Chapter 1: Speaking the Truth in Love
I was reading one of the discernment blogs recently – the kind of blog that catalogs the heresies prevalent in the Christian world today. I scanned through the listing of articles and saw one that addressed the theological errors of a well-known charismatic pastor, Francis Frangipane. Here’s the thing. This man is a friend of mine – a man I love and have tremendous respect for. I lived in the same city with him for many years and we were in a pastors’ prayer group together. I a lot of time on my knees with Francis (figuratively, anyway – Francis likes to walk while he prays). Yes, there is much of his theology that I disagree with, but I also know the man. He loves Jesus Christ and the Word of God. No question in my mind about that. He is a man of integrity and passion for the things of God. So, it was an odd moment to read a theological blog with which I agree strongly criticize a man whom I deeply respect.
My Two Worlds
I live in two different worlds, worlds that seem to collide and conflict – squeezing me in the middle. On the one hand, I live in a theological world with theological friends, who value biblical doctrine – the meat of God’s word. In a world sown with Satan’s lies, they say, God’s Word is our standard of truth. It is an anchor that holds us steady, a rudder to guide us, a lamp to light the way. If we abandon sound doctrine, we will be easily fooled and led astray by the enemy’s deception. When the pulpit proclaims the deep things of God’s Word and the people are firmly grounded in His truth, Christians will grow strong, discern truth from error, and will understand God’s will. For the church to function properly, they say, it must maintain doctrinal purity. And I agree with them!
I also live in a diverse Christian world with friends for whom the highest value is the unity of the body of Christ. Jesus died to redeem one body, they say, not many. On the night before he died, Jesus prayed that his disciples would be one. Schism in the body of Christ grieves the heart of God and is a personal affront to the blood Christ shed for the church. Besides, they point out, many of the doctrines we divide over really don’t matter that much. They are molehills out of which we are all too quick to build mountains. Why should the church be fractured over petty doctrinal differences? God wants a unified church. And I agree with them!
When I lived in Cedar Rapids, I was only marginally involved in Southern Baptist national affairs. But soon after I moved to Sioux City in 2005 I got involved in blogging. Lo and behold, the same kind of conflict was going on in the Baptist World. There were some who emphasized the importance of Baptist doctrine – they believe that what we believe about baptism and church polity is theologically important. And I agree with them. I am a committed and convictional Baptist. On the other hand, there are Baptists who proclaim the need for unity with other believers and cooperation with them in the cause of Christ. We are not the only ship in the sea and we need to remember that. And I agree with them.
The Problem
And that is why I am torn. I live in two different worlds that stand in conflict. I love to study the Word of God in depth and detail, but I also believe that division in the Body dishonors Christ. The problem comes when you try to satisfy both sides in this debate. Doctrine divides people: Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist; Calvinists and Arminians; Evangelical, Charismatic, Pentecostal; Premillennial, Amillennial. While these issues are important, they tend to separate us into camps. The unity of the Body of Christ matters. But if I abandon doctrine in the name of unity, I dim God’s “lamp to my feet and light for my path.”
I believe both sides have a noble goal. Scripture makes it clear that we cannot abandon either pursuit without doing damage to the Body of Christ. We must seek both sound doctrine and unity. I must seek to understand the deep things of God’s Word, but I must also honor those in Christ’s body whose interpretations of scripture differ from my own. Somehow, we must learn to balance these two goals.
Taking Unity to the Extreme
It is easy to take these noble goals to dangerous extremes. There are Christians who have abandoned doctrine in the name of unity. To them, doctrine is a problem – it divides us into denominations and causes schism in the Body of Christ. Others prize their doctrine with little regard to the bigger Body of Christ. They arrogantly assume that their personal creed is absolutely correct and question the sincerity (or sanity) of those who disagree with their doctrinal stands. Both extremes are damaging and must be avoided.
Those who refuse to exercise doctrinal discernment swim in shark-infested waters with open wounds. They invite on themselves and their churches the deception of Satan and the excesses of human emotion and impulsiveness. Without an anchor to hold it, without a rudder to guide it, the church is cast about by every wind of deceit that blows. God’s Word is that anchor, that rudder, which helps us navigate through the lies Satan has sown in this world.
