Unity of the Faith

This shouldn't trouble you, and it is a good issue for this thread.

First, it is different than fellowship.

Second, you are not being disallowed for anything. You are welcome to believe what you want. The issue there was ordination and doctrinal agreement, not disallowance or disfellowship.

Third, you say it is a non-essential. But for what is it non-essential? I agree it's non-essential for salvation. But I am convinced it is not non-essential to be biblically true. Why should this church ordain a man for ministry in this church who denies part of the doctrinal statement of this church? As I pointed out there, I can have fellowship with a great many people that I would not ordain.

Don't you agree that the level of doctrinal agreement necessary for fellowship depends on the type of fellowship? The closer it is, the more there needs to be.

So why is that troubling to you? I don't get that. Would you ordain a man that you thought was incorrect on a fairly major point of Scripture?

 

Eschatology is not a firm doctrine. There are more questions to dispensationalism than historic premil or even post mill. In our "denomination" we do not discriminate on that point.

I agree that a local church calls a pastor and the local church ordains a pastor, but I never heard the likes of disfellowshipping a man because he understands the scriptural teaching of amilennialism or even historic premillennialism!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim, I agree with you. But I can remember about 35 years ago, when interest in eschatology was high, there was a prophecy conference on every corner, nearly all of them teaching dispensational pre-millenialism. Among many conservative-fundamentalist churches, a belief in something else called into question your very salvation. It was definitely a test of fellowship in those churches. And I guarantee you that those churches would not call a pastor or ordain anyone who didn't hold to dispy views.

 

I am not sure what you were being excluded from, but I can see why a church that holds to a certain end time view would want its pastors and probably SS teachers to have that view.

Although it's not a dividing doctrine, one's view of endtimes does significantly affect the way certain portions of the Bible are read and understood. I'm seeing that more and more now - much more than when I was a new believer.

I also know seminaries and some mission boards take certain stands on endtime views.

 

I agree. As I said, there were other reasons for the schism other than the clause. My view is that the clause was used as a theological excuse to justify the political reasons for the schism. Any way you look at it, the creed was used to promote division whether it was the real reason or not for the schism. Again, my point is not that creeds are bad, but that creeds can be the cause of division in addition to their good points. There are also other negatives of creeds but I won't go into them here.

While the Oriental Orthodox Church did not believe in Monophysitism, they also could not agree with the Chalcedonian creed because its specific wording was at odds with Miaphysitism as well. The Chalcedonian creed has been used as a measure of Christian orthodoxy for 1500 years. Yet now we see groups that are non-Chalcedonian being regarded as orthodox. I'm not sure if you can get more direct than that of how a creed can cause division.

I'm not sure what examples you are specifically looking for then because I thought these were very direct examples that addressed the claim that long held creeds as a measure of orthodoxy can be used to caused division in the body of Christ. Once again, I'm not saying that creeds are bad because of this. But that in addition to all the wonderful positive aspects of creeds, there are negatives to them that we should be aware of.

 

I never heard of disfellowshipping a man over that either.

But as you should know, that's not what we were talking about. No one is talking about church discipline or fellowship. The issue was on the question of ordination, of saying "Here's a man with the qualifications and doctrine to teach and preach in this church."

So, Jim, please be careful that if you are going to disagree with what I say (which is fine, and probably wise in many cases), please disagree with what I say, not with what I didn't say.

 

Well, I see your points but I was thinking of more basic creeds like the Nicene and Apostles. The Chalcedonian creed was written amidst a controversy already going on. So the controversy was already there to begin with; it's not that the creed caused it.

http://www.theopedia.com/Chalcedonian_Creed

Not trying to nitpick with you -- really!!

I'm just thinking out loud here.

 

Pastor Larry, I sincerely apologize if I offended you in any way, or misstated your intended word. I cerainly didn't mean to do that.

I have been taking ordination in a general sense of principles rather than the individual doctrines of the church in question. I think this is wherein the difference come to head.

Personally, when I was ordained I didn't have a clue what I believed on the details of eschatology. I believed that Jesus was coming again..the basics....It took me some years before I developed a thought in this area.

On ordination, I see it not just for that immediate local church, but ordination for a lifetime. If a man knew all the details of one of the plans, I would be suspect whether he actually believed them or was simply quoting what he was taught in seminary or Bible college.

I hope this clarifies my viewpoint, and we are not enemies. Thank you.

Cheers, and bless,

Jim

 

I didn't check, I was just responding to someone who wanted to know why you had to be baptist to post here and they (non baptists)should be allowed too.

 

I did check, it only says christian, meaning non baptist.

 

I agree.:type:

 

I agree with this, too.

 

What you're seeing is the typical female response when one has become established somewhere. I work in a factory, and potlucks and gift exchanges are common place. They would be rare indeed but for the women who work there. They tend to set up housekeeping wherever they happen to stay, and want to foster a homey, family atmosphere, and heaven help the one who disrupts her sense of decorum.

This attitude spills over into cyberspace as well.

 

No offense taken. I perhaps was too strong in my response. I simply wanted to make sure I was understood as to what I was saying.

I think (and hope) we all continue to develop theologically through the years.

I see it as both, but primarily for the local church. As Baptists, we typically take another church's word for a man's ordination, when perhaps we should examine it ourselves. In the NT, I don't think you have the issue of changing churches really. People were less mobile in those days, and church was for life.

Absolutely, and not enemies in the least.

Thanks.