# Should I Leave My Church?



## ForHisGlory

I've been struggling with whether I should leave my church, but I'm not sure if my reasons are primarily preferential or on the grounds of biblical errancy warranting a leave.

I found an awesome reformed church in our city.......great theology.....biblical leadership/structure......biblical worship......etc, etc. This has greatly inticed me considering some questionable practices we have at our current church. However, I know that all churches are not perfect (and my presence would make a perfect church imperfect), so I don't want any possible "preferential" desires to uproot our fellowship and loyalty to our current church family.

The issues that are most prominent:

1. I feel like our church has quasi-reformed theology. I know this sounds like an impossibility among PBers. You're either a 5 point Calvinist or a 0 point Calvinist, right? But both of our pastors would consider themselves 3-point Calvinists and tend to rest in the fact that God is sovereign and man is free. They tend to avoid the controversy of "Calvinism" vs. "Arminian" by not overtly using terms such as "election", "predestination", "free will", etc. So I can't say that I think their teaching is unbiblical, they just don't state with obvious clarity how the two mesh. Maybe this is because we have a large church and they are afraid that the issue would cause too much division with new/early Christians vs. more mature Christians....that I'm not sure. So, overall I couldn't say the preaching is unbiblical, they just tend to come up short in full explanations of election. (Note: Not an expositional church. Tend to spend a month or two in one book, but then move to a different "series"; also rare but special occasions overshadow worship....i.e. on July 4th I don't go because we spend time singing national songs and honoring soldiers....confetti and everything....this is probably the most embrassing Sunday of the year.)

2. We don't have elders. Like many Baptist churches, we have "deacons".....who perform duties of both elders and deacons. But the church is predominately pastor led.

3. Worship sometimes can be "me" focused. It is full band led.....often can't hear anybody but the band.....and many words such as "I love you"...."I" this...."I" that.....internal reflection is a major aspect......overshadowing Christly reflection.

4. Segragated.....not racially.....but age wise. Since our church is so large, I often find that members congregate to their "Sunday School" classes which are appropriately age ranged (youth groups, senior classes, childrens classes, singles classes, married w/ kids, married w/o kids, etc.)......almost like mini churches within the church. I understand that their are a lot of challenges with large churches....and that fellowship within large churches can be difficult, but is this really the biblical answer? My intimate fellowship and discipleship usually consists of people that are all my own age, with exception to our teacher, who is older. Is this really what God wanted when he said "the older shall teach the younger"?

However, to be quite fair, the church has a lot of great reasons for being there as well. Other than my qualms with not using clear teaching on God's election and predestination, I find the preaching very biblical. I find it challenging, Christ focused, revealing man's sin, and informative. The sacraments are honored and done properly. Church discipline is suprisingly done well.....considering how large the church is. They are are a mission minded church as well.....both locally and abroad. 

Well I know that was long winded for an OP, but I wanted to lay out all the facts. The Lord has graciously used us at this church in amazing ways, which makes all the labor we've put in hard to abandon. But I can't help but think of these above issues and whether it would be more biblical for me to leave or to stay in order to continue discipling and leading those we've formed relationships with currently. I appreciate any of your comments, feedback, and prayers in this matter.


----------



## AThornquist

Have you talked with the deacons/pastors (sigh) about your concerns? From what you say, I would probably leave. However, speaking with the leaders of the church first might do both parties well.


----------



## ForHisGlory

AThornquist said:


> Have you talked with the deacons/pastors (sigh) about your concerns? From what you say, I would probably leave. However, speaking with the leaders of the church first might do both parties well.



Andrew,

1. I have talked to the pastor about the doctrines of election. He feels that expressing one side over the other will only cause divisions. He feels it better not to harp on one or the other but to preach both when needed. I believe he rests in the fact that God is indeed sovereign in our salvation, but that his sovereignty in salvation isn't a major point to push in calling sinners to repentance. He feels his responsibility is to call, not explain the process every sermon.....and that God will work according to His purposes.

2. Elders......yeah, that will never change. This is standard SBC practice.

3. Worship.......haven't expressed this.....but probably should. If convinced, I think this would be a slow and long process of change......as this takes a complete mindframe change from our worship leader (whom I don't know).

4. Segragation......haven't expressed this either. I would probably face a lot of resistence due to all the full time staff we have in place for Sunday Schools.....education minister......youth minister......children's ministry minister....etc. But....this doesn't excuse me from discussing it with them.


