Bridging the Gap: Discerning Ecumenism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
One of the deepest pains I have experienced has been the hurt of seperation between brothers in the faith. It does hurt of course when we are seperated from brothers and sisters by emotional gulfs, but the pain that I am talking about is the pain of theological seperation anxiety. The sense that there is an unsolvable problem of doctrinal contentions across the span of broad evangelical Christianity. It is a great comfort to meet others who share your beliefs but the nagging itch of seperation continues to surface again and again.

Many have responded to this by minimizing the differences between opposing parties, deriding arguments as academic and trite. They see seperation as so injurious to the church that the actual differences should be ignored and or swept aside to produce a peace. This unity is false, condemnable and insulting to truth itself.

Others have no desire to debate; they have their theological commune. They think denominations are good things which allow differing opinons to worship in peace. After all, no one can be completely right so why stress over trying to prove the other side wrong.

This is certainly not the way I feel that the bible says to approach the problem of a fractured Church. The single statement of Paul alone should banish this kind of thinking far away:

"Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment." 1 Corinthians 1:10

and the Apostle indicates the comfort he would receive by hearing of the Phillipians being united in one mind (Phil 1:27, 2:2)

What can be done to unite both the hearts and minds of Christians that cannot worship together because of their differences? What are you doing at even the grassroots level to promote unity over the truths of Christianity?
 
"What can be done to unite both the hearts and minds of Christians that cannot worship together because of their differences? What are you doing at even the grassroots level to promote unity over the truths of Christianity? "

I think we should continue to speak the truths of scripture and act like a Christian in all the ways we are instructed to in the Word. It is not always (though it often can be) the truth that divides but how we present the truth. I have learned this the hard way, no one likes to be pounded over the head with the truth.

I don't know if I agree that denominations are always a bad thing. I grew up in non-denominational churches and always thought that all the denominations were "bad" because they were causing division, etc.. . Only when I got out of the non-denominational church I was attending did I realize it was basically a "denomination" itself. Truth does divide Christians. If it didn't our churches would be a mess in so many ways with divisions w/in the church and 10 services for whatever type of worship you prefer, etc... .

I understand your desire for unity within the body, but because of 1. our sinful natures and 2. that we must stand for truth, I don't see how there won't be division. One more reason to look forward to heaven, there we will all be in agreement!

[Edited on 6-19-2004 by sailorswife]
 
Ian,

I know what you're talking about. The divisions and separations are such a torment. The testimony that it gives to the world, all other considerations aside, is a source of frustration. I think that one thing that can be done about it is to put into practice the implications of Romans 14:17
"For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit."

The other thing is the question of the standard. To what standard do we appeal? Very often, it seems, Christians of all persuasions will appeal to pragmatism, to sentiment, etc. But we must resist that and appeal to Scripture (Isaiah 8:20). One of the reasons we are so divided is that we do not all judge by the same rule. That primary division leads to other divisions.

Ultimately it boils down to this. Proverbs says "Only by pride cometh contention; but with the well-advised is wisdom." Proverbs 13:10.

In summary, I would say this. In order to unite, we have to have a desire for unity, we have to have a basis for unity, we have to have a sense of perspective, and we have to have humility. We all need to be reformed, renewed, restored. We must summon and encourage one another, and lead by example, in reforming the church in doctrine and in holiness.

What can we do on a grassroots level?
1. "Profane and vain babblings shun, for they will increase unto more ungodliness."
2. "Say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!"
3. "...do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;"

[Edited on 6-19-2004 by py3ak]

[Edited on 6-19-2004 by py3ak]
 
Ian:
There are two main things that I feel are important to this isssue. First, that the points of separation are usually of secondary nature; and second that many disputes are solvable Biblically.

I know that many may disagree, but it seems to me that the text you quoted forces in us the hope that the issue of baptism is solvable. This is contentious issue, and it is a doctrinal point of separation, but of practice mainly. It does not necessarily mean that brothers have to be separated. This I see needs to be a serious concern for the churches, and requires humility from all particapants of debate and discussion.

