# Do all churches/denominations compromise?



## Santos (Jan 20, 2019)

I'm not sure that this is the right place for my post or if my title is sufficient for my question(s). But here it is. Over the last year and a half or so my family and I have become reformed in our theology and practice and we continue to grow in the reformed tradition. We drive several towns over to attend a reformed church each Lord's day with the exception of illness or vehicle troubles. I have begun to catechise my children using the Westminster Shorter Catechism. (Starting question 19 tonight) We listen to reformed sermons, read reformed books (currently working my way through The Institutes) but we are beginning to find some of the same troublesome trends in the reformed church that we attend, that we previously encountered in our seeker sensitive, liberal, Arminian local congregation. Things such as the RUF minister quoting liberal/woke preachers. And the church teaming up with non-reformed and even heretical (Pentecostal/prosperity) churches for city wide men's groups. Or joining up with non reformed missions groups to share in resources. Books in the church lobby for sale by liberal "reformed" preachers. And the likes of these.

So is this everywhere? Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? Is this all there is? Shouldn't reformed congregations oppose ecumenism? Should I not be able to trust that whomever the elders recommend in the way of theology, preaching, and teaching are not solid beyond question? And if your answer is no to any or all of these then what is the answer? Where do we go from here? Can you recommend a church planter? Can someone help us please?

Grace and peace,
Santos


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 20, 2019)

_*The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;* and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to his will._

100% of churches compromise SOMEWHERE.


Be a Berean. 

If the Bereans searched the Scriptures daily to double-check on the APOSTLE Paul, then you should triple-check your own local reformed elders.

_These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so._

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 20, 2019)

_So is this everywhere? _Not necessarily. Being "subject" to error doesn't mean "in compromise." Every church is subject to it, but every church doesn't necessarily compromise. (Like every Christian is subject to temptation, but not necessarily in every sin tempted to.)

_Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill?_ Not necessarily; it depends on the compromise and what the leaders are compromsing on. Is it the color of the hymnal, or is it the mission of the church? Those are very different things.

_Is this all there is?_ I dont know what you are getting at. Do you mean "we have to play the cards we are dealt?" _Its just the way it is?_ No. That's why we pray for revival and reform. Or we are used by God to enact it.

_Shouldn't reformed congregations oppose ecumenism? _Depends on the ecumenical aspects. Would I let a liberal preach in our church? No. An Arminian? No. An independent? Depends on the independent. Jeremiah Burroughs....all day long. I've personally preached in churches that have asked me to send them my sermon outline before preaching. That's a good practice. They are being careful.

_Should I not be able to trust that whomever the elders recommend in the way of theology, preaching, and teaching are not solid beyond question?_ Yes, you should be able to trust them. Leaders in any church ought to be vetting who takes over their pulpit, to watch over the well being of the church. That includes materials in the foyer, or books they recommend. They should be ashamed if they're not doing that faithfully, because they're not doing what Christ specifically requires of them as one who watches over the flock. 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. As well as Gal. 1:9-11. Wolves abound!

_And if your answer is no to any or all of these then what is the answer?_ There are a great many answers here, but the first and most simple is 1 Thess. 5:17.

_Where do we go from here?_ 1 Thess 5:17.

On this issue of compromise, everyone (especially ministers) should take time to read through the sermons of the puritans on covenanting and vows. Calamy, Manton, etc. In regards to upholding one's vows, exception taking from historic Christian truth (_contra_ confessional subscriptionalism) will continue and churches will slowly, or quickly in some cases, degenerate into synagogues of Satan.
Revelation 2:5, "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will _remove_ thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent."

I can tell you from personal experience, as a parishioner in churches under very famous presbyterian and reformed baptist ministers at different times, those you would know today, that I couldn't reside there very long because of the compromise that stretched from the foyer (with horribly deviant Arminian books and pamphlets), to the compromise in new members classes, to watered down preaching in the pulpit, to General compromising conversation among the elders, to just the overall terrible nature how the church conducts herself today in order to keep the peace among the people so that they can afford big buildings and big ministries by playing the nicety card. Running the church like a business always leads there, and its disgusting when it occurs. You might ask, in those churches was there anything good? They were, at the time, the "best church I could find in my area." You might ask, were you blessed by them? In the Presbyerian church at that time, no. Literally, it was a difficult time all around, a fight for the bible and WCF every week. (And they closed up shop). In the Reformed Baptist church, yes, blessed in MANY ways, even though I disagreed with the elders on certain issues where they departed from the 1689 confession at the time.

(Side note: Some people will tell you to move where there is a good church, a faithful church. That could be an answer, but only after a good amount of counsel and prayer. A lot of people will tell you to do that who won't do it themselves. Ideally, it may be an option, but its very difficult to do practically. There are some threads dealing with that here on the board that have good counsel in them.)

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Jake (Jan 20, 2019)

Every single church I am in has had something I disagreed with. I've been a member of the church since I was a very young child and have regularly attended and been members of several churches, including Reformed churches for my adult life. There have been problems with sin, there have been disagreements I've had with the leadership, there have been differences I've had with how the church worshipped.

