tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post387208608963029064..comments2024-01-12T09:37:16.515-06:00Comments on paleoevangelical: "I'm saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular Millennial view."Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07113808932788409800noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-39342999093656196312010-08-09T15:43:41.589-05:002010-08-09T15:43:41.589-05:00How about this;
I believe Scripture is quite expl...How about this; <br />I believe Scripture is quite explicit in stating the restoration of the (physical)nation of Israel<br />I think that to deny the Scriptures explicit teaching that Israel as a nation will eventually be saved/restored is heresy.<br />In other words, "replacement theology" can be considered heresy can it not?Post Tenebras Luxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324640606241592208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-19712287703659270082009-07-23T14:22:29.642-05:002009-07-23T14:22:29.642-05:00Of the Millenium
http://www.lcms.org/pages/intern...Of the Millenium<br /><br />http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=578LCMSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-1987147003384576192009-07-14T18:00:49.817-05:002009-07-14T18:00:49.817-05:00Ben, it isn't that Dever takes the amill posit...Ben, it isn't that Dever takes the amill position here. It is that he is aggressively going after those who believe in premill and insist that their church hold it.<br /><br />On what biblical grounds does he call a church sinful for embracing the premill position?<br /><br />If cooperation is the supreme goal, then his take that a wrong view of baptism is sinful, is, well sinful. He was in sin by insisting on a doctrine that splits the body of Christ.<br /><br />Dever wants it both ways. He just picks and chooses his pet topics.<br /><br />So again, would Paul and John have been okay after teaching the premill position for people in the church to demand acceptance with an opposing view? The answer is no.<br /><br />The church should seek to find as much in common as possible and teach the truth that others come into the light. It is not the duty of the church to just accept that false views are a reality and to just cave to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-47692144256707225792009-07-14T15:02:06.567-05:002009-07-14T15:02:06.567-05:00For starters, I am rather non-committal regarding ...For starters, I am rather non-committal regarding end times views. I lean towards pre-mil, but have great respect for the amil position.<br /><br />With that said, it is hard to know how to take Dever's statement. He feels the freedom to require a certain view on Baptism (I seem to recall him disagreeing with Piper on this issue). Piper at least consistently applied the line of argument, but Dever is quite selective in its application.<br /><br />We could go offer other examples (as others have done): Communion, Church Government, Gifts of the Spirit, Calvinism/Arminianism, etc. Is it a sin to take a position on any of these issues?<br /><br />Dever loves many of his Presbyterian brethren (rightly so), but he would never join their church---nor would he let them join his. Is this not also sin, according to Dever's argument?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09647646162506627232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-55789346008385925832009-07-14T14:50:29.541-05:002009-07-14T14:50:29.541-05:00Right on!
I have been asking myself this exact qu...Right on!<br /><br />I have been asking myself this exact question, and would appreciate any insights. The question is, why I would bother arriving at a specific belief about millenial view? Some views seem incorrect, others seem plausible, so from the plausible ones, I choose to "act as if" the view that is most urgent to my moral spiritual development is the "correct" one.<br /><br />In other words, is there anything wrong with taking the most conservative plausible opinion, knowing full well that it might be wrong?JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-66078470652593148092009-07-14T14:22:10.693-05:002009-07-14T14:22:10.693-05:00Ben,
Being from the same group of churches as Gr...Ben, <br /><br />Being from the same group of churches as Greg, I would say that an amill. vs. premill. discussion usually ends up in a discussion of allegorical vs. literal interpretation which is tied to biblical authority and therefore one of the reasons (besides an effort ot articulate what you believe) an eschatological position shows how one views the interpretation and authority of Scripture which is much more important than one's view of alcohol (at least historically this has been the issue). I do think we are moving toward articulating the positions without going to that level of importance, but I don't think we're there yet.Will Hatfieldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-41807879234304737132009-07-14T14:20:37.334-05:002009-07-14T14:20:37.334-05:00James,
What is doctrinal reductionism? Would you ...James,<br /><br />What is doctrinal reductionism? Would you suggest that ANY disagreement on ANY point of doctrine precludes fellowship on ANY level? Because if your definition of reductionism is believing that not all disagreement demands cessation of all fellowship, then I'm pretty sure you're a doctrinal reductionist yourself.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665765739805841971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-68004388489499622772009-07-14T14:15:35.410-05:002009-07-14T14:15:35.410-05:00Ok then, just to clarify, your statement of faith ...Ok then, just to clarify, your statement of faith contains everything that you believe the Bible teaches and that is an important component of Bible doctrine?Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665765739805841971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-51803299929543948272009-07-14T13:39:52.508-05:002009-07-14T13:39:52.508-05:00I appreciate the discussion, but I don't plan ...<i>I appreciate the discussion, but I don't plan to pursue it further unless you're able to articulate some argument for while your church demands uniformity on the Millennium for membership.