But there is no reason that things like the Millennium, or apologetical theory peruasions, or differing views on office, or many other recurring controversies be a cause for separation. The fact that they are shows that there is something quite else at the core, and not these issues per se. There are some things that we will not know, but that does not mean that differing views ought to cause division.

What I think is the cause is the breaking of covenant, both personally and corporately, and justifying these breakages by standing on personal convictions. And it is especially the free rein allowed many pastors and leaders in our periodicals and on our pulpits, in putting their two spiritually gifted cents in on the popular trends and controversies that fosters this "everyone doing what is right in their own eyes", in a time when ecclesisatical and theological uncertainty rules the roost. This does not have to be this way.

The tip-off for many of us is not some high-minded theory or formula. It is simply that we cannot join a church without making vows; but we cannot retain membership in good standing unless be break them regularly. Should you raise your objection to something? Yes, but to what? We are choosing the wrong things to object to in our own congregations. What does it matter (though it does) if GA has decided to let stand a slight deviation from traditionally accepted doctrinfe, when in our own congregations we are separating into cliques over differences in perspectives about secondary issues? Are we allowing an elder or a pastor to be loyal first to his own personal persuasions, and then secondarily to the denominational guidelines? Do we not understand that the Apostles did not even allow this among each other in being representative of the gospel for all time? They did not follow their own persuasions. Never. And when they did, they were opposed by each other. Even Paul, though he could have settled the dispute in Antioch on his own authority, did not do so. Unity was paramount, but even more important was their commission, and not to presume licence under that commission. But we have given ourselves licence to pontificate our own persuasions with impunity. And that breaks covenant with the church.

I am on trial because I will not break covenant. I must oppose the assumption that a minister has a right to assert his personal persuasions upon a congregation, and to practice favouritism in his pastorate against those who are not persuaded likewise. A pastor ought never to say to a faithful member that he would be better off going to another Reformed church, when the differences are not even called for by denominational definitions. But I am told that I broke my vows by standing against him. In fact, I was keeping them. So, in order to maintain membership in good standing I am being told to break the integrity of the vows that I made when I solemnly promised loyalty to the gospel and to the fellowship. This is only an example of what really plagues us as churches.

Personal convictions are good to have. But they need to be kept in their proper place, and they need to be handled rightly. Sure, I am convicted of certain things too. I am, as an example, convicted that there is a basic flaw to Presuppositionalism that has led many followers down an arrogant trail. But that is only my conviction. I have no right to step on a brother the Lord has accepted, who may be convicted that Presuppositionalism is key to many solvable problems. I have no more right to my shallow opinion than anyone else, but we all have an obligation to the truths once and for all delivered to the saints. To that we all must submit our heartfelt convictions. And then we must commune together in the unity we have in Christ, not in our common concensus on matters we have no interest to responsibly solve between us.

The churches have a covenant for a reason. And it is defined confessionally for a reason. And our convictions come out a true faith for a reason.

Sorry, Ian, you touched a nerve with me. I don't mean to tell all of you what you ought to do, for that is Christ's place, not mine.
 
I do agree with what Anne and Ruben said. And even though unity is a wonderful thing when we have it, and a thing to be greatly desired, as you pointed out Ian, compromise in any way (even if it's only compromising on emphasis) is unhealthy. So because of that, I agree with Anne that an [i:44f89aa962]abundance[/i:44f89aa962] of unity to a [i:44f89aa962]great[/i:44f89aa962] extent will really never be available on this earth (unless you're a Postmillennialist). That's not to say that all evangelical Christians can't have [i:44f89aa962]some[/i:44f89aa962] sense of mutual love and joy in their sheer adherance to Christ that unites them, but a deep, rich unity of mind is what I think will be largely unavailable beyond a very limited extent, because, as you said, we can't deny the massive implications of the differences. We can't just say to Arminians, "Oh well, you believe that God left some of it up to us, we think He finished every bit. Not a [i:44f89aa962]huge[/i:44f89aa962] difference." Or to the Dispensationalist, "After all, it's only a shift in perspective in a very technical thing, the extent to which such-and-such of the Old Covenant continues today. Not [i:44f89aa962]too[/i:44f89aa962] big a division." We can't say this because, of course, it [i:44f89aa962]is[/i:44f89aa962] a massive difference, in our whole central conceptions of how and why we worship God, and Who He is.

