# Why attend a deformed church?



## Neogillist

I have often wondered what prevents so many Christians who are reformed in their doctrine to attend a church that is reformed. Is it because there is no such church in their town, or that they don't want to move to another place because of work, or that they still like many things about their church although it be unconfessional? I have seen people on this board who attend fairly liberal churches like PCUSA, United Methodist, SBC, and many other congregational baptist churches that have become removed from Reformed Orthodoxy.

Mainline Reformed Churches include those that are:
1) Confessional
2) Calvinistic (doctrines of grace, etc.)
3) Conservative (do not allow women in office, and hold to biblical inherancy)

Yet, there are many Calvinists who keep attending those so-called churches that share little with them in their thinking, and yet continue to put up with Arminianism being preached at the pulpit, or all sorts of unbiblical practices or teachings that they themselves disapprove.

I myself once attended a Wesleyan church for several years after having just become a Calvinist. It eventually got to the point that going to church was depressing to me, not only because I could not agree with much of the teachings, but also because I could not meet people who thought, practised and believed the same things that I did. It was quite a relief to join a URCNA, so much, that it felt like I had been fellowshipping with people from a different religion. 

If you happen to be in a church that do not teach the things you believe, then what are you doing there? Are you trying to evangelize the members or win them to your side? That is not going to work. 

Of course, there may always be a few secondary issues that you may disagree with in a Reformed Church (i.e. Exclusive Psalmody, Infant Baptism, etc.) but as for the issues that you consider to be primary, you should ensure that your church holds to them.

I may go to church only one day a week and go to work five days a week, but I think that a good church is more important than a good job, so if I have to move to a different town, or find employment elsewhere, I will first look for a sound Reformed Church where I can have my membership transferred rather than moving elsewhere before trying to find a new church.

I would be interested to know what you guys think.


----------



## SemperEruditio

I became a 5-pointer and remained at my previous church for another 2.5 years. It was alright at first because it was like a game of spot the error. However the more and more I learned about the doctrines of grace and the Reformed hermeneutic my "game" turned into torture. It eventually got to the point that I was depressed to go to church. I was the pastors assistant or in Baptistese I was the pastors armorbearer. It was great because I saw firsthand how brutal the life of a pastor can be. We shared a lot and it was quite the learning experience. I began to question why we had deacons and no elders. I questioned why the deacons did nothing except want they wanted to do. Their call to service was more like a call to supervise others doing the service. I took issue with the pastor being the "CEO" of the church. While the members of the congregation "voted" it was without question in the direction of the pastors "vision." I questioned the "vision." I questioned why the church had to vote on issues which were as basic as the maintenance of the building.

I received the call into the ministry and began attending seminary. Things got worse. I heard and still hear heretical stuff at seminary and then again at church. Prayed that God would "release" me from that church. The pastor and I were great friends but the theology and everything else about the church were like sand in my shorts or crackers in my bed...irritating.

Began the ordination classes and continued praying. One day out of the blue I was instructed not to attend the class. Then the following Sunday and the next. Finally I asked what was going on and the pastor tells me that he's rethinking whether or not he should ordain me because I disagree with the theology of the church. Recommended that sense I had Presbyterian leanings that perhaps he would model my ordination like a Reformed church. 

To shorten the story I left that church after another 4 weeks of prayer and joined a PCA church of a brother I met at the Miami Pastors Conference. He and I met every month to talk about theology and was the first call I made when I was told my ordination was on hold. I was not upset my ordination was on hold. I took issue even with the ordination because the questions all 25 of them were basic and I believed that ordination should involve written tests, oral exams, and schooling. 

I thank God how it all went. Still trying to seek wisdom on lessons learned but thankful for the move. Now I'm undercare of the session and after the Presbytery meeting should be undercare of the Presbytery. Praying for a 2011 ordination and then into the military.....

Sheesh...didn't think I'd post this much.


----------



## Neogillist

SemperEruditio said:


> I became a 5-pointer and remained at my previous church for another 2.5 years. It was alright at first because it was like a game of spot the error. However the more and more I learned about the doctrines of grace and the Reformed hermeneutic my "game" turned into torture. It eventually got to the point that I was depressed to go to church.



That sounds like my personal experience, too!


----------



## Hippo

The move away from Churches being based on locality is very very regrettable, while it may in certain instances be necessary due to the ruin of the Church and the end of direct Apostolic authority a demand for purity in the Church can verge on Donatism at times.


----------



## Neogillist

Semper Fidelis said:


> I agree in the main Jean-David. I'm obligated by vocation to live in certain places where I cannot always find a good Church but, if it was for longer than a couple of years, I refuse to live somewhere long term where the Gospel and Sacraments are compromised. I will not lose my family for the sake of a dream home in the middle of nowhere or a job where I cannot live near a good Church.



It must be hard for you to be back in full-time studies and have to look after a family with four children! When I was doing my B.Sc. I was studying, doing assignments or attending classes for 10-12 hours a day, 6 days a week.


----------



## Grymir

Some of us have no choice because we live in a liberal wasteland. So we do and find the best we can.


----------



## Hamalas

Hippo said:


> The move away from Churches being based on locality is very very regrettable, while it may in certain instances be necessary due to the ruin of the Church and the end of direct Apostolic authority a demand for purity in the Church can verge on Donatism at times.


----------



## Neogillist

Hippo said:


> The move away from Churches being based on locality is very very regrettable, while it may in certain instances be necessary due to the ruin of the Church and the end of direct Apostolic authority a demand for purity in the Church can verge on Donatism at times.



I am not sure if I understand your sentence. You mean that it is a sad fact that many believers can no longer attend the church that is closest in location. I guess that is especially true for you, since in the 1600s virtually all churches in Scotland were orthodox, and so people simply attended the one nearest to them. (I know you live in London, but your denomination is from Scotland).


----------



## Herald

There really is no easy answer to the questions posed in the OP. What are the minimum acceptable doctrines that a church holds to that would qualify it as legitimate? Is Calvinism, baptism and the Lord's Supper enough? I'd have a difficult time if I had to find a new church home in this area. I'd either have to drive more than an hour one way or go to a Presbyterian church. Neither option would be my first choice

Work is another consideration. It's not always about the bigger house, boat or luxuries of life. Sometimes it's simply being able to support your family. 

Like I said, there is no easy answer.


----------



## Neogillist

Grymir said:


> Some of us have no choice because we live in a liberal wasteland. So we do and find the best we can.



I am pretty sure that being a chef yourself, you could easily find employment in another town where there is a church that you would love to attend. You can't imagine how much you are missing out. Another possibility is that you could drive farther out. If you attend service only once on Sunday, it would not be too big of a deal to drive for 90min to and 90min fro. There are people at my church who do it.


----------



## Hippo

Neogillist said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The move away from Churches being based on locality is very very regrettable, while it may in certain instances be necessary due to the ruin of the Church and the end of direct Apostolic authority a demand for purity in the Church can verge on Donatism at times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure if I understand your sentence. You mean that it is a sad fact that many believers can no longer attend the church that is closest in location. I guess that is especially true for you, since in the 1600s virtually all churches in Scotland were orthodox, and so people simply attended the one nearest to them. (I know you live in London, but your denomination is from Scotland).
Click to expand...


Too many splits in the Univeral Church have come about due to a desire for purity. This is just plain wrong unless the error amounts to apostasy. It is as a result of sin that the Catholic Church fragmented and degenerated following the Apostolic era.


----------



## Neogillist

Herald said:


> There really is no easy answer to the questions posed in the OP. What are the minimum acceptable doctrines that a church holds to that would qualify it as legitimate? Is Calvinism, baptism and the Lord's Supper enough? I'd have a difficult time if I had to find a new church home in this area. I'd either have to drive more than an hour one way or go to a Presbyterian church. Neither option would be my first choice
> 
> Work is another consideration. It's not always about the bigger house, boar or luxuries of life. Sometimes it's simply being able to support your family.
> 
> Like I said, there is no easy answer.



That's what I personally find surprising about you and other Baptists on this board. They hold so strongly to believer's baptism that they would rather attend an Arminian Baptist church than a sound Presbyterian church like PCA or OPC, etc. In the end, it simply boils down to what you personally see as "primary" and "secondary". Although you should never go against your conscience in the end. I myself would rather attend a sound Reformed Baptist church than a liberal Presbyterian church, or a Wesleyan church where they also accept infant baptism.


----------



## Hippo

Neogillist said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really is no easy answer to the questions posed in the OP. What are the minimum acceptable doctrines that a church holds to that would qualify it as legitimate? Is Calvinism, baptism and the Lord's Supper enough? I'd have a difficult time if I had to find a new church home in this area. I'd either have to drive more than an hour one way or go to a Presbyterian church. Neither option would be my first choice
> 
> Work is another consideration. It's not always about the bigger house, boar or luxuries of life. Sometimes it's simply being able to support your family.
> 
> Like I said, there is no easy answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I personally find surprising about you and other Baptists on this board. They hold so strongly to believer's baptism that they would rather attend an Arminian Baptist church than a sound Presbyterian church like PCA or OPC, etc. In the end, it simply boils down to what you personally see as "primary" and "secondary". Although you should never go against your conscience in the end. I myself would rather attend a sound Reformed Baptist church than a liberal Presbyterian church, or a Wesleyan church where they also accept infant baptism.
Click to expand...


