I just finished listening to the audio from the recent Standpoint Conference held at Southeast Valley Baptist Church in Gilbert, Arizona this past month. The conference was geared toward “young fundamentalists” and centered on Biblical fellowship (koinonia). Several of the messages were very good, and I plan to share some of my thoughts and commentary in the coming weeks.
The speaker for the last session was Mike Durning (a fellow ShaperIron member). His topic was: “How can Calvinists and not-so-Calvinists have Koinonia?” The message is worth listening to, as he hits on some important issues, particularly with relation to how bitter the Calvinism debate can get.
Toward the end of his message, however, he really hit the nail home. After mentioning that in the Bible church he pastors, at one time both a 5 point Calvinist and a very Arminian-leaning fellow were on the elder board together, he moved on to spell out some thoughts I find very important. I’m sharing my attempt at transcribing this section of the audio. I’ll give you the excerpt and encourage you to get the audio (it’s free) and listen to the whole thing.
Our church has been home to charismatics before. We politely insist that they not speak or pray in their imagined heavenly language. If they despair at someone for going to a doctor or, you know, they try to say that all sickness is of the devil, then we instruct them and if necessary we’d ask them to leave. But why close the door to helping someone grow in their understanding of Scripture?
We even had a charismatic on our board of deacons before, which is saying something because I preach against charismaticism a whole lot more then I would ever touch the issue of Calvinism or non-Calvinism. What’s wrong with them being with us, though? They worship with us, they hear the Word, why cut them off?
Our church has been home to historic a-mil guys, pre-trib pre-mil guys and everything in between. Our church has been home to dispensationalists and covenant theologians. Our church is home to both cessationists and some soft-cessationists, a few non-cessationists.
Do we have a taught position? Sure. And some of these things I teach far more firmly then I teach the issue of Calvinism or non-Calvinism. But those who truly know Christ and show up are welcome. And they’re our brothers and sisters.
Listen guys, once we know we’re dealing with believers, everything except rebellion is just a teaching issue. Did you catch that? If we know they’re believers, everything except rebellion is just a teaching issue. That’s the mindset.
You don’t have to march in lock-step with me to worship at my side. You don’t have to cow-tow to my view point to sit in my pew. You don’t have to agree with all things that I believe in order to work with me.
Is there a standard? Sure. Is unity based on a core of doctrine and practice? Sure. But to insist on 100% conformity to my viewpoint in order to fellowship, is arrogance — not separatism.
So, what do you think? I for one, think he is absolutely correct (when it comes to secondary matters). Let me know if you agree or disagree.
“Is there a standard? Sure. Is unity based on a core of doctrine and practice? Sure. But to insist on 100% conformity to my viewpoint in order to fellowship, is arrogance — not separatism.”
He gets a strong Amen from this corner of the peanut gallery!
2 Corinthians 3:17-18 (New Living Translation)
17 For the Lord is the Spirit, and wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 So all of us who have had that veil removed can see and reflect the glory of the Lord. And the Lord—who is the Spirit—makes us more and more like him as we are changed into his glorious image.
Thanks Nancy
This is a great post, and to my understanding, exactly right. It’s easier to say it than to practice it, as we all know, because somehow, having Christians in close fellowship with us who differ with us is too uncomfortable for some to handle. It’s just easier to find a church where everyone agrees with me on the issues that I believe are important. After all, I don’t want someone else influencing my children, and we don’t want someone causing trouble or dividing the church now do we?
This post shows us the right attitude, and the correct Biblical position. May God help me to practice it better in my own church.
Appreciatively,
Greg Barkman
Thanks Greg for the good word. You’re right that this isn’t easy. Neither is practicing Rom. 14:1-15:7. May we all do better with this in our churches and our personal associations. We really can be “together for the Gospel”. And that togetherness can overlook many things we don’t like about others. Those little things pale in comparison to the big things we share alike.
Thanks again for your thoughts,
In Christ,
Bob
[...] Fundamentally Reformed: Doctrinal Disagreements (on Secondary Matters): Just a Teaching Issue [...]
On very Arminian-leaning fellows:
As a 5 pointer, this is where I would draw the line.
