# should all pastors be reformed?



## Matthew1344

I am not a very good exegete. I want to be. I am currently going to school to learn how to do it better. So please forgive me if I am very wrong about what I see in this passage.

Here is the passage...
For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people. 

there are many things to be seen here!  what I am wondering is can a case be made that some should not be a pastor if he cannot understand, articulate, and proclaim the doctrines of Grace? 

currently my close friends and I are in a sequence of meetings with the pastors at our church to ask them if they think it would be better to only have reformed pastors in the office. The head pastors are reformed but over the years they have had no problems hiring arminians. Now, they are only hiring people that just don't hate reformed doctrine but seem willing to be taught. If they find someone like that that they like, they make him a pastor. I believe to see some negative side effects because of this so I am concerned and am meeting with the pastors now about the situation.

One thing they are saying to me that my stance that reformed doctrine is "sound doctrine" and being abe to properly teach the evilness of man, election, the work of Christ, regeneration, and eternal security is a must for "able to teach" Is just my prefrence, not a biblical mandate for an overseer. 

So I have taken what they have said to heart and once more searched the scriptures to see if it does teach that sound doctrine would be reformed doctrine or if able to teach has anything to do with teaching the doctrines of grace and sovereignty of God.

And I think this passage teaches that as a pastor you must be able to teach these things, not only because it is faithful to God but also because it is most beneficial to the flock.

In it is see all points of tulip. And then it says for him to insist on these things. It even says they are excellent and profitable.

So would this be a good scripture to being up in the meeting to pushing back on the idea of it being a prefrence and actually showing that it is biblical for a pastor to believe, articulate, and proclaim these things. And if he cannot he is not fit for the office of a pastor at that time?

Another passage is 2 Tim 2 when he tells him to teachieve what has been entrusted to him to faithful men. And what was entrusted to him? I think it is what was taught in Chapter 1. It speaks about the testimony of God and how he saved us by the gospel. Speaks of some of the points of doctrines of grace. 

What do you think about what I am saying. and do you think that I am being extrabiblical and a Pharisee by adding to the bible?


----------



## aadebayo

I believe that the reformed doctrine is the only true and genuine doctrine. Arminianism is a form of heresy, because it in someway deviates from biblical doctrine. Scripture says that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. So any Arminian recruitment now will cause problems in the future.


----------



## Andres

Agreed with my brother above. Yes, of course all pastors should be reformed in their doctrine/theology. Reformed theology is biblical theology so why would anyone want/encourage a "minister" with aberrant theology.


----------



## Matthew1344

I also looked up the Greek word for sound and it means healthy. and arminianism leads to man centered salvation, pride, and a weak God. There is no way that theology is healthy. Therefore it would be unsound. 

So, then wouldn't that go against the qualifications?


----------



## Matthew1344

Can this Titus scripture be used to back up what we believe?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I think we need to make a distinction here between should and must. We could certainly make a good case for the former, but as far as the latter, such a requirement would disqualify the good majority of pastors.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

To the OP. How many pastors do you have in your one local church? Just curious. Also, if the "head pastor" is really Reformed, why in the world would he put Arminians in pastoral leadership roles? It seems to me that the leadership should model the doctrinal unity that is desired for the body at large.


----------



## TylerRay

There has to be an agreed-upon standard of doctrine (i. e., confession of faith) by which ministerial candidates are judged. Only men who meet that standard of doctrine are to be ordained. That is the reason that Reformed churches are confessional.


----------



## Gforce9

Jimmy the Greek said:


> To the OP. How many pastors do you have in your one local church? Just curious. Also, if the "head pastor" is really Reformed, why in the world would he put Arminians in pastoral leadership roles? It seems to me that the leadership should model the doctrinal unity that is desired for the body at large.



Good call, Jim. I came from an EFree church. The EFree still has an ecclesiological feet firmly planted in mid-air. Some congregations still have no elders.....to my knowledge, it isn't a prerequisite. The congregation I left had an elder board with two staunch Calvinists, a staunch more Semi-Pelagian-than-Arminian Dispensationalist, and men who are all points in between. I don't understand how there is any real unity in such a scenario....


----------



## Matthew1344

as of 7 months ago, we are no longer hiring any hard core arminians. If someone is underdeveloped in reformed doctrine and says "I'm not opposed to it. I believe most of it And I'm interested in learning more," and we like him, we would hire him. Right now we are at a place where we hire someone who claims they are a 4 pointer (doesn't agree with L), but pastor thinks they really do belive it but just can't articulate it and grasp it fully.

I don't know how many elders we have. I'm not real sure if we have any. I think we have a board but they primarily do buisness stuff. 