There you have a problem in that a confessional Baptist church would often not allow you to partake of the sacraments which rather rules it out as your Church. Saying that for long periods of time Toplady used to attend dissenting Chapels but only took Communion at the C of E churches whose preaching he abhored (although this was more for his own scruples than due to a refusal by the dissenters to let him partake).


----------



## he beholds

Some people believe that it is wrong to leave a church if there is any sign of [spiritual] life in it.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Neogillist said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really is no easy answer to the questions posed in the OP. What are the minimum acceptable doctrines that a church holds to that would qualify it as legitimate? Is Calvinism, baptism and the Lord's Supper enough? I'd have a difficult time if I had to find a new church home in this area. I'd either have to drive more than an hour one way or go to a Presbyterian church. Neither option would be my first choice
> 
> Work is another consideration. It's not always about the bigger house, boar or luxuries of life. Sometimes it's simply being able to support your family.
> 
> Like I said, there is no easy answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I personally find surprising about you and other Baptists on this board. They hold so strongly to believer's baptism that they would rather attend an Arminian Baptist church than a sound Presbyterian church like PCA or OPC, etc. In the end, it simply boils down to what you personally see as "primary" and "secondary". Although you should never go against your conscience in the end. I myself would rather attend a sound Reformed Baptist church than a liberal Presbyterian church, or a Wesleyan church where they also accept infant baptism.
Click to expand...


I attended a PCA church for a little while and loved it. Also, I wouldn't say the SBC is liberal. It's certainly not as reformed as when it started but belief in inerrancy is in the Baptist Faith and Message. The Founders (Reformed) Movement is growing more than ever also so its becoming less arminian.


----------



## Whitefield

Neogillist said:


> Yet, there are many Calvinists who keep attending those so-called churches that share little with them in their thinking, and yet continue to put up with Arminianism being preached at the pulpit, or all sorts of unbiblical practices or teachings that they themselves disapprove.
> 
> ...
> 
> If you happen to be in a church that do not teach the things you believe, then what are you doing there? Are you trying to evangelize the members or win them to your side? That is not going to work.



I'm sorry, I find this personally offensive. As a 5-pointer (and I will defend my _bona fides_ any day) I find it offensive that you would state that the church I pastor is only a "so-called" church because it doesn't meet your definition of a church. If we Calvinists are not to enter into Arminian pulpits and teach there because they are not churches, then who will take the gospel to them in ministry?


----------



## PresbyDane

I live in a country with no reformed churches, so I would have to move out of te country-
I can be lucky and sometimes find pastors who are leaning toward the reformed theology, but that is as good as it gets over here.


----------



## Herald

Neogillist said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really is no easy answer to the questions posed in the OP. What are the minimum acceptable doctrines that a church holds to that would qualify it as legitimate? Is Calvinism, baptism and the Lord's Supper enough? I'd have a difficult time if I had to find a new church home in this area. I'd either have to drive more than an hour one way or go to a Presbyterian church. Neither option would be my first choice
> 
> Work is another consideration. It's not always about the bigger house, boar or luxuries of life. Sometimes it's simply being able to support your family.
> 
> Like I said, there is no easy answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I personally find surprising about you and other Baptists on this board. They hold so strongly to believer's baptism that they would rather attend an Arminian Baptist church than a sound Presbyterian church like PCA or OPC, etc. In the end, it simply boils down to what you personally see as "primary" and "secondary". Although you should never go against your conscience in the end. I myself would rather attend a sound Reformed Baptist church than a liberal Presbyterian church, or a Wesleyan church where they also accept infant baptism.
Click to expand...


You're making the _wrong _assumption that baptism alone would be the driving force behind whatever decision I would make. And if you _read _my post you would have noticed that I said neither (driving an hour one way, or attending a Presbyterian church) would be my _first _choice.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Martin Marsh said:


> I live in a country with no reformed churches, so I would have to move out of te country-
> I can be lucky and sometimes find pastors who are leaning toward the reformed theology, but that is as good as it gets over here.



zero? I am so sorry to hear that. We need to pray for that country.


----------



## Grace Alone

We originally were in the PCUSA, and when the Lord allowed us to see the sickness in that denomination, we and a few others connected with a PCA church who helped us start a mission church here. So if a reformed person knows any others who might be like-minded, you may be able to get help starting a new church in your area.

At this point, I'd have to go to a conservative Arminian Baptist church over a liberal presbyterian church if those were our only two choices. But in reality, we currently drive 25 minutes to a conservative ARP church.


----------



## PastorSBC

ManleyBeasley said:


> Also, I wouldn't say the SBC is liberal. It's certainly not as reformed as when it started but belief in inerrancy is in the Baptist Faith and Message. The Founders (Reformed) Movement is growing more than ever also so its becoming less arminian.



Thank you. I was about to say the same thing.


----------



## Beoga

I currently attend a non-Reformed church. The reason I am doing so is because as a student at a secular university, I was craving Christian fellowship and friendship with people my age. I went to a school where I didn't know anyone, and so I wanted to surround myself with christians my age. 
When I checked out the local OPC, there was no college students (it has since grown to include 6-7 students). I checked out the church I currently attend and they have a college ministry of about 20-25 dedicated college students. Most of the students are serious "about their faith" and show depth and desire when it comes to study the Scriptures. This is a blessing for me because I had been so use to Christianity lite all my life when it came to youth groups. 
We all don't agree when it comes to Calvinism, and the Pastor isn't Calvinist (though he is sympathetic toward the Doctrines of Grace), however I have highly valued surrounding myself with these people. Plus, I get a ton of good Reformed teaching from all the sermons and radio programs I listen to throughout the week. 
When I do come home on breaks, I do attend the local PCA, and when it comes to the preaching, it is like a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Grymir

Neogillist said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us have no choice because we live in a liberal wasteland. So we do and find the best we can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure that being a chef yourself, you could easily find employment in another town where there is a church that you would love to attend. You can't imagine how much you are missing out. Another possibility is that you could drive farther out. If you attend service only once on Sunday, it would not be too big of a deal to drive for 90min to and 90min fro. There are people at my church who do it.
Click to expand...


It's easier said than done, finding employment. I have a family to take care of. We've only got 5 years left to pay on our home, and it does set us up for our older years. And our home is very energy efficient. And on a lake!  I'm not gonna put my wife out of the home and into the work force. We would have enough $$$ to do what ever we want, but at what price?

The reformers taught that it is a sin to leave a 'sinful' church and goto one that we thought was 'less' sin-full. 

I'm also the spiritual head of my family, not our church. They get more from me during the week than the 20 minutes at church. Hence we talk about what was said at church, and not just absorb it. Plus, as my tag shows, I do have influence. And of the right kind. 

That being said, Things could get bad enough in the local church for us to leave. I learned long ago not to judge a local church by what the 'national' people are saying/doing. No church is perfect. All Church's have problem areas. So when I joined and gave my oath, I take it seriously. Look at the bright side. I annoy them alot more than they annoy me. 

Driving 90 minutes to church and 90 minutes from church is too long. Going to a local church with people that live in your area is important. When I bump into people from church when I'm at work is interesting and useful. 

All of these things are things that a family has to consider. And as the leader of my home, I'm responsible for us. Financially, how we live out our marriage, and Spiritually. And like I said, I live in a liberal wasteland, so I have to deal with the best I can find.


----------



## shackleton

The churches around where I live, up to 25 miles, are all RCC or an atrocious variety of Baptist or Pentecostal. We have the option to drive 30-50 miles to go to church but then it is hard to get to know anyone there and at that point you are not getting much out of church that you can not get from the internet or by doing your own studying. So for us we are probably going to have to sacrifice what we would like to have for the sake of fellowship with believers. Even if they are not like minded.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I'm sorry, I find this personally offensive. As a 5-pointer (and I will defend my bona fides any day) I find it offensive that you would state that the church I pastor is only a "so-called" church because it doesn't meet your definition of a church. If we Calvinists are not to enter into Arminian pulpits and teach there because they are not churches, then who will take the gospel to them in ministry?



Fair enough, so you stay and fight. But I think that as a pastor it is easier to do so than when you are a layman or office holder. 

I was in _agony_ for years at the church I attended because as a deacon, I could only fight just so much before I was soiling the nest in a very non-Christian way. You can look back at certain posts of mine over the last two years and see the schitzophrenia (sp?) over staying or running. None of my children are baptized because I would not have them dunked by an elder board who were in _serious_ error. The ONLY reason I stayed is because there was not another supervised congregation within 100 miles. There were house churches, sure, but that's it. No pastoral care, no direction given by elders, nothing. It was a Hal Camping field day.

Those who head into this sort of thing as a 'mission' are in need of serious support - these are mission fields full of vipers. The lies are _so_ much more infectious when they are sprinkled with what looks like truth. 

I don't mean to be trite, Pastor Marshall, but I will be praying for you. If this is the situation you are in, it is a hard row to hoe, and not for a lone gunslinger.


