# Tim Keller: "God seems to use all these kinds of churches"



## SEAGOON

Hi Guys,

Over the years, I've tried to hold my tongue when it came to some of the things that Redeemer PCA in NYC has done. I have not, for instance, publicly complained about Redeemer planting churches outside of Metro NYC presbytery without working with the other Presbyteries they are planting in, or made the assertion that because Redeemer has pro-FV associate Pastors that Tim Keller is pro-FV. But I believe that Keller has gone well beyond the pale in a recent interview. In this interview he treats Roman Catholicism as simply another variety of Christianity God uses to save people, that Presbyterian churches may plant and support churches of other denominations, that we should reject both Evolution and Young Earth Creationism in favor of a "Semi-Theistic Evolution" otherwise the bible looks like the work of a stupid editor, and finally that Presbyterianism and the BCO is simply a tradition they have to put up with even though they've moved beyond it in many regards. 

Never is it considered by Keller that _maybe we're the one's going off the reservation _ rather the assumption is that whatever Tim Keller and Redeemer do, it must be good and orthodox, and the way God is working in NYC.

So, I'm wondering if some of the Tim Keller apologists on the list can help me to "re-interpret" Keller's recent interview with America's premier Roman Catholic journal of religion and culture, First Things: FIRST THINGS: On the Square » Blog Archive » An Interview with Timothy Keller

(The Interviewer's questions are in bold, Keller's answers are in italics) 

Let's Start With Pluralism:

*"Even though you’re helping to plant non-Presbyterian churches?*

_Yes, because I don’t believe you can reach New York with the gospel if you only plant Presbyterian churches. There are all kinds of people who’ll never be Presbyterians. It just doesn’t appeal to them. Some people are going to be Pentecostals, some people are going to be Catholics. I mean, I know that sounds—I’m not talking about that certain cultures reach certain people. It’s much more complicated than that. Even though there’s something to that. We all know that certain cultures seem to have more of an affinity toward a certain kind of Christian tradition than others, but I wouldn’t want to reduce it to that at all. I would just say that I only know that God seems to use all these kinds of churches to reach the whole breadth of humanity, and so that’s why we give money to start churches of other denominations, and give free training to it. And we’ve done about a hundred in the New York area, where we’ve helped people. It’s very important to us."_

Ok, now "Semi-Theistic Evolution":

*In The Reason for God, you make a very brief argument for the validity of evolution within a limited sphere. It would seem to me that apologists for the faith must address this issue at some point. But doing so can call into question the historicity of the Fall and the very need for a savior. How do you talk about evolution without confusing people? 
*
_Oh, it’s a little confusing, but actually I’m just in the same place where the Catholics are, as far as I can tell. The Catholic Church has always been able to hold on to a belief in a historical Fall*it really happened, it’s not just representative of the fact that the human race has kind of gone bad in various ways. At the same time, if you say, “There is no God and everything happened by evolution,” naturalistic evolution*then you have “theistic evolution”: God just started things years ago and everything has come into being through the process of evolution. You have young-Earth six-day creationism, which is “God created everything in six 24-hour days.” To me, all three of those positions have perhaps insurmountable difficulties. 

The fact is, the one that most people consider the most conservative, which is the young-Earth, six-day creation, has all kinds of problems with the text, as we know. If it’s really true, then you have problems of contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2. I don’t like the JEPD theory. I don’t like the theory that these are two somewhat contradictory creation stories that some editor stuck together*some pretty stupid editor stuck together. I think therefore you’ve got a problem with how long are the days before the sun shows up in the fourth day. You have problems really reading the Bible in a straightforward way with a young-Earth, six 24-hour day theory. You’ve got some problems with the theistic evolution, because then you have to ask yourself, “Was there no Adam and Eve? Was there no Fall?” So here’s what I like*the messy approach, which is I think there was an Adam and Eve. I think there was a real Fall. I think that happened. I also think that there also was a very long process probably, you know, that the earth probably is very old, and there was some kind of process of natural selection that God guided and used, and maybe intervened in. And that’s just the messy part. I’m not a scientist. I’m not going to go beyond that. 

I do know that I say in the book, “This is an absolute red herring*to get mired in this before you look at the certainties of the faith. Because the fact is that real orthodox believers with a high view of Scripture are all over the map on this. I can line up ten really smart people in all those different buckets, which I’ll call “theistic evolution,” “young-Earth creationism,” and let’s call it “progressive creationism” or “semi-theistic evolution.” There are all these different views. And when you see a lot of smart people disagreeing on this stuff, well . . .

How could there have been death before Adam and Eve fell? The answer is, I don’t know. But all I know is, didn’t animals eat bugs? Didn’t bugs eat plants? There must have been death. In other words, when you realize, “Oh wait, this is really complicated,” then you realize, “I don’t have to figure this out before I figure out is Jesus Christ raised from the dead.”_

And finally, "putting up" with Presbyterianism (this is a high view of the bride of Christ?):

*"Do you ever see a point at which Redeemer’s mission, which is transdenominational, if not nondenominational, is inhibited by being a member of a specific denomination? Would it be easier to do what you do if you were not connected to the Presbyterian Church in America?*

_Maybe a little. Because, when you’re part of a denomination, you’ve got to have some constitution, some structure, that you hold with everybody else. The larger a church gets, the more unique it gets, and it would always be a little easier, I suppose, if we didn’t have any—like, for example, how we do elections. We have to get a quorum of our members. When our constitution was built, no one was thinking about a church that held five services on a Sunday, at three locations. So the problem is to get a quorum of our congregation, we don’t actually have a quorum of our congregation at any one service. So where do we hold an election for our services? And the answer is, we choose the largest one and we just hope people come. So it’s a bit of a struggle to get a quorum, because our constitution is set up for a traditional church in a small town. Its not set up for multi-site churches, it’s not set up for churches that don’t have their own buildings. And if we were an independent church, we’d just do it our own way. But we think it’s very very important to be part of the connection. We think for accountability it’s important, for tradition it’s important. So we just put up with it."_


----------



## Zenas

*sigh*

I can translate that last paragraph for you.

"The larger a church gets the more you need to make it appeal to different types of people who will not conform themselves to the strict Gospel message set forth by Christ and the requirements he sets forth for those who call themselves believers. We don't want to have to hold our members to an objective, strict standard, but rather let them come and go as they please, and do what they want. For this reason, we need to rid ourselves of offical statements and requirements, so that we can claim diversity. Official statements of faith and rules of government are a hinderance when we want to include someone who violates them or doesn't believe them. They must be sacrificed on the altar of diversity because diversity is more important than unity. We can be unified in our diversity."


----------



## ChristianTrader

Zenas said:


> *sigh*
> 
> I can translate that last paragraph for you.
> 
> "The larger a church gets the more you need to make it appeal to different types of people who will not conform themselves to the strict Gospel message set forth by Christ and the requirements he sets forth for those who call themselves believers. We don't want to have to hold our members to an objective, strict standard, but rather let them come and go as they please, and do what they want. For this reason, we need to rid ourselves of offical statements and requirements, so that we can claim diversity. Official statements of faith and rules of government are a hinderance when we want to include someone who violates them or doesn't believe them. They must be sacrificed on the altar of diversity because diversity is more important than unity. We can be unified in our diversity."



I think that is a horribly uncharitable characterization of Keller's paragraph above. Even the example that he used to support his point was not a gospel example, but more procedural. I am very suspicious of any mega church and possible compromises but one gets no where by not being at least a little charitable in reading ones statements.

CT


----------



## Pilgrim

I am not familiar at all with Keller other than knowing that he isn't Old School and that Redeemer has at least one pro-FV associate pastor. The language Andy quoted definitely raises some red flags. 

It might be worth bearing in mind that First Things is essentially a Catholic publication. Or it might not.


----------



## R Harris

For me at least, Keller's statements smack of sheer relativism. Sadly, that is not an unknown commodity in the PCA (or in many other places, for that matter) these days.

Herbert Schlossberg, in his excellent book _Idols for Destruction_, made the comment that in America, civil religion had become dominant simply because "freedom" was deemed to be more important than the absolute truth of God's Word. Now 18 years later, his statement not only remains true, but things have become worse.


----------



## Barnpreacher

SEAGOON said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> 
> So, I'm wondering if some of the Tim Keller apologists on the list can help me to "re-interpret" Keller's recent interview with America's premier Roman Catholic journal of religion and culture, First Things:



I've been a Keller apologist since I began listening to his messages a few months ago, but there is nothing to re-interpret in this interview. Disappointing, some of the views he holds too.


----------



## Barnpreacher

I also did not know that one of Keller's associates was pro-FV.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

His "problems" with 6 day creation were painful to read. I am sick of this compromise. Far too many Calvinists act like God is sovereign in salvation, but autonomous man is sovereign in everything else.


----------



## RamistThomist

It is almost funny that in his critique of theonomic economics, he outright admitted that history was against his socialist proposals and history did seem to support the free market.


----------



## Pilgrim

Machen had a different view when it came to spreading Presbyterianism:



> "We cannot agree with those who say that although they are members of the
> Presbyterian church, they "have not the slightest zeal to have the
> Presbyterian church extended throughout the length and breadth of the
> world." As for us, we hold the faith of the Presbyterian church, the great
> Reformed faith that is set forth in the Westminster Confession, to be true;
> and holding it to be true, we hold that it is intended for the whole world."


----------



## Pilgrim

I dont' believe that Francis Schaeffer ever mentioned being a Presbyterian in any of his books, and his little book on baptism was not included in the _Complete Works_.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> I dont' believe that Francis Schaeffer ever mentioned being a Presbyterian in any of his books, and his little book on baptism was not included in the _Complete Works_.



Gary North always loved to mention that Schaeffer never talked about Predestination.


----------



## raekwon

Pilgrim said:


> Machen had a different view when it came to spreading Presbyterianism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We cannot agree with those who say that although they are members of the
> Presbyterian church, they "have not the slightest zeal to have the
> Presbyterian church extended throughout the length and breadth of the
> world." As for us, we hold the faith of the Presbyterian church, the great
> Reformed faith that is set forth in the Westminster Confession, to be true;
> and holding it to be true, we hold that it is intended for the whole world."
Click to expand...


Who's to say that Machen is necessarily right and Keller wrong in this?



Let's ignore for a moment that the majority of the churches that Keller and Redeemer have planted have indeed been Presbyterian churches. Now, while I do find it a bit troubling if it is indeed true that Redeemer's helped to start Roman Catholic churches, still, there are a good number of Reformed Baptist and Reformed Anglican churches that they've helped to fund as well, and Jesus is calling his people to himself through these avenues.

Sure, we believe that Presbyterianism is the best form of church government, but is a PCA pastor's helping to plant non-Presbyterian, yet Gospel-centered churches really something to spend time upset about?


----------



## R Harris

Pilgrim said:


> Machen had a different view when it came to spreading Presbyterianism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We cannot agree with those who say that although they are members of the
> Presbyterian church, they "have not the slightest zeal to have the
> Presbyterian church extended throughout the length and breadth of the
> world." As for us, we hold the faith of the Presbyterian church, the great
> Reformed faith that is set forth in the Westminster Confession, to be true;
> and holding it to be true, we hold that it is intended for the whole world."
Click to expand...



Amen.


----------



## MW

raekwon said:


> Sure, we believe that Presbyterianism is the best form of church government, but is a PCA pastor's helping to plant non-Presbyterian, yet Gospel-centered churches really something to spend time upset about?



Addressing the general issue, and ignoring the personal situation -- would anyone think it is good for a child to be adopted into a family where they are going to receive fundamental care but be detrimentally affected by disordered authority structures and outside influences? Of course not. We are Presbyterian for a reason, and that is because we believe it provides the best "home" within which to nurture Christian faith and life.


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi Rae,



raekwon said:


> Let's ignore for a moment that the majority of the churches that Keller and Redeemer have planted have indeed been Presbyterian churches. Now, while I do find it a bit troubling if it is indeed true that Redeemer's helped to start Roman Catholic churches, still, there are a good number of Reformed Baptist and Reformed Anglican churches that they've helped to fund as well, and Jesus is calling his people to himself through these avenues.
> 
> Sure, we believe that Presbyterianism is the best form of church government, but is a PCA pastor's helping to plant non-Presbyterian, yet Gospel-centered churches really something to spend time upset about?



Yes, helping to plant a Roman Catholic church with God's money would be a real big problem. We seem to be rapidly losing sight of the fact that they don't have the three marks of the true church or preach what we would affirm is a biblical gospel. We appear to be getting to a silly point where we have more problems with the FV which is semi-Roman than the RCs who are definitely Roman!

Now, I don't know about planting RC churches, but I do know that Redeemer has:

a) Planted Churches outside their Presbytery on their own authority
b) Planted non-Presbyterian churches

Our constitution and our beliefs about the polity we believe is taught in the Bible, forbid us from doing so. I couldn't do either in my Presbytery and remain a member for long.

I know that the common cry is "who cares how they do it as long as the gospel is preached" and I would of course affirm that Tim Keller preaches the gospel and that better than most, but personally, I have serious doubts whether Redeemer's plants will maintain their orthodoxy after he is gone especially when polity is held in such low regard. The fact that their largest plant on the West coast was able to slip comfortably into a liberal denomination (the RCA is to the left of the CRC) is not a good sign. 

Also, Rae, the Machen quote should show us that the current call for contextualization in an urban setting is not anything particularly new. A quick review of the OT indicates that contextualizing has been practiced by the church, with similar results ultimately for millennia. For instance, the fact that we still have orthodox Reformed churches in existence is not due to the contextualizers, but rather the result of men faithfully treading the old paths. We are the offspring of the men who refused to contextualize, but once again the next generation is abandoning it's heritage. We somehow always think our situation is "brand new" and the old paths won't work in them and that God's methods need an overhaul. Corinth and NYC are in fact far less different than we think.


----------



## Pergamum

I think some of you are fishing for things here and stretching some of his words.

"This smacks of sheer relativsim" is a way overboard statement. He is not a relativist.

Also, concerning some wiggle room in evolution, some of the Reformed theologians of the past tried to make evolution fit as well (was it Warfield, Hodge, refresh my memory...). While I disagree with him about contradiction between Genesis 1 and 3 under a literal reading, he does still believe in a historical fall. His main point is that is is unwise to argue about this until the certainties of the faith are covered.


----------



## Pilgrim

Ivanhoe said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' believe that Francis Schaeffer ever mentioned being a Presbyterian in any of his books, and his little book on baptism was not included in the _Complete Works_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary North always loved to mention that Schaeffer never talked about Predestination.
Click to expand...


In _The Church at the End of the 20th Century_ Schaeffer does advocate connectional church goverment, but only in a vague way with his main point being against independency. North has an interesting appendix on Schaeffer in _Crossed Fingers_.


----------



## Pergamum

SEAGOON said:


> Hi Rae,
> 
> 
> 
> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ignore for a moment that the majority of the churches that Keller and Redeemer have planted have indeed been Presbyterian churches. Now, while I do find it a bit troubling if it is indeed true that Redeemer's helped to start Roman Catholic churches, still, there are a good number of Reformed Baptist and Reformed Anglican churches that they've helped to fund as well, and Jesus is calling his people to himself through these avenues.
> 
> Sure, we believe that Presbyterianism is the best form of church government, but is a PCA pastor's helping to plant non-Presbyterian, yet Gospel-centered churches really something to spend time upset about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, helping to plant a Roman Catholic church with God's money would be a real big problem. We seem to be rapidly losing sight of the fact that they don't have the three marks of the true church or preach what we would affirm is a biblical gospel. We appear to be getting to a silly point where we have more problems with the FV which is semi-Roman than the RCs who are definitely Roman!
> 
> Now, I don't know about planting RC churches, but I do know that Redeemer has:
> 
> a) Planted Churches outside their Presbytery on their own authority
> b) Planted non-Presbyterian churches
> 
> Our constitution and our beliefs about the polity we believe is taught in the Bible, forbid us from doing so. I couldn't do either in my Presbytery and remain a member for long.
> 
> I know that the common cry is "who cares how they do it as long as the gospel is preached" and I would of course affirm that Tim Keller preaches the gospel and that better than most, but personally, I have serious doubts whether Redeemer's plants will maintain their orthodoxy after he is gone especially when polity is held in such low regard. The fact that their largest plant on the West coast was able to slip comfortably into a liberal denomination (the RCA is to the left of the CRC) is not a good sign.
> 
> Also, Rae, the Machen quote should show us that the current call for contextualization in an urban setting is not anything particularly new. A quick review of the OT indicates that contextualizing has been practiced by the church, with similar results ultimately for millennia. For instance, the fact that we still have orthodox Reformed churches in existence is not due to the contextualizers, but rather the result of men faithfully treading the old paths. We are the offspring of the men who refused to contextualize, but once again the next generation is abandoning it's heritage. We somehow always think our situation is "brand new" and the old paths won't work in them and that God's methods need an overhaul. Corinth and NYC are in fact far less different than we think.
Click to expand...




What is contextualization according to you? What are its benefits and dangers according to you?


----------



## raekwon

armourbearer said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, we believe that Presbyterianism is the best form of church government, but is a PCA pastor's helping to plant non-Presbyterian, yet Gospel-centered churches really something to spend time upset about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Addressing the general issue, and ignoring the personal situation -- would anyone think it is good for a child to be adopted into a family where they are going to receive fundamental care but be detrimentally affected by disordered authority structures and outside influences? Of course not. We are Presbyterian for a reason, and that is because we believe it provides the best "home" within which to nurture Christian faith and life.
Click to expand...


I'm simply not at the point where I can say that non-Presbyterian churches are necessarily "disordered authority structures", I suppose. I _will_ say that for churches that are not governed by a plurality of qualified male elders, but such government doesn't necessitate "Presbyterianism" proper (for instance, the church that my family and I were members of immediately preceding our current church was an elder-led Baptist congregation).

(I'm equally not at the point where I can't see potential for the abuse of authority within the Presbyterian system of government.)

Of course, if my family and I were to move to another city, our first place to look for a church would naturally be the PCA (especially now, being an ordained PCA elder). Still, I doubt we'd feel necessarily bound to the PCA or even the other NAPARC denominations.



SEAGOON said:


> Hi Rae,



Hi Andy! 



> Also, Rae, the Machen quote should show us that the current call for contextualization in an urban setting is not anything particularly new. A quick review of the OT indicates that contextualizing has been practiced by the church, with similar results ultimately for millennia. For instance, the fact that we still have orthodox Reformed churches in existence is not due to the contextualizers, but rather the result of men faithfully treading the old paths. We are the offspring of the men who refused to contextualize, but once again the next generation is abandoning it's heritage. We somehow always think our situation is "brand new" and the old paths won't work in them and that God's methods need an overhaul. Corinth and NYC are in fact far less different than we think.



It seems to me that we *must* contextualize, but never compromise. There's a difference, and too often the two end up conflated into a big, ugly mess of "hip", "relevant", "emergent" churches that are teetering on the edge between orthodoxy and paganism. Still, a "refusal" to bring the Gospel to the language (spoken, written, cultural, etc) of the people smacks of stubborn traditionalism (to my ears) rather than of Biblical faithfulness. What are we to make of becoming all things to all people? Certainly this doesn't mean to join the pagans in their paganism, but then, what does it mean?


----------



## MW

Pilgrim said:


> Machen had a different view when it came to spreading Presbyterianism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We cannot agree with those who say that although they are members of the
> Presbyterian church, they "have not the slightest zeal to have the
> Presbyterian church extended throughout the length and breadth of the
> world." As for us, we hold the faith of the Presbyterian church, the great
> Reformed faith that is set forth in the Westminster Confession, to be true;
> and holding it to be true, we hold that it is intended for the whole world."
Click to expand...


Is there a bibliographic reference on hand by any chance?


----------



## Pilgrim

armourbearer said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Machen had a different view when it came to spreading Presbyterianism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We cannot agree with those who say that although they are members of the
> Presbyterian church, they "have not the slightest zeal to have the
> Presbyterian church extended throughout the length and breadth of the
> world." As for us, we hold the faith of the Presbyterian church, the great
> Reformed faith that is set forth in the Westminster Confession, to be true;
> and holding it to be true, we hold that it is intended for the whole world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a bibliographic reference on hand by any chance?
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don't have one. I had posted this to the board some time ago and I don't remember where I got it from. Had there been a reference given I'm sure I would have noted it.


----------



## Pilgrim

The Original PCA "Contract" by Tim Keller


----------



## Zenas

I'm an uncharitable type of guy. *shrug*

I have no patience with that type of non-chalant attitude with regard to Confessional Protestantism when one holds themselves out as a Confessional Protestant. Viewing church government as some sort of suggestion that you only need in certain settings doesn't fit well with me. He holds himself out to be a Presbyterian but... well, you read the statement. If the harshness offends you, I apologize, but I don't retract.

I'm not out to "get" Tim Keller. I've gone to see him speak and felt he was quite solid at the time. My RUF campus minister was/is a big fan of him as well. I've heard he was a little less than TR and this seems to affirm more than that suspicion.


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi Pergamum,



Pergamum said:


> What is contextualization according to you? What are its benefits and dangers according to you?



Excellent question. Contextualization is the idea that we attempt to translate the religion of scripture into a format that is relevant and understandable to the culture that we are in. So when it comes to preaching evangelistically we are "answering the questions they (the culture) are asking" and using forms, and examples, and formats they understand. When it comes to worship we say, "what is the main point", "what are the main truths", and then we try to express them using the forms that the culture understands and adding things that we consider indifferent will make doing so more appealing. The idea is that this will captivate and interest the members of the society without losing the heart of the gospel. We may think of it as a form of "translation." I'm merely translating the gospel into 21st century urban American so they can understand it. If I translate the gospel into 1st Century Greek or 17th century English, no one today will respond.

Unfortunately there are a number of problems with this approach (more in fact than I can list). 

First, it flies in the face of the biblical data. Paul did not contextualize the gospel by using the forms of Greek culture. He did not speak in the manner of the Sophists, he did not use the drama that Greeks had been using for centuries to teach, engage, and transmit values. Neither did he use Greek Choruses. We also know he didn't incorporate elements of Greek religion, he did not adopt feasts or sacrifices or Greek mystery rites. While occasionally he used examples from the authors and everyday lives of the Greeks, the religion he presented was in no way "translated" except into their language. It was actually highly counter-cultural. He condemned plenty of Greek practices and philosophies and called Christians to look distinctively different from the culture around them. There were no calls for "Hippodrome Sunday" meetings. Christians in the first and second century, offended the surrounding culture.

Second, it assumes that the forms of the culture are neutral and inevitably compatible with biblical religion. This is not true, often the dress, music, humour, mores, and customs of the culture are anti-biblical. Quite often, becoming a Christian involves leaving the ways and habits of the culture you grew up in behind. Did Rahab, for instance, remain a Jerichite culturally or was it assumed that she would assimilate into the covenant culture? Obviously the latter. It simply wasn't the case that as the Covenant community moved into a new area they assumed their culture. In the OT that was always held to be a recipe for disaster. In the NT era the same proved to be true. 