But to the OP, MUST pastors be able to understand articulate and proclaim reformed doctrine in regards to God's gospel and regeneration? Is knowing it and not being able to articulate it someone who is fit for an overseer?

so far we have "if they do that would disqualify most preachers". This is a right observation. But do you think above scripture and 2 timothy 1 and 2 make a case for reformed gospel is a must?


----------



## Matthew1344

Thank you for all of your posts!

and we hold to thishttp://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp


----------



## Matthew1344

So it's not like we are going against what we believe about hiring ministers. I am wondering if I have any scriptural ground to make a case that it would be of best interest of our church to change what we believe about how we do it. 

I have been told my belief is only a preference but not a biblical requirement. So I went home to look. But I know that it is easy to just see what you want to see in the bible and make stuff up. So I wanted to ask you guys if you think I am doing that.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Matt, I don't think these proof texts you think to show the pastors are to the point. Rather, throughout the Scriptures the so-called 5 points of Calvinism are exclusively taught. God is sovereign over all things pertaining to our salvation, and we are dead to Him and His kingdom except He regenerate us. And after He regenerates a person He keeps them so they cannot be lost again—enabling them (sometimes through serious discipline) to persevere in faith and holiness to the end of their lives on earth. Pastors who are Arminian think a person may come to Christ by simply deciding to do so, and may also be lost again if they decide to walk away.

The Reformed believe God chooses His people; Arminians believe people choose God.

Other churches may interpret the Scriptures differently (i.e., erroneously), which is why we have Confessional standards to make clear what we believe the Bible teaches. And, as has been noted above, there is more to God's sovereignty than just the issues of salvation.


----------



## Don Kistler

Jesus certainly seemed to think so. He said to Nicodemus, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?" He was referring to the new birth being something that God did from above, and not something that man could initiate on his own. And in saying this, He certainly seems to be saying that if someone did NOT understand this he should not be a teacher of Israel.


----------



## TylerRay

Matt, I have just looked up your church's confession of faith: http://www.lifepointchurch.org/about (scroll to "what we believe")

The statement on salvation seems to allow for both views:



> About Salvation
> 
> Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God’s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin’s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith.
> 
> Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 14:6, 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1



But the statement concerning Jesus Christ seems to disallow the Reformed position pretty explicitly:



> About Jesus Christ
> 
> Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is co-equal with the Father. Jesus lived a sinless human life and *offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all men* by dying on a cross. He arose from the dead after three days to demonstrate His power over sin and death. He ascended to Heaven’s glory and will return again to earth to reign as King of kings, and Lord of lords.
> 
> Matthew 1:22,23; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-5, 14:10-30; Hebrews 4:14,15; 1 Corinthians 15:3,4; Romans 1:3,4; Acts 1:9-11; Timothy 6:14,15; Titus 2:13


----------



## TylerRay

TylerRay said:


> Matt, I have just looked up your church's confession of faith: About LifePoint (scroll to "what we believe")
> 
> The statement on salvation seems to allow for both views:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About Salvation
> 
> Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God’s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin’s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith.
> 
> Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 14:6, 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the statement concerning Jesus Christ seems to disallow the Reformed position pretty explicitly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About Jesus Christ
> 
> Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is co-equal with the Father. Jesus lived a sinless human life and *offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all men* by dying on a cross. He arose from the dead after three days to demonstrate His power over sin and death. He ascended to Heaven’s glory and will return again to earth to reign as King of kings, and Lord of lords.
> 
> Matthew 1:22,23; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-5, 14:10-30; Hebrews 4:14,15; 1 Corinthians 15:3,4; Romans 1:3,4; Acts 1:9-11; Timothy 6:14,15; Titus 2:13
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I only bring this out because if your church is going to only ordain men who agree with their statement of faith, Reformed men seem to be necessarily excluded.


----------



## Matthew1344

Don Kistler said:


> Jesus certainly seemed to think so. He said to Nicodemus, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?" He was referring to the new birth being something that God did from above, and not something that man could initiate on his own. And in saying this, He certainly seems to be saying that if someone did NOT understand this he should not be a teacher of Israel.



I said this the other day to some people but totally forgot! Thanks!


----------



## Matthew1344

TylerRay said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt, I have just looked up your church's confession of faith: About LifePoint (scroll to "what we believe")
> 
> The statement on salvation seems to allow for both views:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About Salvation
> 
> Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God’s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin’s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith.
> 
> Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 14:6, 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the statement concerning Jesus Christ seems to disallow the Reformed position pretty explicitly:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About Jesus Christ
> 
> Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is co-equal with the Father. Jesus lived a sinless human life and *offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all men* by dying on a cross. He arose from the dead after three days to demonstrate His power over sin and death. He ascended to Heaven’s glory and will return again to earth to reign as King of kings, and Lord of lords.
> 
> Matthew 1:22,23; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-5, 14:10-30; Hebrews 4:14,15; 1 Corinthians 15:3,4; Romans 1:3,4; Acts 1:9-11; Timothy 6:14,15; Titus 2:13
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only bring this out because if your church is going to only ordain men who agree with their statement of faith, Reformed men seem to be necessarily excluded.
Click to expand...


