Posted on 10/08/2009 11:03:35 AM PDT by topcat54
From James White: "Moved fairly quickly on to the comments of Chuck Smith and his co-hosts on the "Pastor’s Perspective" radio program, as found here. This just under five minute clip is a study in shallow eisegesis. It is incredible that these men who are leaders of such a large movement could be so simplistic in their traditionalism. Simply shocking. Then we took calls on a wide variety of issues. Here's the program."
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Amen!
This truth was known by our founding fathers, and this is the very reason they believed so strongly in a separation of powers, and in a government equipped with checks and balances -- because all men are fallen and the heart is self-deceived.
Is it any wonder our liberal churches and liberal government today preach a free, unfettered will and a basic heart of goodness?
"Just tell 'em what you want 'em to see."
I’m sure it comes as no surprise that I am not a fan of Smith’s eschatology. I have often used him in the past as an example of a date-setting no nothing.
But eschatology is not the only area where Smith is just plain wrong. Insulation and lack of accountability, not to mention nepotism, breed bad doctrine. It’s all about power.
Bad eschatology rarely stands alone.
Sorry, Doc, but I have to disagree with one point. In the PCA the local congregation owns the property, not Presbytery.
Probably deliberately so, after the OPC’s experience in the ‘30s.
Eschatology aside, he's an amazingly good teacher, and has an amazing ability to bring biblical teaching to the average person and evangelizes well.
This is the standard statement of faith for anyone seeking ministry with Calvary Chapel.
If you don't agree with every point, you cannot participate in ANY ministry at Calvary Chapel. That of course included Mr. Spellman. I'm sure if you asked him, he would admit that pursuant to this doctrinal statement he would not be eligible to be a pastor of a Calvary Chapel.
He seems content and happy where he is. OTOH, for some reason he finds it necessary to attack the roots of his own faith and the ministry which led him to Christ. That's too bad.
Nope. Never even been to one.
Eschatology aside, he's an amazingly good teacher, and has an amazing ability to bring biblical teaching to the average person and evangelizes well.
Perhaps. Just don’t go to him with Bible in hand as a noble Berean. Father knows best.
Your link is broken.
Doesn't sound very thoughtful to me.
Oh, I've heard him preach and read his material. That's not what you asked, is it?
Or, to quote the memorable Matthew Quigley, “I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it.”
Wow. That’s interesting. I didn’t know that. Is that something new? I like it. 8~)
Believe me, I know all too well where it has led.
Nothing is perfect. My point is that the presbyterian system of church governing seems to be optimal, just like our representative republic is optimal. Both come equipped with a system of checks and balances that hopefully keeps the ship afloat and on an even keel.
The PCUSA has floundered since NOT adhering to the basic system set in place which is ALWAYS first and foremost to be faithful to the word of God. It wasn't. And so it has devolved.
Does our system of government or our system of church structure work perfectly? Nope. But what system works better? That's the question. Not to mention I think this system is outlined in the New Testament.
By and large, I tend to agree with the system. My point is that tares tear things up.
LOL. No kidding.
But through it all we have to remember it's a wheat field and not a tare field. They're the minority, and they're condemned. We'll get the last laugh (assuming we can still muster one.) 8~)
Not in any Presbyterian body that I'm aware of. Even in the PCUSA, they've only been able to bamboozle judges in about half the states with their bogus 'trust' theory.
In the PCA, and I believe in the EPC, it's constitutional that the local congregation owns the property, absent a loan and mortgage.
Nope, from its inception.
“Does our system of government or our system of church structure work perfectly? Nope. But what system works better? That’s the question. Not to mention I think this system is outlined in the New Testament.”
As a reformed baptist, you are welcome to choose that model of church governance. I tend to view it as a capitalistic baptist approach and a central planning type approach.
From what I’ve read, it seems the NT church started with congregations that had no defined overhead apart from the Apostles. As persecution and growth came, and with the difficulty of not having scripture readily available, the church turned to overseers to help prevent heresy and bad teaching. In time, too many ‘fake’ bishops got in, caring more for Greek philosophy than God’s Word, which led the church astray.
Without readily available scripture, I see the reason for some hierarchy. With it, I prefer the less organized baptist approach - freedom to follow scripture as best you can. This accepts the fact that some will go astray, but permits others to hew as close as possible to scripture - and let it be sorted out at the end.
I’ve visited some pretty freaky ‘Baptist’ churches, but I don’t see any sign Baptists are more likely to break with scripture than more top-down approaches. As I see Lutherans accept homosexual ministers, and others ordaining darn near any unrepentant sinner that turns up, I’m GLAD I’m not forced to accept their lack of belief.
a fair statement -
the ones locally here are in rough spiritual shape, though full, pray for their pastor
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.