----------



## baron

Brent, I will Pray for you regarding your decision to stay or leave. Leaving a Church that you have been part of is no easy decision as you know. 

But if it was up to me and I had the choice of worshipping with a more biblical and doctrineally correct Baptist Church I would go for it.


----------



## AThornquist

Well then you can simply express your differences in theology, thank the leaders for their service, and leave peaceably. There is no reason to be abrasive or burn bridges. That Reformed church sounds like it would suit your conscience much better. Pray hard about it, whatever you do.


----------



## Bald_Brother

Brother, do I ever understand your struggle! 

I was a member, and Sunday School teacher for adults, at an SBC church until nearly a year ago. When I joined the pastor told me he was Calvinist (later I learned that he was closer to Amyraldian), well mostly he said. There was the eschatological differences, but it wasn't emphasized (honestly, no theology was emphasized). After a while at the church I realized that my main concern wasn't with all of the things that you mentioned (though all of the things that you mentioned were serious concerns). My main concern was the spiritual growth of my family. I spent most of Sunday afternoon countering inaccurate, incomplete, or simply poor theology from the pulpit, the worship, and the reaming I was getting from an elder (we had deacons with the title Elder) during Sunday School. 

After about six months of really struggling with the decision, I went to the pastor on a Thursday evening with my concern for my family and my concerns with the teaching at the church. The first thing I said to him was, "I don't want to be divisive at all. This is why I came to you first." Then, I told him I was considering breaking with membership at the church and looking for another church. This was truly hard for me, as I explained to him, because I take membership seriously, and I loved the people at the church and still love this man, the pastor. I told him that I had no intention of being divisive and would remain under his pastorate if he decided it was best. Instead, he recommended a couple churches, told me he understood (his first church as a pastor was a bad place for him), thanked me for coming to him and never speaking poorly of the church to its members, and assured me that if the church I decided on called he would speak highly of me and my family and fully support the move. 

It was one of the greatest things I've ever done. 

My experience being my guide, I suggest you talk to the pastor about your doctrinal and theological differences and that you believe it would be best if you left. Leave, remain close with your friends at the church, and come into close fellowship with like minded believers at the reformed church. The spiritual benefits for you and your family especially will be great.


----------



## A.J.

Brent, you might want to read the short thread, Changing to a new church?? maybe...... 

It was started a few weeks ago, and deals with similar issues you are facing. See especially Pastor Glenn Ferrell's advice there. 

Praying that you will make the right decision.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Your points 1 & 2 are the most salient to my thinking. I would want to be where the preaching is expository, and that would be a large factor. Also, if you church does not have elders, I would take it that it is not confessional ... and that would be a sufficient ground for me to leave. Without a confession, it has no doctrine other than the doctrine of the day. I would rather attend a baptist church that conformed to a confession and had expository preaching than attend a presbyterian church that did not conform to the confession and had no expository preaching.

I've left a church simply because of a lack of confession and ruling elders when someone was teaching the Bible contained error, and preventing that person from teaching would have required a vote of the congregation at a congregational meeting. I loved the preacher and his preaching, but I was not going to trust my children to be taught properly at a church that would allow someone that believe the Bible contained error to teach Sunday School.


----------



## jogri17

It is not worth leaving the church over these doctrinal issues. Membership vows count. That is my opinion take it for what's it worth.


----------



## ReformedChapin

The doctrine of election was the primary reason why I left my old church. It might not be for many people but I found this doctrine to be the heart of the gospel and while I think that knowledge of it is not salvific I think without it a person will have a seriously compromised view of it. All the other issues I think are important as well, a biblical warrant can mean many things. It certainly would be a confessional warrant since all confessions adhered here are calvinistic. I also think that the doctrines of election are foundational in further leaning toward a total reformed understanding of scripture. If a church has calvinism wrong, how well is there understanding of covenant theology? How well are it's teachers exegeting scripture? The issues tend to carry over.