Maybe they mean all types of men. I'll ask them! Thank you.


----------



## Matthew1344

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Matt, I don't think these proof texts you think to show the pastors are to the point. Rather, throughout the Scriptures the so-called 5 points of Calvinism are exclusively taught. God is sovereign over all things pertaining to our salvation, and we are dead to Him and His kingdom except He regenerate us. And after He regenerates a person He keeps them so they cannot be lost again—enabling them (sometimes through serious discipline) to persevere in faith and holiness to the end of their lives on earth. Pastors who are Arminian think a person may come to Christ by simply deciding to do so, and may also be lost again if they decide to walk away.
> 
> The Reformed believe God chooses His people; Arminians believe people choose God.
> 
> Other churches may interpret the Scriptures differently (i.e., erroneously), which is why we have Confessional standards to make clear what we believe the Bible teaches. And, as has been noted above, there is more to God's sovereignty than just the issues of salvation.



And our pastors said that they do not hire arminians anymore but we do hire people that cannot articulate God's sovereignty In all things. 

This is my issue. I believe someone who leads a flock must be able to guide people under the banner that God is Lord over all.

My pastors said that is a prefrence but not scripture.


----------



## Cymro

*Being Reformed*

Spurgeon wrote, "there is nothing new in theology save that which is false."
With a bucketful of poison you can poison a reservoir, and little foxes spoil 
the vine. Someone else wrote,"truth tolerates no error." You cannot have
contrary doctrine in the same pulpit, for if the trumpet sound an uncertain sound
who can prepare himself for the battle. There is nothing apart from sin as infectious 
as Arminianism.


----------



## TylerRay

Matthew1344 said:


> Thank you for all of your posts!
> 
> and we hold to thishttp://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp



I didn't see this before! Sorry!

The BFM has a more inclusive statement on Christ's atoning work than your particular congregation's:



> He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and *in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin*



Notice it says "redemption of men," rather than "for the sins of all men."

The BFM goes on to say:



> Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, *who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer*. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.


----------



## Nicholas Perella

Hi Mr. Ford,

If a pastor is a teacher and that is who a pastor is, then the question is what is the pastor going to teach?

I know you mentioned that the current pastors on the board (pastor's correct, not just ruling elders?) said they desire a docile pastor (docile is good), but a docile pastor? The pastor is somebody who teaches others and if he is docile and not ready to be steadfast in the Lord's teaching, then I would say that is a problem. Now maybe he is ready to stay steadfast in the Lord's teaching, but just needs to be instructed as to what the Lord's teaching is, then that is good, but that person is not a pastor. He is still a student. I mean what is he going to teach if he still has to be taught so he himself needs a teacher and therefore is not a teacher.

Is this a matter of trying to plant churches faster than the availability of pastor's to oversee the church? Are there that many churches without a minister? A shortage of ministers (pastors) is a historical problem, I mean Christ had to come to find his sheep for the current priesthood (during Christ's time) was not there for God but for their own sinful self-improvement (the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees).

A working out of ones own salvation is not a simple problem of how they think on paper or how they are applying and teaching others to work out their salvation (without God). It is the core issue of redemptive history. I mean this is what life is all about in the end. Yet there is more to what that kind of teaching and application in life demonstrates, especially upon others around them. If a person is only looking out for their own self in what is as precious as the blood of Christ for it was He who took it upon Himself to save others. So His blood is precious and has a real influence in the fulfillment by God and His covenant with His people. If that precious blood that God shed in His own Son is the central purpose of God's actions for His people. If that core reality of all realities - redemptive history in which God is redeeming His people by the cross and resurrection of Christ. The focal point of history itself being the cross and Christ's resurrection until He returns again. And somebody thinks they can do it on their own (Arminian) and teaches others that way. That person at his core where our pulse of life begins and ends in Christ - that person rejecting all of that - that person is selfish. Think about it. If a person does not understand Christ did it for them. If they can not teach that, then they are teaching prideful and arrogant things. That will lead to such a disaster not just on the doctrine of Christ but how people approach life in general. They will either be taught to look to God or themselves and when I am with somebody else I hope he is not solely just looking out for himself.

