How broadly or narrowly do we cooperate with others?

[Pergamum]

Hello;


If you are making efforts into an Asian country where linguistic groups of several thousand are living who do not have a church established, how broadly or narrowly can you work with others?

I do not believe in the two extremes I have seen, such as groups partnering with unitarians for missionary medical relief. Nor do I believe in the approach of one micro-presbyterian church I saw that had their whole missions budget trying to start a church in Illinois where "there was no Gospel".



What is a healthy approach in focusing our efforts towards expanding the church?

What do we do with the unsaved near and those far?


For those in tough to reach areas, how broadly should and can we cooperate?

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Good question!

 

[jambo]

I always found it interesting how William Carey went about his work in India. He is well renowned for translating the scriptures into the local dialects of India. The area covered by the language groups of his translation work meant that a huge chunk of India at least had portions of scripture if not the NT or entire bible. He also worked on the Hindu scriptures as well which I found quite surprising. However such was his contribution to Indian culture that today even in Serampore, education and literary authorities feel a debt to Carey and still hold him in high regard.

When we were on the mission field we were narrow enough to confine co-operation within the evangelical camp but broad enough to coperate with all within the evangelical spectrum. Whereas in the UK or US because there are so many Christians secondary things become the important basis for fellowship, co-operation etc. On the mission field because Christians are so few and far between that genuine believers are willing to meet with other genuine believers having the common bond in Christ.

Paul commends both the Ephesian and Colossian believers for their love for all the saints. Reflecting on what was going on at Corinth, Colosse, Galatia I often wonder how I would have coped. I find myself questioning whether I could have fellowship with the Corinthian church with the shenanigans that were going on there. And if I could have fellowship at Corinth, why am I dubious about fellowshipping with modern day equivalents of the Corinthian church?

The church-and only the church-is tasked with completing the great commission. Only the church is equipped and enabled to complete this task. Thus any outreach work can only be done by the Lord's people. The Lord's people is more inclusive than our own wee group. Provided the essentials were right, I would co-operate with anyone

 

[vagabond]

Provided the essentials were right, I would co-operate with anyone

Exactly. The essentials need to be right. To be more specific, in the individual cases I can recall, the Scriptures forbid us to work with those who

1) Deny the Christ of Scripture, specifically:
-deity of Christ
-incarnation of Christ
2) Deny the Gospel, specifically:
-salvation by grace through faith
-the resurrection
-the Lordship of Christ
3) Live in gross, unrepentant sin.

In the case of false teaching, we're not to support them. Bidding them "Godspeed" makes us "partakers in their evil deeds!"

But, at the same time, the Scriptures hold in high esteem unity and fellowship despite differences. "How good it is when brothers dwell together in unity!" "One Lord, one faith, one baptism etc." and many other references encourage Christian unity.

The modern church, though, has mostly failed by being too ecumenical, accepting and supporting erring professors and ministers. Those who seek to avoid this often stray into an over-fundamentalist radical separation.

So many things are issues of balance...

 

[TimV]

The seven ecumenical councils. That's been the litmus test for centuries between "us" and "them" so why change? Lutherans, Reformed, Orthodox are in, Mormons, Unitarians and JWs are out.

 

[Pergamum]

How about Pentecostals? A worldwise Pentecostal "revival" is sweeping the Globe.

 

[vagabond]

The seven ecumenical councils. That's been the litmus test for centuries between "us" and "them" so why change? Lutherans, Reformed, Orthodox are in, Mormons, Unitarians and JWs are out.

Wouldn't that put in groups who believe in salvation by works? Their denial of Paul's gospel fits them into Paul's appropriately strong "let him be accursed." Of course, there may be Catholics/Orthodox who believe the gospel of grace alone, but, in the words of a prominent SBC leader, they'd have to "circumvent their whole theology" in order to do so!

I'm extremely uncomfortable with attempts to put such works-salvation groups "in." The councils did valuable work on understanding the doctrine of the Trinity, but personally I think the Scripture's guidelines (see my earlier post) do better then the councils.

How about Pentecostals? A worldwise Pentecostal "revival" is sweeping the Globe.

I've worked with Charismatics/Pentecostals before, in Ukraine, anyway. They're a mixed bag; like the emergents or Methodists or Presbyterians or Baptists etc., some are good and some are bad. It's hard to make a universal judgment about the whole group.

A problem, though, is that Pentecostalism tends to bad ecumenism. In other words, if a person has had the "second blessing" (baptism of the Holy Spirit), he MUST have had the first! (so they say). In this way, unregenerate people can be treated and accepted as regenerate because they "speak in tongues." That seems very dangerous to me.