----------



## Theognome

Martin Marsh said:


> I live in a country with no reformed churches, so I would have to move out of te country-
> I can be lucky and sometimes find pastors who are leaning toward the reformed theology, but that is as good as it gets over here.



Sounds like a good reason to fire up a reformation! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Theognome


----------



## kvanlaan

> I live in a country with no reformed churches, so I would have to move out of te country-
> I can be lucky and sometimes find pastors who are leaning toward the reformed theology, but that is as good as it gets over here.



Drive to Friesland, you'll find plenty of them. Even Groningen has some good ones. I'd venture to say that Germany has more than a few, and they're closest of all (though many Frisians say that they understand Danish OK because the languages are so close. Give it a try - it's only a few hour commute!)

-----Added 1/17/2009 at 10:37:00 EST-----



> Sounds like a good reason to fire up a reformation! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
> 
> Theognome



Yeah, never mind, Martin. The idea above will save a bundle in gas money, and is probably more scriptural anyway.


----------



## Whitefield

kvanlaan said:


> I'm sorry, I find this personally offensive. As a 5-pointer (and I will defend my bona fides any day) I find it offensive that you would state that the church I pastor is only a "so-called" church because it doesn't meet your definition of a church. If we Calvinists are not to enter into Arminian pulpits and teach there because they are not churches, then who will take the gospel to them in ministry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough, so you stay and fight. But I think that as a pastor it is easier to do so than when you are a layman or office holder.
> 
> I was in _agony_ for years at the church I attended because as a deacon, I could only fight just so much before I was soiling the nest in a very non-Christian way. You can look back at certain posts of mine over the last two years and see the schitzophrenia (sp?) over staying or running. None of my children are baptized because I would not have them dunked by an elder board who were in _serious_ error. The ONLY reason I stayed is because there was not another supervised congregation within 100 miles. There were house churches, sure, but that's it. No pastoral care, no direction given by elders, nothing. It was a Hal Camping field day.
> 
> Those who head into this sort of thing as a 'mission' are in need of serious support - these are mission fields full of vipers. The lies are _so_ much more infectious when they are sprinkled with what looks like truth.
> 
> I don't mean to be trite, Pastor Marshall, but I will be praying for you. If this is the situation you are in, it is a hard row to hoe, and not for a lone gunslinger.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I don't discount the struggle and have counseled Reformed people to find a Reformed church. My objection was only to the broad brush being used. Thank you for your prayers.


----------



## Ivan

PastorSBC said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I wouldn't say the SBC is liberal. It's certainly not as reformed as when it started but belief in inerrancy is in the Baptist Faith and Message. The Founders (Reformed) Movement is growing more than ever also so its becoming less arminian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I was about to say the same thing.
Click to expand...


It's obvious that a person that thinks the churches in the SBC are liberal knows very little about the SBC.


----------



## cih1355

Neogillist said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really is no easy answer to the questions posed in the OP. What are the minimum acceptable doctrines that a church holds to that would qualify it as legitimate? Is Calvinism, baptism and the Lord's Supper enough? I'd have a difficult time if I had to find a new church home in this area. I'd either have to drive more than an hour one way or go to a Presbyterian church. Neither option would be my first choice
> 
> Work is another consideration. It's not always about the bigger house, boar or luxuries of life. Sometimes it's simply being able to support your family.
> 
> Like I said, there is no easy answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I personally find surprising about you and other Baptists on this board. They hold so strongly to believer's baptism that they would rather attend an Arminian Baptist church than a sound Presbyterian church like PCA or OPC, etc. In the end, it simply boils down to what you personally see as "primary" and "secondary". Although you should never go against your conscience in the end. I myself would rather attend a sound Reformed Baptist church than a liberal Presbyterian church, or a Wesleyan church where they also accept infant baptism.
Click to expand...


I believe that only believers should be baptized, but I would rather go to a Presbyterian church that is a member of the PCA or OPC than an Arminian Baptist church. Even though seeker-sensitive churches and Pentecostal churches practice deny infant baptism, I would not go to those churches.


----------



## blhowes

What guidelines does the Bible give for leaving one church that's "less reformed" (or "not reformed") to join a church that's "more reformed"?


----------



## shackleton

It is opening a whole different can of worms to say that if a church is not reformed it is liberal. That simply is not the case. I have found that older people, 70 and up, who are not reformed are more "conservative" and more apt to get the gospel right than young people who claim to be reformed.


----------



## kalawine

Jean,
When I was a Charismatic I attended a couple of different "deformed" churches. 
Just funnin' ya,
Kevin


----------



## Dearly Bought

> *The Belgic Confession*
> *Article 28: That every one is bound to join himself to the true Church.*
> We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and that out of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw himself, to live in a separate state from it; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it; maintaining the unity of the Church; submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ; and as mutual members of the same body, serving to the edification of the brethren, according to the talents God has given them. And that this may be the more effectually observed, it is the duty of all believers, according to the word of God, to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the Church, and to join themselves to this congregation, wheresoever God hath established it, even though the magistrates and edicts of princes were against it, yea, though they should suffer death or any other corporal punishment. Therefore all those, who separate themselves from the same, or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the ordinance of God.
> 
> *Article 29: Of the marks of the true Church, and wherein she differs from the false Church.*
> We believe, that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects, who call themselves the Church. The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself. With respect to those, who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians: namely, by faith; and when they have received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood, as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit, all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in him." As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes from them, as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those, who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.



As you can read above, our duty as believers is to unite with a _true_ church, even if faced with death or corporal punishment. True churches purely preach the gospel, rightly administer the sacraments, and exercise church discipline. A church either bears all these marks or ceases to be a true congregation of Christ, for the true and false church "are easily known and distinguished from each other."

This essay by PB's own Dr. McMahon explains the matter in greater detail.


----------



## Whitefield

> WCF XXV.4
> 
> This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.



This leads me to think it isn't clearly an either-or situation, but a scale from less to more.


----------



## Hippo

Dearly Bought said:


> *The Belgic Confession*
> *Article 28: That every one is bound to join himself to the true Church.*
> We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and that out of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw himself, to live in a separate state from it; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it; maintaining the unity of the Church; submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ; and as mutual members of the same body, serving to the edification of the brethren, according to the talents God has given them. And that this may be the more effectually observed, it is the duty of all believers, according to the word of God, to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the Church, and to join themselves to this congregation, wheresoever God hath established it, even though the magistrates and edicts of princes were against it, yea, though they should suffer death or any other corporal punishment. Therefore all those, who separate themselves from the same, or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the ordinance of God.
> 
> *Article 29: Of the marks of the true Church, and wherein she differs from the false Church.*
> We believe, that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects, who call themselves the Church. The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself. With respect to those, who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians: namely, by faith; and when they have received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood, as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit, all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in him." As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes from them, as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those, who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can read above, our duty as believers is to unite with a _true_ church, even if faced with death or corporal punishment. True churches purely preach the gospel, rightly administer the sacraments, and exercise church discipline. A church either bears all these marks or ceases to be a true congregation of Christ, for the true and false church "are easily known and distinguished from each other."
> 
> This essay by PB's own Dr. McMahon explains the matter in greater detail.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between your test that a church purely preaches the gospel and the confessional test that the pure doctrine of the Gospel is preached. A church can exhibit all sorts of errors (it can sing praise choruses, have bishops and female deacons) yet preach the pure gospel, even though it is not purely preaching the Gospel.

One test is content, the other is context.


----------



## Herald

Forgive me if I don't seem overly cheerful in this thread. I'm speaking as a moderator right now. To whom it applies: be careful of the aspersions you cast about churches or denominations you disagree with. Be careful about telling people they should quit their jobs, stop being selfish and move to an area where this is a true church. Have some charity towards your lesser informed and more ignorant brethren. Not all of us are as blessed as you are.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Hippo said:


> There is a difference between your test that a church purely preaches the gospel and the confessional test that the pure doctrine of the Gospel is preached. A church can exhibit all sorts of errors (it can sing praise choruses, have bishops and female deacons) yet preach the pure gospel, even though it is not purely preaching the Gospel.
> 
> One test is content, the other is context.



I was actually thinking more along lines of content when I wrote that true churches "purely preach the Gospel." However, I don't think you can legitimately ascribe such a strong separation between context and content from the standpoint of the Reformed confessions. The Second Helvetic Confession speaks of the "the lawful and sincere preaching of the Word of God" as one of the marks of a true church. Context does seem to be included under the language of "lawful and sincere."


----------



## shackleton

blhowes said:


> What guidelines does the Bible give for leaving one church that's "less reformed" (or "not reformed") to join a church that's "more reformed"?



Zilch, Zero, Nada...a little El Rusbo lingo there


----------



## Hippo

Dearly Bought said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between your test that a church purely preaches the gospel and the confessional test that the pure doctrine of the Gospel is preached. A church can exhibit all sorts of errors (it can sing praise choruses, have bishops and female deacons) yet preach the pure gospel, even though it is not purely preaching the Gospel.
> 
> One test is content, the other is context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually thinking more along lines of content when I wrote that true churches "purely preach the Gospel." However, I don't think you can legitimately ascribe such a strong separation between context and content from the standpoint of the Reformed confessions. The Second Helvetic Confession speaks of the "the lawful and sincere preaching of the Word of God" as one of the marks of a true church. Context does seem to be included under the language of "lawful and sincere."
Click to expand...


