tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post7322420114680245363..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: A brief word on Truth & Unity (illustrated)Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55391538227327957322011-10-23T06:06:15.633-07:002011-10-23T06:06:15.633-07:00but at least you will not have forsaken the fellow...<i>but at least you will not have forsaken the fellowship of the believers, as some have already done.</i><br /><br />For all the good the reformation did, I do think that one unintended side effect was to indirectly lead to this.<br /><br />Clearly one of the major impacts was to put the bible in the hands of individual believers for them to read, study and interpret the bible themselves, so that they would not be victimized by the RCC. Luther's German translation, putting it in the vernacular, gave, for the first time in over 1000 plus years, people the ability to read it themselves. This trend has accelerated 1000 times from the beginnings of the printing press to to today's ability for everyone to publish their screeds on the internet.<br /><br />Once you have believers (and others) reading for themselves, they start making decisions for themselves. Once this starts to happen, is it so far a stretch to question why exactly do I need the church? If I don't need the church, exactly where is the value of unity? If I don't live in community, who am I to be unified with?<br /><br /><i>That said, this weekend, you personally be in the Lord's house on the Lord's day with the Lord's people where there will be some admixture of falsehood in with the truth </i><br /><br />AmenDavid A. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465387359523299616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86864292944795692712011-10-21T17:06:22.217-07:002011-10-21T17:06:22.217-07:00Ok, you guys are going back and forth. Did you re...Ok, you guys are going back and forth. Did you read the whole post?<br /><br /><i>Last thing today: this is the struggle which produced the confessions and the creeds. This concern about how much truth needs to be present in our unity is what caused the Church (big "C") to make creeds and confessions so that the clarity of the Gospel</i>.<br /><br />Again: <b>this is the struggle which produced the confessions and creeds</b>.<br /><br />You aren't going to solve this in a comment thread.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66363936730500796842011-10-21T16:10:23.156-07:002011-10-21T16:10:23.156-07:00Jugulum,
I never said that one could not discover...Jugulum,<br /><br />I never said that one could not discover another's violation of the essentials either through their ecclesiology or eschatology. Sometimes ones violation of the essentials is discerned from these areas. What I am saying though is trace it back to violation of the essentials and if you can't then fellowship on that basis although you disagree in some gray areas.<br /><br />You cannot discern violation of the essentials though just through either congregationalism or presbyterianism. However, if a congregationalist violates the essentials, I do not fellowship with him. <br /><br />I can clearly discern that someone who claims to know when Jesus is coming back does not either know or believe Jesus. Why can I make that call? It violates His Lordship in a clear way. His Lordship is part of the essentials.<br /><br />That call cannot be made on the basis of either congregationalism or presbyterianism. There are no clear passages being violated that compromise the essentials. If there is then point it out.olan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42385110940308443042011-10-21T15:52:13.608-07:002011-10-21T15:52:13.608-07:00Daryl,
No one is out because of differing beliefs...Daryl,<br /><br />No one is out because of differing beliefs in the nonessentials. That's why they are NONESSENTIALS.olan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-12163396755919361002011-10-21T15:50:33.932-07:002011-10-21T15:50:33.932-07:00Steve, LOL! I'm not selling it.
