Why attend a deformed church?

[blhowes]

What guidelines does the Bible give for leaving one church that's "less reformed" (or "not reformed") to join a church that's "more reformed"?

 

[shackleton]

It is opening a whole different can of worms to say that if a church is not reformed it is liberal. That simply is not the case. I have found that older people, 70 and up, who are not reformed are more "conservative" and more apt to get the gospel right than young people who claim to be reformed.

 

[kalawine]

Jean,
When I was a Charismatic I attended a couple of different "deformed" churches.
Just funnin' ya,
Kevin

 

[Dearly Bought]

The Belgic Confession
Article 28: That every one is bound to join himself to the true Church.
We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and that out of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw himself, to live in a separate state from it; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it; maintaining the unity of the Church; submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ; and as mutual members of the same body, serving to the edification of the brethren, according to the talents God has given them. And that this may be the more effectually observed, it is the duty of all believers, according to the word of God, to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the Church, and to join themselves to this congregation, wheresoever God hath established it, even though the magistrates and edicts of princes were against it, yea, though they should suffer death or any other corporal punishment. Therefore all those, who separate themselves from the same, or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the ordinance of God.

Article 29: Of the marks of the true Church, and wherein she differs from the false Church.
We believe, that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects, who call themselves the Church. The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself. With respect to those, who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians: namely, by faith; and when they have received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood, as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit, all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in him." As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes from them, as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those, who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.

As you can read above, our duty as believers is to unite with a true church, even if faced with death or corporal punishment. True churches purely preach the gospel, rightly administer the sacraments, and exercise church discipline. A church either bears all these marks or ceases to be a true congregation of Christ, for the true and false church "are easily known and distinguished from each other."

This essay by PB's own Dr. McMahon explains the matter in greater detail.

 

[Whitefield]

WCF XXV.4

This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

This leads me to think it isn't clearly an either-or situation, but a scale from less to more.

 

[Hippo]

The Belgic Confession
Article 28: That every one is bound to join himself to the true Church.
We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and that out of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw himself, to live in a separate state from it; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it; maintaining the unity of the Church; submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ; and as mutual members of the same body, serving to the edification of the brethren, according to the talents God has given them. And that this may be the more effectually observed, it is the duty of all believers, according to the word of God, to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the Church, and to join themselves to this congregation, wheresoever God hath established it, even though the magistrates and edicts of princes were against it, yea, though they should suffer death or any other corporal punishment. Therefore all those, who separate themselves from the same, or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the ordinance of God.

Article 29: Of the marks of the true Church, and wherein she differs from the false Church.
We believe, that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects, who call themselves the Church. The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself. With respect to those, who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians: namely, by faith; and when they have received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood, as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit, all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in him." As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes from them, as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those, who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.

As you can read above, our duty as believers is to unite with a true church, even if faced with death or corporal punishment. True churches purely preach the gospel, rightly administer the sacraments, and exercise church discipline. A church either bears all these marks or ceases to be a true congregation of Christ, for the true and false church "are easily known and distinguished from each other."

This essay by PB's own Dr. McMahon explains the matter in greater detail.

There is a difference between your test that a church purely preaches the gospel and the confessional test that the pure doctrine of the Gospel is preached. A church can exhibit all sorts of errors (it can sing praise choruses, have bishops and female deacons) yet preach the pure gospel, even though it is not purely preaching the Gospel.

One test is content, the other is context.

 

[Herald]

Forgive me if I don't seem overly cheerful in this thread. I'm speaking as a moderator right now. To whom it applies: be careful of the aspersions you cast about churches or denominations you disagree with. Be careful about telling people they should quit their jobs, stop being selfish and move to an area where this is a true church. Have some charity towards your lesser informed and more ignorant brethren. Not all of us are as blessed as you are.

 

[Dearly Bought]

There is a difference between your test that a church purely preaches the gospel and the confessional test that the pure doctrine of the Gospel is preached. A church can exhibit all sorts of errors (it can sing praise choruses, have bishops and female deacons) yet preach the pure gospel, even though it is not purely preaching the Gospel.

One test is content, the other is context.

I was actually thinking more along lines of content when I wrote that true churches "purely preach the Gospel." However, I don't think you can legitimately ascribe such a strong separation between context and content from the standpoint of the Reformed confessions. The Second Helvetic Confession speaks of the "the lawful and sincere preaching of the Word of God" as one of the marks of a true church. Context does seem to be included under the language of "lawful and sincere."

