Jump to content
Online Baptist

Separation over doctrine.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And that changes nothing at all of what I said. Christ has done His part: Died to pay for the sin of the world; Lightens every man that comes into the world; draws all men to Him from the cross. What

Was just thinking that maybe I should give some examples of doctrines that I view as "fundamental," more than the commonly listed five: 1.  The Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (and the 1,0

Ahhh, but here is my problem with your above statement. You continue to use the two phrases, "Fundamentals of the Faith" and "secondary issues."  However, these phrases are NOT found in God's Word; th

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)

As independents we should already be separated. The better question should be, "With whom will I fellowship?". A person's doctrine, practices, and location does not determine my separation but it does determine my level of fellowship.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

I think a lot would depend on the level or differences in doctrinal matters. In other words some doctrinal matters are of more importance than others. For that reason it is hard for me to consider this a blanket question unless specific doctrines are brought into the question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Exactly the point - what is "big enough" for you to stop fellowshipping with someone?

Or is the whole concept wrong?

Just a topic for discussion...…..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 hours ago, DaveW said:

What are people's thoughts over separating from fellowship with someone over doctrinal matters?

I certainly do it with regularity (and that over MORE than just doctrines which directly pertain to the gospel).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Members
On 3/4/2020 at 1:14 AM, DaveW said:

What are people's thoughts over separating from fellowship with someone over doctrinal matters?

I would have to ask what are we dividing over though? As I have Christian friends eho hold to various views on Eschatology, some are Reformed, some Baptist, some Dispy some holding to Covenant theology!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, DaChaser said:

I would have to ask what are we dividing over though? As I have Christian friends eho hold to various views on Eschatology, some are Reformed, some Baptist, some Dispy some holding to Covenant theology!

They are all interpretations not doctrine, althoughmany think they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
24 minutes ago, Invicta said:

They are all interpretations not doctrine, althoughmany think they are.

When dealing with the difference between 'God sovereignly decided, before the foundations of time, who would be saved and who would go to hell', and then commands them ALL to be saved or go to hell' as opposed to 'whosoever will', THAT is doctrine-in fact, it covers a few doctrines, like the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, whether man has free will to choose to follow or reject, and such. That is doctrine.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

When dealing with the difference between 'God sovereignly decided, before the foundations of time, who would be saved and who would go to hell', and then commands them ALL to be saved or go to hell' as opposed to 'whosoever will', THAT is doctrine-in fact, it covers a few doctrines, like the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, whether man has free will to choose to follow or reject, and such. That is doctrine.

 

Yes I agree with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Members
On 3/28/2020 at 8:40 PM, Ukulelemike said:

When dealing with the difference between 'God sovereignly decided, before the foundations of time, who would be saved and who would go to hell', and then commands them ALL to be saved or go to hell' as opposed to 'whosoever will', THAT is doctrine-in fact, it covers a few doctrines, like the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, whether man has free will to choose to follow or reject, and such. That is doctrine.

 

Think that those are in house issues free to dioscuss and disagree, but not raising to level of seperation

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
On 5/15/2020 at 6:54 AM, DaChaser said:

Think that those are in house issues free to dioscuss and disagree, but not raising to level of seperation

It.absolutely raises to the level of separation,  because we are dealing with the foundational doctrine of eternal life. 

 

If I say everyone has an equal.ability to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, and YOU say, No, not everyone has that ability, that is a serious issue. I have personally witnessed the agony caused when a Calvinst had a hard time in sin and believed himself not of the elect, and it almost led him to suicide. I would perhaps talk with someone over the issue, but could not fellowship with them if that fundamental issue was in disagreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
20 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

It.absolutely raises to the level of separation,  because we are dealing with the foundational doctrine of eternal life. 

 

If I say everyone has an equal.ability to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, and YOU say, No, not everyone has that ability, that is a serious issue. I have personally witnessed the agony caused when a Calvinst had a hard time in sin and believed himself not of the elect, and it almost led him to suicide. I would perhaps talk with someone over the issue, but could not fellowship with them if that fundamental issue was in disagreement.