 

[KMK]

In the latest issue of the ARBCA Newsletter, Dr. Renihan writes an encouraging piece about his cooperation with WTS. (I cannot find the article online.)

If Confessional Baptists and Confessional Presbyterians can cooperate at the Seminary level, then I am sure anything is possible!

PS Does anyone know how to get an e-copy of the article so Pergumum can read it?

 

[TimV]

Wouldn't that put in groups who believe in salvation by works? Their denial of Paul's gospel fits them into Paul's appropriately strong "let him be accursed." Of course, there may be Catholics/Orthodox who believe the gospel of grace alone, but, in the words of a prominent SBC leader, they'd have to "circumvent their whole theology" in order to do so!

Yes, that would include groups who believe in salvation by works, like the vast majority of people Perg already works with, like every single one of the Baptists that aren't 5 point Calvinists.

The question is lowest common denominator. The Catholic doctrine of Mary being a co-redeemer is no different than the Arminian doctrine of salvation based on the will of man.

 

[Pergamum]

Tim:

Are you asserting that all who are not Five Pointers are Pelagians?

 

[TimV]

Tim:

Are you asserting that all who are not Five Pointers are Pelagians?

I'm pointing out to Pete that if you can't work with groups that hold to salvation through works of one sort or another, you're up the creek.

Which of the 5 points can you ditch and not bring the element of human will being instrumental in salvation? Drop Perseverance and a man has the ability to loose his salvation through an act of will. Drop Unconditional Election and salvation become conditional, determined by a man's will, which is a form of works. Drop Total Depravity and there's a spark of good in man, that takes an act of will to choose the good.

You don't have to be a Pelagian to hold to a doctrine of salvation where works are a part of the story.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Wouldn't that put in groups who believe in salvation by works? Their denial of Paul's gospel fits them into Paul's appropriately strong "let him be accursed." Of course, there may be Catholics/Orthodox who believe the gospel of grace alone, but, in the words of a prominent SBC leader, they'd have to "circumvent their whole theology" in order to do so!

Yes, that would include groups who believe in salvation by works, like the vast majority of people Perg already works with, like every single one of the Baptists that aren't 5 point Calvinists.

The question is lowest common denominator. The Catholic doctrine of Mary being a co-redeemer is no different than the Arminian doctrine of salvation based on the will of man.

Thats a pretty strong statement to say that arminians believe in works salvation. Many arminians believe in salvation by grace though faith alone, they just get a little contradictory with some of their ideas. True arminianism (Arminius himself) believes in TD and therefore must believe in sola gratia. The Eastern Orthadox do not believe in TD or sola gratia and fide and shouldn't be worked with in my opinion.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Tim:

Are you asserting that all who are not Five Pointers are Pelagians?

I'm pointing out to Pete that if you can't work with groups that hold to salvation through works of one sort or another, you're up the creek.

Which of the 5 points can you ditch and not bring the element of human will being instrumental in salvation? Drop Perseverance and a man has the ability to loose his salvation through an act of will. Drop Unconditional Election and salvation become conditional, determined by a man's will, which is a form of works. Drop Total Depravity and there's a spark of good in man, that takes an act of will to choose the good.

You don't have to be a Pelagian to hold to a doctrine of salvation where works are a part of the story.

I would say logically you're right, but practically you're wrong. Many Arminians should believe in a works salvation if they thought through their system but still only believe sola fide. The groups we have to avoid are those who believe the logical conclusions of their ideas; ie works.

 

[Pergamum]

Tim:

So you ARE saying that all who fall short of Five Point Calvinism are guilty of Pelagianism?

 

[ADKing]

The seven ecumenical councils. That's been the litmus test for centuries between "us" and "them" so why change? Lutherans, Reformed, Orthodox are in, Mormons, Unitarians and JWs are out.

I am sorry, I must be missing your point. The Reformed do not accept all seven ecumenical councils but only the first four (Nicaea 325; Constantinople I 381; Ephesus 431; Chalcedon 451). The seventh for example (Nicaea II in 787 anathematized those who would not give adoration to images!!).

 

[Pergamum]

Many evangelicals I have met believe in justification by faith alone due to grace alone. They believe that we must receive Christ, yet they assert that this was even a grace of God. They state a belief in God's sovereignty even while urging human effort as a response. Many do not know the mechanics of salvation but are far from Pelagianism.

 

[TimV]

Thats a pretty strong statement to say that arminians believe in works salvation. Many arminians believe in salvation by grace though faith alone, they just get a little contradictory with some of their ideas. True arminianism (Arminius himself) believes in TD and therefore must believe in sola gratia. The Eastern Orthadox do not believe in TD or sola gratia and fide and shouldn't be worked with in my opinion.