But as Pergamum quoted from the WCF/LBCF above, every church is indeed subject to a mixture of error. I could easily focus on the disagreements I've had, but I've also been blessed by every church I've been in. Even the non-Reformed church I grew up in, which was still an Evangelical church, still did many things right and had many great Christian folks in it, even though it had some big blindspots. I've learned from older Christians, from the elders God has placed over me, and grown in grace in Christ's church even among those whom I disagree. That said, I have been blessed in the Reformed churches I have been in for there to be far more good than bad, but it can be easy to focus on the bad which is not edifying. 

What I recommend to people is to find the best church you can in your local area and stick with it. If it's not somewhere you can worship and serve in good conscience, then move or work on finding people to plant a church in your area (but keep attending the best church you can find in the meantime). But make sure you are serving too. Get to know the people in your church, volunteer (every church of every size has a need for people to volunteer), and use your gifts as God has equipped you.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Kinghezy (Jan 20, 2019)

Jake said:


> What I recommend to people is to find the best church you can in your local area and stick with it.


I agree. I have in my head (cannot track down quickly) that this advice is something either Robert Godfrey and/or R Scott Clark has given. It was at least from someone who I would put in the "Truly Reformed" camp. If it is something that you can live with, being involved in the church you may be able to help influence practices.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2019)

I would echo what has been said thus far. Though, in an absolute sense, as Amos writes:

Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Amos 3:3

It is hard for my family to 'walk together' w/ our church (absolutely) in that they are not EP nor do they serve wine in the supper; Some accommodations have been made by my pastor in that my family sits somewhat separated from the congregation (in the last row of the balcony area) and a elder brings us a special tray w/ wine. No one has asked us why we don't sing the hymns nor "What is the elder bringing you during the supper?" The confession is a whole another subject.

Digressing, I agree w/ Jake above; I have never been in a church where I agreed with every jot and tittle anyways. I would never say that my being a member makes the church any better than it was. The body is a fragile organism and God has shown me grace in being tolerant of the weakness she has. I am far from perfect and the last thing I would want is anyone getting into my underwear drawer, vetting all the garbage still in my heart and life. So yea, it's better to be in a church, even a weak one, than not being in one at all.

Lastly, on the subject of compromise; the term needs some defining; most all PCA churches, along w/ their GA, would say that they do not compromise in the way that they have discerned what Westminster meant by this and that. In reformed settings, the PCA would be considered a tad liberal (some more liberal than others), when compared to the OPC, RPCNA etc. Can it really be said that they are compromising? I don't believe they are compromising the main tenets of the faith. They have their 3 marks; so 'compromise' would be graded on curves based on wisdom and knowledge given them by Christ. I can't rightfully fault these weaker congregations based on a conviction that they do not truly hold to.

Reactions: Like 2 | Sad 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 20, 2019)

This point has to be more appreciated by strictly confessional types as the danger most faced by Presbyterians who take its core principles seriously tends to be falling into Separatism of some sort. I.e. that we somehow partake of the sins of an imperfect church by being in it and that physical separation is the only cure rather than simply refraining from a specific practice (i.e. if an exclusive psalm singer, not singing the hymns). We can argue and disagree over when one is free to move on to a better church, whether commitments to the not so better demand more consideration etc., but separation only becomes necessary when membership requires us to sin against conscience (i.e. if the elders insist you have to sing whatever they approve; and there are churches that operate like that).



Scott Bushey said:


> So yea, it's better to be in a church, even a weak one, than not being in one at all.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheInquirer (Jan 20, 2019)

Some great wisdom given so far. I think many of us feel this tension continually in one way or another. You start to see more problem areas the more you grow in knowledge and maturity in the faith.

From what you mentioned, I would be concerned about what your church is doing and it may be worth a respectful conversation with the pastor and ask why and how those actions cohere (or not) with their stated beliefs.

Geographical limitations are a real concern. You only have access to the churches you can reasonably transport yourself and your family to on a regular basis. We make the best choices with the options we have. I agree that moving may or may not be the answer. Moving is a big decision with a lot of factors to consider.

I was reminded this week that God often forms his people through conflict and tension. You look at so many of the great theological works and what kind of soil they grew out of - almost always tension and conflict.

Since I cannot control the actions of others, I need to keep asking myself regularly - "How is God shaping me through this? What kind of convictions is he building in me through this current conflict?"


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 20, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> if the elders insist you have to sing whatever they approve; and there are churches that operate like that).



Yes, I've been in that very situation, sadly.


----------



## Edward (Jan 20, 2019)

Santos said:


> Over the last year and a half or so my family and I have become reformed in our theology and practice and we continue to grow in the reformed tradition.



Sounds like there is a possibility that you may still be 'cage stage'.

Some of your concerns sound like they _may_ have a legitimate basis, others don't. There is not really sufficient detail in your report to assess most of your complaints.

