As we can see in the quote Bev, from your linked site, the difficulty is usually in deciding what is essential, and what is not. We know from the epistles of John that obedience is "essential" to sanctification, to christian living and christian witness, and we know from Jude that we should contend for the faith, and that "certain people have turned the gospel of grace into a license for immorality", which would suggest that morality is also essential. But the details, the details of how to work this out.... that's where we often run into trouble...
"Schultze’s sermon indicates, though, that by 1902 there was no agreement on just what things were essential and which were non-essential within the Moravian Church let alone in the wider church. Despite the fact that the “Moravian motto” does not clarify what are essential things, the call for a type of unity that allows liberty of expression in some things clearly resonates with many people. Other denominations today claim this same phrase as a motto, especially churches that emerged out of the Campbellite movement in 19th century America."
Bonnie's comments that the healthiest churches have least tolerance for bad behaviour is a good one. Her comments about having lower standards than other professions, while well intended, seems to miss the main point of not tolerating bad behaviour. It is not because of a professional title, or occupation, but because of the main purpose of officebearers such as pastors elders and deacons, to teach, lead, exemplify the grace of Christ and the obedience that comes with it. Since everyone struggles with sin, we all need to encourage each other (mutual accountability) and this encouragement can be positive, as well as negative encouragement (not tolerating sin). What is the point of having a pastor preaching the gospel while he denies it in his life, in his visible witness? Same applies to an elder. That doesn't mean that elders and pastors are perfect, and we need to live in an attitude of forgiveness. But grace comes with repentance and change and newness of life. In some cases, if the personal struggle is too long and too big, then that would be a clear sign that God has another calling in mind for the individual. If the offense is against a vulnerable person based on position of trust, then probably that also is quickly a sign that God has another calling in mind.
The fear of not being forgiven ought to be greater than the fear of changing an occupation. The fear of idolators, adulterers, fornicators, homsex practicers, not entering heaven, ought to be greater than the fear of losing prestige or position with mere men. Grace requires repentance. By not addressing these issues, we may be condemning some pastors, elders, deacons or even any self-professed christian to hell. Jesus said there will be those who say, "Lord, Lord, didn't we do miracles and heal and cast out demons?" And God will say, "I never knew you". why? because they were not obedient, and worshipped other idols, of self, or sex, or other things. This is much more serious than comparing standards to some of the professions. "he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins: James 5.
Bev, you are bringing up touchy subjects, and an area which has a lot of shades in it. I think it is good you courageously bring it up. If what you say about 60 to 80% of spiritual leaders struggling with this issue is true, then how do we deal with this issue? I think it goes further than just accessing stuff on the internet, although that is the most pernicious. What was salacious and covered in brown paper fifty years ago, is now plastered on billboards along the highway, it seems. Stuff on the internet comes up uninvited, and for some, it is like giving candy to a baby, or alcohol to an alcoholic.
Perhaps it is all part of a larger picture, which tolerates shacking up, premarital sex, easy divorce, immodest dress, R rated and PG rated movies. The more that this permeates the church, the harder it is to fight against porn as well. It seems if 60% of leaders are struggling with this probably at a variety of levels, then we need to find ways of combating this problem in a generic way. We have a safe church committee for protection of young children, and protection of churches from liability. But perhaps we should have a specific group or committee or program developing and promoting safeguards for internet viewing, prayer for combatting this vile sin, and materials explaining the whys of it, and also the ways of conquering it, perhaps like the AA twelve step program.
If enough churches get together to make a request for such a classis, that is, the number of such churches would be proportionate to the number of churches in any other classis, then it would be difficult to deny such a request, anymore than it would be difficult to deny one particular church's right to not attend classis, or to maintain its stand on this particular issue, which synod has said both positions have valid scriptural grounds. (perhaps I am mistaken, but don't the korean churches and native churches have a separate classis each?)