The Second Helvetic Confessions does seek balance where it states in the "Of The Catholic and Holy Church of God,
and of The One Only Head of The Church" chapter XVII:



> THE CHURCH IS NOT BOUND TO ITS SIGNS. Nevertheless, by the signs [of the true Church] mentioned above, we do not so narrowly restrict the Church as to teach that all those are outside the Church who either do not participate in the sacraments, at least not willingly and through contempt, but rather, being forced by necessity, unwillingly abstain from them or are deprived of them; or in whom faith sometimes fails, though it is not entirely extinguished and does not wholly cease; or in whom imperfections and errors due to weakness are found.





> WE MUST NOT JUDGE RASHLY OR PREMATURELY. Hence we must be very careful not to judge before the time, nor undertake to exclude, reject or cut off those whom the Lord does not want to have excluded or rejected, and those whom we cannot eliminate without loss to the Church. On the other hand, we must be vigilant lest while the pious snore the wicked gain ground and do harm to the Church.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Whitefield said:


> WCF XXV.4
> 
> This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This leads me to think it isn't clearly an either-or situation, but a scale from less to more.
Click to expand...


From what I know, many theologians from both Continental Reformed and English/Scottish Presbyterian backgrounds have also debated this particular matter. I'm still not quite sure if this language in the Westminster Confession is completely compatible with the doctrine of the church taught in the Belgic Confession or not. Regardless, I adhere to the Belgic Confession's presentation of the biblical doctrine of the church. Certainly there will be problems in any true church in this present age. However, I will confess that the Gospel, sacraments, and discipline are the essence of the church. Compromise on these marks is not an option.


----------



## Grymir

The reformers wrote about it alot though. They were dealing with this kind of stuff during the reformation. I was quite surprised by what they wrote. I thought they would be all for leaving church's that were apostate, but I was wrong. They taught about the true marks and even said that statement I wrote earlier about leaving one church for one that is less sin-full. That with the reformation, people were church hopping. They even said the Catholic Church was a church, just not a healthy church that would feed your soul. That was surpising to me. I thought they would all be condemming of it.

Even my PCUSA church is still a church according to the true marks of a church.


----------



## Whitefield

Dearly Bought said:


> From what I know, many theologians from both Continental Reformed and English/Scottish Presbyterian backgrounds have also debated this particular matter. I'm still not quite sure if this language in the Westminster Confession is completely compatible with the doctrine of the church taught in the Belgic Confession or not. Regardless, I adhere to the Belgic Confession's presentation of the biblical doctrine of the church. Certainly there will be problems in any true church in this present age. However, I will confess that the Gospel, sacraments, and discipline are the essence of the church. Compromise on these marks is not an option.



I don't know if the Belgic and the WCF are in conflict here. But I think the point being made in the WCF is that there is no church which is 100% pure in its marks. And if the Belgic and WCF are at odds, I'll go with the WCF.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Hippo said:


> The Second Helvetic Confessions does seek balance where it states in the "Of The Catholic and Holy Church of God,
> and of The One Only Head of The Church" chapter XVII:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE CHURCH IS NOT BOUND TO ITS SIGNS. Nevertheless, by the signs [of the true Church] mentioned above, we do not so narrowly restrict the Church as to teach that all those are outside the Church who either do not participate in the sacraments, at least not willingly and through contempt, but rather, being forced by necessity, unwillingly abstain from them or are deprived of them; or in whom faith sometimes fails, though it is not entirely extinguished and does not wholly cease; or in whom imperfections and errors due to weakness are found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE MUST NOT JUDGE RASHLY OR PREMATURELY. Hence we must be very careful not to judge before the time, nor undertake to exclude, reject or cut off those whom the Lord does not want to have excluded or rejected, and those whom we cannot eliminate without loss to the Church. On the other hand, we must be vigilant lest while the pious snore the wicked gain ground and do harm to the Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Certainly we should be charitable to someone who is unwillingly forced to abstain from or is deprived of the sacraments. Likewise, a believer may momentarily suffer doubt or weakness. Church discipline should be thus be conducted with great pastoral sensitivity and certainly not rashly, as the confession states.

-----Added 1/18/2009 at 04:53:56 EST-----



Grymir said:


> The reformers wrote about it alot though. They were dealing with this kind of stuff during the reformation. I was quite surprised by what they wrote. I thought they would be all for leaving church's that were apostate, but I was wrong. They taught about the true marks and even said that statement I wrote earlier about leaving one church for one that is less sin-full. That with the reformation, people were church hopping. They even said the Catholic Church was a church, just not a healthy church that would feed your soul. That was surpising to me. I thought they would all be condemming of it.
> 
> Even my PCUSA church is still a church according to the true marks of a church.


Calvin writes this in regard to the papists,


> "In one word, I call them churches, inasmuch as the Lord there wondrously preserves some remains of his people, though miserably torn and scattered, and inasmuch as some symbols of the Church still remain - symbols especially whose efficacy neither the craft of the devil nor human depravity can destroy. But as, on the other hand, those marks to which we ought especially to have respect in this discussion are effaced, I say that the whole body, as well as every single assembly, want the form of a legitimate Church."(_Institutes_, IV.iii.12)



Here's a recent blog series I've been reading concerning how John Calvin urged believers to leave the Roman Church (parts 2, 3, & 4).


----------



## kalawine

Herald said:


> Forgive me if I don't seem overly cheerful in this thread. I'm speaking as a moderator right now. To whom it applies: be careful of the aspersions you cast about churches or denominations you disagree with. Be careful about telling people they should quit their jobs, stop being selfish and move to an area where this is a true church. Have some charity towards your lesser informed and more ignorant brethren. Not all of us are as blessed as you are.



I agree. Had I been living in Corinth in Paul's day I would have been looking for a new church. But Paul "spanked" the Corinthian church (for some terribly gross sins) only AFTER he had said things to them like: 

2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge— 6 even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you— 7 so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Corinthians (ESV)


----------



## Grymir

Oh yeah, I'm not saying they didn't say leave, but I thought the tone would be much worse than it was, considering I've read him condemming alot of things much worse.


----------



## Jon 316

hmmm, I feel like I am in the church at corinth at times. I have been struggling with the question. 'How pure does a church need to be?' And is it right to leave and find a church in which you think 1) the leadership structure is more biblical 2) the doctrine more scriptural 3) the church more christlike

and then I wonder

Perhaps God has called to build with the local church which is struggling in all three of these areas. hmmm


----------



## A.J.

Neogillist said:


> I would be interested to know what you guys think.



When I discovered Reformed Theology, I did not immediately leave my Holiness-Pentecostal church primarily out of respect for my parents. They had the impression that if I left, the people in that church would think that my parents could not exercise authority over me or could not discipline me. I also used to be one of the musicians for the worship services of that church. But gradually realizing that I am really convinced of what I believe, my parents allowed me to leave. At present, however, they are still Arminian Pentecostals with dispensational leanings. 

The situation of already Reformed or reforming pastors is a bit more difficult. I know of a Reformed Baptist pastor who is ordained in our local (Filipino) SBC. He got ordained before he discovered and accepted the Calvinistic convictions of the early Southern Baptists and their theologians (e.g. John Dagg). He has started affiliating himself with like-minded churches, but has not left the SBC. His plan is to continually reform the church he is handling. He has also thought of having dual affiliation (with the SBC and a local Reformed Baptist assoctiaion), something which is also practiced by some ARBCA churches in North America. 

Another example would be the case of the Reformed Paedo-Baptist pastor of the group I attend (see my signature). He was born and raised a Presbyterian here in the Philippines. His father was a minister in a local Presbyterian denom. This would-be pastor later went to the US and worked there. He became a member of the PCUSA, but has left it. He became a member of the URCNA, studied in Westminer (Escondido, CA), and is now an ordained minister. But instead of serving in churches in the US, he decided to come back to our country and serve as a missionary and church planter (representing the URCNA). He did not join the Presbyterian denom of his childhood since it is actually Presbyerian in name only today. Arminianism and Pentecostalism are now the norm in this group of churches carrying the name Presbyterian. But he still chose to teach in its denominational seminary and instruct the students in the Reformed faith their denom has unfortunately left.


----------



## PastorTim

I recently moved and have found myself in an independent church that for the most part is Reformed (some 4 pters abound). The problem I have is their MacArthurism; that is their premillennial views. The expectation of a future kingdom constantly presents holes in their studies, their sermons and lie wise. The decision for Christ theology can be promininent. My dilemma is that the only other reformed church is a PCUSA. Many from whence I came said I should begin one and meet in my home. Well, there just isnt any others that I have found so not a good option at this point in time. I find myself having to correct teachings with my children which degrades their view of the church. What is a body to do?


