pastor who professes to believe those doctrines, there is a possibility that he will hear you. But don't be surprised if he doesn't. For many in the new Calvinist camp there are greater concerns and different motivations than that the people be taught to understand these things.

 

[nicnap]

I think there needs to be a clear differentiation between what is heresy and what is false teaching in this thread. Heresy is that which is soul-damning to hold to/believe. False teaching is that which is off, and can lead to heresy, but is not soul-damning.

Let's not get into "only the Reformed are saved" stuff. (No one has said it, but it does seem to be the trajectory that might be inferred by some reading this thread.) Very simply, we believe that men have to have faith in a perfect person in order to be saved. They do not have to have a perfect faith. (That is, every theological "T" crossed and "I" dotted.) The basic beliefs to which one must hold, in order to be considered a Christian, are set forth in the broadest creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and the Athanasian).

To the OP, the qualifications for an overseer are character traits, and none of them seem to be perfection in doctrine (I realize that is not what you said/are saying). YES we want all pastors to have correct doctrine at every point, but the fact is, we live in a fallen world, and that will not be the case. Men will grow---even Reformed men (and TULIP does not make one Reformed)---and some will even see change in their positions. Men who are called to preach will give account for such, which is why we know that James says what he does.

In confessional, Reformed churches, men are to be Reformed in doctrine. In churches that are not confessional or Reformed, men will likely not be. Does this mean they are not preaching the Gospel or the Word rightly? (At some points, yes.) However, where they are seeking to be faithful to Scripture, they will preach the Word---and the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God. (Insert "blind squirrel" analogy here.)

The first text which you set out has nothing to do with qualifications for a pastor. Paul instructs Titus to instruct those in the flock, "to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people," because when we were lost we acted in the same way. There is nothing in line with qualifications for pastors here---except a simple instruction from Paul to Titus on what to instruct people. From verse three through seven he is describing salvation as it is brought to believers, and then he picks back up at verse 8 in what he is instructing Titus. There is absolutely nothing in this about having to hold to TULIP in order to be a pastor. Again, yes we want men to be Reformed, because it is the true faith; however if that is what you want in a church---why not leave and go to a Reformed church?

On that note, concerning your meetings with your friends and pastors (which, I thought you were one; your signature says you are ordained...), are you all meeting in order to "make demands?" What is the nature of these meetings? Are they well-received by the pastor(s)? As Tyler has pointed out, and I might do so a little more bluntly: You are NOT in a Reformed church, which is why the pastors/elders are not seeking to call strictly Reformed men. I appreciate that you are seeking to "stick it out" at the church, but have your views changed since you were ordained/hired? If so, would you be best suited to find something that is more in line with your new, reforming views rather than trying to change this church?

 

[Justified]

I think there needs to be a clear differentiation between what is heresy and what is false teaching in this thread. Heresy is that which is soul-damning to hold to/believe. False teaching is that which is off, and can lead to heresy, but is not soul-damning.

Let's not get into "only the Reformed are saved" stuff. (No one has said it, but it does seem to be the trajectory that might be inferred by some reading this thread.) Very simply, we believe that men have to have faith in a perfect person in order to be saved. They do not have to have a perfect faith. (That is, every theological "T" crossed and "I" dotted.) The basic beliefs to which one must hold, in order to be considered a Christian, are set forth in the broadest creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and the Athanasian).

To the OP, the qualifications for an overseer are character traits, and none of them seem to be perfection in doctrine (I realize that is not what you said/are saying). YES we want all pastors to have correct doctrine at every point, but the fact is, we live in a fallen world, and that will not be the case. Men will grow---even Reformed men (and TULIP does not make one Reformed)---and some will even see change in their positions. Men who are called to preach will give account for such, which is why we know that James says what he does.

In confessional, Reformed churches, men are to be Reformed in doctrine. In churches that are not confessional or Reformed, men will likely not be. Does this mean they are not preaching the Gospel or the Word rightly? (At some points, yes.) However, where they are seeking to be faithful to Scripture, they will preach the Word---and the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God. (Insert "blind squirrel" analogy here.)

