"What do you think of open-tent alliances like the Free Grace Alliance? I myself don't have anything specifically against the people working for the FGA, however I remain somewhat reserved in the broadness of the coalition, since it does not require more than affirming Free Grace theology and the basic doctrines such as inerrancy and the trinity. However, what worries me is that such a narrow statement would allow extreme forms of punitive Bema/outer darkness, nondispensational views and such still within the alliance.
What do you personally think of such parachurch organizations, and is it also common for DTS Free Gracers to be 'Independents', not technically part of any alliance?"
Just to answer the question generally before getting into more of the specifics, I would say that parachurch organizations can be good. Some people are against the whole idea of parachurch organizations because they are not the New Testament model, the local church is. But to me that thinking is flawed because there are a lot of things that are not specifically prescribed nor even described in the New Testament, but that doesn't mean they are bad or that they cannot be used by God. I mean, for example, the whole idea of "church membership" is nowhere found in the New Testament. Yet if I were a betting man, I would bet that those same people who are against parachurch organizations because they are not found in the Bible have no problem with church membership! They might say, "Well that's the point; church membership has to do with the local church. It's a function of the local church." My response to that would be to say, "Okay, let me give another example: gospel tracts. Does your church print them? Some churches do, but many do not. So guess what? A parachurch ministry printed your church's gospel tracts!" But those people who are supposedly against parachurch organizations apparently have no problem with getting their gospel tracts from a parachurch organization! I would also ask them: "And what about your church's missionaries? What mission agency are they going with?" It's probably another parachurch ministry, whichever mission board they choose to go with. "Oh, and what about all those books your pastor has?" Most if not all of them are probably printed by a Christian publisher or a Christian publishing house: all parachurch organizations! Oh, and here's the kicker: "Where did your church's pastor get his college degree?" A Bible school? A seminary? Another parachurch organization! You see what I mean? Unless these people live under a rock or do everything "in house" via their own local church (or another local church), they are obviously utilizing the services of parachurch organizations. Someone might say, "Well that doesn't make it right." Well, I would say, "That doesn't make it wrong either." You see what I mean? It's the same as a Christian liberty. One Christian has one view, and another Christian has another view. The Bible doesn't specifically address the issue. So just to summarize, parachurch organizations can be helpful. They should assist the local church, not replace the local church. Some examples of parachurch organizations would be:
1. Mission agencies / Mission boards
2. Christian colleges and seminaries
3. Christian book publishers
4. Evangelistic ministries (Evantell, GraceLife Ministries, etc.)
5. Pro-Life ministries
6. I'm sure we could add to the list!
So those are my thoughts just in general about parachurch organizations. I think each parachurch organization needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if it's a ministry that I could support or not and to see if it is upholding biblical values or not. I'm mainly thinking in terms of their beliefs and their practices in general. So for example, would you agree with their doctrinal statement? Are they accredited by the ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, another parachurch organization!) or a similar 3rd-party verification group? This is to make sure that the organization or ministry is operating in a financially responsible way and that it's not a scam. I think the argument that says "Parachurch organizations are not in the Bible therefore they are bad or unbiblical" is just not helpful because as I mentioned, there are a lot of things that are not specifically mentioned or addressed in the Bible but that doesn't make them wrong. That way of thinking is very superficial and really just legalistic because the people who say that or think that way are imposing a standard that is over and above what the Bible actually says. I think a more helpful way to think about it, or to approach the issue, is to ask if the parachurch organization's beliefs are biblical and are their practices in-line with biblical principles? And as I mentioned, 3rd-party verification of fiscal responsibility by a group such as the ECFA would also be helpful (though not absolutely necessary in my view). Those are just my initial thoughts about parachurch organizations to preface my response to your more specific questions.
