Arminian friends and foes

[Neogillist]

While it is true that as Reformed Christians we generally tend to look down at Arminianism as a serious heresy, or at least "a serious error that tends to heresy," as William Ames puts it, we do not however consider all Arminians to be dangerous false teachers or heretics. Take A. W. Tozer, for instance, a popular preacher from the Christian Missionary Alliance and indeed a strong methodist, but yet looked upon favourably by John Piper, MacArthur and probably most of us. True, he has his soteriology that would need some brushing up, but overall, he is one of the most biblical Arminian preachers that you will find. Unlike dispensationalists, he holds to "lordship salvation" and rejects the easy-believism of Bill Bright and many others. He even looks favorably at Reformed theologians in general and is not promoting an "Arminian agenda," unlike most calvinists who like Spurgeon claim that Calvinism and the Gospel are one and the same. He has written many books and some of which are quoted by Piper and others. Overall, Tozer is a friend and not a foe.

On the other extreme, you have other Arminians, or perhaps more properly termed "modified Arminians", "dispensational Arminians" or some of whom call themselves "moderate calvinists" like Dave Hunt who have made themselves into complete enemies of the gospel. They call historic Calvinism heresy, reject Lordship salvation, and are promoting their heretical positions with polemical fervor. Ironically Dave Hunt is hated both by Calvinists, for wrongly portraying them and also by consistent Arminians for holding to "eternal security."

Arminianism or more properly termed "evangelical synergism" covers such a wide spectrum of differences that it is difficult to find two Arminians who can agree with each other on every point of their doctrine. In an era of doctrinal relativism, we cannot afford to look upon all non-Reformed Christians with skepticism and reservations. Some people just don't have a gift for teaching and researching, and being more emotional and socially inclined end up synergistic subconsciously. We cannot put them all into the same boat and label them "heretics" as Dr. McMahon points out in his essay: "The god of Arminianism is not worshippable." We must treat them on a case-by-case basis, and evaluate their teachings in the light of Scriptures before labelling them.

It is in my opinion that the Reformed branch of Christianity is in the process of making a resurgence and might even overthrow the synergistic "lattice" of the evangelical world, given time and the proper approach. Putting away the "C-word" and replacing it with something like "biblical Christianity," or "historic Christian Faith," and concentrating on biblical evangelism rather than polemical essays on limited atonement we may be able to reconquer the grounds that have been lost to the methodists during the 1800s. We need to remember that America was almost entirely Reformed for the first two hundred years (1600-1800). I am quite optimistic that many Christians will see that we are not a movement from within the Church with a new agenda, but that we rather find our roots in the solid foundation laid by the apostles and the early church, the common thread of monergism that runs throughout the centuries of church history and continuously refined over the years by godly men and faithful labourers.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Overall, a pretty good article.

Historically, it is interesting that Whitefield was once considered the leader of Methodism because he started the huge movement in England while Wesley was in Georgia trying to start a revival there. When Wesley returned, Whitefield handed over the movement to Wesley so he could preach abroad and Wesley moved the movement into a decidedly Arminian direction. This eventually led to a split. I have to imagine that, if Whitefield had been prescient as to where Methodism would move under Wesley's leadership, he probably would have been more concerned about "partnering" with him and may have, up front, been more concerned about what, at the time, seemed like an issue they could put behind them "...for the Gospel's sake." Some compromises have a long gestation period but then give birth to monsters that are pretty hard to kill later on.

I take men one at a time as you mention and, in my day to day labors in the Church, I simply don't have the time to consider men and women and Churches around me with a broad label.

I honestly have a hard time separating out errors and determining which are acceptable so we can just move on. The Church, after all, is not primarily held together by parachurch affiliations or cooperations but moves forward as the Church itself.

When you meet actual people in your congregation, you'll always meet people that are at various levels of comprehension and heterodoxy in their thinking. It is the role of teaching to disciple them into maturity and consider them brothers and sisters in Christ. Labels of movements are useful for identifying strains of thought but unhelpful in the Church.

There are also other Churches that I generally consider "kin" in the area but they also tend to be very accepting of downright heterodoxy. It's sometimes the case that we're only "one degree of seperation" of willingness to "cooperate" with people who will cooperate with the most bizzare and heterodox forms of Christianity that even make pure Arminianism seem commendable by comparison. I think we need to be careful in that regard.

It's sort of hard for me to articulate this. In other words some teachers "sort of have it right" but they are still causing some damage in the parts where they don't. The parts they don't have right could be stuff that undermines in very key areas of a disciple's understanding of the Gospel itself. It's sort of hard to treat Christianity in parts because a proper soteriology includes justification and sanctification together and, while some teachers start out with a decent enough justification, they take away the work with a sanctification that undermines the former. They begin in the spirit and seek perfection through the flesh.

I guess what I'm saying is that I have a hard time figuring out where I can just say "...that fellow is safe because he only adds a little leaven of works to the Gospel...." This is a real concern for me as I have discipled many people who move on and then I worry about them when they have to go to another Church that isn't a complete enemy of the Gospel but, yet, has no real Confessionalism to check it from error. This thread really parallels the thread that Ruben created on Fundamentalism in that regard. Without any mooring in a historic confession, there is a real danger of "OK today but what about generationally with this teacher".

Finally, I never identify myself as a Calvinist. It's not because I'm ashamed of it but because it really is not what I consider myself first. I consider myself a Christian with a Reformed Confession. I think leading with the "...I'm a Calvinist or I'm a 5-pointer..." is typically representative of people who are just discovering it initially or who are content to remain with a basic understanding of TULIP and then eclectically put together their own theology but are not usually interested in Confessional orthodoxy per se.

I've found Confessional orthodoxy gives me the mooring I need to take men as they are and disciple them without feeling compelled to create factions of "Calvinists" within the Church who are, themselves, yet too immature to be teaching others and should be striving for the unity of the Church where everyone is growing at different stages of understanding and rancor over misunderstood or poorly taught terminology can cause problems of its own.

 

[Pergamum]

RICH WROTE:

"I guess what I'm saying is that I have a hard time figuring out where I can just say "...that fellow is safe because he only adds a little leaven of works to the Gospel...." This is a real concern for me as I have discipled many people who move on and then I worry about them when they have to go to another Church that isn't a complete enemy of the Gospel but, yet, has no real Confessionalism to check it from error."



Who doesn't add a little leaven to the Gospel?

Rich, this response is not towards you, but just a rant spurred by this thread and an email I received about "arminian heresies", and etc, which must be combatted:


In many parts of the world only a basic Gospel is being articulated, but a dim light is better than no light.

Where I am at the Dutch Reformed Church is drying up and leaving people with a church in name (one over a vast, vast stretch of land) but no evangelism or discipleship. Why? For one reason because the ordination standards were too high and locals were not trained up. These Reformed folks did great disservice to the Gospel whereas in other parts the "evangelicals" - partly semi-calvinist and partly semi-arminian and many shades of theology gave many people the basics of the Gospel.