Most churches lack the resources to go it alone, and it can be poor stewardship to try to duplicate successful operations. So when it comes to ministering to the hungry - are you going to say 1) that's not something we care about, 2) let's open a competing soup kitchen although we aren't as well located as the existing operation and it means we'll have to cut the budget for most other mission activities or 3) let's cooperate with the successful operation run by the well located PCUSA church that will let us come in periodically with the reformed truths.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Santos (Jan 20, 2019)

Edward said:


> Sounds like there is a possibility that you may still be 'cage stage'.
> 
> Some of your concerns sound like they _may_ have a legitimate basis, others don't. There is not really sufficient detail in your report to assess most of your complaints.
> 
> Most churches lack the resources to go it alone, and it can be poor stewardship to try to duplicate successful operations. So when it comes to ministering to the hungry - are you going to say 1) that's not something we care about, 2) let's open a competing soup kitchen although we aren't as well located as the existing operation and it means we'll have to cut the budget for most other mission activities or 3) let's cooperate with the successful operation run by the well located PCUSA church that will let us come in periodically with the reformed truths.


Ah, the dreaded cage stage. Perhaps. But I don't think that I'm being very unreasonable. Let me out of this cage and we'll see.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 20, 2019)

Santos, you mentioned an RUF minister but have a Baptist Church in your signature. Which do you attend?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 20, 2019)

RC Sproul told an account of his ordination where he and another candidate were going for ordination. Before being examined, the other candidate said to him, "should I go with the resurrection or not?" Sproul agast, said, "Of course. But dont you believe in the resurrection?" The fellow said, "Of course not." Sproul told him that when he's questioned about it, he should "tell the truth." The guy told him after the fact that he answered afirming it, but had his fingers crossed, so as to be able to uphold his lie genuinely. 

That can be somewhat applicable to the difficulty of why there are so many compromises, in so many areas, in so many churches. If the difficulty with truth begins with crossed fingered pastors, what will become of the unsuspecting sheep?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 20, 2019)

I don't know much about your church, but the four things I read I wouldn't be too concerned about unless your see bad doctrine and bad living in the life of the leaders. I think it's fine to qoute any Christian as long as it's truth. One of my favorite authors will quote Calvin, Edwards, then Max Lucado on the same page. To me that shows that he is very researched. As long as a church isn't heretical, they should assist each other in service and missions. This is a good thing as we are called to unite as one body in Christ. As far as books, if a book is good and biblical, it doesn't matter who wrote it in a sense. My pastor is very precise, and we've read through books from authors he doesn't agree with everything about, but because they wrote a good book on a certain subject, we would read it.

I don't know all the details, but those things don't sound major. Are your leaders godly and doctrinally sound? If so, I would probably back down a bit and ask yourself if part of this is zeal without much formed wisdom.

I wish you the best.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 20, 2019)

I agree with Ed, there's more information needed to assess.

Paul quoted from pagan poets, so I don't see anything necessarily inherently wrong in quoting a more liberal preacher. Though personally I would want to qualify it; and I wouldn't try to recommend it; but I see nothing at all inherently wrong quoting someone with significantly different views if the quote is good. C.S. Lewis had some pretty strange theology at points, etc, but I'll quote him. The city-wide men group thing, I also don't see that as inherently wrong, though I would understand why you wouldn't want to use your time for that. So just don't go? I also don't see anything wrong in sharing resources, if they're worth their weight.

A lot of these sound like personal convictions to me. If they bug you maybe the place to start is going to leadership and voicing your concerns.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 21, 2019)

Being overseas I am just happy to meet a Christian of any stripe and would be glad to worship with them.

In the USA, by contrast, I've met folks trying to plant "Truly Reformed" churches in major cities in the US, sometimes claiming "there is no true gospel witness in this city" - (a blatant lie).

The BEST homework I was given during missionary training was to find a church in my area which troubled me. This church would not be apostate or heretical but would contain very different doctrine and worship styles. My assignment was to attend this "Different Church" for 3 months and to simply love the people and refrain from sitting in judgment of them. This was excellent practice for moving overseas.

I ended up going to a Full Gospel Church and even preaching for them (on the sufficiency of the Word of God, done in a non-confrontational way that was not polemical and in a way that they could yell "amen" to my message....and boy, did they ever yell AMEN a lot in that church...and got up and jumped up and down). Besides some of the tastiest food I ever ate, I do believe there were many true Christians in that church despite their gymnastics in the pew and their near-aerobic workouts during the singing. And they never minded that I just stood there to sing instead of swaying about.

I believe many of the Reformed equate holiness with strictness of doctrine and rigidity instead of love to God and the brethren. This creates a strictness and tendency to judge in the name of discernment. But the Apostle Paul in Romans 14 seems to tell us that love towards the brethren is more important than minor theological matters such as days, etc.

If we believe we are the stronger brother, then we can bear with the weaker brother by loving his church despite its faults (and without always pushing...pushing...pushing...a hidden agenda to "reform it" through constant complaint or protest). All who love the Lord Jesus are saved, despite some major shortcomings in doctrine. Therefore, we ought to love them.

