Posted on 01/22/2005 7:13:05 PM PST by thePilgrim
***Why, because it might offend someone? ***
No, because it is arrogant, prideful and without a basis in Scripture.
God has mightly used the Baptist church. Millions of REAL conversions have taken place through God's use of the intermediary of Baptist preaching and witness.
Spiritually speaking, I don't believe God would continue to use a denomination if He were as displeased with it as the article seems to indicate. Example: people are not really coming to Christ in any significant number throught the ECUSA.
The SBC is one of the only denominations to fight back against liberalism in its ranks and win (70's). In that regard the PCUSA is almost a complete loss and the OPC and PCA are splinters off it.
This is not to say that the Baptist don't have their problems. But to call an entire denomination "sinful" because of it's form of government - when the Lord Himself says nothing remotley like this in Scripture is the mark of an inexperienced and overly idealistic brother.
I remember another person who publicly renounced his Baptist membership... Jimmy Carter. I was so relieved when he did that. Perhaps we could get Bill Clinton to join the ranks.
And can you name one large church where this is the case?
With due deference to my Baptist brothers and sisters. I believe in church and pastoral accountability.
I love Baptists, actually I attended and loved a reform Baptist start up.. doctrinally I am closer to them than my church in many things. but that does not mean that we should make a blanket statement about all Baptist churches one way or the other. (I have 3 kids that are baptists BTW)
The problem is that variances in doctrine are not monitored or reproved. there is no method for that .
I have seen far too many independent churches that have serious error because they have no accountability .
I knew one man that left a Nazarene church ( which has accountability) to start his own "home church" he proudly announced there would be no book keepers or audits..
Then there is the doctrinal accountability . A church with no affiliation can change its churchs doctrine to meet the whim of the current pastor.
Many of the churches that come out of the restoration ( and other "independent churches) could fairly be called non Christian as they make no proclamation on things like the trinity or salvation. So you have people that are in a sense worshipping different gods standing next to each other hearing feel good messages every week.
***I remember another person who publicly renounced his Baptist membership... Jimmy Carter. I was so relieved when he did that. Perhaps we could get Bill Clinton to join the ranks.***
Yes, but I have read "A Puritan's Mind" for a long time and I enjoy the writing of C Matthew McMahon.
JC (not to be confused with Jesus Christ) and BC I don't have much respect for.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
***I have seen far too many independent churches that have serious error because they have no accountability.***
I agree. Remember, that I was once Arminian and I have seen all kinds of wierdness in this sea of independent churches. But, McMahon is not talking about independent churches that I can tell. He is talking about Baptists, an independent bunch to be sure, but I think McMahon has gone over the edge calling Baptist ordinations false and sinful.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
Agreed.
While I doubt you'd return the favor, I would agree with you here.
As far as I know, Calvary has not had this problem, although after the Catholic church fiasco they started taking precautionary measures anyway.
I think the baptists could make a pretty good defense of congregationalism if given half a chance. Therefore, it's another of those items that has a few competing views.
He is being too hard on congregationalists/independents.
Misunderstanding doctrine is hardly sin.
You are right. Were I to go from premil to amil, should I call premil a "sin?"
Is there a command out there someplace that says, "Thou Shalt be amil." or "Thou shalt be presbyterian?"
I don't think so.
McMahon does regard us.
***McMahon does regard us.***
Actually, I'm having a hard time understanding how someone who is in apostasy can still be regarded as an elder capable of ordaining other elders. Obviously, such a person either was never called to begin with or they rejected their calling. Either way, that person is no longer a lawfully called elder and unable to lawfully ordain other elders. McMahon would have to establish that even a heretical elder who was lawfully ordained is still able to lawfully ordain other elders.
In Wesley's case, he caused a schism in the midst of a revival. I wouldn't boast too much about the line of succession considering that Wesley came from a line which rejected the Reformed doctrine in which they once believed and also caused further schism.
In the service of he Lord,
Christian.
Both Wesley and Whitefield agreed that the Anglican church of their day was nearing apostasy.
It's possible, I suppose to charge him with schism against that form of Anglicanism, but Whitefield and Wesley teamed up in their recognition that that Church of England had become decrepit.
The revival was God's doing, and the hardest working and most effective preacher and advocate of it was Wesley.
As with all histories, there's another view, I'm sure.
B/S. Wesley, to the day he died, was an Anglican. He didn't found the Methodist church, but rather the Methodist movement. In the United States, Methodism wasn't a unique demonination separate from the Anglicans until after the American Revolution.
If you want to talk about schisms, you gotta look at the Pilgrims. They were Separatists from the Church of England; they weren't even Puritans.
Plus, like xzins said, there wouldn't have been a revival then without Wesley and Whitfield. (Okay, God did it. But he did it through primarily those two persons.) The only possible bases for accusing Wesley for creating a schism in the Wesleyan Revival are either ignorance or bigotry.
Wesley came from a line which rejected the Reformed doctrine in which they once believed and also caused further schism.
Rejecting Calvinism is not, ipso facto, "schism." This sort of bluster is the last refuge of the insecure.
***B/S. Wesley, to the day he died, was an Anglican. He didn't found the Methodist church, but rather the Methodist movement.***
I never said that Wesley left the Anglican church, now did I? Alas, it seems that you have no clue about what I speak. Oh, well, it doesn't change history. Wesley cause a lot of division.
But, all of this is really not here nor there. xzins has already acknowledge that the Anglicans were in a big mess during Wesley & Whitfield's day. In order for anyone to hang their hat on the lawful succession of elders, as xzins did with me, they need to answer this one question:
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
***In Wesley's case, he caused a schism in the midst of a revival.***
I believe yout theology is keeping you from seeing the hand of God on a man's life.
Remember, the Lord said a tree is known by it's fruit.
Did Wesley lead people to Jesus or away from Him?
***Rejecting Calvinism is not, ipso facto, "schism."***
Sure it is. If the entire denomination is Calvinistic, then, by definition, rejecting Calvinism and teaching that which is contrary, is a schism.
***This sort of bluster is the last refuge of the insecure.***
Yeah, well, what is being the self-appointed public upbraider of the forum?
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
***Wesley cause a lot of division. ***
So did Jesus Christ.
***Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?***
I believe the answer would be - the Spirit of God.
Has He not done so several times in the history of the Church?
***I believe the answer would be - the Spirit of God.
Has He not done so several times in the history of the Church?***
My point is that McMahon has seemed to hang his hat on the fact that an ordaination to elder is valid no matter what the spiritual state of the ordaining elder. In that case, then an openly gay elder would be able to ordain and the entire church should recognize such an ordaination as valid.
Do you regard an openly gay elder as a valid elder and do you regard his ordinations as valid?
Thanks,
Christian.
***I believe yout theology is keeping you from seeing the hand of God on a man's life.
Remember, the Lord said a tree is known by it's fruit.
Did Wesley lead people to Jesus or away from Him?***
Is this a trick question? If you know my theology, then you should know that I'll simply answer with this verse:
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him...."
Besides, you can't gloss over the wicked things a man does in his life because he also did good things.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.