A friend of my wife’s, a dear Christian lady, asked her why our church spent so much time in Bible study. We have the Holy Spirit to lead us, she said, why study the Bible so hard? What a dangerous idea. Scripture is the foundation upon which the leading of the Spirit is built – He uses the Word to guide us. If we are not grounded in the truth of Scripture, Christians can think that every impulse or idea we have is a word from God and the result is often aberrant belief and behavior in the church. There is no one more easily misled than someone who professes to be led by the Spirit but is not grounded in the Word of God. Who knows what spirit really leads him?
I was in a citywide prayer meeting years ago and was stunned to hear a pastor ask God for forgiveness for “our doctrine.” Mind you, he was not repenting for some false doctrine he had taught. He was asking God to forgive us for having any doctrine at all. Doctrine is not a sin. It is essential to the life and health of the church.
It is essential that every Christian study the Bible in depth and be grounded in its teachings. They are our light, our food, our anchor. Doctrine is good.
Taking Doctrine to the Extreme
But, among those who love doctrine and theology, there is another danger. We, the “doctrinal” folks, can easily develop an attitude of superiority or a petty, critical nature. I have friends who drop the h-bomb on anyone who does not agree with any point of their cherished creed or doctrinal system. ‘He’s a heretic!” They look with a suspicious eye at anyone who questions the teachings of R. C. Sproul or John MacArthur, or some other theological hero. The Baptist Identity group claims that “Baptist is biblical” and that those who do not agree with Baptist views of baptism are in active rebellion against God’s Word.
I have a family member who has come to hate the word “truth.” She was in a church that proclaimed its “truth” with a superiority of attitude and disdain for anyone who did not agree with their views. Rather than feeding people with the truth, they beat people over the head with it, using it as a club to enforce conformity. Because of their doctrinal haughtiness, she has come to hate a word that ought to be precious to a believer. “The truth shall set you free,” said Jesus. It is not a tool to beat up those who disagree.
We “doctrinal” folks are often guilty of the kind of schismatic behavior that Paul condemned in 1 Corinthians 11. We treat our brothers and sisters in Christ with disdain or ridicule just because they disagree on any doctrinal issue. When we do this, the Spirit of God is grieved.
This is the quandary. Is there a way to both honor sound doctrine and maintain unity in the Body of Christ? It does not seem to me that we ought to have to choose between loving the Body of Christ and loving the Word He inspired.
My Journey
I have spent most of my Christian life in the second group. I have devoted my life to studying and preaching the Word of God. I read Grudem’s Systematic Theology for fun. Unfortunately, with my theological interest also came a disdainful attitude toward those who did not see scripture the same way I did.
I had a special distaste for Charismatics and Pentecostals. Everything they did was strange to me. I did not agree with their doctrines and I was put off by many of their practices. As I preached through the Word, I delighted in pointing out what I considered to be the errors and excesses of the charismatic movement. I fell into a very common pattern in the evangelical camp. I looked at the extremes of the charismatic movement and I judged the whole movement on the basis of those crazies. That is never fair. I am Baptist, but I do not want people to compare me to Fred Phelps and his hate-filled Westboro Baptist Church group.
Over the course of a decade, God changed my heart about my charismatic brethren. I still do not practice the so-called “gifts” that many of them prize. I still disagree with much of their theology. None of that has really changed. But my heart changed.
In 1991, I moved to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to pastor Northbrook Baptist Church. Not far from me was River of Life, where Francis Frangipane was the pastor. It was a large and active charismatic church. I assumed that a charismatic church must be a den of lunatics and heretics and I rejoiced whenever I heard anything bad about them. A friend of mine had been involved in the singles group at River of Life and told me one day about the problems that were going on there. I sat in smug glee and rejoiced to hear that they were having turmoil. Their suffering brought joy to me
In September of 1993, God did a work of personal revival in me, changing my heart. My doctrine stayed the same, but my attitudes changed. I began to realize how narrow my ministry focus had been, caring only about Northbrook with no regard for the larger kingdom of God. In January of 1994, I was invited to attend the Linn County Association of Evangelicals meeting and I sensed that it was something I was supposed to do. The meeting was nothing special, but someone made an announcement about the pastors’ prayer group that was meeting every Thursday. One of the results of my personal revival had been an increased commitment to prayer, so I decided to give the group a try.