You asked about what I think of "open-tent alliances like the Free Grace Alliance"? I don't have a problem with them necessarily and in fact I think they can be helpful, as I mentioned above. Provided of course that everything about the ministry checks out, as far as their beliefs and practices are concerned. For example: Do I agree with their doctrinal statement? Do I support their cause? Ask questions like that. And as far as a doctrinal statement goes, I don't have a problem with the parachurch ministry having a more general or concise affirmation of beliefs. I think everything I said would still apply. Namely, do I agree with whatever set of beliefs that they do have or that they do adhere to? Obviously you can tell more specifically what a parachurch ministry believes just by looking at who is on the leadership team and who endorses the organization, etc. So it's likely sort of obvious what the more specific beliefs are, even if they are not codified in an official statement. You said, "However, what worries me is that such a narrow statement would allow extreme forms of punitive Bema/outer darkness, nondispensational views and such still within the alliance." I would say you are correct, but that's just the nature of Free Grace Theology. That is not specific to the FGA. That is Free Grace Theology in general. I mean, I think every group is going to have elements in it that some people may not agree with 100%. I mean, if I remember correctly, even the disciples of Jesus were arguing about different things on various occasions! So I think it may be a little naïve to think that you can get away from that. That is just life in general, I would say. I would say those are more peripheral issues. That doesn't mean those things are not important, but I would say they are not the most important. I would ask: do we agree on the core issues? For example: the gospel of the grace of God, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and not by works, the eternal security of the believer, assurance of salvation based on the promises in God's Word and not the believer's walk (behavior), rewards as a motivation for godly living, the judgment seat of Christ and the possibility that believers can have all their works burned up, the fact that God loves everyone not just the "elect," Christ died for all people not just the "elect," etc. Someone might say that is compromising on the other issues. I would say no, because you don't have to agree on those other issues: you can still hold your beliefs and not compromise them. Someone may say that's unity in error. I would say find me a church where everyone agrees with everyone 100% and you just identified a cult! As I mentioned previously, even the disciples of Jesus disagreed on certain things! That doesn't mean that should be a goal, but it is a reality. And to pretend that it's not is naïve and unbiblical. In regards to when you asked: "What do you personally think of such parachurch organizations, and is it also common for DTS Free Gracers to be 'Independents', not technically part of any alliance?" I would say that I think such parachurch organizations can be helpful. They can be helpful in spreading the grace message. They can be helpful in networking. They can be helpful in building up the body of Christ. Are they perfect? No one is perfect; so that's an impossible standard that no one and no church could ever meet. I'm sure you've heard the quip about how if you find the "perfect church" -- leave! Because once you start attending it won't be perfect anymore!
In regards to the question you had about is it common for DTS Free Gracers to be "Independents", I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. If you mean Independent Baptist, I would say it's not impossible. As I mentioned, Charles Ryrie was a Baptist as far as I know. I'm not sure what variety of Baptist. In his younger years, Ryrie was a member of the First Baptist Church in Alton, Illinois. He was the fifth generation of his family to be members there. Later in his life, Ryrie was a member of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas. (When I say that Ryrie was "a member" of those churches, I'm using the word "member" in the more general sense to signify that's where he went to church; I'm not saying he was officially a member of those churches, although he may have been and I would think probably was.) I'm not sure if he was officially a member of the FGA, but by all accounts he approved of it as far as I know. Consider that Ryrie was the 2008 recipient of the FGA's "Trophy of Grace" award. And he spoke at the FGA conferences. For example, Ryrie spoke at the 2015 FGA conference (which was just a year before he passed away). I would guess that if Ryrie was a featured speaker at the FGA conferences, he was also a member of it. Ryrie also wrote the Foreword to Charlie Bing's book Simply By Grace, which shows he approved of it. They were "on the same page" as far as Free Grace Theology is concerned. And by implication as far as the FGA is concerned as well. (Charlie Bing has been part of the leadership of the FGA for years.) Again, as far as I know Ryrie supported it. Whether he was specifically a "member" of the FGA or not, I'm not entirely sure. I'd have to do more research on that. But in light of everything I've said, it seems like a moot point because Ryrie obviously (or at least apparently) supported it. So those are my thoughts on that. I'm not sure if I entirely answered your question. But I would say yes, it's probably common for DTS Free Gracers to be "Independents", and not technically part of any alliance. I don't know if I represent the norm or not, but just to use myself as an example, I'm not officially part of any alliance. I'm not saying that I won't be or that I would never be, but currently I'm not. That doesn't mean I don't support it; I do support it. I support the cause they stand for and I support what they believe in. Pray about it and see how the Lord leads you. Maybe email Charlie Bing about it and see what he says. I hope what I've shared helps to answer your questions. If I missed something or if you want me to elaborate on something in more detail, just let me know. God Bless!