As a side note, Meg, you said "a) churches in that classis who do not hold a Biblical conviction that women ought to serve..." This is semantics partly, but these churches are misportrayed. These churches do believe that women ought to serve, but not as office-bearers. Secondly, it should be reworded to say that these churches hold a biblical conviction that women ought not to serve as office-bearers. (It is not that these churches do not hold a position, as your statement implies.)
Randy, your use of church history is apt. It helps us to understand why positions were taken at the time, and helps us to question whether those conditions still exist. It was important at the time to stress God's sovereignty, faithfulness, pre-eminence, which are all embodied in the idea of supra-lapsarianism. The church at the time needed visible signs of God's amazing grace, as well as His election choices.
Back to Eph 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". John the Baptizer baptized a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Jesus himself was baptized by John, yet not for the remission of sins, since He was sinless. Paul in Acts 19 says that John baptized for repentance, but people needed to be baptized by the Holy spirit. Romans 6 says that baptism means walking in newness of life. I Peter 3 says that baptism is the answer of a good conscience before God (thru Christ's resurrection). Hebrews 6 talks of the doctrine of baptisms (plural). So from their point of view, it is not as simple and straightforward as some like to think. We sometimes oversimplify much more than scripture does.
True there is one baptism by one God, who is also Spirit and Son. There is one salvation, not several. There is one redemption for sins, and Christ is not crucified over and over again. We are buried with Christ once, but also continually, and also raised with Christ. We are raised, but also being raised (sanctified). But baptism by water symbolizes that; it doesn’t equal that.
Even though we have been sanctified by Christ before God, yet sanctification for us here is still also a process. That is why we are “called” to obedience even though our spirit renewed desire is already to do God’s will, since as Paul says, we still do the things we do not want to do.
I’m not arguing for a re-baptism. I am merely putting forth an argument that presents an alternative perspective which may be still scriptural. I am certainly not arguing for re-baptism on every whim and caprice for a renewal which in occurs daily. But I am merely suggesting that when people have been baptized as children, by parents who either were not Christians, or who completely disregarded the covenant of believers in the way they raised their children as pagans, then it might be appropriate to permit to baptize these children when they become new believers as adults. (There may be grounds also for not permitting this, but such illegitimate baptisms based on formula and forms seem to be illegitimate in spite of using all the right words. God said he didn’t want sacrifices from the Israelites if their hearts were not right. Paul was clear that outward circumcision meant nothing; only circumcision of the heart mattered. Perhaps our practice of baptism could also include a recognition of those teachings as well.)
As far as consensus is concerned, we all know that consensus is a result of a discussion, that it does not apply if some seriously disagree, and that consensus is not in itself the basis for the validity of anything, especially when it comes to our faithlife.
Your statement that the bible no where says "...." sounds definitive, but is not. The bible also no where says that infants of believers should be baptized, nor that rebaptism is wrong. The bible also no where says that only "ministers (servants) should preach, or that there should be different denominations, or that worship services should be held on Sundays, or that elders should have limited terms. The weight of evidence leans in a certain direction, and in this case it seems synod went against the weight of the evidence, instead of following the weight of the scriptural evidence.
Those who are not scientists often approach science as if it were some type of demi-god. Science is only a refined way of making observations. Science includes mathematics, statistics, and probabilities. Science also includes assumptions. The main assumptionis always uniformity, continuity. Science will always deny miracles because they do not fit into the assumption of uniformity and continuity. Science by itself will deny the resurrection based on observation and probability. However, Christians practicing science can do so, if they realize the limitations of science, and use science in the context of God as creator and sustainer.
Vanderweit's recent banner article about evolutionary teachings, neglects this important aspect of science; that its deductions often relies on unprovable assumptions. Often even atheistic scientists admit that 'science" makes mistakes, such as the prediction of the coelanth being a prehistoric fish since it was in the 'ancient" fossil record. But they claim that science corrects itself, without realizing that the mistake was not a scientific mistake of observation or deduction, but a mistake based on an incorrect hypothesis, on incorrect assumptions. Yet, due to their blind belief in their hypothesis, they continue to maintain this hypothesis, this theory. They generally refuse to consider any other hypothesis that may operate outside of their "naturalistic" and "atheistic" parameters and assumptions.