I am just saying that one can be saved and be either a calvinist or not, and while cam make for inyeresting discussions, not an issue to divide over! To me, thnose issues are like Deity of Jesus, Trinity, Bible inspration etc!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
3 hours ago, DaChaser said:

I am just saying that one can be saved and be either a calvinist or not, and while cam make for inyeresting discussions, not an issue to divide over! To me, thnose issues are like Deity of Jesus, Trinity, Bible inspration etc!

I guess we all need to choose our hills to fight on, but seems to me that HOW one is saved in the first place is a pretty big hill. Since standard Calvinist doctrine teaches one is regenerated before they are saved, that's plain heresy. But you pick your fights, I will pick mine.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 5/17/2020 at 4:51 PM, Ukulelemike said:

I guess we all need to choose our hills to fight on, but seems to me that HOW one is saved in the first place is a pretty big hill. Since standard Calvinist doctrine teaches one is regenerated before they are saved, that's plain heresy. But you pick your fights, I will pick mine.

 

Are Non Calvinist even saved then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 hour ago, DaChaser said:

Are Non Calvinist even saved then?

You mean in the opinion of Calvinists? Probably depends on the Calvinists-many of them have severe disagreement as to what a true Calvinist even is, or over use of the term, often preferring "reformed", so it doesn't appear to follow a man's teachings, (even thought it does). I suspect many would say that someone who believes they have a choice in the matter, are not saved. I would say, if you are depending on being regenerated before you seek salvation, it might give a question of your salvation, since you are depending on something completely unbiblical to be your foundation for salvation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 5/19/2020 at 1:15 PM, Ukulelemike said:

You mean in the opinion of Calvinists? Probably depends on the Calvinists-many of them have severe disagreement as to what a true Calvinist even is, or over use of the term, often preferring "reformed", so it doesn't appear to follow a man's teachings, (even thought it does). I suspect many would say that someone who believes they have a choice in the matter, are not saved. I would say, if you are depending on being regenerated before you seek salvation, it might give a question of your salvation, since you are depending on something completely unbiblical to be your foundation for salvation.

I am a Reformed Baptist, and my take is that they are saved by the same Gospel as I was, its just that they are not clear on what the Bible teaches it as being!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Calvinism is not supported at all from Scripture. Calvinism is a philosophy which imposes its doctrine onto Scripture making it align with their own paradigm. They eisegete Scripture instead of exegeting Scripture. Let's call Calvinism what it is, heresy! It is a false gospel that backloads works making it a false gospel that will not save and cannot save! It is time we call a spade a spade. And no we cannot agree to disagree because the true gospel is on the line (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). When it comes to soteriology we cannot compromise and "eat the meat and spit out the bones", or "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." It is time we take a stand against the heresies and false gospels of Arminianism, Calvinism, and Lordship Salvation that is a plague in the vast majority of churches today! It is sad when I can't find a good church where I live to go to because of compromising on the truth of God's Word. People care more about friendships in church than they do about the truth of God's Word! It is time for people to WAKE UP!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
18 hours ago, gracelife said:

Calvinism is not supported at all from Scripture. Calvinism is a philosophy which imposes its doctrine onto Scripture making it align with their own paradigm. They eisegete Scripture instead of exegeting Scripture. Let's call Calvinism what it is, heresy! It is a false gospel that backloads works making it a false gospel that will not save and cannot save! It is time we call a spade a spade. And no we cannot agree to disagree because the true gospel is on the line (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). When it comes to soteriology we cannot compromise and "eat the meat and spit out the bones", or "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." It is time we take a stand against the heresies and false gospels of Arminianism, Calvinism, and Lordship Salvation that is a plague in the vast majority of churches today! It is sad when I can't find a good church where I live to go to because of compromising on the truth of God's Word. People care more about friendships in church than they do about the truth of God's Word! It is time for people to WAKE UP!!!

Calvinism explains best though just what the Sotierology proper of God was in saving lost sinners!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
19 hours ago, gracelife said:

Calvinism is not supported at all from Scripture. 

18 minutes ago, DaChaser said:

Calvinism explains best though just what the Sotierology proper of God was in saving lost sinners!

Well, the above two statements simply cannot both be true . . .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
12 minutes ago, DaChaser said:

True, will stick by my assertion, but will not divide over it!