I began praying with other pastors every week. Francis Frangipane was the group’s leader. As I prayed with him, and with the other pastors, things began to change. A few months earlier I had rejoiced as someone regaled me with stories of struggles in that fellowship. Now, I was seeing his heart. I was getting to know the man. He was no longer just the pastor of the big church a couple of miles down the road. He was now my friend.
In the spring of 1994, things went sour at my church. It seemed as though every evil thing in the hearts of people in that church rose to the surface. During this rocky time, guess who prayed with me and sustained me? Francis Frangipane. Larry Sohn from the First Assembly of God. Barry Foster, pastor of a Foursquare church. Bob Brown from the Alliance church. Mark Larson from a Baptist church of a different denomination. This group of men stood by me in one of the most difficult years I have ever had – men I had scorned, ridiculed and excluded from my life. I had disdained them and now God was using them to sustain me in the darkest year in my 30 years of ministry.
Then, in August of 1994, a genuine revival broke out at Northbrook Baptist Church. God revived us, restored us and renewed us. It was amazing. One of the most amazing aspects of this is how it happened. Francis had invited Claude King to be part of a conference at his church. Claude helped Henry Blackaby write the “Fresh Encounter” and “Experiencing God” studies. He also worked with T.W. Hunt to produce “The Mind of Christ.” It was the Fresh Encounter series that had led to my own personal revival in 1993, and so I was excited to hear that Claude was coming to town. I was even more excited when Francis asked me if we would be interested in having Claude speak at Northbrook on Sunday morning. I jumped at the opportunity. Claude preached the Word of God and at the end of the service, God brought a time of repentance and renewal. The church I pastured was radically changed that day. Why? Because a charismatic preacher I had scorned shared the ministry of Claude King with me.
During this time, we were getting ready to build a new home on an acre of land we had purchased just west of the church. We had to move out of our rental home in September and our new home wouldn’t be ready until January. I had no idea what we were going to do. What I did was ask my pastor friends to pray for my family and ask for God’s direction. Larry Sohn, the pastor of the large Assembly of God church in Cedar Rapids spoke up. There was an orthopedic surgeon in his church who had built a huge home not far from my church. They had built the basement as a two bedroom, two-bath apartment for missionaries and others in need to use. He told me he would talk to the surgeon and see if he was willing to let my family move in. From September of 1994 until we moved into our home in January of 2005, we lived in the basement of an Assembly of God home – rent free. God again used a part of the Body of Christ which I had treated badly to bless my family in a time of need.
These men were a great blessing to me, but they were also a source of consternation. I prayed with them and shared with them, and there were many times when I heard things that made my doctrinal bones quiver a little. One week, we were praying in my church’s sanctuary, and one of the men began to pray fervently that God would bless Northbrook with an outpouring of healing, tongues and other manifestations of the Spirit. That was not exactly one of the highest priorities of my ministry.
A few years later, the “Pensacola Blessing” came to Cedar Rapids and caused some consternation in our little group. Those who had experienced these manifestations (mostly being “slain in the Spirit”) were so excited that they wanted to share the blessing with the rest of us. One pastor laid hands on all of us during prayer one day and asked God to pour out the blessing on each of us. The problem was that I did not think that what was happening in Pensacola was a work of God and I did not want it to come to my church. It caused a little bit of upheaval in our group as some embraced the “Blessing” and others of us did not.
What was I to do? God had used these men to bless me, my family and my church. But now they were headed in a direction that I did not believe was right. I struggled with whether to continue to pray with them and participate in citywide ministries. How was I to balance the demands of truth with a desire for unity? How could I walk in unity with these men with so many doctrinal disagreements? I loved these men, but at what point did the need for sound doctrine trump the beauty of Christian fellowship? I struggled with this for years without getting any wisdom on it.