They also want to force deists to operate outside of the context of their deity, in spite of all their protestations to the contrary. This is a subtle but dangerous and a sad side to this discussion. They are saying in effect, "oh yes, you can have your god, of course, but please don't let it affect your work, your science, your public life, and not even your private life too much. it's a good side-line, a bit of personal comfort, but mostly not-relevant to anything important..." They prefer the blind watch-maker to a personal God. This is their context; this is their assumption. What is our assumption?
Steve, it is good to fight against worldviews, especially in the church. Philosophers and theologians love to fight and debate worldviews. But for a worldview to mean anything to a scientist, you must be able to demonstrate and show how it is affecting the scientific work they do. It is not just enough to say that it must be having an impact. You have to show the mechanism of the impact of their worldview on their work.
Our christian colleges would spend their time more profitably if they challenged the theory of evolution scientifically as well as philosophically and theologically. Maybe it is an uphill battle. But there are plenty of people, scientists, schools, colleges and universities who defend, accept, and swallow the theory of evolution and use it as a basis for interpreting everything they see. We do not need any more of those. We need people who are willing to stick out their necks, to postulate alternate theories, to examine other possibilities, to critique the status quo (which is the evol theory) and to search for other mechanisms. We really don't need a christian college that teaches and lives by a theory that ridicules scripture, miracles, belief, faith, God. There are plenty of secular universities that do that.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
As we can see in the quote Bev, from your linked site, the difficulty is usually in deciding what is essential, and what is not. We know from the epistles of John that obedience is "essential" to sanctification, to christian living and christian witness, and we know from Jude that we should contend for the faith, and that "certain people have turned the gospel of grace into a license for immorality", which would suggest that morality is also essential. But the details, the details of how to work this out.... that's where we often run into trouble...
"Schultze’s sermon indicates, though, that by 1902 there was no agreement on just what things were essential and which were non-essential within the Moravian Church let alone in the wider church. Despite the fact that the “Moravian motto” does not clarify what are essential things, the call for a type of unity that allows liberty of expression in some things clearly resonates with many people. Other denominations today claim this same phrase as a motto, especially churches that emerged out of the Campbellite movement in 19th century America."
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Mike, as long as you can continue to enjoy and encourage comments like mine , then you are okay with diversity.
Posted in: Of Rob Ford and Pastors
Bonnie's comments that the healthiest churches have least tolerance for bad behaviour is a good one. Her comments about having lower standards than other professions, while well intended, seems to miss the main point of not tolerating bad behaviour. It is not because of a professional title, or occupation, but because of the main purpose of officebearers such as pastors elders and deacons, to teach, lead, exemplify the grace of Christ and the obedience that comes with it. Since everyone struggles with sin, we all need to encourage each other (mutual accountability) and this encouragement can be positive, as well as negative encouragement (not tolerating sin). What is the point of having a pastor preaching the gospel while he denies it in his life, in his visible witness? Same applies to an elder. That doesn't mean that elders and pastors are perfect, and we need to live in an attitude of forgiveness. But grace comes with repentance and change and newness of life. In some cases, if the personal struggle is too long and too big, then that would be a clear sign that God has another calling in mind for the individual. If the offense is against a vulnerable person based on position of trust, then probably that also is quickly a sign that God has another calling in mind.
