The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Perfectly Reformed?

I agree<br><br>They don't show much love for the bretheren, do they? (just read 1 John! They don't pass John's- er, the Holy Spirit's- test...)

Hi Grace,<br><br>When I left Pentecostalism in search of purity and simplicity, I found a church like the one you have described. I found acapella Psalmnody absolutely wonderful and I still do! But I do not hold to it as the exclusive, "only" legitimate form of song to be used in worship. But having been spun and bent and tossed by every wind of doctrine in Pentecostalism, I found the simplicity of it - and all it's claims of "absolute purity" irresistable. <br><br>But soon the arrogance began to show itself and I was completely taken aback by it. Of all people to be arrogant! Calvinists supposedly believe that they were totally depraved and completely helpless and fully dependent on God every moment... how could people who taught sovereign grace be so arrogant when it came to worship? "Only WE have it right - EVERYONE else is practicing idolatry!" <br><br>Nothing makes me angrier today than to see so-called Christians binding the consciences of others with their own personal preferences as if they were the commandments of God! Everything from dress to diet was prescribed by the pastor of this "Presbyterian" church. I use quotes because it was not presbyterian at all - no elders, no deacons, only this controlling, single pastor - and yet it was a "particular" church - not a mission church - in a supposedly Presbyterian denomination (the RPCGA)! <br><br>The Apostle Paul warned us not to exceed what is written, and Jesus severely chided the Pharissees for imposing their own rules on the people, adding to the commandments of God by their self-promoting traditions.<br><br>Yes I do believe in the RPW, wholeheartedly! But I do not use it as a means of proving myself "more Reformed than thou" nor to impose my own interpretation of it on others, invalidating theirs as "idolatry." Those who go that far demonstrate the same toxic haughtiness that drove the Pharissees to murder Christ.<br><br>Whew (wiping brow)!<br>-Robin<br>

Greetings AndalusiaMan,

You point out something that I think all Christians need to take more seriously. We have grown accustomed to believing in a distinction between "essential" doctrines and "nonessential" doctrines, but haven't given much thought to what this means. It is important when dealing with this question of the essential/nonessential distinction that we avoid two extremes: (1) the extreme of damning everyone who disagrees with us and (2) the extreme of treating truths God saw fit to reveal in Scripture as unimportant...both of which extremes are horribly sinful.

That being said, here is what has helped me in understanding the whole issue of the essential/nonessential debate:

First, we need to be clear as to what it means when we are speaking of something being essential or nonessential. Essential or nonessential FOR WHAT? For salvation? For church communion? For a business partnership? For what? I think a consideration of this is helpful, and, frankly, important.

It has been taken for granted by most Christians that, if a doctrine is essential for church communion, then it must be essential for salvation, and vise-versa. I think this assumption needs to be set aside as a unscriptural. I could get into a lengthy argument as to why this it is unscriptural, but for the sake of brevity, I'll only give on passage that demonstrates that there are some doctrines that are essential for church communion that are not essential for salvation. The passage I have in mind is 2 Thessalonians 3:6,14-15. It reads as follows:

6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us....14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Notice in this passage that Paul explicitly commands Christians to withdraw from [i]brothers[/i] that walk "disorderly." In fact, he even goes so far as to prohibit having company with these brethren so that they would be ashamed (i.e., the end of excommunication according to 1 Cor. 5, to lead them to repentence), yet, "count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a [i]brother[/i]." Now, this means that Paul was commanding excommunication of, and the having no company with, a Christian brother who had good soteriology but bad practice or bad "non-essential-for-salvation" theology. In other words, this means that there are some things that are essential for church communion and familiar fellowship that are [b]not[/b] essential for salvation.

This is helpful in avoiding the two extremes I mentioned before. This means that there can be reasons for ecclesiastical separation and separation from familiar fellowship that don't condemn everyone outside the correct ecclesiastical body.

That being said, what we need to do then is ask this question: what is essential for salvation and what is essential for church communion? These are two different things.

[b]Salvation. Now, there are a lot of different opinions concerning what things are essential for salvation. Thankfully, God has reserved the ability to judge whether or not someone is saved for himself. It seems to me that people can have pollutions and errors in almost every point of theology - including the doctrines of God and Christ - and be saved in spite of it. That doesn't mean that these errors are to be ignored, regarded as insignificant, or anything like that. On the contrary, they are to considered errors and sinful even if believed by someone we in charity are bound to believe is a Christian. Accordingly, I'm not going to be bold (perhaps audacious would be a better word) enough to say I know what are the exact theological lines across which no man can be saved. I know people who don't profess Christ don't have a chance, but - beyond that - I'm not prepared to write a book defending any one set of essential doctrines for salvation.

[b]Ecclesiastical Communion.[/b] Now, when it comes to ecclesiastical communion, the lines are easier to identify. Of course, it is obvious why this is: the Church is a visible body that men (i.e., ministers) have been appointed overseers and the membership is such that these same men have been given the responsibility of admitting and excommunicating individuals. In other words, while God has reserved the judgement of men's eternal states to Himself, He has given the judgment of ecclesiastical membership to men. Accordingly, the criteria by which men are to judge other men must be set out in Scripture. Ironically, people are much better at saying who is saved or not saved than they are at saying who should be in the Church. Nevertheless, what is the criteria by which God's earthly ministers are to judge the Church? The whole counsel of God. One of the capital crimes in the Old Testament was, "sinning with a high-hand." Obstinate, impenitent sin earned the death penalty then. In the Church, it seems perfectly reasonable to say that any obstinate, impenitent sin can warrant excommunication. Now, I don't plan on developing the whole argument here - I don't have time.

Nevertheless, the point of this post is this: there is no such thing as a known Scripture-truth that ought not to be a term of ecclesiastical communion (i.e., there are no known Scripture-truths that are not essential to ecclesiastical communion). There are many truths that are non-essential when it comes to salvation. As a side note, this doesn't mean that the Church is to be merciless in judging its members. One of the obligations that falls on its shoulders, and is a Scripture-truth itself, is the recognition of weaker brethren being imperfect, human infirmity, etc. The only sins that are worthy of excommunication are those that are committed obstinately and impenitently in the light of contrary evidence.

Oh well, maybe this will help. Perhaps this will make it easier for you to take steps in the direction of a Church that has a strong doctrine of unity in truth, while staying far away from the sin of condemning everyone outside that Church.

In Christ,
John P.

Sounds like they are the same ones who put this out for all to read:<br>http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/PCAbad.htm<br>As a member of the PCA I find it highly offensive to say the least.

Hi RCSproul_fan,<br><br>Larry Birger - the guy who wrote that article that offended you - is not an "outside the camp" guy. The SWRB people believe genuine Christian brothers exist in other denominations, including the PCA. The "outside the camp" people, on the other hand, don't (as far as I understand).<br><br>Hope that helps,<br>John P.