Hi, I'm Back.
The famous question presented to Jesus by Pilate "what is truth?"
So what is The Truth as concerning the gospel? We as PB's believe that we are holding to the closest thing there is to the truth of the Word. Yet, I hear and confirm differences among the PB's about great doctrinal issues. After trying to catch up on everyone's blogs and reading a particularly interesting one by Nomos, I'm interested to know what people think the truth about doctrinal issues are, and what doctrinal issues we are supposed to fight for and which ones can we let slip for the sake of peace?
Please post
5 comments:
I think the most important thing to fight for and to protect is the truth of our doctrine. I really do believe that you can't compromise it or suffer others to. If we don't stand firm. Others who are weaker, will fall away; even if we know and understand the truth.
I believe our practice is worth fighting for and standing firm in. As in the practice established by God. Singing, preaching, and praying and that alone. Positions of authority and leadership being occupied by men.
I believe it is important to mark those who do not respect the Lord and the bible enough to follow these things. then after we mark them we should withdraw from them. (I Tim. 6:3-5, II Thes. 3-6, etc.)
HOWEVER, I really do believe there is a fine line here. I don't believe that means that we should abuse and disuse those people. We should continue to show them love and encourage them in knowledge and the truth. We should never bar them from our churches, homes, or hearts. But I don't believe that those who won't stand firm on the Bible (not merely "old paths" from fifety years ago) can partake in communion with us or that we should go to their churches, because by doing that we give the appearance of agreeing with them, and can lead others astray. There are those out there calling themselves Primitive Baptist that are no more PB in doctrine than my Church of Christ friends, and while I often encouraged them to visit with me, and talk with me I would never have taken communion with them.
On the other hand, I believe anything that is merely "customary" and not founded specifically on biblical grounds can be changed if the church so has a will.
This is probably way more than you wanted, and maybe even a bit controversal, but you know me. Anyway, this is entirely too long and it is entirely too late. So I will quit and stop my rant.
No it is exactly what I wanted. Thanks for taking the time.
Call if you want to talk. Life is pretty lonely up in desolate North Alabama. Sides, I always have time to talk or write if it seems it important and it seemed important to you.
As far as being PB is concerned, I don't think there should be any slippage - biblically sound doctrine, that's what we've got.
But as far as the 'tradition' - for the sake of tradition - which is felt by some must be upholded at all costs, I wouldn't mind neglecting that. When it comes down to true worship and following the guidance of the Spirit, we are often guilty of quenching the Spirit for the fear of upsetting 'tradition'. There is nothing unsound about raising our hands in praise or clapping - and yet we all know this is looked down upon by some...
(I think I might have gotten off on a tangent - I'm not sure though.
By the way I navigated over here from namo's blog)
I haven't been on the blogs in quite a while, so please forgive me for posting this comment late.
This question about when to disfellowship has weighed heavily on my mind, especially these last couple weeks. When do we cut the cords of fellowship? When does the Lord remove the candlestick? What is heresy?
I was listening to a sermon by Eld. David Pyles the other day, and he answered many of these questions to my satisfaction. He said that where our people have historically drawn the line in the past is where we should draw the line today. When confronted with gospel regeneration, for instance, we would cut the cords of fellowship.
Something else he said was that the doctrinal differences between the brethren who believe in advanced time-salvation and those who believe in perseverance were not essential to fellowship. I woud tend to agree with him on this point. I would have a problem with someone preaching that a Christian can live however they want with no consequences, but really, who would preach that way? On the other side of the coin, I would have a problem with someone teaching that God in some way condones sin, but I've never heard anyone preach that way either.
Another thing Eld. David said was that the greatest problem in pb churches was some people making mountains out of molehills. Calling people hollow-loggers when they're not, calling people absoluters when they're not, etc. I think most, if not all of our problems would end if instead of backbiting amongst our friends, we confronted individuals directly and had an honest discussion with them.
Also, while I'm thinking of this, just because the church is the pillar and ground of the truth doesn't mean we view brethren in error as agents of satan. Many brethren would be perfectly fine if someone took the time to study through the issue with them and point out the errors in their thinking. Too often, we hear of brethren in error and we view them as cancers to be cut off rather than brethren in need of assistance. I've made this error myself on more than one occasion.
There is a time to cut off fellowship, but I think that in many cases, many brethren act pre-emptively without following the biblical pattern that Paul set in his letters.
Post a Comment