The fear of not being forgiven ought to be greater than the fear of changing an occupation. The fear of idolators, adulterers, fornicators, homsex practicers, not entering heaven, ought to be greater than the fear of losing prestige or position with mere men. Grace requires repentance. By not addressing these issues, we may be condemning some pastors, elders, deacons or even any self-professed christian to hell. Jesus said there will be those who say, "Lord, Lord, didn't we do miracles and heal and cast out demons?" And God will say, "I never knew you". why? because they were not obedient, and worshipped other idols, of self, or sex, or other things. This is much more serious than comparing standards to some of the professions. "he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins: James 5.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Stay away from Twitter....
Posted in: Of Rob Ford and Pastors
Bev, you are bringing up touchy subjects, and an area which has a lot of shades in it. I think it is good you courageously bring it up. If what you say about 60 to 80% of spiritual leaders struggling with this issue is true, then how do we deal with this issue? I think it goes further than just accessing stuff on the internet, although that is the most pernicious. What was salacious and covered in brown paper fifty years ago, is now plastered on billboards along the highway, it seems. Stuff on the internet comes up uninvited, and for some, it is like giving candy to a baby, or alcohol to an alcoholic.
Perhaps it is all part of a larger picture, which tolerates shacking up, premarital sex, easy divorce, immodest dress, R rated and PG rated movies. The more that this permeates the church, the harder it is to fight against porn as well. It seems if 60% of leaders are struggling with this probably at a variety of levels, then we need to find ways of combating this problem in a generic way. We have a safe church committee for protection of young children, and protection of churches from liability. But perhaps we should have a specific group or committee or program developing and promoting safeguards for internet viewing, prayer for combatting this vile sin, and materials explaining the whys of it, and also the ways of conquering it, perhaps like the AA twelve step program.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
If enough churches get together to make a request for such a classis, that is, the number of such churches would be proportionate to the number of churches in any other classis, then it would be difficult to deny such a request, anymore than it would be difficult to deny one particular church's right to not attend classis, or to maintain its stand on this particular issue, which synod has said both positions have valid scriptural grounds. (perhaps I am mistaken, but don't the korean churches and native churches have a separate classis each?)
As a side note, Meg, you said "a) churches in that classis who do not hold a Biblical conviction that women ought to serve..." This is semantics partly, but these churches are misportrayed. These churches do believe that women ought to serve, but not as office-bearers. Secondly, it should be reworded to say that these churches hold a biblical conviction that women ought not to serve as office-bearers. (It is not that these churches do not hold a position, as your statement implies.)
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Randy, your use of church history is apt. It helps us to understand why positions were taken at the time, and helps us to question whether those conditions still exist. It was important at the time to stress God's sovereignty, faithfulness, pre-eminence, which are all embodied in the idea of supra-lapsarianism. The church at the time needed visible signs of God's amazing grace, as well as His election choices.
Back to Eph 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". John the Baptizer baptized a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Jesus himself was baptized by John, yet not for the remission of sins, since He was sinless. Paul in Acts 19 says that John baptized for repentance, but people needed to be baptized by the Holy spirit. Romans 6 says that baptism means walking in newness of life. I Peter 3 says that baptism is the answer of a good conscience before God (thru Christ's resurrection). Hebrews 6 talks of the doctrine of baptisms (plural). So from their point of view, it is not as simple and straightforward as some like to think. We sometimes oversimplify much more than scripture does.
True there is one baptism by one God, who is also Spirit and Son. There is one salvation, not several. There is one redemption for sins, and Christ is not crucified over and over again. We are buried with Christ once, but also continually, and also raised with Christ. We are raised, but also being raised (sanctified). But baptism by water symbolizes that; it doesn’t equal that.
Even though we have been sanctified by Christ before God, yet sanctification for us here is still also a process. That is why we are “called” to obedience even though our spirit renewed desire is already to do God’s will, since as Paul says, we still do the things we do not want to do.