 

[shackleton]

What guidelines does the Bible give for leaving one church that's "less reformed" (or "not reformed") to join a church that's "more reformed"?

Zilch, Zero, Nada...a little El Rusbo lingo there

 

[Hippo]

There is a difference between your test that a church purely preaches the gospel and the confessional test that the pure doctrine of the Gospel is preached. A church can exhibit all sorts of errors (it can sing praise choruses, have bishops and female deacons) yet preach the pure gospel, even though it is not purely preaching the Gospel.

One test is content, the other is context.

I was actually thinking more along lines of content when I wrote that true churches "purely preach the Gospel." However, I don't think you can legitimately ascribe such a strong separation between context and content from the standpoint of the Reformed confessions. The Second Helvetic Confession speaks of the "the lawful and sincere preaching of the Word of God" as one of the marks of a true church. Context does seem to be included under the language of "lawful and sincere."

The Second Helvetic Confessions does seek balance where it states in the "Of The Catholic and Holy Church of God,
and of The One Only Head of The Church" chapter XVII:

THE CHURCH IS NOT BOUND TO ITS SIGNS. Nevertheless, by the signs [of the true Church] mentioned above, we do not so narrowly restrict the Church as to teach that all those are outside the Church who either do not participate in the sacraments, at least not willingly and through contempt, but rather, being forced by necessity, unwillingly abstain from them or are deprived of them; or in whom faith sometimes fails, though it is not entirely extinguished and does not wholly cease; or in whom imperfections and errors due to weakness are found.

WE MUST NOT JUDGE RASHLY OR PREMATURELY. Hence we must be very careful not to judge before the time, nor undertake to exclude, reject or cut off those whom the Lord does not want to have excluded or rejected, and those whom we cannot eliminate without loss to the Church. On the other hand, we must be vigilant lest while the pious snore the wicked gain ground and do harm to the Church.

 

[Dearly Bought]

WCF XXV.4

This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

This leads me to think it isn't clearly an either-or situation, but a scale from less to more.

From what I know, many theologians from both Continental Reformed and English/Scottish Presbyterian backgrounds have also debated this particular matter. I'm still not quite sure if this language in the Westminster Confession is completely compatible with the doctrine of the church taught in the Belgic Confession or not. Regardless, I adhere to the Belgic Confession's presentation of the biblical doctrine of the church. Certainly there will be problems in any true church in this present age. However, I will confess that the Gospel, sacraments, and discipline are the essence of the church. Compromise on these marks is not an option.

 

[Grymir]

The reformers wrote about it alot though. They were dealing with this kind of stuff during the reformation. I was quite surprised by what they wrote. I thought they would be all for leaving church's that were apostate, but I was wrong. They taught about the true marks and even said that statement I wrote earlier about leaving one church for one that is less sin-full. That with the reformation, people were church hopping. They even said the Catholic Church was a church, just not a healthy church that would feed your soul. That was surpising to me. I thought they would all be condemming of it.

Even my PCUSA church is still a church according to the true marks of a church.

 

[Whitefield]

From what I know, many theologians from both Continental Reformed and English/Scottish Presbyterian backgrounds have also debated this particular matter. I'm still not quite sure if this language in the Westminster Confession is completely compatible with the doctrine of the church taught in the Belgic Confession or not. Regardless, I adhere to the Belgic Confession's presentation of the biblical doctrine of the church. Certainly there will be problems in any true church in this present age. However, I will confess that the Gospel, sacraments, and discipline are the essence of the church. Compromise on these marks is not an option.

I don't know if the Belgic and the WCF are in conflict here. But I think the point being made in the WCF is that there is no church which is 100% pure in its marks. And if the Belgic and WCF are at odds, I'll go with the WCF.

 

[Dearly Bought]

The Second Helvetic Confessions does seek balance where it states in the "Of The Catholic and Holy Church of God,
and of The One Only Head of The Church" chapter XVII:

THE CHURCH IS NOT BOUND TO ITS SIGNS. Nevertheless, by the signs [of the true Church] mentioned above, we do not so narrowly restrict the Church as to teach that all those are outside the Church who either do not participate in the sacraments, at least not willingly and through contempt, but rather, being forced by necessity, unwillingly abstain from them or are deprived of them; or in whom faith sometimes fails, though it is not entirely extinguished and does not wholly cease; or in whom imperfections and errors due to weakness are found.