I have pride. I do arrogant things. Yet I thank God that He has enabled me to point to Christ. I pray that others attention will be brought to Christ by what I say and do because when I am - yes when I am - not pointing to Christ during that crucial time in another's life, I hope I am not impressing upon them my sin. For to look to ourselves and only our sinful ways is hopeless and does not encourage others in Christ. I hope that something of Christ and not of me is shared by me. I am tired of sin and this world. I yearn for Christ and His blessings and when there will be sin no more. I would rather be of company with people who desire the same so instead of trying to push others out of the way, we are looking out for each other.

Why could not such docile, potentially future pastors be taught first, then if they did learn, then come back before the board and demonstrate their teaching skill? I would hope the board would be involved in their instruction if they see such future pastors need that first. I mean the board from what you say knows what it is such potential pastors need in order to teach soundly. Or at least they could recommend godly instructors. If they are not taught what to teach, then to repeat what I said earlier - what will they teach?

Ambiguity only encourages sinful, selfish maturity, instead of the clarity of Christ and His gospel. Ambiguity leaves to much up to our sinful interpretation whereas the crisp, clear sound doctrine of Christ comes from God and He leads us away from our sinful, turbulent self toward a God who knows, understands, is truth, is our certainty, and loves.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

"And our pastors said that they do not hire arminians anymore but we do hire people that cannot articulate God's sovereignty In all things. 
This is my issue. I believe someone who leads a flock must be able to guide people under the banner that God is Lord over all.
My pastors said that is a prefrence but not scripture." Quoted from Matt Ford above.
---------
A Pastor, Overseer, Elder must be able to teach (Titus 1:9; 1 Tim 3:2)

All of the other qualifications given for overseers are character qualities. The "ability to teach" is the only ability-based requirement. He is to be able to teach sound doctrine, not just be able to communicate in an excellent manner. His teaching can be to one or two, to twenty, to a hundred or to a thousand. Most of the churches in Crete were house churches. The elders were to defend the faith once delivered to the saints against the numerous false teachers that arose.

So, Matt, it is not just a "preference."


----------



## TylerRay

Matt,

To apply what I've been saying to your current situation:

Yes, all pastors should be Reformed, in my opinion. But your church has already settled that matter in their standard of doctrine. There is nothing to hold them accountable to Reformed teaching. They have already agreed not to be a Reformed church, constitutionally (i. e., confessionally). They may fit some Reformed doctrine into their confession, but it by means holds them to it. I certainly sympathize with you, but you and your friends there at the church have no reason to expect Reformed pastors.


----------



## Matthew1344

TylerRay said:


> Matt,
> 
> To apply what I've been saying to your current situation:
> 
> Yes, all pastors should be Reformed, in my opinion. But your church has already settled that matter in their standard of doctrine. There is nothing to hold them accountable to Reformed teaching. They have already agreed not to be a Reformed church, constitutionally (i. e., confessionally). They may fit some Reformed doctrine into their confession, but it by means holds them to it. I certainly sympathize with you, but you and your friends there at the church have no reason to expect Reformed pastors.



I agree with this. This is why I said earlier that my church isn't compromising what we believe. But I would like to prompt us that we should change what we believe. But before I do ask them to change what we believe and what we do, I want to make sure that what I will ask us to believe is true. I don't want to go into a meeting and challenge the church to be extrabibiblical if extra biblical is what I am.being.


----------



## joebonni63

aadebayo said:


> I believe that the reformed doctrine is the only true and genuine doctrine. Arminianism is a form of heresy, because it in someway deviates from biblical doctrine. Scripture says that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. So any Arminian recruitment now will cause problems in the future.



coming out of a arminian church i see it as a cult so everything other than the reformed church is heresy.........


----------



## Matthew1344

joebonni63 said:


> aadebayo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the reformed doctrine is the only true and genuine doctrine. Arminianism is a form of heresy, because it in someway deviates from biblical doctrine. Scripture says that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. So any Arminian recruitment now will cause problems in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coming out of a arminian church i see it as a cult so everything other than the reformed church is heresy.........
Click to expand...


Is this a little extreme?


----------



## Justified

Matthew1344 said:


> joebonni63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aadebayo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the reformed doctrine is the only true and genuine doctrine. Arminianism is a form of heresy, because it in someway deviates from biblical doctrine. Scripture says that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. So any Arminian recruitment now will cause problems in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coming out of a arminian church i see it as a cult so everything other than the reformed church is heresy.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this a little extreme?
Click to expand...

Yes, it definitely is extreme. First, Arminianism isn't a cult; it has no characteristics of what it is to be a cult. Secondly, I wouldn't call it heresy simply because it's false. If that was the case, we would all be heretics; for each of us are human beings, and because we are sinful, our knowledge isn't perfect. I'd reserve heresy for much more grievous error.