The time is coming when our grandchildren will be glad to be "mere Christians" defending one another against persecution and prosecution in the West for not worshipping the Beast. They will not care about EP or non-EP; they will merely be glad to have a friendly ally in the fight as our foes hound us and take away, first, our social media rights and free speech, then our jobs, then our homes and our children for not indocrinating them in the State Religion, and, finally, our lives. In that day we will be glad for merely knowing others who love Christ.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 21, 2019)

Santos said:


> Things such as the RUF minister quoting liberal/woke preachers. And the church teaming up with non-reformed and even heretical (Pentecostal/prosperity) churches for city wide men's groups. Or joining up with non reformed missions groups to share in resources. Books in the church lobby for sale by liberal "reformed" preachers. And the likes of these.



How exactly are you defining liberal? I get the impression from your comments that you are referring to the likes of Tim Keller et al. These people are problematic in some respects, but they are hardly liberals. Besides, if the quote is a good one, does it really matter who the source is? 



Santos said:


> Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill?



Some of the things that you mention perhaps ought to be gently discouraged, but I suspect that, yes, you probably are making a mountain out of a molehill. Besides, as someone who is new to the Reformed faith (and if you are a Baptist you are not Reformed), you especially should be more swift to listen than to speak.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Jan 21, 2019)

Are you a member of this church? (I think not based on OP but cannot tell for certain.)

If not,

you have more freedom for looking at another church. I think other posts have done a great job of showing that you probably will not find the ideal. @Scott Bushey '' example struck me with how he is so convinced of the communion administration that their family is "set apart" (not necessarily in a good way) with how it is taken. (Sidenote: my church has those platters for the small cups, and puts the wine in the center and the grape juice at the outside. I cannot tell how it is distributed, but I wonder if that would be a less ostracizing compromise.)
You should be even more careful with how much you push on them without having taken a oath that you are committed.
If you are a member, vice versus.​Are you a member of another church? If so, have you talked to/informed an elder (or whatever the term is at that church) that you are considering leaving? Have you considered if maybe you should stay at that church?

That itself is not a decision to take lightly.​


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 21, 2019)

I think there is a lot of compromise in many churches and denominations, much of it unintentional (especially on the part of laypeople). 

I think there’s a better way to think about this very real problem other than the two choices of “get over it and learn to love people” and “I can’t worship with these people.” We shouldn’t get over it when God’s will for the church and how she is to worship him is the issue. We should long for and pray that he will bring reformation and revive us in his ways, for his glory and our good. But we have to find a way to live in peace in our particular circumstances (his Providence). This is where seeking to be content in it comes in; we can be comforted in knowing that our prayers for God’s ways to be made known will be used by God for the good of his church. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with praying for a work of reformation in one’s area, or joining up with one if you find that there is one- we just have to watch our hearts and seek the peace and good of the brothers and sisters we may part from.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 21, 2019)

Santos said:


> I'm not sure that this is the right place for my post or if my title is sufficient for my question(s). But here it is. Over the last year and a half or so my family and I have become reformed in our theology and practice and we continue to grow in the reformed tradition. We drive several towns over to attend a reformed church each Lord's day with the exception of illness or vehicle troubles. I have begun to catechise my children using the Westminster Shorter Catechism. (Starting question 19 tonight) We listen to reformed sermons, read reformed books (currently working my way through The Institutes) but we are beginning to find some of the same troublesome trends in the reformed church that we attend, that we previously encountered in our seeker sensitive, liberal, Arminian local congregation. Things such as the RUF minister quoting liberal/woke preachers. And the church teaming up with non-reformed and even heretical (Pentecostal/prosperity) churches for city wide men's groups. Or joining up with non reformed missions groups to share in resources. Books in the church lobby for sale by liberal "reformed" preachers. And the likes of these.
> 
> So is this everywhere? Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? Is this all there is? Shouldn't reformed congregations oppose ecumenism? Should I not be able to trust that whomever the elders recommend in the way of theology, preaching, and teaching are not solid beyond question? And if your answer is no to any or all of these then what is the answer? Where do we go from here? Can you recommend a church planter? Can someone help us please?
> 
> ...


All churches have some degree of mixing between the saved and the lost, so there would be areas falling short of the Biblical model for the church, but would also add that we need to be united and in support for the cause of Christ among like minded Christians. Those holding to Word of faith, Health and Wealth, and modern day Charismatic chaos would not qualify as being like minded.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 21, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I believe many of the Reformed equate holiness with strictness of doctrine and rigidity instead of love to God and the brethren.



I thought this sentence was good enough to get an AMEN in a separate post.
AMEN!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 21, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Being overseas I am just happy to meet a Christian of any stripe and would be glad to worship with them.
> 
> In the USA, by contrast, I've met folks trying to plant "Truly Reformed" churches in major cities in the US, sometimes claiming "there is no true gospel witness in this city" - (a blatant lie).
> 
> ...


We need to see the biblical mandate that we are all brothers and sisters in the Lord if we claim the same Jesus and the same Gospel, and I am curious as to which full Gospel group you ministered with, as I was part of the Assemblies of God 10 years, but would really not desire to be with those holding to word of faith or name it and claim it theology.


