Unity and the Early Church

Post by **_Paidion** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:11 pm

The word translated as "doctrine" in your New Testament is the Greek word "didache" (pronounce the "ch" as two separate phonetic elements, and the final "e" as a long "a"). This word which simply means "that which is taught" or "teaching".

Today, the word "doctrine" seems to refer to a teaching or belief about theological matters.

In the New Testament, the word appears to be used exclusively for teaching about righteous living.

"Doctrine" in its modern connotation, does not divide disciples of Christ who understand their allegiance to Christ.

In its apostolic meaning, it does divide. For example, the apostles clearly stated the necessity of righteous living. Yet some "Christians" today state that our manner of living our lives has no bearing on our "salvation" since our "salvation from hell" is not of works, but is based on Christ "taking our punishment for us". Some of them say, "My sins are forgiven, past, present, and future". They don't usually add it, but the implication often is "so I can live as I please". One woman said to my wife, "If I went out and murdered someone tomorrow, and didn't repent, I'd still go to heaven."

I don't think a true disciple could fellowship (in the Christian sense) with those I have described above. Such do not understand the purpose of Christ's death.

Post by **_postpre** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:48 pm

Today, the word "doctrine" seems to refer to a teaching or belief about theological matters.

In the New Testament, the word appears to be used exclusively for teaching about righteous living.

How do you account for the following verses:

Acts 17:19- And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, "May we know what this new doctrine is of which you speak?

Romans 6:17- But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

Romans 16:17- Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.

Ephesians 4:4- That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,

1 Timothy 1:3- As I urged you when I went into Macedonia--remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

1 Timothy 4:16- Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.

1 Timothy 5:17- Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

2 Timothy 4:3- For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;

Titus 1:9- Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

Hebrews 6:1-2- Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles (didache) of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,Of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

2 John 1:10- If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;

"That which is taught" includes one's manner of life and the theological convictions he holds.

Brian

[/quote]

Post by **_Paidion** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:03 pm

"That which is taught" includes one's manner of life and the theological convictions he holds.

Brian, please show conclusively that in just one of the scriptures you quoted "that which is taught" refers to theological convictions. That's all you have to do to prove me wrong.

Whereas to show that I'm right, I would have to take every single reference to "doctrine" and show that each one of them refer to teaching about righteous living. I believe this could be done, but it would take a lot of time to deal with every one of these passages. You can do it by just dealing with one, any one!

Post by **_postpre** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:35 pm

Paidon, how can the "doctrine of baptisms" refer to righteous living?

When Paul, in Ephesians 4, describes being carried about "by every wind of doctrine" how can this be tantamount to being carried about by those who would solely promote some kind of "unrighteous living" experience?

Brian

Post by **_Christopher** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:20 pm

Hi Brian,

The points you listed are not exactly an accurate assessment of what I was saying. Perhaps I've mis-communicated my point.

I have much more to say about this, but little time at the present so I'll have to come back and respond more fully later.

I agree with Paidion on his point also, but I'll resist the temptation to answer for him on your last question.

Lord bless.

Post by **_Paidion** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:16 pm

Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. Hebrews 6:1,2 NASB

As you notice, the NASB uses the word "instruction". But that 's neither here nor there. Yes, Brian this is a valid example, for the word used is "didache". I concede that teaching about baptism, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal (or rather "permanent") judgment can include theological exposition. Yet each one of these is related to our salvation. And our salvation is from sin ---- actual not positional. As we participate in the process of being delivered from sin, we are "working out our salvation" and hence righteous living is the result of the above "instruction" or "doctrine".

When Paul, in Ephesians 4, describes being carried about "by every wind of doctrine" how can this be tantamount to being carried about by those who would solely promote some kind of "unrighteous living" experience?

This one is easier for me to answer. There were plenty of teachers in Paul's day who did promote unrighteous living in their teaching. An example is the Nicolaitans (whose deeds Jesus hates). They were supposedly followers of the apostolic deacon Nicolaus. Here is what the Nicolaitans said about Nicolaus, according to Clement of Alexanria (153-217 A.D.):

Nicolaus, they say, had a lovely wife. When after the Saviour's ascension he was accused before the apostles of jealousy, he brought his wife into the concourse and allowed anyone who so desired to marry [copulate with] her. For, they say [and taught? "didasko", verbal form of "didache"] , this action was appropriate to the saying: "One must abuse the flesh." Those who share his heresy follow both his action and his words simply and without qualification by indulging in the gravest enormity. Stromata Bk 3 Ch

The apostle John also made reference to gnosticism or pre-gnosticism, those who denied the humanity of Jesus. One category of gnostics believed that Yahweh the creator of all material things thought he was the supreme God, but was mistaken. They taught that the Father of Jesus was the supreme God, and that He was a different God from Yahweh. The Father was a truly spiritual God. Matter including flesh was inferior, and so it didn't matter what you did with it. So this kind of gnostic taught that it was okay to live a promiscuous life.