----------



## joebonni63

How come you guys are not in a church that preaches that doctrine hey i know lets not be extreme Mormons and JW's I guess they are in tune also and bet you just love Benny Hinn he would never be called a heretic wow what was I thinking. Real simple if think reformed is off in theology what do you base your faith on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill The Baptist

joebonni63 said:


> How come you guys are not in a church that preaches that doctrine hey i know lets not be extreme Mormons and JW's I guess they are in tune also and bet you just love Benny Hinn he would never be called a heretic wow what was I thinking. Real simple if think reformed is off in theology what do you base your faith on.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Actually, one of the signs of cultic thinking is that 
you think EVERYONE else is in a cult.


----------



## joebonni63

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeri Tanner

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


----------



## nicnap

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Justified

nicnap said:


> I think there needs to be a clear differentiation between what is heresy and what is false teaching in this thread. Heresy is that which is soul-damning to hold to/believe. False teaching is that which is off, and can lead to heresy, but is not soul-damning.
> 
> Let's not get into "only the Reformed are saved" stuff. (No one has said it, but it does seem to be the trajectory that might be inferred by some reading this thread.) Very simply, we believe that men have to have faith in a perfect person in order to be saved. They do not have to have a perfect faith. (That is, every theological "T" crossed and "I" dotted.) The basic beliefs to which one must hold, in order to be considered a Christian, are set forth in the broadest creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and the Athanasian).
> 
> To the OP, the qualifications for an overseer are character traits, and none of them seem to be perfection in doctrine (I realize that is not what you said/are saying). *YES* we want all pastors to have correct doctrine at every point, but the fact is, we live in a fallen world, and that will not be the case. Men will grow---even Reformed men (and TULIP does not make one Reformed)---and some will even see change in their positions. Men who are called to preach will give account for such, which is why we know that James says what he does.
> 
> In confessional, Reformed churches, men are to be Reformed in doctrine. In churches that are not confessional or Reformed, men will likely not be. Does this mean they are not preaching the Gospel or the Word rightly? (At some points, yes.) However, where they are seeking to be faithful to Scripture, they will preach the Word---and the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God. (Insert "blind squirrel" analogy here.)
> 
> The first text which you set out has nothing to do with qualifications for a pastor. Paul instructs Titus to instruct those in the flock, "to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people," because when we were lost we acted in the same way. There is nothing in line with qualifications for pastors here---except a simple instruction from Paul to Titus on what to instruct people. From verse three through seven he is describing salvation as it is brought to believers, and then he picks back up at verse 8 in what he is instructing Titus. There is absolutely nothing in this about having to hold to TULIP in order to be a pastor. Again, *yes* we want men to be Reformed, because it is the true faith; however if that is what you want in a church---why not leave and go to a Reformed church?
> 
> On that note, concerning your meetings with your friends and pastors (which, I thought you were one; your signature says you are ordained...), are you all meeting in order to "make demands?" What is the nature of these meetings? Are they well-received by the pastor(s)? As Tyler has pointed out, and I might do so a little more bluntly: You are NOT in a Reformed church, which is why the pastors/elders are not seeking to call strictly Reformed men. I appreciate that you are seeking to "stick it out" at the church, but have your views changed since you were ordained/hired? If so, would you be best suited to find something that is more in line with your new, reforming views rather than trying to change this church?



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


----------



## Justified

joebonni63 said:


> How come you guys are not in a church that preaches that doctrine hey i know lets not be extreme Mormons and JW's I guess they are in tune also and bet you just love Benny Hinn he would never be called a heretic wow what was I thinking. Real simple if think reformed is off in theology what do you base your faith on.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


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

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

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

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


----------



## SolamVeritatem

nicnap said:


