There is no reason to conceal what you believe, or do not believe. This looks as if an attempt is being made to conceal something.We do , and we do... But there is no way I would post it here for it to be gutted by others.
Some churches have a small one page statement that is a bare minimum. Some take a stand against certain teachings that members are a bit uncomfortable with.
So what then do you believe election is? In posting to you it would help if you declare what you believe and do not believe so we do not have to guess.Some of it, right up to the point that free will is neglected.
can you think of one or two examples?But even he had places he dared not go concerning it.. unlike some on here.
I did give a short answerBut yet you still didn't answer the question. And I did answer yours. That's telling.
This can be good or bad depending on what is taking place there.You need to make time and let him know exactly where you stand. If not, don't say I didn't warn you. This is where division comes, through not be up front about what you believe, then are given a teaching position. People at the church I attend are not allowed to teach unless we are of one accord for the simple reason of unity. And also are not allowed to teach unless they have proven their faithfulness to the body after years of service.
Paul spoke of it in Acts 20.....it is every area of biblical truth. If it is revealed in scripture it is to be preached and taught.Such a classic reformed answer... Exactly what is the whole counsel of God ?
In 1 cor15....twice Paul speaks of" the gospel according to the scriptures". Doctrine is always there.The gospel of Jesus Christ.
not so....the early church was mostly jewish people who had the oracles of God. The sermons described in acts 13-18 describe doctrinal content.The early church that spread like wildfire didn't do so because of theological doctrine. Heck...most of em couldn't read,
What you describe is the shell...the doctrine of the coming Christ was rooted in the ot scriptures....when you fragment it you break it off from the root....your result is a deficient teaching and proclamation of the truth.and there wasn't a New Testament bible yet.. The church flourished because of the message of Jesus Christ..
I will explain what they mean....if I ask you what is the gospel....you will repeat the historical facts of the gospelWhen someone says " They don't preach the full counsel of God !" and just sat through a gospel message...well they just missed the full counsel of God.
you will go to 1 cor15...and say; see here is the gospel...the death, burial, and resurrection....correct?
but it is the death....according to the scriptures....plural....Jesus did not just die from old age, or a heart attack. He died a Covenant death as mediator, and surety of His people, He died as High Priest interceding for "His people". It was a Covenant death, that is why it was good news, because He actually accomplished redemption for everyone believing......do you see the difference...this is a short example describing the proper teaching of the good news.
Wrong.... Paul is not saying that we can exhaust the knowledge of God perfectly...what he means is if it is revealed it needs to be taught, not avoided or censored as some churches, or church leaders would try and do.And further...If someone ever believes that they can even teach the full counsel of God ( in other words telling others all there is to know about God as revealed through scripture) , they can forget it. It's not achievable this side of heaven.
The pastors son who was perhaps over zealous and might have lacked maturity on how to go about it, could see an attempt being made to silence the truth....so he and others did what they did....he might have had the right idea, but gone about it the wrong way.
Deut 29:29 speaks of secret things, and then that which is revealed that belongs to us.
Now did I say that? I did not say that. It is however a core teaching which mant do not like and resist. Paul spoke of it everywhere, because Jesus did often. To avoid and quarantine it is to deny core truth, and then to offer a watered down idea is not what the Apostles did.So election is the full counsel of God now ? Come on man.
?Wasn't the question... Would you come to church if Billy Graham was preaching at it
I did give a short answer. I would go...it would be okay . He was preaching more as an evangelist.... I as a believer already would prefer to hear expository preaching of the word as that is what edifies the saints.
His preaching was geared toward unsaved persons which should always be addressed as they are even in the church pews also.
The altar call is an unscriptural carnal method introduced as part of Charles Finneys new measures....Finney later on in life lamented that most of his "converts" were a disgrace to Christianity and he would not do it if he could do it all over again.You've already shown a disdain for alter calls , so I'm thinking not.
PB....those kind of statements work both ways....you and others say you will not allow these teachings in your church, correct.You see, I could say your denial of the teaching is a mistake also....correct?
As you have insinuated to many people on this site many times.
Those of us who believe the doctrines of grace understand those doctrines to be the TRUTH of GOD revealed in scripture.
So when you and others post you will not allow it in your church, we hear you saying...you will not allow the truth of God to be expressed in your church?
No...I do not agree. There is one truth, it belongs to God. The closer you or I get to it, the better off we are...In Acts 18 Pricilla and Aquilla instructed Apollos in the way of God, more perfectly......they did not agree to disagree, they did not put him on a "coffee break" they went back and forth and left the results to God.Truth as you see it , of course. But this is an exercise in futility, and no real point in discussing it. Agree ?
I do not think it is futile. I have seen many change and grow, even whole churches.
God can save a person and that person can think it happened one way. Then as He grows and learns comes to see it was all of God.I don't see it that way. I believe it's one and the same. These people questioned and were critical of the very presentation of the Gospel that saved them. To me, that's beyond understanding.
I have heard of people who were saved by first being in a cult, then studying themselves out of the cult teaching.
That does not mean I am going to recommend people start in cults???
God deals with the heart, then renews the mind eph4It amazes me to hear anyone say that. According to logic itself , the reformed side of all people should absolutely agree that The Holy Spirit draws and reveals, not an education. One is of the mind and the other is of the heart.