----------



## Amazing Grace

ForHisGlory said:


> I've been struggling with whether I should leave my church, but I'm not sure if my reasons are primarily preferential or on the grounds of biblical errancy warranting a leave.
> 
> I found an awesome reformed church in our city.......great theology.....biblical leadership/structure......biblical worship......etc, etc. This has greatly inticed me considering some questionable practices we have at our current church. However, I know that all churches are not perfect (and my presence would make a perfect church imperfect), so I don't want any possible "preferential" desires to uproot our fellowship and loyalty to our current church family.
> 
> The issues that are most prominent:
> 
> 1. I feel like our church has quasi-reformed theology. I know this sounds like an impossibility among PBers. You're either a 5 point Calvinist or a 0 point Calvinist, right? But both of our pastors would consider themselves 3-point Calvinists and tend to rest in the fact that God is sovereign and man is free. They tend to avoid the controversy of "Calvinism" vs. "Arminian" by not overtly using terms such as "election", "predestination", "free will", etc. So I can't say that I think their teaching is unbiblical, they just don't state with obvious clarity how the two mesh. Maybe this is because we have a large church and they are afraid that the issue would cause too much division with new/early Christians vs. more mature Christians....that I'm not sure. So, overall I couldn't say the preaching is unbiblical, they just tend to come up short in full explanations of election. (Note: Not an expositional church. Tend to spend a month or two in one book, but then move to a different "series"; also rare but special occasions overshadow worship....i.e. on July 4th I don't go because we spend time singing national songs and honoring soldiers....confetti and everything....this is probably the most embrassing Sunday of the year.)
> 
> 2. We don't have elders. Like many Baptist churches, we have "deacons".....who perform duties of both elders and deacons. But the church is predominately pastor led.
> 
> 3. Worship sometimes can be "me" focused. It is full band led.....often can't hear anybody but the band.....and many words such as "I love you"...."I" this...."I" that.....internal reflection is a major aspect......overshadowing Christly reflection.
> 
> 4. Segragated.....not racially.....but age wise. Since our church is so large, I often find that members congregate to their "Sunday School" classes which are appropriately age ranged (youth groups, senior classes, childrens classes, singles classes, married w/ kids, married w/o kids, etc.)......almost like mini churches within the church. I understand that their are a lot of challenges with large churches....and that fellowship within large churches can be difficult, but is this really the biblical answer? My intimate fellowship and discipleship usually consists of people that are all my own age, with exception to our teacher, who is older. Is this really what God wanted when he said "the older shall teach the younger"?
> 
> However, to be quite fair, the church has a lot of great reasons for being there as well. Other than my qualms with not using clear teaching on God's election and predestination, I find the preaching very biblical. I find it challenging, Christ focused, revealing man's sin, and informative. The sacraments are honored and done properly. Church discipline is suprisingly done well.....considering how large the church is. They are are a mission minded church as well.....both locally and abroad.
> 
> Well I know that was long winded for an OP, but I wanted to lay out all the facts. The Lord has graciously used us at this church in amazing ways, which makes all the labor we've put in hard to abandon. But I can't help but think of these above issues and whether it would be more biblical for me to leave or to stay in order to continue discipling and leading those we've formed relationships with currently. I appreciate any of your comments, feedback, and prayers in this matter.



Perhaps if it as big as you say, no one will notice your departure... Sneak out the back door.


----------



## ForHisGlory

jogri17 said:


> It is not worth leaving the church over these doctrinal issues. Membership vows count. That is my opinion take it for what's it worth.



Could you expound on your reasoning a little more? I'm really curious to hear more since you're the first to post with a bent in the other direction. Do you have some Scripture that I could look at?


----------



## Scott1

A first consideration would be to re-visit your membership vows, assuming you took such as part of entrance.

Second, I believe both biblically and contractually (vow) that one may rightly change churches for substantial doctrinal difference.

Reformed theology is, at minimum, the doctrines of grace ("five points") + covenant theology + confession.

What you are describing as "quasi" is part of the difficulty. One cannot be "three" point Calvinist biblically, logically though I suppose it is closer to truth and logical consistency to be three rather than zero.

Also, without a binding confession, these points are left up to the individual interpretation of leaders at the time.

Worship will not be perfect anywhere. My observation is not to be exceedingly particular about that so it becomes a stumbling block.

But suffice it to say we know enough biblically that God requires it to focus on Him and His Word (and I would the sacraments).

Actually, let me say on the rare occasion I have been in the pop culture self-centered worship I now find it biblically offensive, objectionable,.... shallow, and boring.

Now, a system of governance, plurality of elders it's possible to have different church government views biblically (and still be reformed), but it might be a matter of conviction as well as one of preference.