In light of that, Ian, I can't really think of any "practical" ways to increase widespread unity beyond a very limited extent, other than the simple recognition of our agreement on the fact that Christ is wonderful, and the things Ruben mentioned. But in terms of coping with the disunity, and understanding its place in the Church and in God's plan, why we have to deal with it, how we should view it, and what purpose it can serve, I definitely recommend you check out this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5082. I think what was discussed there really puts the place of false teaching and disunity in its proper place.

In Christ,

[Edited on 6-20-2004 by Me Died Blue]
 
[quote:3276f901c7][i:3276f901c7]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:3276f901c7]
the points of separation are usually of secondary nature...it [baptism] is a doctrinal point of separation, but of practice mainly.[/quote:3276f901c7]

John, I agree with most of your post, especially your words on the proper place of individual opinion within a particular denomination or church, and the primacy of confessionalism over it. I also agree that things such a eschatology and apologetical methods should not create too large a gap between believers. But I must admit that I strongly disagree with your statements that I quote above. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you perspective when you say that "the points of separation are usually of secondary nature." If you were referring to points of separation specifically within the Reformed community, then I would essentially agree with you. However, when I read your sentence, I was thinking of points of separation within the whole external church, including such views as Arminianism, Third Wave Pentecostalism, Dispensationalism and the like. And those differences I see as much more significant than secondary.

Furthermore, even in issues like baptism, I disagree that the differences are mainly in practice. The perspectives of paedo- and credobaptism, for instance, represent a major plethora of differences in one's underlying perspective and mindset about some of God's most basic actions and institutions that are key to the Christian life.

That being said, John, I want to emphasize again that I do strongly agree with what you said on individualism versus confessionalism in the church, but I specifically mean the confessionalism within the broad Reformed community.

In Christ,

[Edited on 6-19-2004 by Me Died Blue]
 
Chris,

I think JohnV identified the secondary issues as apologetic methods and eschatological views. Things like that. Or at least that's the impression that I got from his post.

Chris the link you provided takes me right back to this thread...:rant:
 
John

I really enjoyed the point you made about the doctrinal unity found in the early church. When we have such long standing disagreements it seems that there will have to be a violent spiritual work of God on men's hearts to bring them together on issues such as Baptism. For many on the Paedobaptist/Credobaptist divide the other side is commiting a sin. This is certainly not a secondary issue. It has an effect on the whole makeup of how one views the church.
 
Ian, Not that I disagree with you, but children see through the eyes of a child. To you and I, with adult, mature eyes we see. To us whom are mature, the scope of seeing the bible through the holisticicity of Gods word, it is primary. And so, because the church will never be on the same plane, we will always have these divisions.

My pastor once said, "For some reason, this side of Heaven of course, God saw fit to leave it this way".

[Edited on 6-19-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Scott who opens our childlike eyes to truth? Isn't it the Holy Spirit? So if he is our guide how can we rule out that he could unify us doctrinally?

[Edited on 6-19-2004 by Ianterrell]
 
Are the churches exhibited in the NT on the same theological page? Are the seven churches of the Revelation "unified"? On the major essentials, yes, otherwise they are different. In Heaven...........we will all see clearly; not any longer dimly lit, as in a mirror, but face to face.