----------



## Whitefield

PastorTim said:


> I recently moved and have found myself in an independent church that for the most part is Reformed (some 4 pters abound). The problem I have is their MacArthurism; that is their premillennial views. The expectation of a future kingdom constantly presents holes in their studies, their sermons and lie wise. The decision for Christ theology can be promininent. My dilemma is that the only other reformed church is a PCUSA. Many from whence I came said I should begin one and meet in my home. Well, there just isnt any others that I have found so not a good option at this point in time. I find myself having to correct teachings with my children which degrades their view of the church. What is a body to do?



Wait, I'm a little confused. Your signature says Rev. Tim .. and you are a senior pastor .. and you are looking for a church home?


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

Sometimes the Lord calls the faithful to minister in contexts that are messed up. I think this can include churches as well as nations. 

After all, if called people like Grymir were not in the fallen denominations like the PC(USA) with me, then who could I share the burden with? Who would be left to share the Reformed faith with those who are trapped in mainline fallenness? Staying in an unsound church is not a calling for everyone, but for those who are called to this path, may our brothers and sisters in more sound churches not make our burdens all the heavier by judgments and rock throwing.

This is my prayer. Don't forget that there are plenty of Christ's precious chosen ones in fallen denominations and fallen churches. Until Jesus returns, this will no doubt continue to be the case. Pray for the faithful, no matter where they are or where they worship!

Being in a doctrinally unsound church is a burden, yes, but if you are called to minister, you are called to minister no matter where that might be.


----------



## Whitefield

Classical Presbyterian said:


> Sometimes the Lord calls the faithful to minister in contexts that are messed up. I think this can include churches as well as nations.
> 
> After all, if called people like Grymir were not in the fallen denominations like the PC(USA) with me, then who could I share the burden with? Who would be left to share the Reformed faith with those who are trapped in mainline fallenness? Staying in an unsound church is not a calling for everyone, but for those who are called to this path, may our brothers and sisters in more sound churches not make our burdens all the heavier by judgments and rock throwing.
> 
> This is my prayer. Don't forget that there are plenty of Christ's precious chosen ones in fallen denominations and fallen churches. Until Jesus returns, this will no doubt continue to be the case. Pray for the faithful, no matter where they are or where they worship!
> 
> Being in a doctrinally unsound church is a burden, yes, but if you are called to minister, you are called to minister no matter where that might be.



You are preachin' to the choir here, brother.


----------



## LawrenceU

Classical Presbyterian said:


> Sometimes the Lord calls the faithful to minister in contexts that are messed up. I think this can include churches as well as nations.
> 
> After all, if called people like Grymir were not in the fallen denominations like the PC(USA) with me, then who could I share the burden with? Who would be left to share the Reformed faith with those who are trapped in mainline fallenness? Staying in an unsound church is not a calling for everyone, but for those who are called to this path, may our brothers and sisters in more sound churches not make our burdens all the heavier by judgments and rock throwing.
> 
> This is my prayer. Don't forget that there are plenty of Christ's precious chosen ones in fallen denominations and fallen churches. Until Jesus returns, this will no doubt continue to be the case. Pray for the faithful, no matter where they are or where they worship!
> 
> Being in a doctrinally unsound church is a burden, yes, but if you are called to minister, you are called to minister no matter where that might be.



How very true. I served for five years in an Assembly of God church as a Reformed Baptist. God was very gracious in that time to do some amazing work in the lives of several people in that church. Some of the old time members on the PB may recall this. I have no doubt that God called me to that church. At times the service was joyous, at times it was brutal. Just like any other church.


----------



## Jon 316

Classical Presbyterian said:


> Sometimes the Lord calls the faithful to minister in contexts that are messed up. I think this can include churches as well as nations.
> 
> After all, if called people like Grymir were not in the fallen denominations like the PC(USA) with me, then who could I share the burden with? Who would be left to share the Reformed faith with those who are trapped in mainline fallenness? Staying in an unsound church is not a calling for everyone, but for those who are called to this path, may our brothers and sisters in more sound churches not make our burdens all the heavier by judgments and rock throwing.
> 
> This is my prayer. Don't forget that there are plenty of Christ's precious chosen ones in fallen denominations and fallen churches. Until Jesus returns, this will no doubt continue to be the case. Pray for the faithful, no matter where they are or where they worship!
> 
> Being in a doctrinally unsound church is a burden, yes, but if you are called to minister, you are called to minister no matter where that might be.




This is a really good point...

I guess there are also several trappings in ministering in a 'doctrinally sound church'. For example 'sound theology' can be a mask for hidden sin. Or perhaps 'sound theology' is not being outworked in our lives. i.e do any of us live up to the light that we have? Perhaps even mored decieving is a church which seems to believe right and live right but who are doing so for the wrong motives. 1 Cor 13 says this can be the case. Yet the outward profession and actions would seem to give indication that all is well. 

I guess it is possible for such a church/ or christian to fall into the trap of one of the churches in revelation i.e they think they are rich and in need of nothing. 

just a thought...


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Hippo said:


> There you have a problem in that a confessional Baptist church would often not allow you to partake of the sacraments which rather rules it out as your Church.



Which points out a difference- Many confessional Presbyterian churches will admit Baptists to communicant membership without requiring them to violate their conscience on this matter. The options are greater for Baptists to be part of a faithful church (excluding credo-baptism) than for paedo-baptists. Baptists have less reason to continue in Arminian Baptist churches.

-----Added 1/19/2009 at 03:16:24 EST-----

Without judging a particular congregation or member of a particular denomination, let me note when one of the essentials (doctrine, sacraments and discipline) is missing, you no longer have a church. There may be genuine, regenerate believers in apostate churches. A particular congregation may possess the essential elements of the church, even as part of an apostate denomination. However, when one of the essential marks of the church is absent, you no longer have a church, but a synagogue of Satan. 

Consider discipline: The question in mainline denominations should not be whether unrepentant, practicing sodomites should be ordained, but whether they should be communicant members. Could or would your local congregation exclude them from communion or membership? Is anyone ever disciplined or denied communion for unrepentant sin? If your leadership did, would such decision be overturned by the ascending courts of the denomination? Are the membership and ordination vows of the church believed, truthfully affirmed, understood, and enforced by biblical discipline?

If the gospel and true biblical doctrine cannot be preached, or the sacraments biblically administered, including the fencing of the table, or discipline administered and upheld, you are no longer in a church. There may be true believers there. Tell them to leave and do likewise. 

The reason there are so few faithful Reformed churches is because too many true believers are spending their time and resources in less faithful churches. If obstacles to moving or distance providentially prevent you from being part of a biblical church, pray God will establish one within a reasonable distance; then, begin to actively look for an answer to your prayer, willing to support the work.


----------



## Augusta

A sincere question: if you stay in a denomination that you don't agree with doctrinally aren't you there under false pretenses? Wouldn't this be a 9th commandment violation unless you were open and honest about your beliefs? Would they let you stay if they knew what you really believed? 

For those who are Pastors can't you let your leadership know your change in beliefs and can't you and your congregation leave that denom for another? Congregations have been leaving the PCUSA in droves why can't SBC Pastors do the same or join the Founders movement I have heard about? Is the Founder movement within the SBC?


----------



## Neogillist

blhowes said:


> What guidelines does the Bible give for leaving one church that's "less reformed" (or "not reformed") to join a church that's "more reformed"?



There exists no such guidlines, but you don't have to torture yourself over a local church thinking that God is calling you to attend it, when this would cause you to disobey his revealed will. Besides, our view of God's Church must extend beyond a local congregation or denomination so that we never end up leaving the "Church," although we may leave a "church" for personal convictions.

-----Added 1/19/2009 at 06:39:38 EST-----



Augusta said:


> A sincere question: if you stay in a denomination that you don't agree with doctrinally aren't you there under false pretenses? Wouldn't this be a 9th commandment violation unless you were open and honest about your beliefs? Would they let you stay if they knew what you really believed?
> 
> For those who are Pastors can't you let your leadership know your change in beliefs and can't you and your congregation leave that denom for another? Congregations have been leaving the PCUSA in droves why can't SBC Pastors do the same or join the Founders movement I have heard about? Is the Founder movement within the SBC?



I totally agree. All pastors are bound to preach according to the confession of their church, or else they are failing to measure up to their ministerial duties. This is always what happens when a local church begins to drift away from its confession, and is not rebuked by a synod or classis, but is rather tolerated for various reasons. Secondly, there is the problem of having ecumenical relations with other churches within the same denomination where the teachings will differ. John Wesley sinned in preaching Arminianism within the Church of England, since his church had a clear and sound confession that taught unconditional election. Now, he was never rebuked by his church, and indeed some denomination (e.i. SBC) will not rebuke pastors who preach Arminianism, but the fact that there are contradictory teachings within the denomination is problematic. 

For instance, say that two SBC pastors have a pulpit exchange, one is a Calvinist and the other is Arminian, either they will both have to water down their doctrine on the pulpit so that it be compatible and both churches end up happy, or else their home church will receive some contradictory teachings which will require some correction at some later time. History has shown (both among the Dutch Reformed and the Presbyterians) that when liberals point their head within a denomination, they ought to get kicked out as quickly as possible, or they will contaminate the whole denomination, and then the conservatives will have to leave themselves. This also applies to Calvinists and Arminians too, I believe, since the two are drastically different ways of viewing God and the Scriptures.