Third, it short circuits Palingenesis. In Contextualization we adapt Christianity to the worshipper, in Christianity God changes the worshiper to fit him for eternity. We want to make everything as smooth and simple as possible in contextualization, whereas in reality Christianity is so difficult, it is impossible for the natural man. We want to take the "culture shock" out, God however leaves it in and creates a new community profoundly different from the worldly one. Contextualization inevitably also tends to repel piety. In Christianity, becoming holy inevitably means becoming very different from your neighbors. They, after all, are dead in their sins and follow the prince of the power of the air. Their tastes, habits, speech, etc. inevitably reflect this. The Christian, on the other hand, is being conformed to the image of Lord of Glory, his tastes, habits, and speech should reflect that. In contextualization we strive to be as like our neighbors as possible while still transmitting truth, but Christianity is as much about Sanctification as it is about preaching. We can't remain like them and truly grow in holiness. Contextualized churches as a result are rarely places where you see much progress from Milk to Meat, and people who are really advancing in the process of sanctification, precisely because that would involve transcending and alienating the culture. 

Fourth, it is a form of self-deception. We say that contextualization is for the benefit of the culture. It is us stooping to reach them. In fact it is more for the believers than the non-believers. It allows them to continue in the comfort zone they've always been in and not stick out like a sore thumb. We can continue to act and live like the unbeliever and pat ourselves on the back because we are doing so for their benefit. 

Fifth, it assumes that in order to be effective, the gospel has to be administered according to man's wisdom. God's words but given man's way. 

Ultimately, it is a rejection of the heart of Puritanism that spawned the Westminster Assembly and Standards. Puritanism says the church must strive to become that holy body of believers set apart from the world and obedient to His will that God desires. The culture said, "Nah, the church has to be a relevant expression of our traditional cultural religion that allows us to worship for a while on Sunday and live like the world for the rest of the week."


----------



## ChristianTrader

Zenas said:


> I'm an uncharitable type of guy. *shrug*
> 
> I have no patience with that type of non-chalant attitude with regard to Confessional Protestantism when one holds themselves out as a Confessional Protestant. Viewing church government as some sort of suggestion that you only need in certain settings doesn't fit well with me. He holds himself out to be a Presbyterian but... well, you read the statement. If the harshness offends you, I apologize, but I don't retract.



From said statement, I get that he wishes the rules were more flexible in dealing with a church his size. I do not see where you somehow read, something along the lines of, "everyone do whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it."



> I'm not out to "get" Tim Keller. I've gone to see him speak and felt he was quite solid at the time. My RUF campus minister was/is a big fan of him as well. I've heard he was a little less than TR and this seems to affirm more than that suspicion.



The issue is not the calling out of people whenever you believe they are wrong. The problem is the making every problem/issue/sin equal to the worst sin imaginable.

CT


----------



## SEAGOON

armourbearer said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Machen had a different view when it came to spreading Presbyterianism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We cannot agree with those who say that although they are members of the
> Presbyterian church, they "have not the slightest zeal to have the
> Presbyterian church extended throughout the length and breadth of the
> world." As for us, we hold the faith of the Presbyterian church, the great
> Reformed faith that is set forth in the Westminster Confession, to be true;
> and holding it to be true, we hold that it is intended for the whole world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a bibliographic reference on hand by any chance?
Click to expand...


J. Gresham Machen, "The Attack on Princeton Seminary: A Plea for Fair Play", in Selected Shorter Writings.

HT: Jim Cassidy


----------



## SEAGOON

BTW, one of the things people seem to be overlooking is the fact that planting non-Presbyterian churches and PCA churches independent of your Presbytery or outside of the bounds of it, or without working with the NAPARC churches in the area is a violation of the following BCO rules. Ordinary PCA churches and Presbyters would get nailed for doing this:



> 13-2. A minister shall be required to hold his membership in the
> Presbytery within whose geographical bounds he resides, unless there are
> reasons which are satisfactory to his Presbytery why he should not do so.
> When a minister labors outside the geographical bounds of, or in a work not
> under the jurisdiction of his Presbytery, at home or abroad, it shall be only
> with the full concurrence of and under circumstances agreeable to his
> Presbytery, and to the Presbytery within whose geographical bounds he
> labors, if one exists.
> 
> 8-7. A Presbytery may, at its discretion, approve the call of a teaching
> elder to work with an organization outside the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian
> Church in America, provided that he be engaged in preaching and teaching
> the Word, that the Presbytery be assured he will have full freedom to
> maintain and teach the doctrine of our Church, and that he report at least
> annually on his work. As far as possible, such a teaching elder shall be a
> member of the Presbytery within whose bounds he labors. (See BCO 20-1.)
> 
> 21-3. No Presbytery shall ordain any intern to the office of minister of the
> Word with reference to his laboring within the bounds of another Presbytery,
> but shall furnish him with the necessary testimonials, and require him to
> repair to the Presbytery within whose bounds he expects to labor, that he may
> submit himself to its authority, according to the Constitution of the Church.
> 
> NAPARC Golden Rule Comity Agreement
> (For the Information of Sessions and Presbytery MNA Committees)
> ...
> 2. We will communicate with the equivalent or appropriate agency
> (denominational missions committee or board, Presbytery missions or
> church extension committee, or session) before initiating church planting
> activities in a community where NAPARC churches or missions exist.


----------



## Pergamum

SEAGOON:

On contextualization:

Let's start another thread. I think you are mistaken here. All forms of contextualization are not over-contextualization, but follow a NT example.


For instance, Paul did not address the Greeks in the samer manner as he did the Jews. This is contextualization. He did not quote a hymn to Zeus in a greek synagogue, but amongst Greeks. He spoke of the water of life at a well.

The NT writers made the universal message fit the particular context.


Some today over contextualize, but there is room for healthy contextualization. 



Start a thread and let's flesh this out.


----------



## raekwon

SEAGOON said:


> BTW, one of the things people seem to be overlooking is the fact that planting non-Presbyterian churches and PCA churches independent of your Presbytery or outside of the bounds of it, or without working with the NAPARC churches in the area is a violation of the following BCO rules. Ordinary PCA churches and Presbyters would get nailed for doing this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 13-2. A minister shall be required to hold his membership in the
> Presbytery within whose geographical bounds he resides, unless there are
> reasons which are satisfactory to his Presbytery why he should not do so.
> When a minister labors outside the geographical bounds of, or in a work not
> under the jurisdiction of his Presbytery, at home or abroad, it shall be only
> with the full concurrence of and under circumstances agreeable to his
> Presbytery, and to the Presbytery within whose geographical bounds he
> labors, if one exists.
> 
> 8-7. A Presbytery may, at its discretion, approve the call of a teaching
> elder to work with an organization outside the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian
> Church in America, provided that he be engaged in preaching and teaching
> the Word, that the Presbytery be assured he will have full freedom to
> maintain and teach the doctrine of our Church, and that he report at least
> annually on his work. As far as possible, such a teaching elder shall be a
> member of the Presbytery within whose bounds he labors. (See BCO 20-1.)
> 
> 21-3. No Presbytery shall ordain any intern to the office of minister of the
> Word with reference to his laboring within the bounds of another Presbytery,
> but shall furnish him with the necessary testimonials, and require him to
> repair to the Presbytery within whose bounds he expects to labor, that he may
> submit himself to its authority, according to the Constitution of the Church.
> 
> NAPARC Golden Rule Comity Agreement
> (For the Information of Sessions and Presbytery MNA Committees)
> ...
> 2. We will communicate with the equivalent or appropriate agency
> (denominational missions committee or board, Presbytery missions or
> church extension committee, or session) before initiating church planting
> activities in a community where NAPARC churches or missions exist.
Click to expand...


Maybe the rules need to be changed, then.

Does not "initiating church planting activities" necessarily preclude giving money to non-NAPARC plants, btw?


----------



## Zenas

ChristianTrader said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an uncharitable type of guy. *shrug*
> 
> I have no patience with that type of non-chalant attitude with regard to Confessional Protestantism when one holds themselves out as a Confessional Protestant. Viewing church government as some sort of suggestion that you only need in certain settings doesn't fit well with me. He holds himself out to be a Presbyterian but... well, you read the statement. If the harshness offends you, I apologize, but I don't retract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From said statement, I get that he wishes the rules were more flexible in dealing with a church his size. I do not see where you somehow read, something along the lines of, "everyone do whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not out to "get" Tim Keller. I've gone to see him speak and felt he was quite solid at the time. My RUF campus minister was/is a big fan of him as well. I've heard he was a little less than TR and this seems to affirm more than that suspicion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue is not the calling out of people whenever you believe they are wrong. The problem is the making every problem/issue/sin equal to the worst sin imaginable.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


When it's someone like Keller, a small drift away is something to make a big deal about. Apostacy and liberalism don't usually start with someone making the switch overnight, it's a slow process. When a big-time teacher like Keller starts to exhibit leaning the other way, I'm going to point it out loud and clear.

The tone I got from the statement is the BCO is restrictive of the type of church he wants to pastor, one that, from the tone of his interview, seems more "inclusive". His attitude toward Romanism is gut-wrenching as well, and adds to the suspicion that he is a pluralist of some sort. At the very least, I no longer think he is an orthodox Protestant due to his friendly attitude toward Romanism despite the glaring heresey present in their view of Justification.

Stephen's critique of the article is more telling, which quotes like this little gem:



> This puts me in a position where I don’t want to defend just one kind of Christianity. I think I want to defend the Apostles Creed. And I want you, as a nonbeliever, to buy the Apostles’ Creed, and then after that figure out where you want to go. I really think I can do that. But, at the same time, I don’t believe I can possibly speak to a lot of these things without [doing so from] within my particularity. So I actually say that there are certain chapters in which I’m going to be speaking as a Protestant because there’s no way not to speak as a Protestant or a Catholic.



When Sproul writes an apologetic's book, it's from a Reformed Protestant view and he's unapologetic about it (no pun intended). I expect that, becase Sproul's goal is to defend Reformed Protestantism because contained therein is the Biblical view of justification by faith alone. The same with James White. James White is a Reformed Baptist, and his apologetics are going to be slanted that way. In either instance, both are arguing for justification by faith alone explicitly. They aren't sending out a call for folks to go join a Pentecostal or Unitarian church, and definately not to join a Roman Catholic church. They want them to have a biblical view of justification, i.e. by faith alone in Christ alone. Keller is obviously deviating from this and adopting a pluralistic approach to apologetics. 

Time Keller appears to be admitting he wishes he could write a book without a Reformed Protestant skew, so that he can call unbelievers to any view of justification that has Christ mentioned somewhere therein. That's not kosher man. Not at all. If I'm a bad person for calling the kettle black, then I'm a bad person. I'll own that label.


----------



## RamistThomist

Zenas said:


> When Sproul writes an apologetic's book, it's from a Reformed Protestant view and he's unapologetic about it (no pun intended). .



If we are speaking strictly about apologetics, Sproul will be writing from a Thomist Catholic view, since he is a classical apologist. I do know what you are getting at, though. I also mention that because in some eyes, Sproul has made a small move away from Reformeddom in regards to methodology. 

I am not knocking Sproul. I listened to RYM the other day.

I have mixed feelings about this thread. I am not particularly fond of Keller, and you really can't justify him violating the BCO, but I am open to the fact that the Spirit is moving in other churches (no, put the torches down. I am not saying Rome is all hunky-dory).


----------



## Zenas

Ivanhoe said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Sproul writes an apologetic's book, it's from a Reformed Protestant view and he's unapologetic about it (no pun intended). .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are speaking strictly about apologetics, Sproul will be writing from a Thomist Catholic view, since he is a classical apologist. I do know what you are getting at, though. I also mention that because in some eyes, Sproul has made a small move away from Reformeddom in regards to methodology.
> 
> I am not knocking Sproul. I listened to RYM the other day.
> 
> I have mixed feelings about this thread. I am not particularly fond of Keller, and you really can't justify him violating the BCO, but I am open to the fact that the Spirit is moving in other churches (no, put the torches down. I am not saying Rome is all hunky-dory).
Click to expand...


My point is not in his approach, but rather to the substance of what he's defending. I'm well aware of the fact he's a Thomist but he doesn't argue for the validity of the Roman view of justification, or in order to get people to move in that direction. My point was not that Keller was using a Thomistic Catholic approach to apologetics, but that he wants to offer an apology non-specific to any view of justification, just a view of justification.

A far as Sproul goes, I'm not aware of the move, but I don't keep myself abreast of his situations anyway. I would expect people to throw a bigger fit if he came out and said things like this. I certainly would.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Matthew,

The Machen quote can be found in _J. Greshem Machen: Selected Shorter Writings_, ed. by D.G. Hart, p. 314. I got this from the "Machen on Presbyterianism" thread (from Andrew Myers, post #9): http://www.puritanboard.com/f35/machen-presbyterianism-21621/

The quote Machen was responding to can be found in (search for the pertinent words):

http://www.theologian.org.uk/downloads/ChristianityandtheToleranceofLiberalismbyLeeGatiss_000.pdf

The Presbyterian Controversy ... - Google Book Search

Steve


----------



## Pergamum

*What is contextualization, and it is biblical?*

We must never compromise biblical truth. We must, however, express this truth to widely varying cultures. Contextualization is this bridging process. The missionary seeks to impart the meaning of the Gospel in a meaningful way to a new audience. He leaves behind his cultural biases and even adapts the form of his message to provide better points of commonality between the Gospel and his target audience. 

Definitions of Contextualization from Leading Missiologists 

Gilliland (1989) defines contextualization in the following manner: 
_The way in which the Word as Scripture, and the Word as revealed in the truths of culture interact in determining Christian truth for a given people. For the purpose of missions there must be a maximizing of the meaning of Christian truth for the particular situation in which and for which the message is developed. _

Darrel Whiteman’s definition contains the concept of process and continuance in one’s own culture:
[Contextualization] _attempts to communicate the Gospel in word and deed and to establish the church in ways that make sense to people within their local cultural context, presenting Christianity in such a way that it meets people's deepest needs and penetrates their worldview, thus allowing them to follow Christ and remain within their own culture. _

Samuel Escobar explains contextualization this way:
_It refers to the way in which the text of the Bible or Christian theology is understood within its own cultural and historical context in order to apply its meaning in different contexts...However, the term contextualization may also be understood in a more general way as a movement that seeks to affirm local cultures in their search for autonomy and full expression, as a reactive process in contrast to globalization. _

David Hesselgrave warns that definitions of contextualization focus too much on cultural relevancy rather than Biblical faithfulness. Hesselgrave, therefore, crafts a definition contextualization that focuses on cultural “meaningfulness” rather than on “relevancy.” 

Hesselgrave writes:
_I define it [contextualization] in terms of “cultural meaningfulness”...I will use the term to refer to the process of communicating the biblical Gospel in such a way as to make it meaningful to the people of any given cultural context. _

I could list many other worthy definitions. Contextualization as “the attempt to communicate the message of the person, works, Word, and will of God in a way that is faithful to God’s revelation...and that is meaningful to respondents in their respective cultural and existential contexts,” as advocated by David Hesselgrave and Ed Rommen. 

Charles Kraft emphasizes the role of God as “The Contextualizer” and speaks of “receptor-oriented language.” If God’s Son became incarnate, lived and spoke in a contextual way, God’s representatives ought to display the Gospel in a way that becomes incarnate in the target culture too. 

Elements in common with all these definitions include (1) A transcultural Gospel, (2) communicated in varying ways (3) with an aim to make the trans-cultural message meaningful to varying cultures by the use of varying forms. 
Missiologists also sometimes emphases the following: (1) we must not change the basic content of the Gospel, only its presentation, (2) our aim is effectiveness, meaningfulness and sometimes relevance, and (3) our practices are in line with the practices of Jesus, the Apostle Paul and other NT writers. Finally, (4) there are also dangers of not contextualizing.


Section III – History Of Contextualization

Contextualization is a new word but not a new concept. Contextualization has been practiced throughout the history of the church as it has spread out to new cultures. Dean Flemming explains: 
_Although the term contextualization was quite recently minted, the activity of expressing and embodying the gospel on context-sensitive ways has characterized the Christian mission from the very beginning. _

Ancient examples of contextualization can be seen in the Greco-Roman world as early apologists argued for the rationality of Christianity using Greek logical categories. The early church Fathers took their queue from the Apostle John’s use of “Logos” and crafted a distinctively Christian philosophy. Many of the early apologists worked in the world of Greek logical categories and vocabularies. If Christianity had first traveled East rather than West the Athanasian Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Formulation of Chalcedon might never have been written since immersion into Greek thought influenced Christianity to develop along creedal lines and scholastic formulae.
Douglas Hayward locates one of the oldest examples of contextualization among the Heliand, where “The Gospel was rewritten as a ballad and was sung in the mead halls of Saxon Germany in the 9th Century.” Todd Johnson mentions the efforts of Alfred the Great, Saint Patrick of Ireland and Roberto D Nobili - who became in appearance a Hindu holy man in the 1500’s - as examples of early contextualization. The China Inland Mission missionaries took on the dress and habits of the Chinese. There are many other such examples. 
Who coined the term contextualization? Though practiced long before the word was coined, the actual coining of this term occurred in 1972. Shoki Coe first used this term in a World Council of Churches’ publication, “Theological Education Fund Report,” in the book Ministry in Context. 

Todd Johnson describes this first usage:
_A few short years ago, in 1972, Shoki Coe first used the term "contextualization" in a publication of the World Council of Churches. " _

The rise of contextualization paralleled the rise of postmodern thought. It carried with it the same matching blessings and curses. These matching concepts helped demolish the myth of a monocultural Gospel, but some slipped into the false belief that transcultural items are rooted in culture as well. We have a God who has accommodated to culture, but we still have a God above culture. Some advocates of contextualization have forgotten this. While missiologists explored this concept as a key to enter resistant cultures with the Gospel, liberation and feminist theology also utilized contextualization as a means to spread deviant theologies. 

Hesselgrave analyzes the aftermath:
_ When administrators of the Theological Education Fund of the World Council of Churches launched its Third Mandate Program (1970-78) to encourage the “contextualization of theology,” most who responded to that challenge were Third World theologians of a liberal or neo-orthodox persuasion. Their resultant contextualized theologies displayed a profound appreciation for indigenous cultures and religions, including black theology, African theology, liberation theology, waterbuffalo theology, third-eye theology, and the theology of the pain of God.
However, these contextualized theologies invariably left a great deal to be desired when measured against the biblical text and biblical theology. _

The Lausanne Consultation on Gospel and Culture met at Willowbank in 1978. Controversy ensued. The results: “several papers drew sharp criticism and had to be revised.” Charles Taber created the Journal, The Gospel in Context in 1978 and David Hesselgrave included a chapter on the subject in his 1978 book, Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally. Later, Hesselgrave devoted a whole book to the subject in 1989 with the title, Contextualization. The first popular book discussing contextualization was Charles Kraft’s Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective, published in 1979. Hiebert, in 1982, also begin to speak of “critical contextualization.” 
In the years that followed, contextualization affected nearly every area of missiology in almost every location and people group around the globe. Now, its influence seems to be everywhere and it is one of the most discussed and debated issues in missiology. 


Section IV – The Biblical Data

As Stan Guthrie points out, “Contextualization may be a new term, but it is not a new concept. It has been around for as long as the Bible.” 
The Old Testament:
The transcultural God enters culture. He does so in understandable and culturally meaningful ways. He spoke to Ancient Near East audiences, and they understood. One example, very simply put: God gave Moses his law on Sinai on tablets of stone, not on floppy disk!
God accommodated to human culture, working through social patterns of that day. Meredith Kline and other reformed scholars even point out that the structure of whole books of the Old Testament, such a Deuteronomy, were patterned after Ancient Near East Suzerain-Vassal treaties. 

Douglas Hayward often demonstrates God’s Old Testament divine contextualizing by giving this curious assignment:

_One of the interesting assignments that I give to students in my classrooms is that of asking them to read 50 of the Psalms and to record all of the images of God that they can find. This typically includes terms such as “my high tower, my shield and my sword, a rock and a high place” along with a host of others all indicating mental and cultural images that were important to a pastoral culture and an emerging nation-state. Then I ask them to record all the images of God in the Gospel of John. They discover there that God is spoken of as: the Word, the Way the Truth and the Life, the Door, a Vine and its branches, as well as other images that reflect a mercantile culture...” _

Adequate space prevents all that I could write. Summary: God contextualized. He entered the cultural forms of the Ancient Near East to make His Divine Plan understandable.


The New Testament:
Dean Flemming recently detailed the New Testament occurrences of contextualization in great detail. I’ve listed only a few key examples here, but many more exist, the New Testament being rich in contextualization. The prime example: Christ himself - the Son of God incarnate as a Palestine Jew.

Christ communicated Himself to others in a contextualized way worthy of study. As Hesselgrave writes:
_Though our Lord ministered within the confines of the worldview of Judaism, He nevertheless adapted to interests, needs, and “points of view” within various contexts. He did not communicate with the rich young ruler in terms of the new birth, or with the woman of Samaria in terms of “selling what she had and following Him,” or with Nicodemus in terms of the Water of life. All three approaches would have been valid as concerns God’s eternal truth, but they would not have been valid as adaptations within the respective contexts”. _

Jesus contextualized Himself as a Jew, abiding by Jewish custom and using local language to express truth: “From the beginning the gospel was voiced in local, culturally conditioned forms.” 

Want a divinely penned example of contextualization in action? The ministry of the Apostle Paul is a case study of “Apostolic Adaptation.” Look at Paul in both Acts 14 and Acts 17. These two sermons, studied together, provide an inspired case study of how the Apostle varied his subject matter, manner of address and illustrations - all to make the Gospel meaningful to different audiences. He even quoted local literature – pagan poets - and appealed to local myth. The Gospel writer Luke, of all the sermons which Paul preached, picked these sermons to record. Why? To give a clear model for engaging “foreign” cultures.

Do you know that Peter contextualized the Gospel too? Peter’s apostolic adaptation to different audiences is often overlooked, but just compare Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 with how he interacted with Cornelius in Acts 10. Also, Peter’s two epistles to poor, persecuted saints also focus on Christ’s suffering as an example for us. Peter displayed a Christ living a holy life under persecution, a fitting model for an audience undergoing similar circumstances.

The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 drove the nail in the coffin for anyone who values culture over Christ. The resounding verdict: one did not need to first become a Jew in order to become a Christian. The Gentiles did not need circumcision; only those particularly troublesome cultural sins for the Gentiles were forbidden. We need not export “civilization” first before we give “Christianity.” 


The New Testament displays one long record of contextualizing practices. The New Testament writers had the habit of “dipping into pagan vocabulary.” Paul paints Jesus as the “pleroma,” a term widely used by the Proto-gnostics (Colossians 1:19). Christ is He in whom all the fullness of God dwells, forever recapturing this word from paganism. Paul quoted pagan poets (the Phaenomena of Aratus the Stoic). The Apostle John redefines the “logos” for Christian use. Ralph Winter concludes “we must not suppose that the message of Christianity, clothed in the new garments of the Greek world, was damaged by this new clothing.”


----------



## RamistThomist

I am going to get in trouble for this quotation, but I can't resist:



> Contextualization be damned. We have our own story. And if it clashes with the stories we find around us, so much the worse for the other stories. After all, our story is big enough to encompass every other.



Peter Leithart, _Against Christianity_, 58ff.