----------



## Santos (Jan 21, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> How exactly are you defining liberal? I get the impression from your comments that you are referring to the likes of Tim Keller et al. These people are problematic in some respects, but they are hardly liberals. Besides, if the quote is a good one, does it really matter who the source is?
> 
> I am not only speaking of Tim Keller, although if he's not a liberal than I'm no Texan (<-----Seventh generation Texan) I was actually speaking of Tony Evans who is rather liberal and name it and claim it quasi charismatic/Baptist guy. But yes I find Keller offensive. I find his inability to call sin what is sin and to define the lost as under the wrath of God (Q19 WSC) .
> 
> ...



I find it interesting that you won't label Tim Keller a liberal although he would appear to be old earth, won't call sodomy a sin or sodomites sinners, and won't say that sin leads to death and eternal damnation.
Yet you won't grant me a reformed label because I yet to decide where I am on oikobaptism. Due to my conscience.

Is this reformed wisdom?


----------



## Santos (Jan 21, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> All churches have some degree of mixing between the saved and the lost, so there would be areas falling short of the Biblical model for the church, but would also add that we need to be united and in support for the cause of Christ among like minded Christians. Those holding to Word of faith, Health and Wealth, and modern day Charismatic chaos would not qualify as being like minded.



I am the grandson of a Pentecostal preacher. I was raised in Pentecostal churches. I would not consider for a moment attending one now. I don't know if it is even safe to call them a church.


----------



## Santos (Jan 21, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> Are you a member of this church? (I think not based on OP but cannot tell for certain.)
> 
> If not,
> 
> ...


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 21, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> We need to see the biblical mandate that we are all brothers and sister sin the Lord if we claim the same Jesus and the same Gospel, and I am curious as to which full Gospel group you ministered with, as I was part of the Assemblies of God 10 years, but would really not desire to be with those holding to word of faith or name it and claim it theology.



There are primary and secondary doctrines. Most evangelicals trust that God saved them and have never fully considered the process. I know godly Pentecostal and Assemblies of God members and ministers who believe all the cardinal doctrines of Christianity and reject the Prosperity Gospel. Granted there are one-ness Pentecostals who deny the Trinity.


----------



## Santos (Jan 21, 2019)

Upon further reflection I probably should not have brought my question here. I should have gone straight to the pastor. I will do that. I appreciate each one of you who took the time to answer me seriously.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 21, 2019)

Santos said:


> I find it interesting that you won't label Tim Keller a liberal although he would appear to be old earth, won't call sodomy a sin or sodomites sinners, and won't say that sin leads to death and eternal damnation.



I do not call him a liberal because he is not, by definition, a liberal. I believe OEC and/or theistic evolution is wrong, but that does not, in and of itself, make someone a liberal. Otherwise, we would have to regard B. B. Warfield et al. as liberals. He has made ambiguous comments regarding homosexuality for which we are rightly critical of him, but I do not think that anyone in their right mind would regard him as _really_ believing that homosexuality is not a sin. 



Santos said:


> Yet you won't grant me a reformed label because I yet to decide where I am on oikobaptism. Due to my conscience.



That is because the Reformed believe in infant baptism, as we can see from consulting the Reformed confessions. 



Santos said:


> Is this reformed wisdom?



Yes, it is. I have been studying Reformed theology for 19 years, so I consider myself to be tolerably well-informed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 21, 2019)

Santos said:


> I am the grandson of a Pentecostal preacher. I was raised in Pentecostal churches. I would not consider for a moment attending one now. I don't know if it is even safe to call them a church.


I would see those in churches such as Assemblies of God real churches, but the ones such as Word of faith and prosperity churches are churches in name only, as most of their theology is aberrant, and many times heretical.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 21, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> There are primary and secondary doctrines. Most evangelicals trust that God saved them and have never fully considered the process. I know godly Pentecostal and Assemblies of God members and ministers who believe all the cardinal doctrines of Christianity and reject the Prosperity Gospel. Granted there are one-ness Pentecostals who deny the Trinity.


I reject United Pentecostalism and word of faith/prosperity theology as being of/from the Lord.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 21, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I do not call him a liberal because he is not, by definition, a liberal. I believe OEC and/or theistic evolution is wrong, but that does not, in and of itself, make someone a liberal. Otherwise, we would have to regard B. B. Warfield et al. as liberals. He has made ambiguous comments regarding homosexuality for which we are rightly critical of him, but I do not think that anyone in their right mind would regard him as _really_ believing that homosexuality is not a sin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like how Dr Mohler has defined Christianity theology under 3 tiers, and the only one that we all must agree upon doctrines wise is the first, primary theology one.


----------



## Santos (Jan 21, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I do not call him a liberal because he is not, by definition, a liberal. I believe OEC and/or theistic evolution is wrong, but that does not, in and of itself, make someone a liberal. Otherwise, we would have to regard B. B. Warfield et al. as liberals. He has made ambiguous comments regarding homosexuality for which we are rightly critical of him, but I do not think that anyone in their right mind would regard him as _really_ believing that homosexuality is not a sin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So how does one hold to old earth and Original Sin? I suppose that is off topic. Also, there are a few other responses in my post #24 I'm not sure that you were able to see where I responded to each portion of your post. If you expand the view you'll see it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 21, 2019)

Santos said:


> So how does one hold to old earth and Original Sin? I suppose that is off topic.