So here is a...Steve, LOL! I'm not selling it. <br /><br />So here is a sampling of how just the category of the exclusivity of the Gospel could be outlined and further fleshed out.<br /><br />The exclusivity of the Gospel:<br />1. God is Creator<br /> A. He is transcendent<br /> B. He is immaterial/omnipresent<br /> C. He is omniscient<br /> D. He is omnipotent<br /> E. He is self-sufficient<br /><br />2. Adam as the first man<br /> A. Evolution is a lie including theistic evolution<br /> B. We have solidarity with Adam since he is progenitor of the race<br /><br />3. God as covenant maker<br /> A. Promises death for disobedience<br /> B. Promises life for obedience<br /><br />4. Adam as covenant breaker<br /> A. Earned death<br /> B. When Adam sinned we were in him<br /> C. All natural born descendents of Adam are born with a sin nature<br /><br />5. Jesus as the second Adam<br /> A. Born of a virgin to bypass the sin nature – implies Deity and humanity<br /> B. Progenitor of all who have faith in Him<br /><br />6. Jesus as covenant keeper<br /> A. Earned life through His sinless life<br /> B. Died a sacrificial death<br /> C. Experienced a supernatural resurrection<br /> D. All supernatural born descendents of Jesus are born again with a new nature<br /> E. All His offspring are promised life<br /> F. Salvation is in no one else<br /><br />7. Jesus is Lord<br /> A. He is the Lord of life<br /> B. He is Lord over death<br /><br />8. Jesus is Judge<br /><br />Does not the Gospel entail these things? Is that not systematic?<br /><br />No charge.olan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5685562330281651042011-10-21T14:49:28.284-07:002011-10-21T14:49:28.284-07:00olan,
Thanks for the clarification; that does hel...olan,<br /><br />Thanks for the clarification; that does help. But I still perceive a problem that I can't resolve--indeed, your answer on Camping highlights it. (Perhaps you can resolve it, but it looks to me like it's a real inconsistency in your thinking.) I'll get to it in a second.<br /><br />> "<i>1. The effectiveness of the Gospel, my #3, means that one cannot BE a fornicator, idolater, adulterer, homosexual, liar, thief, etc. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10), and be saved. </i>" <<br /><br />Agreed; sanctification always accompanies justification, and fruit always appears if we are in Christ. (I'd add that we may still struggle with various sins, but there will be real conviction, repentance, and actual <i>struggle</i>--and growth over time. Fruit.)<br /><br />> "<i>As long there is agreement in the clear Scriptural teaching on the essentials - they are in the faith - and are to give each other liberty in their differing ecclesiologies.<br />[...]<br />Camping violates the essentials (the Gospel) in the category of its exclusivity. Kept in its redemptive-historical context, the exlusivity of the Gospel for one thing means that Jesus is God. Since Jesus said that "no man knows the day or the hour of His return" then Camping, with his predictions, violates in the essentials.</i>" <<br /><br />Look at what just happened, Olan--this is what looks inconsistent.<br /><br />You want to say that on doctrinal issues that are not themselves essential, we can disagree without breaking unity. We can do so, even if the Bible is actually clear on the point in question. Why? Because the point of doctrine itself isn't essential. (And you identify essentialness in terms of the gospel's exclusivity, sufficiency, and efficacy.)<br /><br />But when you look at Camping, you decide that his eschatology <i>has</i> violated an essential--even though eschatology itself isn't essential, and even though there's no command in view. Why? Because Scripture definitely teaches that we can't predict dates, and Camping says otherwise. (He creatively reinterprets that verse.) You link that back to Christ's identity as God, and God's necessary truthfulness & omniscience. <b>Simply because Camping is wrong on something the Bible is clear about</b>, you conclude that he violated an essential. Even though the doctrine in question isn't itself essential.<br /><br /><br />(In case I wasn't clear: I was asking about someone who is convinced that the Bible clearly teaches that churches should be led in a presbyterian system--as clearly as it teaches that we can't know the hour of Christ's return.)<br /><br /><br />So how do I put your two answers together? Why do you reject unity with Camping over his disbelief of clear Biblical teaching on one nonessential topic, but advise the hypothetical Presbyterian to unity with people who disbelieve what he thinks is equally clear Biblical teaching on another nonessential topic?<br /><br /><br /><br />> "<i>What moral command does congregationalism violate? What moral command does Presbyterianism violate?