Question about variety in the church

[DaveKicks]

Ladybug,
I don't have much to add to the main discussion (gerenally agreeing with RBerman's sentiments). However, I'd like to address your use of scripture:

1 Corinthians 12:14-20 doesn't support your position. That text is not a discussion about doctrine. It's a discussion of function. If you're building your argument on that passage you aren't going to get far.

Just my 2 cents.

[RBerman]

Would your church allow someone to teach Arminian or even Open View theology? What about Catholic Soteriology?

You could become a member as an Arminian and could voice your views in discussion time, but you would not be allowed to teach Arminian doctrine.

An Open Theist could be a member as well, but would not be allowed to teach at all.

"Roman Catholic Soteriology" is a wide spectrum. If you deny sola fide, then you deny the gospel and are not a Christian. You would be welcome to attend the church as the object of evangelism.

[RBerman]

I am sorry to have confused everybody, I am not speaking of fundamental issues I am speaking of secondary issues that ought to be left up for debate. Here are the examples I already gave,

YEC vs old earth
When during the tribulation Jesus may return
Predestination vs free will or some combination of the two.

Stuff like that, things that do not define whether or not we are Christian but merely our own personal opinions. Those things should not be used to determine our Christianity and that should be open to discussion. As to who the teacher is they should be of a variety of views on these minor issues to allow for discussion and learning. I am NOT saying to allow the extremes in a teacher or head in the church but even if someone states opinions that vary from others in the class that person, as long as they are respectful and willing to listen, should NOT be told "we would appreciate it if you would leave the class".

In my experience this usually happens when someone asks a question that challenges the leaders views and he does not have an immediate answer to said question. Under those circumstances the result should not be "that is of the devil, please leave" the answer should be, "Hmm, I dont have an immediate answer to that, let me take the week to research it and I will get back to you"

I've never heard a question described as "of the devil", and I've never heard someone asked to leave the church for asking a question or voicing an opinion. When I am teaching, and someone brings up a question leading a different direction than what I'm trying to teach, I ask if I could address that issue after class.

[Ladybug823]

Yes, unfortunately that is primarily the types of issues I have run into and it can become quite prominent in many circles, I have noticed mostly because they feel threatened by the question because it is the type of thing that they seem to have tied their faith to and as a result will respond with hostility instead of love and wisdom.

[Catholicity]

Dear Ladybug,
Your very same questions, are remarkably, what led me away from protestantism and into Catholicism. I did not feel welcome nor a member of the Body of Christ. The smallest dividing differences did infact define the denomination I was in. In Catholicism I had found the orthodox beliefs yet freedom to believe on different "small lines." It seems that Berman is right, you need a better class of Church ( ) just kidding of course. I have found that there are likely a number of churches which do have "orthodox" beliefs and practices without sweating the small things.

[Raphael]

I've never heard a question described as "of the devil", and I've never heard someone asked to leave the church for asking a question or voicing an opinion. When I am teaching, and someone brings up a question leading a different direction than what I'm trying to teach, I ask if I could address that issue after class.

Just an aside, I have been to a church that became like that when it got a new pastor, basically he started turning it into a personality cult. Long story short a lot of people got seriously hurt, and (fortunately) joined other churches. last I heard they had been asked to leave the denomination they were affiliated with.

[Bent Radar]

So being a true Christian is based on belief in a creed?

How does regeneration by the Holy Spirit fit into that?

(These may be a little off topic, but Ladybug mentioned people being asked to leave based on a difference in creedal beliefs.)

[RBerman]

So being a true Christian is based on belief in a creed? How does regeneration by the Holy Spirit fit into that? (These may be a little off topic, but Ladybug mentioned people being asked to leave based on a difference in creedal beliefs.)

Not "belief in a creed." A creed is not the object of your faith. A creed is expression of your faith in Christ. Only those who are regenerated by the Holy Spirit can truthfully confess faith in Christ.

[One Bad Pig]

You could become a member as an Arminian and could voice your views in discussion time, but you would not be allowed to teach Arminian doctrine.

An Open Theist could be a member as well, but would not be allowed to teach at all.

I don't get these distinctions. Why distinguish between beliefs required for membership and those required for teaching?

[RBerman]

I don't get these distinctions. Why distinguish between beliefs required for membership and those required for teaching?

Some beliefs are closer to the core of Christianity than others. The requirements for membership in the local church are as broad as the requirements for membership in Christ's kingdom. But additional requirements of belief and lifestyle fall upon those who assume a leadership role within the church. Paul's epistle to Titus uses phrases like "able to give instruction in sound doctrine" and "teach what is good" and "sound in faith" and "sound speech that cannot be condemned" with respect to leaders. Those who are young in the faith are to sit under the instruction of those who are mature, so that one day they may be qualified to fill the role of the mature saint.

[Cow Poke]

Some beliefs are closer to the core of Christianity than others. The requirements for membership in the local church are as broad as the requirements for membership in Christ's kingdom. But additional requirements of belief and lifestyle fall upon those who assume a leadership role within the church. Paul's epistle to Titus uses phrases like "able to give instruction in sound doctrine" and "teach what is good" and "sound in faith" and "sound speech that cannot be condemned" with respect to leaders. Those who are young in the faith are to sit under the instruction of those who are mature, so that one day they may be qualified to fill the role of the mature saint.

And it would be hoped that, while a person was a member, they would receive the wherewithal to grow spiritually to the point where they CAN teach and take on leadership.

[One Bad Pig]

Some beliefs are closer to the core of Christianity than others. The requirements for membership in the local church are as broad as the requirements for membership in Christ's kingdom. But additional requirements of belief and lifestyle fall upon those who assume a leadership role within the church. Paul's epistle to Titus uses phrases like "able to give instruction in sound doctrine" and "teach what is good" and "sound in faith" and "sound speech that cannot be condemned" with respect to leaders. Those who are young in the faith are to sit under the instruction of those who are mature, so that one day they may be qualified to fill the role of the mature saint.

So it's immature to hold to, say, Calvinism in an Arminian church? I agree that instructors and leaders should be more mature (in years and conduct), but I don't see how that applies to differences in belief. There's a difference between holding a belief and being able to articulate it well, which really would be a measure of difference in maturity. A difference in belief, not so much.

[RBerman]

So it's immature to hold to, say, Calvinism in an Arminian church? I agree that instructors and leaders should be more mature (in years and conduct), but I don't see how that applies to differences in belief. There's a difference between holding a belief and being able to articulate it well, which really would be a measure of difference in maturity. A difference in belief, not so much.

If one believes that Calvinism is true, then one would not classify Arminianism as "sound doctrine," and vice versa.

[David Hayward]

I would wonder why so many Christians take the stance "no WE are the true Christians" I have never understood the mentality of "we have it all right". It seems clear to me that no one has it all right no matter how much they study. So why do so many take the stance of "It's my way or the highway"?

Reminds me of the heyday of Marxist-Leninist groups: the worst enemy of any one such group seemed always to be not Capitalism but another Marxist-Leninist group who interpreted the Marxist teaching or Praxis slightly differently. Christian denominations have, historically, been similar.

Fortunately, the bad old centuries of inter-denominational hatred seem long gone, a few individuals excepting. But you seem to have found that same tendency in miniature.

From my understanding all Christians each have their own unique way of looking at the bible and at the world in general. That way we can learn from each other and form a more complete view of what the nature of God really is.

Blessedly, TWEB has that useful function.

David

[themuzicman]

Moderator Notice

Solda Fide thread moved here

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.