I know on the PB a big emphasis is placed on the Creed before the Deed, but confessionalism often leads to sterileness and we spend most of our time fencing in boundaries and demarcating who is in and who is out instead of pointing all peoples towards the center - Christ.

We need to be more Center-oriented instead of boundary-oriented.

Of course, I say this because I am working with groups that need maturation and thus expect some level of doctrinal ignorance (or else why would I concentrate efforts on these areas?). However, we plow with the oxen we have and not the ones we don't have and I think many would do well to uphold all ministers of the Gospel that do, in fact, preach that core message and praise God for their efforts.

Confessionalism is not the magic cure. In fact, many folks who hold to a confession believe that they have it all figured out and then that makes them unteachable - which is deadly.

And, there does seem to be a basic core set of Gospel teachings that most (not all, however) Arminians even get right. This means that they basically understand the Gospel...and they do something with it.

Rich, again, this isn't directed at you. In fact, I agree with 99% of what you wrote above. But I do not see the evidence that confessionalism is a safeguard against unhealthy churches. And this is a theme that gets replayed over and over again on the PB. Creeds and deeds, creeds and deeds.

If we keep chopping and chopping and whittling down people we can find 50 people who agree closely with us instead of 500 that share a broader variety of views and need discipling then we have the main difference between many "Reformed" churches versus more mainstream churches. We can have all our church members agree to a pretty tight list of doctrines indeed if our whole church is but 20 people meeting in a living room. That is what many "strict confessional" churches consist of. But the church is not a niche club, but an assembly so that Christian in a locale can gather.

Finally, most "arminians" do not even know what an arminian is, nor are they truly "arminian". Most certainly are not "synergistic" - they believe that the Lord saved them and they are thankful for it.

We use that term "Arminian" quite loosely and often refer to anyone that doesn't hold to all 5 points as Arminian. But there are many good men preaching the Gospel without these labels and getting it fairly right, without dangerous side-rants about the genevan pslater, headcoverings, using the un-edited Westminster instead of the 1788 revision or a number of contentious minor issues.

If we took a poll here, I would say that a large percentage of PBer's were probably saved under preaching that was not confessionalism and probably less than full 5 point Calvinism. Many might have even been saved at a large rally - even a Billy Graham type of experience. I thank God for all these works were the Gospel is, in fact, preached.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Tell all that to men and women that grew up in Churches where they never heard the Gospel - primarily Pentecostal - in the Phillipines. You'll get a disagreement. The Gospel is not sterile. Men's hearts might become hard to it but truth is not something we choose to shave off so that we find a "Center".

I acknowledged that I take men as I find them. What I'm saying is that you don't grow the Church by shaving off all the parts that you think are inconsequential and deciding what the "Center" is and making your "Fundamentals" the focus of Christianity. That's no different than Deists or Liberals who decide which parts of Scripture are the real Truth and which are superstitious nonsense.

Yes, at its core, Christianity is very basic but we are converted to become disciples and to pursue God for the rest of our lives and that doesn't stop at the points that some of us decide, on our own authority, to say: "Yes, I realize Jesus told you to teach them everything He commanded in His Word but I say to you that those things are not central."

The solution to dead orthodoxy is not leaving orthodoxy but to double back on the Gospel and preach it all over again to dead hearts. I can hear your "appeal" echo in Church History and the early results always seem promising until the tree is fully grown and you realize the fruit it's bearing is not the Gospel at all.

God will be God regardless of how other men corrupt the Gospel but I refuse to be one who sins that grace may abound. I have no warrant to say: "Well, everybody adds works to the Gospel so why don't I just not worry about whether or not somebody has been left in their sins because my standard is the lowest common denominator."

 

[lwadkins]

If we took a poll here, I would say that a large percentage of PBer's were probably saved under preaching that was not confessionalism and probably less than full 5 point Calvinism. Many might have even been saved at a large rally - even a Billy Graham type of experience. I thank God for all these works were the Gospel is, in fact, preached.

This is likely true, however part of becoming a child of God is wanting to know Him! There is more to knowing God than the simple elementary Gospel. Had we remained in the churches that started us on our pilgrimage, our knowledge and understanding of what God has revealed of himself would never have been aided by these churches. They championed rank emotionalism with Happy Clappy worship, never getting past the "milk" of the word. Love of God caused me to desire to "know" him" and I would have never known Him well had I not searched for God's truth on my own. Once I began to understand just who God was, I became a persona non grata in my first church. I think if you investigate more deeply you will find reformed churches do not die because of the confessions they hold, but for reasons unrelated, and you will find that the "less rigid" churches may not die but really hold little knowledge of who God truly is, becoming more of a Happiness Club then a church.

 

[Pergamum]

Many "less rigid" churches are thriving (not just numbers wise, but spiritually bringing people from a life of sin into a life of hope in Christ).

I know several "more rigid" pastors in the US who are championing calvinistic theology and bashing arminians that have dried up or split every church they have had a hand in in the last decade. There are just too many "essentials" that keep geting added on as necessary to fellowship together. A few malcontents in a small silent building is all that is left.

What is more, many of the Reformed react more than they act and become reactionary and preach a Gospel of "not"s and tell about what the Gospel is not more than they tell what the Gospel is.

Some of this is necessary, but we often delight in shooting down every new fad that comes down the pike. We almost compete in vilifying the prayer of Jabez or the Jesus film. When outsiders see us, they see a lot of angry people sometimes that only are interested in telling you why the other guys are wrong.

There is, indeed, much more to knowing God than the first simple knowledge that one might be saved with. However, tacking on extra layers of depth is also unneeded. The Reformed often excell at minutia that drags down evangelistic momentum.

As far as what went wrong in the Philippines, I don't know. BUt in my back yard, it is the bad methods of the reformed folks that have stymied the church and left many without the Gospel.


We need not shave off parts of the Gospel, but we need not be overly dogmatic or overly centered on secondary issues either - or attached to particular forms. While the Gospel is not sterile, the liturgical sleepwalk of many of the Reformed is.


What I again mainly want to assert is

(1) we should not demonize arminians unless they are consciously denying the Gospel. And most arminians do hold to a basic gospel and are often zealous. Most are not "synergistic" but thank God for the salvation He has given. And many PBers have been saved or blessed under Arminain ministries.

(2) Confessionalism is not the cure-all; but is often a problem. The Confession becomes the bounds and we go about drawing lines and painting boundaries and calling this discernment. We get wrapped up in dotting i's and forget about the affective aspect of loving relatiosnhip that is, indeed, a large part of being part of the body of Christ.

 

[lwadkins]

It is interesting that you maintain that God can bless an Arminian church but is unable to bless a Calvinistic church because they are too rigid. Unless you are implying that it is technique and zeal that save and not God. Also I would dispute your implication that Calvinistic churches are not zealous. Putting butts in the seats of a church is not difficult if you are willing to do whatever it takes (right or wrong) ala Joel Osteen. Actually making disciples is somewhat more difficult.