________
Editor's Note: This response is an updated and expanded version of my original comment. I provide a robust defense of parachurch organizations as a concept and then I apply those principles more specifically to the FGA. Here is a summary of those principles:
1. Parachurch organizations are legitimate and helpful if they assist the local church.
2. Parachurch organizations should be evaluated on their beliefs and practices.
3. Specifically, do I agree with their doctrinal statement or their adhered-to beliefs?
4. Do they agree on the core gospel issues, even if there's diversity on "peripheral" matters?
12 comments:
For more information as well as answers to questions specifically related to the Free Grace Alliance, see the article by Dr. Charlie Bing titled:
"The Free Grace Alliance Within the Free Grace Movement: It Is What It Is!"
The link is:
https://www.gracelife.org/resources/articles/pdf/article23.pdf
Hey, just to clarify—by "independent," I didn’t mean Independent Baptist, but rather unaffiliated in the sense of not being tied to formal organizations, regardless of specific church affiliation. I may have been overly brief in my original comment. I had watched of J.B. Hixson’s sermon, “Why I Am No Longer Free Grace,” where, although he expresses appreciation for the people within the FGA, he seems cautious about the broadness of its theological boundaries.
This brings up the question of which doctrines—and to what extent—we should use as a basis for organizational identity. There are people with whom we may gladly fellowship around the gospel on an individual level, but who still wouldn’t be able to join the same local church due to practical or ecclesiological differences. One example would be the divide between infant baptism and believer’s baptism. It’s entirely possible to find, say, an Exclusive Brethren member or a Presbyterian aligned with the Marrow Brethren who holds to a view of salvation quite close to Free Grace. However, the practical and ecclesiastical differences would likely be too significant to function within the same congregation. This all ties into the concept of degrees of fellowship, which I remember Ryrie mentioning briefly in one of his works, and I was thinking if this principle of degrees of fellowship would be wise to apply to alliances also, rather than being on the minimal of gospel salvation, as although other doctrines may not affect salvation, they may still have a large effect on our Christian walk.
Another thing that is not adressed by the covenant is if the burial is necessary to salvation at all, and I feel like this is a bigger issue as it directly on the gospel itself. Can people who disagree with this co-operate on an alliance scale? And what about the issue of Thiemism, which denies Jesus' physical death as substitutionary, rather giving it all to his spiritual death? Is that an issue large enough tonot be able to be under the same umbrella? While that's not the majority in the FGA, I have heard that some who hold his views have still joined there.
I do not view the FGA with any hostility, but I am wondering if some of these more major issues would have been better to sort in the covenant, rather than leave open. How do we balance doctrinal purity with unity is always the question that comes debated, and what should be done if people under one umbrella disagree on very major issues? I may have my influences towards emphasizing doctrinal purity since the people who got me into Free Grace initially were Independent Baptists (although I have never been an official member), however this is a topic I am still trying to understand in my studies.
I want to also clarify that I am speaking from the perspective of inquiry rather strong personal opinions, I am currently still trying to figure out how to navigate differences in the theological world.
Wow! You're going next level on me, I love it! And great questions by the way. I just want to say in regards to my previous response, those were hypothetical objections that I was responding to. So those were not directed at you specifically, but rather my answer was just more general in regards to parachurch organizations at large and what some people think about them and how some people are totally against the idea of parachurch organizations.