Post by **_Steve** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:10 pm

Hi Brian,

I agree with much of what your post of says, though I would like to clarify a couple of points about my position. You have not quite grasped my thinking on this (which I believe is probably also that of Christopher and Paidion), when you write:

"Your view relies heavily upon the idea that the Spirit has no real doctrinal agenda today and is leading individuals into different doctrinal conclusions. "

I do not think that my (or our) view denies the value of correct theology, and we each have very pronounced theological views (not all shared among us) on most controversial subjects, which we enjoy debating and defending against other views.

In fact, we all would be very pleased if all Christians would recognize our own particular positions as the "apostolic doctrine"—but that's just the point, isn't it? We all want to agree with the apostles; we all want to do worthy exegesis; we all desire to be led by the Holy Spirit in our theological opinions...but whose viewpoint shall we all conform to? Which of us is doing these things right, and which is not? We all think we have the mind of the Spirit, but, at this present time, there is no unanimity as to which opinion is correct.

I believe that the Holy Spirit is quite concerned to lead all of us into "all truth," including theological truth. He does not lead different people into contradictory views on the same topic. Whenever someone's view is incorrect, I believe the Holy Spirit desires and intends to lead that person into a fuller knowledge of theological truth, as well as into holy living. In some sense, those who are wrong in their beliefs have yet to be led by the Holy Spirit into the correct view, though they do not yet realize this. Therefore, we must always suspect that "they" may be "us"!

My thesis concerning unity is that we need to recognize what is and what is not "essential" doctrine so that we will know whom to recognize as true brethren and whom to reject. I agree with Paidion (and Christopher) that the concern of the biblical writers in their use of the word "doctrine" is primarily related to behavior, not beliefs.

We all acknowledge that there must be an essential core of belief that separates a Christian from a non-christian, but when we search the scriptures, that core seems to be restricted to general affirmations that Jesus is "Lord," "Messiah," and "the Son of God," as well as the belief that He died for our sins and rose again the third day. Proper explanations of the way the atonement is to be understood, or the exact nature of the relationship between the Son and the Father, the precise manner in which history will end, or how much God did or did not predestine of the affairs of men, etc., do not make the biblical list of essential theological affirmations for recognition of the brethren.

We all have our ideas about such things, but we realize that those who love and follow Jesus as their Lord and who disagree with us on these other matters are brethren as well. We "receive one another, just as Christ received us" (Rom.15:7). We look forward to the time when the Holy Spirit will have led us all into all truth, when we can "comprehend with all the saints" all that God intends for His church to know (Eph.3:18).

In the meantime, we take what we can get. All true Christians can meet together, rejoice together, fellowship together, dialog and learn together, upon the basis of the things that all Christians already know—i.e., that Jesus is Lord, and we are obliged to obey Him. We must be content to wait as long as it may take for full doctrinal agreement to be achieved. In the meantime, we search the scriptures together in a spirit of unity, "speaking the truth in love" until we grow-up into Him in all things (Eph.4:15).

In other words, there is no discount here on the value of theological understanding. There are just some things more important, which now exist and which we can enjoy while we work toward that for which we must wait.

Post by **_Christopher** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:16 am

Thanks Steve. You have a way of expressing what I'm thinking much better than I can.

. You're truly a blessing brother

.

Brian,
I almost feeling like I'm wasting cyber-space by adding to Steve's reply because he already stated much of what I feel as well on this topic. But...I promised.

you wrote:

Here's what I think. There's nothing inherently wrong with your approach to the issue of unity (or with Steve's recorded message). As I see it, your view can be broken down as follows.

1) A strong case can be made that pure doctrine was settled by the Apostles of Christ in the first century.

Actually, as I see it, there doesn't seem to be any biblical evidence of an apostolic systematic theology (like we have today) that would include all the topics Christians disagree about and divide over. I do believe that the teachings of the apostles were inspired of God and authoritative to all of the church, but I just don't know whether they really taught on all these topics since we only have the NT as a record. Much of our doctrine (even some of what is considered "essential" doctrine) today are merely deductions from things that apostles wrote. Not that I think that there's anything wrong with deducing truth from fragments of scripture, but I'm just not sure that it was as spelled out in the early church as it is today after dozens of church councils.

2) However, today being so far removed from Apostolic times, there's really no way to ascertain (beyond a shadow of a doubt) what this pure doctrine consisted of.

I don't remember saying (or even implying) that. But I will admit that I think that it is a pretty big hurtle given that we are 2000 years and at least 2 languages (1 of them extinct) removed. Many competent and godly scholars (more Spirit filled than I) still disagree on many points.