 

[Pilgrim]

The solution to dead orthodoxy is not leaving orthodoxy but to double back on the Gospel and preach it all over again to dead hearts. I can hear your "appeal" echo in Church History and the early results always seem promising until the tree is fully grown and you realize the fruit it's bearing is not the Gospel at all.

It is the appeal of broad evangelicalism. It's the old line you hear from many in the SBC and elsewhere: "Let's cut out arguing about theology, etc. and focus on missions and evangelism." It's the mentality that produced "Machen's Warrior Children." It's the mentality that led to Billy Graham compromising with liberals and sending "converts" who had some connection to Romanist churches back to their parish instead to a bible believing church. It's not too far removed from the mega church mentality that says, let's pack em in and ground them in the basics and work on the rest later, but the rest never happens and often the basics don't either. All too often it is vanity and chasing after wind.

However, let me be perfectly clear. I'm not saying none are saved or that there is no fruit at all in any of the ministries that take this approach. What I am saying is all too often they come to a bad end, and often with appalling quickness i.e. Fuller Seminary and any of a multitude of examples that could be named. Also, it goes without saying that if we sit around all the time and pick nits and do nothing but post on the PB about the latest heresy that nothing will be accomplished either.

Although it was by no means broad evangelical I sat under a ministry for almost two years (one that I learned of because its pastor was published in the Banner of Truth, BTW) that deliberately had no confession or even a statement of faith only to find at the end that they denied some very basic things. I was burned once by that mentality that seems so noble and so much more spiritual to the uninitiated. Lord willing it won't ever happen again.

 

[Pergamum]

It is interesting that you maintain that God can bless an Arminian church but is unable to bless a Calvinistic church because they are too rigid. Unless you are implying that it is technique and zeal that save and not God. Also I would dispute your implication that Calvinistic churches are not zealous. Putting butts in the seats of a church is not difficult if you are willing to do whatever it takes (right or wrong) ala Joel Osteen. Actually making disciples is somewhat more difficult.

God blesses ALL churches that preach the Gospel.

Some Arminian churches do, in fact, preach the Gospel. I am not talking about the way out there Joel Osteens, but Arminian-lite preachers that work much with the light they are given.


Methods do spring from our theology and if our methodology is one of laziness and lack of effort, then we must question our theology.

I have met calvinistic churches that are not zealous (at least by their appearance, activities, budgets and future plans they are not..but maybe deep deep inside they feel a zeal). I have met more than one.

Methods do not save, but William Caey did write a little book about the use of means in spreading the Gospel.

We should not make an idol out of the means, but we should certainly neither be idle in the use of these means.

 

[lwadkins]

It is interesting that you maintain that God can bless an Arminian church but is unable to bless a Calvinistic church because they are too rigid. Unless you are implying that it is technique and zeal that save and not God. Also I would dispute your implication that Calvinistic churches are not zealous. Putting butts in the seats of a church is not difficult if you are willing to do whatever it takes (right or wrong) ala Joel Osteen. Actually making disciples is somewhat more difficult.

God blesses ALL churches that preach the Gospel.

Some Arminian churches do, in fact, preach the Gospel. I am not talking about the way out there Joel Osteens, but Arminian-lite preachers that work much with the light they are given.


Methods do spring from our theology and if our methodology is one of laziness and lack of effort, then we must question our theology.

I have met calvinistic churches that are not zealous (at least by their appearance, activities, budgets and future plans they are not..but maybe deep deep inside they feel a zeal). I have met more than one.

Methods do not save, but William Caey did write a little book about the use of means in spreading the Gospel.

We should not make an idol out of the means, but we should certainly neither be idle in the use of these means.

As much light as they are given, or as much light as they will accept!

Jn 6:60-68

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?"
ESV

 

[Pergamum]

The solution to dead orthodoxy is not leaving orthodoxy but to double back on the Gospel and preach it all over again to dead hearts. I can hear your "appeal" echo in Church History and the early results always seem promising until the tree is fully grown and you realize the fruit it's bearing is not the Gospel at all.

It is the appeal of broad evangelicalism. It's the old line you hear from many in the SBC and elsewhere: "Let's cut out arguing about theology, etc. and focus on missions and evangelism." It's the mentality that produced "Machen's Warrior Children." It's the mentality that led to Billy Graham compromising with liberals and sending "converts" who had some connection to Romanist churches back to their parish instead to a bible believing church. It's not too far removed from the mega church mentality that says, let's pack em in and ground them in the basics and work on the rest later, but the rest never happens and often the basics don't either. All too often it is vanity and chasing after wind.

However, let me be perfectly clear. I'm not saying none are saved or that there is no fruit at all in any of the ministries that take this approach. What I am saying is all too often they come to a bad end, and often with appalling quickness i.e. Fuller Seminary and any of a multitude of examples that could be named. Also, it goes without saying that if we sit around all the time and pick nits and do nothing but post on the PB about the latest heresy that nothing will be accomplished either.

Although it was by no means broad evangelical I sat under a ministry for almost two years (one that I learned of because its pastor was published in the Banner of Truth, BTW) that deliberately had no confession or even a statement of faith only to find at the end that they denied some very basic things. I was burned once by that mentality that seems so noble and so much more spiritual to the uninitiated. Lord willing it won't ever happen again.

I think Neogillist's article is well written.

There are shades of gray in this whole issue and I am trying to advocate that we stop the warfare mentality and pray for many of the lite arminians who do preach most of the basics of the Gospel right.

This does not mean that we throw out all doctrine to go evangelize the world...for then what would we evangelize them too?

I do advocate that for the sake of evangelism and other issues that we find just how closely we can fellowship with others for the sake of a more basic goal. And we can ally with some who are not "truly reformed" for some agendas.

Just imagine how crippled the missions efforts would be, after all, if a bunch of the truly reformed churches demanded that all their candidates held to headcovering, exclusive psalmodry, the original WCF instead of that 1788 revision, and a theonomic interpretation of things? Maybe tack on no pictures of Jesus even when teaching out of the church and a multitude of other issues. Not much would get done except drawing lines and fighting over those lines.



Take an example: Two groups of even the Truly Reformed get together and try to evangelize an unreached people group. Say Group A believes in exclusive psalmodry and headcoverings and Group B does not. Is it then a compromise if these two parties decide to not debate this issue in their local church planting context? Is it then a bad thing to say, "Let's drop this nitpicky doctrine for the sake of church planting and evangelism." And, if need be, decide for the two groups to go and evangelize different regions.



There is a virtue in having a broader confession of faith than many on the PB would hold to.

Another example: Wycliffe Bible translators focuses on translation. To make all translators hold to the WCF would cut out 90% of their personnel perhaps. Instead, a purposefully broad doctrinal statement is signed, that binds all members to a "broad evangelical" faith so that these rare, skilled personnel can get out there and start translating the Bible into the hundreds of languages that still do not yet have a single passage of Scripture translated into their own language.

Their is often a virtue in being "broadly evangelical."

