Combating Inclusive/Progressive Christianity

[DennisTate]

It would seem to me that we are past a certain point of no return regarding church policy and direction. While I could go into the details about how our seminaries are overrun with these ideologies, I think that's a different discussion and objective. What does seem to be the case is that fundamentalism, even in basic forms such as biblical inerrancy, have been cast aside to ensure that churches are accepted by the world, bolster their member numbers simply by inviting the world in and telling them exactly what they'd rather hear than what Scripture states.

So, brainstorming on this as of yesterday, I wonder what the community would think or say if a church sprang up with the following mission statement:

We exist and gather, in the Name of God, to adhere to biblical principles set forth by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. In doing so, we reject all invitation to the world, its evils and those who seek to work it among the People of God (2 Samuel 23:6, 1 Corinthians 5, James 1:26-27). Therefore, we invite only those who consider themselves to be actively Called, possessing of righteous desire the learn and be healed from their sins, who seek repentance and the Face of the Lord, and those reborn of Spirit and in Christ (1 Chronicles 16:11, Psalm 27:8, Hosea 5:15, Luke 5:32, John 3:1-20). Those who have no desire to seek God, who have no intention of repentance, may request prayer for a new heart (Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 31) from our pastor, but should know that this Place is Holy Ground, and therefore we reject any permit for evil to dwell within the House of the Lord.

While this may sound harsh to many, is this what is really needed to regain holiness within our churches? Should we go back to expulsions as instructed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, and only readmit under the evidence of sincere repentance.

It would seem to me that inclusive Christianity is becoming so inclusive they'd openly invite the devil in if he weren't already there.

Or...are most churches now country clubs and simple self-help groups?

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Over these past five years I've been running into some unusual information that I don't think I would have found were it not for my wife who has gifts that kind of amaze me.

I really think that Messiah Yeshua - Jesus is in the process of raising up something very, very, very, very much in line with what you are thinking.

I feel I've been led somewhat in that direction especially for these past two years.

One way of thinking about this is that the days of Ananias and Saphira are coming again and there will be churches so powerful that talented witches will be scared to venture in there with evil intentions.

2018 outpouring, are you feeling it? I am!

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10156010491478485

My impression though....is that the difference is not pastors kicking people out who perhaps have purple hair or a tatoo or whatever.. .....it is the Holy Spirit being there in such power that CONVICTION OF SIN happens to anybody with the courage to attend that church.

I would suggest reading about the unusual events at Azuza Street under the guidance of the extremely humble Evangelist William Seymore who was blind in one eye and who had been told by Jesus to put a box over his head until he felt the Holy Spirit hit him in power.

So in a sentence........ I think that the power to produce this is in the hand of the pastors and the board of directors of the church....... but they will have to be willing to pray and really seek the intervention of the Holy Spirit much as it fell in Acts of the Apostles 2

 

[Adventist Dissident]

one of the main problems with this issue is that they come from 2 completely different starting points, and have 2 different approaches and 2 different goals.

 

[redleghunter]

At some point you're going to have to be open to accepting the broken and bringing them into full life with Christ.

A church that doesn't attract divorcees, single parents, children from broken homes, and gays needs to.

I think most churches do this. What we should not be doing is ordaining unrepentant sinners and promoting sin as not sin. Big difference. Yes "bring me the broken" is what all churches should be saying and ministering to. Not ordaining unrepentant sinners and marrying people outside the God design of one man and one woman.

This is where the communication with liberal Christians breaks down. They think Biblically based churches refuse gays and won't let them in the doors. That is not how it is. We preach the Gospel to all who enter and in our communities in public places. It is the Gospel that has the Power to save. Church membership, baptism and Communion are a different matter.

 

[hedrick]

This is where the communication with liberal Christians breaks down. They think Biblically based churches refuse gays and won't let them in the doors.

To my knowledge, few of us think that. We're well aware that you let them in and preach to them. It's what you say to them that bothers us.

 

[redleghunter]

To my knowledge, few of us think that. We're well aware that you let them in and preach to them. It's what you say to them that bothers us.

What do you think "we" say to them?

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Hi. Is it fair to ask which church is your own? We get so many people now who simply choose "Christian" and it leads to some confusion when reading their posts. For me at least.