> I think there needs to be a clear differentiation between what is heresy and what is false teaching in this thread. Heresy is that which is soul-damning to hold to/believe. False teaching is that which is off, and can lead to heresy, but is not soul-damning.
> 
> Let's not get into "only the Reformed are saved" stuff. (No one has said it, but it does seem to be the trajectory that might be inferred by some reading this thread.) Very simply, we believe that men have to have faith in a perfect person in order to be saved. They do not have to have a perfect faith. (That is, every theological "T" crossed and "I" dotted.) The basic beliefs to which one must hold, in order to be considered a Christian, are set forth in the broadest creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and the Athanasian).
> 
> To the OP, the qualifications for an overseer are character traits, and none of them seem to be perfection in doctrine (I realize that is not what you said/are saying). *YES* we want all pastors to have correct doctrine at every point, but the fact is, we live in a fallen world, and that will not be the case. Men will grow---even Reformed men (and TULIP does not make one Reformed)---and some will even see change in their positions. Men who are called to preach will give account for such, which is why we know that James says what he does.
> 
> In confessional, Reformed churches, men are to be Reformed in doctrine. In churches that are not confessional or Reformed, men will likely not be. Does this mean they are not preaching the Gospel or the Word rightly? (At some points, yes.) However, where they are seeking to be faithful to Scripture, they will preach the Word---and the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God. (Insert "blind squirrel" analogy here.)
> 
> The first text which you set out has nothing to do with qualifications for a pastor. Paul instructs Titus to instruct those in the flock, "to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people," because when we were lost we acted in the same way. There is nothing in line with qualifications for pastors here---except a simple instruction from Paul to Titus on what to instruct people. From verse three through seven he is describing salvation as it is brought to believers, and then he picks back up at verse 8 in what he is instructing Titus. There is absolutely nothing in this about having to hold to TULIP in order to be a pastor. Again, *yes* we want men to be Reformed, because it is the true faith; however if that is what you want in a church---why not leave and go to a Reformed church?
> 
> On that note, concerning your meetings with your friends and pastors (which, I thought you were one; your signature says you are ordained...), are you all meeting in order to "make demands?" What is the nature of these meetings? Are they well-received by the pastor(s)? As Tyler has pointed out, and I might do so a little more bluntly: You are NOT in a Reformed church, which is why the pastors/elders are not seeking to call strictly Reformed men. I appreciate that you are seeking to "stick it out" at the church, but have your views changed since you were ordained/hired? If so, would you be best suited to find something that is more in line with your new, reforming views rather than trying to change this church?


----------



## Don Kistler

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

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

He replied, "No."

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

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


----------



## joebonni63

Justified said:


> joebonni63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come you guys are not in a church that preaches that doctrine hey i know lets not be extreme Mormons and JW's I guess they are in tune also and bet you just love Benny Hinn he would never be called a heretic wow what was I thinking. Real simple if think reformed is off in theology what do you base your faith on.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Friend, I did not anywhere condone the teachings of Benny Hinn. In fact it is for that reason I want to make a distinction between the damnable teachings of the prosperity gospel and the typical evangelical Arminian. Let us not exclude our Arminian brothers from the kingdom of Christ.
> 
> They may believe in false doctrine, and it may be a serious fault in their theology, but there are many Arminians who love Jesus. Let us like good Calvinists realize that, if it weren't for God's grace, we wouldn't be where we are at, nor would we have the sweet savor of the Doctrines of Grace that we hold so dear. We ought to be patient and gentle with our Arminian brothers.
> 
> To answer your last question, I first base my faith on my Lord Jesus Christ who, as Paul said, "loved me and gave himself for me" (Galatians 2:20). I am an evangelical first and reformed second. I exhort you, brother, to be more gracious with Arminians, who are your dear brothers in Christ.
> 
> I apologize if my above post seemed too abrasive. The medium of the internet has a way of not expressing tone in the way we want it to.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Matthew1344

nicnap said:


> I think there needs to be a clear differentiation between what is heresy and what is false teaching in this thread. Heresy is that which is soul-damning to hold to/believe. False teaching is that which is off, and can lead to heresy, but is not soul-damning.
> 
> Let's not get into "only the Reformed are saved" stuff. (No one has said it, but it does seem to be the trajectory that might be inferred by some reading this thread.) Very simply, we believe that men have to have faith in a perfect person in order to be saved. They do not have to have a perfect faith. (That is, every theological "T" crossed and "I" dotted.) The basic beliefs to which one must hold, in order to be considered a Christian, are set forth in the broadest creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and the Athanasian).
> 
> To the OP, the qualifications for an overseer are character traits, and none of them seem to be perfection in doctrine (I realize that is not what you said/are saying). *YES* we want all pastors to have correct doctrine at every point, but the fact is, we live in a fallen world, and that will not be the case. Men will grow---even Reformed men (and TULIP does not make one Reformed)---and some will even see change in their positions. Men who are called to preach will give account for such, which is why we know that James says what he does.
> 
> In confessional, Reformed churches, men are to be Reformed in doctrine. In churches that are not confessional or Reformed, men will likely not be. Does this mean they are not preaching the Gospel or the Word rightly? (At some points, yes.) However, where they are seeking to be faithful to Scripture, they will preach the Word---and the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God. (Insert "blind squirrel" analogy here.)
> 
> The first text which you set out has nothing to do with qualifications for a pastor. Paul instructs Titus to instruct those in the flock, "to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people," because when we were lost we acted in the same way. There is nothing in line with qualifications for pastors here---except a simple instruction from Paul to Titus on what to instruct people. From verse three through seven he is describing salvation as it is brought to believers, and then he picks back up at verse 8 in what he is instructing Titus. There is absolutely nothing in this about having to hold to TULIP in order to be a pastor. Again, *yes* we want men to be Reformed, because it is the true faith; however if that is what you want in a church---why not leave and go to a Reformed church?
> 
> On that note, concerning your meetings with your friends and pastors (which, I thought you were one; your signature says you are ordained...), are you all meeting in order to "make demands?" What is the nature of these meetings? Are they well-received by the pastor(s)? As Tyler has pointed out, and I might do so a little more bluntly: You are NOT in a Reformed church, which is why the pastors/elders are not seeking to call strictly Reformed men. I appreciate that you are seeking to "stick it out" at the church, but have your views changed since you were ordained/hired? If so, would you be best suited to find something that is more in line with your new, reforming views rather than trying to change this church?