 

[lwadkins]

Then brother, why not just reduce it to "just give me Jesus." We really find all the books of the Bible a bit much. There is so much there that is not necessary for salvation. Why not edit it down to a manageable size. Because it is God's revelation about himself! I might add that nitpicking as you have framed it in your argument is not the primary issue between Arminists and Calvinists. It is not a matter of rejecting an unclear teaching in the Scripture, but rejecting clear teachings in the Scripture!

 

[lwadkins]

By the way Pergy, hope you are feeling less exhausted and God has given you rest to restore you.

 

[Pergamum]

Then brother, why not just reduce it to "just give me Jesus."

Wow, you're not handling nuance well here.

Just because we need not get into in-depth teaching on the differences between infralapserianism and supralapserianism does not mean that we throw out the basic doctrines of Scripture.

Just because I am trying to steer clear of minutia so as not to impede evangelism does not mean I am all for a content-less Gospel.

The Bible IS a bit much for people at first. That is why we present the Gospel simply and clearly to them at first and then lead them deeper into the water later. That is why we recommend easy books before John Owen.

Simply and clearly does not mean that one has no regard for deep teaching but that one is trying to get across the main points first.

And in missions or evangelism main things DO need to be separated from secondary things.

Imagine standing before a tribe that worships spirits and does tribal witchcraft killings and speaking to them about headcoverings or theonomy. What they need is first to know who God is and what sin is. If these two elemental truths can be taught, then you've had a really good day.

And "arminians" can do this. Most arminians will even explain salvation well to tribals and the totally unevangelized. There is sin and the need for a savior and the outward teaching that Christ has died for sins.

Greater depth is often not so much needed in our churches as more teaching on the practical import of those basic truths. I have heard many a calvinist give sterile doctrinal lectures on theological minutiae when what is needed is some of that Puritan practical stuff that some of the sterile guys claim to be imitating -basic doctrine applied to life.

Again, I assert that (1) Many arminians preach the gospel. Praise God for their efforts. and (2) Stricter rules or tighter confessional subscription is not the cure-all. Having a broad evangelical spirit of cooperation need not be antithetical to reformed theology.


Of course, if you are worried about all the contentless churches who just preach Jesus and contentless missionaries that only care about mission work and evangelism and not deep docteine, the solution is simple: you come do it better. And bring many friends as well.



P.S. Thanks. I hope I get feeling better soon.

 

[lwadkins]

Brother, you also do not handle nuance well if you believe the above is what I have said.

 

[Arch2k]

I would recommend to all interested in this topic an article written by John Kennedy of Dingwall (1819-1884):

Hyper-Evangelism: Another Gospel, Though A Mighty Power

I could literally quote the entire article, as it is so relavant to the discussion here, but I will try to quote just a small portion so as to give a taste of this man's view of the revivalism in Scotland.

…There are two reasons why I cannot regard the present religious movement hopefully. 1. Because the doctrine which is the means of impression seems to me to be "another gospel," though a mighty influence. Hyper-Evangelism I call it, because of the loud professions of evangelism made by those who preach it; and because it is just an extreme application of some truths, to the neglect of others which are equally important parts of the great system of evangelic doctrine. 2. Because unscriptural practices are resorted to in order to advance the movement…

…My objection to the teaching to which I refer, is, that it ignores the supreme end of the gospel, which is the manifestation of the Divine glory; and misrepresents it as merely unfolding a scheme of salvation adapted to man's convenience. It drops the first note of the angel's song, in which the gospel is described as "glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." This objection has grown and has been confirmed in my mind, by considering, 1. That no pains are taken to present the character and claims of God as Lawgiver and Judge, and no indication given of a desire to bring souls, in self- condemnation, to "accept the punishment of their iniquity." 2. That it ignores the sovereignty and power of God in the dispensation of His grace. 3. That it affords no help to discover, in the light of the doctrine of the cross, how God is glorified in the salvation of the sinner that believeth in Jesus. 4. That it offers no precaution against tendencies to antinomianism on the part of those who profess to have believed…

In the prominent teaching, there is no exposure of the total depravity and the utter spiritual impotence of souls "dead in trespasses and sins." To face this reality in the light of God's word, would be to discover the necessity of the Almighty agency of the Holy Ghost. This cannot be endured. But another reason must be assigned for avoiding the doctrine of total depravity. To preach it is decried as treating men as inert matter, to be wrought upon, but never to be active. This must not be preached to sinners, it is said, lest they fold their hands and sleep. They are intelligent and responsible beings, and must be differently dealt with. And how do you propose to treat them? Are you to hide from them what they must know, ere they can ever act as intelligent beings in dealing with their souls' condition? Are you to set them to work, as if they were what they are not? Is this your way of urging them to act as becomes responsible beings? You would hoodwink their understandings, and misdirect the movements to which their sense of responsibility urges them! But you hide the true state of things from yourselves as well as from them. You do so that you may have hope of success. You have no faith in the Spirit of God. You cannot bear, therefore, to discover that there is a great work for Him to do; and you cannot endure to feel dependent on His love, for you cannot trust in it as the love of God; and if you think of it as Divine, you know that you must also think of it as sovereign. And you would fain account the work to be done as not too much for your own power of persuasion; for you are ambitious of having it to do yourselves, as well as hopeless of having it done by the Lord. And yet, forsooth, you are the men who have faith, and those who differ from you are the dupes of unbelief. Yes, you are men of faith, but yours is faith in men. The man who can cry in faith for life, with a valley of dry bones before him, is the man who has faith in God.

Sometimes, an address may be heard, in which the necessity of regeneration is very strongly urged, but this is sure to be followed by some statement that blunts the edge of all that was said before. After some strong sayings about the necessity of regeneration, in one of the leader's addresses, the question was put, "How is this change to be attained?" And the speaker answered the question by saying, "You believe, and then you are regenerated"; and in confirmation, he referred to John 1:12, forgetting the verse which follows! Faith regenerates! If it does so, as the act of a living soul, then the soul could not have been dead in sins. If it was, whence came the life put forth in believing? If that regenerating faith was the act of a dead soul, then a dead man, by his own act, brings himself alive! The same teacher said on another occasion, "God would not call men to believe, unless they had the power to do so." I would like to hear his answer to the question, Can natural men "love God with all their heart, and soul, and mind, and strength," who yet are required by God to do so? And how would he expound the words, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned"; and the words of Jesus, "No man can come unto me, except the Father who hath sent me, draw him."…

…That faith is, moreover, the cordial reception of Christ in order to salvation from all sin. It is not the mere appropriation of the boon of deliverance from death. This is all that is desired by those who allow themselves to be hurried vaguely to believe in the love of God, and the substitutionary death of Jesus. True faith is the act of a soul who, up to that hour, was a lover of sin and an enemy to holiness, but who now cordially receives the Savior in order to the destruction of what he loved, and to the attainment of what he hated before. Can a man thus believe who has not been regenerated by the Holy Ghost? And why hide from sinners that they cannot? Surely this cannot be wisely done in order to make the gospel more manifest. Which knows best about the grace of the gospel - the man who thinks he is saved by grace through a faith which he owes to himself alone, or the man who has also learned that the faith, through which he is saved, is not of himself, but "is the gift of God"? Did Jesus hide this in His preaching from His hearers? Did He do so in His first sermon (Luke 4)? Did He do so in His first recorded dealing with an inquirer (John 3)? Did He not openly proclaim this in His great gospel sermon addressed to a multitude by the sea of Galilee (John 6)? It was while preaching that sermon He said, "No man can come unto me except the Father, which hath sent me, draw Him."