So you mentioned J. B. Hixson's video "Why I Am No Longer Free Grace". I haven't watched it recently, but I think that video and what he says in that video is in regards to Free Grace more broadly than the Free Grace Alliance. But of course it's related to the questions you are raising and there could be helpful. While I don't agree with everything Hixson says, I think he does raise some valid points. I'm not sure my response would be to say I'm no longer "Free Grace"; to me that's almost a cop-out or almost like giving up. I mean, he said he still believes the same things, it's just that he's changing the label. So if he didn't change his views, it just seems like he's running away from the issue or the problem. It's like he's giving up on everything he's invested his time and energy in because remember, he was once (if I recall correctly) the executive director of the Free Grace Alliance. So I agree with many of Hixson's points in the video, I would just take a different approach to address those problems. Instead of running away, I would stay in the "Free Grace" movement and address those problems from within. But I guess Hixson felt he couldn't do that. I mean, God bless him and I wish him the best. So those are just my initial thoughts on that. But yes, he apparently had some of the same concerns that you are raising in terms of some in the Free Grace movement (I would say stemming mainly from the Grace Evangelical Society with it's sympathizers and associates) teaching aberrant doctrines or new teachings such as the "crossless gospel," Christ's deity not essential to believe, sin not relevant or the issue in evangelism, punitive damages at the Bema Seat Judgment, Kingdom exclusion for some believers, believers under the wrath of God, etc. These are valid concerns! But I don't think those views characterize Free Grace theology in general, nor the FGA in general. I could be wrong. But to say that those teachings characterize Free Grace theology in general or to a large degree, to me I just don't see it. That's like saying that the GES is mainstream Free Grace, which I think it's obvious that it's not. I suppose Hixson maybe feared or perceived a growing influence of the GES within the Free Grace Movement. But the FGA is sort of like the force pushing back against the GES (the counter-balance, if you will), so to run away from the FGA (and "Free Grace" in general) like Hixson did just doesn't make sense to me. I see Hixson sort of like Erasmus during the Protestant Reformation. Both were influential at the start and helped to lay the foundation for it, but then they both got "weak kneed" and time passed them by. I realize that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic, I'm just drawing a connection between the two men's actions rather than strictly their theological beliefs.
[Continued below...]
So I think your point about Hixson's video was that he was concerned about the FGA in terms of the broadness of its theological boundaries. But I would question whether it is the job or at least the stated purpose of the FGA to be a "gatekeeper". I'm not sure it is. I'm not saying that's bad or wrong, I mean to be a gatekeeper, but I think we need to be careful about that too so that in our zeal for truth we don't go extreme the other way and become almost Pharisaical or hyper-separatist about it. So I think there's a balance. And I think it must start with the gospel. Our fellowship centers around Christ and the Good News of who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation. You mentioned the issue of how some in the Free Grace Movement don't preach the burial of Christ as essential in the gospel. And some even say it's not part of the gospel. So that is a concern and it is an issue. I've always said "If it's not denied it's implied." To me that sort of sums it up and is a nice workable way to think about it because sometimes preachers don't explicitly mention Christ's burial in the gospel message, but they don't deny it either. So what does a person do with that, or how are we to understand that or interpret that? In regards to Christ's burial in the gospel, when I heard preachers not specifically mention it in the gospel, I've found it helps to use the axiom: "It's implied not denied."
[Continued below...]
And furthermore, even the argument from groundless gospel proponents saying that Christ's burial is "just a proof" doesn't lessen the importance of Christ's burial nor remove the fact that it is "fundamental to the gospel," because notice what the Christian apologist Justin Martyr says about the power of proof: "For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognized as being what it was stated to be." (Justin Martyr, "Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection," The Writings of Justin Martyr, Revised and Arranged by A. Cleveland Coxe, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Editors, Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, Vol. 1, p. 294.) So those are my thoughts on the topic of the "groundless gospel". It seems to me that the Free Gracers who promote that aberrant view have more or less gone into hiding because they are ashamed of their view. If they really believed it to be the correct view then they would be shouting it from the housetops, which thankfully they aren't. I've found that they "hem and haw" about it and give a "wishy washy" answer, or just a vague answer, or just sidestep the issue entirely. They basically ignore it and just exclude Christ's burial whenever possible. Instead of treating Christ's burial with the reverence and honor it deserves, they treat it like the unwanted step-child or the unwanted step-daughter of the gospel. It's really sad. But the thing is, and I wrote a blog post about this, if you remove the burial from the gospel, in so doing you are removing the empty tomb from the gospel. And if you remove the empty tomb from the gospel, then you are in reality removing the bodily resurrection from the gospel: because what happened to Christ's body?? It's left a mystery according to the groundless gospel! They have to artificially add that fact in from other sources besides Paul's statement of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15. For example, based on their limited view of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15, proponents of the "groundless gospel" explain their gospel by saying that the gospel is that "Christ died for our sins...and rose again." Okay, where's the bodily resurrection in that statement? It's not there! How did Christ die? Merely spiritually? How did Christ rise? Merely spiritually? Where is Christ's body? It's not there! So that's an obvious problem with their view of the gospel, and the way they counter it or address it is to make a checklist of doctrines that a person must believe for salvation, one of which is that "Christ rose bodily from the dead." I wrote a blog post about that too. This was years ago. I said their view of the gospel is like stripping bread of it's wholesome and life-giving essential ingredients so it just becomes this unwholesome and even deadly white bread, or "white straw" as my dad calls it. Maybe you've heard the saying, "The whiter the bread, the quicker you're dead!" And so groundless gospel advocates have this "white bread gospel" in which they have artificially added back in some vitamins and nutrients to make it more palatable. But in reality it's just this man-made concoction. That's the "groundless gospel".
