In Search of Truth

I am involved with a just beginning church (whose leader prefers to be called an elder not desiring to be paster but to call one later) He does not require strict adherance to his "reformed theology" with which I have given much study an find no agreement.He does not boldly preach calvinism at the pulpit(but brushes up against it) He does boldly preach. Inteligent yet humble in his approach He thinks along the lines of R.C.Sproul than Calvin. Is there a difference? Isn't this Vat.II (or Calvin II) a softend version of the same? Can there be unity,one body with diversity in doctrinal thinking? He seems to be a better man than most in his obediance and walk with the Lord. Is reformed theolgy heiresy? Should I flee?

For those of us who may not be as familiar with R. C. Sproul or his teachings, would you mind telling us what doctrines are of concern? I would personally rather deal with the doctrines and their Scripturalness, since I do not know much about R. C. Sproul.

Thanks!

R.C. is a person who believes in the reformed tradition coming from Calvin and his 5 points only without double predestination

I believe there are really two good, significant questions embedded here:

1. The Scriptural accuracy of neo-Calvinism or any "4-point", "3-point", or "2-point" Calvinist theology
2. Bases for an individual joining/separating himeslf to a local church

Please allow me to briefly address the first one. Maybe a moderator can split the thread so, we can disscuss the second question in another thread?

First, I do not think a person, over the long term, can be a sub-5-point Calvinist, or neo-Calvinist, as some have called it. Although I strongly disagree with Calvin's teaching and very concept of God, I must admittedly respect his consistency. The five points, also including the absolute sovereignty of God, form a "seamless garment". They are truly intertwined, such that is impossible to separate them, without eventually either turning a blind eye or silencing one's conscience. To accept one point is to accept them all. To deny one is to deny them all.

For example, if one denies the eternal, immutable election of both the saint and reprobate, then they must reject total, inherited depravity of mankind and God's irresistable grace. ... To prove this, let's first come at it by granting "T": If all men are totally depraved, then it is impossible for them to understand the gospel invitation, much less accept it. Therefore, the Spirit must directly move upon them to save them ("I"), because they have no interest in salvation or the gospel (by definition of "T"). Now, if everybody is originally in this condition (by definition of "T"), how do they choose to become saved, if they have no capacity to understand, much less choose righteousness? Since man cannot make this choice for himself, by the definition of "T", and we clearly believe that some are indeed saved, then Who made that choice for them? God? Man could not make the choice, so it must have been God! To answer so would establish the very definition of "U", the unconditional election of the saints and reprobation of the sinners.

Let's try "L", the limited atonenment of Christ's sacrifice for the elect. ... If Christ's sacrifice was only intended to save some, the elect - in fact, it was limited to saving only them, then Who made the choice defining boundary of limitation? Who decided that the cross could save some, but it would offer no power to save others? Would not God have denied some the opportunity to become a Christian, if Christ's sacrifice held no redeeming power for them? When God chose the cross to have limited reach, He defined an inclusive body of elect, thereby condemning the rest, even before they were born - unconditional - thereby, establishing "U".

I just don't think it can be done. Although I meet many more 2-, 3-, and 4-point Calvinists than 5- and 0-point Calvinists, I believe it is impossible to maintain the integrity and consistency of such a position - even amongst its own terms of definition! If a doctrine cannot maintain its own integrity, then it is by definition untrue and unGodly, since neither God nor truth can contradict itself (Titus 1:2, 9; Hebrews 6:17-18).

Secondly, I believe many of the points raised in the articles found on this site show that all 5 of Calvin's points fall on their own individual accord. Please see them for many of the same Scriptural arguments I would raise against the 5 separate points of Calvinism:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/calvinism.html

I believe a "zero point" Calvinist is the only one, who can maintain consistency with the Scritpure.

A new thread was started here:

about152.html

to discuss the generic guidelines for one joining a local church or separating from it.