</i><br /><br />Because we believe the Bible teaches it and that it is an important component of biblical doctrine.greglonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514850772020363684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-17214023195030682892009-07-14T13:28:23.654-05:002009-07-14T13:28:23.654-05:00Greg, the IMO actually applies also to the Genesis...Greg, the IMO actually applies also to the Genesis 6 issue and the justification issue as well. I inserted the IMO there because you and I agree on the other points. The fact that we agree doesn't change the fact that they're our understandings of Scripture—in some sense our opinions. And the fact that we disagree on the Millennium issue doesn't mean that division over it isn't sin.<br /><br />I appreciate the discussion, but I don't plan to pursue it further unless you're able to articulate some argument for while your church demands uniformity on the Millennium for membership.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665765739805841971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-37833726348285813552009-07-14T13:17:28.443-05:002009-07-14T13:17:28.443-05:00I wonder about the wisdom of Dever coming out and ...I wonder about the wisdom of Dever coming out and saying this sort of thing. There is no doubt that the gospel is important, but I wonder sometimes if Dever hasn't put it in a category all by itself in an unhealthy way.<br /><br />Was it sin for Paul and John and the other apostles to demand a specific view of the millenium or was it okay for people to hold differing views even after they were taught the correct view?<br /><br />The splinter to Christ's body is not found in those insisting on premillenialism. The splinter is found in those who reject it.<br /><br />Paul charges Timothy that the men teach NO OTHER doctrine. Paul did not shrink back from declaring the whole counsel of God to the Ephesians.<br /><br />Dever's counsel is that we should not insist on this doctrine and maybe even shrink back from it.<br /><br />I have never been a fan of doctrinal reductionism. This is what it seems Dever has done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-44608170712602052082009-07-14T12:54:51.980-05:002009-07-14T12:54:51.980-05:00The key with your above post is "IMO". I...The key with your above post is "IMO". <b>In your opinion</b>, it is sinful to divide the body over premillennialism.<br /><br />You have every right to your opinion, and of course we'll agree to disagree.greglonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514850772020363684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-56204062404658593112009-07-14T12:52:18.918-05:002009-07-14T12:52:18.918-05:00Ben wrote:
Does your church demand that members a...Ben wrote:<br /><br /><i>Does your church demand that members affirm your statement of faith? If not then you're not dividing the body of Christ over Premillennialism. You might not be a congregationalist either, but that's a separate issue.</i><br /><br />Yes, we do demand that members affirm our statement of faith.<br /><br />Yes, I am a congregationalist.greglonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514850772020363684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-18470278036406853962009-07-14T12:47:49.968-05:002009-07-14T12:47:49.968-05:00Greg,
Does your church demand that members affirm...Greg,<br /><br />Does your church demand that members affirm your statement of faith? If not then you're not dividing the body of Christ over Premillennialism. You might not be a congregationalist either, but that's a separate issue.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665765739805841971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-56142038364376580922009-07-14T12:45:27.567-05:002009-07-14T12:45:27.567-05:00Greg,
In regards to your comment about justificat...Greg,<br /><br />In regards to your comment about justification and Genesis 6, I think we have quite a bit of agreement. Some matters will demand uniformity, and others will not. Churches will need to weigh whether a particular matter demands uniformity or not. When a church demands uniformity unnecessarily (whether concerning Genesis 6 or, IMO the timing of the Rapture or the Millennium), that church is sinfully dividing the body of Christ.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665765739805841971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-68941262326450678262009-07-14T12:32:19.189-05:002009-07-14T12:32:19.189-05:00Steve,
I'd be interested to see you explain w...Steve,<br /><br />I'd be interested to see you explain what you mean by how divergent Millennial views lead people to live their lives differently. I think that's true in some cases, but not all. You seem to believe that's <i>always</i> true. How so?Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665765739805841971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-27936844345546236112009-07-14T12:21:56.562-05:002009-07-14T12:21:56.562-05:00The easy answer is, if we do, and we're wrong,...<i>The easy answer is, if we do, and we're wrong, then yes, we are in sin. In other words, we do believe that Scripture teaches that the two offices for the church are pastors and deacons, and we do believe Scripture teaches the Lord's Day should be set aside in a unique way for spiritual purposes. If we're wrong on those things and prohibiting people from joining with us on those grounds, then yes, we're sinfully dividing the body of Christ.</i><br /><br />By the way, you didn't answer my question. It's not a matter of whether you are right or wrong. Obviously you wouldn't put anything in your doctrinal statement you didn't believe was right. <br /><br />The question is, if good Christians disagree over this matter that could be considered non-essential, aren't you in sin for including it in your doctrinal statement and thereby excluding Christians who don't believe in the Christian Sabbath?greglonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514850772020363684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-40859510837935430122009-07-14T12:19:25.215-05:002009-07-14T12:19:25.215-05:00Ben, I never demanded uniformity. Pastor Dever is ...Ben, I never demanded uniformity. Pastor Dever is the one who made the rather bold statement that my church is in sin because we have a view on the Millennium specified in our doctrinal statement.<br /><br />My first post was hyperbole intended to bring out the point. Of course I cannot prove that you are needlessly dividing the body, and so I would not say you are in sin. But neither can Pastor Dever prove we are needlessly dividing the body, and so to say we are in sin could be called unnecessarily divisive.<br /><br />A commenter named niles made the following comment on BTW:<br /><br />"Mark's logic seems to be the following: stating a specific escotology in the by-laws can divide the church unnecessarily > Jesus says to not divide the church > thus to state a specific escotology is sinful. Is it hyberbole or bad logic, or am I just mistaken on his position?"<br /><br />How would you answer his question?greglonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514850772020363684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-68057598943782934342009-07-14T12:12:10.322-05:002009-07-14T12:12:10.322-05:00Greg,