[Continued below...]
So those are my thoughts on that. But yes, that is a valid concern you have about that. But what I've found is that Free Gracers aren't going to blatantly deny Christ's burial in the gospel, at least not for the most part. And if they do it will be, like I said, a sort of wish-washy unclear statement about it rather than a strong stand. Their main tactic is to ignore it and simply dogmatically assert their position that the gospel is "Christ died for our sins...and rose again." And so it leaves people hanging and wondering, "So what about His burial?" Well, that's when they say, "Well, it's only a proof." Or, "Well, it's a proof." You see what I mean? They may not say it's only a proof, they just say it's a proof. So it leaves people wondering because probably no one will disagree that the burial of Christ is a proof of His death. The real question is: "Yes, but is it part of the gospel." The one does not preclude or prohibit the other. In other words, something can be a proof of the gospel and a part of the gospel at the same time. We know this because, for example, the Bible says that Christ's resurrection is a "proof" that Jesus is God (see Acts 17:31; cf. Rom. 1:4). And of course the resurrection is also part of the gospel. But getting back to my point, which is that the real question isn't whether or not Christ's burial is a proof (everyone agrees that it is), but rather the real question is: "Yes, but is it a part of the gospel as well?" Groundless gospel people say "no". Most say "yes". So you see what I mean? Groundless gospel people are sneaky about it. As my dad has very insightfully observed when he said, "It's not always what they say, it's what they emphasize." That is so true because sometimes groundless gospel people don't come right out and say what they really believe. Oftentimes it's very subtle and deceptive. They will just emphasize Christ's death and resurrection, and make not mention of Christ's burial. That's not necessarily a problem if they believed Christ's burial is part of the gospel (because then the burial would be implied in their statement about Christ's death and resurrection). The problem is not so much that they don't always mention the burial, but rather that they aren't telling people what they really believe until you start going to their church or until you are drawn in more closely. It's cultish. Only when a person is drawn into closer fellowship with groundless gospel people will they tell the newcomer what they really believe, which is that they say Christ's burial isn't part of the gospel. So it's all very subtle and deceptive actually, because they are on record as affirming that when something is not specifically stated it's implied. But in the case of Christ's burial they are inconsistent. When they don't mention Christ's burial, in their view it's not implied, it's denied! Because they are on record elsewhere as denying it in the gospel. It reminds me of when the apostle Paul says, "A little leaven leavens the whole lump" (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9). Notice that Paul doesn't say "much leaven," but rather he says "a little leaven"! I say this because I've read where people say in effect, "Oh, I have bigger fish to fry than to be concerned about Christ's burial in the gospel." But Paul says, and I'm paraphrasing, "Wait a minute, A LITTLE LEAVEN leavens the whole lump." So we need to be careful that we don't leaven the gospel by tampering with it even a little. Also notice in Paul's statement the imagery of bread, just like I was saying in my illustration!
[Continued below...]
So all that to say that I agree with you when you said: "Another thing that is not addressed by the covenant is if the burial is necessary to salvation at all, and I feel like this is a bigger issue as it directly on the gospel itself." Yes I agree. And as I tried to explain, the way that I look at it, not just in regards to the FGA, but more generally how I look at this whole issue in regards to evangelicals as a whole, is to think about it from the perspective of "If it's not denied, it's implied." In other words, oftentimes Christians don't specifically mentioned the burial of Christ when presenting the gospel. Personally, I think why not? Paul did! But maybe people are just summarizing it or "hitting the high points" so to speak. Okay, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. That's fine to summarize it. So in those instances or in those cases, I view the burial of Christ as "implied, not denied". Very rarely, if ever, will you hear someone say that Christ's burial is not part of the gospel. If someone says that, then we have clear false teaching on our hands because it contradicts biblical truth of what the gospel is (see Isaiah 53; Acts 13:26-41; 1 Cor. 15:3-5; all the Gospel accounts of Christ's death, burial, resurrection, etc.). So in regards to the FGA and it's covenant, it mainly is a summary of Christian doctrine and doctrinal truth. So even though the burial of Christ isn't specifically mentioned, I view it as "implied, not denied". And to me that is a helpful way of looking at it because it puts "the ball back in their court," so to speak. You see what I mean? I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. It's sort of like they are "innocent until proven guilty". (If I'm allowed to mix metaphors or switch metaphors from basketball to the legal system.) So that axiom of "If it's not denied, it's implied" (or "It's implied not denied") has really helped me and worked for me in terms of how this all works out in the real world. So those are my thoughts about that.
