Separation over doctrine.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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 May 22, 2020 by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.

[Jordan Kurecki]

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". 

[DaChaser]

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!

[Scott Lyons]

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!!!

[LYDIA WESTERN]

2 hours ago, gracelife said:

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

Ive noticed that young pele who grow up in calvinist homes very very often struggle with whether they are saved or not. Also, people like David Brainard had some very aweful, heart-rending struggles until he finally came to rest. He said that he couldnt u derstand how a merciful could be just in damning some to hell, and concequently him. He thought he was probablg damned. Its laborious to read pages and pages of this before finally getting to the salvation bit.

[No Nicolaitans]

Gal 1:6-9 KJV

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Sounds to me as though the gospel is kind of important and more than worthy to separate over.

...but that's my opinion and Paul's.

[DaChaser]

16 hours ago, gracelife said:

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

Would reallu disagree with you on this, as much of the "soul winning" ministries and missions were by calvinists!

14 hours ago, LYDIA WESTERN said:

Ive noticed that young pele who grow up in calvinist homes very very often struggle with whether they are saved or not. Also, people like David Brainard had some very aweful, heart-rending struggles until he finally came to rest. He said that he couldnt u derstand how a merciful could be just in damning some to hell, and concequently him. He thought he was probablg damned. Its laborious to read pages and pages of this before finally getting to the salvation bit.

I am a calvinist, and was much more taken by the truth that God would even choose to save a lost sinner like me, as none of us deserve his saving grace!

9 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Gal 1:6-9 KJV

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Sounds to me as though the gospel is kind of important and more than worthy to separate over.

...but that's my opinion and Paul's.

True, but Calsvinists and Arminians teach the same Gospel, just disagree on underrstanding it!

[No Nicolaitans]

5 hours ago, DaChaser said:

True, but Calsvinists and Arminians teach the same Gospel, just disagree on underrstanding it!

There are more than two identifiers...

 

[DaChaser]

On 5/23/2020 at 4:30 PM, No Nicolaitans said:

There are more than two identifiers...

 

What do you mean by identifiers?

[Pastor Scott Markle]

35 minutes ago, DaChaser said:

What do you mean by identifiers?

Brother DaChaser, he means that there are more possible options to "identify by" than just "Calvinistic" or "Arminian."  (Likely, Brother McWhorter made this declaration because those who hold to the Calvinistic/Reformed position so commonly indicate that if you are not Calvinistic, then you MUST be Arminian - as if there are ONLY these two options, and no others.)

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On 5/22/2020 at 10:52 AM, 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."

So, let us consider one passage from God's Own Word, wherein we are taught the principle of separation over doctrine.

1 Timothy 6:3-5 -- "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

Herein God's Own Word does not define the matter according to "the fundamentals of the faith," nor does God's Own Word reference a category of "secondary issues."  Rather, herein God's Own Word instructs us to engage in separation (to withdraw ourselves) if an individual is teaching contradictory to (1) the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to (2) the doctrine which is in accord with godliness.

So then, to consider some of the examples that I mentioned above, over which I myself would engage in separation --

On 5/22/2020 at 11:03 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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.

If an individual is teaching contrary to Biblical truth on these matters, are they teaching contrary to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ and/or to the doctrine which is in accord with godliness.  (Indeed, as I write this I am thinking of another example that is much in our cultural context -- If an individual holds contrary to the Biblical definition of marriage, I will engage in separation (withdraw myself) from that individual.)

Note:  If we still want to maintain the idea of "fundamental" doctrines, then I will present myself as follows -- There are fundamental doctrines to Biblical interpretation.  I will separate over them.  There are fundamental doctrines to a Biblical world-view.  I will separate over them.  There are fundamental doctrines to Biblical Christianity.  I will separate over them.  There are fundamental doctrines to Biblical salvation.  I will separate over them.  There a fundamental doctrines to a Biblical church.  I will separate over them.  There are fundamental doctrines to Biblical sanctification and to Biblical godliness.  I will separate over them.  Etc.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Pastor Scott Markle
Bible reference type error

[DaChaser]

3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So, let us consider one passage from God's Own Word, wherein we are taught the principle of separation over doctrine.

2 Timothy 6:3-5 -- "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

Herein God's Own Word does not define the matter according to "the fundamentals of the faith," nor does God's Own Word reference a category of "secondary issues."  Rather, herein God's Own Word instructs us to engage in separation (to withdraw ourselves) if an individual is teaching contradictory to (1) the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to (2) the doctrine which is in accord with godliness.

So then, to consider some of the examples that I mentioned above, over which I myself would engage in separation --

If an individual is teaching contrary to Biblical truth on these matters, are they teaching contrary to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ and/or to the doctrine which is in accord with godliness.  (Indeed, as I write this I am thinking of another example that is much in our cultural context -- If an individual holds contrary to the Biblical definition of marriage, I will engage in separation (withdraw myself) from that individual.)

Note:  If we still want to maintain the idea of "fundamental" doctrines, then I will present myself as follows -- There are fundamental doctrines to Biblical interpretation.  I will separate over them.  There are fundamental doctrines to a Biblical world-view.  I will separate over them.  There are fundamental doctrines to Biblical Christianity.  I will separate over them.  There are fundamental doctrines to Biblical salvation.  I will separate over them.  There a fundamental doctrines to a Biblical church.  I will separate over them.  There are fundamental doctrines to Biblical sanctification and to Biblical godliness.  I will separate over them.  Etc.

I hold that Calvinism teaches the best explanation of Sotierology proper from the scriptures, but will not divide/seperate  from someone like yourself who is saved by the same Lord i am !

[Scott Lyons]

2 minutes ago, DaChaser said:

I hold that Calvinism teaches the best explanation of Sotierology proper from the scriptures, but will not divide/seperate  from someone like yourself who is saved by the same Lord i am !

The Calvinist god is NOT the God of the Bible!

[DaChaser]

52 minutes ago, gracelife said:

The Calvinist god is NOT the God of the Bible!

He is indeed.....