----------



## PastorTim

Whitefield said:


> PastorTim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recently moved and have found myself in an independent church that for the most part is Reformed (some 4 pters abound). The problem I have is their MacArthurism; that is their premillennial views. The expectation of a future kingdom constantly presents holes in their studies, their sermons and lie wise. The decision for Christ theology can be promininent. My dilemma is that the only other reformed church is a PCUSA. Many from whence I came said I should begin one and meet in my home. Well, there just isnt any others that I have found so not a good option at this point in time. I find myself having to correct teachings with my children which degrades their view of the church. What is a body to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, I'm a little confused. Your signature says Rev. Tim .. and you are a senior pastor .. and you are looking for a church home?
Click to expand...


It should be clarified that I have moved and left a congregation behind thus the need to find a place to worship. A ministry where I also serve a Board of Elders remains in several states united thus far via long distance in a web-based ministry.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Neogillist said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> 
> What guidelines does the Bible give for leaving one church that's "less reformed" (or "not reformed") to join a church that's "more reformed"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There exists no such guidlines, but you don't have to torture yourself over a local church thinking that God is calling you to attend it, when this would cause you to disobey his revealed will. Besides, our view of God's Church must extend beyond a local congregation or denomination so that we never end up leaving the "Church," although we may leave a "church" for personal convictions.
> 
> -----Added 1/19/2009 at 06:39:38 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sincere question: if you stay in a denomination that you don't agree with doctrinally aren't you there under false pretenses? Wouldn't this be a 9th commandment violation unless you were open and honest about your beliefs? Would they let you stay if they knew what you really believed?
> 
> For those who are Pastors can't you let your leadership know your change in beliefs and can't you and your congregation leave that denom for another? Congregations have been leaving the PCUSA in droves why can't SBC Pastors do the same or join the Founders movement I have heard about? Is the Founder movement within the SBC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally agree. All pastors are bound to preach according to the confession of their church, or else they are failing to measure up to their ministerial duties. This is always what happens when a local church begins to drift away from its confession, and is not rebuked by a synod or classis, but is rather tolerated for various reasons. Secondly, there is the problem of having ecumenical relations with other churches within the same denomination where the teachings will differ. John Wesley sinned in preaching Arminianism within the Church of England, since his church had a clear and sound confession that taught unconditional election. Now, he was never rebuked by his church, and indeed some denomination (e.i. SBC) will not rebuke pastors who preach Arminianism, but the fact that there are contradictory teachings within the denomination is problematic.
> 
> For instance, say that two SBC pastors have a pulpit exchange, one is a Calvinist and the other is Arminian, either they will both have to water down their doctrine on the pulpit so that it be compatible and both churches end up happy, or else their home church will receive some contradictory teachings which will require some correction at some later time. History has shown (both among the Dutch Reformed and the Presbyterians) that when liberals point their head within a denomination, they ought to get kicked out as quickly as possible, or they will contaminate the whole denomination, and then the conservatives will have to leave themselves. This also applies to Calvinists and Arminians too, I believe, since the two are drastically different ways of viewing God and the Scriptures.
Click to expand...


----------



## Theoretical

After moving away from home, I spent another year and a half continuing to attend the worthless UMC church I grew up in, out of a sense of "loyalty", frank cowardice to actually do something about my doctrinal convictions, and a completely ridiculous notion I could be a change agent, being a lone young member in a 13,500 member church.

It's one thing to minister in a lousy denomination as a minister or officer where you CAN effect change at least on the local level, but quite another just to be a doctrinally bizarre pew-sitter where arguing that you can change the denomination or church is more indicative of your delusions of grandeur than any ability.

I understand specific difficult circumstances in many parts of the country, but if you can get out of bad churches, GET OUT.


----------



## Neogillist

Neogillist said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> 
> What guidelines does the Bible give for leaving one church that's "less reformed" (or "not reformed") to join a church that's "more reformed"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There exists no such guidlines, but you don't have to torture yourself over a local church thinking that God is calling you to attend it, when this would cause you to disobey his revealed will. Besides, our view of God's Church must extend beyond a local congregation or denomination so that we never end up leaving the "Church," although we may leave a "church" for personal convictions.
> 
> -----Added 1/19/2009 at 06:39:38 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sincere question: if you stay in a denomination that you don't agree with doctrinally aren't you there under false pretenses? Wouldn't this be a 9th commandment violation unless you were open and honest about your beliefs? Would they let you stay if they knew what you really believed?
> 
> For those who are Pastors can't you let your leadership know your change in beliefs and can't you and your congregation leave that denom for another? Congregations have been leaving the PCUSA in droves why can't SBC Pastors do the same or join the Founders movement I have heard about? Is the Founder movement within the SBC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally agree. All pastors are bound to preach according to the confession of their church, or else they are failing to measure up to their ministerial duties. This is always what happens when a local church begins to drift away from its confession, and is not rebuked by a synod or classis, but is rather tolerated for various reasons. Secondly, there is the problem of having ecumenical relations with other churches within the same denomination where the teachings will differ. John Wesley sinned in preaching Arminianism within the Church of England, since his church had a clear and sound confession that taught unconditional election. Now, he was never rebuked by his church, and indeed some denomination (e.i. SBC) will not rebuke pastors who preach Arminianism, but the fact that there are contradictory teachings within the denomination is problematic.
> 
> For instance, say that two SBC pastors have a pulpit exchange, one is a Calvinist and the other is Arminian, either they will both have to water down their doctrine on the pulpit so that it be compatible and both churches end up happy, or else their home church will receive some contradictory teachings which will require some correction at some later time. History has shown (both among the Dutch Reformed and the Presbyterians) that when liberals point their head within a denomination, they ought to get kicked out as quickly as possible, or they will contaminate the whole denomination, and then the conservatives will have to leave themselves. This also applies to Calvinists and Arminians too, I believe, since the two are drastically different ways of viewing God and the Scriptures.
Click to expand...


I would also add on top of this that a church denomination without a clear and exhaustive confession is a church that has no means of ensuring unity in its teachings, whether this be within the same local church or within a denomination. The SBC may be deemed "conservative" in many respects, but since their confession does not clearly cover all aspects of soteriology, unlike the WCF and the TFUs, pastors can rightfully hold either to Arminianism or Calvinism as if the two were some minor points of doctrine, and then we have contradictory winds of doctrine within the same denomination, or they decide to avoid discussing the doctrines of grace, which is the same as to avoid preaching certain aspects of the gospel, and must ultimately entail avoiding to preach on certain parts of the Scriptures, ie. Rom. 9, or Eph. 1, etc. Either way, we are back to square one.


----------



## Hippo

Spurgeons attitude in the Downgrade controvery is interesting here where he pressed for an exodus from the offending denominations.

I especially like J Gresham Machen's attitude where he refused to compromise to the extent that he was expelled by his denomination for refusing to collude with the Liberal establishment by setting up parallell confessional structures.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

My family, recently quit attending a FV PCA chuch(yes, they exist), even though they were more loving and kind than any other church we have attended(the enemy's cleverness I suppose). We will not continue there because they are deformed(sadly). I cannot allow my children to sit under heretical teaching. So I will not attend a deformed church, I would rather preach from a puplpit in my home(hyperbole) than subject my family to deformity. So, we attend a church of a broad minded preacher, yet, reformed, yet, not deformed, I think, not sure, though. Why are men so afraid to preach the word, it baffles me, indeed?


----------



## SemperEruditio

Pilgrim's Progeny said:


> Why are men so afraid to preach the word, it baffles me, indeed?



Job security. When the goats outnumber the sheep, the goats want to hear a pleasant gospel. Many a pastor gets his walking papers when he upsets the status quo. I know of three congregations, one in Maryland, one in DC, and the other in Tennessee who have asked for their pastors resignation. The problem? Unapologetically preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. After a few of these moves I'm sure a pastor begins to question just how important is it really to preach the gospel or whether he should even continue in ministry.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

It seems like we are seeing various responses to why some people (and pastors) stay in "deformed" churches, some for potentially faithful reasons:

1. To affect change if it is possible, at least locally and in our sphere of influence.

2. Because there are no other viable options in our circumstance and we make the best of what God has given us in His providence.

And there are some unfaithful reasons:

1. Cowardice.

2. It's just easier to stay where you are.

3. A nice pension and job security (for us pastors).

For those of us who minister along the lines of the first set of answers, can we all agree not to judge the decisions of others in these matters, as long as we all agree to hold to the teachings of the Biblical, Reformed faith? I'm curious what the brethren in more faithful contexts will say of us who are not where they are.


----------



## ReformedChapin

I've been reformed for about a year. But I have stayed in my unreformed CC South Bay Church for the entire time because I at least want to attend a Church that I know everyone while I find a reformed church to be my home church. It really is hard though to leave all your friends behind when you have been with them for so long. Not to mention I had a lot of positive impact on them influencing them with reformed theology.


----------



## Rocketeer

Grymir said:


> All of these things are things that a family has to consider. And as the leader of my home, I'm responsible for us. Financially, how we live out our marriage, and Spiritually. And like I said, I live in a liberal wasteland, so I have to deal with the best I can find.



