Pergamum,
1. You need to refrain from stating that another man has openly sinned simply upon his assertion that somebody weeps that a group is Evangelizing on the one hand but calling what we believe central to the Gospel itself to be dangerous on the other. In their seed form, the ideas of depravity, election, atonement, grace, and perseverance are embedded within the Gospel itself even if they do not require the hearer to embrace all in a full orbed understanding. Yet, to consciously repudiate them is very worrisome.
2. I say this with all sincerity and brotherly love but you really need to make up your mind about whether or not the Confessions are an accurate summary of the doctrines contained in the Word of God. If they are not then they don't just work for you because you want to be strict about things that the Word of God doesn't teach. If they are then you cannot simply assert that they are just for you.
3. What I have found fascinating in this thread is what I have just now placed my finger upon:
a. You are angry at generalizations and painting with wide brushes -BUT-
(1) You seemingly disagree with Arminian soteriology and yet speak in nothing but generally glowing terms of all Arminian missionary activities and chalk it all up to the fact that, thankfully, these Arminians are inconsistent at best in their professed soteriology when they pray and when they teach the Gospel.
(2) You state that you agree with the Confessions but then paint with the widest possible brush that the only manner that Reformed people use such Confessions is to beat people over the head with them. You ascribe the worst possible motives to them. You find it impossible in fact, in a very general way, that a Reformed Church could do anything except put men under a yoke of slavery.
(3) In summary, you are willing to ascribe only the purest of motives to those who you say you disagree doctrinally with but you ascribe the most monstrous of motives to those who you believe agree with the basic doctrines of Scripture are - including what the nature of the Gospel itself is.
b. Just a quick question: are there any Roman Catholic missionary organizations in your region of the world? If so, why not partner with them? In fact, Pergamum, I first started my journey to the faith through the Roman Catholic Church and it was the charismatic experiences I had therein that led me to faith in Christ. I'm just curious where this line is drawn and how you define it.
c. I still find myself wondering how, if I was to embrace this approach to Church growth what it is I'm supposed to embrace. What is the doctrinal statement for this movement and what is its aim? Pilgrim has asked you about your views and I wonder why you wouldn't even partner with a paedobaptist organization or is it just "essentials" like believer's baptism that are important but not "non-essentials" like whether or not our salvation begins in the decision of men or is birth from above.
Honestly Pergamum, the person I've found most directly insulting and pointed as painting a group of people uniformly in a bad light is you in this thread. Others are expressing doubts about the message, you're casting the lot of Reformed Christians in a poor light.
Other men have right concerns about doctrines and wonder, in their consciences, how they can reconcile what they believe are issues that center around the Gospel. Now, on the ground, this does not mean that they might not help such a one or even extend friendship and help but there is a difference between that and meeting them, exchanging confessions and then lopping off the parts of God's Word that they don't agree with simply so we can have a team effort.
I'm seriously left very confused how you can believe that the God of the Universe inspired certain Truths and that your Lord commanded you to disciple men with these Truths and then you can charge us with some sort of strange attitude that we're not willing to cut those out of the diet of believers or out of a newly formed Church.
And, as much as I appreciate what you're doing, don't think for a moment that there aren't Reformed men in dangerous and difficult places elsewhere that have all concluded that the Confessions are a fool's errand. If they're a fool's errand for a new Christian then they're a fool's errand for us all. Either they summarize the Word of God accurately or they need to be jettisoned. If they do then they cannot be ignored or lopped off at our convenience.
1. You need to refrain from stating that another man has openly sinned simply upon his assertion that somebody weeps that a group is Evangelizing on the one hand but calling what we believe central to the Gospel itself to be dangerous on the other. In their seed form, the ideas of depravity, election, atonement, grace, and perseverance are embedded within the Gospel itself even if they do not require the hearer to embrace all in a full orbed understanding. Yet, to consciously repudiate them is very worrisome.
2. I say this with all sincerity and brotherly love but you really need to make up your mind about whether or not the Confessions are an accurate summary of the doctrines contained in the Word of God. If they are not then they don't just work for you because you want to be strict about things that the Word of God doesn't teach. If they are then you cannot simply assert that they are just for you.
3. What I have found fascinating in this thread is what I have just now placed my finger upon:
a. You are angry at generalizations and painting with wide brushes -BUT-
(1) You seemingly disagree with Arminian soteriology and yet speak in nothing but generally glowing terms of all Arminian missionary activities and chalk it all up to the fact that, thankfully, these Arminians are inconsistent at best in their professed soteriology when they pray and when they teach the Gospel.
(2) You state that you agree with the Confessions but then paint with the widest possible brush that the only manner that Reformed people use such Confessions is to beat people over the head with them. You ascribe the worst possible motives to them. You find it impossible in fact, in a very general way, that a Reformed Church could do anything except put men under a yoke of slavery.
(3) In summary, you are willing to ascribe only the purest of motives to those who you say you disagree doctrinally with but you ascribe the most monstrous of motives to those who you believe agree with the basic doctrines of Scripture are - including what the nature of the Gospel itself is.
b. Just a quick question: are there any Roman Catholic missionary organizations in your region of the world? If so, why not partner with them? In fact, Pergamum, I first started my journey to the faith through the Roman Catholic Church and it was the charismatic experiences I had therein that led me to faith in Christ. I'm just curious where this line is drawn and how you define it.
c. I still find myself wondering how, if I was to embrace this approach to Church growth what it is I'm supposed to embrace. What is the doctrinal statement for this movement and what is its aim? Pilgrim has asked you about your views and I wonder why you wouldn't even partner with a paedobaptist organization or is it just "essentials" like believer's baptism that are important but not "non-essentials" like whether or not our salvation begins in the decision of men or is birth from above.
Honestly Pergamum, the person I've found most directly insulting and pointed as painting a group of people uniformly in a bad light is you in this thread. Others are expressing doubts about the message, you're casting the lot of Reformed Christians in a poor light.
Other men have right concerns about doctrines and wonder, in their consciences, how they can reconcile what they believe are issues that center around the Gospel. Now, on the ground, this does not mean that they might not help such a one or even extend friendship and help but there is a difference between that and meeting them, exchanging confessions and then lopping off the parts of God's Word that they don't agree with simply so we can have a team effort.
I'm seriously left very confused how you can believe that the God of the Universe inspired certain Truths and that your Lord commanded you to disciple men with these Truths and then you can charge us with some sort of strange attitude that we're not willing to cut those out of the diet of believers or out of a newly formed Church.
And, as much as I appreciate what you're doing, don't think for a moment that there aren't Reformed men in dangerous and difficult places elsewhere that have all concluded that the Confessions are a fool's errand. If they're a fool's errand for a new Christian then they're a fool's errand for us all. Either they summarize the Word of God accurately or they need to be jettisoned. If they do then they cannot be ignored or lopped off at our convenience.