Question about variety in the church

[DaveKicks]

Moderated By: themuzicman

moved

***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.

[One Bad Pig]

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

Then why would you admit to fellowship one who does not hold to sound doctrine?

[RBerman]

Then why would you admit to fellowship one who does not hold to sound doctrine?

Because the requirement for being a member of Christ's church is not to have sound doctrine in all areas, or even many areas, or even several areas. One can be unsound in many areas of doctrine, and yet belong to Christ. But you should not be a teacher in Christ's church in that circumstance.

[One Bad Pig]

Because the requirement for being a member of Christ's church is not to have sound doctrine in all areas, or even many areas, or even several areas. One can be unsound in many areas of doctrine, and yet belong to Christ. But you should not be a teacher in Christ's church in that circumstance.

That is a rather ...modern response, not countenanced, I suspect, before the Reformation and its multiplication of denominations.

[RBerman]

That is a rather ...modern response, not countenanced, I suspect, before the Reformation and its multiplication of denominations.

*shrug* I don't strive to be modern or ancient. Church history is helpful to the extent that people made good arguments to defend one approach or another. I don't respond well to "They believed it, so we should too," if it can't be reasonably backed up by Scripture.

[Cow Poke]

That is a rather ...modern response, not countenanced, I suspect, before the Reformation and its multiplication of denominations.

I have struggled with this in various revisions of Church Constitutions and Bylaws -- that membership is "too easy", and should require more than just "yeah, I wanna join". In some Churches (Baptist and Bible Church) they actually have two classes of membership --- one is more "friend of the Church" with no voting privileges, then AFTER a series of --- basically a catechism ---- they can be eligible for full membership.

I'm guessing, OBP, that your church doesn't have members voting on Church matters?

[One Bad Pig]

I have struggled with this in various revisions of Church Constitutions and Bylaws -- that membership is "too easy", and should require more than just "yeah, I wanna join". In some Churches (Baptist and Bible Church) they actually have two classes of membership --- one is more "friend of the Church" with no voting privileges, then AFTER a series of --- basically a catechism ---- they can be eligible for full membership.

I'm guessing, OBP, that your church doesn't have members voting on Church matters?

Sorta. We vote on budgets and things like that, and when there is a diocese-wide meeting we elect lay members to represent the parish (this can also occur on a more limited if a synod of bishops convokes a local council, which includes lay as well as ordained representatives). In a general sense, lay members also ratify the decrees of a council.

The most important aspect of membership is the ability to receive communion.

[Cow Poke]

Sorta. We vote on budgets and things like that, and when there is a diocese-wide meeting we elect lay members to represent the parish (this can also occur on a more limited if a synod of bishops convokes a local council, which includes lay as well as ordained representatives). In a general sense, lay members also ratify the decrees of a council.

The most important aspect of membership is the ability to receive communion.

Ah, understood.
thanks

[theblueprint_Ni]

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

I am a member of a church whose staff is largely, if not fully, Reformed in their theology. However, Reformed specific doctrine isn't stressed. There is much more to the life and growth of a church that doesn't involve the rapture or whether or not we actually have a say in our coming to Christ.

It's important that Arminians don't teach Arminian doctrine in a Reformed church because order is important for proper functionality. This applies vice versa, of course. We can become contentious over these things. This naturally inhibits unity, and consequently, ministry. That's OK with me because Arminian specific doctrine really doesn't comprise the majority of my beliefs. It's more important to teach and exhort one another about prayer, the goodness of God, the deceitfulness of sin, and the devices of Satan. These are only minorly affected by secondary theological positions.

The problem with eclectic churches (mostly non-denominational) is that they are often disorderly with an "everything goes, go with the flow" kind of mentality. However orthodox their core beliefs may be, the congregations are often perfectly comfortable with contrary (or even sinful) lifestyles because there is too much freedom of thought and no coherence to Biblically based tradition that can be very helpful in keeping them in one accord. Submitting to the authority of the theology of the church doesn't mean you have to compromise your positions. It means that you believe the stability of the house is worth subjugating a few minor supports.

So, all things being equal, I would argue that that order is the primary concern, and not so much the doctrines themselves (though they may still be considered important).