The title of this post is taken from the latest installment of "The White Horse Inn", the weekly radio talk show which has become my favorite podcast (click on the link in the right hand column if you are interested in subscribing).
A word of warning: the format of the show is a critique, based on the statement of the reformers that the church should always be in a "state of reformation". Therefore, you will hear blunt and honest criticism of contemporary Christianity, including the "naming of names". Some may find this objectionable... I for one find it refreshing and challenging.
The hosts do address the shortcomings of their own traditions (Reformed, Lutheran, and Reformed Baptist), but more often than not the bulls eye is on the Joel Osteens of the Christian world and the influence of our American culture on the practices of the Church. As an example, here is a synopsis of last week's show, which is part of their series called "Christless Christianity":
Vote for Jesus!
In a country without a king, do we find it harder to believe in the sovereignty of God, and easier to believe in the will, power and choice of man? To what extent has our democratic spirit of "one man, one vote" contributed to the success of Arminianism throughout the history of this nation? On this edition of the White Horse Inn the hosts take a look at the corrosive effects of democracy on American Christianity.
I would like to encourage you to give a listen, and to respond to this post with your comments. As an added incentive, you should know that future broadcasts will be addressing the topic "Christianity and Politics". I can assure you that their approach to this issue will get your attention!
Posts
Love Wins, But Not At the Expense of Truth
10 years ago
3 comments:
I have a question for you Rob. Do you see THCF doctrinally in the mold of reformed or covenant theology and is this the viewpoint of all the elders and staff of the church?
To what extent are the leaders in agreement in regard to doctrine?
This would cover a number of things that are not expressed in our present statement of faith.
In considering the issue of church membership this month, some of these things seem to be taking on more significance in my mind as I think there are possibly differing viewpoints.
For example:
eternal security
The rapture, tribulation, etc.
dispensationalism
church membership as a covenant
If you would rather answer this off the blog, my e-mail is camathis1@ix.netcom.com.
Hi Charlotte!
I'd like to reply to your comment here, since part of the purpose of this Blog is to promote dialogue among the members of our Fellowship.
However, I just got back from 3 days out of the office and have 82 emails to review! I promise to respond to your question/comments in the next few days. Thanks for your patience!
Hi Charlotte -
Thanks again for your patience. Let me try and give a brief answer to some pretty complicated issues.
First though, as I mentioned at church this morning, my Blog represents my personal views, and does not necessarily represent the other leaders (note the disclaimer in the sidebar). Also, within the leadership we have always had a range of positions on many of the things you mention and I would typically end up the extreme of one end... the most "reformed" of any of the other leaders. Take that into account when you read my blogs.
When we use terms like "reformed" or "covenant theology", we do need to be careful because you and I may not agree on exactly what those terms mean. So, I would say that as a leadership we lean towards certain aspects of the theological systems promoted by the reformers... typically articulated in the five "solas", which I am sure you are familiar with. In other areas, such as eschatology, the sacraments, the role of the Pastor, etc we are not consistent with the reformers at all. If you had to put us into a box, I would say "reformed Baptist" probably comes the closest.
Specific to the issues you mention:
Eternal security: we are 100% convinced that true believers are secure in their salvation based on the power and faithfulness of Jesus Christ. No one that is truly regenerate can "lose" their salvation.
Eschatology: There are a range of convictions on this one, with the majority of our leaders being pre-millennial dispensationalists. I am typically the odd man out, as I would usually waver between historic premillennialism and amillennialism. Because my own views are so fluid, this is not a doctrine that I would insist on.
Covenant Theology: None of us would categorize ourselves as following Covenant Theology, although we all recognize the important role of the Covenants in redemptive history.
Regarding Church membership, I understood Josh to mean "formal agreement between two parties", when he used the term covenant to describe membership. I know that some churches take it much farther than that, and actually have a written "Covenant" that a member is required to sign... we have never even considered something like this.
Those are pretty quick answers, but I hope this reply at least begins to answer your questions. let me know if you'd like to discuss any of this in more detail.
By the way, you mentioned this morning that you are a "3 point Calvinist", and then in related comments you mentioned that you would disagree with the idea of unconditional election. If that is the case you might find yourself in substantial disagreement with myself and several other leaders, so maybe this is an area we could discuss in more detail.
I'll look forward to talking to you again.
Post a Comment