Understood.  I, on the other hand, will continue to hold that Calvinistic/Reformed soteriology is false doctrine; and I WILL separate over it - at least over the two points of regeneration before faith and of limited atonement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
3 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

There can be no truth in a doctrinal sense, if there is even one lie inserted. Brethren it is either truth or a lie, there can be no mixture of the two.

Galatians 5:9 (KJV) A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Secondary issue, as we should only separate over issues such as "is Jesus God, Did he physically resurrect, is the Bible inspired?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
3 hours ago, DaChaser said:

Secondary issue, as we should only separate over issues such as "is Jesus God, Did he physically resurrect, is the Bible inspired?"

The original, sound Baptist Churches were turned from the way by false doctrine of every nature , just a little bit at a time until they were apostate. For me there is no secondary issue, it is truth or a lie, can't be both and will not be tolerated by me.

To "pick and choose"which lie to accept is walking on very dangerous ground. 

Ephesians 4:14 (KJV) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
4 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

The original, sound Baptist Churches were turned from the way by false doctrine of every nature , just a little bit at a time until they were apostate. For me there is no secondary issue, it is truth or a lie, can't be both and will not be tolerated by me.

To "pick and choose"which lie to accept is walking on very dangerous ground. 

Ephesians 4:14 (KJV) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Exactly what I mean by "eat the meat and spit out the bones" and "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." We cannot compromise when it comes to the truth of God's Word especially on the gospel and soteriology! Calvinism and Lordship Salvation are false and from the pit of hell. They are false gospels that will not save and cannot save!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
18 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Understood.  I, on the other hand, will continue to hold that Calvinistic/Reformed soteriology is false doctrine; and I WILL separate over it - at least over the two points of regeneration before faith and of limited atonement.

 

14 hours ago, DaChaser said:

Secondary issue, as we should only separate over issues such as "is Jesus God, Did he physically resurrect, is the Bible inspired?"

 

13 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

The way of eternal life is hardly a secondary issue.

 

1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Sounds like true salvation (and the means thereof) is somewhat important...almost as though it's the whole reason for everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 5/18/2020 at 2:50 AM, DaChaser said:

I am just saying that one can be saved and be either a calvinist or not, and while cam make for inyeresting discussions, not an issue to divide over! To me, thnose issues are like Deity of Jesus, Trinity, Bible inspration etc!

Excuse the words of a young woman coming in here, but I think the question is...What kind of beliefs do you want your children to have? What kind of friends? God doesn't ask us to seperate over things just because. He is quite practical and logical, and he knows that we become what we hang around. It pays to ask the same questions the Lord would to himself (if that were possible)..."Now what will happen if I don't tell my children to stay away from this and this and this? Not good. Better include that in the rules".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
17 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

The way of eternal life is hardly a secondary issue.

 

I am a 5 point calinist, but will not deny that one not holding to that cannot be saved!

14 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

The original, sound Baptist Churches were turned from the way by false doctrine of every nature , just a little bit at a time until they were apostate. For me there is no secondary issue, it is truth or a lie, can't be both and will not be tolerated by me.

To "pick and choose"which lie to accept is walking on very dangerous ground. 

Ephesians 4:14 (KJV) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

We must agree on the Fundamentals of the faith, but free to disagree on secondary issues! Must hold to Second Coming, but can be various timing, such as Post/pre/A Mil!

4 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

 

 

1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Sounds like true salvation (and the means thereof) is somewhat important...almost as though it's the whole reason for everything.

We can agree to disagree on if its calvinistic or not is my point! That would not be something to divide over!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
2 hours ago, LYDIA WESTERN said:

Excuse the words of a young woman coming in here, but I think the question is...What kind of beliefs do you want your children to have? What kind of friends? God doesn't ask us to seperate over things just because. He is quite practical and logical, and he knows that we become what we hang around. It pays to ask the same questions the Lord would to himself (if that were possible)..."Now what will happen if I don't tell my children to stay away from this and this and this? Not good. Better include that in the rules".

The redeemed of the Lord would include those holding to calvinism, not to it, spiritual gifts, none today, and various modes of baptism and second coming views!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, DaChaser said:

I am a 5 point calinist, but will not deny that one not holding to that cannot be saved!