I'm with you, and with Martin as well. You guys try and be the salting salt. You only need a little salt to make a huge difference, don't you? Correct me if I'm wrong, chef.



kvanlaan said:


> I was in _agony_ for years at the church I attended because as a deacon, I could only fight just so much before I was soiling the nest in a very non-Christian way. You can look back at certain posts of mine over the last two years and see the schitzophrenia (sp?) over staying or running. None of my children are baptized because I would not have them dunked by an elder board who were in _serious_ error. The ONLY reason I stayed is because there was not another supervised congregation within 100 miles. There were house churches, sure, but that's it. No pastoral care, no direction given by elders, nothing. It was a Hal Camping field day.



You did not even baptize your children? But, but... Not trying to be accusative or offensive, in fact, trying not to, but how bad was that church?

(BTW, its called schizophrenia.)



kvanlaan said:


> Drive to Friesland, you'll find plenty of them. Even Groningen has some good ones. I'd venture to say that Germany has more than a few, and they're closest of all (though many Frisians say that they understand Danish OK because the languages are so close. Give it a try - it's only a few hour commute!)





You recommend him to go from Denmark via Germany to the Netherlands? And no, there are not that many good reformed Churches in Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe with pastors, so he'd probably need to get to Flevoland or Overijssel, where I live. Forgive me for saying so, but that is a terribly _American _suggestion to make...

Languages which seem close usually are not all that close. I'd have a hard time following a good sermon in German or Frisian.

Also, people, another answer to your troubles, now that we are speaking of moving anyways, is to emigrate to a more densely populated country. There are a handful of churches of my own denomination within half an hour by car, and about two dozen ones that hold to the Reformed doctrines in that same reach. That's what you get when almost 17 million people are locked into a country which takes only 2 hours to cross from East to West (by car).

(And no, emigration was not my serious suggestion.)


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

As much as I like confessions, I do like Scripture more, and the Bible does teach to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, and to try the spirits (or words/doctine), and not to even have certain people who preach a gospel that is in error be considered a believer (but anathema). 

Some say there is no "perfect church"...I say it doesn't have to be "perfect"...just keep the from having things in it that are a stumbling block to believers, i.e. idols, lascivous apparel of congregants...you know, all the things that Paul taught in his epistles.

I for one won't attend "Arminian" church's. Why not just attend AA meetings instead...just make up a Higher Power in your own imagination and worship it. It's all self in most of them these days...self-help, steps to a better self, how to be self-centered is the gospel in a nutshell for most "churches" out there, period.

Gospel centered preaching, gospel centered teaching...#1 Baptism and Lord's Supper are second, and all the rest is, to me, easy to deal with. As other's stated, I can't deal with errors in most preaching/ teaching...the fewer the better, and I have sat and listened to quite a few sermons that I could find NOTHING to pick at.

As important as fellowship is, I won't compromise any of the beliefs I hold to just to "feel like" I went to church on Sunday. I'd rather stand alone, and struggle a bit more in this world that compromise the Faith that was delivered unto me by the free grace of God in Christ...no sir!


----------



## kvanlaan

> You did not even baptize your children? But, but... Not trying to be accusative or offensive, in fact, trying not to, but how bad was that church?



Bad. Arminian/Pente/Seeker and then some, with a head elder/pastor who felt that ministering/witnessing to Mormons was pointless because "they're so well organized, it's almost impossible to convince them". If you look in the Tool Shed, you'll see plenty on it. 



> You recommend him to go from Denmark via Germany to the Netherlands? And no, there are not that many good reformed Churches in Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe with pastors, so he'd probably need to get to Flevoland or Overijssel, where I live. Forgive me for saying so, but that is a terribly American suggestion to make...
> 
> Languages which seem close usually are not all that close. I'd have a hard time following a good sermon in German or Frisian.



That was mostly tongue in cheek (besides, who wouldn't want to go to Friesland, the _other_ Holy Land. And I'm not American! That can bring men to blows here, brother!  )

I just know friends of mine who vacation in Denmark and say it is easier and more enjoyable than Germany because Danish and Fries are close enough to understand.


----------



## dalecosby

This has been an interesting thread.
I oddly attend an unreformed church that is 45 minutes away when there is an excellent reformed church 7 miles away.
I am a baptist but I find when I attend the OPC close by I am in more agreement there than in my baptist church.

Because of all of that this thread is very timely for me.

I certainly do not understand a baptist who would rather go to an arminian baptist church than a solid reformed paedobaptist church.


----------



## Hippo

There have been several suggestions with varying degrees of conviction that if you could not find a Reformed Church it would be better not to attend Church on the Lords Day.

I do find this position to be hetrodox, perhaps you would not become a member but every possible Church would have to be fully pelagian to make non attendance remotely acceptable.


----------



## Rich Koster

I confess I fellowship with a "liberal" ABC church with an agenda..... to infect it with the truth. I am the only adult SS teacher. Some may see me as an agitator, some a missionary. I will do like Paul did when he was under house arrest in Rome.... tell them who will listen the truth. My pastor is what I would call 80% conservative with reformed tendencies, so we get along well, but don't ditto each other on all topics. I know of a few R churches within 35 miles, but there is a small likelihood that I will develop meaningful personal relationships with people that require an hour commute, each way, to meet with. This would be a hindrance both in time and finance for me. Serving also becomes hindered when 2 hours is wasted in travel for each event. One thing I like to do is hand out John Piper CD's (I burn them quite often).


----------



## Dearly Bought

Hippo said:


> There have been several suggestions with varying degrees of conviction that if you could not find a Reformed Church it would be better not to attend Church on the Lords Day.
> 
> I do find this position to be hetrodox, perhaps you would not become a member but every possible Church would have to be fully pelagian to make non attendance remotely acceptable.



Is Semi-Pelagianism now an acceptable heresy?


----------



## Neogillist

kvanlaan said:


> You did not even baptize your children? But, but... Not trying to be accusative or offensive, in fact, trying not to, but how bad was that church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad. Arminian/Pente/Seeker and then some, with a head elder/pastor who felt that ministering/witnessing to Mormons was pointless because "they're so well organized, it's almost impossible to convince them". If you look in the Tool Shed, you'll see plenty on it.
> 
> 
> John Calvin would disagree with you on that one. If you read the Institutes, he clearly states that the worthiness of one's baptism is not cancelled by the unworthiness of the pastor performing the sacrament. This is because it is God who really baptizes us in the end, and our baptism points to God's promises concerning the gospel. It has nothing to do with the sincerity or holiness of the minister performing it, although it should indeed be performed by an ordained minister. So long as the baptism is trinitarian and is thus performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is valid (Mat. 28:19-29) and will be recognized in almost all reformed churches. At worst, a person baptized in the Church of Rome is still legally baptized.
> 
> My recommendation would be that you move to a Reformed church and have your children get baptized there, else have them baptized in your deformed church.
Click to expand...


----------



## kalawine

Jon 316 said:


> hmmm, I feel like I am in the church at corinth at times. I have been struggling with the question. 'How pure does a church need to be?' And is it right to leave and find a church in which you think 1) the leadership structure is more biblical 2) the doctrine more scriptural 3) the church more christlike
> 
> and then I wonder
> 
> Perhaps God has called to build with the local church which is struggling in all three of these areas. hmmm



John, I don't claim to be an expert. I do believe that I made a good point with my Corinthian Church example. But at the same time, people who brought up the contrary also made good points. I believe that choosing a church is such a personal thing that sometimes there is no clear cut answer for every case. 

I left my Seeker Sensitive SBC to become a part of a very small PCA congregation. It was only after two years of coming and going at this church that I finally decided to take the plunge. Now that I have I am very content and confident that I did the right thing.

Think about these things:

(1) My best friend says (not a direct quote), "Pray about it. If there is nothing in the Bible to forbid your decision and your conscience isn't bothering you, do it.

(2) There are not many things that are done that can't be undone. So what if you make the wrong decision after prayer and study? If you make a bad choice you can always make a different choice later. (I did this when I joined the SBC church and later had my letter transfered to the PCA church I go to now)

(3) You can hardly go wrong with a Reformed Church that actually behaves like a Reformed Church. I believe that you (like I did) will be better off if you change from a non-Reformed church to a Reformed one. But Reformed Churches are not without their many problems. Once you get inside one of them (many of them that is) you see how many people there are today who barely know what "Reformed" means. I'm talking about "unreformed" "Reformed" people.


----------



## Hippo

Dearly Bought said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several suggestions with varying degrees of conviction that if you could not find a Reformed Church it would be better not to attend Church on the Lords Day.
> 
> I do find this position to be hetrodox, perhaps you would not become a member but every possible Church would have to be fully pelagian to make non attendance remotely acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Semi-Pelagianism now an acceptable heresy?
Click to expand...


Is everyone who is not a solid five pointer an unacceptable heretic?


----------



## kvanlaan

> John Calvin would disagree with you on that one. If you read the Institutes, he clearly states that the worthiness of one's baptism is not cancelled by the unworthiness of the pastor performing the sacrament. This is because it is God who really baptizes us in the end, and our baptism points to God's promises concerning the gospel. It has nothing to do with the sincerity or holiness of the minister performing it, although it should indeed be performed by an ordained minister. So long as the baptism is trinitarian and is thus performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is valid (Mat. 28:19-29) and will be recognized in almost all reformed churches. At worst, a person baptized in the Church of Rome is still legally baptized.