[Edited on 6-19-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Was Paul talking about sound doctrine when he said we see now as through a mirror dimly? I don't think so. He says now I know in part. He didn't say that he knew things wrongly, only partially. Again there is no reason to completely rule out the Spirit revealing and unifying brothers over doctrinal divides. If so there would be no reason to debate or discuss these things we should just keep our own opinions to ourselves.

[Edited on 6-19-2004 by Ianterrell]
 
For we know (ledge) in part and prophesy in part.......

The word KNOW; Strongs #

G1097

ghin-oce'-ko
A prolonged form of a primary verb; to "know" (absolutely), in a great variety of applications and with many implications (as shown at left, with others not thus clearly expressed): - allow, be aware (of), feel, (have) known (-ledge), perceive, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand.

Knowledge absolute! This we do not have. It is in part and it will always be this way until the day of Christ Jesus.

No one is ruling out the idea that we need teachers; this brings understanding as well as unity. The idea though that we may one day be on the same page, thuis side of Heaven, in my opinion is not biblical.



[Edited on 6-19-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
I would like to put Chris' quote, in its' entirety, in here so that I can clear upa few things, both for Chris and for Ian.

[quote:f78c449ec5][i:f78c449ec5]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:f78c449ec5]
[quote:f78c449ec5][i:f78c449ec5]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:f78c449ec5]
the points of separation are usually of secondary nature...it [baptism] is a doctrinal point of separation, but of practice mainly.[/quote:f78c449ec5]

John, I agree with most of your post, especially your words on the proper place of individual opinion within a particular denomination or church, and the primacy of confessionalism over it. I also agree that things such a eschatology and apologetical methods should not create too large a gap between believers. But I must admit that I strongly disagree with your statements that I quote above. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you perspective when you say that "the points of separation are usually of secondary nature." If you were referring to points of separation specifically within the Reformed community, then I would essentially agree with you. However, when I read your sentence, I was thinking of points of separation within the whole external church, including such views as Arminianism, Third Wave Pentecostalism, Dispensationalism and the like. And those differences I see as much more significant than secondary.

Furthermore, even in issues like baptism, I disagree that the differences are mainly in practice. The perspectives of paedo- and credobaptism, for instance, represent a major plethora of differences in one's underlying perspective and mindset about some of God's most basic actions and institutions that are key to the Christian life.

That being said, John, I want to emphasize again that I do strongly agree with what you said on individualism versus confessionalism in the church, but I specifically mean the confessionalism within the broad Reformed community.

In Christ,

[Edited on 6-19-2004 by Me Died Blue] [/quote:f78c449ec5]

In particular, I was referring to the point of split for each separation that takes place. In essence that would include the followers of Jacob Arminius, if there were any. Please let me explain.

The fact is, whenever there is a parting of the ways, it is a parting out of the same company, out of the same confession. There has been a unity which is broken. And these breakages occur over pride rather than out of soundness of teaching or out of necessity. There are glaring exceptions of course, such as the Reformation itself. So there are also needs to part with an apostacizing church, a church that is doctrinally incorrigible anymore. There are also cases of very unfortunate circumstances, resulting in splits, such as the 1944 split in the GK in Holland, during a time of utmost civil stress and divisions. But these are not what are plaguing us in our time.

There is a great need to stand ever more firmly in the truths of the gospel, and I am ever more sure that the Reformation and its subsequent creeds and confessions are true to that gospel, and are therefore a standard of unity in the Word. But we often make the mistake that the Confessions represent a consensus of the people, rather than a summary of the Word. We may take exception to a particular emphasis in the Confessions, but we ought not to take that exception to include a licence to break unity. The Confessions never claimed that kind of exhaustiveness in doctrine. In fact, it is written so very well so as to include a wide range of freedom of conscience within the unity. Unity means nothing if we are all the same; that obviates the Standards. Unity means something when we can find peace and unity, conforming all our separate expressions of faith under the banner of the One True Faith.

