Salvation by faith and works..?

[Josh]

So do we believe choosing to sin sends you to hell or not?

[Paul]

So do we believe choosing to sin sends you to hell or not?

Yes, but when we are born again we will not choose to sin habitually because we received a new heart with new desires. As 1 John 3 says, those that are born again cannot sin:

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

I read that as habitually and wilfully remain in sin, since it is obvious that nobody is sinless except of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I don't think David or Peter are in hell.

[Josh]

In other words "it is obvious" that 1 John is not actually true and doesn't mean what it says.

[Sudsy]

In other words "it is obvious" that 1 John is not actually true and doesn't mean what it says.

1 John also says we do sin and if we say we don't we are liars.

I think this is a good explanation - https://www.gotquestions.org/do-Christians-sin.html

[MattY]

buckeyematt2,

I would ask this: nobody in one of the CMC affiliates near me wears the veiling who is under 40. I think it's something the Bible teaches.

Likewise, carrying guns for self defence is quite widespread in the membership there.

Another church here affiliated with the CMC until last year has a preacher who teaches Jesus might have been just a man and it's not important to view him as God, and also has pretty open views on homosexuality.

And yet another took "Mennonite" off its sign and has abandoned any pretence of nonresistance.

Is this a good or a bad trend?

I think I know which churches you're talking about. I don't see it all as the same trend.

First of all, the (current) CMC churches - I disagree with them on the veiling, and I agree with you that it's something the Bible teaches. But I think it's a difference in doctrine and practice, but not a salvation issue, or not something that makes them heretics or living in sin.

The church that took "Mennonite" off its sign...I disagree with them about nonresistance and other things, of course. But I respect them immensely for taking a stand and getting out of the MCUSA. (They joined the Fellowship of Evangelical Churches).

The former CMC church that you mentioned - I don't know how it was still CMC for so long. Fits much better in the MCUSA. But their direction is not at all the same as the one that dropped Mennonite off its sign.

And their direction shows the importance of orthodoxy. When you decide that orthodoxy is less important than orthopraxy (both are important), and that the gospel is simply a message of peace to the world, then that is the road that the Mennonite Church went down - perhaps starting down it as early as Harold Bender's Anabaptist Vision, which in its view of the gospel focused on what man does instead of what God does. Bender was definitely orthodox, but his vision de-emphasized that, and later generations ignored orthodoxy and went down the path of neo-orthodoxy and liberalism, thinking they were being faithful to Anabaptism. That's my diagnosis of what went wrong, and why what is happening today is not necessarily the same thing. We are committed to biblical inerrancy, theological conservatism, etc.

How exactly does one embrace seekers and what do you teach them when obedience is a moving target? Kapps today, veils tomorrow, no coverings next year, short haircuts in 10 years.

(There's plenty more to talk about in the slide to worldliness but I think that's enough to work on for now.)

That's a good question and I'm not sure how to answer, but it seems to me that I would tell seekers to obey God and His Word by, first, living by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Don't identify the applications themselves as the obedience; applications can change, basic obedience doesn't, and principles don't (or shouldn't) change. If you are a member of a church with standards, then submission comes into play, by following the existing standards, or else finding another church; submission doesn't mean the standard is good or that it can't change, but you don't go around defying the church and being a stumbling block.

[Josh]

Okay, so the veiling, nonresistance, and no divorce and remarriage - these are not part of orthodoxy - exactly who decides what's part of orthodoxy and what's just optional?

Why do Calvin and Luther decide our orthodoxy?

[KingdomBuilder]

I do not know of ANY Evangelical groups that give a license to sin. But then who has been to every single Church in America to be able to know what they teach?

I'd say most evangelical groups do. It's not as easy to see as writing on the wall, but it's there.

[cmbl]

Is a license to sin something that you teach or something that you do?
Is easy-believism something that you teach or something that you do?

I have observed a pattern: Josh or KB or I will share an observation about what a group of people does, only to be met with someone saying, "but they don't teach that!"

"The church which holds the correct doctrine of grace..."

[Sudsy]

Is a license to sin something that you teach or something that you do?
Is easy-believism something that you teach or something that you do?

I have observed a pattern: Josh or KB or I will share an observation about what a group of people does, only to be met with someone saying, "but they don't teach that!"

"The church which holds the correct doctrine of grace..."

And, as has been mentioned many times, this 'group', often called 'evangelicals ' should not be characterized as a group that willfully sins anymore than other groups. It would be nice if we could follow this verse - "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand." I think we can talk about various forms of sin without judging groups of believers, especially when we know it isn't true of everyone in a group. Yes/No ?

[Valerie]

Is a license to sin something that you teach or something that you do?
Is easy-believism something that you teach or something that you do?

I have observed a pattern: Josh or KB or I will share an observation about what a group of people does, only to be met with someone saying, "but they don't teach that!"

"The church which holds the correct doctrine of grace..."

And, as has been mentioned many times, this 'group', often called 'evangelicals ' should not be characterized as a group that willfully sins anymore than other groups. It would be nice if we could follow this verse - "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand." I think we can talk about various forms of sin without judging groups of believers, especially when we know it isn't true of everyone in a group. Yes/No ?

I think it behooves us to think of the example our dear Lord Jesus used to discourage us from doing this- what do you think He was trying to convey, or warn against here?

Luke 18:9-14King James Version (KJV)

9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.