[Continued below...]
Related to this, I noticed that you asked, "Can people who disagree with this co-operate on an alliance scale?" I would say yes and no. I'm not trying to be evasive, I'm just not sure exactly what you are asking. If you are asking if you can be a member of the FGA even though some members may hold to the "groundless gospel" teaching, I'd say yes you can still join the FGA in spite of that because that particular issue is not directly addressed in the FGA covenant. And as I said, how I view it is that: "If it's not denied it's implied." But if you're asking if I would join the FGA and then "co-operate on an alliance scale" directly or personally with someone who teaches that Christ's burial is not part of the gospel, no I wouldn't. So for example, if I was a member of the FGA and I was at an FGA function and I met another FGA member there who I know believes in the "groundless gospel" (since you asked about that), I would be gracious to that person, I would be polite to that person, I would talk with that person if the occasion arises, that sort of thing. I can't control who attends the FGA conferences. But if I happen to see them there that's fine. Maybe I would ask them if they still believe in that teaching. You know, that sort of thing. Maybe I would say something like, "Well you know, have you thought about this Bible verse and how this Bible verse relates to it?" The way I might look at it is that I would minister to that person. So I would look at it like an outreach to them if they happen to be there or if we happen to meet at the conference. You see what I mean? That one person or those few people who may or may not even be at the conference would not stop me from being a member of the FGA. That's like giving someone free rent in your head or allowing them to control you. What they may or may not do doesn't dictate my actions. That's reactionary. You see what I mean? It reminds me of the Proverb of the lazy man who said, "I'm not going outside because there might be a lion in the streets." (See Proverbs 22:13, 26:13.) Well, yes, there could be a lion in the streets, but are you going to let that stop you from what God has called you to do? I would rather look at it with the mentality or thinking that God will give me the strength to do what He's called and equipped me to do! Amen?
[Continued below...]
You also said in your comments, "This brings up the question of which doctrines—and to what extent—we should use as a basis for organizational identity." Right. And you mentioned some good ones, some good examples of doctrines that you wonder if they would prohibit fellowship or to what extent? I don't necessarily want to get into all the specific different doctrines that may break fellowship or prohibit fellowship -- other than the gospel of course, which is the essential one. I would say everything else is secondary, at least to varying degrees of importance. Like I said, I think we can say they are all important, but which doctrines are the most important? And which doctrines am I personally comfortable with maybe having a different view of and still fellowshipping with other Christians in spite of those differences? Again, I'd say there must be agreement on the gospel, that is, the gospel of grace. Salvation by grace. That is of primary importance. I addressed the issue of Christ's burial. To me, I give people the benefit of the doubt on that and use the axiom "It's implied not denied" or "If it's not denied it's implied." But beyond that, we can have a nice discussion and each person needs to come to their own conclusion about what doctrines they can disagree about and still have some level of fellowship around the core issues. In my view, the more secondary doctrines would be, for example: punitive judgment at the Bema, or Millennial exclusion, or are all believers overcomers? And things like that. To me, those are more secondary. Like I said, they are important doctrines, just not the most important ones.
[Continued below...]