Then, in 1994 when I was on vacation with my family in Florida, an idea came to my mind. I lay no claim to authoritative inspiration. But I do believe that God showed me some wisdom that I could follow in balancing doctrinal standards and the unity of the Body of Christ. I was sitting in church and, frankly, daydreaming, and the idea formed in my mind.
In this series of posts, I will be proposing four levels of doctrinal truth. Each of those levels has a “unity response” that it demands. The study is called “Brick Walls and Picket Fences.” All doctrines are important, but they are not all equally important. Some doctrines require a brick wall of separation, while some only require a friendly picket fence between neighbors. I developed these principles, preached them, and published them online in 2004. It was picked up by several online newsletters and distributed widely – mostly in charismatic and Pentecostal circles. I decided to put the sermon series into book form and seek to share what I thought was a very important principle with the Christian world.
Theological Triage
That is when Dr. Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, stepped in and wrecked everything~ A year or so after I developed this teaching, Dr. Mohler published an essay on “Theological Triage.” It shocked me how similar his triage system was to my “Brick Walls and Picket Fences”. He proposed three levels of truth, while I had four. But our first three levels were almost identical.
Dr. Mohler’s theological triage identifies three categories of truth. Level one is that truth which defines us as Christians. Level two is that doctrine which defines us as Baptists. Level three is doctrine on which we can disagree without affecting our fellowship in any way. I was in the process of writing this book when Dr. Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, released a very similar concept, called “theological triage” – focused primarily on the Baptist world. In his system, there are three levels of truth. Level one is truth that defines us a Christian. Level two is that which defines us as Baptists. The third level is comprised of doctrines on which we can disagree without affecting either the gospel or Christian fellowship.
I am not sure that I can improve on Dr. Mohler’s theological triage, but I think that there is enough of a different focus between his system and mine that it is worth putting this out there for your perusal. I believe that the principle is important. My first instinct was to simply put my study on the shelf.
At the risk of sounding a little defensive, I want you to know that what I have written here is not taken from Dr. Mohler’s triage rubric. It is very similar, but I came to this independently.
In the next post, I will give an overview of the “Brick Walls and Picket Fences” system of doctrinal analysis. Then, we will look at each of the four levels of doctrine and the unity response that is required at each level. Of course, I welcome your analysis, even you criticism.
I am going to try to avoid getting too far ahead of myself in the discussion (like we have in the gender discussions).
I’d be interested in hearing your initial thoughts on inter-denominational fellowship.
My initial thoughts on inter-denominational fellowship are that it’s good, to a point. To meet and ‘talk shop’ over coffee or dinner, that’s one thing, but as you start getting into joint ministry efforts, it starts getting a little tougher. We nearly had an implosion of the county ministerial alliance where I last was over, well, women in the pastorate, when the Presbyterian church called a lady as pastor. The group was willing to accept her, but as we started looking at the joint service we held every year, we had trouble, because most the churches would not host it… Read more »
Inter-denominational fellowship is always a mine field. Once clarification – the pastors’ prayer group I was a part of was evangelical only.
Also, I have to say that Francis and the other charismatics had a real heart for unity, and so they were careful, in these times, to try not to go too many places that would make us non-charismatics uncomfortable.
That’s good. We were dealing with an individual who was thoroughly convinced of the rightness of her own viewpoint, and felt the need for the rest of us to conform. Beforehand, we had been a wide range: Catholic, Assembly of God, Southern Baptist (2 Calvinistic, 1 anti-Calvinistic, 1 who wouldn’t say), Presbyterian (very, very liberal), and Free Will Baptist, and we got along well. When the Catholic priest hosted a community service, he took the time to explain the symbolism and decor in the church, and very obviously stated that “our church does things a little differently, your church does… Read more »
Hi DOUG, A long time ago (in SBC years), a report was written by a group of scholars from the SBC and the Catholic Church who had been meeting together formally: “Though we list below primarily doctrinal points of agreement and divergence, the most profound experience of unity occurred in those times when we told the stories of our journeys in faith and when we gathered to hear the word proclaimed and to offer our prayers to a loving God. We not only confessed but experienced “one Lord, one faith and one baptism” (Eph. 4:5).” I remembered this report when… Read more »
Sorry, DOUG, forgot to reference that report I spoke of initially:
http://www.usccb.org/seia/sbrctounderstandeachother1989.shtml
I am not sure that the Catholic church agrees with the positions we hold on fundamental doctrines – so called Brick Wall doctrine, which divides true Christians from those who follow a “false gospel.”
