CHURCH PLANT- Can Calvinist and Non Cal, Neo-Pent do it.

Which one are you? Of necessity, the new church will reflect your theology and soteriology.

That said, Reformed and non-Reformed can probably get along, but I doubt if the neo-Pentecostals are going to be comfortable there.

 

This sounds like a recipe for disaster.

 

I would say the three COULD get along, but WILL they? I've only seen one church where reform/nonreform coexisted and that was because the two men were very close and they respected one another. If the subject came up they would simply state their case briefly and move on.

In the old days of the community church either you got along or you didn't go to church :thumbs: In our day the church on every corner has given us the idea that we must agree fully or leave. Sometimes this is on the people's part and sometimes on the pastor's part. :thumbsup:

If the three agree to get along, then it might work, but then where do you stop in the area of watering down your future doctrinal statment. Do you allow Amillennialists and Mid-trib rapturists in? Will they agree to disagree.

I'd set a doctrinal statement yesterday and work from there, or commit to a loving community where most any belief is accepted as long as it is not heretical, but they what is heretical? Reform theology? Dispensationalism? Charismatic?

Since you are named Baptist you can probably allow all three and worse these days :laugh:

 

It can work. It'll be a little bit like All in the Family from time to time, but it can work.

Honestly I know of a number of churches who have all these kinds of tradition in their midst. Frankly, I think its pretty cool.

Maybe a couple of questions are in order:
1. You're planting a church in the South, is there really a necessity to combined those traditions?
2. Why are you bringing these groups together?
3. How will be establish authority?
4. How will you practice discipline?
5. What happens when the Reformed encounter the neo-Pentecostals celebrating the miraculous gifts and talking about Arminian theology?

To a greater, lesser extent most churches have a panoply of groups like this. The chief rule is grace. :thumbs:

 

That's like the Lutherans believing they can be united in opposing beliefs about homosexuality. Sorry, but God and Satan can never be in unity.

 

So which one is Satan??
"Reformed, non-Reformed and neo-Pentocostals"

Darren

 

From his position, anything that is not reformed.
And from his position anyone not reformed has never read their bibles, and since they don't read their bibiles it isn't worth the time to discuss scripture with them. These paraphrased points are per his/her posts on other 'recent' threads.

 

Choose or write a statement of faith. This may sound simplistic but history shows it works. Require your elders/teachers/deacons to hold complete agreement to it, and your members to have substantial agreement with it.

You may consider stating essential doctrine that is required for membership. Our church is officially Reformed Baptist, yet we have members who are in different places in their understanding in regards to calvinist doctrine.

I would not, for example, seek a place of leadership or teaching role in our church because I am not "on board" with the Sunday Sabbath teaching. Our church has this teaching in their statement of faith. I do not speak out against the doctrine or try to teach otherwise even in conversations. This promotes the doctrinal unity of the church.

You need to also set guidelines for church discipline. Having a statement of faith and the requirement of substantial agreement there as a requirement for membership will allow the leadership to hold members accountable and bring dicipline if necessary.

 

RB, that is an excellent point.

my 2¢ are to preach Christ from all of scripture.
don't label your doctrine going in other than having a good doctrinal statement or confession.

Preach the gospel as it is and let others label you.

The bottom line is that only if God blesses this congregation will it succeed.

I belong to a congregation that was started as a GARB church and started moving reformed in the 1970s.
We are not a strong congregation of reformed believers of about 235 or so.

WE have people from all types of church backgrounds including catholics.

 

1 Corinthians 11:19. "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you has God's approval." Differences thus exist between true and false teachers. There can be no unity between true and false teachers because as Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 11:15, false teachers are Satan's servants masquerading as sheep.

Arminians believe that righteousness comes from the self which is called self-righteousness and is the yeast of the Pharisees. As Jesus tells us, the father of the Pharisees is the devil, the father of lies.

 

Arminians do NOT believe that righteousness comes from self.

You are questioning the salvation of those who are non Calvinistic. That is against board rules and patently wrong.

 

I would agree, in my discussions with those who would consider themselves arminian/non-cal, they do believe and understand the doctrine of justification by faith alone. They believe and understand the imputed righteousness of Christ Jesus.

They may not word it that way, but they understand that they must have Christ's righteousness and not their own to be accepted of Him.

We should not confuse our views on the the doctrines we discuss when talking about Calvinism with justification.

-RB

 

So then they don't believe that their faith comes from their own free will. Is that correct? If so, then they shouldn't be arguing for free will.

Muslims, pagans and atheists are non-Calvinists. Should we say they are saved because it's against the rules to say they aren't?

 

So it is your contenstion that anyone not Calvinist is unsaved. That is your express wording in the above but I am making sure it is your intent.

 

It sounds like that is what he is saying. WHich if so, would be a form of weirdo-calvinism.