tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post8935658804798679276..comments2024-01-24T10:39:27.668-05:00Comments on Coming Untrue: Dismembering the ChurchDr. S. L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06303707167715370504noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-67085209762564113372014-04-17T15:53:17.295-04:002014-04-17T15:53:17.295-04:00dicarrol:
Thanks for the response. It's alwa...dicarrol:<br /><br />Thanks for the response. It's always nice to hear from readers. And I enjoy those who offer a different perspective every bit as much as those who offer support.<br /><br />No, I don't think we were "talking past each other" at all. In fact, I even had a talk with the purported 'pastor' of our congregation on the subject. We simply do not agree on this principle. He was raised to believe that "membership" should be declared and confirmed by a manmade oath, and that a meaningful distinction can be made between those who take this oath and those who do not. I believe that Scripture teaches that the sacrifice of Christ on my behalf makes me a member of His Body. We've agreed to disagree. And to his credit, he said to me, "I would never ask a man to go against his conscience." So all's well there.<br /><br />Relatedly, our allegiance to elders derives from the same Source as membership in the Body. And their ability to "excommunicate" depends on precisely the same authority. There is no other.<br /><br />As for government requirements or the exigencies of their administration, I'm convinced that they never constitute any kind of argument in favour of modifying our theology. "We ought to obey God rather than man," I once read somewhere. I choose to take that literally, as I'm sure you would too; but then, when faced with the decision, I also chose to conform my conduct to that principle as well. <br /><br />In fact, soon we may find that the government wishes to curtail the activities, practices and beliefs of our congregations; at such times, the harder it is for the government to identify who we are and what we're doing, the better. So I think the government will have to do as it may. We must obey the Lord, right?<br /><br />I'm tempted not to say anything about your final comment, since it was probably offered in irony. However any self-deprecating remark on TULIP is quite apt; I do think that Calvinists are sorely overmatched in basic skills of Scriptural reading and interpretation, but the fact that you can chuckle about it may suggest you are actually among the more perceptive of their number and can eventually see through that.<br /><br />Well, I can hope anyway, can't I? <br /><br />Thanks again for your input.<br /><br />Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-89530960166551282472014-04-17T13:53:58.203-04:002014-04-17T13:53:58.203-04:00dlcarrol, I don't believe he "talked past...dlcarrol, I don't believe he "talked past" anything. His point was clear and concise as to what he "is" in relation to the church body and as the bride of Christ he was even more so.<br /><br />As to your comment about having reading comprehension problems, there is no doubt. The words of our Savior include ALL, NONE & WHOSOEVER. He even uses these easy to understand words in easy to understand sentences. 2 Peter 3:9 and John 3:16 are perfect examples of what I'm suggesting. <br /><br />Let me ask you 2 questions, dlcarrol.<br /><br />1) It's unclear to me how God making some that He caused to hate Him suddenly love Him would demonstrate His glory. What kind of glory would that be?<br /><br />2) Do the verses of 2 Peter 1:20-21 describe John Calvin and his "doomed from the womb" theology? ".....no prophesy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things."Micahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-76964939299958598752014-04-17T09:36:35.786-04:002014-04-17T09:36:35.786-04:00Granting your central point, but I suspect that yo...Granting your central point, but I suspect that you may actually be talking past one another.<br /><br />I doubt very seriously that your church is making any statement about your membership in the "invisible" or "universal" or "catholic" church-- you have already said they accept you, but rather trying to do the right thing in our current legal culture.<br /><br />The Scriptures call your elders (/pastors/overseers) to account for a specific subset within the larger body of Christ. This may entail discipline up-to-and-including excommunication and the naming of specific, unrepentant sins. Our legal culture makes this much easier(/possible) for our "incorporated" churches to do once you have documented proof of submission to *that* set of elders.<br /><br />So again: I grant your central point, but "Membership" in this context is not about your salvation or union with Christ, but rather about the accountability of the local elders to shepherd, and their ability to do so without fear of nuisance legalities.<br /><br />Take all of this with a grain of salt, though-- I am one of those full-bore TULIP guys, so I probably have reading comprehension problems ;)dlcarrolnoreply@blogger.com