Agreed. However, this church would not even consider paedobaptism, so there was no way to baptise them anyway. They considered it 'beyond the pale' and some sort of heresy. It was not a baptist church _per se_, it was just _off_.


----------



## Whitefield

Hippo said:


> Is everyone who is not a solid five pointer an unacceptable heretic?



Sounds like a good poll question.


----------



## SemperEruditio

kalawine said:


> But Reformed Churches are not without their many problems. Once you get inside one of them (many of them that is) you see how many people there are today who barely know what "Reformed" means. I'm talking about "unreformed" "Reformed" people.



Exactly. The church in Maryland I stated before went from Reformed Presbyterian to PCA and was PCA for decades. The last pastor resigned because of the environment of the church. They called a guy who was not PCA but was willing to join the PCA. Long story but the church now is no longer part of the PCA. I attended the church's 101st anniversary and the doctrine in 100% Semi-Pelagian. Cannot understand how a church which was reformed for easily 75 years is not reformed now except that they were never reformed.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

SemperEruditio said:


> Cannot understand how a church which was reformed for easily 75 years is not reformed now except that they were never reformed.



Obviously, they had elders (ruling and teaching) who did not intelligently and honestly affirm, keep or enforce their ordination vows; and courts (session and presbytery) which did not exercise appropriate oversight and discipline. There are too many of these unreformed “Reformed” pastors, elders, members, sessions and congregations. The non-confessional, independent, congregational Arminians may be more honest. If we’re going to call ourselves “Presbyterian,” let’s be Presbyterian or stop pretending.


----------



## Scynne

As a person who was saved, then baptized into a Mennonite Brethren church, then became reformed, then, shortly after began work for a Mennonite Brethren missions agency, then, after spending all my spare time reading all the reformed theology I could find to counter the open theism and mysticism I was meeting with was having 'serious doubts' about the Mennonite Brethren church, this is a question that is near and dear to me.

In my situation, it's a matter of, well lack of good timing. Being in the field right now, I think it would be best not to denounce this denomination, but do what I can to spread the gospel and speak out when I can about the accepted wickedness around me (though, admitedly, I still seem to care too much for the opinions of men to speak as I know I ought). If the Lord wills, I will find a reformed church when I return. Although I will feel bad leaving the church that gave me 1/10 of my funding, baptized me, and I have worshiped with, I feel it is more important to take a stand for truth than give assent to false doctrine by inclusion.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Hippo said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several suggestions with varying degrees of conviction that if you could not find a Reformed Church it would be better not to attend Church on the Lords Day.
> 
> I do find this position to be hetrodox, perhaps you would not become a member but every possible Church would have to be fully pelagian to make non attendance remotely acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Semi-Pelagianism now an acceptable heresy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is everyone who is not a solid five pointer an unacceptable heretic?
Click to expand...


That would be why the Synod of Dordt resulted in the deposition of more than two hundred Remonstrant ministers. It is better there be an empty pulpit than the proclamation of synergism.


----------



## Hippo

Dearly Bought said:


> That would be why the Synod of Dordt resulted in the deposition of more than two hundred Remonstrant ministers. It is better there be an empty pulpit than the proclamation of synergism.



But that is not the proposition that is under debate.

Prefering isolation to putting up with impurity in the visible Church is Donatism.


----------



## Augusta

If we are to be willing to leave father and mother etc to follow him, how much more friends or community.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Hippo said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be why the Synod of Dordt resulted in the deposition of more than two hundred Remonstrant ministers. It is better there be an empty pulpit than the proclamation of synergism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that is not the proposition that is under debate.
> 
> Prefering isolation to putting up with impurity in the visible Church is Donatism.
Click to expand...


Donatism is the error that the efficacy of the sacraments depends upon the holiness of the administering clergy. It is related to the moral purity of individuals, not the content of the church's confession or minister's preaching.

I would sooner worship with my family on the Lord's Day than attend to the proclamation of synergism. Apostasy is a more accurate term in such a situation than "impurity."


----------



## Neogillist

Glenn Ferrell said:


> SemperEruditio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cannot understand how a church which was reformed for easily 75 years is not reformed now except that they were never reformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, they had elders (ruling and teaching) who did not intelligently and honestly affirm, keep or enforce their ordination vows; and courts (session and presbytery) which did not exercise appropriate oversight and discipline. There are too many of these unreformed “Reformed” pastors, elders, members, sessions and congregations. The non-confessional, independent, congregational Arminians may be more honest. If we’re going to call ourselves “Presbyterian,” let’s be Presbyterian or stop pretending.
Click to expand...


This is an interesting story. I had been told by someone from my church that the soundness of a local PCA church could vary a lot from place to place, depending on the pastor and the elders. One guy said previously on this thread that he had to leave a PCA church that had embraced FV, and here we have another case of a PCA going completely unconfessional.

What I like about my church is that people from a non-reformed background interested in becoming members must attend a pre-profession class where the central doctrines of the Reformed Faith are presented over a course of 6 months. Then there is an interview with two elders where they quiz the profession candidates on their doctrinal stances. For example, I myself was asked to explain the doctrine of total depravity and unconditional election. It is also expected that the candidate has read the TFUs and points out the sections that they disagree with (if any). Finally, the elders meet and decide if they admit the people into membership. The result is that my church is soundly reformed, and we are all of pretty much the same mind when it comes to doctrinal issues. One thing that I like about the TFUs, is that unlike the WCF, it does not adresss to many fine points of doctrine with very articulated theological language, but summarizes the mainlines very concisely. The result is that individual members of the congregation can be expected to agree with them, (although they are not expected to formally subscribe to them like the elders).

In Presbyterian churches, however, I don't know how the profession of faith goes and what is required or expected from the people, but I heard that in some of them, members who are deviant in their doctrine (such as Arminians) are occasionally accepted, so long as they profess faith in Christ as their personal savior. In the end, only the elders are expected to fully subscribe to the WCF. At least this is what I've read in Loraine Boetner's book on "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination."


----------



## Rich Koster

SemperEruditio said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Reformed Churches are not without their many problems. Once you get inside one of them (many of them that is) you see how many people there are today who barely know what "Reformed" means. I'm talking about "unreformed" "Reformed" people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The church in Maryland I stated before went from Reformed Presbyterian to PCA and was PCA for decades. The last pastor resigned because of the environment of the church. They called a guy who was not PCA but was willing to join the PCA. Long story but the church now is no longer part of the PCA. I attended the church's 101st anniversary and the doctrine in 100% Semi-Pelagian. Cannot understand how a church which was reformed for easily 75 years is not reformed now except that they were never reformed.
Click to expand...


Acts 20 states how.


----------



## kalawine

SemperEruditio said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Reformed Churches are not without their many problems. Once you get inside one of them (many of them that is) you see how many people there are today who barely know what "Reformed" means. I'm talking about "unreformed" "Reformed" people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The church in Maryland I stated before went from Reformed Presbyterian to PCA and was PCA for decades. The last pastor resigned because of the environment of the church. They called a guy who was not PCA but was willing to join the PCA. Long story but the church now is no longer part of the PCA. I attended the church's 101st anniversary and the doctrine in 100% Semi-Pelagian. Cannot understand how a church which was reformed for easily 75 years is not reformed now except that they were never reformed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Scynne

Augusta said:


> If we are to be willing to leave father and mother etc to follow him, how much more friends or community.



This seems like the heart of the matter to me. Well said!


----------



## timmopussycat

Augusta said:


> If we are to be willing to leave father and mother etc to follow him, how much more friends or community.



The question, unfortunately, never presents itself on such simple terms. Scripture does not give us an explicit list of which doctrines we should separate over, so we must derive our criteria by reasoning from the Scriptures by good and necessary deductions therefrom. Given Scripture's command to make every effort to preserve unity in peace, the necessary thinking must be very carefully thought through. In theory, every Christian will be willing to separate from an apostate church at need; but the question we face in practice is different: do we need to leave this church (or denomination) right now? Particular congregations rise and fall in both the intellectual understanding and formal agreement with doctrine and how and in what ways that doctrine is lived out in the lives of members. Denominations can apostasize and where along the process must one abandon the fight and look for a new church home? 

I know the difficulties first hand: at one point, I had to leave a fairly sound evangelical Anglican congregation not due to anything going on in the congregation, but due to an apostasizing province of the denomination that could not be corrected under the Anglican structures.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

Wholly Pelagian??? What is Partial Pelagian? Can one be Partially Saved? Or a Partial Believer? How about a Partial Non-believer? 

I don't understand this Pelagian/ Arminian difference...except when straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel whole, I guess.

I don't attend Pelagiarminian churches...but, thanks for trying.


----------



## Whitefield

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> I don't understand this Pelagian/ Arminian difference...except when straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel whole, I guess.



A little calm study might help you understand the difference between Pelagian and semi-Pelagian; Socinian and Arminian, etc.


----------