That has been sadly neglected in our time. In the past few decades I have repeatedly found that pastors and elders believe they have the licence to preach their own particular slant of the Confessional standard when they receive the commission of ecclesiatical office. And that is just the opposite of what they do receive. That licence is removed, not given. They must hold to that unity in purpose, in fellowship, and in practice, under the unity in Confession. To propose slight deviations in order to emphaize their own views is inciting division.

For example, a man may strongly believe in Reconstructionism, but when he receives the commission to preach the Word, he is commissioned to preach that which the denomination has set as the standard for Confessional unity. The differences are confined to the Session room. The denomination may rule that Reconstructionism is not outside the Confessional standard, but that is not therefore a licence to preach Reconstructionism within the denomination, for that incites division where formerly there was none. Whereas he may be persuaded of it, he must yet recognize that the denomination is not, by that ruling, a Reconstructionist denomination, and he ought not to preach it as the norm. He must respect his own persuasions for what they are, and not confuse that with the gospel itself. And that is the big mistake that is repeatedly made in our time. And these are the secondary issues that raise themselves too high and cause fracturing of the original unity.

It is the original unity that I say is broken over secondary issues. They become primary after the fact, but not before.

Now, back to followers of Jacob Arminius. Has anyone noticed that we Reformed often have catechism or pastoral classes in which Calvinism is explained. And we do this often. But you won't find, in an Arminian church, Arminianism taught and carefully explained or defended. There is no such thing, really. It is just deviation from the gospel into personal and lax Bible interpretation. The usual stone wall the Reformed runs into when speaking to Arminians is not a well thought out defense, but rather an unwillingness to give up what they consider "free will". Edwards did a great job in exposing that. It really isn't free will at all, and we should refuse to acknowledge it as such. But time and again we argue free will in our circles with the Arminian definition, and we tend rather to confound the problem even for ourselves. But there really are no followers of Jacob Arminius per se. They have no Arminius Clubs, or The Arminian Youth, or a periodical called The Arminian Persuader. I say this only because Chris brings it up, and because it speaks to the underlying issue we face in our own circles. Well said, Chris.

What I am saying is that we have a tendency to elevate our opinions higher than we ought to, and sometimes far too high. Notice the distinct diffference on this discussion Board. Time and again new members join because they sense an atmosphere of love and concern. Notice how wide ranging we are in opinions. Notice also that, by the very nature of the case, opinions are the order of the day, each and every day. Yet you see no breaking of unity here, but rather an ever wider embracing of each other in love. And we are all benefitting more an more as all these different people find unity in the common faith. Don't mistake this for an organized church, but it is a fellowship that is growing. In fact, we are unified, though we have many particular differences. But they are in perspective with the lower importance we put on ourselves and our views in relation to the higher importance we put in the one truth we are all trying to conform to.

In our time this is all backwards. Inour churches we are putting more emphasis on the things we are personally persuaded of, and finding cause to differ with those with whom we are united, and sometimes to the point where it takes over our fellowship, causing division down the road. If we are determined to be united, then they should be rightly perceived and handled at the time when unity still calls us to love and submission to each other. All these things are solvable, if we are willing to let our stubborn persuasions be persuaded by the gospel itself. Instead, pastors are standing on the pulpit propounding their opinions rather than the gospel, confusing the two. And some elders do the same in their counsel to their constituency. So division is already there long before anyone takes a notion to leave a church over issues.

Again, let me say, I am on trial for not accepting that a church could define itself as Reconstructionist to the exclusion of other normally accepted views within the denomination. I am accused of causing division, for not standing idly by, while the licence to elevate personal conviction over denominational covenant is not only excused, but considered the norm. I am upsetting that norm, they claim. At issue is not Reconstructionism itself, though it too has its problems, but rather the right a pastor thinks he has to preach his own particular persuasion when there is no unity on that persuasion. When he becomes an office-bearer, he gives up that right; he is not licenced to spread his own gospel interpretation. But we don't recognize that anymore. It may be the norm now, but that does not change the nature of my vows. So I must maintain the integrity of the faith I hold to, and the unity the denomination confesses to. I am not on trial for the views and opinions I hold.