You would have to ask the adherents of that position for their answer. I could put words in their mouths, but I will refrain. You seem to be dodging the bullet with respect to the basic point that I was making. I was simply asking you to justify your taking offence at someone quoting from a "woke" preacher if there was nothing wrong with the quote.


----------



## Santos (Jan 21, 2019)

I answered you in my post # 24.


----------



## Kinghezy (Jan 21, 2019)

@Reformed Covenanter and @Santos , I think you 2 have different definitions for liberalism, but both of you have yet to define what you mean. Maybe defining may assist in further discussion?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 21, 2019)

Santos said:


> I'm not sure that this is the right place for my post or if my title is sufficient for my question(s). But here it is. Over the last year and a half or so my family and I have become reformed in our theology and practice and we continue to grow in the reformed tradition. We drive several towns over to attend a reformed church each Lord's day with the exception of illness or vehicle troubles. I have begun to catechise my children using the Westminster Shorter Catechism. (Starting question 19 tonight) We listen to reformed sermons, read reformed books (currently working my way through The Institutes) but we are beginning to find some of the same troublesome trends in the reformed church that we attend, that we previously encountered in our seeker sensitive, liberal, Arminian local congregation. Things such as the RUF minister quoting liberal/woke preachers. And the church teaming up with non-reformed and even heretical (Pentecostal/prosperity) churches for city wide men's groups. Or joining up with non reformed missions groups to share in resources. Books in the church lobby for sale by liberal "reformed" preachers. And the likes of these.
> 
> So is this everywhere? Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? Is this all there is? Shouldn't reformed congregations oppose ecumenism? Should I not be able to trust that whomever the elders recommend in the way of theology, preaching, and teaching are not solid beyond question? And if your answer is no to any or all of these then what is the answer? Where do we go from here? Can you recommend a church planter? Can someone help us please?
> 
> ...


Santos,
The answer to your questions is _no, these are not universal problems. _They are endemic problems in the PCA, though. I know of a church that is leaving the PCA over these and similar issues. If you do not have a strong church in your area, I recommend moving in order to strengthen a more sound church somewhere else. If you'd like some recommendations, I'll be happy to give them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Santos (Jan 21, 2019)

liberal adjective (SOCIETY)

C1 respecting and allowing many different types of beliefs or behaviour:

showing or characterized by broad-mindedness
A liberal is someone on the left wing of politics — the opposite of a conservative. Also, a liberal attitude toward anything means more tolerance for change.


----------



## KMK (Jan 21, 2019)

If people want to debate whether Keller is a 'liberal' they need to start a new thread.

Santos, you need to define your terms more precisely if you want precise answers to your questions. The word 'reformed' means many different things to many different people. (as does liberal)


----------



## KMK (Jan 21, 2019)

Sorry Santos, we cross posted. 

I noticed in your sig that your church is SBC. That means they are probably not as 'Reformed' as you think.


----------



## Santos (Jan 21, 2019)

Wow! I get it folks....Several of you have made it abundantly clear.....I am not reformed because I can't yet say that it's okay to dunk babies based on my conscience and my understanding of scripture. And because my signature still says SBC. But had you read all of my posts you would see that I don't attend an SBC church any more.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 21, 2019)

Santos said:


> Wow! I get it folks....Several of you have made it abundantly clear.....I am not reformed because I can't yet say that it's okay to dunk babies based on my conscience and my understanding of scripture. And because my signature still says SBC. But had you read all of my posts you would see that I don't attend an SBC church any more.


Brother, sorry you feel this way. I don't think anyone has any ill intention. All of us here are first and foremost, Christians, and we share life in Christ with all believers regardless of what denomination they are in. We like reformed theology here, but our pride and glory is Christ, not a systematic theology. I think this is what the wise members on here are trying to help you to see. As Christians, our regular way of thinking should be striving for unity, not division. I get the impression that you are very zealous about being reformed right now, and are very quick to break away from others who Christ has died for. Wisdom would have you meditate on this issue, brother.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 21, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Being overseas I am just happy to meet a Christian of any stripe and would be glad to worship with them.
> 
> In the USA, by contrast, I've met folks trying to plant "Truly Reformed" churches in major cities in the US, sometimes claiming "there is no true gospel witness in this city" - (a blatant lie).
> 
> ...



Well said Perg.


----------



## KMK (Jan 22, 2019)

Santos said:


> Wow! I get it folks....Several of you have made it abundantly clear.....I am not reformed because I can't yet say that it's okay to dunk babies based on my conscience and my understanding of scripture. And because my signature still says SBC. But had you read all of my posts you would see that I don't attend an SBC church any more.



There are different opinions on PB as to what the word 'reformed' _should_ mean. We have heated debates on the subject. However, that is not what is happening here. You are taking offense where there is none intended. The people here want to help you work through these things. Most of us have been exactly where you are.

Your signature says you attend an SBC church. Others on PB are members of SBC churches as well. If you no longer attend an SBC church, change your signature so there is no confusion.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 22, 2019)

Santos said:


> But had you read all of my posts you would see that I don't attend an SBC church any more.