</i>" <<br /><br />Daryl gave my answer. I agree with your statement that commands and declarations are not the same thing, but again, I asked what someone should do with people who reject/disbelieve the Bible's clear teaching & counsel.<br /><br />By the way, disagreement over credobaptism/pedobaptism is more clearly an issue of obedience: If Baptists are right, then Presbyterians are not obeying the command to baptize all disciples--they don't baptize disciples who were born in the church. It's disobedience out of ignorance, or disbelief/disagreement with what Baptists think to be clear Biblical teaching.<br /><br />That would be my answer to "If that is true then only congregationalists are going to heaven". A truly regenerate person can end up disobeying out of ignorance.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19912368077646045132011-10-21T14:32:45.114-07:002011-10-21T14:32:45.114-07:00Olan,
Then we're all out. Since our theology ...Olan,<br /><br />Then we're all out. Since our theology is never perfect and we all believe wrong things to some extent, which means we are all in some doctrinal sin.<br /><br />Seriously, this is why I say "In non-essentials keep talking until you iron something out." rather than agreeing to disagree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-69308065388501204202011-10-21T14:13:09.884-07:002011-10-21T14:13:09.884-07:00Sorry Olan,
Not buyin' it.Sorry Olan,<br />Not buyin' it.Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67142198508014861732011-10-21T13:41:21.055-07:002011-10-21T13:41:21.055-07:00Steve,
Thanks for your graciousness. I do underst...Steve,<br /><br />Thanks for your graciousness. I do understand that just throwing those three categories out there does nothing as far as fleshing them out. It is in the fleshing out that they encompass what we are to unify over and I promise that it will be broader than the <i>Fundamentals of the Faith</i> but will not exceed the teaching of Christ (2 John 9).<br /><br />This will give a systematic viewpoint of the essentials not to be confused with a complete systematic theology.olan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7656212983274014202011-10-21T13:30:18.416-07:002011-10-21T13:30:18.416-07:00Daryl: I think part of the problem is that some of...Daryl: <i>I think part of the problem is that some of us (at least I do) see any and every Biblical imperative as a moral issue.<br /><br />That is, disobeying God is immoral</i>.<br /><br />Daryl, I agree and I hope that no one believes that I think there is some form of disobedience to God that is neutral. There isn't.<br /><br />Here is the difference, I believe, that we are struggling with: commands and declarations are not the same thing. For instance, Jesus declared all food good. However, He did not command that we have to eat all food. Eating or not eating then is a personal conviction with no moral restrictions either way. Here there is no doctrinal or moral compromise - no heresy.<br /><br />Likewise, there is no command to be either congregational or presbyterian - each is an attempt to govern the church as closely as possible to what is believed to be taught in the Bible.<br /><br />Bringing it back to your illustration, "<i>Ergo, if the Bible teaches congregationalism, then any other kind of church government is immoral</i>."<br /><br />If that is true then only congregationalists are going to heaven because no immoral person will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). <br /><br />Ecclesiology has now become soteriology and an essential of the Gospel.<br /><br />But instead of following that reasoning to its logical conclusion, you say, "<i>Enter, denominations, which I think are a thing that allows for that kind of serious difference, without casting each other out of the kingdom</i>."<br /><br />If Presbyterianism is immoral then they have to be cast out!olan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39727476490181808672011-10-21T13:22:24.388-07:002011-10-21T13:22:24.388-07:00Olan,
thanks for your reply. But within those thre...Olan,<br />thanks for your reply. But within those three categories, if we accept your conclusions here, encompasses all of systematic theology, correct? In essence, all essentials of Scripture? Again, I think your 'categories' are too limited, or too broad depending on how you look at them, and tell us nothing about what we are to unify over.Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68689142241868988542011-10-21T13:07:59.419-07:002011-10-21T13:07:59.419-07:00Steve,