The first text which you set out has nothing to do with qualifications for a pastor. Paul instructs Titus to instruct those in the flock, "to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people," because when we were lost we acted in the same way. There is nothing in line with qualifications for pastors here---except a simple instruction from Paul to Titus on what to instruct people. From verse three through seven he is describing salvation as it is brought to believers, and then he picks back up at verse 8 in what he is instructing Titus. There is absolutely nothing in this about having to hold to TULIP in order to be a pastor. Again, yes we want men to be Reformed, because it is the true faith; however if that is what you want in a church---why not leave and go to a Reformed church?

On that note, concerning your meetings with your friends and pastors (which, I thought you were one; your signature says you are ordained...), are you all meeting in order to "make demands?" What is the nature of these meetings? Are they well-received by the pastor(s)? As Tyler has pointed out, and I might do so a little more bluntly: You are NOT in a Reformed church, which is why the pastors/elders are not seeking to call strictly Reformed men. I appreciate that you are seeking to "stick it out" at the church, but have your views changed since you were ordained/hired? If so, would you be best suited to find something that is more in line with your new, reforming views rather than trying to change this church?

Good assessment. That was the distinction I wanted to make between false teaching and heresy. I'd say, although the Doctrines of Grace are vital to the health of the Church, one can be saved without believing them. The question is, do they believe the Gospel? If so, they are saved even though they may be ignorant of the cogs and gears that run the Gospel (election, a definite atonement, efficacious call, etc.).

 

[Justified]

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

Friend, I did not anywhere condone the teachings of Benny Hinn. In fact it is for that reason I want to make a distinction between the damnable teachings of the prosperity gospel and the typical evangelical Arminian. Let us not exclude our Arminian brothers from the kingdom of Christ.

They may believe in false doctrine, and it may be a serious fault in their theology, but there are many Arminians who love Jesus. Let us like good Calvinists realize that, if it weren't for God's grace, we wouldn't be where we are at, nor would we have the sweet savor of the Doctrines of Grace that we hold so dear. We ought to be patient and gentle with our Arminian brothers.

To answer your last question, I first base my faith on my Lord Jesus Christ who, as Paul said, "loved me and gave himself for me" (Galatians 2:20). I am an evangelical first and reformed second. I exhort you, brother, to be more gracious with Arminians, who are your dear brothers in Christ.

I apologize if my above post seemed too abrasive. The medium of the internet has a way of not expressing tone in the way we want it to.

 

[SolamVeritatem]

I think there needs to be a clear differentiation between what is heresy and what is false teaching in this thread. Heresy is that which is soul-damning to hold to/believe. False teaching is that which is off, and can lead to heresy, but is not soul-damning.

Let's not get into "only the Reformed are saved" stuff. (No one has said it, but it does seem to be the trajectory that might be inferred by some reading this thread.) Very simply, we believe that men have to have faith in a perfect person in order to be saved. They do not have to have a perfect faith. (That is, every theological "T" crossed and "I" dotted.) The basic beliefs to which one must hold, in order to be considered a Christian, are set forth in the broadest creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and the Athanasian).

To the OP, the qualifications for an overseer are character traits, and none of them seem to be perfection in doctrine (I realize that is not what you said/are saying). YES we want all pastors to have correct doctrine at every point, but the fact is, we live in a fallen world, and that will not be the case. Men will grow---even Reformed men (and TULIP does not make one Reformed)---and some will even see change in their positions. Men who are called to preach will give account for such, which is why we know that James says what he does.

In confessional, Reformed churches, men are to be Reformed in doctrine. In churches that are not confessional or Reformed, men will likely not be. Does this mean they are not preaching the Gospel or the Word rightly? (At some points, yes.) However, where they are seeking to be faithful to Scripture, they will preach the Word---and the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God. (Insert "blind squirrel" analogy here.)

The first text which you set out has nothing to do with qualifications for a pastor. Paul instructs Titus to instruct those in the flock, "to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people," because when we were lost we acted in the same way. There is nothing in line with qualifications for pastors here---except a simple instruction from Paul to Titus on what to instruct people. From verse three through seven he is describing salvation as it is brought to believers, and then he picks back up at verse 8 in what he is instructing Titus. There is absolutely nothing in this about having to hold to TULIP in order to be a pastor. Again, yes we want men to be Reformed, because it is the true faith; however if that is what you want in a church---why not leave and go to a Reformed church?