WE MUST NOT JUDGE RASHLY OR PREMATURELY. Hence we must be very careful not to judge before the time, nor undertake to exclude, reject or cut off those whom the Lord does not want to have excluded or rejected, and those whom we cannot eliminate without loss to the Church. On the other hand, we must be vigilant lest while the pious snore the wicked gain ground and do harm to the Church.

Certainly we should be charitable to someone who is unwillingly forced to abstain from or is deprived of the sacraments. Likewise, a believer may momentarily suffer doubt or weakness. Church discipline should be thus be conducted with great pastoral sensitivity and certainly not rashly, as the confession states.

-----Added 1/18/2009 at 04:53:56 EST-----

The reformers wrote about it alot though. They were dealing with this kind of stuff during the reformation. I was quite surprised by what they wrote. I thought they would be all for leaving church's that were apostate, but I was wrong. They taught about the true marks and even said that statement I wrote earlier about leaving one church for one that is less sin-full. That with the reformation, people were church hopping. They even said the Catholic Church was a church, just not a healthy church that would feed your soul. That was surpising to me. I thought they would all be condemming of it.

Even my PCUSA church is still a church according to the true marks of a church.

Calvin writes this in regard to the papists,

"In one word, I call them churches, inasmuch as the Lord there wondrously preserves some remains of his people, though miserably torn and scattered, and inasmuch as some symbols of the Church still remain - symbols especially whose efficacy neither the craft of the devil nor human depravity can destroy. But as, on the other hand, those marks to which we ought especially to have respect in this discussion are effaced, I say that the whole body, as well as every single assembly, want the form of a legitimate Church."(Institutes, IV.iii.12)

Here's a recent blog series I've been reading concerning how John Calvin urged believers to leave the Roman Church (parts 2, 3, & 4).

 

[kalawine]

Forgive me if I don't seem overly cheerful in this thread. I'm speaking as a moderator right now. To whom it applies: be careful of the aspersions you cast about churches or denominations you disagree with. Be careful about telling people they should quit their jobs, stop being selfish and move to an area where this is a true church. Have some charity towards your lesser informed and more ignorant brethren. Not all of us are as blessed as you are.

I agree. Had I been living in Corinth in Paul's day I would have been looking for a new church. But Paul "spanked" the Corinthian church (for some terribly gross sins) only AFTER he had said things to them like:

2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge— 6 even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you— 7 so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Corinthians (ESV)

 

[Grymir]

Oh yeah, I'm not saying they didn't say leave, but I thought the tone would be much worse than it was, considering I've read him condemming alot of things much worse.

 

[Jon 316]

hmmm, I feel like I am in the church at corinth at times. I have been struggling with the question. 'How pure does a church need to be?' And is it right to leave and find a church in which you think 1) the leadership structure is more biblical 2) the doctrine more scriptural 3) the church more christlike

and then I wonder

Perhaps God has called to build with the local church which is struggling in all three of these areas. hmmm

 

[A.J.]

I would be interested to know what you guys think.

When I discovered Reformed Theology, I did not immediately leave my Holiness-Pentecostal church primarily out of respect for my parents. They had the impression that if I left, the people in that church would think that my parents could not exercise authority over me or could not discipline me. I also used to be one of the musicians for the worship services of that church. But gradually realizing that I am really convinced of what I believe, my parents allowed me to leave. At present, however, they are still Arminian Pentecostals with dispensational leanings.

The situation of already Reformed or reforming pastors is a bit more difficult. I know of a Reformed Baptist pastor who is ordained in our local (Filipino) SBC. He got ordained before he discovered and accepted the Calvinistic convictions of the early Southern Baptists and their theologians (e.g. John Dagg). He has started affiliating himself with like-minded churches, but has not left the SBC. His plan is to continually reform the church he is handling. He has also thought of having dual affiliation (with the SBC and a local Reformed Baptist assoctiaion), something which is also practiced by some ARBCA churches in North America.

Another example would be the case of the Reformed Paedo-Baptist pastor of the group I attend (see my signature). He was born and raised a Presbyterian here in the Philippines. His father was a minister in a local Presbyterian denom. This would-be pastor later went to the US and worked there. He became a member of the PCUSA, but has left it. He became a member of the URCNA, studied in Westminer (Escondido, CA), and is now an ordained minister. But instead of serving in churches in the US, he decided to come back to our country and serve as a missionary and church planter (representing the URCNA). He did not join the Presbyterian denom of his childhood since it is actually Presbyerian in name only today. Arminianism and Pentecostalism are now the norm in this group of churches carrying the name Presbyterian. But he still chose to teach in its denominational seminary and instruct the students in the Reformed faith their denom has unfortunately left.