In the end, I wouldn't quite look at this from the standpoint of where you will have the "best" experience and "like" the best. That is of course, part of what you are struggling with. 

Biblically, the first question, after re-visiting your vows is where does God call me to serve amongst an imperfect people, for His Honor and His Glory?

Where can you submit yourself to some level of accountability as part of covenant community?

If you focus on that, this will become clearer.


----------



## TimV

> July 4th I don't go because we spend time singing national songs and honoring soldiers....confetti and everything....this is probably the most embrassing Sunday of the year.)



Whatever vow you took was broken by them committing spiritual adultery by worshipping the _genius_ of the emperor in the very house of God Almighty. Get out of there as quick as you can.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Been there, done that-have the shirt!

Let me add to what has already been said; There are always going to be churches that you will find that are closer to the biblical mandate than the one you are attending. However, if you are always endeavoring for biblical perfection and accuracy, there are going to be things that you never will find this side of Heaven and in the end, you are going to find one of a few things developing.

1) Bitterness
2) Never ending critical attitude
3) Hopelessness

I have gone from Credo non denominational setting to high church, psalm singing only RPCGA (which I prefer) to liberal PCA; All of them have had their deficiencies-some more than others. You will find, and people here will tell you that if you chase the letter too closely, you will end up in a church that has 3-4 people or you'll be without a church.

I'll add: There are valid reasons for leaving a church. However, in my estimation, it would have to be a grave issue. To me, church membership is much like a marriage. You dig in. You pray, you serve and pray more. You don't offer your opinion unless it is officially asked for. You pray more. Is not Christ high and lifted up? Is he sitting upon the throne? Do you think for a minute that Christ is surprised that there are churches that have leadership that are uneducated. One might respond to this by saying, 'Then they should get educated'. Even degreed graduates from the best seminaries have differing grey matter and apply biblical principles in the best manner they can as led by the HS. The Apostles did the best they were able and they had Christ. We have a bible for direction-they didn't have this advantage. Remember, the biblical churches led by the apostles had problems.....

In the past, I church hopped. It is the human nature to do this. Some of it is prideful and sin. Divorcing a church should be a long ordeal. You have bonded with the leadership and families; people will be heartbroken when you depart. The pastors have prayed for you-they have bore your burdens and possible cried for your sanctification. It is a very sad decision; many suffer and in the end, you may find that you shouldn't have ever left, left with a church that has some of what you were endeavoring after, yet missing some of the other elements you once loved at your previous congregation. 

Take it from someone who has experienced looking for Heaven on Earth; pray hard before you make a decision like this as it will effect your life for the rest of your time here....

Regards,

Scott

-----Added 12/22/2009 at 10:01:36 EST-----



TimV said:


> July 4th I don't go because we spend time singing national songs and honoring soldiers....confetti and everything....this is probably the most embrassing Sunday of the year.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever vow you took was broken by them committing spiritual adultery by worshipping the _genius_ of the emperor in the very house of God Almighty. Get out of there as quick as you can.
Click to expand...


Tim,
Not that I agree on parades at church, and in whole I agree that this is stupid stuff to do at church, the PCA allows for things like this as long as the call to worship had not yet started. I believe the PCA see's this as ok as the RPW is not assaulted prior to the call. So, I believe the thing should be asked, was this a break at this young mans church that broke the RPW?


----------



## Jack K

Hi Brent:

I spent 20 years in Winston-Salem so I know of Calvary Baptist. As you know, it is not a bad church or an apostate one. The gospel is believed and preached. Not perfectly or with a completely Reformed emphasis, but it is preached. So this is NOT a situation where you MUST seek another church for the sake of the gospel.

So then, MAY you seek another church? I think you may. But since your current church is basically faithful to Jesus and you have taken membership vows, you must honor those vows in the way you go about leaving. You should seek the leadership's blessing. You should respectfully explain your reasons. You should honestly listen to their advice. You should sincerely thank them for their ministry on your behalf. You should, in short, take strong measures to see that your transfer to another church takes place in a spirit of continued Christian fellowship. If it isn't happening in that spirit, commit to struggle with your leaders until it does.

Membership vows aren't a promise to stay with a particular church forever. But they are, or should be, a promise to respectfully submit to the leadership. I would think the leadership at Calvary Baptist will not be oppressive or ultimately refuse a transfer if you're a member in good standing.

