tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2711950909806746663.post258383162908535930..comments2023-06-06T11:18:41.335-04:00Comments on Be Thou My Vision: Response to 15 Reasons Why I left the ChurchGeoffsnookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17899329492445595648noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2711950909806746663.post-88857514638777944532012-03-28T11:19:05.608-04:002012-03-28T11:19:05.608-04:00Regan,
Thanks for the dialog. I think the main pu...Regan,<br /><br />Thanks for the dialog. I think the main purpose of writing this was to encourage folks to hang in there with the local church AND for the local church to love its members and visitors better. Hopefully it helped both parties.<br /><br />Would be an interesting post on what disputable matters really are, because that varies from church to church. I've done some stuff similar to that in posts, on HOW to determine what's secondary and primary. But maybe I'll get to that in the future. Thanks for suggestion. We'll see buddy!Geoffsnookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17899329492445595648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2711950909806746663.post-83777062465609606402012-03-27T19:47:41.824-04:002012-03-27T19:47:41.824-04:00Hey,
And good to hear back from you as well. Ever...Hey,<br /><br />And good to hear back from you as well. Everything you wrote makes complete sense to me.<br /><br />Here's my problem, though it's not really much of "problem," per se, and that is that I'm a man without a denomination.<br /><br />Though I don't feel like I fit in one specific denomination, I'm a denominationalist (if that's even a word). In other words, I believe that denominations are a good thing, and are not divisive.<br /><br />Anyway, my "problem" is that I'm semi-Calvinist and I don't buy into infant baptism (sorry). On the other hand, I'm not terribly emotional and I'm not a big fan of how the sacraments get short shrift in the generic/Baptist evangelical church. In fact, from a sacramental standpoint, I lean toward Lutheranism, sans the Catholicism.<br /><br />Perhaps I'm simply confused, which is okay because I'm not confused about the Cross and what it means whatsoever.<br /><br />You made a very good point about the Apostles Creed as doctrines that cannot be compromised.<br /><br />So, an interesting post at your blog might be how you rank the relative importance of certain doctrinal points, namely the "disputable matters". I would put Republicanism right there at the top followed by music.Regannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2711950909806746663.post-63569035681533466112012-03-27T12:05:54.809-04:002012-03-27T12:05:54.809-04:00Regan,
Good to hear from you brother. Yeah, the o...Regan,<br /><br />Good to hear from you brother. Yeah, the old Earth/New Earth is a big deal to some folks, particularly the group you mentioned.<br /><br />But my denomination, the PCA, accepts as legitimate the Literal reading of as Genesis 6-24, the Day-Age theory, and the Framework theory. So if a pastor in a theologically rigorous denomination says, "you're cool," that's probably enough for the laity to relax. <br /><br />I don't see ANY difference in the sound doctrine or practice of believers holding these differing views on creation, so that also leads me to care less and less about WHICH one is correct.<br /><br />Also, I don't think we should hold ALL convictions and doctrine with equal confidence and certainty. For instance, what's in the Apostles Creed, I hold the highest. There is no disagreement there among Christians. I can't have real fellowship with someone who doesn't believe that. I hold my Calvinism with less certainty (but still pretty high!). If you don't want to listen to why I'm a Calvinist, that's fine. But I'll do my best to convince someone that the gospel is true. Make sense?<br /><br />I hold baptism, a little less certain (still high, as obviously I'm a presbyterian!), but I will not seek church discipline on a family who doesn't believe in infant baptism. Less certainty there. <br /><br />When I see something clearly in scripture, AND the church as a whole sees it clearly in scripture, the higher certainty I have. The age of the Earth is IMPOSSIBLE to prove and so we should be able to disagree. Whether or not Jesus rose from the grave, well, those are "spiritually fighting" words. <br /><br />Romans 14 should be preached on more as well. I agree.<br /><br />Does this make sense or help Regan?Geoffsnookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17899329492445595648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2711950909806746663.post-13712988350070579622012-03-26T19:38:20.130-04:002012-03-26T19:38:20.130-04:00Hey,
Read both parts and enjoyed them. Insightful...Hey,<br /><br />Read both parts and enjoyed them. Insightful, honest answers, which I appreciated, as well as the original blogger's 15 reasons. I've been through most of those 15 at one time or another. One, in particular, caught my eye, and that was the evolution/old earth subject. We home schooled for a long time and found that other home schooling Christians were quite dogmatic about the subject to the point that they basically questioned your faith, though we don't believe in Darwinian evolution (macroevolution where one species evolves into another). The sticking point was the age of the earth. We're old-earth creationists, though we're perfectly fine and dandy with a young earth, if that's the way it is. Anyway, the point is that it can be very difficult to have a discussion about a topic in a church situation, even one that is not central to the faith at all, without it turning into a theological battle royal. In other words, it seems the church would do well to preach Romans 14 on a more regular basis. Your thoughts? And please be nice...<br /><br />ReganRegan, a.k.a., Club Sodahttp://www.dailyplunge.com/author/club-soda/noreply@blogger.com