When did you stop attending?


----------



## Kinghezy (Jan 22, 2019)

KMK said:


> If people want to debate whether Keller is a 'liberal' they need to start a new thread.



I think it is at least useful to clarify terms. That will help sharpen Santos for if he uses Keller as an example. Liberalism is probably not the best term to lead on, because it could be used in the Machen sense.

I will say one last thing on Keller, at my church he is very popular. I do not have experience at a wide swarth of PCA churches, but my impression is that many in the PCA really like his sermons /books /etc. Be prepared to be in the minority if you prefer Matthew Henry over Tom Keller.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 22, 2019)

Santos said:


> I answered you in my post # 24.



You did not, as post 24 is not even addressed to me. If you meant post 23, you did not answer my point at all, but went off on a tangent.


----------



## Santos (Jan 22, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter,


You are correct I did mean post #23. And what you call a tangent I meant only to answer your questions one by one. If I appear a bit impassioned or brash then I apologize. It just hits close to home. Below was my answer to your question. Again, I apologize for my tone.

"Seriously, what does it matter where the quote came from as long as it's a good one? Do you really mean that? Here is how it matters. A pastor or elder is speaking to the church with a mixed crowd of mature and immature (call that me if you wish) Christians and unbelievers in attendance and he quotes a questionable "teacher" with no caveats, does this pastor not lend his credibility to this errant teacher? "


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 22, 2019)

Santos said:


> and he quotes a questionable "teacher"



This happens more often that I would like to admit. It always befuddles me why one would quote a questionably non-Reformed person when there are so many reputable people available.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 22, 2019)

Scott Bushey said:


> This happens more often that I would like to admit. It always befuddles me why one would quote a questionably non-Reformed person when there are so many reputable people available.



Generally speaking, from personal experience, they arent widely read (i.e. they haven't read enough to be able to escape their immediate culture).

How many ministers in the world read like you or Jacob or Reuben or Daniel or Chris here? Sadly, not enough. (2 Tim. 4:13).


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 22, 2019)

For every citation, analogy, anecdote out of Watson, Henry, Calvin, .... Augustine or a church father, 100 (1000?) sports, pop culture, movie references. It's the literature of our times I'm afraid.


C. Matthew McMahon said:


> escape their immediate culture

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Santos (Jan 22, 2019)

Again, I apologize for my tone to all who have tried to help me to understand. I still do not understand.

I do not understand how I am being interpreted as being overly zealous for the reformed tradition when I point out that the things that I am seeing in the reformed church that my family is attending, and prayerfully considering joining, have some of the same questionable practices as what I had seen at my previous seeker sensitive church. I'm not asking to attack the church or denomination where we currently worship. I had not even meant to give away that it was a PCA church. That was my foolish mistake.

I do not understand why it does not matter who one quotes when your credibility will be given to any you quote without qualifying your citation.

I do not understand why someone would think that may questions mean that I am saying that Arminians are not a part of the body when I don't think that reformed churches should necessarily team up with these churches for missions or ministry opportunities. To clarify, I have many brothers/sisters/close friends that are Arminian, charismatic, or attend seeker sensitive churches. They are my friends and fellow Christians. I pray for them. I fellowship with them. But I can't join them in ministry, missions, or worship.

I have been a member of PB for around a year or better and I rarely post anything because I know I have a lot to learn. So, I have tried to keep my mouth shut and simply read. I had what I thought were genuine concerns. Apparently I was wrong. I'll go back to reading.

Grace and Peace,
Santos

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 22, 2019)

Santos,
If I can encourage you; Let it run off you like water on a duck. The PB is known for its detail oriented responses. Most all of us here are concerned with all the 'jots and tittles'. Many times, we can become a bit painful. Not that it isn't important, as we know, 'the devil is in the details'. So, one of my recommendations is to grow a thicker skin and don't be shaken by the obvious challenges that arise. We love u and want you here, participating.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 22, 2019)

All, a couple of things happened in this thread to make it go sideways! Santos, your church affiliation not having been updated seemed to cause some confusion. Others on the thread made quick assumptions in the name of being helpful. Let’s try to hear each other and not talk past. As Scott has said, brother Santos, please carry on! Many of us have been where you’re at.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 22, 2019)

Santos said:


> Reformed Covenanter,
> 
> 
> You are correct I did mean post #23. And what you call a tangent I meant only to answer your questions one by one. If I appear a bit impassioned or brash then I apologize. It just hits close to home. Below was my answer to your question. Again, I apologize for my tone.
> ...



Santos,

Thanks for your clarification. For some reason, your reply did not appear where it usually should but in the quote with my original comment. Consequently, I did not see it.

Having explained the context, I still do not believe that you have any reason to be getting so worked up about something so minor. If what you say about the person quoted is true, then it would probably be better if that person was not quoted with approval. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about dealing with matters of this nature. You could just ask the man preaching who quotes those whose views you have reservations about to drop in a caveat the next time he refers to said sources.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Jan 22, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> Be prepared to be in the minority if you prefer Matthew Henry over Tom Keller.