If I were back in Winston-Salem and a Baptist I probably wouldn't choose Calvary, for the same reasons you mention. The culture there is entrenched and won't change anytime soon. I'd certainly check out Rosemont Baptist, and there are probably other good Baptist churches as well (I was with Redeemer Presbyterian). I wish you the best.


----------



## Rogerant

If we are coming together corporately to worship the Lord of Glory, are we not supposed to thank him as a corporate body for His work in His distinguishing or efficacious grace? Are you coming together to just worship the Lord for His common grace? If one must go home after worship and worship Him for His sovereign hand in your salvation, then what is the point of corporate worship. You can do that in a Pelagian church. You want to attend a church where you can invite non believers and be assured that they are going to hear about God's redemptive work. How can you do that when that is not the focus in your church? Are they not to preach the full counsel of God and worship him thus?

If you have a church that is faithful to the confessions, the glory of redemption, exegetical biblical preaching, and last but not least, the faithful proclamation of law and gospel and the proper administration of the Lords suppper, then I would recommend moving.


----------



## TimV

> So, I believe the thing should be asked, was this a break at this young mans church that broke the RPW?



Hey, Scott

The problem with the "RPW" is that it's meaning is so subjective that practically speaking it doesn't have any meaning. To one, it's only singing psalms, to another it's women in dresses, to another it's no musical instruments, and to another it's an insistence on musical instruments. I doubt that there are 2 people on this board who understand the "RPW" exactly the same way, and I think that it's probably because there aren't 2 people here who divide the law up between moral, ceremonial and judicial exactly the same way.

So I avoided that completely and went with the spiritual adultery theme. Early Christians wouldn't offer incense to Cesar even on State property. How much less in the house of the Lord. Denying Limited Atonement is bad theology and too loud music is counter productive but neither reach the level of abomination like singing nationalist praise songs.


----------



## Scott Bushey

TimV said:


> So, I believe the thing should be asked, was this a break at this young mans church that broke the RPW?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Scott
> 
> The problem with the "RPW" is that it's meaning is so subjective that practically speaking it doesn't have any meaning. To one, it's only singing psalms, to another it's women in dresses, to another it's no musical instruments, and to another it's an insistence on musical instruments. I doubt that there are 2 people on this board who understand the "RPW" exactly the same way, and I think that it's probably because there aren't 2 people here who divide the law up between moral, ceremonial and judicial exactly the same way.
> 
> So I avoided that completely and went with the spiritual adultery theme. Early Christians wouldn't offer incense to Cesar even on State property. How much less in the house of the Lord. Denying Limited Atonement is bad theology and too loud music is counter productive but neither reach the level of abomination like singing nationalist praise songs.
Click to expand...


Tim,
I hear you; However, as communicant members, our vows to the specific church acknowledge that we will assume our leadership has prayerfully and academically understood the RPW. So if the pastors say that they do not believe it is a break, we should submit to that. Now I am not saying that we should follow blindly, but if you have no argument against this practice in regards to the accuracy of the RPW, then you would need to either submit faithfully to that which the leadership says 'is not a break' or take them to task, of course after a season of prayer, on why you believe it is a break; and I believe I would present the problem as a question to them, i.e. is it a break? Until you work this out, you should stay and sit on your hands.

Everyone thinks they're a pastor and they know how to do church better.......


----------



## ForHisGlory

Jack K said:


> If I were back in Winston-Salem and a Baptist I probably wouldn't choose Calvary, for the same reasons you mention. The culture there is entrenched and won't change anytime soon. I'd certainly check out Rosemont Baptist, and there are probably other good Baptist churches as well (I was with Redeemer Presbyterian). I wish you the best.



Jack,

Thanks for sharing! Rosemont is actually the church I mentioned initially! The preaching was awesome.....satisfying to the soul. I really feel that they are more in line with a biblical church on the whole. 

However, as Scott put well, I don't want to become a hopeless perfectionist always looking at the bad in the church and always willing and ready to abandon deep relationships that were formed over what may be minor flaws. So that's why I'm really wondering if these are minor flaws or major ones. As you said.....the preaching is not unbiblical and leading people to damnation.....it's just not 100% ideal. Does lack of overt reformed teaching warrant such a change (along with the other issues)?