On that note, concerning your meetings with your friends and pastors (which, I thought you were one; your signature says you are ordained...), are you all meeting in order to "make demands?" What is the nature of these meetings? Are they well-received by the pastor(s)? As Tyler has pointed out, and I might do so a little more bluntly: You are NOT in a Reformed church, which is why the pastors/elders are not seeking to call strictly Reformed men. I appreciate that you are seeking to "stick it out" at the church, but have your views changed since you were ordained/hired? If so, would you be best suited to find something that is more in line with your new, reforming views rather than trying to change this church?

 

[Don Kistler]

The late Dr. John Gerstner was once asked in a Q & A session the following question:

"Dr. Gerstner, do you believe there will be Arminians in heaven?"

He replied, "No."

The person asked a followup questions: "Dr Gerstner, so you don't think Arminians can be saved?"

He replied, "Not if they understand what they say they believe. But thankfully most don't. So, will there be Arminians in heaven?
There are Arminians on their WAY to heaven, but once they get to heaven they won't be Arminians anymore."

 

[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

Friend, I did not anywhere condone the teachings of Benny Hinn. In fact it is for that reason I want to make a distinction between the damnable teachings of the prosperity gospel and the typical evangelical Arminian. Let us not exclude our Arminian brothers from the kingdom of Christ.

They may believe in false doctrine, and it may be a serious fault in their theology, but there are many Arminians who love Jesus. Let us like good Calvinists realize that, if it weren't for God's grace, we wouldn't be where we are at, nor would we have the sweet savor of the Doctrines of Grace that we hold so dear. We ought to be patient and gentle with our Arminian brothers.

To answer your last question, I first base my faith on my Lord Jesus Christ who, as Paul said, "loved me and gave himself for me" (Galatians 2:20). I am an evangelical first and reformed second. I exhort you, brother, to be more gracious with Arminians, who are your dear brothers in Christ.

I apologize if my above post seemed too abrasive. The medium of the internet has a way of not expressing tone in the way we want it to.

i don't have a problem with all that because God's people are God's people i don't dislike them in any form. as you said it's not them it's their false doctrine which is what i said ............

 

[Matthew1344]

I think there needs to be a clear differentiation between what is heresy and what is false teaching in this thread. Heresy is that which is soul-damning to hold to/believe. False teaching is that which is off, and can lead to heresy, but is not soul-damning.

Let's not get into "only the Reformed are saved" stuff. (No one has said it, but it does seem to be the trajectory that might be inferred by some reading this thread.) Very simply, we believe that men have to have faith in a perfect person in order to be saved. They do not have to have a perfect faith. (That is, every theological "T" crossed and "I" dotted.) The basic beliefs to which one must hold, in order to be considered a Christian, are set forth in the broadest creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and the Athanasian).

To the OP, the qualifications for an overseer are character traits, and none of them seem to be perfection in doctrine (I realize that is not what you said/are saying). YES we want all pastors to have correct doctrine at every point, but the fact is, we live in a fallen world, and that will not be the case. Men will grow---even Reformed men (and TULIP does not make one Reformed)---and some will even see change in their positions. Men who are called to preach will give account for such, which is why we know that James says what he does.

In confessional, Reformed churches, men are to be Reformed in doctrine. In churches that are not confessional or Reformed, men will likely not be. Does this mean they are not preaching the Gospel or the Word rightly? (At some points, yes.) However, where they are seeking to be faithful to Scripture, they will preach the Word---and the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God. (Insert "blind squirrel" analogy here.)

The first text which you set out has nothing to do with qualifications for a pastor. Paul instructs Titus to instruct those in the flock, "to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people," because when we were lost we acted in the same way. There is nothing in line with qualifications for pastors here---except a simple instruction from Paul to Titus on what to instruct people. From verse three through seven he is describing salvation as it is brought to believers, and then he picks back up at verse 8 in what he is instructing Titus. There is absolutely nothing in this about having to hold to TULIP in order to be a pastor. Again, yes we want men to be Reformed, because it is the true faith; however if that is what you want in a church---why not leave and go to a Reformed church?