Can it not be seen that preaching an exclusive interpretation within a denomination that is not united on that interpretation is a separation of unity? Is it not plain to us that it is a breaking of covenant to presume upon one's calling into the ministry, and upon the denomination's rulings, to differ openly with the denomination? Do these "issues" need to be resolved in our periodicals rather than in our Sessions? Do our periodicals really need to rely on the currency of "issues" to have sufficient circulation? Are we not in the trade of dividing churches? All because we do not respect the limits of our pet opinions.

I am in complete agreement with those who wish to maintain doctrinal integrity in the face of the plethora of views out there. You are dead on. What I have said in no way undermines that. In fact, this concern is only possible, I believe, if one holds to the ascendency of the gospel, even over personal views and opinions. I know, that trust in our overseers has been badly beaten, and we are more and more called upon to follow our own leading as we read and study the Word. I realize that full well. But to turn that around we need to begin at a structural starting point within our churches. And that is where my concern lies in these posts, as distinct from the concerns expressed about the divisions that already exist.

We will not find unity unless we all come under the wing of our Lord and Saviour. We can't define that each for himself. Let us let our Saviour define it for us, and let us let the Holy Spirit lead us. Let us put our opinions back where they belong, so that they can foster unity rather than division. Then we are free to discuss our differences openly, and to each other's benefit and upbuilding, as I believe is done on this Board. Why can we not have leaders in our churches like we have here? Let us thank the Lord that some of these men are leaders, and pray that the Lord continues to bless their work. God is not idle, but is working among us. Let us follow Him through His Word.
 
[quote:3926d36a80][i:3926d36a80]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:3926d36a80]
For we know (ledge) in part and prophesy in part.......

The word KNOW; Strongs #

G1097

ghin-oce'-ko
A prolonged form of a primary verb; to "know" (absolutely), in a great variety of applications and with many implications (as shown at left, with others not thus clearly expressed): - allow, be aware (of), feel, (have) known (-ledge), perceive, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand.

Knowledge absolute! This we do not have. It is in part and it will always be this way until the day of Christ Jesus.

No one is ruling out the idea that we need teachers; this brings understanding as well as unity. The idea though that we may one day be on the same page, thuis side of Heaven, in my opinion is not biblical.



[Edited on 6-19-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:3926d36a80]

And I am not seeing a shred of scripture that is supporting your position. Where does it say in the bible that the church will always have some good doctrine and some false doctrine. Paul's words do not support your idea in any way at all. Do you think Paul and Peter had some bad theology? Just because lots of people have disagreed doesn't mean nobodies been right, neither does it mean that we will never have unity. That kind of pessimism lacks a biblical foundation.

The logical result of this idea is a lack of effort to teach those of differing opinions. I can't see how you can get around that. I maintain that the spirit can reveal biblical truth to all ssons of the church. It is up to him. Having partial understanding doesn't mean flawed, it means partial.
 
Ian,
Do the churches portrayed in the Revelation seem unified?

Please tell me what would be required of man to be unified in this fashion. How would that be accomplished? Would that mean that all would need to be academically equal? You may say, well the HS will complete the work. I agree. But Gods word says that this will continue until the day of Christ Jesus.

[Edited on 6-19-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Scott do they seem fractured to you? They don't seem fractured to me. Notice they are called the Church of Ephesus, of Laeodecia. They aren't called the 1st Appollian church of Ephesus, or the first Paulian church of Laeodecia. There was much more doctrinal unity in the Early Church than in the later church. The scriptures tell us this plainly. The scriptures do not say that there will be doctrinal divisions until Christ returns.
 
