# Dealing with disagreements (to keep the Voting thread on track)



## ReformedWretch (Oct 23, 2005)

How do we handle disagreements between us? When one is offended what should they do? When one offends, how should they react?

If I offend you with what I believe to be the gospel truth, how do we work that out?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Oct 24, 2005)

Ok, for example..

My brother calls me to tell me that he has been named the new Pastor of his church. It is a dispensational, Arminian church. What do I tell him? If what I tell him offends him, what is my responsibility then?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 24, 2005)

For starters why don't we just nut-up and be men. We do not need to cry like little girls every time someone says something harsh.

If I offend you, then U2U me, and we will straighten it out.
If you offend someone, which all of us will do, REPENT.

Christianity, last time I checked, has a great deal to do with reconciliation.

Jesus called Peter Satan once . . . .


----------



## ReformedWretch (Oct 24, 2005)

Excellent point Mark. But lets look a bit deeper. Say I tell my brother that he is err and possibly in a "false doctrine church". I meet with him to study scriptures and spend hours studying in preperation of showing him why I stand where I do.

He is hurt and angry.

What is my obligation at this point? Do I fellowship with him as a brother in Christ? Should I attend his church from time to time because he is my brother? Do I invite him to speak at my church?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 24, 2005)

Say to him, lets pray about this right now brother. Let's ask God that to reveal where we are both wrong. Lets study the issue further, and challenge them to journal their daily prayers and Bible study on the issue.

If it is blatant heresy, ie. denying the trinity, denying monergism, denying sola scriptura etc . . then fasting might be necessary as well. Don't give up though. God has brought me through many wierd doctrines because of this.


----------



## Puddleglum (Oct 24, 2005)

I've had fellowship with dispensational, charismatic, Arminians as my brothers & sisters in Christ. Christians can be quite confused, but that doesn't mean that they aren't Christians - and if someone is a Christian, yes, you should be able to have fellowship with them. 

That doesn't mean that you have to attend their church. 

And it DEFINATELY doesn't mean that inviting him to speak at your church is a good idea! 

At least, that's my two cents . . .


----------



## turmeric (Oct 24, 2005)




----------



## ReformedWretch (Oct 24, 2005)

Would you take communion from him? If your mother attended his church and took communion from him, would you confront her on it?


----------



## turmeric (Oct 24, 2005)

If MY mother went back to church - and it wasn't a cult - I'd probably cheer!


----------



## Saiph (Oct 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Would you take communion from him? If your mother attended his church and took communion from him, would you confront her on it?



Yes, I would take communion, because I am not a donatist. You are asking the wrong person. I probably have the most lax view of communion on this board.

[Edited on 10-24-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Oct 24, 2005)

I don't even know what a donatist is. That's why I like coming here, to learn more.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 24, 2005)

How this question would be answered is really threefold:

1) According to the Scriptures and the application of prudence as the Scripture directs.

For example: Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

This would be good to keep behind your words. Etc.

2) According to truth.

Jesus had no problem telling the Samaritan woman, for example, she was ignorant of the Scriptures (and this was upon His first conversation with her.) "You worship what _you do not know..."_

All of our wisdom should be according to the truth.

3) According to our respective Church order.

For example, I quote section A 4:2:

The Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly *rejects* the following teachings and practices as *unacceptable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the New Testament Church*, and *forbids* the teaching and/or practice of such systems within the membership of the church: (1) charismatic theology and its unbiblical practices;9 (2) dispensational theology; (3) Arminian theology in any form; (4) the practice of `altar calls' in the worship of God;10 (5) the participation in abortions in any form;11 (6) the teaching, practice, or promotion of homosexuality in any form or type;12 (7) participation in any secret society which violates the Scriptures or Confession; (8) neo-orthodox and neo-evangelical theology in any form; (9) modernism and humanism13 in all forms; (10) the teaching, practice and promotion of feminism;14 and (11) the teaching of evolution15 in any type or form.16

(1. Mat. 28:19-20 2. 2 Cor. 10:5 3. Col. 1:18 4. 2 Ti.3: 1.6 5. Mat. 16:18 6. 1 Cor.15:1-4 7. 2 Ti. 1:13-14 8. 1 Ti. 4:16 9. Modern practices and theology that lead to alleging miraculous gifts of the Spirit manifested in such activities as speaking in unknown or angelic tongues, apostolic healing and extra-biblical revelation of any form. 10. This would include the use of decision cards, decision rooms, or any physical activity associated with making a profession of faith other than the proper use of the sacraments. 11. This would include abortion on demand, or abortion for incest or rape. 12. This includes any form of lesbianism, sodomy, sex-change operations, cross-dressing and/or transvestitism. 13. A man-centered approach in any area of life 14. Any promotion of womanhood that departs from biblical standards or the biblical role model set forth in Scripture. 15. As defined in any variety of Darwinism, especially as it pertains to creation or man's origin or a denial of the literal, consecutive, contiguous, six-day creation. This position also includes opposition to what has been called the Framework Hypothesis. 16. Modified)

I would not be able, in good conscience to sit back and recommend such doctrines, churches or ideas. That would violate 1) my conscience according to the word, 2) my vows as an RPCGA minister, and 3) my vows to the church as a Christian.