It does raise one's indignation to hear some men speak of what would conserve, to the Spirit of God, His place and His work, as a mere obscuration of the grace of the gospel, and a fettering of souls in bondage. But it grieves one's heart to know that this is tolerated, and even approved of, by some who ought to be more zealous for the grace and glory of the Lord, than to be able to endure it.

 

[calgal]

A friend of mine likes to say "sometimes churches major in the minors." I was raised by atheists. I would not have known the WCF or 3FU's or any other Reformed distinctives but I knew there was Jesus. That is where a lot of new Christians are at. If they walk into church in jeans (because Calvary Chapel and similar churches have people "come as they are") and get grief for working in the world and NOT covering their heads (women) or for not being EP, how is that extending the hand of fellowship to a stranger? Reformed churches have a (somewhat) undeserved reputation for being unfriendly to newcomers and that is tragic. Maybe spending a little less time on arguing minutae and more time just worshipping Jesus would be beneficial. There are logical reasons for denominational splits (PCUSA/OPC and PCUSA/PCA and CRC/URC come to mind). The problem in my opinion arises when the new denomination is so adamant about NOT being the parent denomination that the minor points of doctrine become essentials.

Gail

 

[lwadkins]

One of the biggest issues is the number of Doctrines, once considered Major, that folks are trying to move into the Minor category.

 

[Arch2k]

One of the biggest issues is the number of Doctrines, once considered Major, that folks are trying to move into the Minor category.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

One of the biggest issues is the number of Doctrines, once considered Major, that folks are trying to move into the Minor category.

Yes, like eternal punishment and penal substitution. If these are not major doctrines I am not sure if there are any major doctrines left.

 

[DMcFadden]

Pergy,

We are all so a product of our environmental influences and bad experiences. I resonate with much that you write, since I hail from the "broadly evangelical" wing of the church.

However, part of what draws me to PB is my own dissatisfaction with the limitations of the broad evangelicalism in which I have labored and invested more than three decades of full time ministry.

1. Bounded sets vs. centered sets. Yes, Roger Olson and Stan Grenz (among many others) love(d) to focus on this trendy notion that what we really need to do is to get away from defining the perimeter and merely focusing on the center. In other words, Jesus first, Jesus last, and Jesus only. Surely we can see our way clear to cooperate with folks who differ from us on the particular theory of the atonement as long as they affirm "Jesus is Lord" can't we?

Well, yes, and no. In practice I have known Truly Reformed folks who are as negatively fundamentalistic as the most narrow graduate of BJU. Separating from sisters and brothers over points of minutia annoys me to no end. However, in that "broadly evangelical" world you talk about, there is no practical way to deal with the Joel Osteens and the prosperity teachers. Evangelicalism qua evangelicalism depends upon the kind of minimalist teaching that nearly invites departures from orthodoxy.

Surely we should differentiate a community effort of cooperation among Gospel preaching, Bible believing, penal satisfaction affirming , Christians regardless of their designer labels? That is not the same as membership requirements of a local church or ordination standards. I, for one, appreciate that PB countenances those of us who see Scripture teaching a credo-Baptist view and those who defend, well, er, ah, you know . . . that other position.

2. Confessionalism is not a simple solution. Duh! I agree with you. Some of the most sterile congregations I know are officially confessional. However, after 52 of my 54 years "broadly evangelical" congregations, confessionalism sounds like an offer of cool water to a man dying of thirst! Perhaps it is not the confessionalism that correlated with the sterility of the church, but other causative factors.

Frankly, after watching two premier "broadly evangelical" institutions go the way of all flesh doctrinally during MY lifetime, I would be in favor of a little confessional subscription. We live in an environment drunk on autonomy and independence. Confessionalism is not a simple "be all" solution. However, it represents a necessary check on the pride of my sinful heart. Left to my own devices, I will cobble together a theology that mixes a little bit of this and a little bit of that.

Much of what Rich writes resonates so strongly with me, perhaps, because of where I come from in my own pilgrimage. But, having read about the downgrades in church history, having attended schools that participated in them during my own lifetime, and doing ecclesiastical battle with separation from a mainline denomination for its denial of the Gospel leaves me more than a little uneasy, Pergy, with some of your conclusions.

Instituting a confessional subscription will not cure the church. Only the Holy Spirit can revive the church. But, the wisdom of prior generations who have prayerfully constructed confessions of faith cannot wisely be ignored.

I know that the burden of your posts was on the idea that we ought not to demonize non-Calvinists. Agreed. One of my sons came to faith under Billy Graham for which I will be eternally grateful. Standing in Billy's pulpit in Wheaton was a thrill second only to standing in Calvin's in Geneva. But, as much as I honor Billy Graham and Jack Hayford for being so much better men of God than me, it does not trouble me to disagree with them strongly as well.

As best as I can tell, the push for "centered set" theory is being championed largely by the same voices who have been responsible for the downgrade in evangelicalism during the past several decades. No, I do not vilify non-Calvinists or demonize them. Still, show me where to sign on the dotted line of a strongly Reformed confession any day!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Pergamum,

I'm having trouble de-conflicting your agreement with Ruben's article on the one hand where he paints a good picture of the problem with fundamentalism with your own insistence that really what we need to create is your brand of fundamentalism.

I'm not sure which things we ought to cut out of the Confessions. Would you like to give me the list of "non-essentials" so we can have the new set of fundamentals and start a new movement?

I'm not demonizing all people who hold to an Arminian soteriology but, at the same time, I have a hard time coming off a series on Galatian and concluding that "...well everybody adds leaven to the Gospel so let's just chill out about it...."

I simply do not agree.

That doesn't mean we shirk people who do but we do work with them to get them to change what they're teaching.

Seriously, the Judaizers taught about Jesus. People would have heard about Jesus from them. Frankly, what they added to the Gospel was less than what some variants of seemingly harmless Arminians do. Even when the addition is not quite so insidious, the neglect of the Gospel in many cases leaves men dead in their sins and trespasses. We're not even talking about EP or the RPW here - we're talking about the Gospel itself!

I agree all those other things that flow out from the center of the Gospel come after a man is a disciple but the problem is that many Churches don't even have the Gospel correct and, when they do have a sense of it, it is undermined then by the peripheral things that should be undergirding and supporting the notion of salvation by faith instead of eroding the foundation because the other "peripherals" are built on a completely different foundation than faith.