Hi, All. I find the faith labels themselves confusing. I don't see much consistency in the viewpoints of individuals within given faith groups. In fact, I would suggest that this point is quite germain to the OP, itself.

I chose "Christian" because in the past when I have identified myself with my denomination (which is included on nearly every list of accepted orthodox, Nicene, blah, blah "Faith Groups List"--including CF's) on other forum websites, etc., I come under scrutiny, to put it mildly, very quickly. And not by what I say, but assumptions are always made about my motives because of a label. I have already noticed the same thing happen here on CF to my denominational brethren to an alarming degree.

 

[hedrick]

What do you think "we" say to them?

That the Bible prohibits same-gender sex. To carry this further is not permitted in this forum.

 

[redleghunter]

That the Bible prohibits same-gender sex. To carry this further is not permitted in this forum.

Well let's talk about fornication in general which is not against the site rules. My pastor was approached by a young couple (man and woman) who wanted to get married. When they applied for the pre-marriage counseling he noticed they had the same address. He confronted them, they admitted they lived together and were sexually active. My pastor said he would not marry them until (1) they lived at separate abodes, (2) repented for their fornication and co-habitation, (3) went through the marriage counseling and (4) demonstrated they were not 'going through the numbers' to get married in the church and (5) brought the matter to the sitting elders.

Do you think the pastor overstepped his position as shepherd of the flock?

Oh and the couple did repent, moved to separate abodes and satisfied the sitting elders and pastor's requests. Which I applauded as many young couples would have just gone to another church which allowed co-habitation, fornication etc.

 

[redleghunter]

Hi, All. I find the faith labels themselves confusing. I don't see much consistency in the viewpoints of individuals within given faith groups. In fact, I would suggest that this point is quite germain to the OP, itself.

I chose "Christian" because in the past when I have identified myself with my denomination (which is included on nearly every list of accepted orthodox, Nicene, blah, blah "Faith Groups List"--including CF's) on other forum websites, etc., I come under scrutiny, to put it mildly, very quickly. And not by what I say, but assumptions are always made about my motives because of a label. I have already noticed the same thing happen here on CF to my denominational brethren to an alarming degree.

Yes in some cases it is like holding up a 'target' around here. But if folks want to know I tell them. I'm Reformed Baptist.

 

[hedrick]

Well let's talk about fornication in general which is not against the site rules. My pastor was approached by a young couple (man and woman) who wanted to get married. When they applied for the pre-marriage counseling he noticed they had the same address. He confronted them, they admitted they lived together and were sexually active. My pastor said he would not marry them until (1) they lived at separate abodes, (2) repented for their fornication and co-habitation, (3) went through the marriage counseling and (4) demonstrated they were not 'going through the numbers' to get married in the church and (5) brought the matter to the sitting elders.

Do you think the pastor overstepped his position as shepherd of the flock?

Oh and the couple did repent, moved to separate abodes and satisfied the sitting elders and pastor's requests. Which I applauded as many young couples would have just gone to another church which allowed co-habitation, fornication etc.

Actually there are site rules that apply to this as well. (I'm not sure they're written, but I was a moderator at one time.)

 

[Hazelelponi]

Actually there are site rules that apply to this as well. (I'm not sure they're written, but I was a moderator at one time.)

There's site rules saying we can't say something is a sin if the Bible does?

 

[hedrick]

There's site rules saying we can't say something is a sin if the Bible does?

No, it says that I can't answer the question.

 

[redleghunter]

Actually there are site rules that apply to this as well. (I'm not sure they're written, but I was a moderator at one time.)

Site rules about pastors taking corrective action reference fornication?

 

[Cis.jd]

Church is a business sir, and it has been for many centuries now.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Oh and the couple did repent, moved to separate abodes and satisfied the sitting elders and pastor's requests. Which I applauded as many young couples would have just gone to another church which allowed co-habitation, fornication etc.

What entity was the object of their repentance? Ecclesia? What were the pastor's and elders' "requests?" (All rhetorical, thought questions, actually) Requests are granted, not satisfied.