Where we go to church, and what is taught there, is of primary importance, for worship is the "central focus" of the Christian (a la John Calvin's remarks).

[Edited on 10-24-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Oct 24, 2005)

Ok, good points! So you answer your brother according to what you have listed here and he is deeply offended and causes a stir in your family because of your staunch stance. 

Do you do, say, etc. anything at that point?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> I don't even know what a donatist is.





> Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid. (same applies to eucharist)


----------



## pastorway (Oct 24, 2005)

We need to understand that when people leave it is not necessarily because they were hurt. Sometimes it just becomes clear that it is time to move on and stop beating the dead horse. Sometimes it is best to be quiet, and it is the better part of wisdom to know when that point has been reached!

People do not change their minds because we say the same thing to them in 14 different threads on the same topic. And people do not change their minds because we throw volumes of quotes at them. People change their minds when we work together to get at the truth - it is not me against you, but the two of us chasing the truth. This board may help people discover the truth, but finding truth is not a competitive sport!

Often here people are so convinced of what they believe that they automatically see people who disagree with them as wrong and in need of convincing. The PB is guilty of refusing to allow any differences at all between believers! Really. We will not shut up until we all agree.

One example of how ridiculous this becomes: in a thread this week when people were talking about a great man of God, the missionary Hudson Taylor, instead of praising God for all that HE accomplished through this great missionary the focus became, "Well, was he reformed?"

It was not enough that he was a believer who was indeed mightily used of God. Oh, no. Because what mattered was whether or not he was a calvinist! 

We have fallen into a subtle trap and our motto is fast becoming, "I am of Calvin." But then we have to define what Calvin really believed, make sure we have properly interpreted Calvin, and then strive to convince everyone else that this is the only truth and that to hold a view opposite of the really, really, really, truly, completely, really reformed is to be so deep in sin that God puts His fingers in His ears when we pray (or sing).

The disagreements are not the problem. The lack of Christian charity, courtesy, and humilty in the lives of the debaters is at the root of the problem. The view we have towards each other and the puffed up self esteem we have finds us neglecting the weightier matters of the law all the while holding up a pile of manure (Philippians 3:8-9) before the Throne and asking God if our theology is rigid enough to be acceptable to Him.

Bottom line - doctrine that does not lead to godly living, no matter how precise, is useless (1 Timothy 6:3-5). And quarreling and fighting and biting and devouring and judging and condemning is not godly behavior (Galatians 5:13-15, 26).

Phillip


----------



## Saiph (Oct 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Ok, good points! So you answer your brother according to what you have listed here and he is deeply offended and causes a stir in your family because of your staunch stance.
> 
> Do you do, say, etc. anything at that point?



As far as you are able live in peace with them. Do not compromise the truth though. Loving your enemy means lighting their path with truth so they do not trip and fall into darkness. They will be offended at this for sure, until God opens their blind eyes to see His help. Christ is a stumbling stone, a rock of offense.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 24, 2005)

We need to make a distinction between a biblical "offense" and someone simply being displeased and upset. These are two different things. 
James Durham, _A Treatise Concerning Scandal_ (Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1990) page 2.


> First then, we are to distinguish between displeasing and offending; for here offense is taken in opposition, not to a man´s being pleased, but to his edification. So offense or stumbling, in short, is something that does or may mar the spiritual edification of another, whether he is pleased or displeased, as by comparing Rom. 14:13 with 14:20, 21, is clear. For what he first calls a stumbling-block or an offense, he expounds afterward to be anything that may be the occasion of a fall to another, and make him stumble, or weak, or to halt in the course of holiness, as some block would hinder or put a man in hazard to fall in the running of a race; and from this is the similitude drawn in this phrase.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 24, 2005)

Hey Mark!
I been wanting to tell you that it is so great to have you back. Now I have. Blessings brother.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 24, 2005)

Perhaps another aspect of this is understanding that there are limits to "liberty of conscience." There is more to truth than my conscience, and conscience can also be wrong. This hopefully should keep us humble when we discuss things with others.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> We need to make a distinction between a biblical "offense" and someone simply being displeased and upset. These are two different things.
> James Durham, _A Treatise Concerning Scandal_ (Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1990) page 2.
> 
> ...


----------