Needless to say, I'm really torn. I really appreciate your thoughts, especially since you lived here and know of Calvary. More thoughts and prayers are welcomed!


----------



## greenbaggins

ForHisGlory said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were back in Winston-Salem and a Baptist I probably wouldn't choose Calvary, for the same reasons you mention. The culture there is entrenched and won't change anytime soon. I'd certainly check out Rosemont Baptist, and there are probably other good Baptist churches as well (I was with Redeemer Presbyterian). I wish you the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack,
> 
> Thanks for sharing! Rosemont is actually the church I mentioned initially! The preaching was awesome.....satisfying to the soul. I really feel that they are more in line with a biblical church on the whole.
> 
> However, as Scott put well, I don't want to become a hopeless perfectionist always looking at the bad in the church and always willing and ready to abandon deep relationships that were formed over what may be minor flaws. So that's why I'm really wondering if these are minor flaws or major ones. As you said.....the preaching is not unbiblical and leading people to damnation.....it's just not 100% ideal. Does lack of overt reformed teaching warrant such a change (along with the other issues)?
> 
> Needless to say, I'm really torn. I really appreciate your thoughts, especially since you lived here and know of Calvary. More thoughts and prayers are welcomed!
Click to expand...


I would encourage you to reread Scott Bushey's outstanding post, and then reread it again. Ask yourself this question: will the end result be one of those three things that he mentions? Can you honestly tell yourself yes or no on that question? As has been mentioned, the Gospel is proclaimed, the Sacraments administered, and church discipline is faithful: it is a true church. The question really revolves around church unity: can you be truly unified with this church? Or will you be tempted to pride, bitterness, anger, negativity, etc., because of the doctrinal differences? The answer to this question will, I think, point you in the right direction.


----------



## Scott Bushey

ForHisGlory said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were back in Winston-Salem and a Baptist I probably wouldn't choose Calvary, for the same reasons you mention. The culture there is entrenched and won't change anytime soon. I'd certainly check out Rosemont Baptist, and there are probably other good Baptist churches as well (I was with Redeemer Presbyterian). I wish you the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brent,
> 
> Thanks for sharing! Rosemont is actually the church I mentioned initially! The preaching was awesome.....satisfying to the soul. I really feel that they are more in line with a biblical church on the whole.
> 
> However, as Scott put well, I don't want to become a hopeless perfectionist always looking at the bad in the church and always willing and ready to abandon deep relationships that were formed over what may be minor flaws. So that's why I'm really wondering if these are minor flaws or major ones. As you said.....the preaching is not unbiblical and leading people to damnation.....it's just not 100% ideal. Does lack of overt reformed teaching warrant such a change (along with the other issues)?
> 
> Needless to say, I'm really torn. I really appreciate your thoughts, especially since you lived here and know of Calvary. More thoughts and prayers are welcomed!
Click to expand...


Jack,
I got to tell you, I traveled from the east coast all the way out to Sun Valley California in search of perfection; at the time, I believed it was John MacArthur. Came back and sat under a pastor tutored under Al martin. My last PCA pastor was Rick Phillips. Before him, C.Matt McMahon. You will drive yourself nuts if you let the devil have his place.....there's no perfect church. If it is not something like Fed Vis, I say pray and sit.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Brent -

Many good things have been said above. However, I take a different angle. While you do take membership vows, these are not akin to marriage vows. You do not promise fidelity to your local congregation forsaking all others through better or worse till death do you part.

The counsel against being a perfectionist is sound and would do much to cause folks who are prone to hopping from church to church always dissatisfied to instead put their brakes on their malcontented hearts.

HOWEVER.... If your theology has changed, if your understanding of how God's Word should be understood and applied has fundamentally _changed_ from when you took your membership vows, then I say unto you that you are free to peaceably leave the former church for a church that teaches doctrine in accordance with Scripture.


----------



## CharlieJ

ForHisGlory said:


> 1. I feel like our church has quasi-reformed theology. I know this sounds like an impossibility among PBers. You're either a 5 point Calvinist or a 0 point Calvinist, right? But both of our pastors would consider themselves 3-point Calvinists and tend to rest in the fact that God is sovereign and man is free. They tend to avoid the controversy of "Calvinism" vs. "Arminian" by not overtly using terms such as "election", "predestination", "free will", etc.