3) When the Bible emphasizes unity among believers it does not teach uniformity of beliefs on all doctrine. Doctrine is not brought up when unity is discussed.

No, the point I'm trying to make is that "sound doctrine" is not what we presently make it out to be. As far as I can deduce, it's always used in the context of obedience to the Lordship of Christ. Unity is discussed and exhorted as an attitude or spirit, not signing on to a creedal statement.

4) Even though there was at one time a pure doctrine to be contended for, perhaps the Bible forsaw that down the line denominations would spring up. This is why when unity is discussed in the Bible doctrine is not emphasized.

Refer to reply to #3. I would add that it would appear that denominations were already forming even in the days of the apostles (see 1 Cor chapters 1 thru 4).

5) Hence if we are going to obey the Biblical mandate we will not make a huge deal about doctrine. Unity instead of doctrine should be our primary concern.

That is certainly not my position and I hope you don't think I'm an advocate of the ecumenical movement and the WCC. I believe that only the truth sets free (John 8:32) and love is it's trailblazer (1 Cor 13:2).

For point 1, I am in absolute agreement. I think point 2, however, is flawed. If believe a strong case can be made that the role of the Spirit was and is to confirm and teach Apostolic doctrine. Furthermore, there are logical and methodological principles to studying the Bible that can lead us to a correct doctrinal teaching on a particular topic.

Which ones? And how do we know which methods are inspired of God? There are some methods which want to take everything literally, and others that spiritualize. Some that look so deeply at the meaning of the original words that they totally discount idioms. So how do you choose?

The fact that there was a true Apostolic teaching on a particular doctrine renders point 3 above inconclusive. Many (or all) of the verses on unity would have presupposed agreement on doctrine. This would have been an unquestionably important facet of unity.

I would just have to ask, how do you arrive at this conclusion? I defer to my first response above.

The Biblical writers never foresaw what we encounter today (hundreds or even thousands of denominations). Thus, we cannot be certain what course of action they woud have wanted us to take if another Christian taught things contrary to the teachings of the Apostles (Point 5).

Again, I think they not only foresaw it, but they did see it in their own day (1 Cor ch 1-4). Paul indicated that a teachers work (in other words, their teachings) would be tested:

1 Cor 3:12-15
12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
NKJV

He was including himself, Apollos, and Peter. And he said that he doesn't even judge himself on this, but leaves that to God (1 Cor 4:3-5). No wonder James warned teachers of a stricter judgement (James 3:1).

But we know that the early Church Fathers (some of whom were discipled by the Apostles or by someone who was) contended that it was important for all Christians to remain in the Apostolic teachings. They expected nothing less from every Christian.

Amen to that.

Lord bless.

Post by **_Paidion** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:22 pm

Thanks so much, Steve. You have clearly expressed the truth concerning Christian Unity.

I especially appreciated the following paragraph:

"We all acknowledge that there must be an essential core of belief that separates a Christian from a non-christian, but when we search the scriptures, that core seems to be restricted to general affirmations that Jesus is "Lord," "Messiah," and "the Son of God," as well as the belief that He died for our sins and rose again the third day."

Post by **_postpre** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:52 pm

Steve,

I respect your attitude concerning unity. Your claim that sound doctrine denotes a posture of character, rather than what we would refer to as theological content, is a little shaky, IMO. While godly attitude is important, there is simply no way to absolutely prove from the passages that I quoted that at least some theological content is implied. The early church, also, seemed to understand it my way as well.

Proper explanations of the way the atonement is to be understood, or the exact nature of the relationship between the Son and the Father, the precise manner in which history will end, or how much God did or did not predestine of the affairs of men, etc., do not make the biblical list of essential theological affirmations for recognition of the brethren.

We all have our ideas about such things, but we realize that those who love and follow Jesus as their Lord and who disagree with us on these other matters are brethren as well. We "receive one another, just as Christ received us" (Rom.15:7).

Like you, I don't think I need to agree with another Christian on all of the above mentioned points in order to recognize them as brethren, or to have significant fellowship.

But, if true apostolic doctrine can be ascertained and if the Holy Spirit is still leading Christians to these convictions, then I see nothing wrong with attempting to preserve these teachings in a local Church; even going to the extent of having a doctrinal statement, and making other aspiring leaders agree to its conditions.

As you pointed out, there's the chance that one's doctrinal statement is not entirely correct. But if you live with the assumption that there is an apostolic teaching on a doctrine, you are not wrong to enforce it in a local body.

Love should characterize dealings with Christians who disagree; but as long as one's conscience is clear before God, they have the right to uphold a teaching as crucial for the Church. God will judge conscience.

Brian