I agree Ian. They are not fractured along the lines of the essentials; but the church is the same church that it has always been and it is imperfect. It will always be imperfect until the other side.

In regards to doctrinal unity; As long as we need teachers to help with the understanding of Gods word, interpretations will be stained w/ certain amounts of error. This cannot be avoided. This is why the 1st Cor passage is so important. We "see dimly". Based upon the level of light we do have, there will always be differences of opinion on most of the secondary ideas of theology. You say it is contra-scriptural, I disagree. Get the point?

You write:
"The scriptures do not say that there will be doctrinal divisions until Christ returns."

In contrast then Ian, the scriptures would say that unity is inevitable. Where?

The scriptures talk of false teachers, falling away etc. The church perfected will be in Heaven.

You add:
"There was much more doctrinal unity in the Early Church than in the later church."

This is true, what does this say for your theory?



[Edited on 6-19-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
[quote:2520b91db3] I agree Ian. They are not fractured along the lines of the essentials; but the church is the same church that it has always been and it is imperfect. It will always be imperfect until the other side.

In regards to doctrinal unity; As long as we need teachers to help with the understanding of Gods word, interpretations will be stained w/ certain amounts of error. This cannot be avoided. This is why the 1st Cor passage is so important. We "see dimly". Based upon the level of light we do have, there will always be differences of opinion on most of the secondary ideas of theology. You say it is contra-scriptural, I disagree. Get the point? [/quote:2520b91db3]

I got your point the first time you shared it Scott. I [i:2520b91db3]disagree[/i:2520b91db3] with the point.



[quote:2520b91db3]You write:
"The scriptures do not say that there will be doctrinal divisions until Christ returns."

In contrast then Ian, the scriptures would say that unity is inevitable. Where?[/quote:2520b91db3]

My position doesn't demand that the contrast be there expressed in scripture. I'm not the one insisting that unity is impossible, you are. And Scott the church isn't simply divided along secondary issues as you well know. You act as if I'm suggesting there won't be differences. I'm not. There is a difference between differences on essentials and on non-essentials! You seem to be blurring the line. Paul tells us to preserve the bond of peace. Your view doesn't leave room for a bond of peace actually existing. You are terribly pessimistic as far as I can tell to the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth.

"The scriptures talk of false teachers, falling away etc."

All those things existed in the Early Church too!

[quote:2520b91db3]
You add:
"There was much more doctrinal unity in the Early Church than in the later church."

This is true, what does this say for your theory?[/quote:2520b91db3]

It means that unity is possible, whereas you seem to believe that unity is impossible. How do you think you became a Calvinist or any other theological distinctive in the first place? Based on your openess to the truth? Do you think that holding to doctrinal truth makes your understanding of those truth's anyless partial. You are really misuing that 1 Cor text. It doesn't apply here.




[Edited on 6-19-2004 by Ianterrell]
 
Ian writes:
"I'm not the one insisting that unity is impossible, you are."

Ian, did I use that term? I never said that the idea was impossible. In fact, I think I said it is possible, just not this side of heaven.

Ian adds:
"And Scott the church isn't simply divided along secondary issues as you well know"

The majority of the division[i:ce28acbae8] is [/i:ce28acbae8]secondary. Those whom disagree on the primary, find themselves in the heretic or cultic camp.

Ian continues:
"There is a difference between differences on essentials and on non-essentials! You seem to be blurring the line. Paul tells us to preserve the bond of peace. Your view doesn't leave room for a bond of peace actually existing."

Ian, I am not blurring the lines. Maybe we are not understanding each other. In regards to "essentials or non-essentials", see my statement above.

"The bond of peace". Where have I implied that the church universal cannot be peaceful and loving even though these differences remain. I do not love my brothers from Calvary Chapel or my former Baptist church any less even though I have now found true reformed theology. What gave you that impression??? Paedo baptism, credo baptism or church error do not break Chirsts bond of peace.

