Hi there. Would you please be so kind and remove the comments (and my name) that I have made on your blog? I’d do it myself, but I don’t have the same email address anymore in order to do it. I also could not find your email address, hence this message in comment form.
Thanking you,
Commenter
And then he included the links to 30 comments from two years ago. BTW, my email address is in the "About this Blog" tab at the top of the page. I asked in reply, May I ask why?
I do not share in your theology at all and don't want to be associated with it (the theology) in any way whatsoever. My comments were mostly non-theological, but I want them removed nonetheless.
Greetings,
Commenter
If I am wrong, I want to know. If I need correction, I want to submit to it. I replied, "Thank you for your response. What is it about my theology that troubles you so greatly that you would go to these lengths to disassociate? Is there something unbiblical? Extrabiblical? Aberrant?" He responded:
I am 100% anti-Calvinist and don't want to be associated with it. Please remove my comments at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
Commenter
Ah. So that's it.
I replied that there was no need to go to lengths to disassociate from a theology that the Bible presents, even if one holds vehemently to Arminianism. The Bible is also clear about unity. I shared the verse from 1 Corinthians 1:10, noting it's one verse among many urging unity among the brethren. I said that it seemed an unreasonable request that would cause difficulties in the threaded comment stream, take an undue amount of my time, and that since we all make our own decisions when choosing to comment publicly in online forums, I sadly would not be able to fulfill the request. I said I was truly sorry he decided to leave on that note and urged that he was welcome to read or comment any time. His response was less than hopeful...and less than brotherly.
Elizabeth, really, I want nothing to do with Calvinism, and I am not interested in your defense of the philosophy of Calvinism, or whatever you like to term it. And I'm not interested in debating or arguing; I simply want my comments removed. You don't have to do it all at once, of course, but my request stands: remove my comments. Take your time with it; there's no rush.
The correspondence ends here.
Regards,
Commenter
Of course, bullies always change the argument to a straw man. I had not defended Calvinism but had made a biblical appeal to unity as described above.
There are all sorts of false teachers running around proclaiming the need for unity. But theirs is a false unity. Partnering with any other religion that's clearly false is not a unity. Pasting over deep doctrinal differences in order to promote a shallow harmony is not unity.
However, there's a unity that IS called for. The Bible is clear that among Christians there will be differences among us over minor or secondary doctrines, but that we are to be humble and love one another. Secondary doctrines are not salvation doctrines. Some call them "non-essential" doctrines, but I don't like that term because I don't like to think of any doctrine as being non-essential, though the meaning refers to the belief in the doctrine not being essential to one's salvation.
Essential doctrines are the ones we split over. Non-essentials are doctrines we do not split over. The website at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry gives the following advice about essential and secondary doctrines. The list from CARM.org includes an explanation, then gives examples of primary non-essentials and secondary non-essentials:
Primary Non-Essentials- (1 John 2:4). Denying these can bring one's salvation into question since the regenerate seek to live according to God's Word. Violating them does not automatically mean the person is not saved since Christians fall into various sins. However, abiding in sins with unrepentance would be evidence that the person is not regenerated. Examples: Moral integrity (Exodus 20:1-17). Fidelity in marriage in heterosexual relationships. The condemnation of homosexuality. Inerrancy of the Bible. Baptism is not necessary for salvation (Acts 10:44-48).I might put inerrancy of the Bible as an essential salvation issue, but then again I'm not a theologian.
Secondary Non-Essentials- Any of them can be denied or affirmed, and regeneration is not in questioned. These are often Denominational Differences: 14) Predestination, election, limited atonement, and free will. 15) Communion every week, monthly, or quarterly, etc. 16) Saturday or Sunday Worship. 17) Pre-, mid-, post-trib rapture. 18) Premillennialism, Amill., Postmill., partial-preterism. 19) Continuation or cessation of the charismatic gifts. 20) Baptism for adults or infants. 21) Musical Instruments in church.Breaking fellowship over a non-essential doctrine is a shame. Though I'm Reformed, pretribulation, literal Millennial Kingdom, soft dispensationalist, I would not break fellowship over the secondary non-essentials. I would hope that people would not break fellowship with me over those, either.
Good examples to me over the years have been John MacArthur and RC Sproul Sr.'s friendship and warm fellowship despite Sproul's no-rapture, preterism, paedo-baptism issues and MacArthur holding the opposite view. It's helpful to me to see them on a panel together, gently chiding and teasing in brotherly love but united over the essential doctrines.
As the visible church has become bloated and is falling away like a black banana peel from the fruit, those who are sound and remain in the faith by standing on the essential doctrines need to demonstrate our love to each other in the cause of Jesus more than ever. We DO need unity. We need to unite around the essentials and monitor the non-essentials and remain faithful to loving each other until or unless the non-essentials in a person or organization become too wayward to overlook.
John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” (Luke 9:49)
There were false teachers in the NT and there were many false prophets in the OT. In both Testaments, these false ones claim to speak in Jesus' name but do not truly represent Him. Now of this particular man in the Luke 9:49 verse, if he had not truly been one of His faithful, God would not have given the man the ability to cast out demons, and Jesus would not have answered by saying the 12 must accept him. Don't misunderstand Luke to be a verse that urges acceptance of false teachers. We still use discernment to determine false from true representatives of Jesus. The man in Luke 9:49 was true and Jesus said that he was part of the brethren because he was not against Jesus.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures says of this verse
suggested that the Twelve were not to see themselves as God’s exclusive representatives. Rather they should have rejoiced that the power of God was being manifested on earth by others as well. If they manifested that attitude, it would show that they were truly trying to be of service to the Messiah.And this from pastor-teacher John MacArthur,
even though we might not agree with methods, we might not agree with style, if they're for Christ, we're for them, but with the proviso that they're really for Christ because they're committed to the truth. ~John MacArthurBe committed to the truth first, and then be committed to all those who embrace the truth. Even us poor, deluded Reformed folk.
EPrata photo
------------------------------------
How can the church achieve a true, biblical unity?
