We discussed 1 Corinthians 15 last night in my small group. We had a great discussion over this statement:
1 Corinthians 15:3 ESV
(3) For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
We discussed what "first importance" means and got back to the centrality of the cross. This lead to a great discussion about denominations. One member comes from a Southern Baptist background, but he doesn't like being identified as a Baptist. He'd rather be identified as a Christian. I agree with him there. Another member bemoaned all the denominations. He has a point.
The problem is in how big we draw our "box". The "box" includes what we consider to be orthodox Christianity. An Independent Baptist would have a very tiny box. A Southern Baptist would probably have a larger one. Many Episcopalians would likely have a very large one. And so on.
My struggle is with doctrine. I'm all for sound doctrine. I believe it is incumbent upon every believer to form opinions about what Scripture means. Obviously Scripture can only mean one thing, though it can have many applications. However, as I've written before, I'd rather have an unsaved friend attend a Methodist church than no church at all. That wouldn't be my first choice, but as long as the gospel gets preached I don't really care if it is a lesbian preaching it. I trust the power of God's Word and, if someone reads it, he will realize that a lesbian couple really shouldn't be pastoring a church.
I guess what I've learned is that I need to form my opinions about doctrine. Systematic Theology is all about that and I really appreciate what I learned there (though it wasn't as fun as I'd hoped it would be). As a small group leader and eventual pastor or professor I need to teach what I believe the Bible says and means. However, I also need to respect differing opinions in areas that aren't clear. We talked a little bit about eschatology last night and someone asked me what I believe and I honesty answered that I don't know. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. Frankly, this is out of laziness in not wrestling with the text on my own.
My church tends to err on the side of grace. My impression is that the church with which my seminary is affiliated tends to err on the side of legalism. I guess the trick is to walk the line.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It is a line we must all walk...
Not sure if you're aware, but Tim Challies is currently doing a series on the many ways (not just doctrine) that we can box God. Here is a link to the first article.
I've read the first 3 posts in that series and have enjoyed them. What I'm referring to is the box that we consider to be the "core gospel" and who we include in it. Do we include Methodists because they reject Reformed doctrine?
I don't really know the ins and outs of Methodist belief.
Do they believe that Jesus is both God and Man? That He was sinless, and bore the sins of those who would be saved upon Himself? That we are saved by faith in Christ and not by works? That there is a demand upon all sinners everywhere to repent and believe? That Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day according to the scriptures?
I may have missed points, but if they believe that then they must be included in "the box". Although the other areas may be secondary, the further you walk away from Reformed theology, the wider the door opens to allow error into the church, which does ultimately corrupt the gospel.
For example, my old church, which was borderline "cultish" and "heretical" would give an intellectual accent to those aforementioned statements. However, that is not what was preached or practiced...
I use the Methodists as an example because they are kind of the other end of the spectrum. They definitely embrace Wesleyan theology. They also ordain women as pastors, for example. They are much more works-oriented. However, I do think that they are Christians based on the core beliefs. That's what I'm getting at.
Post a Comment