I don’t really want to get into that now, there will be plenty of time on the next post. But I want to make it clear that groups that do not hold to the gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone are outside the community of faith – that is one doctrine which we cannot compromise.
“In attacking another religion, we might just create an atheist. We might force them to illogically retrench and become better adherents of the religion they formerly knew little or nothing of until we attacked it. By exalting Christ we permit the Gospel to work the way it was designed to work, that God draw people to himself through the cross. Some of the christian apologists against other religions have simply been so harsh in their responses that they illicit an emotive response rather than repentance. Some of these apologists have stooped to the level of ridiculing, insulting, and mocking the… Read more »
But it is not ridicule to simply say, “This is a false gospel.” “This is not a saving faith.” And, as I understand Catholic dogma at this point, and as I understand what you have advocated on this blog, there are significant differences between the saving faith of the Bible and what the Catholic church promotes.
That is the Brick Wall thing. That is why I am not a full-fledged ecumenist. The gospel of grace (the Reformation’s sola fide, sola gratia) is non-negotiable and beyond compromise.
Here I stand.
One more thing. False religions save no more than Atheism. We are told that even demons believe in God, and tremble. In terms of eternal destiny, it is no better to have a false religion than to have no religion at all.
Hi DAVID, Here is something about ‘sola fides’: “. . . Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal… Read more »
Person are saved by faith alone. Their works do not contribute even one iota to their salvation. Works do not cause someone to be saved. They are accounted by God as righteous on the basis of faith alone–nothing else.
Hi DAVID,
The ‘brick wall’ idea is an honest way to see important differences. ‘Good walls make good neighbors’ it is said.
But they can still to talk to each other over those walls, David.
But it is not ridicule to simply say, “This is a false gospel.” “This is not a saving faith.”
Without a doubt, in L’s world, that is most certainly ridicule. Saying that mormons and muslims do not have a saving relationship with God is hateful in her mind.
Hi JOE,
You forgot to mention something in your argument:
there are those innocents who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel, and who may or may not be baptized.
Tell us, JOE, the fate of these people, in your gospel.
Hi DAVID, The concept of ‘sola fides’ is based on how one defines ‘faith’. Is ‘faith’ something that is a gift of God’s grace to us? And is faith something that is ‘in’ Christ and reflects that it is ‘in Christ’? Is faith transforming, because it places us ‘in Christ’? A Catholic will say YES to these questions. I don’t know is you restrict ‘faith’ to something that is more narrow than we see it, DAVID, but that is the sort of thing that neighbors can discuss over the ‘brick wall’, if they do it honestly, and if they are… Read more »
I’m not sure, Christiane, that you read my two essays. I’m pretty sure that the point about the Brick Walls and the Picket Fence did not come through.
A Brick Wall separates true Christianity from false – it is a wall of separation from those who claim to be Christians but deny the faith. A wall of orthodoxy, if you will.
The Picket Fence is the friendly fence between neighbors in the community of faith – those who seek a relationship with God through faith in Christ alone.
In other words, L’s, how could God hold them responsible for not repenting of their sins and trust Christ alone to save them? How would that be fair–they never had a chance to hear it? Quite simply, God was not obligated to provide a means of salvation for anybody. He would have been perfectly justified to send the entire human race to hell because we were all counted guilty of Adam’s sin. To answer your question–I have no idea what God is going to do. I do know, because God has revealed it in His word, that anyone who does… Read more »
there are those innocents No, there are not. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God ” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; Now, who is this “they” David writes about? Is there anyone who is not included. There is no one who does good. Hmmm, no innocents there. The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men To see if there are any who nderstand, Who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have… Read more »
Opps, forgot to put the 2nd reference.