----------



## Pergamum

AREAS WHERE CONTEXTUALIZATION CAN AND SHOULD BE PRACTICED


Areas of Application

Contextualization should be applied to areas such as the following:

1. Dress, behavior and lifestyle of the missionary.
2. Types of development projects, which if inappropriate, might be interpreted as 'inducements' by the non-Christian community.
3. Language, including the Scripture translation, used in evangelism and worship.
4. Thought patterns and communication style as found in the new culture (e.g. story-telling or use of indigenous music).
5. Initial selection, sequence, and emphasis of certain aspects of the gospel relevant to any culture. (e.g. the different way the early apostles shared the gospel with Jews versus the way they shared it with Gentiles.)
6. Worship posture and expression in prayer, music or formal discourse, allowing for various forms. We need to be careful, however, that we do not overlook the delicate relationship between form and meaning. We should avoid inadvertently encouraging a form or practice which is perceived by the worshiper or his unconverted acquaintances as having a meaning which is in conflict with Biblical truth. (e.g. Certain kinds of music in African culture are related to evil practices. The posture of prayer may be much more significant for a Muslim than for a former Catholic.)
7. Discipling and training methods, keeping in mind the past experiences and future needs of new converts.


----------



## Pergamum

God contextualized did he not even by giving these stories?


"Though our Lord ministered within the confines of the worldview of Judaism, He nevertheless adapted to interests, needs, and “points of view” within various contexts. He did not communicate with the rich young ruler in terms of the new birth, or with the woman of Samaria in terms of “selling what she had and following Him,” or with Nicodemus in terms of the Water of life. All three approaches would have been valid as concerns God’s eternal truth, but they would not have been valid as adaptations within the respective contexts”. 

Jesus met people's "felt needs" and was very "relevant." Also, cf the Apostle Paul in Acts 14 and Acts 17, same man, same theology, but a different approach. That is contextualizaition in action.


----------



## raekwon

The incarnation of the Son of God is the single greatest example of contextualization there is.


----------



## MW

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The Machen quote can be found in _J. Greshem Machen: Selected Shorter Writings_, ed. by D.G. Hart, p. 314.



Excellent. Thankyou Steve. Blessings!


----------



## Pilgrim

Ivanhoe said:


> I am going to get in trouble for this quotation, but I can't resist:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contextualization be damned. We have our own story. And if it clashes with the stories we find around us, so much the worse for the other stories. After all, our story is big enough to encompass every other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Leithart, _Against Christianity_, 58ff.
Click to expand...


 

Whatever issues there may be with Leithart, it's certainly nothing like this posted by Pergy that tells us the forum in which the term contextualization was first introduced: 



> Todd Johnson describes this first usage:
> A few short years ago, in 1972, Shoki Coe first used the term "contextualization" in a publication of the *World Council of Churches*. "


----------



## RamistThomist

Red Bible People (vague reference to the red cover RSV that came out in the 50s)! Give me FV any day over WCC.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Ivanhoe said:


> Red Bible People (vague reference to the red cover RSV that came out in the 50s)! Give me FV any day over WCC.



And give me a little Harold Ragsdale over both any day!  but couldn't help it with your new avatar.


----------



## MW

raekwon said:


> The incarnation of the Son of God is the single greatest example of contextualization there is.



Interesting observation. May I suggest another? The context into which the Son of God became incarnate was a people whom God separated from the rest of the nations for the explicit purpose of ensuring His message would not be confused with and absorbed by the multifarious God-rejecting cultures of the world.


----------



## biblicalthought

Does anyone here have a reliable source regarding FV at NYC Redeemer Pres? Allegedly it is an associate pastor of Keller.


----------



## Kevin

Ivanhoe said:


> I am going to get in trouble for this quotation, but I can't resist:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contextualization be damned. We have our own story. And if it clashes with the stories we find around us, so much the worse for the other stories. After all, our story is big enough to encompass every other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Leithart, _Against Christianity_, 58ff.
Click to expand...


Don't apologise. He had a good point.


----------



## raekwon

armourbearer said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The incarnation of the Son of God is the single greatest example of contextualization there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting observation. May I suggest another? The context into which the Son of God became incarnate was a people whom God separated from the rest of the nations for the explicit purpose of ensuring His message would not be confused with and absorbed by the multifarious God-rejecting cultures of the world.
Click to expand...


Was it really? Did the Son became incarnate among a people whom God had already separated to himself, or was the context that He entered into a rebellious, God-rejecting people in whom he had to effect such a separation?

What I'm trying to say is that Jesus came *as one of us*. Instead of saving us (or not) from his rightful place at His Father's side, He entered into our story, so to speak, as a man. This is what is meant by contextualization. Not receiving every aspect of a culture as good. By no means. But to reject every aspect of a culture as evil (which seems to be the conventional wisdom here -- correct me if I'm wrong) seems wrong-headed. There are morally neutral aspects of every culture that can be *received* as is. There are others that must be *rejected* as unbiblical and un-Christian. There are still others that can be *redeemed*.


----------



## MW

raekwon said:


> What I'm trying to say is that Jesus came *as one of us*. Instead of saving us (or not) from his rightful place at His Father's side, He entered into our story, so to speak, as a man. This is what is meant by contextualization.



Yes, I picked up that you were advocating a universalist incarnation approach. Hence I gave a counter-observation from a particularist incarnation approach. Jesus was made of a woman and *made under the law*. He came in fulfilment of all God had promised to the nation of Israel. The gospel is Judaeo-Christian. It begins with Jerusalem and moves out to the ends of the earth. The Christian story is never divorced from its God-made cultural context of Old Testament Israel.


----------



## tellville

Doesn't monergism.com give Tim Keller's most recent book a glowing review? They even have him as their monthly focus. Not that monergism.com is perfect, but I thought they were pretty good at providing only good resources. And I know for sure that many of the statements said here are in his book. Was I wrong about monergism.com?


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to get in trouble for this quotation, but I can't resist:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contextualization be damned. We have our own story. And if it clashes with the stories we find around us, so much the worse for the other stories. After all, our story is big enough to encompass every other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Leithart, _Against Christianity_, 58ff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever issues there may be with Leithart, it's certainly nothing like this posted by Pergy that tells us the forum in which the term contextualization was first introduced:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Todd Johnson describes this first usage:
> A few short years ago, in 1972, Shoki Coe first used the term "contextualization" in a publication of the *World Council of Churches*. "
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Hello.......read the WHOLE thing about contextualization. It is practiced by many good and bad men alike.

Respond to contextualiziation not merely react to Shoki Coe and the WCC Bunch (sounds like a pop band doesn't it).


I gave some examples of how Jesus contextualized the Gospel. Address those.


----------



## Pergamum

The very reason we are posting about the Bible in ENGLISH is due to the contextualization of the church in the past - making the Gospel understandable as it bridges another cultural context.


----------



## Pilgrim

biblicalthought said:


> Does anyone here have a reliable source regarding FV at NYC Redeemer Pres? Allegedly it is an associate pastor of Keller.



Perhaps this is it: 

KATA MATTHAION (According to Matthew)


----------



## elnwood

For what it's worth, I am with Keller when he favors planting churches not of his denomination. There needs to be more gospel-centered churches, period. When I lived in DC, our church supported in prayer, fellowship and even financially the planting of a PCA church because we recognized the importance of having a good Presbyterian church in the area despite our doctrinal differences.


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi Stephen,



biblicalthought said:


> Does anyone here have a reliable source regarding FV at NYC Redeemer Pres? Allegedly it is an associate pastor of Keller.



Assistant Pastor Matthew Paul Buccheri, friend and supporter of FV guys, Save Our Seminary, Presbyterians and Presbyterians together, the NT Wright brigade, Norm Shepherd, etc. and not surprisingly a fellow graduate of WTS East.


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi elnwood,



elnwood said:


> For what it's worth, I am with Keller when he favors planting churches not of his denomination. There needs to be more gospel-centered churches, period.



Well then, if that is our desire and we want to be good stewards of God's money. Why don't we get the evangelical denominations together and rent or purchase large buildings in the city and plant "buffet style churches" so people can select whatever kind of polity and doctrine that appeals to them. At 8:00 AM we can have an Anglican Service, 9:30 AM Presbyterian, 11:00 AM Baptist, 1:00 PM Pentecostal, 2:30 PM Independent Charismatic Contemporary and so on. 

Experience shows modern people love Malls and the many choices that come with them. Also, this would have the advantage that if one of the individual churches in the buffet failed, we could just invite in a different one to fill it's spot and not lose the building, resources, etc.


----------



## elnwood

SEAGOON said:


> Hi elnwood,
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, I am with Keller when he favors planting churches not of his denomination. There needs to be more gospel-centered churches, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, if that is our desire and we want to be good stewards of God's money. Why don't we get the evangelical denominations together and rent or purchase large buildings in the city and plant "buffet style churches" so people can select whatever kind of polity and doctrine that appeals to them. At 8:00 AM we can have an Anglican Service, 9:30 AM Presbyterian, 11:00 AM Baptist, 1:00 PM Pentecostal, 2:30 PM Independent Charismatic Contemporary and so on.
> 
> Experience shows modern people love Malls and the many choices that come with them. Also, this would have the advantage that if one of the individual churches in the buffet failed, we could just invite in a different one to fill it's spot and not lose the building, resources, etc.
Click to expand...


I hope you're not suggesting that this is what I'm suggesting.

If I may explain, the fact is that there are more people who need to be ministered to by the gospel than the current number of good gospel-preaching churches today. I live in San Diego and attend a PCA church. It is a large, metropolitan area which needs good churches throughout the area.

Our strategy is to plant as many churches in the area as possible. We don't want to set up one big church downtown and have everyone commute to it, as is the mega-church model. Many churches within the surrounding neighborhoods is a better way to reach people for the gospel. It is NOT about, as I think you are suggesting, giving people what they want. It is NOT a seeker-sensitive model.

So far, our church has planted eight locations in the county, but our church recognizes that the PCA does not have enough resources to effectively reach all of San Diego county. Therefore, we support and partner with other like-minded gospel-centered churches that are not in the PCA.

Others may think that having one perfectly WCF-complaint, exclusive-Psalter church in a major city is enough for God's word to reach people, but I don't think so.


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> SEAGOON said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi elnwood,
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, I am with Keller when he favors planting churches not of his denomination. There needs to be more gospel-centered churches, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, if that is our desire and we want to be good stewards of God's money. Why don't we get the evangelical denominations together and rent or purchase large buildings in the city and plant "buffet style churches" so people can select whatever kind of polity and doctrine that appeals to them. At 8:00 AM we can have an Anglican Service, 9:30 AM Presbyterian, 11:00 AM Baptist, 1:00 PM Pentecostal, 2:30 PM Independent Charismatic Contemporary and so on.
> 
> Experience shows modern people love Malls and the many choices that come with them. Also, this would have the advantage that if one of the individual churches in the buffet failed, we could just invite in a different one to fill it's spot and not lose the building, resources, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you're not suggesting that this is what I'm suggesting.
> 
> If I may explain, the fact is that there are more people who need to be ministered to by the gospel than the current number of good gospel-preaching churches today. I live in San Diego and attend a PCA church. It is a large, metropolitan area which needs good churches throughout the area.
> 
> Our strategy is to plant as many churches in the area as possible. We don't want to set up one big church downtown and have everyone commute to it, as is the mega-church model. Many churches within the surrounding neighborhoods is a better way to reach people for the gospel. It is NOT about, as I think you are suggesting, giving people what they want. It is NOT a seeker-sensitive model.
> 
> So far, our church has planted eight locations in the county, but our church recognizes that the PCA does not have enough resources to effectively reach all of San Diego county. Therefore, we support and partner with other like-minded gospel-centered churches that are not in the PCA.
> 
> Others may think that having one perfectly WCF-complaint, exclusive-Psalter church in a major city is enough for God's word to reach people, but I don't think so.
Click to expand...


Speaking for myself, I'd have to throw my hat in with Don (Elnwood) on this one.  (How 'bout 'dem apples, Don?)


----------



## KMK

Tom Bombadil said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SEAGOON said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi elnwood,
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, if that is our desire and we want to be good stewards of God's money. Why don't we get the evangelical denominations together and rent or purchase large buildings in the city and plant "buffet style churches" so people can select whatever kind of polity and doctrine that appeals to them. At 8:00 AM we can have an Anglican Service, 9:30 AM Presbyterian, 11:00 AM Baptist, 1:00 PM Pentecostal, 2:30 PM Independent Charismatic Contemporary and so on.
> 
> Experience shows modern people love Malls and the many choices that come with them. Also, this would have the advantage that if one of the individual churches in the buffet failed, we could just invite in a different one to fill it's spot and not lose the building, resources, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you're not suggesting that this is what I'm suggesting.
> 
> If I may explain, the fact is that there are more people who need to be ministered to by the gospel than the current number of good gospel-preaching churches today. I live in San Diego and attend a PCA church. It is a large, metropolitan area which needs good churches throughout the area.
> 
> Our strategy is to plant as many churches in the area as possible. We don't want to set up one big church downtown and have everyone commute to it, as is the mega-church model. Many churches within the surrounding neighborhoods is a better way to reach people for the gospel. It is NOT about, as I think you are suggesting, giving people what they want. It is NOT a seeker-sensitive model.
> 
> So far, our church has planted eight locations in the county, but our church recognizes that the PCA does not have enough resources to effectively reach all of San Diego county. Therefore, we support and partner with other like-minded gospel-centered churches that are not in the PCA.
> 
> Others may think that having one perfectly WCF-complaint, exclusive-Psalter church in a major city is enough for God's word to reach people, but I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking for myself, I'd have to throw my hat in with Don (Elnwood) on this one.  (How 'bout 'dem apples, Don?)
Click to expand...


I officially declare that I have now seen everything! Paul and Don actually agree on something!


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi elnwood,



elnwood said:


> I hope you're not suggesting that this is what I'm suggesting.
> 
> If I may explain, the fact is that there are more people who need to be ministered to by the gospel than the current number of good gospel-preaching churches today. I live in San Diego and attend a PCA church. It is a large, metropolitan area which needs good churches throughout the area.
> 
> Our strategy is to plant as many churches in the area as possible. We don't want to set up one big church downtown and have everyone commute to it, as is the mega-church model. Many churches within the surrounding neighborhoods is a better way to reach people for the gospel. It is NOT about, as I think you are suggesting, giving people what they want. It is NOT a seeker-sensitive model.
> 
> So far, our church has planted eight locations in the county, but our church recognizes that the PCA does not have enough resources to effectively reach all of San Diego county. Therefore, we support and partner with other like-minded gospel-centered churches that are not in the PCA.
> 
> Others may think that having one perfectly WCF-complaint, exclusive-Psalter church in a major city is enough for God's word to reach people, but I don't think so.



No, that's not what I'm suggesting, I was just using the example to make a couple of points. First, although the model I was suggesting might be successful, it presupposes that issues like polity, worship, and doctrine are more the result of tradition and preference than anything else, and that it doesn't really matter what we practice in regards to these things, as long as the gospel is being preached. It presumes that the Bible doesn't teach things about them and that God doesn't really care much about them at all. They may be important to us, _but they aren't important to Him._ If I believed that, I'd cease to be a Presbyterian immediately, because I'm not Presbyterian because I was born into it, or I happen to like it's traditions. I'm a Presbyterian because of my conviction that it is the best expression of the theology taught in the Bible - and yeah as irritating as we are to the world I'm a Puritan, not a Latitudinarian, when it comes to theology. 

As it so happens, I believe many Pentecostal and even Anglican churches preach the gospel, but I also believe that their worship is unbiblical and produces a harvest of bad fruit. Frankly I don't want to use the resources that the Lord provides to us to teach people Dispensationalism, Arminianism, Pentecostalism , and so on, even if a gospel presentation is tacked on. I don't want to have started churches where there are no elders, or where the Minister is appointed by a Bishop, or where there is no Confessional statement by which the Minister is held accountable, or a constitution that protects the rights of members and provides them the ability to receive a fair trial and even an appeal. I don't want to start a church whose governing body has no higher court keeping them accountable via review and control, and so on. 

To put it quite simply, if I were able to plant churches of any stripe, I would be forced to say that the 2000 Puritan ministers who chose to be kicked out of the Ministry in 1662 because of their refusal to accept the Act of Uniformity were wrong, and I don't, or that Jenny Gedes should have bit her tongue and stayed on her stool. They said that things like church government, worship, Christian liberty and so on are not things we should compromise on in order to see that the gospel gets preached. 

Now before someone misunderstands me, I have had wonderful fellowship with more Pentecostal, Baptists, Independent Fundamentalists etc. brothers and sisters in Christ than I can count, and I'm sure I'll see them in heaven, but while there is much we agree on, I have no desire to spread abroad their theological _distinctives_, some of which, I consider downright dangerous (Pentecostalism in particular). And lets face it, how could I in all seriousness say that I subscribed to the idea that as WCF 28.5 says _"Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance"_ and then plant churches that do exactly that.

Now I'm not saying I want just one Presbyterian church in every city, I'd like to see many planted. I want to see as many solid OSP churches planted as we can.


----------



## elnwood

Hi SEAGOON,



SEAGOON said:


> No, that's not what I'm suggesting, I was just using the example to make a couple of points. First, although the model I was suggesting might be successful, it presupposes that issues like polity, worship, and doctrine are more the result of tradition and preference than anything else, and that it doesn't really matter what we practice in regards to these things, as long as the gospel is being preached. It presumes that the Bible doesn't teach things about them and that God doesn't really care much about them at all. They may be important to us, _but they aren't important to Him._ If I believed that, I'd cease to be a Presbyterian immediately, because I'm not Presbyterian because I was born into it, or I happen to like it's traditions. I'm a Presbyterian because of my conviction that it is the best expression of the theology taught in the Bible - and yeah as irritating as we are to the world I'm a Puritan, not a Latitudinarian, when it comes to theology.



Where we differ, I think is that I don't think church government and certain doctrines are essential for cooperation and mutual support.

You write that the view "presupposes that issues like polity, worship, and doctrine ... doesn't really matter [and] that the Bible doesn't teach things about them [and] God doesn't really care much about them at all." I disagree. I don't think a Presbyterian church supporting a Baptist church or vice versa (and I've been a part of both) means that either compromises their view of the ordinances or their polity.

I understand your desire to be fiscally wise in planting good churches and the desire not to plant churches that support doctrines you believe to be unbiblical. I don't want to support any doctrine I believe is unbiblical either, but as of yet I haven't found anyone who agrees with my theology 100%. Doctrinal perfection should not be demanded. I think our differences is that I am more lenient on many issues, in particular polity, than you are as far as cooperation.

In a country like the United States, there are many different denominations, and we have a lot of freedom to partner with like-minded churches, and we can make restrictions based on polity, ordinances, etc. If I were in a country with just a handful of Christians, though, and the only churches within a hundreds of miles were my church and a Pentecostal church (which is quite common because quite frankly, Pentecostals in general have been more aggressive in church planting than my Reformed brethren), I would quite happily partner with them to bring the gospel to that region while not compromising what I believe to be taught in Scripture.


----------



## Pilgrim

SEAGOON said:


> Hi elnwood,
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you're not suggesting that this is what I'm suggesting.
> 
> If I may explain, the fact is that there are more people who need to be ministered to by the gospel than the current number of good gospel-preaching churches today. I live in San Diego and attend a PCA church. It is a large, metropolitan area which needs good churches throughout the area.
> 
> Our strategy is to plant as many churches in the area as possible. We don't want to set up one big church downtown and have everyone commute to it, as is the mega-church model. Many churches within the surrounding neighborhoods is a better way to reach people for the gospel. It is NOT about, as I think you are suggesting, giving people what they want. It is NOT a seeker-sensitive model.
> 
> So far, our church has planted eight locations in the county, but our church recognizes that the PCA does not have enough resources to effectively reach all of San Diego county. Therefore, we support and partner with other like-minded gospel-centered churches that are not in the PCA.
> 
> Others may think that having one perfectly WCF-complaint, exclusive-Psalter church in a major city is enough for God's word to reach people, but I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I'm suggesting, I was just using the example to make a couple of points. First, although the model I was suggesting might be successful, it presupposes that issues like polity, worship, and doctrine are more the result of tradition and preference than anything else, and that it doesn't really matter what we practice in regards to these things, as long as the gospel is being preached. It presumes that the Bible doesn't teach things about them and that God doesn't really care much about them at all. They may be important to us, _but they aren't important to Him._ If I believed that, I'd cease to be a Presbyterian immediately, because I'm not Presbyterian because I was born into it, or I happen to like it's traditions. I'm a Presbyterian because of my conviction that it is the best expression of the theology taught in the Bible - and yeah as irritating as we are to the world I'm a Puritan, not a Latitudinarian, when it comes to theology.
> 
> As it so happens, I believe many Pentecostal and even Anglican churches preach the gospel, but I also believe that their worship is unbiblical and produces a harvest of bad fruit. Frankly I don't want to use the resources that the Lord provides to us to teach people Dispensationalism, Arminianism, Pentecostalism , and so on, even if a gospel presentation is tacked on. I don't want to have started churches where there are no elders, or where the Minister is appointed by a Bishop, or where there is no Confessional statement by which the Minister is held accountable, or a constitution that protects the rights of members and provides them the ability to receive a fair trial and even an appeal. I don't want to start a church whose governing body has no higher court keeping them accountable via review and control, and so on.
> 
> To put it quite simply, if I were able to plant churches of any stripe, I would be forced to say that the 2000 Puritan ministers who chose to be kicked out of the Ministry in 1662 because of their refusal to accept the Act of Uniformity were wrong, and I don't, or that Jenny Gedes should have bit her tongue and stayed on her stool. They said that things like church government, worship, Christian liberty and so on are not things we should compromise on in order to see that the gospel gets preached.
> 
> Now before someone misunderstands me, I have had wonderful fellowship with more Pentecostal, Baptists, Independent Fundamentalists etc. brothers and sisters in Christ than I can count, and I'm sure I'll see them in heaven, but while there is much we agree on, I have no desire to spread abroad their theological _distinctives_, some of which, I consider downright dangerous (Pentecostalism in particular). And lets face it, how could I in all seriousness say that I subscribed to the idea that as WCF 28.5 says _"Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance"_ and then plant churches that do exactly that.
> 
> Now I'm not saying I want just one Presbyterian church in every city, I'd like to see many planted. I want to see as many solid OSP churches planted as we can.
Click to expand...


 Well said, Andy. Why this is so hard for some to understand this I don't understand, unless they really believe (whether they admit it or realize it or not) that ecclesiology really is optional, that the Bible doesn't definitively say anything about it. Again, there is more to being Reformed than just accepting the Five Points. This is the Puritan Board, not the Latitudinarian or Broad Evangelical board. 

The untenability of "let's all play nice and win the whole wide world for Jesus while we downplay our doctrinal distinctives" was demonstrated the other week when probably the most outspoken advocate of this view posted a statement of bare minimal evangelical doctrines as an example of a statement those with differing views could subscribe to in cooperating on the mission field. The statement asserted "believer's baptism" by immersion. 

The first church I joined after being converted was Wesleyan. I believe the gospel is preached there, and Wesleyan distinctives, especially on soteriology and particularly sanctification, are NOT emphasized as the pastor doesn't believe in a 2nd work of grace, etc. Nonetheless as a convinced Presbyterian I do not support this church with my gifts and wouldn't support planting another, even though it does preach the gospel. 