I cannot ecclesiastically fellowship with those who deny:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Perseverance of the Saints
Irresistible Grace (or efficacious grace) is largely misunderstood an difficult to explain.
On Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption. It took me years to come to this position. I’m willing to cut others the same slack. As long as God-honoring methods of evangelism are utilized I can fellowship with one who disagrees with me on this point.
As for Total Depravity. I can not compromise on this. Either man is dead in tresspasses and sins or not. Not much room for middle ground here. If some of man’s goodness saves him, well then it is not “all of grace”. Total depravity and unconditional election seem to go hand in hand.
Perseverance of the Saints is often misunderstood. “Once saved always saved” is not Perseverance of the Saints! But it is a start in the right direction if it is based on genuine regeneration.
Jim,
I think there’s a difference between rejecting a doctrinal point which you don’t agree on (for instance some would say total depravity does not entail “total inability”), and outright rejecting the true meaning represented by the doctrinal construct. Those who reject total inability are not saying man can save himself. They think in light of the Gospel and Christ’s work on the cross, man can “respond”, and thus is not totally inable. If man doesn’t “respond”, he has himself to blame for his eternal destiny.
I totally agree on the “once saved, always saved” point. See my post on that subject: Once Saved, Always Saved?!?! But even with that, I find almost more similarity with a careful Wesleyan view which views apostasy as happening to “elect” believers. They own up to the “if” statements and warning passages much more so than do the “free grace” crowd. I differ in assuming that those who apostasize were ever truly elect or truly believers. I think 1 Jn. 2:19 settles for me how I should think of apostates.
Yet even here, those who think salvation is just a prayer you do once (free grace / non-Lordship / easy believism) and those who think it is a simple prayer that you do time and time again (fully Arminian types like Assembly of God folks) are in need of teaching. And many of them are true believers who are confused. Why should we refuse to allow them into our assembly to be influenced by our teaching? Sure you don’t make them SS teachers free to say whatever they think to anyone, but surely there is some room for them.
I’m not saying there aren’t boundaries and limits. But our disposition should be broader than is typical (in fundamentalism and elsewhere). It shouldn’t be “my way or the highway”, or come close to that. Rom. 14-15 apply here as well.
Thanks for coming over and sharing your thoughts. I can see where you’re coming from. Let me know if this rambling I just did makes sense!
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
Forgot to add the link for my Once Saved Always Saved post. You can see that post here.
[...] KJV Onlyism, so you know I have no sense left in me!)Â So, on the heels of my recent post, “Doctrinal Disagreement (on Secondary Matters): Just a Teaching Issue“, I thought it might be good to test the waters with a post on [...]
Jim,
The issue is more complex than just figuring out which of the five points we can disagree with and still have fellowship. If we are talking about the fellowship or partnership, as in supporting a missionary, our church expects agreement on all five. If we’re talking about fellowshipping over lunch, I have no problem meeting with a five point Arminian who gives evidence of love for Christ, and talking about our mutual faith in Christ. If we are talking about the fellowship of church membership (the main point of the original post), we require every applicant to complete a study on the Doctrine of Grace so there is no ambuguity about what we believe, but do not require them to pledge full agreement. If they are willing to be identified with us, and taught by us, and they give a clear testimony of saving faith in Christ, they are welcome. (But no sowing discord or undermining the church’s doctrinal position.)
And on it goes. I could make at least a half dozen other distinctions. Wouldn’t it be nice if it were so simple, so cut and dried as to draw a firm line in the sand and never cross it. But in my experience, real life situations, and the demands of Scripture require a great deal more understanding, patience, and flexibility.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
Greg,
I appreciate that approach. And you’re right it is complicated. Some might not make prospective members/attenders jump through so many hoops, but again this is about teaching. They need to be willing to be taught if they attend.
Thanks for sharing how it works in your church that truly is helpful.
[...] fits right in with my recent doctrinal disagreements post and Jason’s “words of warning“. I think everyone who has had a major shift in [...]
[...] Doctrinal Disagreements (οח Secondary Matters): Jυѕt a Teaching Issue | Fundamenta… [...]