Psalm 14:1-3
Hi JOE,
‘Joe Blackmon December 9, 2010 at 5:43 pm
“there are those innocents”
No, there are not.’
OH YES THERE ARE, JOE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_0K-gPlyb0
Well, JOE, we disagree. We must disagree. If the Jesus of the ‘biblical gospel of JOE BLACKMON’ does not want THESE children, then . . .
in YOUR teaching, they are punished with HELL ???????
THANK YOU JOE,
every time you forget the ‘holy innocents’, I get to share that beautiful video.
I wonder sometimes, you speak words, but where is your heart? I know it’s in there somewhere, Joe.
Watch the video, dear one, with the eyes of the heart of a Christian.
L’s Please go out and rent a clue. Chirst as punished for sin. EVERYONE from Cain through today that has had a human father and mother is born guilty as a sinner. Therefore, they are NOT innocent. As far as what happens to babies/children who die before they are able to comprehend the gospel/mentally retarded people who cannot udnerstand the gospel, the Bible does not spell out the particulars of HOW they enter into heaven. But they do not go to heaven because they are innocent–no one is innocent. Everyone is guilty before God as a sinner. That is why… Read more »
BRAVO, JOE, that video works EVERY TIME 🙂 “As far as what happens to babies/children who die before they are able to comprehend the gospel/mentally retarded people who cannot udnerstand the gospel, the Bible does not spell out the particulars of HOW they enter into heaven. But they do not go to heaven because they are innocent–no one is innocent.” No, the Bible does not give the PARTICULARS OF HOW. But , you will admit that it’s CHRIST Who does the saving. At least, we can agree on that. Maybe I should say ‘At MOST, we can agree on that.’… Read more »
Christ has to do the saving because all people, from the moment of conception, are guilty as sinners before a holy God. Those babies/mentally ill do not go to heaven because they are inncoent. Further, none of this has any bearing on those who fully posess their cognitive faculties. They will trust in Christ alone for salvation and repent of their sins or they will bear their punishment.
That is ultimately the secret to this whole thing, Doug. When you demand that everyone else conform on every doctrine – that is where the trouble comes.
Conforming on certain doctrines is crucial. On others, not so much.
The study is called “Brick Walls and Picket Fences.” All doctrines are important, but they are not all equally important.
Excellent point and a terrific way to articulate it. I mean, seriously, this is what I’ve thought for years and never been able to articulate as clearly as this. Looking forward to more.
Always here to help, Joe.
And, for the record, sorry Dr. Mohler crowded your book from the market.
It’s the same thing that Matt’s singing of O Holy Night (the earlier post here) did to my music career. Someone more famous did what I can, so I’m done for.
Doug, just because you can’t match Matt’s vocal expertise doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. Don’t compare yourself to the masters!
I have ministered in several places where there were community-wide services at Thanksgiving, Easter, etc., and those were always good. And at least one of those included a church where there was a woman pastor, but I am not aware of any of the churches that had a problem with that–regardless of our individual convictions, all (as far as I ever knew) took the attitude that this (Methodist) congregation was free to accept whomsoever they wanted as pastor, and the rest simply accepted their choice as their choice. None were terribly upset that she preached at one joint service. I… Read more »
John, you served in South Boston? My son was born there. I pastored in Drakes Branch, Virginia – Charlotte County – just north of there. Used to visit in South Boston for hospitals all the time.
JOHN, it sounds like your group was filled with people ‘of good will’.
The practice of ‘in all things, charity’ is a sign of God’s grace at work among mankind. Thanks for sharing that with us.
“In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis (or, dubiis) libertas, in utrisque (or, omnibus) caritas.”
I remember well my Church History course at SEBTS in 1967. We covered the history of the church from the Church Fathers to the present. Part of that study was to read the original wrightings of Augustine / Acquinus / etc. When read in their original form, I was amazed at how basic doctrinal writings of the Roman Catholic Church were almost identical to our Baptist Faith and Message statements! I grew up in an SBC environment where Catholics were viewed as corrupting of the basic Christian faith. It was not a great shock for me to realize we had… Read more »
Wow, #1, #2, and #3 all in one comment. Way to go, Gene-o!!!