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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Marcus417

Matthew1344 said:


> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there needs to be a clear differentiation between what is heresy and what is false teaching in this thread. Heresy is that which is soul-damning to hold to/believe. False teaching is that which is off, and can lead to heresy, but is not soul-damning.
> 
> Let's not get into "only the Reformed are saved" stuff. (No one has said it, but it does seem to be the trajectory that might be inferred by some reading this thread.) Very simply, we believe that men have to have faith in a perfect person in order to be saved. They do not have to have a perfect faith. (That is, every theological "T" crossed and "I" dotted.) The basic beliefs to which one must hold, in order to be considered a Christian, are set forth in the broadest creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and the Athanasian).
> 
> To the OP, the qualifications for an overseer are character traits, and none of them seem to be perfection in doctrine (I realize that is not what you said/are saying). *YES* we want all pastors to have correct doctrine at every point, but the fact is, we live in a fallen world, and that will not be the case. Men will grow---even Reformed men (and TULIP does not make one Reformed)---and some will even see change in their positions. Men who are called to preach will give account for such, which is why we know that James says what he does.
> 
> In confessional, Reformed churches, men are to be Reformed in doctrine. In churches that are not confessional or Reformed, men will likely not be. Does this mean they are not preaching the Gospel or the Word rightly? (At some points, yes.) However, where they are seeking to be faithful to Scripture, they will preach the Word---and the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God. (Insert "blind squirrel" analogy here.)
> 
> The first text which you set out has nothing to do with qualifications for a pastor. Paul instructs Titus to instruct those in the flock, "to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people," because when we were lost we acted in the same way. There is nothing in line with qualifications for pastors here---except a simple instruction from Paul to Titus on what to instruct people. From verse three through seven he is describing salvation as it is brought to believers, and then he picks back up at verse 8 in what he is instructing Titus. There is absolutely nothing in this about having to hold to TULIP in order to be a pastor. Again, *yes* we want men to be Reformed, because it is the true faith; however if that is what you want in a church---why not leave and go to a Reformed church?
> 
> On that note, concerning your meetings with your friends and pastors (which, I thought you were one; your signature says you are ordained...), are you all meeting in order to "make demands?" What is the nature of these meetings? Are they well-received by the pastor(s)? As Tyler has pointed out, and I might do so a little more bluntly: You are NOT in a Reformed church, which is why the pastors/elders are not seeking to call strictly Reformed men. I appreciate that you are seeking to "stick it out" at the church, but have your views changed since you were ordained/hired? If so, would you be best suited to find something that is more in line with your new, reforming views rather than trying to change this church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not open to what I am saying. There is another pastor that believes that a confession would greatly help our church and only reformed pastors should be in the pulpit but he is not one to descisions like these. Our senior and executive pastor are. He is only a campus pastor.
> 
> I have changed in my beliefs since I have become ordained. I changed when I was on the missionfield. I began believing there should be a higher standard of understamding the scriptures for pastors to be held to. I began seeing this because on the field there were 7 guys and only 2 reformed. This ratio made many confused Thai disciples and alot of re teaching. Also, alot of disagreement on how to evangelize. It was exhausting mentally, spiritually, and emotuonally.
> 
> And on the above Titus verse, Paul instructs Titus to insist on these things because they are trustworthy, excellent, profitable, and lead to good works. These things are the 5 points.
> 
> For we were once - T
> He saved us - D
> not according - U
> by the washing - I
> justified...Eternal life - P
> 
> So if Titus is insisted to preach these things, are not all pastors supposed to teach this trustworthy word so that they can teach sound doctrine and defend truth and attack falsehood.
> 
> I make the connection with ch3 (Doctrines of Grace) and ch1 (sound docrine) because in 1:9 he says "teach what is trustworthy" and ch 3 he says "this is trustworthy"
Click to expand...