As a convinced Presbyterian I say: Let the Presbyterians be Presbyterians, Baptists be Baptists, Anglicans be Anglicans, Pentecostals be Pentecostals, etc. Away with calls for "evangelical reunion" that exalt unity at the expense of truth. This pragmatic, relativistic spirit of planting as many churches as we can provided they subscribe to some bare minimum evangelical standard serves only to suck the marrow out of Geneva, Canterbury, Wittenburg, etc. 

Furthermore, to think that a church could openly support others that differ with it and maintain it's own distinctives for long is unrealistic. I submit that such a church that does this will not maintain its distinctives for long since it has demonstrated how unimportant they regard them by their actions. But some it would seem would be happy with that outcome, believing as they do that ecclesiology (and in many cases, soteriology) really doesn't matter after all.


----------



## Ravens

My post was ill-advised and based on assumptions and possible inaccuracy. As it pertains to an elder, I retract and apologize.


----------



## wsw201

> Maybe the rules need to be changed, then.



If Redeemer wants to change the BCO they certainly can. Virtually every GA has a variety of resolutions amending the BCO. The question is, why haven't they done it? If they have tried, why didn't it pass?

My problem with these comments are that the TE's, RE's and Deacons at Redeemer made vows before God Almighty and His Church just like every other officer in the PCA. No one put a gun to their heads to make them take those vows. 

There are basicaly three things Redeemer can do; change the BCO, live with the BCO or leave the PCA and not worry about the BCO. The fact that they are a large church makes no difference. If they don't want to abide by the rules of the BCO or the Standards, the PCA makes it very easy to leave. Just ask the folks at AAPC.


----------



## Pilgrim

elnwood said:


> Hi SEAGOON,
> 
> 
> 
> SEAGOON said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I'm suggesting, I was just using the example to make a couple of points. First, although the model I was suggesting might be successful, it presupposes that issues like polity, worship, and doctrine are more the result of tradition and preference than anything else, and that it doesn't really matter what we practice in regards to these things, as long as the gospel is being preached. It presumes that the Bible doesn't teach things about them and that God doesn't really care much about them at all. They may be important to us, _but they aren't important to Him._ If I believed that, I'd cease to be a Presbyterian immediately, because I'm not Presbyterian because I was born into it, or I happen to like it's traditions. I'm a Presbyterian because of my conviction that it is the best expression of the theology taught in the Bible - and yeah as irritating as we are to the world I'm a Puritan, not a Latitudinarian, when it comes to theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where we differ, I think is that I don't think church government and certain doctrines are essential for cooperation and mutual support.
> 
> You write that the view "presupposes that issues like polity, worship, and doctrine ... doesn't really matter [and] that the Bible doesn't teach things about them [and] God doesn't really care much about them at all." I disagree. I don't think a Presbyterian church supporting a Baptist church or vice versa (and I've been a part of both) means that either compromises their view of the ordinances or their polity.
Click to expand...


Sure it does. If someone believes it is a sin to baptize babies, how is supporting a paedobaptist church not a compromise? Likewise, how can someone who subscribes to the WCF which states that to neglect infant baptism is a sin help to plant baptist churches without compromising their view of the ordinances? How can one plant a congregational church if they are Presbyterian without compromising their polity? and vice versa, on and on. 

Honestly, at this point I think I have more respect for the views of the Arminian (or "one pointer") Baptist dispensationalists who would rather chop off their right arm than plant a Presbyterian church than for the views of the broad evangelicals who somehow think it wouldn't be a compromise. 



elnwood said:


> I understand your desire to be fiscally wise in planting good churches and the desire not to plant churches that support doctrines you believe to be unbiblical. I don't want to support any doctrine I believe is unbiblical either, but as of yet I haven't found anyone who agrees with my theology 100%. Doctrinal perfection should not be demanded. I think our differences is that I am more lenient on many issues, in particular polity, than you are as far as cooperation.



No one has said 100% agreement. That is a misunderstanding or a straw man. In some ways the Westminster Standards are consensus documents. I don't think anyone who has spent much time on the PB would dream that Presbyterians, even those of the same denomination or even the same congregation, are in 100% agreement! Confessions like the WCF or LBCF outline the boundaries of cooperation. One can fully subscribe to the Westminster Standards without exception and perhaps still not be in 100% agreement with someone else who does the same. 




elnwood said:


> In a country like the United States, there are many different denominations, and we have a lot of freedom to partner with like-minded churches, and we can make restrictions based on polity, ordinances, etc. If I were in a country with just a handful of Christians, though, and the only churches within a hundreds of miles were my church and a Pentecostal church (which is quite common because quite frankly, Pentecostals in general have been more aggressive in church planting than my Reformed brethren), I would quite happily partner with them to bring the gospel to that region while not compromising what I believe to be taught in Scripture.



I would evangelize in view of a Reformed church being planted. If you aim for the lowest common denominator, that is what you are going to get, at best.


----------



## SEAGOON

Elnwood, 

I know I'm going to differ with many other members of the PCA on this issue, just as I disagree with Keller. But let me put it to you this way, let's take your example of a typical Pentecostal church in your area. I happen to believe that what unbelievers need is the religion taught in scripture, and I believe that they have just as much need of it and right to it as me and my family. Or to flesh that out:

I don't believe that my children deserve to have their consciences bound only by scripture and theirs don't

I don't believe that my children deserve not to have to be forced to falsely manifest tongues in order to be considered saved and theirs don't

I don't believe that their children deserve not to be raised expecting that God is giving new revelation much of which is false or contradictory and theirs don't

I don't believe that my children deserve to know that they can never be sinlessly perfect this side of glory, and their children deserve to go through the frustration and hypocrisy generating exercise of trying to attain and maintain a state they don't have the power to achieve.

I don't believe that my children deserve to be baptized and considered members of the visible church, and theirs don't.

I don't believe that my children deserve worship that is decent and orderly and theirs don't.

I don't believe my children have the right to learn biblical doctrine, and sit under elders who are being held accountable, and have been judged apt to teach and so on and theirs don't.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture.

Perhaps part of this is having spent time in my early walk in Pentecostal churches and fellowshipping with Pentecostal believers, but I just don't support the Redeemer line that we should be planting Catholic, Pentecostal, etc. churches because we can't reach the elect with strictly biblical ones. Also, as long as I've been around, I've yet to find a Pentecostal church that would have reciprocated by helping to plant a strictly Reformed church. I think they at least, tend to hold their own doctrinal distinctives to be more important than that.


----------



## elnwood

Pilgrim said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> You write that the view "presupposes that issues like polity, worship, and doctrine ... doesn't really matter [and] that the Bible doesn't teach things about them [and] God doesn't really care much about them at all." I disagree. I don't think a Presbyterian church supporting a Baptist church or vice versa (and I've been a part of both) means that either compromises their view of the ordinances or their polity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. If someone believes it is a sin to baptize babies, how is supporting a paedobaptist church not a compromise? Likewise, how can someone who subscribes to the WCF which states that to neglect infant baptism is a sin help to plant baptist churches without compromising their view of the ordinances? How can one plant a congregational church if they are Presbyterian without compromising their polity? and vice versa, on and on.
Click to expand...


Easy. You hold to your own convictions but you support them in their mission broadly.

One of the owners of the board is a convinced WCF Presbyterian who is a deacon of a Baptist church. I assume as a good officer of the church that he pays his tithes to support the church besides the obvious time and energy devoted to that ministry. I am not for a moment going to suggest that he is compromising by supporting a Baptist church.



Pilgrim said:


> No one has said 100% agreement. That is a misunderstanding or a straw man. In some ways the Westminster Standards are consensus documents. I don't think anyone who has spent much time on the PB would dream that Presbyterians, even those of the same denomination or even the same congregation, are in 100% agreement! Confessions like the WCF or LBCF outline the boundaries of cooperation. One can fully subscribe to the Westminster Standards without exception and perhaps still not be in 100% agreement with someone else who does the same.



I brought up 100% agreement because the argument is that you are supporting everything that is being taught, and if you disagree, you are compromising your view.

In other words, if you are a historicist, and your pastor teaches partial preterism, you are logically saying that by supporting the church, you are supporting that doctrine and compromising your own view. (The original WCF clearly teaches the historicist view).

You can appeal to the WCF or the LBCF if you want, but I don't think these are good documents to draw the lines of cooperation. There are many LBCF SBC Baptists on this board who are cooperating with non-LBCF SBC Baptists. There are EP folks attending non-EP churches, presumably having worship in a way that they think God is displeased with. Baptists attending Presbyterian churches and vice versa.


----------



## elnwood

SEAGOON said:


> Elnwood,
> 
> I know I'm going to differ with many other members of the PCA on this issue, just as I disagree with Keller. But let me put it to you this way, let's take your example of a typical Pentecostal church in your area. I happen to believe that what unbelievers need is the religion taught in scripture, and I believe that they have just as much need of it and right to it as me and my family. Or to flesh that out:
> 
> I don't believe that my children deserve to have their consciences bound only by scripture and theirs don't
> 
> I don't believe that my children deserve not to have to be forced to falsely manifest tongues in order to be considered saved and theirs don't
> 
> I don't believe that their children deserve not to be raised expecting that God is giving new revelation much of which is false or contradictory and theirs don't
> 
> I don't believe that my children deserve to know that they can never be sinlessly perfect this side of glory, and their children deserve to go through the frustration and hypocrisy generating exercise of trying to attain and maintain a state they don't have the power to achieve.
> 
> I don't believe that my children deserve to be baptized and considered members of the visible church, and theirs don't.
> 
> I don't believe that my children deserve worship that is decent and orderly and theirs don't.
> 
> I don't believe my children have the right to learn biblical doctrine, and sit under elders who are being held accountable, and have been judged apt to teach and so on and theirs don't.
> 
> I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture.
> 
> Perhaps part of this is having spent time in my early walk in Pentecostal churches and fellowshipping with Pentecostal believers, but I just don't support the Redeemer line that we should be planting Catholic, Pentecostal, etc. churches because we can't reach the elect with strictly biblical ones. Also, as long as I've been around, I've yet to find a Pentecostal church that would have reciprocated by helping to plant a strictly Reformed church. I think they at least, tend to hold their own doctrinal distinctives to be more important than that.



SEAGOON,

It sounds like you have had a very bad experience from Pentecostalism.

As for myself, all of the Pentecostals I interact with do not fit your description and would probably be angry at any Pentecostal who did fit that description.

The Pentecostals I know ...
... believe their children have their consciences bound only by scripture.
... believe that one does not have to manifest tongues in order to be considered saved.
... do not believe that God is giving infallible new revelation.
... do not believe sinless perfection can be achieved this side of glory.
... believe that worship should be decent and orderly (you might disagree with the definition though).
... believe that your children deserve to be baptized and considered members of the visible church when they are able to profess it.
... believe children have the right to learn biblical doctrine.
... believe that elders should be held accountable, and have been judged apt to teach.

Re: a Pentecostal church would not help with a strictly Reformed church plant ... do you know of a strictly Reformed church plant that has asked a Pentecostal church? Maybe they would.

Regarding Redeemer, if Redeemer is planting Catholic churches, I would have an issue with that, but to my knowledge they have not even considered it, much less done so. Unless someone has evidence to that, I think we ought not keep that on the table.


----------



## Pilgrim

elnwood said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> You write that the view "presupposes that issues like polity, worship, and doctrine ... doesn't really matter [and] that the Bible doesn't teach things about them [and] God doesn't really care much about them at all." I disagree. I don't think a Presbyterian church supporting a Baptist church or vice versa (and I've been a part of both) means that either compromises their view of the ordinances or their polity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. If someone believes it is a sin to baptize babies, how is supporting a paedobaptist church not a compromise? Likewise, how can someone who subscribes to the WCF which states that to neglect infant baptism is a sin help to plant baptist churches without compromising their view of the ordinances? How can one plant a congregational church if they are Presbyterian without compromising their polity? and vice versa, on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy. You hold to your own convictions but you support them in their mission broadly.
> 
> One of the owners of the board is a convinced WCF Presbyterian who is a deacon of a Baptist church. I assume as a good officer of the church that he pays his tithes to support the church besides the obvious time and energy devoted to that ministry. I am not for a moment going to suggest that he is compromising by supporting a Baptist church.
Click to expand...


Rich can speak for himself about the circumstances of his involvement with the church in Okinawa, but it is obvious that he hasn't been on the broad church side in the recent discussion about all getting together under the banner of the lowest common denominator for missions and evangelism. 

If by God's providence I happened to move to an area that didn't have a confessional Reformed church within reasonable driving distance, I would attend the best church I could find. But in that case I would still maintain my membership in my old church and send the bulk of the gifts there, and work toward planting a Reformed church in my area.




elnwood said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has said 100% agreement. That is a misunderstanding or a straw man. In some ways the Westminster Standards are consensus documents. I don't think anyone who has spent much time on the PB would dream that Presbyterians, even those of the same denomination or even the same congregation, are in 100% agreement! Confessions like the WCF or LBCF outline the boundaries of cooperation. One can fully subscribe to the Westminster Standards without exception and perhaps still not be in 100% agreement with someone else who does the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I brought up 100% agreement because the argument is that you are supporting everything that is being taught, and if you disagree, you are compromising your view.
> 
> In other words, if you are a historicist, and your pastor teaches partial preterism, you are logically saying that by supporting the church, you are supporting that doctrine and compromising your own view. (The original WCF clearly teaches the historicist view).
Click to expand...


My church does not subscribe to the original WCF. Regardless, I think few would view historicism vs. partial preterism to be an issue comparable to credo vs. paedo or congregationalism vs. presbyterianism. 



elnwood said:


> You can appeal to the WCF or the LBCF if you want, but I don't think these are good documents to draw the lines of cooperation. There are many LBCF SBC Baptists on this board who are cooperating with non-LBCF SBC Baptists. There are EP folks attending non-EP churches, presumably having worship in a way that they think God is displeased with. Baptists attending Presbyterian churches and vice versa.





The WCF and the LBCF were designed precisely to draw the lines of cooperation. The fact that some think they are not suited to that now merely demonstrates how much pragmatism and doctrinal indifference has taken hold.


----------



## elnwood

Pilgrim said:


> The WCF and the LBCF were designed precisely to draw the lines of cooperation. The fact that some think they are not suited to that now merely demonstrates how much pragmatism and doctrinal indifference has taken hold.



Were they really? Do you have evidence to support this? As I recall, the WCF was not written for Presbyterians at all, but drafted by the Church of England before it was rejected by them and picked up by the Presbyterians. I don't think the Church of England, in drafting the WCF, was concerned about cooperation, either among other Anglicans or non-Anglicans.

The LBCF was drafted to show similarities to the WCF and the Savoy Declaration so that they wouldn't be persecuted. In other words, the emphasis was on highlighting their similarities to Presbyterians and Congregationalists, not on their differences to draw lines of division and boundaries of cooperation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The WCF and the LBCF were designed precisely to draw the lines of cooperation. The fact that some think they are not suited to that now merely demonstrates how much pragmatism and doctrinal indifference has taken hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were they really? Do you have evidence to support this? As I recall, the WCF was not written for Presbyterians at all, but drafted by the Church of England before it was rejected by them and picked up by the Presbyterians. I don't think the Church of England, in drafting the WCF, was concerned about cooperation, either among other Anglicans or non-Anglicans.
> 
> The LBCF was drafted to show similarities to the WCF and the Savoy Declaration so that they wouldn't be persecuted. In other words, the emphasis was on highlighting their similarities to Presbyterians and Congregationalists, not on their differences to draw lines of division and boundaries of cooperation.
Click to expand...

The Westminster Assembly contained Puritans from Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist Churches. There are are a number of sections that Confess a broad enough statement to allow for some variety within the Confessional understanding.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> Regarding Redeemer, if Redeemer is planting Catholic churches, I would have an issue with that..



Why? I know Roman Catholics who:
... believe their children have their consciences bound only by scripture.
... believe that one does not have to manifest tongues in order to be considered saved.
... do not believe that God is giving infallible new revelation.
... do not believe sinless perfection can be achieved this side of glory.
... believe that worship should be decent and orderly (you might disagree with the definition though).
... believe that your children deserve to be baptized and considered members of the visible church when they are able to profess it.
... believe children have the right to learn biblical doctrine.
... believe that elders should be held accountable, and have been judged apt to teach.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> The Westminster Assembly contained Puritans from Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist Churches. There are are a number of sections that Confess a broad enough statement to allow for some variety within the Confessional understanding.



Yet the Congregationalists still felt the need to modify it and write their own confession. Interesting.


----------



## Pilgrim

elnwood said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The WCF and the LBCF were designed precisely to draw the lines of cooperation. The fact that some think they are not suited to that now merely demonstrates how much pragmatism and doctrinal indifference has taken hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were they really? Do you have evidence to support this? As I recall, the WCF was not written for Presbyterians at all, but drafted by the Church of England before it was rejected by them and picked up by the Presbyterians. I don't think the Church of England, in drafting the WCF, was concerned about cooperation, either among other Anglicans or non-Anglicans.
> 
> The LBCF was drafted to show similarities to the WCF and the Savoy Declaration so that they wouldn't be persecuted. In other words, the emphasis was on highlighting their similarities to Presbyterians and Congregationalists, not on their differences to draw lines of division and boundaries of cooperation.
Click to expand...


Others who are more learned than I can go into the precise circumstances in which these confessions were drawn up. I don't have much time right now, but I will say that adopting any confession necessarily excludes those who cannot subscribe to it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Westminster Assembly contained Puritans from Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist Churches. There are are a number of sections that Confess a broad enough statement to allow for some variety within the Confessional understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the Congregationalists still felt the need to modify it and write their own confession. Interesting.
Click to expand...


Which only proves the point that it was too loose in some areas for them. Where Owen modified it quite a bit was to make the Confession more specific where the WCF had left it broad.


----------



## Bladestunner316

I just want to add my 2 cents and leave 

I was discussing this with Josiah the other night. If planting churchs in this fashion is against the BCO of PCA which I believe Mr. Keller pledged an oath to uphold(I could be wrong). Then I believe he is out of line and would be creating a denomination unto himself in his church. If this is the direction he plans to go then he should seek out to do that seperate from the PCA so he does not go against the BCO. 

Now one thing I do hope for and have no problem with is Reformed churchs helping each other out whether it be Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian or whatever... 

We desperately need more unity within the body of Reformed churches. I see nothing wrong with reformed churchs helping each other out. We may have distinctives we disagree on but we get the most important doctrines correct and holds those in common. 

My issue though is when Keller mentions Pentecostal or RCC. Im not against any reformed church helping out a person who is a member of these types of churchs if they seek out the help. Its the churchs job to not reject anyone who seeks help. 

Im against aiding in the growth of abberant or completely heretical churchs. This is disunity. It sends a message I believe from a shephard(keller) to his sheep(congregation) that these types of churchs are acceptable and it diminshes the richness of the Reformed faith. One way of putting it is if its ok for my pastor to establish a RCC church then it must be ok for me to go to and become RCC. 

I want more unity within the church but not at the sake of sacrficing what we hold dear.

Now Im out.....

Blade


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Westminster Assembly contained Puritans from Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist Churches. There are are a number of sections that Confess a broad enough statement to allow for some variety within the Confessional understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the Congregationalists still felt the need to modify it and write their own confession. Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which only proves the point that it was too loose in some areas for them. Where Owen modified it quite a bit was to make the Confession more specific where the WCF had left it broad.
Click to expand...


Well, by doing so, they were excluding themselves from the WCF, because there are nontrivial disagreements between the two confessions. The Savoy is not a narrower subset of the WCF.

Can you give some examples of the looser WCF being looser? The only example I can think of is being specific about the active and passive obedience of Christ.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding Redeemer, if Redeemer is planting Catholic churches, I would have an issue with that..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? I know Roman Catholics who:
> ... believe their children have their consciences bound only by scripture.
> ... believe that one does not have to manifest tongues in order to be considered saved.
> ... do not believe that God is giving infallible new revelation.
> ... do not believe sinless perfection can be achieved this side of glory.
> ... believe that worship should be decent and orderly (you might disagree with the definition though).
> ... believe that your children deserve to be baptized and considered members of the visible church when they are able to profess it.
> ... believe children have the right to learn biblical doctrine.
> ... believe that elders should be held accountable, and have been judged apt to teach.
Click to expand...


Because Pentecostal churches believe and preach the gospel and Roman Catholic churches do not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the Congregationalists still felt the need to modify it and write their own confession. Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which only proves the point that it was too loose in some areas for them. Where Owen modified it quite a bit was to make the Confession more specific where the WCF had left it broad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, by doing so, they were excluding themselves from the WCF, because there are nontrivial disagreements between the two confessions. The Savoy is not a narrower subset of the WCF.
> 
> Can you give some examples of the looser WCF being looser? The only example I can think of is being specific about the active and passive obedience of Christ.
Click to expand...


You just found a major one where the document doesn't explicitly state it as clearly. I don't believe it provides for a denial of active obedience but it's not expressed as clearly as others wanted to ensure later. We actually discussed that issue fairly recently. The "active obedience dissenters" didn't teach contrary to the WCF after the document was signed. Also, there was a different view of passive obedience than some might think for those that challenged the active obedience.

There is more than a fear of being persecuted on the part of the Savoy wanting to match the WCF. The Puritans, when they had political power for a short time, didn't persecute congregationalists. The Puritans were largely in agreement on most matters. In fact, even when Owen modified some understandings that had prevailed prior to that period, it was not done in a way to bring disrepute upon those that disagreed.

Being a Puritan was a very difficult thing for all parties - whether Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Congregationalist. The Puritans didn't carp on each other because they were very concerned generally to show a unity of desire that the Gospel be preached purely against an overbearing Church or political establishment that wouldn't let them do so legally in many cases.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding Redeemer, if Redeemer is planting Catholic churches, I would have an issue with that..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? I know Roman Catholics who:
> ... believe their children have their consciences bound only by scripture.
> ... believe that one does not have to manifest tongues in order to be considered saved.
> ... do not believe that God is giving infallible new revelation.
> ... do not believe sinless perfection can be achieved this side of glory.
> ... believe that worship should be decent and orderly (you might disagree with the definition though).
> ... believe that your children deserve to be baptized and considered members of the visible church when they are able to profess it.
> ... believe children have the right to learn biblical doctrine.
> ... believe that elders should be held accountable, and have been judged apt to teach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Pentecostal churches believe and preach the gospel and Roman Catholic churches do not.
Click to expand...


Oh, I thought your list above was meant to be some sort of Confession. I know some Roman Catholic Churches that preach the Gospel more clearly than some Pentecostal Churches. Would you support those on an exception basis?


----------



## biblicalthought

> Regarding Redeemer, if Redeemer is planting Catholic churches, I would have an issue with that, but to my knowledge they have not even considered it, much less done so. Unless someone has evidence to that, I think we ought not keep that on the table.



Why should we wait, when all the signs of that happening in the future are already here? In Kellers interview, he said:



> Catholics are right about the importance of the Church. So, there we go. In other words, I tried to write a nonsectarian book which still admits that it’s got sectarian roots to it and tells people, when you’re done, you’re going to have to be a part of a particular church. That’s the best I can do. My best job. I mean, there are a lot of judgment calls, and I just made them.