On that note, concerning your meetings with your friends and pastors (which, I thought you were one; your signature says you are ordained...), are you all meeting in order to "make demands?" What is the nature of these meetings? Are they well-received by the pastor(s)? As Tyler has pointed out, and I might do so a little more bluntly: You are NOT in a Reformed church, which is why the pastors/elders are not seeking to call strictly Reformed men. I appreciate that you are seeking to "stick it out" at the church, but have your views changed since you were ordained/hired? If so, would you be best suited to find something that is more in line with your new, reforming views rather than trying to change this church?

They are not open to what I am saying. There is another pastor that believes that a confession would greatly help our church and only reformed pastors should be in the pulpit but he is not one to descisions like these. Our senior and executive pastor are. He is only a campus pastor.

I have changed in my beliefs since I have become ordained. I changed when I was on the missionfield. I began believing there should be a higher standard of understamding the scriptures for pastors to be held to. I began seeing this because on the field there were 7 guys and only 2 reformed. This ratio made many confused Thai disciples and alot of re teaching. Also, alot of disagreement on how to evangelize. It was exhausting mentally, spiritually, and emotuonally.

And on the above Titus verse, Paul instructs Titus to insist on these things because they are trustworthy, excellent, profitable, and lead to good works. These things are the 5 points.

For we were once - T
He saved us - D
not according - U
by the washing - I
justified...Eternal life - P

So if Titus is insisted to preach these things, are not all pastors supposed to teach this trustworthy word so that they can teach sound doctrine and defend truth and attack falsehood.

I make the connection with ch3 (Doctrines of Grace) and ch1 (sound docrine) because in 1:9 he says "teach what is trustworthy" and ch 3 he says "this is trustworthy"

 

[Marcus417]

I think there needs to be a clear differentiation between what is heresy and what is false teaching in this thread. Heresy is that which is soul-damning to hold to/believe. False teaching is that which is off, and can lead to heresy, but is not soul-damning.

Let's not get into "only the Reformed are saved" stuff. (No one has said it, but it does seem to be the trajectory that might be inferred by some reading this thread.) Very simply, we believe that men have to have faith in a perfect person in order to be saved. They do not have to have a perfect faith. (That is, every theological "T" crossed and "I" dotted.) The basic beliefs to which one must hold, in order to be considered a Christian, are set forth in the broadest creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and the Athanasian).

To the OP, the qualifications for an overseer are character traits, and none of them seem to be perfection in doctrine (I realize that is not what you said/are saying). YES we want all pastors to have correct doctrine at every point, but the fact is, we live in a fallen world, and that will not be the case. Men will grow---even Reformed men (and TULIP does not make one Reformed)---and some will even see change in their positions. Men who are called to preach will give account for such, which is why we know that James says what he does.

In confessional, Reformed churches, men are to be Reformed in doctrine. In churches that are not confessional or Reformed, men will likely not be. Does this mean they are not preaching the Gospel or the Word rightly? (At some points, yes.) However, where they are seeking to be faithful to Scripture, they will preach the Word---and the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God. (Insert "blind squirrel" analogy here.)

The first text which you set out has nothing to do with qualifications for a pastor. Paul instructs Titus to instruct those in the flock, "to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people," because when we were lost we acted in the same way. There is nothing in line with qualifications for pastors here---except a simple instruction from Paul to Titus on what to instruct people. From verse three through seven he is describing salvation as it is brought to believers, and then he picks back up at verse 8 in what he is instructing Titus. There is absolutely nothing in this about having to hold to TULIP in order to be a pastor. Again, yes we want men to be Reformed, because it is the true faith; however if that is what you want in a church---why not leave and go to a Reformed church?

On that note, concerning your meetings with your friends and pastors (which, I thought you were one; your signature says you are ordained...), are you all meeting in order to "make demands?" What is the nature of these meetings? Are they well-received by the pastor(s)? As Tyler has pointed out, and I might do so a little more bluntly: You are NOT in a Reformed church, which is why the pastors/elders are not seeking to call strictly Reformed men. I appreciate that you are seeking to "stick it out" at the church, but have your views changed since you were ordained/hired? If so, would you be best suited to find something that is more in line with your new, reforming views rather than trying to change this church?