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

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

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


----------



## aadebayo

Jimmy the Greek said:


> "And our pastors said that they do not hire arminians anymore but we do hire people that cannot articulate God's sovereignty In all things.
> This is my issue. I believe someone who leads a flock must be able to guide people under the banner that God is Lord over all.
> My pastors said that is a prefrence but not scripture." Quoted from Matt Ford above.
> ---------
> A Pastor, Overseer, Elder must be able to teach (Titus 1:9; 1 Tim 3:2)
> 
> All of the other qualifications given for overseers are character qualities. The "ability to teach" is the only ability-based requirement. He is to be able to teach sound doctrine, not just be able to communicate in an excellent manner. His teaching can be to one or two, to twenty, to a hundred or to a thousand. Most of the churches in Crete were house churches. The elders were to defend the faith once delivered to the saints against the numerous false teachers that arose.
> 
> So, Matt, it is not just a "preference."



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


----------



## joebonni63

nicnap said:


> I think there needs to be a clear differentiation between what is heresy and what is false teaching in this thread. Heresy is that which is soul-damning to hold to/believe. False teaching is that which is off, and can lead to heresy, but is not soul-damning.
> 
> Let's not get into "only the Reformed are saved" stuff. (No one has said it, but it does seem to be the trajectory that might be inferred by some reading this thread.) Very simply, we believe that men have to have faith in a perfect person in order to be saved. They do not have to have a perfect faith. (That is, every theological "T" crossed and "I" dotted.) The basic beliefs to which one must hold, in order to be considered a Christian, are set forth in the broadest creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and the Athanasian).
> 
> To the OP, the qualifications for an overseer are character traits, and none of them seem to be perfection in doctrine (I realize that is not what you said/are saying). *YES* we want all pastors to have correct doctrine at every point, but the fact is, we live in a fallen world, and that will not be the case. Men will grow---even Reformed men (and TULIP does not make one Reformed)---and some will even see change in their positions. Men who are called to preach will give account for such, which is why we know that James says what he does.
> 
> In confessional, Reformed churches, men are to be Reformed in doctrine. In churches that are not confessional or Reformed, men will likely not be. Does this mean they are not preaching the Gospel or the Word rightly? (At some points, yes.) However, where they are seeking to be faithful to Scripture, they will preach the Word---and the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God. (Insert "blind squirrel" analogy here.)
> 
> The first text which you set out has nothing to do with qualifications for a pastor. Paul instructs Titus to instruct those in the flock, "to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people," because when we were lost we acted in the same way. There is nothing in line with qualifications for pastors here---except a simple instruction from Paul to Titus on what to instruct people. From verse three through seven he is describing salvation as it is brought to believers, and then he picks back up at verse 8 in what he is instructing Titus. There is absolutely nothing in this about having to hold to TULIP in order to be a pastor. Again, *yes* we want men to be Reformed, because it is the true faith; however if that is what you want in a church---why not leave and go to a Reformed church?
> 
> On that note, concerning your meetings with your friends and pastors (which, I thought you were one; your signature says you are ordained...), are you all meeting in order to "make demands?" What is the nature of these meetings? Are they well-received by the pastor(s)? As Tyler has pointed out, and I might do so a little more bluntly: You are NOT in a Reformed church, which is why the pastors/elders are not seeking to call strictly Reformed men. I appreciate that you are seeking to "stick it out" at the church, but have your views changed since you were ordained/hired? If so, would you be best suited to find something that is more in line with your new, reforming views rather than trying to change this church?



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


----------



## joebonni63

Justified said:


> joebonni63 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come you guys are not in a church that preaches that doctrine hey i know lets not be extreme Mormons and JW's I guess they are in tune also and bet you just love Benny Hinn he would never be called a heretic wow what was I thinking. Real simple if think reformed is off in theology what do you base your faith on.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Friend, I did not anywhere condone the teachings of Benny Hinn. In fact it is for that reason I want to make a distinction between the damnable teachings of the prosperity gospel and the typical evangelical Arminian. Let us not exclude our Arminian brothers from the kingdom of Christ.
> 
> They may believe in false doctrine, and it may be a serious fault in their theology, but there are many Arminians who love Jesus. Let us like good Calvinists realize that, if it weren't for God's grace, we wouldn't be where we are at, nor would we have the sweet savor of the Doctrines of Grace that we hold so dear. We ought to be patient and gentle with our Arminian brothers.
> 
> To answer your last question, I first base my faith on my Lord Jesus Christ who, as Paul said, "loved me and gave himself for me" (Galatians 2:20). I am an evangelical first and reformed second. I exhort you, brother, to be more gracious with Arminians, who are your dear brothers in Christ.
> 
> I apologize if my above post seemed too abrasive. The medium of the internet has a way of not expressing tone in the way we want it to.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Matthew1344

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


----------



## TylerRay

Matt,

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


----------



## Eoghan

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

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

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


----------



## Physeter

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

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


----------