Catholics are right about the importance of the Church? The Second Vatican Council has a section called "The Mystery of the Church" that says:



> "the *sole Church of Christ *which in the Creed *we profess *to be one, holy, catholic and *apostolic*, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles *to extend and direct with authority*, which He erected for all ages as *'the pillar and mainstay of the truth.'* *This Church*, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, *subsists in the Catholic Church*, _which is governed by _the *successor of Peter* _and by the bishops in communion with him_" (Lumen Gentium, 8).



I can't see how this is being overlooked. It does seem that Keller is expressing his acceptance of the Roman Catholic Church. He has stated that this is his "best job" and that he has made a "judgment call." It would seem that the PCA has already made the judgment call in the BCO, which is to teach in adherance to the WCF. 

In the context of this next quote, keller has already lumped-in Catholics as Christians. He said:



> This puts me in a position where I don’t want to defend just one kind of Christianity. I think I want to defend the Apostles Creed. And I want you, as a nonbeliever, to buy the Apostles’ Creed, and then after that figure out where you want to go.



As for the concern of Keller planting RCC's, he'll either do it (only God knows) or he won't. But from the inclusivistic message that resounds from his new book, as well as the heretical trash in Mere Christianity by Lewis, it doesn't seem like Keller is overly concerned about whether his book will lead people to the RCC, EO, etc.

If the book, or his interview - any publicity, were to proclaim the gospel of grace alone against the backdrop of the wrath of God, and denounce Rome as a false religious system, while proclaiming that Scripture is the final authority in matters of morals and doctrine (NOT the Pope), and on and on, you know, like a Calvinist!, then I don't think we'd see any of his converts darkening the doorsteps of anything other than Bible-based houses of worship!


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> Oh, I thought your list above was meant to be some sort of Confession. I know some Roman Catholic Churches that preach the Gospel more clearly than some Pentecostal Churches. Would you support those on an exception basis?



Actually, the list was in response to SEAGOON'S own list and was not meant to be a confession. See the above posts.

I cannot give an answer to your question about gospel-preaching RC churches. It is purely a hypothetical in my mind because I have yet to encounter it. Do they preach the gospel of faith ... plus works? No only do they preach the gospel, but do they also believe it? Do they teach it? Do they recognize its centrality? Are they able to recognize it? If so, why are they associating with a church body that clearly denies the gospel?

The idea of a gospel-believing, teaching, preaching Roman Catholic church is mind-boggling. I don't think you can do this without compromising the gospel. Could you post a link to these gospel-centered RC churches?


----------



## DMcFadden

> If someone believes it is a sin to baptize babies, how is supporting a paedobaptist church not a compromise? Likewise, how can someone who subscribes to the WCF which states that to neglect infant baptism is a sin help to plant baptist churches without compromising their view of the ordinances? How can one plant a congregational church if they are Presbyterian without compromising their polity? and vice versa, on and on.
> 
> Honestly, at this point I think I have more respect for the views of the Arminian (or "one pointer") Baptist dispensationalists who would rather chop off their right arm than plant a Presbyterian church than for the views of the broad evangelicals who somehow think it wouldn't be a compromise.



Interesting, Chris. Maybe I am simply betraying my "broad evangelical" upbringing, but do baptists really consider infant baptism a "sin"? More particularly, would a baptist of Reformed convictions characterize infant baptism as sin?

The 1689 LBCF (Ch 29) does not use the word "sin" in the section on baptism at all. The WCF, on the other hand, speaks of "a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance" (WCF 28:5). It may indeed be viewed as sin and compromise for a presbyterian to help a baptist (e.g., Keller's action notwithstanding). But, I'm not sure that the opposite case would be true. I guess on issues of baptism, eschatology, etc., (i.e., specific doctrinal distinctions that grow out of an honest attempt to be biblical and that fit within orthodoxy), I might grow exercised, vocal, loud, and agitated at someone yet still not castigate his exegetical conclusion as "sin." So, it would seem that you would call Mohler or Piper's practice "sinful" whereas I do not believe that they would characterize yours as such.

I would NEVER be comfortable promoting a ministry that was heterodox, or even one that contiained a huge amount of error. Pentecostals are my sisters and brothers, but YIKES! However, despite real heart-felt differences on issues that are important, I cannot summon up much outrage at Reformed presbyterians. Afterall, the 1689 confession is practically the WCF with changes on baptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I thought your list above was meant to be some sort of Confession. I know some Roman Catholic Churches that preach the Gospel more clearly than some Pentecostal Churches. Would you support those on an exception basis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the list was in response to SEAGOON'S own list and was not meant to be a confession. See the above posts.
> 
> I cannot give an answer to your question about gospel-preaching RC churches. It is purely a hypothetical in my mind because I have yet to encounter it. Do they preach the gospel of faith ... plus works? No only do they preach the gospel, but do they also believe it? Do they teach it? Do they recognize its centrality? Are they able to recognize it? If so, why are they associating with a church body that clearly denies the gospel?
> 
> The idea of a gospel-believing, teaching, preaching Roman Catholic church is mind-boggling. I don't think you can do this without compromising the gospel. Could you post a link to these gospel-centered RC churches?
Click to expand...


No, I can simply refer to my own experience growing up in a Church where the Priest preached about being saved by faith in Christ and that you were saved thereafter. Mind boggling? Yes.

Frankly, the issue isn't where they start out it's how you nurture that faith. I think you have a very naive understanding of what the role of a Church is toward discipleship both in your list and your simple statement that they just preach the Gospel and that's enough. I could take you on a tour of the island of Okinawa to show you what that leads to. It's a microcosm of the spirtual morass that is setting in throughout the U.S.

You'll get your short term results in men who confess Christ. It's the long term that people never think about. There's a surprising amount of post-Modern thinking about what "...all that I have commanded you..." means. If these distinctions make no difference then why do you prefer to attend a Reformed Baptist Church? Why do you state that you confess something Reformed?


----------



## RamistThomist

Peter Kreeft considers himself an "evangelical" Catholic? Mind boggling, perhaps. But I heartily hear him over any Pentecostal any day. I can definitely fathom someone getting saved listening to him (not necessarily endorsing him, though.

The Official Peter Kreeft Site


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> Frankly, the issue isn't where they start out it's how you nurture that faith. I think you have a very naive understanding of what the role of a Church is toward discipleship both in your list and your simple statement that they just preach the Gospel and that's enough. I could take you on a tour of the island of Okinawa to show you what that leads to. It's a microcosm of the spirtual morass that is setting in throughout the U.S.
> 
> You'll get your short term results in men who confess Christ. It's the long term that people never think about. There's a surprising amount of post-Modern thinking about what "...all that I have commanded you..." means. If these distinctions make no difference then why do you prefer to attend a Reformed Baptist Church? Why do you state that you confess something Reformed?



I clarified that the list was not intended to be a confession, and I clarified that I was not stating "preach the gospel and that's enough" and I never said distinctions don't make a difference. I don't really have a response other than that because I can't really respond to a mischaracterization of what I said.


----------



## DMcFadden

Ivanhoe said:


> Peter Kreeft considers himself an "evangelical" Catholic? Mind boggling, perhaps. But I heartily hear him over any Pentecostal any day. I can definitely fathom someone getting saved listening to him (not necessarily endorsing him, though.
> 
> The Official Peter Kreeft Site



Jacob, maybe Francis Beckwith considers himself the same thing now that he has migrated from the presidency of the ETS to Rome? At least in 2008-2009 he will be a visiting prof at Nortre Dame (probably a better spot for a Roman Catholic than in his tenured position at Baylor).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, the issue isn't where they start out it's how you nurture that faith. I think you have a very naive understanding of what the role of a Church is toward discipleship both in your list and your simple statement that they just preach the Gospel and that's enough. I could take you on a tour of the island of Okinawa to show you what that leads to. It's a microcosm of the spirtual morass that is setting in throughout the U.S.
> 
> You'll get your short term results in men who confess Christ. It's the long term that people never think about. There's a surprising amount of post-Modern thinking about what "...all that I have commanded you..." means. If these distinctions make no difference then why do you prefer to attend a Reformed Baptist Church? Why do you state that you confess something Reformed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I clarified that the list was not intended to be a confession, and I clarified that I was not stating "preach the gospel and that's enough" and I never said distinctions don't make a difference. I don't really have a response other than that because I can't really respond to a mischaracterization of what I said.
Click to expand...


Would you please let me know who has your username and password then:


elnwood said:


> If I were in a country with just a handful of Christians, though, and the only churches within a hundreds of miles were my church and a Pentecostal church (which is quite common because quite frankly, Pentecostals in general have been more aggressive in church planting than my Reformed brethren), I would quite happily partner with them to bring the gospel to that region while not compromising what I believe to be taught in Scripture.


I'm in a country like that. Yes, Pentecostals are more agressive and get better results: because they sow to the flesh.


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim said:


> The untenability of "let's all play nice and win the whole wide world for Jesus while we downplay our doctrinal distinctives" was demonstrated the other week when probably the most outspoken advocate of this view posted a statement of bare minimal evangelical doctrines as an example of a statement those with differing views could subscribe to in cooperating on the mission field. The statement asserted "believer's baptism" by immersion.




Dude, next time to misrepresent my words, at least let me know you are doing it.


I am a baptist and can get along with many strains of baptistic churches for church planting purposes.

Furthermore, many folks on the mission field operate in non-church planting roles. What's wrong with having an Mennonite pilot or a presbyterian mechanic or a dutch reformed translator? A Methodist school teacher also sounds fine. 

In many evangelical missions communities you see just that. While the church planters needs to agree more to partner together, there are many places for others to serve in non-teaching roles.

When it comes to church planting, I need to partner with those that bear some doctrinal resemblance to myself, but many task over here do not need a sworn agreement to the WCF.


I suspect that at least some of the churches represented on the PB support Wycliffe Bible Translators... they are an example of a broad evangelical group that focuses on linguistics. Praise God for them. I fear to think of what would happen if this task were controlled by some on the PB...the transaltors would dwindle to about 10 personnel probably.


Remember, in some places of the world there is not the option to shop around. 

I went to an OPC church and under their "Missions Budget" they were mostly supporting a church plant in a major urban center out west where the OPC did not yet have a church. They spoke of this city as "needing the Gospel" Hello! That is just slighltly off base. This city had a PCA church, many baptist churches, even a "reformed" type baptist church and this church spent large amount in calling this "missions." Plus, Bibles are plentiful and Christian radio is abundant.

In some places in Asia and other parts of the Third World I would help out the local body of believers regardless of minor doctrinal deviations because in some places these are the only beleivers and I am the only help. 


Perhaps Tim Keller thinks New York is dark enough to support these other churches that are near to him in their doctrine.


----------



## KMK

DMcFadden said:


> If someone believes it is a sin to baptize babies, how is supporting a paedobaptist church not a compromise? Likewise, how can someone who subscribes to the WCF which states that to neglect infant baptism is a sin help to plant baptist churches without compromising their view of the ordinances? How can one plant a congregational church if they are Presbyterian without compromising their polity? and vice versa, on and on.
> 
> Honestly, at this point I think I have more respect for the views of the Arminian (or "one pointer") Baptist dispensationalists who would rather chop off their right arm than plant a Presbyterian church than for the views of the broad evangelicals who somehow think it wouldn't be a compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, Chris. Maybe I am simply betraying my "broad evangelical" upbringing, but do baptists really consider infant baptism a "sin"? More particularly, would a baptist of Reformed convictions characterize infant baptism as sin?
> 
> The 1689 LBCF (Ch 29) does not use the word "sin" in the section on baptism at all. The WCF, on the other hand, speaks of "a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance" (WCF 28:5). It may indeed be viewed as sin and compromise for a presbyterian to help a baptist (e.g., Keller's action notwithstanding). But, I'm not sure that the opposite case would be true. I guess on issues of baptism, eschatology, etc., (i.e., specific doctrinal distinctions that grow out of an honest attempt to be biblical and that fit within orthodoxy), I might grow exercised, vocal, loud, and agitated at someone yet still not castigate his exegetical conclusion as "sin." So, it would seem that you would call Mohler or Piper's practice "sinful" whereas I do not believe that they would characterize yours as such.
> 
> I would NEVER be comfortable promoting a ministry that was heterodox, or even one that contiained a huge amount of error. Pentecostals are my sisters and brothers, but YIKES! However, despite real heart-felt differences on issues that are important, I cannot summon up much outrage at Reformed presbyterians. Afterall, the 1689 confession is practically the WCF with changes on baptism.
Click to expand...


The PB has spoken about the issue of calling for the other side to 'repent'. See this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/repent-22580/


----------



## Pergamum

biblicalthought said:


> Regarding Redeemer, if Redeemer is planting Catholic churches, I would have an issue with that, but to my knowledge they have not even considered it, much less done so. Unless someone has evidence to that, I think we ought not keep that on the table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we wait, when all the signs of that happening in the future are already here? In Kellers interview, he said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catholics are right about the importance of the Church. So, there we go. In other words, I tried to write a nonsectarian book which still admits that it’s got sectarian roots to it and tells people, when you’re done, you’re going to have to be a part of a particular church. That’s the best I can do. My best job. I mean, there are a lot of judgment calls, and I just made them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catholics are right about the importance of the Church? The Second Vatican Council has a section called "The Mystery of the Church" that says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the *sole Church of Christ *which in the Creed *we profess *to be one, holy, catholic and *apostolic*, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles *to extend and direct with authority*, which He erected for all ages as *'the pillar and mainstay of the truth.'* *This Church*, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, *subsists in the Catholic Church*, _which is governed by _the *successor of Peter* _and by the bishops in communion with him_" (Lumen Gentium, 8).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't see how this is being overlooked. It does seem that Keller is expressing his acceptance of the Roman Catholic Church. He has stated that this is his "best job" and that he has made a "judgment call." It would seem that the PCA has already made the judgment call in the BCO, which is to teach in adherance to the WCF.
> 
> In the context of this next quote, keller has already lumped-in Catholics as Christians. He said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This puts me in a position where I don’t want to defend just one kind of Christianity. I think I want to defend the Apostles Creed. And I want you, as a nonbeliever, to buy the Apostles’ Creed, and then after that figure out where you want to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the concern of Keller planting RCC's, he'll either do it (only God knows) or he won't. But from the inclusivistic message that resounds from his new book, as well as the heretical trash in Mere Christianity by Lewis, it doesn't seem like Keller is overly concerned about whether his book will lead people to the RCC, EO, etc.
> 
> If the book, or his interview - any publicity, were to proclaim the gospel of grace alone against the backdrop of the wrath of God, and denounce Rome as a false religious system, while proclaiming that Scripture is the final authority in matters of morals and doctrine (NOT the Pope), and on and on, you know, like a Calvinist!, then I don't think we'd see any of his converts darkening the doorsteps of anything other than Bible-based houses of worship!
Click to expand...





Hello, it appears that you might have misquoted Keller.


It is a world of difference between saying that the Catholics are right about the IMPORTANCE of the church and that the Catholics are right about the church.


----------



## Pergamum

For those who think I hate Calvinists and are wondering what's the scoop...

Here's the scoop:

I am ministering in a region where the reformed claimed the area but have not done anything about. 

They claim that they are missions-minded (just like many on the PB claim) but they lack personnel and resources to disciple this area, and are not doing anything in the region - though they claim it.... and yet vigorously oppose evangelical groups (like the one I am working with, who have a history of largely being calvinisitic, congregational and baptistic) from entering. 

Thus, these reformed folks, it appears would rather see these people truly not know who Jesus is rather than partner with someone that is not in their own tradition. They lack personnel because no one wants to go to these people and live long term. But the evangelicals - with which I am working - do, even without money or even mosquito nets (some have lost childen).


The reformed here in this broad region have not done much language work nor have they translated the Bible largely (only the catechism) and the local people are largely ignorant. So, what do I do in a case like that? Support the reformed group's contention that the land is theirs (even though it is remote and jungle) or help a very zealous group reach these people - even though they are "evangelical"?

This is real life...not some ideal where all the churches would become TR WCF following Presbyterians. 

We plow with the oxen we got, not the ones we wish we had... 


It is easy to call me someone who wants to dilute doctrine when your sitting behind a desk punching computer keys. I want the knowledge of Christ to go forward and I am willing to pour this wine through a dixie cup if a porcelein flask is not available. I am willing to work with these evangelicals (who really are not a bad group, baptistic and somewhat calvinistic) if the reformed are not doing anything.

Is it better to be an evangelical Christian or a lost person sitting and waiting for the reformed to do something? 



I am plowing in a hard field with the oxen that I have (trying all the while to improve those oxens' plowing ability) and ironically, one of the chief obstacles in my way are reformed groups that want to stop the spread of basic teaching because it is not being done by them.


----------



## Pergamum

Finally;

5 times in the last month I have had people from the PB insinuate that I like to water down doctrine or that I do not care about the deep things of God. As if I am out skipping, holding hands with Mormons singing Koom-bye-ya or something.

I remind you that there is a difference in holding to precise and particular personal convictions and also being charitable and open to working with others who are advancing mostly the same distinctives.

For me as a calvinistic baptist who likes the 1689, and who is called in a particular role that is not a pastor of a local US church, I have preached in Pentecostal churches when invited (they invited me, why would I turn down an opportunity to give them the Word of God) and who works closely with many "broad evangelicals" for the sake of many tasks. I even work with an Mennonite pilot, presbyterian mechanics and reformed translators and Methodist school teachers. To partner closer with me in my particular region there would need to be closer agreement of course, but I am ready to work as broadly as possible if it helps my cause.


So, knock off the insinuations that I am sub-biblical, mushy-headed on doctrine or don't care about the Bible, just as long as we all get along and go to the world.


----------



## KMK

Pergamum said:


> Finally;
> 
> 5 times in the last month I have had people from the PB insinuate that I like to water down doctrine or that I do not care about the deep things of God. As if I am out skipping, holding hands with Mormons singing Koom-bye-ya or something.
> 
> I remind you that there is a difference in holding to precise and particular personal convictions and also being charitable and open to working with others who are advancing mostly the same distinctives.
> 
> For me as a calvinistic baptist who likes the 1689, and who is called in a particular role that is not a pastor of a local US church, I have preached in Pentecostal churches when invited (they invited me, why would I turn down an opportunity to give them the Word of God) and who works closely with many "broad evangelicals" for the sake of many tasks. I even work with an Mennonite pilot, presbyterian mechanics and reformed translators and Methodist school teachers. To partner closer with me in my particular region there would need to be closer agreement of course, but I am ready to work as broadly as possible if it helps my cause.
> 
> 
> So, knock off the insinuations that I am sub-biblical, mushy-headed on doctrine or don't care about the Bible, just as long as we all get along and go to the world.



Thank you for your service to His kingdom, brother. May the Lord bless you and your family.


----------



## Pilgrim

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I thought your list above was meant to be some sort of Confession. I know some Roman Catholic Churches that preach the Gospel more clearly than some Pentecostal Churches. Would you support those on an exception basis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the list was in response to SEAGOON'S own list and was not meant to be a confession. See the above posts.
> 
> I cannot give an answer to your question about gospel-preaching RC churches. It is purely a hypothetical in my mind because I have yet to encounter it. Do they preach the gospel of faith ... plus works? No only do they preach the gospel, but do they also believe it? Do they teach it? Do they recognize its centrality? Are they able to recognize it? If so, why are they associating with a church body that clearly denies the gospel?
> 
> The idea of a gospel-believing, teaching, preaching Roman Catholic church is mind-boggling. I don't think you can do this without compromising the gospel. Could you post a link to these gospel-centered RC churches?
Click to expand...


A multitude of Pentecostal churches preach a gospel of faith plus works. In Louisiana, the term Pentecostal is synonymous with the United Pentecostal church. They are Oneness Pentecostals who deny the Trinity, who teach that one must speak in tongues and be immersed in the name of Jesus (only) to be saved. But many trinitarian pentecostal/charismatic churches essentially teach faith plus works as well, whether that is what they formally confess or not (and often they do formally confess it.) The works could be anything from speaking in tongues, not drinking, not smoking, etc., women not wearing makeup, pants, open toed shoes, etc. Perfectionistic views of sanctification are almost universally held by most pentecostals as well since most of the pentecostal churches came out of the Wesleyan/Holiness movement. 

If what you have in mind by pentecostal is charismatic churches (the 2nd wave that started in the mid 20th century in mainline and Catholic churches) or Third Wave churches, then we may be talking past each other to a certain extent. Using the term pentecostal to refer to these groups is confusing because their beliefs are often different than the earlier groups (UPC, AOG, etc.) regarding whether someone must speak in tongues to be saved or everyone should seek the gift, etc. Many of those from the second or third wave don't necessarily hold to perfectionist views, legalism, a baptism of the Holy Spirit subsequent to conversion, etc. But I think you are too sanguine nonetheless by assuming that they typically clearly preach the gospel based on whatever churches you are personally familiar.


----------



## biblicalthought

> It is a world of difference between saying that the Catholics are right about the IMPORTANCE of the church and that the Catholics are right about the church.



I wonder what he meant then. The interview just bugged me because it gave the imression that Catholics and Protestants are both part of this bigger thing called the "whole faith." 

Sorry if I've misquoted. But when he says the "importance" of the church, is he referring to their societal role, the interpretation of Scripture, the authority, etc? And where would a reader go to find out what the Catholics view of the "importance" of the church is? Trent? Vatican II?


----------



## Pilgrim

DMcFadden said:


> If someone believes it is a sin to baptize babies, how is supporting a paedobaptist church not a compromise? Likewise, how can someone who subscribes to the WCF which states that to neglect infant baptism is a sin help to plant baptist churches without compromising their view of the ordinances? How can one plant a congregational church if they are Presbyterian without compromising their polity? and vice versa, on and on.
> 
> Honestly, at this point I think I have more respect for the views of the Arminian (or "one pointer") Baptist dispensationalists who would rather chop off their right arm than plant a Presbyterian church than for the views of the broad evangelicals who somehow think it wouldn't be a compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, Chris. Maybe I am simply betraying my "broad evangelical" upbringing, but do baptists really consider infant baptism a "sin"? More particularly, would a baptist of Reformed convictions characterize infant baptism as sin?
Click to expand...


I don't think it would be hard to find a Baptist who would say sprinkling infants and calling it baptism is a sin. However, I didn't particularly have Reformed Baptists in view when I made that comment. But remember that there are some 5 pointers who essentially hold to either a Landmark or anabaptist view of church history as well and would not accept the label "Reformed."


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> Finally;
> 
> 5 times in the last month I have had people from the PB insinuate that I like to water down doctrine or that I do not care about the deep things of God. As if I am out skipping, holding hands with Mormons singing Koom-bye-ya or something.
> 
> I remind you that there is a difference in holding to precise and particular personal convictions and also being charitable and open to working with others who are advancing mostly the same distinctives.
> 
> For me as a calvinistic baptist who likes the 1689, and who is called in a particular role that is not a pastor of a local US church, I have preached in Pentecostal churches when invited (they invited me, why would I turn down an opportunity to give them the Word of God) and who works closely with many "broad evangelicals" for the sake of many tasks. I even work with an Mennonite pilot, presbyterian mechanics and reformed translators and Methodist school teachers. To partner closer with me in my particular region there would need to be closer agreement of course, but I am ready to work as broadly as possible if it helps my cause.
> 
> 
> So, knock off the insinuations that I am sub-biblical, mushy-headed on doctrine or don't care about the Bible, just as long as we all get along and go to the world.



