Do all churches/denominations compromise?

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



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



Yes, it is. I have been studying Reformed theology for 19 years, so I consider myself to be tolerably well-informed.
I like how Dr Mohler has defined Christianity theology under 3 tiers, and the only one that we all must agree upon doctrines wise is the first, primary theology one.
 
I do not call him a liberal because he is not, by definition, a liberal. I believe OEC and/or theistic evolution is wrong, but that does not, in and of itself, make someone a liberal. Otherwise, we would have to regard B. B. Warfield et al. as liberals. He has made ambiguous comments regarding homosexuality for which we are rightly critical of him, but I do not think that anyone in their right mind would regard him as really believing that homosexuality is not a sin.



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



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

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

You would have to ask the adherents of that position for their answer. I could put words in their mouths, but I will refrain. You seem to be dodging the bullet with respect to the basic point that I was making. I was simply asking you to justify your taking offence at someone quoting from a "woke" preacher if there was nothing wrong with the quote.
 
I'm not sure that this is the right place for my post or if my title is sufficient for my question(s). But here it is. Over the last year and a half or so my family and I have become reformed in our theology and practice and we continue to grow in the reformed tradition. We drive several towns over to attend a reformed church each Lord's day with the exception of illness or vehicle troubles. I have begun to catechise my children using the Westminster Shorter Catechism. (Starting question 19 tonight) We listen to reformed sermons, read reformed books (currently working my way through The Institutes) but we are beginning to find some of the same troublesome trends in the reformed church that we attend, that we previously encountered in our seeker sensitive, liberal, Arminian local congregation. Things such as the RUF minister quoting liberal/woke preachers. And the church teaming up with non-reformed and even heretical (Pentecostal/prosperity) churches for city wide men's groups. Or joining up with non reformed missions groups to share in resources. Books in the church lobby for sale by liberal "reformed" preachers. And the likes of these.

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

Grace and peace,
Santos
Santos,
The answer to your questions is no, these are not universal problems. They are endemic problems in the PCA, though. I know of a church that is leaving the PCA over these and similar issues. If you do not have a strong church in your area, I recommend moving in order to strengthen a more sound church somewhere else. If you'd like some recommendations, I'll be happy to give them.
 
liberal adjective (SOCIETY)

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

showing or characterized by broad-mindedness
A liberal is someone on the left wing of politics — the opposite of a conservative. Also, a liberal attitude toward anything means more tolerance for change.
 
If people want to debate whether Keller is a 'liberal' they need to start a new thread.

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

I noticed in your sig that your church is SBC. That means they are probably not as 'Reformed' as you think.
 
Wow! I get it folks....Several of you have made it abundantly clear.....I am not reformed because I can't yet say that it's okay to dunk babies based on my conscience and my understanding of scripture. And because my signature still says SBC. But had you read all of my posts you would see that I don't attend an SBC church any more.
 
Wow! I get it folks....Several of you have made it abundantly clear.....I am not reformed because I can't yet say that it's okay to dunk babies based on my conscience and my understanding of scripture. And because my signature still says SBC. But had you read all of my posts you would see that I don't attend an SBC church any more.
Brother, sorry you feel this way. I don't think anyone has any ill intention. All of us here are first and foremost, Christians, and we share life in Christ with all believers regardless of what denomination they are in. We like reformed theology here, but our pride and glory is Christ, not a systematic theology. I think this is what the wise members on here are trying to help you to see. As Christians, our regular way of thinking should be striving for unity, not division. I get the impression that you are very zealous about being reformed right now, and are very quick to break away from others who Christ has died for. Wisdom would have you meditate on this issue, brother.
 
Being overseas I am just happy to meet a Christian of any stripe and would be glad to worship with them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your signature says you attend an SBC church. Others on PB are members of SBC churches as well. If you no longer attend an SBC church, change your signature so there is no confusion.
 
If people want to debate whether Keller is a 'liberal' they need to start a new thread.

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

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


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

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

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

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

How many ministers in the world read like you or Jacob or Reuben or Daniel or Chris here? Sadly, not enough. (2 Tim. 4:13).
 
Last edited:
Again, I apologize for my tone to all who have tried to help me to understand. I still do not understand.

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

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

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

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

Grace and Peace,
Santos
 
Santos,
If I can encourage you; Let it run off you like water on a duck. The PB is known for its detail oriented responses. Most all of us here are concerned with all the 'jots and tittles'. Many times, we can become a bit painful. Not that it isn't important, as we know, 'the devil is in the details'. So, one of my recommendations is to grow a thicker skin and don't be shaken by the obvious challenges that arise. We love u and want you here, participating. :)
 
All, a couple of things happened in this thread to make it go sideways! Santos, your church affiliation not having been updated seemed to cause some confusion. Others on the thread made quick assumptions in the name of being helpful. Let’s try to hear each other and not talk past. As Scott has said, brother Santos, please carry on! Many of us have been where you’re at.
 
Reformed Covenanter,


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

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

Santos,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grace and Peace,
Santos

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

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

With respect to quoting authors, well it depends. Paul quoted pagan poets. Many Reformers quoted scholastic theologians and church fathers who they would not regard as being orthodox on important points like justification. I believe that you need to be careful when doing so that you do not give the impression that you approve of the original writer generally. For instance, my pastor, who is very confessional, quoted who I believe was Karl Barth this past Lord's Day. I say believe because he did not gave the name and, while he approved the quote itself, he noted that the theologian who said it was not orthodox and was not to be trusted on other matters. I have no problem with that. If he had quoted him as if he was an authority with no caveats, it would be concerning. Not "I've gotta leave this church" concerning, but it would be worth bringing up privately with him.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for your encouragement and grace. I apologize for my lack of clarity and hope to be more clear and patient in the future.
 
Can someone help us please?
Crossed my desk this afternoon:
I have come to differ with my church theologically – Should I leave? If yes – How?

Okay, so, maybe that’s another question where, in the abstract, you can answer one way but in the particulars of life there’s just so much you need to think about and so much you need to consider. So, first, I would say be very, very careful. You don’t want to destroy a church, right.​

The transcript:
https://www.challies.com/vlog/how-can-i-leave-my-church-well-video/
 
Wow! I get it folks....Several of you have made it abundantly clear.....I am not reformed because I can't yet say that it's okay to dunk babies based on my conscience and my understanding of scripture. And because my signature still says SBC. But had you read all of my posts you would see that I don't attend an SBC church any more.
I am a Reformed Baptist, so I would not be dunking or sprinkling infants either!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top