I’m not arguing for a re-baptism. I am merely putting forth an argument that presents an alternative perspective which may be still scriptural. I am certainly not arguing for re-baptism on every whim and caprice for a renewal which in occurs daily. But I am merely suggesting that when people have been baptized as children, by parents who either were not Christians, or who completely disregarded the covenant of believers in the way they raised their children as pagans, then it might be appropriate to permit to baptize these children when they become new believers as adults. (There may be grounds also for not permitting this, but such illegitimate baptisms based on formula and forms seem to be illegitimate in spite of using all the right words. God said he didn’t want sacrifices from the Israelites if their hearts were not right. Paul was clear that outward circumcision meant nothing; only circumcision of the heart mattered. Perhaps our practice of baptism could also include a recognition of those teachings as well.)
As far as consensus is concerned, we all know that consensus is a result of a discussion, that it does not apply if some seriously disagree, and that consensus is not in itself the basis for the validity of anything, especially when it comes to our faithlife.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Your statement that the bible no where says "...." sounds definitive, but is not. The bible also no where says that infants of believers should be baptized, nor that rebaptism is wrong. The bible also no where says that only "ministers (servants) should preach, or that there should be different denominations, or that worship services should be held on Sundays, or that elders should have limited terms. The weight of evidence leans in a certain direction, and in this case it seems synod went against the weight of the evidence, instead of following the weight of the scriptural evidence.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Those who are not scientists often approach science as if it were some type of demi-god. Science is only a refined way of making observations. Science includes mathematics, statistics, and probabilities. Science also includes assumptions. The main assumptionis always uniformity, continuity. Science will always deny miracles because they do not fit into the assumption of uniformity and continuity. Science by itself will deny the resurrection based on observation and probability. However, Christians practicing science can do so, if they realize the limitations of science, and use science in the context of God as creator and sustainer.
Vanderweit's recent banner article about evolutionary teachings, neglects this important aspect of science; that its deductions often relies on unprovable assumptions. Often even atheistic scientists admit that 'science" makes mistakes, such as the prediction of the coelanth being a prehistoric fish since it was in the 'ancient" fossil record. But they claim that science corrects itself, without realizing that the mistake was not a scientific mistake of observation or deduction, but a mistake based on an incorrect hypothesis, on incorrect assumptions. Yet, due to their blind belief in their hypothesis, they continue to maintain this hypothesis, this theory. They generally refuse to consider any other hypothesis that may operate outside of their "naturalistic" and "atheistic" parameters and assumptions.
They also want to force deists to operate outside of the context of their deity, in spite of all their protestations to the contrary. This is a subtle but dangerous and a sad side to this discussion. They are saying in effect, "oh yes, you can have your god, of course, but please don't let it affect your work, your science, your public life, and not even your private life too much. it's a good side-line, a bit of personal comfort, but mostly not-relevant to anything important..." They prefer the blind watch-maker to a personal God. This is their context; this is their assumption. What is our assumption?
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Steve, it is good to fight against worldviews, especially in the church. Philosophers and theologians love to fight and debate worldviews. But for a worldview to mean anything to a scientist, you must be able to demonstrate and show how it is affecting the scientific work they do. It is not just enough to say that it must be having an impact. You have to show the mechanism of the impact of their worldview on their work.
Our christian colleges would spend their time more profitably if they challenged the theory of evolution scientifically as well as philosophically and theologically. Maybe it is an uphill battle. But there are plenty of people, scientists, schools, colleges and universities who defend, accept, and swallow the theory of evolution and use it as a basis for interpreting everything they see. We do not need any more of those. We need people who are willing to stick out their necks, to postulate alternate theories, to examine other possibilities, to critique the status quo (which is the evol theory) and to search for other mechanisms. We really don't need a christian college that teaches and lives by a theory that ridicules scripture, miracles, belief, faith, God. There are plenty of secular universities that do that.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
For information on supposed "out of place" fossils, you can check out :
youtube.com/watch?v=lTWZJBXAZJA
This will give you an understanding of these fossils from an alternative perspective.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
I find it very sad that the one who started this discussion thread is still missing. I hope he will be found, and pray that he may find hope again.