You say that Confessionalism is the problem but I say that Confessionalism guards against Churches who build on multiple foundations. In the Confessions Sanctifiction, Ecclesiology, and Sacramentology all reflect back and fold into the Gospel. Not so in many Churches today. It's a big "bait and switch" scam for many where men hear "believe in Jesus and you don't have to do anything else to be saved." They believe but then they realize, after becoming "saved", that discipleship really means doing certain things or God will not bless you. They begin in the Spirit and then are encouraged to become perfected in the flesh. That is NOT the Gospel!

I can hardly be accused of trying to impose an entire punctilious approach to the Confessions upon those growing in Grace. Nevertheless, as I stated, the foundation to grow a man exists in a full-orbed theology that reflect the Gosepl that other approaches ultimately fail. Getting results in the short term or somehow counting noses that have heard the Gospel no longer satifies me. I've seen too many examples of men who have never heard the Gospel and Pentecostalism just doesn't cut it for me as an example of "...well they're getting results...." Duh they're getting results because the sow to the flesh. I just can't see Paul being content with a large Judaizing sect. I wonder, in fact, if there were some Christians in the 2nd Century that were saying: "The problem with Orthodoxy is that it's sterile. We need to be more like the Marcionites. Look at their growth!"

So, I refuse to decide for myself what the "doctrinal set" is that I will work with. No man, who understands the Confessions, believes for a second that you begin with the less obvious issues. The Confessions themselves even confess the perspicuous elements and, by definition, you always begin with the Gospel. But, thankfully, as one moves in concentric circles from that core, the other portions of the Confession don't then build on a foundation of the flesh but always stay linked into the Church's one Foundation.

 

[Blue Tick]

Perg,

Many "less rigid" churches are thriving (not just numbers wise, but spiritually bringing people from a life of sin into a life of hope in Christ).

Can you define what you mean by rigid? Marriage is rigid should we allow for flexibility on how we apply the marriage covenant?

There are just too many "essentials" that keep geting added on as necessary to fellowship together. A few malcontents in a small silent building is all that is left.

What's essential and not essential? How the gospel is presented is essential, if the law is not presented and people are given a “Ask Jesus into your heart spiel” then their belief is in vain. The law must be presented in order to have a complete understanding of our violation of God’s requirements. A fractured view of the gospel will carry over into one’s view on what the essentials are.

What is more, many of the Reformed react more than they act and become reactionary and preach a Gospel of "not"s and tell about what the Gospel is not more than they tell what the Gospel is.

Is this based on your experience of interacting with Reformed Christians or can you name a few Reformed Christians that actually do this.

The Reformed often excell at minutia that drags down evangelistic momentum.

Isn’t it necessary to be precise with language? How are Reformed Christians overly detailed which causes any form of “evangelistic momentum” to be hindered? Can you provide any examples rather than just making broad accusations?

(2) Confessionalism is not the cure-all; but is often a problem. The Confession becomes the bounds and we go about drawing lines and painting boundaries and calling this discernment. We get wrapped up in dotting i's and forget about the affective aspect of loving relatiosnhip that is, indeed, a large part of being part of the body of Christ.

Why is confessionalism so bad and how is it often the problem?

On a personal level when I come into contact with people I don't size them up and say "well your not in comformity with the Confessions therefore I'm not going to love you". The Confessions are there for us to acknowledge what we believe. Its articulated in a manner that's cogent, precise, and defined by scripture on what we believe and how we are to live. Confessionalism is not the problem lack of Confessionalism can lead to many problems.

 

[Pergamum]

JEFF: Thanks for the link. A good read.

Dennis: Great response, I agree with 95% of it.

Rich: Thanks as usual. I do like the confessions.


I think Dennis nailed it on the head when he mentioned:

Surely we should differentiate a community effort of cooperation among Gospel preaching, Bible believing, penal satisfaction affirming , Christians regardless of their designer labels? That is not the same as membership requirements of a local church or ordination standards.

Yes, exactly. We should not require our "partners" in those community efforts to fully subscribe to the WCF. THis PB is sort of like one of those occasions were baptists are allowed in, for instance.

What I am advocating is NOT the watering down of basic theology to bring in the goats into the pews. It is NOT just Jesus. There IS, indeed, a core set of doctrines that are held to by all Christians.

What I advocate is this: As we move from local church ordination, to regional involvement, to church planting among the neediest in the world, we should - at each step - move towards this more simple core set of beliefs.

Thus, in groups that concentrate on these items, we need not a full-orbed" confessionalism but a simple, core set of doctrines.

A good example of this would be the following for a missions body:

We Affirm:
SCRIPTURE: - that the sixty-six books of the Bible are the written Word of God, verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit, without error in the original manuscripts, and the final authority in all matters of faith and conduct. Ps. 19:7-12; II Tim.3:14-17; II Pet. 1:20,21

GOD: - that there is only one true God, eternally existing in three Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - equal and harmonious in every respect, yet distinct in relation to the divine functions. God is the Creator and Sustainer of all things. Jn.8:12-59; 14:8-17

PERSON OF THE FATHER: - that God the Father is the sovereign, holy, and merciful Lord who judges righteously, and who in love pursues the redemption of His fallen creation. Ps.139; Isa.40; Jn.3:16-21

PERSON OF Jesus Christ: -that God the eternal Son became a man through the virgin birth, uniting perfect deity and true humanity in one Person forever. His virgin birth was a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit. He lived a sinless life, was crucified, rose bodily from the dead, and ascended into heaven as Lord of all. He now intercedes for believers and will return personally and visibly to receive them, to establish His Kingdom and to rule in righteousness and peace. Mt.1:18-25; Jn.1:1-18; I Cor.15:1-8; Col.1:15-23; Heb.4:14-16; Rev.19:11-20:6

PERSON OF THE HOLY SPIRIT: - that God the Holy Spirit glorifies the Father and the Son in all that He does, not calling attention to Himself. His work includes convicting and regenerating sinners, baptizing all believers into the body of Christ at the time of regeneration, living in them, enabling them to live a life of obedient faith, equipping and empowering them for service and witness. Jn. 14-16; Rom. 8; Gal. 5:22-23; Eph. 5:18-21

HUMANITY: - that God created man and woman in His own image, and they became separated from God through their disobedience. Consequently every human being is born a sinner, unwilling and unable to please God. Therefore even those who have never heard the truth about God and His provision for salvation are lost. Gen.1-3; Rom.3, 4

SALVATION: - that eternal salvation is wholly a work of God. God, out of His abundant grace, forgives sinners when they repent of their sin and put their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died for them and rose from the dead. Jesus assumes their punishment for sin, credits His righteousness to those who believe, and brings them into eternal relationship with God as His children. Rom. 5; 10:8-10

SANCTIFICATION: - that believers are declared holy in standing before God, on the basis of the finished work of Christ. However, until they are glorified, when they will be with the Lord, they are to grow in godliness as they submit to Christ's lordship, live in Christian community and are filled (controlled and empowered) by the Holy Spirit. Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 5:18; Heb. 10:10; II Pet. 3:14-18