So I'll move on to your next question. You said: "I do not view the FGA with any hostility, but I am wondering if some of these more major issues would have been better to sort in the covenant, rather than leave open. How do we balance doctrinal purity with unity is always the question that comes debated, and what should be done if people under one umbrella disagree on very major issues?" Right. But I think we also need to be careful that we don't become so focused on "gatekeeping" that we become isolationists, which is the other extreme. You will remember that Jesus said, "he who is not against us is on our side" (Mark 9:40, NKJV). The disciples of Jesus wanted to be gatekeepers. They had found someone casting out demons in Jesus' name, and they tried to stop that person because he wasn't part of their clique, their little group of "Us four and no more and I don't know about you three!" But Jesus said no, "if he's not against us then he's on our side." And related to this, I think we also need to remember that Jesus told us to "Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19). I think it's noteworthy that He didn't say, "Go into all the world and be gatekeepers." I'm not saying that truth and doctrinal purity aren't important, they are! But I always remember a slogan from when I was in Bible school that a fellow classmate had on his desk. It said: "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." I think that applies here. You might say, "But didn't the apostle John say, 'I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in truth' (3 John 4)?" I would say yes, and the FGA Affirmations of Belief are true, are they not? The question isn't about whether it's true. You are asking is it specific enough? That's a different question. And you are asking about fellowship related to what other FGA members may or may not personally believe in addition to the FGA Affirmation of Belief. Again, that's a different question. I would say that whatever someone else may or may not personally believe should not dictate or control what you personally do. Because otherwise you are letting them control you, right? I can't control what somebody else may or may not believe. And I don't need to. To me, that's sort of not the issue. I mean, it is a consideration just because it's a possibility, but as I said, don't let that control you because it's just one of those "what ifs". If you start thinking that way it could paralyze you because once you start thinking that way it just snowballs. So I would caution you not to get distracted by that way of thinking. Keep focused on the core things: The Great Commission, the Gospel, salvation by grace, reaching the lost, and asking the question: Does the FGA and it's Affirmations of Belief help to that end? Yes or no? I think it was Fred Lybrand who said, "Sometimes hypotheticals are not helpful." In context, he was specifically referring to the hypothetical scenario called "The Deserted Island Scenario" created by Zane Hodges. But Lybrand's statement has a broader application in that just in general it's true that "Sometimes hypotheticals are not helpful." I'm not saying that they don't exist, they could exist. But to get sidetracked by them, or to focus on them, or to live your life based on "what if" scenarios, I would argue is not the best approach. Rather, try to "keep the main thing the main thing". As I've tried to explain.
[Continued below...]
Lastly, I'd like to share my thoughts in regards to what you said about Ryrie's statement about degrees of fellowship. You said: "This all ties into the concept of degrees of fellowship, which I remember Ryrie mentioning briefly in one of his works, and I was thinking if this principle of degrees of fellowship would be wise to apply to alliances also, rather than being on the minimal of gospel salvation, as although other doctrines may not affect salvation, they may still have a large effect on our Christian walk." Let me just say that I searched high and low for where Ryrie talks about "degrees of fellowship". I was unable to find where he wrote anything specifically about "degrees of fellowship". I'm not saying he didn't, I'm just saying I can't comment on that because I don't know exactly what he said about it in context, if anything. I'm wondering if maybe you were referring to when he talked about levels of fellowship? Or circles of fellowship? The only thing that I was able to find where Ryrie talked about something similar to "degrees of fellowship" is when he talks about circles of fellowship in his book Dispensationalism. (See chapter 12, "A Plea".) And what Ryrie says is really fitting just to quote him on it in closing. You can read his entire statement in context by going to the Free Grace Library page on my blog, and his book can be found there and you can read it. Because what Ryrie says is really helpful in giving us a framework for how to think about this whole issue of fellowshipping with other Christians and to what degree or to what extent. And Ryrie describes it as circles of fellowship. And just to quote the main point that I want to emphasize from what he said about it, notice the following statement of his in particular. Ryrie sort of sums it up by saying,
"The point is simply this: Circles of fellowship are not in themselves wrong; it is our failure or refusal to recognize some of them that is wrong. When someone fails to recognize the larger circles and builds a wall of doctrine or practice around the smaller one, refusing ever to move out of these circles for any reason, he is in error. Equally wrong is the attempt to make believers have the same kind of fellowship with all other believers and not allow them to have the smaller circles of fellowship." (Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded Edition, p. 169.)
So that goes back to what I was saying about how I can have a degree or a level of fellowship with the FGA, while still maintaining a closer degree or level of fellowship with those who may agree more closely on things that maybe are not specifically addressed in the FGA Affirmation of Beliefs. You see the difference? The closer level of fellowship (agreement on the more debatable issues) does not prohibit the wider circles of fellowship around the core essential doctrines. I think that is what you are asking about or wondering about.
Post a Comment