the7ones.com

Here are a few realizations I have come to as a result of reading the comments on graceconversation.com:

1. The format of the discussion is conducive neither to either learning nor to resolution. Although it is always good to have an “open forum” situation, an open forum where everyone is chattering non-stop and chasing rabbit trail after rabbit trail is useless. Unless, of course, one wants to promote confusion. I appreciate the attempt at dialogue, but it is not working. It has turned into a brilliant opportunity for progressive bloggers to attack and ridicule conservatives, and backslap and cheer one another on as they do so.
2. Although I started reading the site with the thought that most progressives are kind and open minded, I have instead learned from graceconversation.com that the majority of progressive bloggers are just as close minded as those they accuse of the same. I have lost a lot of respect for some of my progressive friends due to their actions, language, and tone in the comments on the site.
3. Finally, I have come to the realization that graceconversation.com is damaging the image of the church. I know that those who started the site desired for a good, productive dialogue to take place, but the comments section has become a place for those who are disgruntled with the church to teach everything from denial of God’s plan of salvation, to “original sin,” to religious pluralism.

To Jay Guin and Todd Deaver, I ask you: Is this the result you had in mind?

Greg Tidwell and Phil Sanders, I appreciate the great job you are trying to do. Jay and Todd, I have read your articles as well, and though I do not agree with your positions, I appreciate your kind manner.

I am sure no one is interested in my opinion, but I think you need to close down the comments section, unless you plan to moderate the way people speak to each other, and what doctrines they teach. If this does not happen, you are simply sponsoring a forum for Christians to be led into false doctrines.  Alternately, what would be wrong with an actual moderated debate?

If you do not agree with the doctrine of “original sin,” why have you allowed it to be openly taught on your site? If you still hold to the biblical teaching that baptism of those who come to faith is necessary for salvation, why are you allowing those who oppose God’s teaching on salvation to run free on your site?

Just my humble opinion, but it appears what started out as an interesting way to hold a discussion, has instead played directly into the hands of those who want to change the simple teachings of the church into a more denominational form, not to mention those who come by just to ridicule the church. In the comments section, the church is being held up to open shame!

I enjoyed passing by there occasionally, but I will be staying about my own work and avoiding the site until a more useful format is implemented.

May God bless you all as you seek to serve Him according to His will,

Matt

He was quite convinced his view was correct. “After all, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, therefore it must not be sinful,” he said. When he was approached with the fact that the New Testament condemned homosexual behavior (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 7), he said, “I only go by what Jesus said.” This fellow had a belief that he was only obligated to obey what was printed in “red letters” (denoting words spoke by Jesus). If Jesus did not say it in red letters in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, he did not feel bound to obey!

This story came to mind while I was pondering the fellowship issues being discussed at graceconversation.com and the myriad confusing comments passers-by are leaving following the writer’s blog entries. One of the current claims in the “progressive” camp is that since there are no passages that specifically say those who worship differently from the New Testament pattern should not be fellowshipped, that we therefore are obligated to accept any error in worship practice in full fellowship. Continue reading →

Based upon an overview of some key New Testament passages as found in the brief studies I presented last week, below is a list of reasons for withdrawing fellowship according to the Bible: Continue reading →

1. Congregational autonomy, 1 Cor. 5-6

2. Babes in Christ

3. Willful, unrepentant sin

Greg Tidwell, Phil Sanders, Jay Guin and Todd Deaver have begun a conversation on fellowship issues at graceconversation.com. Greg’s first contribution is here. Phil’s is here. Todd’s first entry is here.

I will likely keep my commentary on the discussion here on the the7ones.com to keep it from getting lost, since there are probably going to be a lot of comments on the site.

The following is a response to an article by Todd Deaver on his website.

As I continue to study through some fellowship passages on this site, I need to take some time to reply to some comments Todd has had on my review of his book.

Todd writes on his website,

Having begun a review of Facing Our Failure several weeks ago with a summary of the book’s argument (Part 1), Matt Clifton has resumed his critique this week.
In Part 2, posted 25 March, Matt lays some groundwork by offering three basic facts about fellowship that all must admit:
1. God wants his people to be united.
2. Not every instance of sin is a reason for the breaking of fellowship.
3. There are cases where fellowship between God’s people must be severed.
I can offer my unequivocal agreement with all three principles, so we do have at least this much common ground on which to build.

It is good to read of Todd’s agreement on these principles. There are some out there who are arguing from the point of inclusiveness merely on humanistic, social grounds. They interpret the Bible in light of current culture, instead of understanding it as God’s inspired message for all time. While I do think many so-called “progressives” are steeped in postmodern and “emergent” philosophy, if we stick to these three rock-solid principles, we do indeed have a base from which to work.

Todd also says,

it is the fact that conservatives preach and practice differing positions on what is scriptural and what is sinful and remain in fellowship with each other, while claiming that it is sinful to have fellowship with brothers who teach or practice error regarding what is scriptural and what is sinful.

Todd is correct in this statement, but incorrect in limiting it to only “conservatives.” So-called “progressives” also are inconsistent in their fellowship practices. I have talked with many since first becoming aware of Todd’s book, and some have expressed that they will fellowship even those who have not been baptized for the remission of sins according to the New Testament teachings. Others will fellowship only those baptized according to God’s plan, regardless of whether they are living faithfully. Further still, some “progressives” will not fellowship those continuing in living open, sinful lives. So you see, Todd is only pointing at “conservatives,” when he should also be indicating that even those who support his views are in disagreement over their own fellowship practices, as well. Will Todd admit that “progressives” are also in contradiction in terms of fellowship? Continue reading →