Maybe it will stop when you stop baiting Reformed believers on a Reformed board and then cutting and running when you either cannot or will not answer questions put to you after your criticisms of Reformed practice (which is not above criticism BTW). You often come on in an accusatory manner and then act surprised when someone questions you. Your misrepresentations of Reformed belief on this board are too numerous to count. You frequently ascribe the pet doctrines of micropresbyterianism to confessional Reformed churches generally, yet on the other hand post a credobaptist statement of faith as an example of a core set of doctrines to which all evangelicals can give assent to cooperate in evangelism. 

As you have stated above, the broad approach does have its limits.


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The untenability of "let's all play nice and win the whole wide world for Jesus while we downplay our doctrinal distinctives" was demonstrated the other week when probably the most outspoken advocate of this view posted a statement of bare minimal evangelical doctrines as an example of a statement those with differing views could subscribe to in cooperating on the mission field. The statement asserted "believer's baptism" by immersion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, next time to misrepresent my words, at least let me know you are doing it.
Click to expand...



Sorry, dude. I was mistaken. The statement does not call for immersion but it does assert "believer's baptism." Otherwise I stand by the post.


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim:

Yes, the broad approach does have it's limits. 

And so does the other side...And the PB does have many people that push doctrines that are characteristic of the micro-presbyterians and many TRs do pass off their own doctrinal distinctions as being "the true reading" of the WCF, as if all others are sub-reformed and sub-biblical.

As far as "misrepresenting" the Reformed faith. Tell me what the reformed faith is. This issue is fought over much on this board and every side says that their view is Reformed. John Frame writes a book advocating contemporary music in worship as a reformed professor and people on this board post that he barely holds to the WCF or insinuate that he is sub-reformed. I hold to the 1689 and challenge a few sacred cows on here and get charged with not knowing doctrine or hating the reformed. 

If the Reformed faith is the five points and the 5 solas, then I have not misrepresented anyone. One need not add on all the pet doctrines of the micropresbyterians to be reformed. 


As far as who is "baiting" whom, take a look at your posts as well.... to use terms such as "baiting" "cutting and running" and first off, initially referring to that outspoken advocate over yonder that doesn't care about doctrine is what motivated me to post the above 3 or so posts anyhow. You insinuate that I do not care about doctrine. What I am advocating is broad cooperation. These are two different things. I have even given my situation at present, in which evangelism is actually being hindered by a reformed group.



Yes, I am for broad cooperation when the needs call for it. 


Some questions for you:

Are you for or against working with the Wycliffe Bible Translators? Would you work alongside of them if you ministered in a foreign country that did not yet have the Scriptures? 

Are you for or against helping out a Bible society publish the Scriptures if you worked in a foreign country, even if that Bible society was broadly evangelical?

Would you fly with a broadly evangelical mission aviation organization, even though they were credobaptist?


----------



## Pergamum

biblicalthought said:


> It is a world of difference between saying that the Catholics are right about the IMPORTANCE of the church and that the Catholics are right about the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what he meant then. The interview just bugged me because it gave the imression that Catholics and Protestants are both part of this bigger thing called the "whole faith."
> 
> Sorry if I've misquoted. But when he says the "importance" of the church, is he referring to their societal role, the interpretation of Scripture, the authority, etc? And where would a reader go to find out what the Catholics view of the "importance" of the church is? Trent? Vatican II?
Click to expand...



I think Keller means that the Catholics consider the church very important. I mean the church becomes the dispensary of grace. He was not advocating Catholicism but noting how dearly the Catholics hold to the institutional church. If he praises the Catholics for this, he does not need to be praising Catholicism but he could be merely praising the fact that the Catholic church (to serious Catholics) is at the center of a serious catholic person's life.

I really do not see this as objectionable.


----------



## elnwood

As far as cooperating with Pentecostals, the PCA is an active member of the National Association of Evangelicals. L. Roy Taylor, the stated clerk of the PCA General Assembly, is the chairman of the Executive Board of the NAE. The greatest representation of any one denominational tradition in the NAE is Pentecostal. There are also Charismatics, Wesleyans, Mennonites, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Baptists, and many other denominations in the membership.

The NAE motto is "Cooperation without Compromise." What a concept!

And before the PCA gets accused of compromising, and how they should become a strict, fully WCF compliant, EP denomination ... the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, a strict, fully WCF compliant, EP denomination, is also a member of the NAE. The Reformed Episcopal Church is also a member.

Are we willing to call the denominational leadership of the PCA, RPCNA, and REC "naive" for cooperating with Pentecostals? I dare not.


----------



## DMcFadden

"Cooperation without Compromise" - Hmmmmm.

My "denomination" now that we left the mainline, is also affiliated with the NAE.
In my opinion there are levels of cooperation. If we are helping out with the aftermath of a disaster, Mormons and Roman Catholics are fine partners (cf. Sachaeffer's "co belligerent" notions). If we are part of an evangelical association (e.g., NAE), Pentecostals are also fine partners. If I am contributing to the establishment of a church, differences in polity and practice between an evangelical presbyterian (NOT the PCUSA) and an evangelical baptist would not trouble me. Even the PB accepts both credo-baptists and paedobaptists (evidently without thinking that the issue of sin is what divides us). If the issue is joining a church in an area without much choice, the best church that comes closest to my family's beliefs would be the basis of the selection. And, if I am going to become the pastor of a congregation, it would need to be one in which I could minister without "compromise" on matters of polity and baptism as well as the weightier issues of Christology.


----------



## Pilgrim

elnwood said:


> As far as cooperating with Pentecostals, the PCA is an active member of the National Association of Evangelicals. L. Roy Taylor, the stated clerk of the PCA General Assembly, is the chairman of the Executive Board of the NAE. The greatest representation of any one denominational tradition in the NAE is Pentecostal. There are also Charismatics, Wesleyans, Mennonites, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Baptists, and many other denominations in the membership.
> 
> The NAE motto is "Cooperation without Compromise." What a concept!
> 
> And before the PCA gets accused of compromising, and how they should become a strict, fully WCF compliant, EP denomination ... the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, a strict, fully WCF compliant, EP denomination, is also a member of the NAE. The Reformed Episcopal Church is also a member.
> 
> Are we willing to call the denominational leadership of the PCA, RPCNA, and REC "naive" for cooperating with Pentecostals? I dare not.



Given the recent leftward tilt of the NAE on some issues there may indeed be some compromise involved. The fact that the denominations you named are part of it is indicative of the degree to which they have now or in the past been influenced by the neo-evangelicalism that also produced Christianity Today and Fuller seminary, both of which certainly have been guilty of compromise on any number of issues. 

I would also think that those within the PCA who hold to the Spirituality of the Church aren't thrilled by its membership in the NAE. The PCA was formed in 1973 but only joined the NAE in 1986. This was a few years after absorbing the RPCES, which was a church characterized by looser subscription to the standards and was committed in some quarters at least to various forms of social action. I wouldn't be surprised if that had something to do with the decision to join. My understanding also is that the RPCNA by the mid 20th century was becoming influenced by neo-orthodoxy although they, like the ARP, have since returned to their biblical and confessional roots. 

If you think it's great to be part of an organization that had Ted Haggard as its leader then what can I say? Yeah, it's better than the WCC or NCC, but what purpose does it really serve?


----------



## elnwood

Pilgrim said:


> I would also think that those within the PCA who hold to the Spirituality of the Church aren't thrilled by its membership in the NAE. The PCA was formed in 1973 but only joined the NAE in 1986. This was a few years after absorbing the RPCES, which was a church characterized by looser subscription to the standards and was committed in some quarters at least to various forms of social action. I wouldn't be surprised if that had something to do with the decision to join. My understanding also is that the RPCNA by the mid 20th century was becoming influenced by neo-orthodoxy although they, like the ARP, have since returned to their biblical and confessional roots.
> 
> If you think it's great to be part of an organization that had Ted Haggard as its leader then what can I say? Yeah, it's better than the WCC or NCC, but what purpose does it really serve?



Every major church organization has leaders that have to resign because of an exposed gross sin. I know that this happens in Reformed churches as well. This is a very painful thing for any organization to go through. That this happens does not mean the organization or its goals are flawed, or that it supports that sin. All it means is that humanity sinful, and that leaders, with or without accountability, can still fall. I think NAE handled Haggard's sin and resignation very well.

What purpose does the NAE serve? It's really pretty simple. Cooperating with other organizations can accomplish things that smaller organizations cannot on their own. The RPCNA churches I know have very strong doctrinal convictions, but are extremely willing to work with other churches not in their denomination. I am personally thankful for many RPCNA members and pastors who have been extremely kind and generous towards me despite our doctrinal differences. I think it is because they realize that their denomination is so small that they only can do so much on their own.


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> Pilgrim:
> 
> Yes, the broad approach does have it's limits.
> 
> And so does the other side...And the PB does have many people that push doctrines that are characteristic of the micro-presbyterians and many TRs do pass off their own doctrinal distinctions as being "the true reading" of the WCF, as if all others are sub-reformed and sub-biblical.



Right or wrong (and I'm not prepared to argue it either way) advocates of EP, headcovering, etc are more disproportionately represented on the internet than in Reformed churches generally. We have seen the same dynamic with the FV as well. 



Pergamum said:


> As far as "misrepresenting" the Reformed faith. Tell me what the reformed faith is. This issue is fought over much on this board and every side says that their view is Reformed. John Frame writes a book advocating contemporary music in worship as a reformed professor and people on this board post that he barely holds to the WCF or insinuate that he is sub-reformed. I hold to the 1689 and challenge a few sacred cows on here and get charged with not knowing doctrine or hating the reformed.
> 
> If the Reformed faith is the five points and the 5 solas, then I have not misrepresented anyone. One need not add on all the pet doctrines of the micropresbyterians to be reformed.



I haven't read everything Frame has written. Clearly his idea of the RPW is different than the Westminster Assembly's or Presbyterian and Reformed churches generally. Although I tend to disagree with him on worship issues, disagreement with the standards isn't necessarily wrong in and of itself. The arguments I've seen from him so far basically seem to be an appeal to pragmatism, but I hope to soon read his worship books to get an idea of his whole argument, straight from the horse's mouth. Although apparently he doesn't agree totally with them, John Frame has also defended Norman Shepherd and doesn't think the FV should be an issue. These are other reasons besides worship why some may tend to see him as "sub-reformed" on some issues. 

The Reformed faith is more than the five points and the 5 solas although those are certainly good places to start. The continental Reformed faith has been defined by the Three Forms of Unity, the British Reformed by the Westminster Standards and Particular or Reformed Baptists by the 2nd London Confession of 1689. 



Pergamum said:


> As far as who is "baiting" whom, take a look at your posts as well.... to use terms such as "baiting" "cutting and running" and first off, initially referring to that outspoken advocate over yonder that doesn't care about doctrine is what motivated me to post the above 3 or so posts anyhow. You insinuate that I do not care about doctrine. What I am advocating is broad cooperation. These are two different things. I have even given my situation at present, in which evangelism is actually being hindered by a reformed group.



I don't know enough about the situation to know whether the Reformed church there is liberal or not. Often in such situations that is the case. Regardless, if they are wrongly hindering evangelism by the Lord's servants then they are at fault. 

I don't know that anyone has written that you don't care about doctrine. If you didn't care about it I doubt you'd be on this board. I think what was primarily at issue was the sense that confessions are good for you personally but that you wouldn't be in favor of confessionalism as a whole. Many of us here have tasted the bitter fruit of non-confessional churches and advocating that here is swimming upstream and going to receive a strong response every time. 



Pergamum said:


> Yes, I am for broad cooperation when the needs call for it.
> 
> 
> Some questions for you:
> 
> Are you for or against working with the Wycliffe Bible Translators? Would you work alongside of them if you ministered in a foreign country that did not yet have the Scriptures?
> 
> Are you for or against helping out a Bible society publish the Scriptures if you worked in a foreign country, even if that Bible society was broadly evangelical?
> 
> Would you fly with a broadly evangelical mission aviation organization, even though they were credobaptist?



I have heard of Wycliffe for many years but don't know enough about them to make a definitive judgment. I understand that they favor dynamic equivalence and the Critical Text. I am leaning strongly toward the Byzantine Text if not the TR and would probably lean toward something like the efforts by the Trinitarian Bible Society. But even a bad translation is better than none at all unless it represents a distortion of the biblical teaching. 

I think it is unfortunate that the Bible society has taken over a role that used to be fulfilled by the churches. (It often leads to things like the TNIV, although some churches would probably translate it that way as well. There are no doubt good and bad bible societies as there are good and bad churches) As with most parachurch orgs., no doubt they have done it because the churches were not doing it, but that doesn't absolve the church of its responsibility. Of course with the multitude of denominations, one could ask, which church? 

I do think Reformed and evangelical reunion would be great if it was a unity based on truth and not compromise. But even Reformed union has proved very difficult in many cases. I do believe Frame has a few points about some of the objections to union being petty, but in some other cases seems to be somewhat ignorant of the facts, like saying the OPC should have joined some other church in 1936 instead of becoming another denomination. At that time no other church would accept the OPC. 

I would probably fly with a credo aviation organization, but as you have noted earlier, when it gets down to the point of planting churches the doctrinal parameters necessarily have to narrow one way or another. 

Are you familiar with Third millennium Ministries, with which John Frame, Richard Pratt and others, mainly from RTS in Orlando, are involved? Again, many here would differ with them on worship and some other issues. But I am interested to know what you think of their efforts in equipping pastors around the world who lack sufficient training.


----------



## Pilgrim

elnwood said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would also think that those within the PCA who hold to the Spirituality of the Church aren't thrilled by its membership in the NAE. The PCA was formed in 1973 but only joined the NAE in 1986. This was a few years after absorbing the RPCES, which was a church characterized by looser subscription to the standards and was committed in some quarters at least to various forms of social action. I wouldn't be surprised if that had something to do with the decision to join. My understanding also is that the RPCNA by the mid 20th century was becoming influenced by neo-orthodoxy although they, like the ARP, have since returned to their biblical and confessional roots.
> 
> If you think it's great to be part of an organization that had Ted Haggard as its leader then what can I say? Yeah, it's better than the WCC or NCC, but what purpose does it really serve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every major church organization has leaders that have to resign because of an exposed gross sin. I know that this happens in Reformed churches as well. This is a very painful thing for any organization to go through. That this happens does not mean the organization or its goals are flawed, or that it supports that sin. All it means is that humanity sinful, and that leaders, with or without accountability, can still fall. I think NAE handled Haggard's sin and resignation very well.
> 
> What purpose does the NAE serve? It's really pretty simple. Cooperating with other organizations can accomplish things that smaller organizations cannot on their own. The RPCNA churches I know have very strong doctrinal convictions, but are extremely willing to work with other churches not in their denomination. I am personally thankful for many RPCNA members and pastors who have been extremely kind and generous towards me despite our doctrinal differences. I think it is because they realize that their denomination is so small that they only can do so much on their own.
Click to expand...


I was referring more to everything he represented, not just his moral failure. Please forgive me if I have a hard time cooperating with 5 point Arminians who advocate the "Five Fold Ministry" and the prosperity gospel. 

What is the purpose of the NAE besides getting a place at the table at places at the White House? Other than famous Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech at an NAE meeting in 1982, what has been accomplished under the auspices of the NAE? It is now advocating action on global warming, which has certainly been controversial.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> As far as cooperating with Pentecostals, the PCA is an active member of the National Association of Evangelicals. L. Roy Taylor, the stated clerk of the PCA General Assembly, is the chairman of the Executive Board of the NAE. The greatest representation of any one denominational tradition in the NAE is Pentecostal. There are also Charismatics, Wesleyans, Mennonites, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Baptists, and many other denominations in the membership.
> 
> The NAE motto is "Cooperation without Compromise." What a concept!
> 
> And before the PCA gets accused of compromising, and how they should become a strict, fully WCF compliant, EP denomination ... the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, a strict, fully WCF compliant, EP denomination, is also a member of the NAE. The Reformed Episcopal Church is also a member.
> 
> Are we willing to call the denominational leadership of the PCA, RPCNA, and REC "naive" for cooperating with Pentecostals? I dare not.



Do you know what the word "equivocate" means Don? You might want to look it up as I use it in a sentence:

Don *equivocated* on the use of the word cooperate in order to distract what the issue is:



Tim Keller said:


> There are all kinds of people who’ll never be Presbyterians. It just doesn’t appeal to them. Some people are going to be Pentecostals, some people are going to be Catholics. I mean, I know that sounds—I’m not talking about that certain cultures reach certain people. It’s much more complicated than that. Even though there’s something to that. We all know that certain cultures seem to have more of an affinity toward a certain kind of Christian tradition than others, but I wouldn’t want to reduce it to that at all. I would just say that I only know that God seems to use all these kinds of churches to reach the whole breadth of humanity, and so that’s why we give money to start churches of other denominations, and give free training to it. And we’ve done about a hundred in the New York area, where we’ve helped people. It’s very important to us.



If a man has a dead vehicle, I will _cooperate_ with a Pentecostal to help push the car out of the way.
If a Pentecostal is in my unit, I will _cooperate_ with him to accomplish the mission.
If a Pentecostal is trying to get legislation passed to ban abortion, I will _cooperate_ with him to see that law passed.
If a Pentectostal is trying to plant a new Church I will *not cooperate* with him in that venture.


----------



## Pilgrim

How does Tim Keller's ministry compare to that of Randy Pope, minister of Perimeter Church (PCA) in Atlanta? What are the differences and what are the similarities, etc?

There is an interview with Pope in the latest issue of Reformed Quarterly. He said that Perimeter Ministries International was aggressively planting churches but that they moved toward the partnering with other ministries now in an attempt to bring the gospel to bear on the whole city. He also says that Perimeter used to have four locations but it didn't work.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> Do you know what the word "equivocate" means Don? You might want to look it up as I use it in a sentence:



Rich, I don't know what you hope to accomplish by writing in such a condescending manner. It is insulting to me, and I would prefer that you not do so.



SemperFideles said:


> If a man has a dead vehicle, I will _cooperate_ with a Pentecostal to help push the car out of the way.
> If a Pentecostal is in my unit, I will _cooperate_ with him to accomplish the mission.
> If a Pentecostal is trying to get legislation passed to ban abortion, I will _cooperate_ with him to see that law passed.
> If a Pentectostal is trying to plant a new Church I will *not cooperate* with him in that venture.



We may have to agree to disagree on that.

Let me give some reasons why I think the Bible supports unity among churches in the spread of the gospel.

Paul speaks of unity in Christ and against division in 1 Cor. 1:9-17.

[BIBLE]1 Cor. 1:9-17[/BIBLE]

Christ's body is not divided, and Paul's emphasis is on Christ and the preaching of the gospel of Christ.

In Philippians, Paul gives thanks for even divisive teachers because they spread the gospel.

[BIBLE]Philippians 1:12-18[/BIBLE]

And yet when teachers to a perversion of the gospel of Christ, Paul condemns them in no uncertain terms.

[BIBLE]Galatians 1:6-10[/BIBLE]

The contrast between Philippians and Galatians is very stark. If the gospel is present, he is rejoicing, and if it is perverted, he is condemnatory.

Based on what I read in Scripture, I don't think unity in the gospel is central, and difference in church government should not prevent churches from helping each other. I believe Paul would rejoice to see Pentecostals planting churches to spread the gospel.

The churches that Paul was writing to had many major issues, likely more than Pentecostal churches have today, and yet Paul endured with them, loved them, and supported them.

You're probably going to call me naive, and say these verses don't prove anything. Maybe they don't prove it, but I think, in the absence of a clear prohibition, that supporting a Pentecostal church in an area lacking other gospel-centered churches being planted is in keeping with the general spirit of Paul's letters.

If you would like to share Scripture that prohibits cooperation in planting non-Reformed churches, please do so. I don't recall anything in the Bible advocating division or separation of churches on the basis of Presbyterian government or the WCF, but if you think you can make a better biblical case, I'd be open to hearing it.


----------



## Pilgrim

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word "equivocate" means Don? You might want to look it up as I use it in a sentence:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, I don't know what you hope to accomplish by writing in such a condescending manner. It is insulting to me, and I would prefer that you not do so.
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a man has a dead vehicle, I will _cooperate_ with a Pentecostal to help push the car out of the way.
> If a Pentecostal is in my unit, I will _cooperate_ with him to accomplish the mission.
> If a Pentecostal is trying to get legislation passed to ban abortion, I will _cooperate_ with him to see that law passed.
> If a Pentectostal is trying to plant a new Church I will *not cooperate* with him in that venture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We may have to agree to disagree on that.
> 
> Let me give some reasons why I think the Bible supports unity among churches in the spread of the gospel.
> 
> Paul speaks of unity in Christ and against division in 1 Cor. 1:9-17.
> 
> [BIBLE]1 Cor. 1:9-17[/BIBLE]
> 
> Christ's body is not divided, and Paul's emphasis is on Christ and the preaching of the gospel of Christ.
> 
> In Philippians, Paul gives thanks for even divisive teachers because they spread the gospel.
> 
> [BIBLE]Philippians 1:12-18[/BIBLE]
> 
> And yet when teachers to a perversion of the gospel of Christ, Paul condemns them in no uncertain terms.
> 
> [BIBLE]Galatians 1:6-10[/BIBLE]
> 
> The contrast between Philippians and Galatians is very stark. If the gospel is present, he is rejoicing, and if it is perverted, he is condemnatory.
> 
> Based on what I read in Scripture, I don't think unity in the gospel is central, and difference in church government should not prevent churches from helping each other. I believe Paul would rejoice to see Pentecostals planting churches to spread the gospel.
> 
> The churches that Paul was writing to had many major issues, likely more than Pentecostal churches have today, and yet Paul endured with them, loved them, and supported them.
> 
> You're probably going to call me naive, and say these verses don't prove anything. Maybe they don't prove it, but I think, in the absence of a clear prohibition, that supporting a Pentecostal church in an area lacking other gospel-centered churches being planted is in keeping with the general spirit of Paul's letters.
> 
> If you would like to share Scripture that prohibits cooperation in planting non-Reformed churches, please do so. I don't recall anything in the Bible advocating division or separation of churches on the basis of Presbyterian government or the WCF, but if you think you can make a better biblical case, I'd be open to hearing it.
Click to expand...


You are assuming that Pentecostal churches don't pervert the gospel. I think everyone on this board will agree that some of them do and some would agree that some do not although we may strongly disagree with them on some issues. Is it your position that Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, etc. don't pervert the gospel? What do you mean by Pentecostal? Is it the above prosperity teachers, or Oneness Pentecostals (which is the connotation of the term in some areas) or the Assembly of God, or the Vineyard or is it Sam Storms or Sovereign Grace Ministries and C.J. Mahaney? Being more specific may help the conversation along.


----------



## elnwood

Pilgrim said:


> You are assuming that Pentecostal churches don't pervert the gospel. I think everyone on this board will agree that some of them do and some would agree that some do not although we may strongly disagree with them on some issues. Is it your position that Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, etc. don't pervert the gospel? What do you mean by Pentecostal? Is it the above prosperity teachers, or Oneness Pentecostals (which is the connotation of the term in some areas) or the Assembly of God, or the Vineyard or is it Sam Storms or Sovereign Grace Ministries and C.J. Mahaney? Being more specific may help the conversation along.