It would be worth looking into this more. Most 3-point Calvinists are really 0-point Calvinists using a distorted vocabularly they picked up from Dallas Seminary. You can check out Ryrie's _Basic Theology_ for an example. By "total depravity" they don't mean that every faculty of the sinner is corrupted by the fall and therefore incapable of choosing anything truly godly. Rather, they simply mean that everyone sins. By "Perseverance of the saints" they don't mean that all truly elect persons will persevere in their faith, not fully or finally falling away. Rather, they mean that anyone who makes a "salvation decision" will go to heaven regardless of the future course of their lives. Some of these people even insist that you can stop believing in Christ and still go to heaven (Zane Hodges, Charles Stanley).

So, I can't tell you for sure because I don't know your church, but it would be worth asking them harder questions: "On what basis is a person's election founded?" "Will all those who truly believe in Christ live lives of progressive sanctification?" "What is the state of fallen man's will, and how does that differ from Adam's original condition?"

I have a feeling they are "free-willers" who equate Calvinism with "eternal security." If they aren't Reformed in their understanding of salvation, that would weigh heavily against continuing there. Remember, the Synod of Dordt condemned the Remonstrants, and not just as minor offenders.


----------



## iahm87

My church has points 1 and 2 as well. They believe in reformed theology but are not vocal about it. They teach election as well as free will. I asked my pastor about this and he said that this is an antinomy. I don't want to leave my church because I love the brethren there.


----------



## Rogerant

iahm87 said:


> My church has points 1 and 2 as well. They believe in reformed theology but are not vocal about it. They teach election as well as free will. I asked my pastor about this and he said that this is an antinomy. I don't want to leave my church because I love the brethren there.



Would he accept you as a member if you held that faith and works were an antinomy? How about evolution and creation? How does this fellow reconcile his apologetics? Does the law of non-contradiction only apply for doctrines that "HE" can reconcile? If he has not completed his homework on this subject, maybe he should return to seminary until he reconciles it before he leads his sheep astray.


----------



## Jack K

ForHisGlory said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were back in Winston-Salem and a Baptist I probably wouldn't choose Calvary, for the same reasons you mention. The culture there is entrenched and won't change anytime soon. I'd certainly check out Rosemont Baptist, and there are probably other good Baptist churches as well (I was with Redeemer Presbyterian). I wish you the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack,
> 
> Thanks for sharing! Rosemont is actually the church I mentioned initially! The preaching was awesome.....satisfying to the soul. I really feel that they are more in line with a biblical church on the whole.
> 
> However, as Scott put well, I don't want to become a hopeless perfectionist always looking at the bad in the church and always willing and ready to abandon deep relationships that were formed over what may be minor flaws. So that's why I'm really wondering if these are minor flaws or major ones. As you said.....the preaching is not unbiblical and leading people to damnation.....it's just not 100% ideal. Does lack of overt reformed teaching warrant such a change (along with the other issues)?
> 
> Needless to say, I'm really torn. I really appreciate your thoughts, especially since you lived here and know of Calvary. More thoughts and prayers are welcomed!
Click to expand...


I don't have much more to say about your current church. It's been a long time since I actually attended a service there. The main reason I think it may be okay for you to ask your church's blessing to leave has to do with how you describe your situation.

You don't sound like church hopping comes easily to you. You aren't trying to skip out on personal conflicts. You don't seem to be a hopeless curmudgeon seeking perfection. You aren't unusually angry with your church. If, if fact, any of those are true you need to stay and work it out.

But if you're a young guy who's growing in faith and coming to see that another congregation would be a better fit, you have good reason to discuss this with the leadership at your current church. Both churches are serving the same Lord and, ideally, they are unselfish enough to want you to be where you fit best.

If you become convinced you'd like to leave, I'd encourage you to give the leadership at Calvary an opportunity to shepherd you humbly through this. Their job ain't easy either. But bonus points for them if they challenge you to make sure your attitude is right, yet manage to do this without getting defensive or competitive with other churches.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

I really don't understand this concept of holding to only some of the 5 points. That just doesn't make anysense. Once you understand what they mean, you understand that when one is true so are the rest. Maybe its a matter of conscience Brent. I found my self in the same situation 6 months ago. I was told the same thing. " These are second hand issues", " These doctrinal issues just cause conflict". My conscience after awhile couldnt take it anymore. I took the decision to move and start attending a reformed baptist church and I havent looked back. In the church I attend now, these doctrines (that are taught in holy scripture) are not shyed away from.