THE CHURCH: - that the church universal as the body of Christ is under His Headship and is composed of all believers. It is made visible by local communities of believers organized for corporate worship, edification, fellowship, and the continuation of Christ's mission on earth. God gives spiritual gifts and leaders to the Church for its edification. The two God- ordained symbolic rites of the Church are believers baptism and the Lord's supper. Mt.16:18, 28:19; Lk. 22:19; Eph. 3:8-11, 20-21; 4:11-16

RESURRECTION: - that there will be a final bodily resurrection of all persons: believers will be raised to eternal life and conscious fellowship with God; unbelievers will be raised to eternal punishment and conscious separation from God. Eccl. 12:14; Dan. 12:2-4; I Cor. 15; II Cor. 5:1-10

SATAN AND SPIRITUAL CONFLICT: - that Satan and other fallen angels are real, have personality, and are enemies of God and destroyers of men. While they were defeated at the cross and are limited in operation, they still engage in spiritual battle against God's people and against His purpose until the final day of judgment. Through Christ believers can live victoriously in this struggle with the forces of evil. Eph. 2:1-3; 6:10-18; Heb. 2:14-18; Jas. 4:6-7

MISSION: - that Christ commissioned the Church to communicate to all people by verbal witness, godly living, and acts of compassion, the Good News of God's redemptive love and provision of salvation. It is the solemn responsibility of all believers to work with Christ in fulfilling the commission of making disciples among all peoples. Mt. 28:16-20; Acts 1:6-11





My own personal set of doctrines is very strict. My home churches set of doctrines is less strict. That church is part of a fellowship that defines themselves even less narrowly for the sake of cooperation. Finally, in missions, most groups even make their statement of faith more basic and one is given freedom in the 2ndry issues.


Also, there ARE good Bible churches that NEVER discuss Arminianism versus Calvinism that give good Bible teaching every week - even without a Confession. Some of these men would be labeled as "Arminian"because they do not share all 5 points with us (and anyone that is less than all 5 points is thus an "arminian" according to the definition of many calvinists). And their churches ARE thriving spiritually and the people are learning about the Bible, whereas many of the churches represented on the PB consist of 30 people, or are eeking out an existence or diminishing in numbers.

How many church closings or failed church plants have we had on the PB in the past year anyhow? Because this hurts us, we usually then blame the failed church plant on the inability of people to stomach our good doctrine, thus excusing ourselves. It's the people...they just cannot stomach sound doctrine...that is why I killed the church plant when I tried to apply the whole confession and elder rule on them at once....etc. We sit and intellectualize the problems of others, when a true Biblical attitude would be to look at us and ask ourselves why so many of us first came out of and were saved in "arminian" contexts before we saw the light of confessionalism, being "truly Reformed", etc.

Blue tick: You asked what is essential and what is non-essential. That is a good question. Surely the deity of Christ is essential. Surely headcoverings or the use of the original versus the revised WCF is secondary. When it comes to bounds of unity, we should not build extra fences to limit fellowship with other Christians.


Take the doctrinal statement for the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the US. Tell me how many non essentials are added into a doctrinal statement:

"What are the particular distinctives characterizing this denomination? First, we affirm a presuppositional approach to apologetics. We also acknowledge ourselves to be a theonomic denomination. Third, we believe in a postmillennial eschatology. Fourth, the RPCUS advocates that all areas of ecclesiastical authority be exercised by biblically qualified males. Specifically, the RPCUS only allows male heads of households to participate in congregational voting.
The question that has been raised by some Reformed brethren is: To what extent does the RPCUS demand subscription of its officers to these distinctives? The answer is: The RPCUS requires all of its teaching and ruling elders along with its deacons to subscribe to these distinctives."

Of all the distinctives they could have listed, they certainly chose an odd set. Thus, this denomination becomes a niche church and caters to only a narrow subset of Reformed folks and sink a lot of effort into defining those minor nuances. Where do these folks serve overseas....not many places I am sure (I know of a couple places, but nothing pioneering).



John Frame writes an interesting book, Evangelical Reunion that touches on some of these issues. Has anyone read it?

 

[kvanlaan]

One of the biggest issues is the number of Doctrines, once considered Major, that folks are trying to move into the Minor category.

We constantly hear "we've got to major on the majors", but we NEVER hear the minors; this is the other side of the coin. This is the slippery slope that leads to "red-letter Christians" and the doctrine of the "Great Commission alone" without any supporting doctrine/scripture.

Anyone who has majored in Economics and minored in languages will definitely spend the bulk of his time in economics/business classes. But he will most certainly be spending a significant amount of time in language class. Many of these churches have a tendancy to remove that time in language class altogether and leave lopsided Christians.

 

[Pilgrim]

Pergy,

So when church planting in needy areas your idea is that there should be a smaller group of core beliefs. I ask, what kind of churches are going to result? It appears obvious to me that it is going to be some kind of non-denominational church and possibly charismatic. Some Baptists or Bible church types or other rootless para-church evangelicals won't have any problem with this, but it shouldn't be a surprise that confessional Presbyterians will have a hard time in getting enthusiastic about planting independent churches. As I'm sure you know, the Southern Baptist Convention has had problems with planting charismatic churches on the foreign mission field.

His many contributions notwithstanding, John Frame has been at war with Confessional Presbyterianism for decades on a number of issues.

Putting to the side for the moment the various debates on EP, headcovering, etc., it also seems that, as has often happened in the past, you are taking the views of micropresbyterianism and other views that, right or wrong, are typically held by tiny minorities within the Reformed world today and ascribing them generally to NAPARC and similar churches.

Reading your posts here one who is ignorant of the situation could be forgiven for thinking that there are no Presbyterian and Reformed works in needy areas. That is just simply not the case. And to demand that Presbyterian churches stop working to plant Presbyterian churches is to demand that Presbyterians forfeit their well considered identity. I ask, are you interested in planting churches that have Episcopal church government and engage in baby sprinkling just so long as they otherwise hold to the bare minimal standard you have prescribed? For all of your posts about forfeiting all but the "core" doctrines for the sake of unity I doubt that is the case.

I only know of one failed church plant or church closing on the PB in the last year but I could be wrong.

 

[Blue Tick]

Perg,

Thank you for answering my question.


You bring up non-essentials added to the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States statement of faith.

Where did you get this? I can't seem to locate this on their website.

Take the doctrinal statement for the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the US. Tell me how many non essentials are added into a doctrinal statement:

"What are the particular distinctives characterizing this denomination? First, we affirm a presuppositional approach to apologetics. We also acknowledge ourselves to be a theonomic denomination. Third, we believe in a postmillennial eschatology. Fourth, the RPCUS advocates that all areas of ecclesiastical authority be exercised by biblically qualified males. Specifically, the RPCUS only allows male heads of households to participate in congregational voting.
The question that has been raised by some Reformed brethren is: To what extent does the RPCUS demand subscription of its officers to these distinctives? The answer is: The RPCUS requires all of its teaching and ruling elders along with its deacons to subscribe to these distinctives.