I believe there are three categories of es...Steve,<br /><br />I believe there are three <b>categories</b> of essentials. That doesn't mean there are only three essentials as you seem to imply I have said when you say, "<i>When you say that there are three main things you consider as essential</i>".<br /><br />I did not say there are three main things I consider as essential, I said there are three main categories of essentials (see 8:14am).<br /><br />These three categories <b>will include</b> from a systematic viewpoint, all the components of Orthodox Christianity.<br /><br />Remembering the three categories only makes it simpler to discern if one is orthodox or not and therefore whether to fellowship or not.<br /><br />BTW, only three categories of sin too.olan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-4535356319101328852011-10-21T13:01:27.149-07:002011-10-21T13:01:27.149-07:00Olan,
I think part of the problem is that some of...Olan,<br /><br />I think part of the problem is that some of us (at least I do) see any and every Biblical imperative as a moral issue.<br /><br />That is, disobeying God is immoral.<br /><br />Ergo, if the Bible teaches congregationalism, then any other kind of church government is immoral.<br /><br />Likewise with baptism.<br /><br />So, while we must allow for differing understandings of Scripture, I'm not sure how we remain satisfied with that.<br />Enter, denominations, which I think are a thing that allows for that kind of serious difference, without casting each other out of the kingdom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55641169521949887622011-10-21T12:56:45.068-07:002011-10-21T12:56:45.068-07:00Jugulum,
I apologize for not being clear. I see w...Jugulum,<br /><br />I apologize for not being clear. I see why you have not totally followed what I am <b>trying</b> to say.<br /><br />1. The effectiveness of the Gospel, my #3, means that one cannot <b>BE</b> a fornicator, idolater, adulterer, homosexual, liar, thief, etc. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10), and be saved. <br /><br />Why not? Because an essential of the Gospel is that it is the power of God unto salvation. 1 Corinthians 6:11 goes on to say, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."<br /><br /><b>Jugulum</b>: <i>Do you not consider the way we lead our churches to be an issue of clear moral command? Even if Scripture does clearly teach us how to lead our churches?</i><br /><br />What moral command does congregationalism violate? What moral command does Presbyterianism violate?<br /><br /><b>Jugulum</b>: Eschatology is also not the gospel, yet you said the following, apparently applying your point #3:<br />> "<i>I can disagree with another Christian over eschatology - as long as he is not violating clear Scriptural teaching (like Camping does).</i> " <<br /><br />Here is where I think I really confused you with my lack of clarity. Camping violates <b>the essentials</b> (the Gospel) in the category of its exclusivity. Kept in its redemptive-historical context, the exlusivity of the Gospel for one thing means that Jesus is God. Since Jesus said that "no man knows the day or the hour of His return" then Camping, with his predictions, violates in the essentials.<br /><br /><b>Jugulum</b>: If a Presbyterian believes that a Baptist is violating clear Scriptural teaching on leading churches, how should that affect unity between them?<br /><br />As long there is agreement in the clear Scriptural teaching on the essentials - they are <b>in the faith</b> - and are to give each other liberty in their differing ecclesiologies.olan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-17724662640393576292011-10-21T12:28:50.856-07:002011-10-21T12:28:50.856-07:00Olan,
Part of the problem is our varying views of...Olan, <br />Part of the problem is our varying views of the components of systematic theology, isn't it? We can't even agree on how these components (The Doctrine of Creation, the Doctrine of Sin, The Doctrine of God Proper, The Doctrine of Christ, the Church, Salvation, Holy Spirit, man, angels, demons, last things, etc.) are to be defined, let alone our definitions themselves of each, that we consider as 'essentials'. <br /><br />When you say that there are three main things you consider as essential, and everything else falls into the category of being non-essential, you haven't even begun to address it from a systematic viewpoint, where the components of orthodox Christianity are much broader.Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50898144057827470962011-10-21T12:14:26.383-07:002011-10-21T12:14:26.383-07:00olan,