 

[PastorTim]

I recently moved and have found myself in an independent church that for the most part is Reformed (some 4 pters abound). The problem I have is their MacArthurism; that is their premillennial views. The expectation of a future kingdom constantly presents holes in their studies, their sermons and lie wise. The decision for Christ theology can be promininent. My dilemma is that the only other reformed church is a PCUSA. Many from whence I came said I should begin one and meet in my home. Well, there just isnt any others that I have found so not a good option at this point in time. I find myself having to correct teachings with my children which degrades their view of the church. What is a body to do?

 

[Whitefield]

I recently moved and have found myself in an independent church that for the most part is Reformed (some 4 pters abound). The problem I have is their MacArthurism; that is their premillennial views. The expectation of a future kingdom constantly presents holes in their studies, their sermons and lie wise. The decision for Christ theology can be promininent. My dilemma is that the only other reformed church is a PCUSA. Many from whence I came said I should begin one and meet in my home. Well, there just isnt any others that I have found so not a good option at this point in time. I find myself having to correct teachings with my children which degrades their view of the church. What is a body to do?

Wait, I'm a little confused. Your signature says Rev. Tim .. and you are a senior pastor .. and you are looking for a church home?

 

[Classical Presbyterian]

Sometimes the Lord calls the faithful to minister in contexts that are messed up. I think this can include churches as well as nations.

After all, if called people like Grymir were not in the fallen denominations like the PC(USA) with me, then who could I share the burden with? Who would be left to share the Reformed faith with those who are trapped in mainline fallenness? Staying in an unsound church is not a calling for everyone, but for those who are called to this path, may our brothers and sisters in more sound churches not make our burdens all the heavier by judgments and rock throwing.

This is my prayer. Don't forget that there are plenty of Christ's precious chosen ones in fallen denominations and fallen churches. Until Jesus returns, this will no doubt continue to be the case. Pray for the faithful, no matter where they are or where they worship!

Being in a doctrinally unsound church is a burden, yes, but if you are called to minister, you are called to minister no matter where that might be.

 

[Whitefield]

Sometimes the Lord calls the faithful to minister in contexts that are messed up. I think this can include churches as well as nations.

After all, if called people like Grymir were not in the fallen denominations like the PC(USA) with me, then who could I share the burden with? Who would be left to share the Reformed faith with those who are trapped in mainline fallenness? Staying in an unsound church is not a calling for everyone, but for those who are called to this path, may our brothers and sisters in more sound churches not make our burdens all the heavier by judgments and rock throwing.

This is my prayer. Don't forget that there are plenty of Christ's precious chosen ones in fallen denominations and fallen churches. Until Jesus returns, this will no doubt continue to be the case. Pray for the faithful, no matter where they are or where they worship!

Being in a doctrinally unsound church is a burden, yes, but if you are called to minister, you are called to minister no matter where that might be.

You are preachin' to the choir here, brother.

 

[LawrenceU]

Sometimes the Lord calls the faithful to minister in contexts that are messed up. I think this can include churches as well as nations.

After all, if called people like Grymir were not in the fallen denominations like the PC(USA) with me, then who could I share the burden with? Who would be left to share the Reformed faith with those who are trapped in mainline fallenness? Staying in an unsound church is not a calling for everyone, but for those who are called to this path, may our brothers and sisters in more sound churches not make our burdens all the heavier by judgments and rock throwing.

This is my prayer. Don't forget that there are plenty of Christ's precious chosen ones in fallen denominations and fallen churches. Until Jesus returns, this will no doubt continue to be the case. Pray for the faithful, no matter where they are or where they worship!

Being in a doctrinally unsound church is a burden, yes, but if you are called to minister, you are called to minister no matter where that might be.

How very true. I served for five years in an Assembly of God church as a Reformed Baptist. God was very gracious in that time to do some amazing work in the lives of several people in that church. Some of the old time members on the PB may recall this. I have no doubt that God called me to that church. At times the service was joyous, at times it was brutal. Just like any other church.

 

[Jon 316]

Sometimes the Lord calls the faithful to minister in contexts that are messed up. I think this can include churches as well as nations.

After all, if called people like Grymir were not in the fallen denominations like the PC(USA) with me, then who could I share the burden with? Who would be left to share the Reformed faith with those who are trapped in mainline fallenness? Staying in an unsound church is not a calling for everyone, but for those who are called to this path, may our brothers and sisters in more sound churches not make our burdens all the heavier by judgments and rock throwing.