What their affirming is what is required of their officers. Their not requiring their members to be presup, postmill,etc. Additionally, what's wrong with them (the church) clearly defining what they believe as a church? This in of itself holds them accountable to what they say they believe. Is that such a bad thing.

Of all the distinctives they could have listed, they certainly chose an odd set. Thus, this denomination becomes a niche church and caters to only a narrow subset of Reformed folks and sink a lot of effort into defining those minor nuances. Where do these folks serve overseas....not many places I am sure (I know of a couple places, but nothing pioneering).

Why do you insist on attacking Reformed Christians and their lack of so called evangelistic endeavors? What makes them so narrow in defining what they believe?

This quote is taking from the RPCUS website on evangelism.

OUR LOCATIONS AND MINISTRIES

Our ministers have been involved in evangelistic endeavors throughout these United States, and in world missions in El Salvador, Chile, Paraguay, Argentina, South Africa, Germany and Scotland. We are closely identified with Whitefield Theological Seminary in Lakeland, Florida. We have a monthly magazine of twenty-four to forty-eight pages, The Counsel of Chalcedon, which goes into homes, churches, schools, and businesses of thousands of people around the world. We have an extensive pro-life ministry through such projects as the North Georgia Reformation Center, which includes a home for unwed mothers, and which offers loving care discipleship and vocational training.

More on what the RPCUS believes

 

[Iconoclast]

short term /long term?

Are we really discussing two seperate ideas in this thread.

What might work short term, as compared to a long term work?
The op seemed to be speaking more about established works who down play doctrine.
Pergamum seems to be speaking about evangelizing unchurched persons,maybe even poorly educated persons.
This is what I think has been expressed in this thread.We can be creative and simple in speaking even of the most complex theology if we remember that we are to reach the sinner where he is, dead in Adam.
The scriptural language and theological hardware that we are fond of should be the foundation that we maintain, as we speak to the unchurched in language,illustrations and parables that hecan easily grasp.
Jesus used common illustrations in the parables,or direct quotes of scripture.
The only times His teaching was to conceal truth was to the religious false teacher's or, the proud in heart.
I do not think we will go wrong if we stick simply to what saith the scripture,as we can use our own language to remove obstacles to truth.
I am sure if pergy get's asked a confessional question, he will rise to the task. But if I understand his posts, he is describing more basic foundational issues.

 

[Theoretical]

What about using a translated catechism (say Westminster Shorter, Heidelberg, or Spurgeon/Keach's Catechisms, as appropriate) as an early foundational document for these churches in the unreached, untranslated language areas? While they are not even remotely as comprehensive as the respective confessions or even the Larger Catechism, they provide detailed, straightforward doctrinal foundations to help keep a nascent church soundly moored and not easily prone to heresies due to sheer ignorance.

Furthermore, with oral cultures, wouldn't the particular learning style of memorized learning that comes with catechism be particularly "natural" for them, since knowledge and transmission of knowledge is tied directly to memory?

Furthermore, once there is adequate growth and maturity within these churches, greater confessionalism could be introduced with the introduction of Westminster/3FU/London Baptist Confessions as appropriate.

Just my

 

[Pergamum]

Theoretical: Yes, this is one strategy being done. In the oral cultures, simple Bible storying with one or two main teachings per story seems somewhat effective.

Sometimes, however, there is such a vast jump between cultures that some of the catechism questions don';t make much sense to tribal peoples.

Iconoclast: Yes, we are talking about the millions (billions actually) in Asia that know almost nil about even the basic doctrines of Christianity. To throw the whole Confession on them at once is a bit overwhelming.

Also, for others to accuse me of not caring about doctrine is unfair. I care very much about doctrine, I just disagree in how it is given to the totally unchurched. Some doctrines should come before others and be given greater priority - i.e. the "basics". Of course, the desire is to take people beyond the basics.

Of course, most people still think that I just want to preach Jesus and no doctrines when what I am advocating is a gradation of teaching for those who are totally unchurched. The basics are enough and even that is overwhelming. And some lite Arminians do a good job of covering those basics.

In the US, perhaps the situation is different. But even the US is becoming increasingly unchurched.


Blue Tick: About the RPC in the US:
Many of the "Truly Reformed" call their literature ministries missions, and in many cases it is. But, putting many feet on the ground has been difficult for some Presbyterian denominations. I guess many of them are micro-presbyterians.


Blue tick again: Shouldn't we require of our officers what the APostel Paul says that God requires of officers. To require more is to require unbiblical additions to the Word of God. The Apostle Paul does not say that a man must be apt to teach....from a theonomic perspective... These extra requirements define this denomination as a niche church that over-narrowly defines itself. It puts up extras boundaries of fellowship that need not be.



MTW, the PCA denomination does a lot of good work, but mostly in teaching already established congregations. An MTW publication actually researched and found that the PCA does not even send the majority of its own missions funds to MTW its own missions agencies.


Again, there are differing needs for churches at different levels of maturation. In truly pioneer situations, there is a need to focus on the basics. Why not just give'm the whole Bible! Well, these sorts of answers are trite and without understanding that many of these cultures do not even have a passage of Scripture translated. So, what book should we even translate first? What main doctrines whould we teach first?

Pilgrim: I am not planting charismatic churches, I assure you. But with many boundaries that include linguistic and cultural boundaries, often one cannot cover every topic that is needful - therefore one MUST stick to the basics. For the sake of evangelism and missions, one must limit the message somewhat. The NT did not address these issues until Paul responded to problems in the church, such as in Corinthians. Much of Paul's writings address problems that arose in the church at a later period and he clarifies these issues to a greater degree then. This is a neccessity of evangelism and mission.

Kvanlaan: I suppose that minors could be preached on in the US in a mature church. But can you imagine preaching on headcoverings, infra versus supra, etc when people don't even understand God or the Trinity? Again, I am not advocating dumbing down the Gospel on purpose and keeping it dumbed down, but in simplifying it for a baby's first steps and then adding weight to it as their legs strengthen. But the slow process of the maturation of the church in many areas will only only basics to be taught. Therefore, bounds of fellowship and the level of cooperation we have with other evangelicals can be greater in areas of pioneer outreach.


For the sake of pioneer church planting, one must concentrate on basics and leave deeper teacher for later. This is not out of choice, but out of necessity. One is forced to be a "Mere Christian" out of not being able to cover all that is needed. Therefore, one covers that central core Gospel...and THERE IS a central core Gospel, and one that is even more basic than the five points.


One last point, I keep getting criticised for not planting on a firm foundation, such as a confession. But a surer foundation is Scripture and to point people to this instead of to point them to a confession is much superior. Even when teaching confessional doctrines, it is wise at beginnings stages of a pioneer church plant, especially in Asia, to not rely on the confession but to show where all things are found in Scripture.