Manley, you contradict yourself, and are factually, historically wrong. You could read up on why Celestius was anathematized.

 

[TimV]

Originally Posted by TimV

The seven ecumenical councils. That's been the litmus test for centuries between "us" and "them" so why change? Lutherans, Reformed, Orthodox are in, Mormons, Unitarians and JWs are out.

I am sorry, I must be missing your point. The Reformed do not accept all seven ecumenical councils but only the first four (Nicaea 325; Constantinople I 381; Ephesus 431; Chalcedon 451). The seventh for example (Nicaea II in 787 anathematized those who would not give adoration to images!!).

Yes, you are missing my point, and are mistaken about how many Calvin mentioned as "led by the Spirit". He pointed out that two contradicted each other, but when he mentioned Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon how do you know, or why would you think, that both Ephesus councils were not meant, and two the those at Constantinople?

There is a wealth of reading material out there, and for the SPECIFIC PRACTICAL PURPOSES that this thread started out with (not Eldership requirements for the OPC!) why not start without re-inventing the wheel?

 

[TimV]

I would say logically you're right, but practically you're wrong. Many Arminians should believe in a works salvation if they thought through their system but still only believe sola fide. The groups we have to avoid are those who believe the logical conclusions of their ideas; ie works.

I don't agree that they should, not at all. I think that they are perfectly consistant.

PS, allow me to guess you've never spent much time in a third world missions environment. Some groups, even large Evangelical organisations like New Tribes use methods that would make your hair stand up.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

I would say logically you're right, but practically you're wrong. Many Arminians should believe in a works salvation if they thought through their system but still only believe sola fide. The groups we have to avoid are those who believe the logical conclusions of their ideas; ie works.

I don't agree that they should, not at all. I think that they are perfectly consistant.

PS, allow me to guess you've never spent much time in a third world missions environment. Some groups, even large Evangelical organisations like New Tribes use methods that would make your hair stand up.

I haven't spent time in third world missions at all. I definitely trust your experience with these groups. I'm just saying that historically there have been many arminians who believed in sola fide. The ones that really do believe in works salvation should't be worked with in my opinion. Many arminians I've known here believe in grace alone and faith alone, they just contradict themselves. I guess I would go on a person by person basis.

PS-that really stinks that evangelical orginizations are like that!

PPS-when I said that they should believe in works salvation I meant to be consistent with their theology. I certainly don't believe they should believe in arminianism period.

 

[Pergamum]

I would say logically you're right, but practically you're wrong. Many Arminians should believe in a works salvation if they thought through their system but still only believe sola fide. The groups we have to avoid are those who believe the logical conclusions of their ideas; ie works.

I don't agree that they should, not at all. I think that they are perfectly consistant.

PS, allow me to guess you've never spent much time in a third world missions environment. Some groups, even large Evangelical organisations like New Tribes use methods that would make your hair stand up.

Tim; Would you care to start a new thread on what these methods are and why you find them objectionable?

 

[DMcFadden]

Thats a pretty strong statement to say that arminians believe in works salvation. Many arminians believe in salvation by grace though faith alone, they just get a little contradictory with some of their ideas. True arminianism (Arminius himself) believes in TD and therefore must believe in sola gratia. The Eastern Orthadox do not believe in TD or sola gratia and fide and shouldn't be worked with in my opinion.

I resonate with you on this. Looked at in the most technical sense, I believe that while the 5 pts are derivative human summaries of the teaching of the Bible, they are THE most faithful summaries ever given in Church history. Anything short of them is, ipso facto, error in my opinion. Some error causes me to roll my eyes, other error causes me to anathematize. But, I don't believe salvation is due to perfect theology or that conformity to all truth is necessary for one to get into heaven.

Frankly, many people are not very bright and have ceded too much authority to their teachers. They have accepted ideas that are logically inconsistent with their core beliefs. Blame them for inconsistency, shoddy scholarship, or even sinful inattention to be Bereans. But, don't deny that they are our sisters and brothers in Christ.

In my estimation most evangelicals are Bible-believing, blood-bought, elect of God Christians. Some (MANY) of them are beset by one theological error or another. Like Tim, I will work with those who affirm the classic doctrines contained in the early church councils (I also have questions about #7 but that is another thread and perhaps reflecting my own level of ignorance). I will even participate in worship with sincere sisters and brothers who do not share all of the particulars of my doctrine.



My attitude toward the mainlines is a bit more complicated. Like Machen, I contend that liberalism is not a different version of Christianity, it is another religion entirely. However, there are many true believers in mainline churches. Hence, I have always cooperated with them too, sometimes holding my nose a bit.