This is my prayer. Don't forget that there are plenty of Christ's precious chosen ones in fallen denominations and fallen churches. Until Jesus returns, this will no doubt continue to be the case. Pray for the faithful, no matter where they are or where they worship!

Being in a doctrinally unsound church is a burden, yes, but if you are called to minister, you are called to minister no matter where that might be.

This is a really good point...

I guess there are also several trappings in ministering in a 'doctrinally sound church'. For example 'sound theology' can be a mask for hidden sin. Or perhaps 'sound theology' is not being outworked in our lives. i.e do any of us live up to the light that we have? Perhaps even mored decieving is a church which seems to believe right and live right but who are doing so for the wrong motives. 1 Cor 13 says this can be the case. Yet the outward profession and actions would seem to give indication that all is well.

I guess it is possible for such a church/ or christian to fall into the trap of one of the churches in revelation i.e they think they are rich and in need of nothing.

just a thought...

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

There you have a problem in that a confessional Baptist church would often not allow you to partake of the sacraments which rather rules it out as your Church.

Which points out a difference- Many confessional Presbyterian churches will admit Baptists to communicant membership without requiring them to violate their conscience on this matter. The options are greater for Baptists to be part of a faithful church (excluding credo-baptism) than for paedo-baptists. Baptists have less reason to continue in Arminian Baptist churches.

-----Added 1/19/2009 at 03:16:24 EST-----

Without judging a particular congregation or member of a particular denomination, let me note when one of the essentials (doctrine, sacraments and discipline) is missing, you no longer have a church. There may be genuine, regenerate believers in apostate churches. A particular congregation may possess the essential elements of the church, even as part of an apostate denomination. However, when one of the essential marks of the church is absent, you no longer have a church, but a synagogue of Satan.

Consider discipline: The question in mainline denominations should not be whether unrepentant, practicing sodomites should be ordained, but whether they should be communicant members. Could or would your local congregation exclude them from communion or membership? Is anyone ever disciplined or denied communion for unrepentant sin? If your leadership did, would such decision be overturned by the ascending courts of the denomination? Are the membership and ordination vows of the church believed, truthfully affirmed, understood, and enforced by biblical discipline?

If the gospel and true biblical doctrine cannot be preached, or the sacraments biblically administered, including the fencing of the table, or discipline administered and upheld, you are no longer in a church. There may be true believers there. Tell them to leave and do likewise.

The reason there are so few faithful Reformed churches is because too many true believers are spending their time and resources in less faithful churches. If obstacles to moving or distance providentially prevent you from being part of a biblical church, pray God will establish one within a reasonable distance; then, begin to actively look for an answer to your prayer, willing to support the work.

 

[Augusta]

A sincere question: if you stay in a denomination that you don't agree with doctrinally aren't you there under false pretenses? Wouldn't this be a 9th commandment violation unless you were open and honest about your beliefs? Would they let you stay if they knew what you really believed?

For those who are Pastors can't you let your leadership know your change in beliefs and can't you and your congregation leave that denom for another? Congregations have been leaving the PCUSA in droves why can't SBC Pastors do the same or join the Founders movement I have heard about? Is the Founder movement within the SBC?

 

[Neogillist]

What guidelines does the Bible give for leaving one church that's "less reformed" (or "not reformed") to join a church that's "more reformed"?

There exists no such guidlines, but you don't have to torture yourself over a local church thinking that God is calling you to attend it, when this would cause you to disobey his revealed will. Besides, our view of God's Church must extend beyond a local congregation or denomination so that we never end up leaving the "Church," although we may leave a "church" for personal convictions.

-----Added 1/19/2009 at 06:39:38 EST-----

A sincere question: if you stay in a denomination that you don't agree with doctrinally aren't you there under false pretenses? Wouldn't this be a 9th commandment violation unless you were open and honest about your beliefs? Would they let you stay if they knew what you really believed?

For those who are Pastors can't you let your leadership know your change in beliefs and can't you and your congregation leave that denom for another? Congregations have been leaving the PCUSA in droves why can't SBC Pastors do the same or join the Founders movement I have heard about? Is the Founder movement within the SBC?

I totally agree. All pastors are bound to preach according to the confession of their church, or else they are failing to measure up to their ministerial duties. This is always what happens when a local church begins to drift away from its confession, and is not rebuked by a synod or classis, but is rather tolerated for various reasons. Secondly, there is the problem of having ecumenical relations with other churches within the same denomination where the teachings will differ. John Wesley sinned in preaching Arminianism within the Church of England, since his church had a clear and sound confession that taught unconditional election. Now, he was never rebuked by his church, and indeed some denomination (e.i. SBC) will not rebuke pastors who preach Arminianism, but the fact that there are contradictory teachings within the denomination is problematic.