Another option for them would have been to go to another church which also did not forbear fornication nor co-habitation, but neither required the jumping-thru of penance-like hoops to have their union renewed and sanctified by the blessing of God.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Yes in some cases it is like holding up a 'target' around here. But if folks want to know I tell them. I'm Reformed Baptist.

I won't tell, even when pressed, but when engaged in a few given topics, it's practically impossible for me to conceal it from many folks.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Site rules about pastors taking corrective action reference fornication?

I don't think he meant anything quite that specific.

 

[hedrick]

Site rules about pastors taking corrective action reference fornication?

There is probably one answer I can give, but it could be misleading as far as my own opinion. Paul dealt with the question of what you do if you can't remain chaste with your significant other. His answer was to get married. I don't see him saying first leave him/her. 1 Cor 11:36. Was this intended to be some kind of test of repentance? It makes a certain sense. I'm just not sure the sense is Biblical. If the separation is brief enough that it's not a big deal, I guess it's harmless. That is, if they have somewhere else to live. But if it's a problem, then some people are going to fail, when the whole point of getting married was to deal with people who couldn't do what Paul thought was preferable. It just seems like, depending upon the situation, legalism or setting people up for problems. It's not quite putting God to the test, but it seems close.

I would not object to suggesting separation as a useful discipline. My objection is to requiring it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

We exist and gather, in the Name of God, to adhere to biblical principles set forth by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. In doing so, we reject all invitation to the world, its evils and those who seek to work it among the People of God (2 Samuel 23:6, 1 Corinthians 5, James 1:26-27). Therefore, we invite only those who consider themselves to be actively Called, possessing of righteous desire the learn and be healed from their sins, who seek repentance and the Face of the Lord, and those reborn of Spirit and in Christ (1 Chronicles 16:11, Psalm 27:8, Hosea 5:15, Luke 5:32, John 3:1-20). Those who have no desire to seek God, who have no intention of repentance, may request prayer for a new heart (Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 31) from our pastor, but should know that this Place is Holy Ground, and therefore we reject any permit for evil to dwell within the House of the Lord.

I was going to say, forget about it, you'll never fill the pews with those stipulations, but in truth, I think you will if you can get the word out. There are some that starve for that type thing, and would beat a path to your door, however ther numbers are becoming few and far inbetween as time goes on.

It becomes more and more understandable why some choose not to attend church at all in this day and age.

 

[A_Thinker]

It would seem to me that we are past a certain point of no return regarding church policy and direction. While I could go into the details about how our seminaries are overrun with these ideologies, I think that's a different discussion and objective. What does seem to be the case is that fundamentalism, even in basic forms such as biblical inerrancy, have been cast aside to ensure that churches are accepted by the world, bolster their member numbers simply by inviting the world in and telling them exactly what they'd rather hear than what Scripture states.

So, brainstorming on this as of yesterday, I wonder what the community would think or say if a church sprang up with the following mission statement:

We exist and gather, in the Name of God, to adhere to biblical principles set forth by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. In doing so, we reject all invitation to the world, its evils and those who seek to work it among the People of God (2 Samuel 23:6, 1 Corinthians 5, James 1:26-27). Therefore, we invite only those who consider themselves to be actively Called, possessing of righteous desire the learn and be healed from their sins, who seek repentance and the Face of the Lord, and those reborn of Spirit and in Christ (1 Chronicles 16:11, Psalm 27:8, Hosea 5:15, Luke 5:32, John 3:1-20). Those who have no desire to seek God, who have no intention of repentance, may request prayer for a new heart (Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 31) from our pastor, but should know that this Place is Holy Ground, and therefore we reject any permit for evil to dwell within the House of the Lord.

While this may sound harsh to many, is this what is really needed to regain holiness within our churches? Should we go back to expulsions as instructed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, and only readmit under the evidence of sincere repentance.

It would seem to me that inclusive Christianity is becoming so inclusive they'd openly invite the devil in if he weren't already there.

Or...are most churches now country clubs and simple self-help groups?

You do recall that Jesus spent His time with the unwashed societal rejects (i.e. sinners, tax-collectors, and publicans) ... and that He pardoned a thief ?

If you think that such a position as the one you state above will keep evil out of your church, ... you should consider that "Satan, himself, is transformed into an angel of light" ...