> "You are totally missing the poin...olan,<br /><br />> "<i>You are totally missing the point. Look carefully at what I have said. I keep bringing the essentials back to the GOSPEL. Ecclesiology is NOT THE GOSPEL.</i>" <<br /><br />To be clear, I thought you also said that anything on which the Bible clearly teaches is essential. I'll point to where I got that impression; would you take the opportunity to clarify? I'm trying very much to get your point.<br /><br />This is the first place where I got that impression:<br /><br />> "<i>3. The effectiveness of the Gospel. One cannot practice disobedience to the clear moral commands of Scripture and be Christian.</i>" <<br /><br />Do you not consider the way we lead our churches to be an issue of clear moral command? Even if Scripture does clearly teach us how to lead our churches?<br /><br />Eschatology is also not the gospel, yet you said the following, apparently applying your point #3:<br />> "<i>I can disagree with another Christian over eschatology - as long as he is not violating clear Scriptural teaching (like Camping does). </i>" <<br /><br />That's precisely why I asked about presbyterianism and congregationalism. If a Presbyterian believes that a Baptist <i>is</i> violating clear Scriptural teaching on leading churches, how should that affect unity between them? Is it a point of liberty (because "Ecclesiology is NOT THE GOSPEL"), or is it a point where he <i>shouldn't</i> see freedom to disagree (because he thinks the Baptist is "violating clear Scriptural teaching")?<br /><br /><br />I'm making an honest effort, and I don't understand how to put those statements together. I think I've said enough that you should be able to see where clarification will help. Can you provide it?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-63045988729489775612011-10-21T12:08:03.102-07:002011-10-21T12:08:03.102-07:00The way the Bible presents it, is that:
All Scri...The way the Bible presents it, is that:<br /><br /> All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.<br /><br />The only reason we are even having to have this discussion is because so many people through their ignorance or instability have changed the meaning of scripture over the years. Now we are all in a mess because we don't want to make anyone angry, or be branded as a LEGALIST (gasp!) so we make a few points in a statement of faith, showing that we are covicted about these truths, while throwing the rest of the Word to the four winds.<br /><br />I just don't see concepts in the Word where God had commands, stuff He didn't care about, and this third category of things He Sorta Cares About, but it's cool if you just ignore it. <br /><br />So as far as unity with the Church universal? Who cares. God set up autonomous local groups with local leadership which ended up with localized doctrinal and moral issues. Each church needs to be devoted to cleaning the leaven out of its lump (1st Corinthians 5), not the world at large.stevenorangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15879871752705887519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56485574147011860472011-10-21T11:52:26.780-07:002011-10-21T11:52:26.780-07:00Olan,
Well clearly I could be wrong, but I don...Olan,<br /><br />Well clearly I could be wrong, but I don't think Romans 14 is talking about teaching variant readings of Scripture, but rather the variants in living out Scripture.<br /><br />I agree that doctrine and behaviour are closely linked, but Paul is talking about making allowance for a weaker brother, which I think is very different from making allowance for variations in doctrine.<br /><br />Not saying we all need to be the same doctrinally, but I am saying that we need to be working towards that end.<br /><br />I'm not going to question your standing in Christ if you baptize your baby, but I wouldn't let you preach on the validity of that idea...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79960917241471602422011-10-21T11:49:01.210-07:002011-10-21T11:49:01.210-07:00"I have three pictures for you today to think..."I have three pictures for you today to think about."<br /><br />Ok, which three? The first three? The second three? Are there three that I don't have to think about?<br /><br />There are three types of people; those who can count and those who can't and I'm in one of them.JackWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16384160992033491748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60584912812879981062011-10-21T11:41:26.586-07:002011-10-21T11:41:26.586-07:00The models in this post make visual explanations. ...The models in this post make visual explanations. May I propose that it is not necessary to go to those lengths? We may even, in fact, be missing aspects in which those models do not hold true, when we do that.<br /> We have already been given a model, a blueprint, where unity, truth and church function. This blueprint is the Trinity. In that model, truth, unity, community (church) and diversity function properly.<br /> An element, when tested by that blueprint, whether it is Muslims or T.D. Jakes or something else will be seen as to how closely it corresponds with that blueprint.<br /> Then you will hear the question, "Do you have the right blueprint?"Monty Dicksionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03693458475578352659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-15068480381404618362011-10-21T11:40:22.453-07:002011-10-21T11:40:22.453-07:00Jugulum,