Tom?


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jan 22, 2019)

Santos said:


> Again, I apologize for my tone to all who have tried to help me to understand. I still do not understand.
> 
> I do not understand how I am being interpreted as being overly zealous for the reformed tradition when I point out that the things that I am seeing in the reformed church that my family is attending, and prayerfully considering joining, have some of the same questionable practices as what I had seen at my previous seeker sensitive church. I'm not asking to attack the church or denomination where we currently worship. I had not even meant to give away that it was a PCA church. That was my foolish mistake.
> 
> ...



Please do not feel restrained from posting anything. We welcome it. There were misunderstandings on both sides in this thread. Some of them arose through the use of words that can have multiple meanings in the context such as "liberal." I also think that the majority of us were guessing it was a PCA church before you mentioned it simply because what you describe is common there. The questions you ask are not necessarily straightforward ones and require some nuance and careful distinctions.

Many (most?) of us _are_ concerned about the trends you describe and in the PCA especially. Don't give up on the PCA altogether, however, as there are excellent, confessional churches there including those pastored by some of our own members here. If they aren't around you, look to the other NAPARC churches. I also think that "cage-stage" is unhelpfully pejorative, but some are just concerned about a tendency that we first found in ourselves to be overly critical in the early stages of our personal reformations. I don't think anyone would accuse many of us of not being scrupulous when it comes to doctrine and life, but we also have learned that most of us are not called to be Martin Luther or John Knox and accordingly must fulfill our secular callings while being a part of imperfect churches. I was a part of a church like the one you describe for two years because it was still the most "Reformed" church in my area. Once providence had allowed me to move to an area where more faithful churches were present, I did, but in the meantime I bore with the weaknesses of the church God had placed me in for the time. I let the session know of my scruples, but when they did not grant the validity of my concerns, I did my best to live quietly among them, not causing division, and still thanked the Lord that the Gospel was preached there. My advice for you would be the same if you cannot find a more confessional church near you.

With respect to quoting authors, well it depends. Paul quoted pagan poets. Many Reformers quoted scholastic theologians and church fathers who they would not regard as being orthodox on important points like justification. I believe that you need to be careful when doing so that you do not give the impression that you approve of the original writer generally. For instance, my pastor, who is very confessional, quoted who I believe was Karl Barth this past Lord's Day. I say believe because he did not gave the name and, while he approved the quote itself, he noted that the theologian who said it was not orthodox and was not to be trusted on other matters. I have no problem with that. If he had quoted him as if he was an authority with no caveats, it would be concerning. Not "I've gotta leave this church" concerning, but it would be worth bringing up privately with him.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Santos (Jan 22, 2019)

Thank you all for your encouragement and grace. I apologize for my lack of clarity and hope to be more clear and patient in the future.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Kinghezy (Jan 22, 2019)

Edward said:


> Tom?


Yep, good cuisine bad theology - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Keller. 

There are so many auto-corrects I have to fix and that is the one that slips through?

I affirm the others who recommend continuing to contribute. It helps us all.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 22, 2019)

Santos said:


> Can someone help us please?


Crossed my desk this afternoon:
I have come to differ with my church theologically – Should I leave? If yes – How?

Okay, so, maybe that’s another question where, in the abstract, you can answer one way but in the particulars of life there’s just so much you need to think about and so much you need to consider. So, first, I would say be very, very careful. You don’t want to destroy a church, right.​
The transcript:
https://www.challies.com/vlog/how-can-i-leave-my-church-well-video/


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 23, 2019)

Santos said:


> Wow! I get it folks....Several of you have made it abundantly clear.....I am not reformed because I can't yet say that it's okay to dunk babies based on my conscience and my understanding of scripture. And because my signature still says SBC. But had you read all of my posts you would see that I don't attend an SBC church any more.


I am a Reformed Baptist, so I would not be dunking or sprinkling infants either!


----------



## Edward (Jan 23, 2019)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The transcript:



He is unfortunately unclear on one point. He speaks of leaving quietly, without expounding on what he considers that to be. If he means slipping out the back door an disappearing, I'd disagree. If he means an orderly, non-disruptive departure, I'd agree. One should meet with leadership, confirm that there is a strong difference, and hopefully, if there is, the leadership would be able to suggest congregations closer to one's new views. And then quietly slip out the back door.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Jan 23, 2019)

Edward said:


> One should meet with leadership, confirm that there is a strong difference, and hopefully, if there is, the leadership would be able to suggest congregations closer to one's new views. And then quietly slip out the back door.



I would suggest a slight qualification, that to do so as far as you are able. At a past church, I had laid out to a church leader my intent to consider leaving, assuming I would receive a request to meet over coffee but instead received a "I will pray for you". Unfortunately, not all churches' leadership has the same understanding like a Presbyterian church does in regards to caring for the flock.


----------



## Edward (Jan 23, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> I had laid out to a church leader my intent to consider leaving, assuming I would receive a request to meet over coffee but instead received a "I will pray for you".



You clearly discharged your responsibilities. And the church leadership clearly communicated a position.


----------