They are not open to what I am saying. There is another pastor that believes that a confession would greatly help our church and only reformed pastors should be in the pulpit but he is not one to descisions like these. Our senior and executive pastor are. He is only a campus pastor.

I have changed in my beliefs since I have become ordained. I changed when I was on the missionfield. I began believing there should be a higher standard of understamding the scriptures for pastors to be held to. I began seeing this because on the field there were 7 guys and only 2 reformed. This ratio made many confused Thai disciples and alot of re teaching. Also, alot of disagreement on how to evangelize. It was exhausting mentally, spiritually, and emotuonally.

And on the above Titus verse, Paul instructs Titus to insist on these things because they are trustworthy, excellent, profitable, and lead to good works. These things are the 5 points.

For we were once - T
He saved us - D
not according - U
by the washing - I
justified...Eternal life - P

So if Titus is insisted to preach these things, are not all pastors supposed to teach this trustworthy word so that they can teach sound doctrine and defend truth and attack falsehood.

I make the connection with ch3 (Doctrines of Grace) and ch1 (sound docrine) because in 1:9 he says "teach what is trustworthy" and ch 3 he says "this is trustworthy"

Before my conversion to the doctrines of grace (and honestly probably my true conversion to Christianity*) I worked as a volunteer at a nondenominational church that had a diverse set of soteriological views represented across a conservative evangelical spectrum. We had Amyraldism (4 Point Calvinists), 5 point Calvinists, Eternal Security Arminians, Conditional Security Arminians, and probably a closet Lutheran.It caused nothing but divisions, confusion, and chaos.

There needs to be theological unity among the pastors/elders of a church especially on doctrines like Soteriology or ultimately you create a very shallow flock. The flock will ultimately take something from each perspective and unintentionally create a Frankentheology that is pretty illogical and also spiritually harm those in the flock. If you start teaching people ideas that they can intuitively know are contradictory it will create chaos.

*I say my conversion to Christianity not because I believe non-5 pointers are not Christians but because before I accepted the doctrines of grace I was an ardent classical Arminian and knew a lot about theology. During this time while I had a desire to know things about God but not a desire for God. I was living in unrepentant sins (idolatry, fornication, drunkenness, etc.). I got roped into volunteering because I knew a lot so people assumed I would be helpful. I also kept my sin hidden. It was until I hit rock bottom and I went through a period of spiritual renewal that I realized how serious sin is and became repentant. I started to feel guilt for my sins past and present.I re-read the scriptures I saw the doctrines of grace taught plainly and I could deny what I previously hated. I also think its good to clarify where I was spiritually when I reference things before I accepted the doctrines of grace.

 

[aadebayo]

"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."

This is scary because the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God is the foundation on which all other biblical doctrines rest. How will a Pastor be able to give counseling to someone in very dire straits if he is unable to understand God's role as the first cause and yet not the author of the sin involved?

 

[joebonni63]

I think there needs to be a clear differentiation between what is heresy and what is false teaching in this thread. Heresy is that which is soul-damning to hold to/believe. False teaching is that which is off, and can lead to heresy, but is not soul-damning.

Let's not get into "only the Reformed are saved" stuff. (No one has said it, but it does seem to be the trajectory that might be inferred by some reading this thread.) Very simply, we believe that men have to have faith in a perfect person in order to be saved. They do not have to have a perfect faith. (That is, every theological "T" crossed and "I" dotted.) The basic beliefs to which one must hold, in order to be considered a Christian, are set forth in the broadest creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and the Athanasian).

To the OP, the qualifications for an overseer are character traits, and none of them seem to be perfection in doctrine (I realize that is not what you said/are saying). YES we want all pastors to have correct doctrine at every point, but the fact is, we live in a fallen world, and that will not be the case. Men will grow---even Reformed men (and TULIP does not make one Reformed)---and some will even see change in their positions. Men who are called to preach will give account for such, which is why we know that James says what he does.

In confessional, Reformed churches, men are to be Reformed in doctrine. In churches that are not confessional or Reformed, men will likely not be. Does this mean they are not preaching the Gospel or the Word rightly? (At some points, yes.) However, where they are seeking to be faithful to Scripture, they will preach the Word---and the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God. (Insert "blind squirrel" analogy here.)