In regards to my pessimism; I am not at all pessimistic. In fact, I am hopeful. Gods word promises:

Phil 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

1 Cor 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.


The perfect will arrive.............
 
Scott you disagree that there can be doctrinal unity on the earth. I think there can be.



[Edited on 6-19-2004 by Ianterrell]
 
Perfect knowledge and doctrinal unity aren't the same thing. The early church had doctinal unity; they didn't have perfect knowledge.
 
Perfect knowledge brings about perfection in regards to unity. We do not have this as of yet because we are sinfull. The early church were not doctrinaly perfect, why do you think Paul had to rebuke the churches so often in regards to so many issues. They were still growing and learning. Just like us.

Paul points out:

1 Cor 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1 Cor 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1 Cor 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?


There were divisions..........

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.


1 Cor 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1 Cor 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

I want to point out that since the church's inception, the church has done nothing more than [i:3e658cb2a5]divide[/i:3e658cb2a5]. I don't intend to use the term 'divide' in a slanderous fashion, but more so in the way to describe how deficient as men we are. In this months modern reformation magazine, there is, in pull out form, in the center of the magazine, a chart showing the timeline of the church. it starts out as one entity, and over the years, it has splintered into a hundred or so factions. Nowhere in this chart does one see a reverse osmosis of sorts. It has grown outwardly without ceasing. So, Ian, based upon history, your theory proves erred. The trend is in the opposite direction; if anything, the trend shows that over time, it worsens.

I want to add, I do not see this as a terrible thing. This example does not reflect a luntic fringe. I, like you do wish for more unity, more doctrinal harmony and it will assuredly happen, just not in this life.

I exhort you to get the publication and view the chart for yourself.

http://www.christianity.com/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID670376,00.html

[Edited on 6-20-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Scott I don't need to see any charts I'm fully aware of what has been taken place in Church History since Church History began. I disagree with the notion that just because there has been division means there always will be division this side of heaven. Those verses you quoted don't say that those churches weren't meeting together. And I don't see any great theological gulfs existing that weren't addressed by the Eldership and Apostles.

Doctrinal unity is impossible if the Holy Spirit is not the one responsible for revealing truth to men. If that truth still stands than I have no reason to have a pessimistic view of church schizms.
 
Fair enough.

Just a thought.........

What do you think causes division?

[Edited on 6-20-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Ian,

I do not agree with the idea that the early Church had more doctrinal unity then we do now. Some of Paul's letters were written to churches that had very quickly and severely fallen away from what he had preached. Indeed the first 500 years of the church are marked by the constant appearance of heresy more than anything else. And we are not talking minor quibbles here. These doctrinal differences were severe enough to not only prompt the writing of refutations but to even move the secular state into action on many occasions. When one takes into account that these early disagreements resulted in the defining of Christian orthodoxy itself, it is nearly impossible to say that the ancient church militant was more unified than it is today.

If you are trying to say that the unity among the first hearers of the Apostles was greater than that of todays congregations, this may indeed be true, but we have no way of knowing for sure. We do know that it did not take long for entire large bodies of believers to drift significantly from the Gospel and that many of the issues involved were far more theologically damaging than the divisions we face today.


Thanks,
Rob
 
It's a little ironic that a post on unity has sparked controversy! However, it demonstrates the utter practicality of this issue. We can learn how to engage in disagreement without division (since we're not disagreeing about essential things).

A question:
Does whether you are optimistic or pessimistic about the prospects for doctrinal/organizational unity this side of heaven have any bearing on your duty? Do you see it as a duty to avoid, minimise and reverse division where that is possible without compromise of essential doctrines and practices?
 
[quote:9e1671a753][i:9e1671a753]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:9e1671a753]
Depravity and misunderstanding. [/quote:9e1671a753]

Exactly; sin. And because of sin, it will never change in this regard because men will never be able to see truth as goldy truth really is; especially in a unified manner.



[Edited on 6-20-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top