Good question, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

When I mean the gospel, I mean acknowledging that one is saved by faith in trusting in the blood of the Christ, and nothing else. And not only must the gospel be preached, but it must also be central. A Catholic may "preach the gospel," but he compromises it with his membership in a "church" that denies the gospel.

By Pentecostals I mean groups like Assemblies of God, Foursquare Gospel, and others like the ones in the NAE. I do not mean prosperity teachers and certainly not Oneness Pentecostals. I believe the identity of the person of Christ to be an essential part of the gospel.

Pentecostal churches, like Baptist churches and Congregational churches, are are usually autonomous, and there are some of each that pervert the gospel. I haven't encountered a Pentecostal church that perverts the gospel in the way some on this board have shared. I believe that teaching that tongues are necessary for salvation is a perversion of the gospel. I believe that teaching that baptism (either water or a subsequent "baptism of the spirit") is necessary for salvation is a perversion of the gospel.

I am aware that prosperity teaching has crept into Pentecostal churches, but people I know in them are just as angry at prosperity teaching as I am. I have not studied them in great detail, but my impression is that Benny Hinn is a false teacher, and I really don't know anything about Joyce Meyers other than the government is trying to audit her.

Vineyard, Storms, and Mahaney I would group as charismatics, not Pentecostals, Mahaney as 2nd wave, Vineyard as 3rd wave, and I don't know enough about Storms to classify him beyond that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word "equivocate" means Don? You might want to look it up as I use it in a sentence:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, I don't know what you hope to accomplish by writing in such a condescending manner. It is insulting to me, and I would prefer that you not do so.
Click to expand...

I apologize for sounding condescending. I think you need to recognize there is more than a little disingenuity in your charge. The idea that people might cooperate on a broader basis outside of the Gospel does not follow that all cooperation is therefore the same. I was trying to get you to wake up to the fact that your line of argumentation is weak. You're trying so hard to be right that you're throwing any "Oh yeah, well what about you guys doing this..." sort of argument to be right. It failed miserably and you need to recognize the substantive difference.



> Based on what I read in Scripture, I don't think unity in the gospel is central...


Ironically, this was likely a typo but I actually think there is more truth to this statement than not. The problem is that your very weak understanding that the Gospel can somehow compromise on the idea of being made complete in the flesh is the very thing I object to. You honestly do not understand how frail and how subtlely corrupted the Gospel becomes. Pentecostalism doesn't just draw close to the line, it walks right over it. You need to read Galatians more carefully. The Gospel is not merely about how we start but how we understand we finish. If we do not understand this then we don't understand the Gospel. You will try to convince me that Pentecostals do. I'm telling you that, based on what I'm reading you write and the texts you quote, I honestly don't believe you have a very firm grasp of it yourself.



> The churches that Paul was writing to had many major issues, likely more than Pentecostal churches have today, and yet Paul endured with them, loved them, and supported them.


No. Less problems. Very easily the case that this can be demonstrated. I have been around Pentecostalism and it's effects long before you could pronounce it. The difference between you and me is not love for Pentecostals but your brand of love would leave them to perish in a Church that will leave them in the performance of the flesh. Do you know what the Filipinos in my Church tell me who came out of Pentecostalism and still had those ideas when they came here? They wish I would be talking to their brother who is a Pentecostal minister because they know how wrong he is now. A few weeks ago, my friend mentioned that, for the first time, his wife has heard about the initiating Love of God before we had done a single thing to deserve it. She sat with her mouth agape. She simply could not believe it because she had never heard it before _in her life_! *That* is love brother! Your version of love is to hope that message breaks through apart from the very institution that's supposed to be building her up weekly in that Truth.



> You're probably going to call me naive, and say these verses don't prove anything.


On this we can agree. Naive about Pentecostalism and naive about the nature of what the Gospel joins a man to. There is such a thing as spreading seed on rocky ground.



> Maybe they don't prove it, but I think, in the absence of a clear prohibition, that supporting a Pentecostal church in an area lacking other gospel-centered churches being planted is in keeping with the general spirit of Paul's letters.


Again, you are sadly mistaken here and I don't think you have much of an idea what the general spirit of Paul's letters are.



> If you would like to share Scripture that prohibits cooperation in planting non-Reformed churches, please do so. I don't recall anything in the Bible advocating division or separation of churches on the basis of Presbyterian government or the WCF, but if you think you can make a better biblical case, I'd be open to hearing it.


Let me now use this word again because you just did it again. You are *equivocating* on the term cooperation again. YOU are defending the idea that PENTECOSTAL Churches should be supported by us because, apparently, you agree with Tim Keller that there are certain people that certain kinds of ministries just appeal to more.

Jesus, in John 6, sent away 5000 men one day and only a handful were left. But if there was a Pentecostal Church around they would have found a place to worship and, guess what, the minister would be talking about how much they loved that same Jesus.

Honestly Don, if you're offended by all of this then your issue, in my estimation, you need to be openly rebuked and wake up so I offer no apologies for warning you about the spirit you are of. Your ideas expressed in that last response are dangerous and un-Biblical. You need to study much more about not only what the Gospel is but the necessity of the nurture of Discipleship in the visible Church.

I've poured my heart and soul into a people who have been emaciated and malnourished and mostly left unconverted by a false Gospel that you _rejoice_ is moving forward. What I weep over, you're throwing your support behind. You think a fast moving fire is something to celebrate while I see the destroyed landscape left in its wake. Real Christianity is loving such people enough to stand tall for the truth and to be seeking men and women who are willing to be within the Church and be trained in EVERYTHING that Christ has commanded them. You may find warrant to cherry pick in the Command of my Savior but this I refuse.


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim: If we wanted to say so, Presbyerians pervert the Gospel according to me and Baptists pervert the Gospel according to some - if we define the core of the Gospel broadly.

What is "The Gospel" - obviously it is narrower and simpler than the entire WCF, right? 

Therefore, a broad evangelical and [gasp] maybe even a Penny-cossal lite church can preach Christ crucified for men's sin and be agents in spreading "the Gospel" - even without being an agent in spreadign reformed confessionalism.


When Tim Keller speaks of cooperating with other churches, I am sure he has this in mind. I have preached in Pentecostal churches myself.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Pilgrim: If we wanted to say so, Presbyerians pervert the Gospel according to me and Baptists pervert the Gospel according to some - if we define the core of the Gospel broadly.
> 
> What is "The Gospel" - obviously it is narrower and simpler than the entire WCF, right?
> 
> Therefore, a broad evangelical and [gasp] maybe even a Penny-cossal lite church can preach Christ crucified for men's sin and be agents in spreading "the Gospel" - even without being an agent in spreadign reformed confessionalism.
> 
> 
> When Tim Keller speaks of cooperating with other churches, I am sure he has this in mind. I have preached in Pentecostal churches myself.



Did you read what he wrote in that paragraph Perg? He made it seem like "...well we have our brand of the Truth that works for us and they have their brand of Truth that works for them...." That's completely bogus. I'm sorry but, for all the talking about striving for the unity of the faith, some are willing to just say there _isn't_ any. There is no _style_ to the Truth. A surface reading (and wrong one at that) would conclude this is all about the externals. It is not.

Remember, nobody is asking people to say "I CONFESS THE WCF WITH NO EXCEPTIONS" and Ye shall be saved!

What you seem to be arguing for, however, is that the initiating Love of God to call and keep a man in the faith is somehow an unnecessary appendage. It is at the _heart_ of the Gospel. I can think of hundreds of different subtle ways I've seen this undermined. It's not always what people say but what people sort of understand. The Gospel is not some thing that just goes out into a vacuum but calls men into a Church where that seed is nourished. If that seedbed is a rocky path then you see fruit but it dies off.


----------



## RamistThomist

Back to the OP, let's flesh it out a bit mroe. Is God using these churches that employ these items?










































all from
A Little Leaven


----------



## elnwood

Rich, your experience in Pentecostalism is completely different than mine, and I am sorry for bad experiences that are even on-going. I refuse, though, to write-off Pentecostalism on that basis.

My Pentecostal friends would be equally repulsed by the things you have shared, and probably even more so since it is done in the name of their tradition. I'm sure you feel the same way when people associate PCUSA liberalism with Presbyterianism.

I put forth a biblical argument for my understanding of Christian unity and cooperation, and I was hoping to get a biblical argument in return for division on matters in which we differ with Pentecostalism.


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim:
> 
> Yes, the broad approach does have it's limits.
> 
> And so does the other side...And the PB does have many people that push doctrines that are characteristic of the micro-presbyterians and many TRs do pass off their own doctrinal distinctions as being "the true reading" of the WCF, as if all others are sub-reformed and sub-biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right or wrong (and I'm not prepared to argue it either way) advocates of EP, headcovering, etc are more disproportionately represented on the internet than in Reformed churches generally. We have seen the same dynamic with the FV as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as "misrepresenting" the Reformed faith. Tell me what the reformed faith is. This issue is fought over much on this board and every side says that their view is Reformed. John Frame writes a book advocating contemporary music in worship as a reformed professor and people on this board post that he barely holds to the WCF or insinuate that he is sub-reformed. I hold to the 1689 and challenge a few sacred cows on here and get charged with not knowing doctrine or hating the reformed.
> 
> If the Reformed faith is the five points and the 5 solas, then I have not misrepresented anyone. One need not add on all the pet doctrines of the micropresbyterians to be reformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't read everything Frame has written. Clearly his idea of the RPW is different than the Westminster Assembly's or Presbyterian and Reformed churches generally. Although I tend to disagree with him on worship issues, disagreement with the standards isn't necessarily wrong in and of itself. The arguments I've seen from him so far basically seem to be an appeal to pragmatism, but I hope to soon read his worship books to get an idea of his whole argument, straight from the horse's mouth. Although apparently he doesn't agree totally with them, John Frame has also defended Norman Shepherd and doesn't think the FV should be an issue. These are other reasons besides worship why some may tend to see him as "sub-reformed" on some issues.
> 
> The Reformed faith is more than the five points and the 5 solas although those are certainly good places to start. The continental Reformed faith has been defined by the Three Forms of Unity, the British Reformed by the Westminster Standards and Particular or Reformed Baptists by the 2nd London Confession of 1689.
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as who is "baiting" whom, take a look at your posts as well.... to use terms such as "baiting" "cutting and running" and first off, initially referring to that outspoken advocate over yonder that doesn't care about doctrine is what motivated me to post the above 3 or so posts anyhow. You insinuate that I do not care about doctrine. What I am advocating is broad cooperation. These are two different things. I have even given my situation at present, in which evangelism is actually being hindered by a reformed group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know enough about the situation to know whether the Reformed church there is liberal or not. Often in such situations that is the case. Regardless, if they are wrongly hindering evangelism by the Lord's servants then they are at fault.
> 
> I don't know that anyone has written that you don't care about doctrine. If you didn't care about it I doubt you'd be on this board. I think what was primarily at issue was the sense that confessions are good for you personally but that you wouldn't be in favor of confessionalism as a whole. Many of us here have tasted the bitter fruit of non-confessional churches and advocating that here is swimming upstream and going to receive a strong response every time.
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am for broad cooperation when the needs call for it.
> 
> 
> Some questions for you:
> 
> Are you for or against working with the Wycliffe Bible Translators? Would you work alongside of them if you ministered in a foreign country that did not yet have the Scriptures?
> 
> Are you for or against helping out a Bible society publish the Scriptures if you worked in a foreign country, even if that Bible society was broadly evangelical?
> 
> Would you fly with a broadly evangelical mission aviation organization, even though they were credobaptist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have heard of Wycliffe for many years but don't know enough about them to make a definitive judgment. I understand that they favor dynamic equivalence and the Critical Text. I am leaning strongly toward the Byzantine Text if not the TR and would probably lean toward something like the efforts by the Trinitarian Bible Society. But even a bad translation is better than none at all unless it represents a distortion of the biblical teaching.
> 
> I think it is unfortunate that the Bible society has taken over a role that used to be fulfilled by the churches. (It often leads to things like the TNIV, although some churches would probably translate it that way as well. There are no doubt good and bad bible societies as there are good and bad churches) As with most parachurch orgs., no doubt they have done it because the churches were not doing it, but that doesn't absolve the church of its responsibility. Of course with the multitude of denominations, one could ask, which church?
> 
> I do think Reformed and evangelical reunion would be great if it was a unity based on truth and not compromise. But even Reformed union has proved very difficult in many cases. I do believe Frame has a few points about some of the objections to union being petty, but in some other cases seems to be somewhat ignorant of the facts, like saying the OPC should have joined some other church in 1936 instead of becoming another denomination. At that time no other church would accept the OPC.
> 
> I would probably fly with a credo aviation organization, but as you have noted earlier, when it gets down to the point of planting churches the doctrinal parameters necessarily have to narrow one way or another.
> 
> Are you familiar with Third millennium Ministries, with which John Frame, Richard Pratt and others, mainly from RTS in Orlando, are involved? Again, many here would differ with them on worship and some other issues. But I am interested to know what you think of their efforts in equipping pastors around the world who lack sufficient training.
Click to expand...


Good thoughts, brother.

Yes...why is it that the beliefs of the micro-presbyterians make such a strong showing on the net? That might be worthy of another thread. The over-representation of the TR folks on the net, when not a lot of them exist in person.

Also,
John Frame might be practical and pragmatic - as long as he is biblical. Does God give us an impractical faith? I hear this charge of pragmatism all the time, but it means nothing. The Bible is giving to us to affect our lives practically - it should be pragmatic. And John Frame merely applies Scripture to life more than many Calvinisits do, who tend to make many things academic and theoretical.


Yes, I like the confessions but I do not see the confessional churches as being any healthier than the non confessional ones as a whole. Whole confessional denominations go off the deep end after all, or it leads to the TR micro-presbyterianism. Plus, every church has a confession of faith and most have pretty detailed doctrinal statements. These are enough. I think it is a good thing for churches to make their own statements, even when holding to a confession, so that their is greater local ownership of those doctrines. I know several baptist churches that essentially hold to the 1689, but they recraft this in stress some things greater - i.e. they "own" the confession as their own. I hold to the 1689 and it is useful to me to point to what I believe, but when I describe what I believe to others, I would phrase many things differently (plus, it is not a given that the Pope is THE antichrist which some confessions add unwarrantedly).

Therefore, I see no need to push for confessionalism as the answer. I see a need to push for churches that engage the Word of God with the use of historic church documents....but the question for confessionalists is always, "what confession?"



About Third Mill: Yes, they are wonderful aren't they! I shout a hearty amen to all they are doing. I was educated through RTS. I wish more people did this approach.


About cooperation: There are different levels of intimacy with which we can cooperate with others. Obviosly we can cooperate with others who are "farther" away from us in issues farther away from church planting. But a great many missionary tasks are not involving direct church planting. Mercy ministries can be done by a great deal of denominations and I would be glad to help refugees in Africa alongside Pentecostals. Aviation, nursing and teaching are other areas where a "mere Christianity" approach is helpful. Church planting must have higher fences, and yet even then some events, and some endeavors may occurr jointly with others and must be looked at on a case to case basis.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Don,

We differ with Pentecostalism on the nature of the Gospel and Discipleship. As the Great Commission commands both, I think I have Biblical warrant to reject Pentecostalism on its face even though I'm willing to cooperate in other areas.

I'm sorry if I'm not going to be able to prooftext an answer for you but it would take a book to explain all the problems. Maybe some day but not right now.


----------



## Pergamum

Rich;

Why is it that you took leadership and cooperated with a baptist church during your time in Okinawa. An SBC non-confessional credobaptist church at that!

Do you need a public rebuke for your ignorance for this? 

Or do we recognize that God places us in positions to work beside people even as we help guide them. 


Why did you recruit a BAPTIST pastor and not try to convert the whole church to Presbyism before you left? You compromiser, you!

Maybe you want to dilute doctrine? Or is it because you see that a slow patience is sometimes needed, and that not every hill is worth dying on today and that battles must be won little by little.

Suppose you went overseas and the local jungle church was pentecostal. What to do? If they gave you a measure of respect due to your education, class, rank, etc, it would seem good to use it, cooperate with this local body - even though it is a "deviant" brand of Christianity and bless them as a Pentecostal church.

Suppose the church wanted to incorporate as pentecostal and while you had a measure of power to teach, you did not have the power to change their incorporation status - especially when your jungle area has been carved up by different denominations due to historic missionary comity agreements. Thus, you cannot change their form of church...what do you do? Refuse to cooperate, or try to bless them anyone?

This situations happens to me OFTEN!

This is why I am often "soft" on cooperation.. And this is what you essentially did in Okinawa. 

If anyone needs rebuked for this, it would be both of us...and you especially for actualy taking applications of people on the PB to help another credobaptist pastor fill anothr credobaptist and non-confessional church.


You plowed with the oxen that you had instead of wishing for oxen that did not exist at the moment and you left the church in better shape than it was before. 

Tim Keller is trying to do the same thing, I am sure, with any cooperation that he has with Pentecostals.


I myself have preached and taught in Pentecostal and "Full Gospel Rvival" churches. I attended one for a time to help them out. I did not have the power to change them, but I tried to bless them as much as I could.


----------



## Amazing Grace

One of the issues that strikes me in threads like this is that we seem, inadvertantly I pray, to take God out of the equation. remember one important factor, we evangelize the ELECT in any and all given areas on the world where Christ is preached. That's it. God will save out of every nation and tongue His elect. All this talk about denonminationalism is completely agains the biblical witness. We will neithe worship Him on this mountain or that mountain, in this denom or that denom, but in Spirit and Truth. We are not religionists, but the posts here sound like the woman at the well. God does not need our help per se to blanket the world so He comes again. I sense Pergy, only becasue he is in the trenches, portrays this thought too much. WHo can evangelize, how do we evangelize, what about women, what about kids, can a donkey preach the word, whats the difference between preaching and teaching or evangelizing, etc etc etc. Evangelism is not about denominationalism, it is ONLY, ONLY, ONLY about Christs substitutionary death for His sheep. That is it. That is the planting and watering, God will provide the increase. If God determines to scatter His elect in different church plants for a time, so be it. Yet, this by no means, equals the fact that God will allow His elect to remain in a Gospel compramising Church. That is why my only hope for the Lost is the Holy Spirit and not man. Yes man may be the instrument, but the Holy SPirit will lead one into the truth. I will never say that a Calvinist is the only true believer. I believe it is the best respresentation of the biblical revelation, but not the only one. This is why we should be less concerned about denoms and only focus on Christ alone. And stop thinking that the great commission needs us to assist God to the point of diminishing the mesage to the point where the Gospel is not even recognized. Scripture says God will save His sheep, not man. We water and plant, and THAT IS IT. Once we put too much of our own denominational water on we drown out the Gospel, and God will not use you anymore.


----------



## Herald

SEAGOON said:


> Hi elnwood,
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you're not suggesting that this is what I'm suggesting.
> 
> If I may explain, the fact is that there are more people who need to be ministered to by the gospel than the current number of good gospel-preaching churches today. I live in San Diego and attend a PCA church. It is a large, metropolitan area which needs good churches throughout the area.
> 
> Our strategy is to plant as many churches in the area as possible. We don't want to set up one big church downtown and have everyone commute to it, as is the mega-church model. Many churches within the surrounding neighborhoods is a better way to reach people for the gospel. It is NOT about, as I think you are suggesting, giving people what they want. It is NOT a seeker-sensitive model.
> 
> So far, our church has planted eight locations in the county, but our church recognizes that the PCA does not have enough resources to effectively reach all of San Diego county. Therefore, we support and partner with other like-minded gospel-centered churches that are not in the PCA.
> 
> Others may think that having one perfectly WCF-complaint, exclusive-Psalter church in a major city is enough for God's word to reach people, but I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I'm suggesting, I was just using the example to make a couple of points. First, although the model I was suggesting might be successful, it presupposes that issues like polity, worship, and doctrine are more the result of tradition and preference than anything else, and that it doesn't really matter what we practice in regards to these things, as long as the gospel is being preached. It presumes that the Bible doesn't teach things about them and that God doesn't really care much about them at all. They may be important to us, _but they aren't important to Him._ If I believed that, I'd cease to be a Presbyterian immediately, because I'm not Presbyterian because I was born into it, or I happen to like it's traditions. I'm a Presbyterian because of my conviction that it is the best expression of the theology taught in the Bible - and yeah as irritating as we are to the world I'm a Puritan, not a Latitudinarian, when it comes to theology.
> 
> As it so happens, I believe many Pentecostal and even Anglican churches preach the gospel, but I also believe that their worship is unbiblical and produces a harvest of bad fruit. Frankly I don't want to use the resources that the Lord provides to us to teach people Dispensationalism, Arminianism, Pentecostalism , and so on, even if a gospel presentation is tacked on. I don't want to have started churches where there are no elders, or where the Minister is appointed by a Bishop, or where there is no Confessional statement by which the Minister is held accountable, or a constitution that protects the rights of members and provides them the ability to receive a fair trial and even an appeal. I don't want to start a church whose governing body has no higher court keeping them accountable via review and control, and so on.
> 
> To put it quite simply, if I were able to plant churches of any stripe, I would be forced to say that the 2000 Puritan ministers who chose to be kicked out of the Ministry in 1662 because of their refusal to accept the Act of Uniformity were wrong, and I don't, or that Jenny Gedes should have bit her tongue and stayed on her stool. They said that things like church government, worship, Christian liberty and so on are not things we should compromise on in order to see that the gospel gets preached.
> 
> Now before someone misunderstands me, I have had wonderful fellowship with more Pentecostal, Baptists, Independent Fundamentalists etc. brothers and sisters in Christ than I can count, and I'm sure I'll see them in heaven, but while there is much we agree on, I have no desire to spread abroad their theological _distinctives_, some of which, I consider downright dangerous (Pentecostalism in particular). And lets face it, how could I in all seriousness say that I subscribed to the idea that as WCF 28.5 says _"Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance"_ and then plant churches that do exactly that.
> 
> Now I'm not saying I want just one Presbyterian church in every city, I'd like to see many planted. I want to see as many solid OSP churches planted as we can.
Click to expand...


I am very late on this thread but I appreciate this post. I feel the same way about Reformed Baptist churches, but I appreciate your willingness to stand for doctrine and praxis.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Rich;
> 
> Why is it that you took leadership and cooperated with a baptist church during your time in Okinawa. An SBC non-confessional credobaptist church at that!
> 
> Do you need a public rebuke for your ignorance for this?
> 
> Or do we recognize that God places us in positions to work beside people even as we help guide them.
> 
> 
> Why did you recruit a BAPTIST pastor and not try to convert the whole church to Presbyism before you left? You compromiser, you!
> 
> Maybe you want to dilute doctrine? Or is it because you see that a slow patience is sometimes needed, and that not every hill is worth dying on today and that battles must be won little by little.
> 
> Suppose you went overseas and the local jungle church was pentecostal. What to do? If they gave you a measure of respect due to your education, class, rank, etc, it would seem good to use it, cooperate with this local body - even though it is a "deviant" brand of Christianity and bless them as a Pentecostal church.
> 
> Suppose the church wanted to incorporate as pentecostal and while you had a measure of power to teach, you did not have the power to change their incorporation status - especially when your jungle area has been carved up by different denominations due to historic missionary comity agreements. Thus, you cannot change their form of church...what do you do? Refuse to cooperate, or try to bless them anyone?
> 
> This situations happens to me OFTEN!
> 
> This is why I am often "soft" on cooperation.. And this is what you essentially did in Okinawa.
> 
> If anyone needs rebuked for this, it would be both of us...and you especially for actualy taking applications of people on the PB to help another credobaptist pastor fill anothr credobaptist and non-confessional church.
> 
> 
> You plowed with the oxen that you had instead of wishing for oxen that did not exist at the moment and you left the church in better shape than it was before.
> 
> Tim Keller is trying to do the same thing, I am sure, with any cooperation that he has with Pentecostals.
> 
> 
> I myself have preached and taught in Pentecostal and "Full Gospel Rvival" churches. I attended one for a time to help them out. I did not have the power to change them, but I tried to bless them as much as I could.