The first text which you set out has nothing to do with qualifications for a pastor. Paul instructs Titus to instruct those in the flock, "to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people," because when we were lost we acted in the same way. There is nothing in line with qualifications for pastors here---except a simple instruction from Paul to Titus on what to instruct people. From verse three through seven he is describing salvation as it is brought to believers, and then he picks back up at verse 8 in what he is instructing Titus. There is absolutely nothing in this about having to hold to TULIP in order to be a pastor. Again, yes we want men to be Reformed, because it is the true faith; however if that is what you want in a church---why not leave and go to a Reformed church?

On that note, concerning your meetings with your friends and pastors (which, I thought you were one; your signature says you are ordained...), are you all meeting in order to "make demands?" What is the nature of these meetings? Are they well-received by the pastor(s)? As Tyler has pointed out, and I might do so a little more bluntly: You are NOT in a Reformed church, which is why the pastors/elders are not seeking to call strictly Reformed men. I appreciate that you are seeking to "stick it out" at the church, but have your views changed since you were ordained/hired? If so, would you be best suited to find something that is more in line with your new, reforming views rather than trying to change this church?

this is very good and very well put......... amen to that

 

[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

Friend, I did not anywhere condone the teachings of Benny Hinn. In fact it is for that reason I want to make a distinction between the damnable teachings of the prosperity gospel and the typical evangelical Arminian. Let us not exclude our Arminian brothers from the kingdom of Christ.

They may believe in false doctrine, and it may be a serious fault in their theology, but there are many Arminians who love Jesus. Let us like good Calvinists realize that, if it weren't for God's grace, we wouldn't be where we are at, nor would we have the sweet savor of the Doctrines of Grace that we hold so dear. We ought to be patient and gentle with our Arminian brothers.

To answer your last question, I first base my faith on my Lord Jesus Christ who, as Paul said, "loved me and gave himself for me" (Galatians 2:20). I am an evangelical first and reformed second. I exhort you, brother, to be more gracious with Arminians, who are your dear brothers in Christ.

I apologize if my above post seemed too abrasive. The medium of the internet has a way of not expressing tone in the way we want it to.

no not abrasive but very good points.... i do remember that this is the internet and we need to know that i really hope and know gets angry by any post. i see the blog as a blessing because we might think something and someone throws a book into the mix and wow opens a new door. i have been here a short time and read like 10 books already so i am very thankful. .........

 

[Matthew1344]

"Frankentheology" .... that's a good way to put it Marcus

 

[TylerRay]

Matt,

It might be a good time to begin looking at churches that are Reformed in doctrine, worship, and government. You have hit the nail on the head in terms of the inconsistency of doctrine and practice in churches that have a low standard of doctrine. The only safe church is a Reformed church.

 

[Eoghan]

If your church engages in expository preaching then how would your 4 point Calvinists preach through Galatians or Romans? Being on a journey through Romans myself I have been surprised that election is one of the reasons Paul holds to a future of conversion of Israel. Pastorally Spurgeon was helped through his dark patches by the understanding that it was God's hold of him and not vice versa that was keeping him.

I think both in pastoral work and in exposition of the scriptures, four point Calvinists are going to diverge. Paul is at great pains to explain that everyone is saved by faith, from Abraham to himself. There is a unity and continuity between OT and NT. My Arminian friend who rejects election sees salvation as different for Jews and Gentiles.

If your compass is only a few degrees "off" you will stray from the path markedly, the further you travel. I suspect that in the pastors office it might seem that everyone is on the same path but think where you will be a few years down the road. I am not convinced that the pulpit is the place for "on the job training".

 

[Physeter]

One bad apple in the barrel if left there will cause many of the other fruits to spoil. I've seen it happen in my refrigerator. Same thing with a minister that does not adhere to sound doctrine. Arminianism is destructive. It leaves a person always wondering if they are saved or not. It leads to other theological vices, works based salvation and people thinking they have saved themselves by their own choice.

Godly wisdom dictates that one should not hire an Arminian to a church office. Even though my church has them in its membership, they don't hold any church offices. My church leadership holds Arminianism to be a heresy.