----------



## George Bailey

*As an aside to Scott and Tim...*

I commend you both for the way in which you discussed your different views; respectful, and recognizing each other's contribution. It's a role model for what needs to happen more on this, and other Christian web forums...


----------



## ForHisGlory

iahm87 said:


> I asked my pastor about this and he said that this is an *antinomy*.



 Antinomy......this is the very word my pastor used as well when we discussed election.


----------



## CatherineL

No membership vows I've read specifically say that by becoming a member you will never leave. While I agree that one should not leave over reasons due to conflict or issues like that, I don't understand why many people imply that there is something in the vows that says you are there for good, forever. Ours (PCA) certainly don't say that. They say that you will support the work of the church. Does this imply you'll never leave? Not trying to be argumentative, this just always confuses me on these sort of threads.


----------



## Scott Bushey

CatherineL said:


> No membership vows I've read specifically say that by becoming a member you will never leave. While I agree that one should not leave over reasons due to conflict or issues like that, I don't understand why many people imply that there is something in the vows that says you are there for good, forever. Ours (PCA) certainly don't say that. They say that you will support the work of the church. Does this imply you'll never leave? Not trying to be argumentative, this just always confuses me on these sort of threads.



Catherine,
Thanks in advance for your contribution; I don't believe anyone said that one can never leave a church. The issue is that there is a viral trend nowadays to church hop in search of the perfect, when the perfect does not exist this side of Heaven. Myself as an example, you can end up driving yourself into the proverbial corner is search of perfecting your theology locally. 

Plenty of members periodically move away and transfer membership; This is a simple process. But when the issue is of a theological disagreement, this should be wrought over with time and tears. Pastors and eldership should be counseled with. If the issue cannot be worked out and the member still feels adamant then I believe he should be given the right to transfer, but not until the leadership has exhausted solving the concern. I want to add, many times when issues like this arise, members leave without the blessing of the home church. The error as well is the receiving church taking on said member without speaking with the former leadership checking to see that the member left in good standing. This is illicit.

Additionally, just to clarify, I said in one of my above posts that to me, membership in a church is much like a marriage; I know Ben had an issue with this statement-I didn't mean to contrast it in the same light as marriage-that would just be silly-only that it is a very serious issue, committing to membership-it should not be taken lightly. God stands in the midst of this decision. in my opinion, it would be better to hold off on committing until one works out all the concerns theologically.

Hope this helps....


----------



## CatherineL

Thanks Scott!
I understand the general idea, I was just curious what the specific wording is. I know my pastor and elders feel the same way, because we have had people leave and there have been comments as to how they have broken their membership vows. We have had some gradual but dramatic changes in our teaching style (no longer true expository, as an example) and worship style as well as some other things. We have had several families leave over the last few months. To me it seems that especially if things have changed in the church, it seems less divisive to leave a church rather than to stay on while in disagreement with a change in the church direction. I know at least a few of the people at our church have left because they felt another church is a better fit for them at this point. To me it seems unloving for a session to accuse people of breaking vows that aren't clearly worded. If membership means not leaving ever (like a marriage vow does explicitly) it seems that it would be helpful for the vow to say this more clearly.


----------



## iahm87

Rogerant said:


> iahm87 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My church has points 1 and 2 as well. They believe in reformed theology but are not vocal about it. They teach election as well as free will. I asked my pastor about this and he said that this is an antinomy. I don't want to leave my church because I love the brethren there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would he accept you as a member if you held that faith and works were an antinomy? How about evolution and creation? How does this fellow reconcile his apologetics? Does the law of non-contradiction only apply for doctrines that "HE" can reconcile? If he has not completed his homework on this subject, maybe he should return to seminary until he reconciles it before he leads his sheep astray.
Click to expand...


Well I don't agree with him that we have libertarian free will, but that's what he believes. He believes in unconditional election as well as LFW and says that we will understand this when we get to heaven, just as we don't fully understand the trinity. Now, if it came down to the nature of salvation itself, faith and works, if he was wrong on that, then I would definitely leave and find a different church. Like I said, he is not too open about reformed theology and doesn't want the church to be labeled as a reformed or calvinist church, but I don't think he's gonna lead us astray just because he held to this strange position. Peace


----------