With those outside the Christian orbit (e.g., JW, Mormons), I will only work together on projects of civic good (e.g., disaster relief, anti-abortion, etc.). Francis Schaeffer laid out this principle pretty clearly in his notion of practical "co-belligerency" more than three decades ago.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Thats a pretty strong statement to say that arminians believe in works salvation. Many arminians believe in salvation by grace though faith alone, they just get a little contradictory with some of their ideas. True arminianism (Arminius himself) believes in TD and therefore must believe in sola gratia. The Eastern Orthadox do not believe in TD or sola gratia and fide and shouldn't be worked with in my opinion.

Manley, you contradict yourself, and are factually, historically wrong. You could read up on why Celestius was anathematized.

If you believe I contradict myself then I'd ask you to point out the contradiction. My point is that many Arminians don't agree with Celestius or his teacher (Pelegius). You don't have to convince me that Pelegianism is heresy.

 

[KMK]

Thats a pretty strong statement to say that arminians believe in works salvation. Many arminians believe in salvation by grace though faith alone, they just get a little contradictory with some of their ideas. True arminianism (Arminius himself) believes in TD and therefore must believe in sola gratia. The Eastern Orthadox do not believe in TD or sola gratia and fide and shouldn't be worked with in my opinion.

I resonate with you on this. Looked at in the most technical sense, I believe that while the 5 pts are derivative human summaries of the teaching of the Bible, they are THE most faithful summaries ever given in Church history. Anything short of them is, ipso facto, error in my opinion. Some error causes me to roll my eyes, other error causes me to anathematize. But, I don't believe salvation is due to perfect theology or that conformity to all truth is necessary for one to get into heaven.

Frankly, many people are not very bright and have ceded too much authority to their teachers. They have accepted ideas that are logically inconsistent with their core beliefs. Blame them for inconsistency, shoddy scholarship, or even sinful inattention to be Bereans. But, don't deny that they are our sisters and brothers in Christ.

In my estimation most evangelicals are Bible-believing, blood-bought, elect of God Christians. Some (MANY) of them are beset by one theological error or another. Like Tim, I will work with those who affirm the classic doctrines contained in the early church councils (I also have questions about #7 but that is another thread and perhaps reflecting my own level of ignorance). I will even participate in worship with sincere sisters and brothers who do not share all of the particulars of my doctrine.



My attitude toward the mainlines is a bit more complicated. Like Machen, I contend that liberalism is not a different version of Christianity, it is another religion entirely. However, there are many true believers in mainline churches. Hence, I have always cooperated with them too, sometimes holding my nose a bit.

With those outside the Christian orbit (e.g., JW, Mormons), I will only work together on projects of civic good (e.g., disaster relief, anti-abortion, etc.). Francis Schaeffer laid out this principle pretty clearly in his notion of practical "co-belligerency" more than three decades ago.

I agree with Dennis.

In addition to inconsistencies in theology, there are inconsistencies in definitions of theological words. Sometimes it is difficult to really understand what someone believes because words seem to have different meanings. For example, some of Ursinus' commentary could really lead one to think he was a 4 pointer.

Another source of confusion is what different people choose to emphasize. There are certain sermons by Spurgeon, that if read in a vacuum, might lead you to believe he was Arminian.

You really have to spend a lot of time with someone to learn exactly what they believe.

 

[Pergamum]

Should I be censored as an overseas worker because I work with some who are not full five-pointers? Or am I ignorant about the errors of others? Or am I just a "pragmatist" that is wishy washy in doctrine?

 

[Mushroom]

I resonate with you on this.

I'm sorry, but this vision popped in my mind of several bearded baptists vibrating together at the same frequency. I'd personally work with all of them, despite their tremors. While not so blessed with the ability to harmonically quiver, I am able to agree with them on matters of importance.

You guys ought to start a band. It could be a Christian version of ZZ Top. I'd be willing to pay to see Dennis spinning a guitar attached to his belt.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNJdz1pkIOE]YouTube - Cheap Sunglasses Band & their Spinning Fuzzy ZZ Top Guitars[/ame]

 

[ManleyBeasley]

I resonate with you on this.

I'm sorry, but this vision popped in my mind of several bearded baptists vibrating together at the same frequency. I'd personally work with all of them, despite their tremors. While not so blessed with the ability to harmonically quiver, I am able to agree with them on matters of importance.

You guys ought to start a band. It could be a Christian version of ZZ Top. I'd be willing to pay to see Dennis spinning a guitar attached to his belt.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNJdz1pkIOE]YouTube - Cheap Sunglasses Band & their Spinning Fuzzy ZZ Top Guitars[/ame]

You consistantly crack me up! Thanks for the comic relief!