The easy answer is, if we do, and we're...Greg,<br /><br />The easy answer is, if we do, and we're wrong, then yes, we are in sin. In other words, we do believe that Scripture teaches that the two offices for the church are pastors and deacons, and we do believe Scripture teaches the Lord's Day should be set aside in a unique way for spiritual purposes. If we're wrong on those things and prohibiting people from joining with us on those grounds, then yes, we're sinfully dividing the body of Christ.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I continue to hope for an explanation from you on why a church has to demand uniformity on the MillenniumBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665765739805841971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-15607372688045698962009-07-14T12:07:46.938-05:002009-07-14T12:07:46.938-05:00Ben, I have great respect for Pastor Dever. I have...Ben, I have great respect for Pastor Dever. I have been to his (your?) church and benefited greatly from his resources.<br /><br />There are some who would say including justification by grace alone through faith alone is unnecessarily divisive and a sin. We would both obviously disagree with them.<br /><br />There are others who want to include everything in a church's statement of faith down to a belief in the proper interpretation of the sons of God/daughters of men in Gen. 6. We would both obviously disagree with them, as well.<br /><br />So, it is then a matter of what is essential to the faith and practice of that local church. I simply disagree that specifying a millennial position is sin. I believe his statement to that effect is unnecessarily divisive.greglonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514850772020363684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-89645873969236412202009-07-14T11:49:53.947-05:002009-07-14T11:49:53.947-05:00I understand what Dever is saying, but I think he ...I understand what Dever is saying, but I think he takes it too far. <br /><br />Does your millennial view affect how you interpret other passages of Scripture and how you live your life and practice your faith? I most certainly think it does, and therefore your millennial view can also lead to other errors that a church feels like they must separate from. <br /><br />I guess I might call millennial views a slippery slope. If someone wants to hold to a different millennial view than I do, fine, but I then also expect them to live their life differently than I do. <br /><br />The fact is that many people don't live by what they believe, so their millennial view is of no consequence, but it really should be.Pastor Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11064672747243307518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-83804920926701556432009-07-14T11:42:14.833-05:002009-07-14T11:42:14.833-05:00Is it a sin for CHBC to specify two scriptural off...Is it a sin for CHBC to specify two scriptural offices of pastor and deacon?<br /><br />Is it a sin for CHBC to specify that the Lord's Day is the "Christian Sabbath", and is "to be kept sacred to religious purposes by the devout observance of all the means of grace, both private and public; and by preparation for that rest that remaineth for the people of God"?<br /><br />Using the same logic, aren't those unnecessarily divisive statements?greglonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514850772020363684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-14021137392049834572009-07-14T10:53:37.261-05:002009-07-14T10:53:37.261-05:00Dan,
Cessationism is not in our statement of fait...Dan,<br /><br />Cessationism is not in our statement of faith. I don't want to speak for Dever or CHBC beyond that because neither have expressed their convictions on that point, so far as I'm aware.<br /><br />Obviously, I believe that disagreements on some matters that are non-essential to the gospel DO preclude fellowship at the local church level (believers' baptism being the prime example).<br /><br />I haven't thought through varying levels of understanding within the "open but cautious" view, and I haven't thought through everything related to cessationism. It does seem as though varying understanding of sign/revelatory gifts has less impact on life together as a church than baptism, but more than Premillennialsm.<br /><br />And in any case, a person who is divisive in words or behavior (whether regarding gifts or the Millennium) is in sin and should be admonished.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665765739805841971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-9431366444137310872009-07-14T10:29:09.747-05:002009-07-14T10:29:09.747-05:00Hey Ben,
Out of genuine curiosity (i.e. no red he...Hey Ben,<br /><br />Out of genuine curiosity (i.e. no red herring at all), would Dever/CHBC also have the same attitude and practice with regard to other "divisive" doctrines such as the sign gifts? E.g. tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.Dan Greenfieldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7080491.post-59195450834073474122009-07-14T08:15:48.577-05:002009-07-14T08:15:48.577-05:00Greg,
No one's saying that an autonomous body...Greg,<br /><br />No one's saying that an autonomous body does not have the right to act sinfully.<br /><br />Again, I'd love to hear a rationale for the position to which you're so clearly committed.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665765739805841971noreply@blogger.com