Joe–you’re full of it!!!!
Santa’s watching so be nice.
Can God use ‘brokenness in relationships’? Can He bring good from that brokenness, in time? We can look to the Holy Scriptures for understanding about this: For Mankind, harmed by Satan in the Garden, the angels proclaim: “Unto you is born this day in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord”: In Jesus’ Incarnation, God provides the Way. “Weakness is assumed by strength, lowliness by majesty, mortality by eternity, in order that one and the same Mediator of God and men might die in One and rise in the Other. ” I have often thought about… Read more »
In the same fashion the Gospels are not identical, but tell a complete story of Christ together, denominations tell their story with different outlooks and things of importance.
By having this diversity, the Gospel is brought to a wider range of believers!
It appears to me we focus more on the Gospel of John and especially John 3:16.
If one is to focus, I can’t think of a better place! In a nutshell that verse cites the core of our Good News = Love / World / Only Son / Belief / Eternal life! Can’t say I know another verse in the Bible more complete!
We too have community wide “ecumenical” services around holidays like Thanksgiving. Our church hosted this year and it was a positive experience. But I also know that some people stayed home because inviting Catholics and Methodists into our church is the ultimate evil.
Please understand, I am not advocating complete and open ecumenism. That’s what the “Brick Wall” part is all about. There are places that fellowship cannot go without compromising fundamental truth.
We have to be willing to stand for truth as well as seeking the unity of the Body.
To the consternation of many of my friends in Cedar Rapids, I refused to participate in some citywide events because they involved people whom I believed proclaimed a false gospel.
Your brick wall/picket fence approach is much better than the approach advocated by a certain former baptist blogger. If he’d had his way, the only doctrinal parameter walls would be like the walls in Les Nessman’s office on WKRP–tape on the floor. You’d just pretend they were there but they wouldn’t really do anything. Now, I’m not going to mention his name but I wonder if his yard got rolled the other night or if I was a hero for preventing it. 🙂
That is an interesting statement considering that “former Southern Baptist blogger” believes fully in limited atonement and TULIP in full.
But I like this post Dave and I agree with you 100%. I have always respected this about you. I do have a great respect for you btw.
Awww…!
So what? He would (and should) be willing to work with non-Calvinists. My point was there is no doctrine over which he would be willing to separate…unless it was too conservative. Why don’t you try reading rather than breaking your neck to get to your keyboard to jump to Don Quixote’s defense.
Joe, that is one of the best–maybe the best–analogies explaining what is wrong with the moderate position that I have ever read.
I say that with all sincerity eventhough I’m not sure I even like you 🙂
Frank and Larry,
Thank you. That’s ok. I’ve got lots of friends that don’t like me. 🙂
My theory for years has been that denominations are not man’s invention. They’re God’s creation to cast as wide a net as can be cast, to lost mankind. All the differences in doctrine matter to people who are already saved. Lost folks would be more concerned about is the group happy-clappy, intellectually studious, quietly introspective, or what. Once they are attracted to a fellowship .. hello .. lost people are NOT attracted to doctrine, they can hear John 3:16 & the like, and God can direct them where He wants them. I would trade having been sprinkled in an Evangelical… Read more »
They’re God’s creation to cast as wide a net as can be cast, to lost mankind.
There are denominations that say that Christ was not born of a virgin, didn’t rise from the grave 3 days later, that people from other faiths (mormons, muslims for example) are saved by God through Christ without knowing that God has saved them through Christ when He did so, and that homosexuality is not a sin.
God is most certainly NOT using those denominations and they do not proclaim the same gospel that Christians do.
God used a denomination that said “Jesus may have been the son of Mary and a Roman guard, but it doesn’t matter .. he’s still the savior” in my life. And if God hadn’t used certain non-believing Roman guards at Calvary, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.
God worked in your life in spite of that denomination, perhaps, but not through it. God doesn’t work through lies. Any denominatoin that would blather such heretical nonsense certainly isn’t Christian and isn’t sharing the gospel.