Another form of equivocation I see Perg. _Any_ cooperation is _all_ cooperation. Southern Baptists are the same as Pentecostals now I see. We have no shades in the least in these matters. My objection has been very narrowly focused.

Don't think I don't concern myself with the very questions you're asking. I simply do not dismiss them as being irrelevant as if all Truth is a matter of preference. The Gospel and Discipleship is simply a matter of style, is that what you're telling me?


----------



## Pergamum

Ah Rich, give me a break - is equivocation the word of the day or something. DING DING DING......equivocation kids, you win the prize!



You cooperated with credobaptists in order to bless them...nothing wrong with that.

Yes, there are levels of cooperation. 

Some of us feel more comfortable cooperating at different levels. We all do not need open rebukes for our ignorance. 

I could not plant Pentecostal churches, but I could help a Pentecostal church plant if they invited me to preach. Is that a clear distinction?


Go back to my situation. Perhaps I am in a different boat then the US where churches abound. Sometimes you take what you can find here and work with it. Not a lot of choices. You took what you had to in Okinawa and blessed them the best you could. I am doing the same here. Perhaps Tim Keller is doing the same.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Yes, equivocation is the word of the day because you guys keep trying to shift the focus of the issue.

Wait a second now, did I just read something?



Pergamum said:


> I could not plant Pentecostal churches...



Hold the phone!

Where have we read of someone who helps Pentecostal Churches do just that?! 





(Hold on, I'm still thinking)






(Almost there)


T...


ummm

Tim

Tim Keller!!!!!



I'm sorry, what were we discussing?


----------



## Pergamum

Hmmm......

I think you got me there. 

It does seem that Tim Keller speaks of planting Pentecostal churches instead of merely helping Pentecostal churches that are in the process of being planted.

If that is the case, then it appears that he would be intentionally planting P churches rather than making do with a bad situation. 

I have preached and helped P churches but have never planted any. If I had to plant a P church or no church, that migth be a different story, but NYC is a big place and I guess Keller would have a choice.



I still defend levels of cooperation and broad cooperation when possible. 

However, unless dire situations permit, I am not sure why one would "intentionally" plant a P church. One possible explanation is that the local church decides to go P despite Keller's teaching. So Keller decides to bless them anyway, all the while wishing that they had come a little further.

You got a point Rich on that one. 


But tell me, is there a distinction in planting a P church and helping a P church? You helped a Baptist church that you did not plant. If Okinanawa only had a P church would you participate in leadership and help bless them. And if this were the case would you be guilty of helping the enemy or blessing an errant friend?

Planting a church and helping erring Christians are big distinctions. Intentionally planting a P church and helping to mature a P church by swinging them closer to the truth seems permissible. WHich one is Keller doing? Planting intentioanl P churches or making do with bad situations in church plants to do not quite develop as he would like?

Thanks for the catch.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

{sigh} I don't know. I'm tired and cranky right now. I can pull something I noted during the Franklin Graham Crusade but I'm going to hold off for now. Suffice to say that if I thought SBC's were like Pentecostal Church's then I would hardly cooperate at all except to be nice to them. The SBC has its roots in English Particular Baptists. Pentecostalism has had a crazy (and dangerous) pedigree from day one. You don't have to look very hard to see the profound difference.

Granted, it is a broad movement but the line from "normal guy Pentecostal" to Benny Hinn ain't a circuitous one.


----------



## DMcFadden

Pergy,

All that broad evangelicalism grafted "cooperation" into my genes. (BTW, my wife and I do support a couple working with Wycliffe for the reasons you stated.) In an earlier post I tried to delineate the kinds of cooperation that involve compromise for me and those that do not. Since the original post was about Keller, yes, that would be (in my opinion) compromise to plant a Pentecostal church, especially in New York (not exactly the jungle or Okinawa). 

I could happily join a Calvinist church regardless of polity or baptism and give money to help plant one, but would only be able to serve as a leader in a congregation that did not involve a compromise of conscience, even in matters of polity or practice. 

As for preaching . . . hmmmmm. I have preached for Chinese Presbyterians and Presbyterian Koreans. However, no Pentecostal ever asked me. Glorrrrry!


----------



## Pergamum

All Pentecostals are not Benny Hinns and some SBC churches are worse than the Pentecostals. There are some very lite varieties.

Listen, my emphasis is always on looking for where I CAN cooperate. I have and can help Pentecostal churches. It is hard for me to fathom intentionally planting a pentecostal church, so you were right above when you caught me in those words.

In fact, your situation in Okinanawa is much like many situations I find myself in. I would rather the church be something else, but I am committed to helping her where she is at - partly because there is not a lot out there besides say...your SBC church or some of the churches I deal with. 

If she is part of the bride....even if she makes an ugly bride, I try to beautify her a bit if I can.

I am sure that is something we can agree on.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> All Pentecostals are not Benny Hinns and some SBC churches are worse than the Pentecostals. There are some very lite varieties.
> 
> Listen, my emphasis is always on looking for where I CAN cooperate. I have and can help Pentecostal churches. It is hard for me to fathom intentionally planting a pentecostal church, so you were right above when you caught me in those words.
> 
> In fact, your situation in Okinanawa is much like many situations I find myself in. I would rather the church be something else, but I am committed to helping her where she is at - partly because there is not a lot out there besides say...your SBC church or some of the churches I deal with.
> 
> If she is part of the bride....even if she makes an ugly bride, I try to beautify her a bit if I can.
> 
> I am sure that is something we can agree on.


Below is the situation in Okinawa. The response of another SBC Pastor when I noted that this was completely un-Biblical?

"Now, be nice, Rich."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pergamum said:


> If she is part of the bride....even if she makes an ugly bride, I try to beautify her a bit if I can.
> 
> I am sure that is something we can agree on.



Your gonna need a lot of base, rouge, eyeshadow, eyeliner, and lipstick brother. She is an ugly thing. Good thing the Bridegroom is in the Re-Creation business.

We are an ugly lot.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SemperFideles said:


> "Now, be nice, Rich."






Did you listen to him?


----------



## Pergamum

DMcFadden said:


> Pergy,
> 
> All that broad evangelicalism grafted "cooperation" into my genes. (BTW, my wife and I do support a couple working with Wycliffe for the reasons you stated.) In an earlier post I tried to delineate the kinds of cooperation that involve compromise for me and those that do not. Since the original post was about Keller, yes, that would be (in my opinion) compromise to plant a Pentecostal church, especially in New York (not exactly the jungle or Okinawa).
> 
> I could happily join a Calvinist church regardless of polity or baptism and give money to help plant one, but would only be able to serve as a leader in a congregation that did not involve a compromise of conscience, even in matters of polity or practice.
> 
> As for preaching . . . hmmmmm. I have preached for Chinese Presbyterians and Presbyterian Koreans. However, no Pentecostal ever asked me. Glorrrrry!





Yes, I firmly defend cooperation at many levels. I could even help out a struggling church if they differed with me or were Pentecostal. However, to intentional plant a Pentecostal church needs a lot of explanation. However, perhaps the local group would not budge and then what? Bless the group and help them change a little, or totally disown them? Not sure? NYC seems a big place to "have to" plant a P church.

I agree with your positions above.


----------



## Pergamum

YIKES RICH! The SBC is the paragon of truth compared to Prophet Dollar or whatever his name is. Now...you know (don't you) that my penchant for cooperation only extends so far...! 



And Puritancovenanter: God can make ya beautiful! He has forever to do it , too!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I think Paul's charge in Galatians 1 should be considered here.



> (Gal 1:1) Paul, an apostle--not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead--
> 
> (Gal 1:2) and all the brothers who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:
> 
> (Gal 1:3) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,
> 
> (Gal 1:4) who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,
> 
> (Gal 1:5) to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
> 
> (Gal 1:6) I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--
> 
> (Gal 1:7) not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
> 
> (Gal 1:8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
> 
> (Gal 1:9) As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
> 
> (Gal 1:10) For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
> 
> (Gal 1:11) For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel.
> 
> (Gal 1:12) For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.


----------



## mark

Zenas wrote, _I'm an uncharitable type of guy. *shrug*_

~But you should be loving and charitable, and those who are uncharitable are mere clanging symbols, utter meaningless rhetoric, and are not servants of Christ. Unloving people don't belong to Jesus. So, you and I and everyone else who claims to be united to Christ should pray without ceasing the that Holy Spirit causes his love to grow in us more and more day by day. 



Also, Zenas said,


_"When it's someone like Keller, a small drift away is something to make a big deal about. Apostacy and liberalism don't usually start with someone making the switch overnight, it's a slow process.... _


_When Sproul writes an apologetic's book, it's from a Reformed Protestant view and he's unapologetic about it (no pun intended). I expect that, becase Sproul's goal is to defend Reformed Protestantism because contained therein is the Biblical view of justification by faith alone."_

~But Sproul is classical in his approach to Christian apologetics. And the classical approach assumes human autonomy because it doesn't presuppose the Christian worldview or the revelation of Scripture as preeminent. On your argument, Sproul is just as much in danger as Keller is then. They are both on a dangerous, slippery slope toward liberalism. I mean, human autonomy! What could be worse than that!

"_a small drift away is something to make a big deal about. Apostacy and liberalism don't usually start with someone making the switch overnight, it's a slow process.... _"


----------



## hollandmin

raekwon said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Machen had a different view when it came to spreading Presbyterianism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We cannot agree with those who say that although they are members of the
> Presbyterian church, they "have not the slightest zeal to have the
> Presbyterian church extended throughout the length and breadth of the
> world." As for us, we hold the faith of the Presbyterian church, the great
> Reformed faith that is set forth in the Westminster Confession, to be true;
> and holding it to be true, we hold that it is intended for the whole world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's to say that Machen is necessarily right and Keller wrong in this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ignore for a moment that the majority of the churches that Keller and Redeemer have planted have indeed been Presbyterian churches. Now, while I do find it a bit troubling if it is indeed true that Redeemer's helped to start Roman Catholic churches, still, there are a good number of Reformed Baptist and Reformed Anglican churches that they've helped to fund as well, and Jesus is calling his people to himself through these avenues.
> 
> Sure, we believe that Presbyterianism is the best form of church government, but is a PCA pastor's helping to plant non-Presbyterian, yet Gospel-centered churches really something to spend time upset about?
Click to expand...



I n my opinion if he is making a conserted effort in starting RC churches then it should be the task of the PCA to properly discipline him. I would even go so far as to say that he should be "defrocked." It doesn't take a doctorate in Divinity or Christian history to see the reasons why Luther, Calvin etc. called for reform. Transsubstanciation, maryology, papal infalability just name a few. There is no room in Christianity for this theology. If this is what he calls chairty he may as well give Rob Bell, John Shelby Spong or Rick Warren a call, I'm certain that their Post-modern theology would fit well with his "listen to what I say, not what I do" attitude. I don't believe and neither did the reformers that the RC is a gospel-centered church, hence 1517. If you want to jump on the "but he is doing so much good" band wagon then perhaps he should start universalist churches, heck, I bet the Episcopol Church would like a friend right about now. 

We can stand together, but not for the sake of truth! There is no amount of charity or money or church planting that should cause us to look at the light and fluffy side. We can have no unity without truth, NONE. This is what the reformers stood for, this is what the early church fathers stood for and this is what our Lord proclaimed in and of himself. I could care less about where the churches are planted, I care a great deal about who their being planted for and what theology is being expressed within their walls. Just because it looks good on paper doesn't mean that it is and just because he preaches pretty sermons doesn't make him a pure. If that was the case Clinton would still be in office.

Truth must be proclaimed reagardless of the deeds, and there should be no fellowship whith those who don't hold to Ephesians 2:8-9.

Thats just my  

Blessings,


----------



## Craig

raekwon said:


> It seems to me that we *must* contextualize, but never compromise. There's a difference, and too often the two end up conflated into a big, ugly mess of "hip", "relevant", "emergent" churches that are teetering on the edge between orthodoxy and paganism. Still, a "refusal" to bring the Gospel to the language (spoken, written, cultural, etc) of the people smacks of stubborn traditionalism (to my ears) rather than of Biblical faithfulness. What are we to make of becoming all things to all people? Certainly this doesn't mean to join the pagans in their paganism, but then, what does it mean?



I think you make a good point...there is stubborn traditionalism that is ridiculous...and then there's compromising the truth. I've been following the Bayly Blog for over a year now, and over the last couple of months they've discussed Tim Keller...I was VERY apprehensive about what Tim Bayly especially had to say...but the more I read from Keller, the more I see he has compromised with the culture.

My church, for example, is far different than many PCA churches...I can't explain it completely. It's a hybrid of Reformed Confessionalism...on steroids...with contemporary music to Psalms, and the like.

Many of our churches are trying desperately to be relevant, but end up being irrelevant...as I'm sure you'd agree. We are more quick to agree with our culture rather than prophesy to/against it. We try to tell the world "we are like you" when we should be saying/doing the opposite.

It's easy to be pragmatic and violate BCO and other Presbyterian standards for the sake of the "gospel"...but Keller even redefines sin in terms that are man-centered rather than God offending.

This is a good start if you want to know more about why Keller is the wrong prescription for the PCA.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Craig said:


> I think you make a good point...there is stubborn traditionalism that is ridiculous...and then there's compromising the truth. I've been following the Bayly Blog for over a year now, and over the last couple of months they've discussed Tim Keller...I was VERY apprehensive about what Tim Bayly especially had to say...but the more I read from Keller, the more I see he has compromised with the culture.
> 
> My church, for example, is far different than many PCA churches...I can't explain it completely. It's a hybrid of Reformed Confessionalism...on steroids...with contemporary music to Psalms, and the like.
> 
> Many of our churches are trying desperately to be relevant, but end up being irrelevant...as I'm sure you'd agree. We are more quick to agree with our culture rather than prophesy to/against it. We try to tell the world "we are like you" when we should be saying/doing the opposite.
> 
> It's easy to be pragmatic and violate BCO and other Presbyterian standards for the sake of the "gospel"...but Keller even redefines sin in terms that are man-centered rather than God offending.
> 
> This is a good start if you want to know more about why Keller is the wrong prescription for the PCA.



I suppose I'm the resident Tim Keller defender on this board, but since he's my pastor and because I believe he's one of the best pastor-teachers in America (if not the world) today, I feel compelled to do so. A few points in response to several posts in this thread:

1. Redeemer has never helped plant or fund a Roman Catholic church. Tim Keller made this abundantly clear in a follow-up interview to the First Things interview, and said he would never even consider it. They have helped fund non-PCA churches (all are broadly Reformed), but the vast majority of their money goes to PCA plants.

2. Craig, Keller hasn't redefined sin by any means. In a recent USA Today article he said that the prevailing attitude to sin in New York City is that it is defined as selfishness, and that he seeks to "rebrand" or change that perception. So, he is not endorsing a definition of sin as selfishness, but stating that it is the prevailing view in NYC. He is trying to change that definition to the correct one.

3. For all the worry about a few recent comments that Keller has made (taken out of context, I might add), he is as theologically sound as any Reformed pastor and theologian. He's not perfect of course, but you will be hard-pressed to find anything Biblically incorrect in his many sermons or in his books. Frankly, I've never understood the criticism of Keller. He has shepherded one of the nation's (if not the world's) most influential Reformed churches in the world's most important city. And he has done it by remaining firm in the truth of the Word and never wavering on or shying away from the essential truths of our faith. Truths which we all acknowledge as members of this board. I've never heard him compromise Biblical truth in any way.

4. Redeemer is large (5000+ attendees per week), but is by no means a "mega-church," and is certainly not "seeker sensitive." There are no audio-visual displays, no rock bands, no glib greeters at the door, no refreshments at the church service, no decoration of any kind. The AM services are traditional - as traditional as any you'd see across the country. The PM services have a mellow jazz band that plays mostly hymns that have been re-arranged. And the sermons are expository, and always address issue of man's sin and Christ's redemptive work. So, Craig, Redeemer does not take a "we are like you" approach. In fact, it sounds very similar to your church's style of worship.

5. Redeemer is by no means perfect (no churches are), but other than those of you who subscribe to EP, I am certain anyone on here would be very happy at Redeemer. There is excellent teaching every week, great worship experience led by some of the most talented musicians in the world (right down the road from Broadway and the Met Opera), an amazingly diverse congregation, and plenty of opportunities to serve both within the church and in the NYC community. And a plethora of fellowship groups that meet in members' homes throughout the week. 

It's not wrong to criticize any individual or church, but I find the criticism of Keller and Redeemer largely weak and unfounded. There has been no compromise, no hiding from "difficult" truths, no emphasis on self. Redeemer has had success embracing the Gospel, not by running from it.


----------



## DTK

> _I believe he's one of the best pastor-teachers in America (if not the world) today._



I am grateful to hear a member speak so well of his pastor. We live in a day and age when pastors are always being criticized for what we think is wrong with them (and to be sure, we pastors have many such areas, for as James notes, _we all stumble in many things_, and I'm not trying to excuse our deficiencies and/or our many stumbles). 

I have listened to only a few of Keller's sermons, and I have to agree that in what I've heard, he ranks among the best preachers in terms of faithfulness in preaching the gospel. Let us commend the commitment to open the scriptures and apply them to people who need to be confronted with their sin. Pastor Keller doesn't just simply tell people they are sinners, but he has this insight that seeks to reason with them in their sin, and show them how it drives their lives, and why they are so discontent, and why they need the Lord Jesus to end their rebellion against God. Let us remember that the Lord Jesus sought to reason with sinners, and bring them to the place where they could see the ugliness of their sin for what it really is, and thus their need for Him.

I don't think it speaks well of us when we seek only to condemn that which we perceive to be bad, while withholding our commendation of that which we should applaud.

A much better man than any of us once said: _Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from good will: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice._ 

DTK


----------



## NaphtaliPress

This is good to remember. And without disparaging it let me add a BUT: Just because we commend a Spurgeon for instance, for preaching the gospel faithfully, doesn't mean we should think he's a faithful or should be considered a faithful _Presbyterian_. We should be thankful when Anglicans or Baptists preach the gospel.... in THEIR churches. We have Presbyterian churches, ostensibly, because we have thought we have the right view on some things in addition to the gospel (namely, polity and worship matters). As far as worship is concerned, criticism doesn't have to do with exclusive psalmody, as important as that is, but with the Regulative Principle of Worship generally, as taught in the Westminster Standards. Where the Rev. Keller is on that topic, see the below criticism which is the conclusion to a review of a work on worship to which he contributed [D. A. Carson, ed., Worship by the Book (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2002)], in the RPW survey which appears in the 2006 and 2007 issues of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal:As we noted above, this Manhattan minister gives short shrift to the regulative principle—a fact which gives away what he regards as essential (and what he regards as not being essential) to corporate worship. Dr. Keller writes in an engaging fashion, and he certainly knows how to appeal to a broad audience—whether a group of yuppies in New York, or his fellow ministers in the PCA. However, what he has penned in this book turns a genuinely Calvinistic and Reformed understanding of worship on its head, and does so with enough of a façade of academic-speak to fool the undiscerning.55

55. In conjunction with the classic sci-fi series Star Trek, the term “technobabble” is used to describe impressive terminology, employed by characters on the show, which is actually scientific gibberish; perhaps we should coin a new term, “theobabble,” to describe the type of nonsense which churchmen utilize in their desperate attempts to justify innovations as having historical pedigree.

Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D. with Chris Coldwell, "The Regulative Principle of Worship:Sixty Years in Reformed Literature Part Two (2000–2007)." _The Confessional Presbyterian_ 3 (2007) 174.
​


joshua said:


> DTK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am grateful to hear a member speak so well of his pastor. We live in a day and age when pastors are always being criticized for what we think is wrong with them (and to be sure, we pastors have many such areas, for as James notes, _we all stumble in many things_, and I'm not trying to excuse our deficiencies and/or our many stumbles).
> 
> I have listened to only a few of Keller's sermons, and I have to agree that in what I've heard, he ranks among the best preachers in terms of faithfulness in preaching the gospel. Let us commend the commitment to open the scriptures and apply them to people who need to be confronted with their sin. Pastor Keller doesn't just simply tell people they are sinners, but he has this insight that seeks to reason with them in their sin, and show them how it drives their lives, and why they are so discontent, and why they need the Lord Jesus to end their rebellion against God. Let us remember that the Lord Jesus sought to reason with sinners, and bring them to the place where they could see the ugliness of their sin for what it really is, and thus their need for Him.
> 
> I don't think it speaks well of us when we seek only to condemn that which we perceive to be bad, while withholding our commendation of that which we should applaud.
> 
> A much better man than any of us once said: _Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from good will: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice._
> 
> DTK
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for this rebuke, Pastor.
Click to expand...


----------



## DTK

Dear Chris,

I did not intend my post as a rebuke. And for the record, I did include the "BUT" when I said _We all stumble in many things_. There are other aspects of the whole truth regarding our faithfulness to orthodox practice that never seem to be underscored, because those areas are often not as public as the stumblings of others. Let me ask you, my brother, as I ask myself, are we as quick to underscore the deficiencies of our own practices as we are to underscore those we see in others. And if not, then I simply ask why not? Or have we arrived to the place where no correction of ourselves is needed? All I'm calling for is honesty and balance in our perspectives, which admittedly is one of the most difficult things to strike.

I ask these questions without diminishing a single degree of my respect for you, your work, and your desire for purity in worship.

Now, before anyone thinks I'm going soft on orthodox practice (recognizing that all of us here differ in degrees of understanding as to what that entails), I was very recently forced out of a "seeker friendly church" as its pastor because I refused to compromise in making the worship services appealing to the mindset of worldlings. I suffered the loss of stipend and many other things I'll not bother to mention. So, I know by experience, with no desire for sympathy, something of what the refusal to compromise means. Please, not looking here for any personal commendations. We just need to balance our negative criticisms by seeing and commending that which is good as well.

DTK


----------



## NaphtaliPress

DTK said:


> Dear Chris,
> 
> Let me ask you, my brother, as I ask myself, are we as quick to underscore the deficiencies of our own practices as we are to underscore those we see in others. And if not, then I simply ask why not? Or have we arrived to the place where no correction of ourselves is needed? All I'm calling for is honesty and balance in our perspectives, which admittedly is one of the most difficult things to strike.
> 
> DTK


I appreciate what a godly stand has cost you; and will say no more about it. Yes; we do need to be honest with ourselves certainly and maybe we are (I am) more likely to fail here when those we criticize are tearing down from within what we should be building up, namely biblical Presbyterianism. But that doesn't excuse seeing 'no good' in those so tearing it down.


----------