You are totally missing the point. Look...Jugulum, <br /><br />You are totally missing the point. Look carefully at what I have said. I keep bringing the essentials back to the GOSPEL. Ecclesiology is NOT THE GOSPEL. <br /><br />That is why I said, "Everything else falls into the nonessential category and is a matter of conviction and personal obedience to Christ's Lordship."<br /><br />You said, "So, on your view, if a pastor is persuaded that the Bible does clearly teach presbyterian ecclesiology, how should he limit his unity with a pastor of a church who is persuaded that it clearly teaches congregationalism?"<br /><br />He should not limit his unity but instead give LIBERTY! The essentials of the Gospel have not been violated.<br /><br />Hint: There's a reason I don't fellowhsip with Catholics and it's not their ecclesiology - although that is wrong.olan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-72648690971650261782011-10-21T11:31:20.778-07:002011-10-21T11:31:20.778-07:00For those of us who barely got passing grades in c...For those of us who barely got passing grades in calculus (the weaker brother/sister), IT'S NECESSARY TO SHOW THE WORK, and sometimes slowly, simply, and patiently explain it step by step. Then we will not only know the answer, but how we came to the answer, and why having the correct answer is so important. Not only that, but we'll eventually be training up the next generation, which will need to know more than addition and subtraction. Great analogy that I can slightly grasp.Merrilee Stevensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12770625841767761025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90581583821467378982011-10-21T11:28:45.209-07:002011-10-21T11:28:45.209-07:00Daryl: I have, but that's not the point. Roman...Daryl: <i>I have, but that's not the point. Romans 14, as I read it, is about behaviour, not the doctrine that drives it.</i><br /><br />Roman 14:2, "<i>One person <b>has faith</b> that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.</i>"<br /><br />Since when has behavior ever been separated from doctrine?<br /><br />"<i>He who observes the day, <b>observes it for the Lord</b>....</i>" Romans 14:6. Why does he do it? DOCTRINE!<br /><br />You are confusing nonessential with unimportant and the two are not the same thing.<br /><br />If you'll notice the categories for determining essentials you will see that <b>claiming one cannot be saved unless</b> he "abstains" from this or that or "observes" certain days fails in the essentials by violating the sufficiency of the Gospel. <br /><br />But to deny that Romans 14 and other places in Scripture establish the category of nonessentials (gray areas) is to misread Scripture.olan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-52092689208838715542011-10-21T11:24:40.995-07:002011-10-21T11:24:40.995-07:00olan,
> "I have already given the proper ...olan,<br /><br />> "<i>I have already given the proper way to distinguish between the two. For instance, I can disagree with another Christian over eschatology - as long as he is not violating clear Scriptural teaching (like Camping does). <br /><br />I can disagree over ecclesiology - as long as the clear teaching of Scripture is not being violated. For instance, congregationalism vs. presbyterianism is a non-essential. </i>" <<br /><br />If I'm understanding you rightly, you say that because you're convinced that Scripture doesn't clearly teach either congregationalism or presbyterianism.<br /><br />So, on your view, if a pastor is persuaded that the Bible <i>does</i> clearly teach presbyterian ecclesiology, how should he limit his unity with a pastor of a church who is persuaded that it clearly teaches congregationalism?<br /><br />Similarly: When a church is drafting a doctrinal statement to which someone must adhere before they become a member, should the church include every point of doctrine/command on which they believe the Bible is clear?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-48002489253453404312011-10-21T11:01:09.475-07:002011-10-21T11:01:09.475-07:00Daryl,
"that we too easily go there to justif...Daryl,<br />"that we too easily go there to justify our own lack of submission to Scripture-rightly-taught?"<br /><br />Beautiful, baby.Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.com