The experience was mine, not yours. It was there I heard John 3:16. It was there I heard that religion is about more than doing something that we like .. it’s about what we’re, as believers, obliged to do. But that’s no different from any other denomination. Any good that comes .. any lives that are changed .. any souls that are saved .. are not a result of what we do. They’re a result of what God does WITH what we do. All victories are His. From my salvation to a Sunday school lesson that speaks to someone. He… Read more »
The dangerous thing is there are Christians in the church who would be willing to cooperate with a goup of non-Christians such as the group you described because they make some claim to “believing in Jesus” even though they believe in a completely different Jesus (their Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin) and a different God (their God did not fulfill his clear prophecy to bring the Messiah via a virgin birth) and therefore have a completely different gospel. Instead, what a church needs to recognize such an unbiblical theology as not being truly Christian and refuse to cooperate with… Read more »
Joe– I’m not sure I understand your wide characterization of “denominations.” It appers to be far wider than mine or Bob’s. If I am understanding your correctly, you include Mormons, Muslims, etc. as “denominations.” We see them as people of a different “faith.” I would call one able to recite the Apostles Creed as a part of a “denomination.” We share a basic faith, but have different organizational approaches to it. Early in my life I was taught the Catholics were going to Hell because they worshiped the Virgin Mary along with Jesus. As I grew in my knowledge and… Read more »
Gene,
#2 and #3.
Joe—
You are so “off base” it makes me laugh!!!! I need such on a cold day when I must make 2 trips to bring equipment to a job and spend atrocious amounts of money on diesel fuel at +/-$3.15 per gallon!!!
I just hope the engine cranks on this cold morning or I will accuse it of a “Joe Blackmon attitude”!!!
Gene,
#1
“Early in my life I was taught the Catholics were going to Hell because they worshiped the Virgin Mary along with Jesus. As I grew in my knowledge and personal experience with Catholics, I found them to be of the same basic beliefs as us Baptists.”
We cannot “earn” grace through sacraments. But then Calvin practiced that as well.
Obviously, “…NOT trade….”
Dave, your post reminds me of a series Sinclair Ferguson did at Desiring God called “Good Fences, Bad Fences & The Glory of Christ” (2003 Pastors Conference) which I think articulated what you are talking about.
Its disturbing when these people keep stealing my good ideas!
I don’t get them that often.
Hang in there, Dave—we respect you!!!
And we love you for bringing up good ideas!
The upside Dave is that yours are free on this blog.
I’m too broke to buy Mohler’s books since I just had to purchase Logos as a requirement for seminary.
Which one did you get? That is a great program, but they keep luring you in with more and more.
Logos 4, Scholar’s Edition, as per the “required for seminary” list.
Cost almost as much as tuition. Felt pretty guilty, knowing how many pastors in persecuted countries I could have bought Bibles for instead. We talk about how dedicated folks in those situation are, and how wimpy we are, but our seminaries are training us to think we’ve got to have Cadillac study options.
I do love it, but still…
Before someone else says it – you get what you pay for.
Great sense of humor, Dave!!!!
I came across an event in the past year in which I discovered that Evan Roberts, the leader in the Welsh Revival in 1904 ceased his efforts due to the fact that a contact from the Azusa Street meetings in California tried to make that approach a part of the Welsh Revival. I would also add that I have read where Catholics claim to have made their greatest inroads into Protestantism by means of the Charismatic movement. I would welcome any knowledge anyone has on these two items that I have mentioned.
re; doctrines taken to the extreme. Have you folks ever heard about feedback loops, about servomechanisms, the correcting instruments that enable an autopilot to work? As I have studied church history, i have observed that God seems to have provided the same kind of self-correcting means in his doctrines. Go off too far on a tangent, and you will find reality smacking you in the face, pushing you back the other way, back to the place of balance.
That built-in ‘mechanism’? It’s the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Yeah, certain pretend christians found that out in 1979-1990ish. They didn’t get NEARLY the smacking around they deserved, however.
🙂
Yes, Dave, I know you’ve got to delete this but I just couldn’t let an obvious opportunity to get a good slam in on the bad guys. It was a softball pitch right over the plate.