For instance, say that two SBC pastors have a pulpit exchange, one is a Calvinist and the other is Arminian, either they will both have to water down their doctrine on the pulpit so that it be compatible and both churches end up happy, or else their home church will receive some contradictory teachings which will require some correction at some later time. History has shown (both among the Dutch Reformed and the Presbyterians) that when liberals point their head within a denomination, they ought to get kicked out as quickly as possible, or they will contaminate the whole denomination, and then the conservatives will have to leave themselves. This also applies to Calvinists and Arminians too, I believe, since the two are drastically different ways of viewing God and the Scriptures.

 

[PastorTim]

I recently moved and have found myself in an independent church that for the most part is Reformed (some 4 pters abound). The problem I have is their MacArthurism; that is their premillennial views. The expectation of a future kingdom constantly presents holes in their studies, their sermons and lie wise. The decision for Christ theology can be promininent. My dilemma is that the only other reformed church is a PCUSA. Many from whence I came said I should begin one and meet in my home. Well, there just isnt any others that I have found so not a good option at this point in time. I find myself having to correct teachings with my children which degrades their view of the church. What is a body to do?

Wait, I'm a little confused. Your signature says Rev. Tim .. and you are a senior pastor .. and you are looking for a church home?

It should be clarified that I have moved and left a congregation behind thus the need to find a place to worship. A ministry where I also serve a Board of Elders remains in several states united thus far via long distance in a web-based ministry.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

What guidelines does the Bible give for leaving one church that's "less reformed" (or "not reformed") to join a church that's "more reformed"?

There exists no such guidlines, but you don't have to torture yourself over a local church thinking that God is calling you to attend it, when this would cause you to disobey his revealed will. Besides, our view of God's Church must extend beyond a local congregation or denomination so that we never end up leaving the "Church," although we may leave a "church" for personal convictions.

-----Added 1/19/2009 at 06:39:38 EST-----

A sincere question: if you stay in a denomination that you don't agree with doctrinally aren't you there under false pretenses? Wouldn't this be a 9th commandment violation unless you were open and honest about your beliefs? Would they let you stay if they knew what you really believed?

For those who are Pastors can't you let your leadership know your change in beliefs and can't you and your congregation leave that denom for another? Congregations have been leaving the PCUSA in droves why can't SBC Pastors do the same or join the Founders movement I have heard about? Is the Founder movement within the SBC?

I totally agree. All pastors are bound to preach according to the confession of their church, or else they are failing to measure up to their ministerial duties. This is always what happens when a local church begins to drift away from its confession, and is not rebuked by a synod or classis, but is rather tolerated for various reasons. Secondly, there is the problem of having ecumenical relations with other churches within the same denomination where the teachings will differ. John Wesley sinned in preaching Arminianism within the Church of England, since his church had a clear and sound confession that taught unconditional election. Now, he was never rebuked by his church, and indeed some denomination (e.i. SBC) will not rebuke pastors who preach Arminianism, but the fact that there are contradictory teachings within the denomination is problematic.

For instance, say that two SBC pastors have a pulpit exchange, one is a Calvinist and the other is Arminian, either they will both have to water down their doctrine on the pulpit so that it be compatible and both churches end up happy, or else their home church will receive some contradictory teachings which will require some correction at some later time. History has shown (both among the Dutch Reformed and the Presbyterians) that when liberals point their head within a denomination, they ought to get kicked out as quickly as possible, or they will contaminate the whole denomination, and then the conservatives will have to leave themselves. This also applies to Calvinists and Arminians too, I believe, since the two are drastically different ways of viewing God and the Scriptures.

 

[Theoretical]

After moving away from home, I spent another year and a half continuing to attend the worthless UMC church I grew up in, out of a sense of "loyalty", frank cowardice to actually do something about my doctrinal convictions, and a completely ridiculous notion I could be a change agent, being a lone young member in a 13,500 member church.

It's one thing to minister in a lousy denomination as a minister or officer where you CAN effect change at least on the local level, but quite another just to be a doctrinally bizarre pew-sitter where arguing that you can change the denomination or church is more indicative of your delusions of grandeur than any ability.

I understand specific difficult circumstances in many parts of the country, but if you can get out of bad churches, GET OUT.