Brother DaChaser,

As I stated earlier in this thread discussion, I hold that Calvinistic/Reformed soteriology is false doctrine; however, I would agree that many who hold to that doctrine are indeed saved through faith in Christ alone, and are thus my brethren in Christ.  (Even so, I have called you "Brother" above.)
 

19 hours ago, DaChaser said:

Secondary issue, as we should only separate over issues such as "is Jesus God, Did he physically resurrect, is the Bible inspired?"

Having acknowledged the above, I would now ask the question -- WHO defines what is a "secondary issue" that is not worthy of separation?  For that matter, where do we get the idea that even "secondary issues" themselves are not worthy of separation?  I myself would contend that God Himself in His Own Word has taught us the doctrine of separation; therefore, we MUST glean the answers for these question from the Biblical doctrine on the matter.  Does God's Own Word teach us that we should ONLY separate over the "fundamentals of the faith," and that there are ONLY five of those?  Or is that a man-made paradigm?  I myself would contend that it is indeed a man-made paradigm.  Yes, I WOULD separate over "the fundamentals of the faith."  Yet I would contend that there are a few more than five "fundamentals of the faith."  Furthermore, I would contend that the Biblical doctrine of separation teaches separation over MORE than just the "fundamentals of the faith."

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Was just thinking that maybe I should give some examples of doctrines that I view as "fundamental," more than the commonly listed five:

1.  The Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (and the 1,000 year reign thereafter).
2.  Biblical Creationism (as per seven literal days, by the power of God's Word).
3.  Believer's Baptism by immersion.
etc.

Certainly, others may not agree with me concerning the fundamental importance of these doctrines (and of those that fall within the "etc.").  However, I am not responsible to make separation decisions FOR them (although I may make separation decisions FROM them).  Rather, I am responsible before the Lord my God to make separation decision for myself and those whom I have been appointed to lead and to teach.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
52 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother DaChaser,

As I stated earlier in this thread discussion, I hold that Calvinistic/Reformed soteriology is false doctrine; however, I would agree that many who hold to that doctrine are indeed saved through faith in Christ alone, and are thus my brethren in Christ.  (Even so, I have called you "Brother" above.)
 

Having acknowledged the above, I would now ask the question -- WHO defines what is a "secondary issue" that is not worthy of separation?  For that matter, where do we get the idea that even "secondary issues" themselves are not worthy of separation?  I myself would contend that God Himself in His Own Word has taught us the doctrine of separation; therefore, we MUST glean the answers for these question from the Biblical doctrine on the matter.  Does God's Own Word teach us that we should ONLY separate over the "fundamentals of the faith," and that there are ONLY five of those?  Or is that a man-made paradigm?  I myself would contend that it is indeed a man-made paradigm.  Yes, I WOULD separate over "the fundamentals of the faith."  Yet I would contend that there are a few more than five "fundamentals of the faith."  Furthermore, I would contend that the Biblical doctrine of separation teaches separation over MORE than just the "fundamentals of the faith."

I appreciate this last paragraph and have often wondered this myself, I have asked a few people who have stated the "secondary issues" talking point similar questions and I have never been satisfied with the answer, no one seems to want to explain how you define a primary and secondary doctrine. 

I have also struggled with trying to figure out what issues to separate over, I don't think it's reasonable to think that someone must agree 100% with me, But I also think there is more to separate over than what is considered "The Fundamentals". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Was just thinking that maybe I should give some examples of doctrines that I view as "fundamental," more than the commonly listed five:

1.  The Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (and the 1,000 year reign thereafter).
2.  Biblical Creationism (as per seven literal days, by the power of God's Word).
3.  Believer's Baptism by immersion.
etc.

Certainly, others may not agree with me concerning the fundamental importance of these doctrines (and of those that fall within the "etc.").  However, I am not responsible to make separation decisions FOR them (although I may make separation decisions FROM them).  Rather, I am responsible before the Lord my God to make separation decision for myself and those whom I have been appointed to lead and to teach.

Think that many of us will have a different list on what should be dividing over, but important thing is to be true to what you believe God has given to you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
5 hours ago, DaChaser said:

Think that many of us will have a different list on what should be dividing over, but important thing is to be true to what you believe God has given to you!

Calvinism must be avoided, period! It is heresy, a false gospel that is damning many many people to hell!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...