Unity and the Early Church

Post by **_TK** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:22 am

Hi dave-

i agree with everything you said, even the bolded part that seems to be exactlty the opposite of what i said. my personal viewpoint is expressed in the bolded portion of your post. that's exactly why this forum is so great-- because we can toss around ideas and learn from each other.

but many people (most?) are not like that. they dont want constant challenging to their beliefs, either because they are lazy or insecure, or perhaps just set in their ways. they find comfort in their stagnation. personally, i like a good discussion and i like being challenged. but if asked i could rattle off about 25 names right off the top of my head of people in my church who probably could care less. that's why i try to hang out more with those that do

TK

Post by **_AARONDISNEY** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:38 am

Or maybe, TK, it's not that they are "lazy" but are firmly established in their beliefs. I firmly believe that man has went to the moon. There is a group that says it was a hoax. I don't care in the least to spend countless hours trying to establish the credibility of the fact that we landed on the moon.

You must realize that there are people that are solid in their beliefs and base them from scripture. If they are people like us they can get on a forum such as this and discuss away until their heart's content. But that's not the type of thing that I believe that God intends for our gathering together to worship Him in unity. Not that we can't peaceably disagree, but I don't go to church to debate the Bible and whittle it down to the truth, I go to worship God and to be ministered to with my brothers and sisters by His Holy Ghost.

Post by **_TK** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:35 pm

this is one of those topics where it seems i happen to agree with whoever wrote the last post. i think that indicates 1) there are some persuasive people here and 2) there is something to both sides of the issue 3) i am too wishy-washy.

let's face it-- as a practical matter this may not come up very often. in the 7 years since i have been attending my current church, i can think of one significant doctrinal dispute that occured; about 10 people left the church as a result, which likely was the best ultimate solution.

TK

Post by **_Rae** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:19 pm

Aaron, does the fact that people disagree about certain things necessitate an ongoing debate? Would somone teaching a different opinion on a non-essential matter necessitate debate?

Or is that really what this discussions is about... what are the essential things that there can be no debate on in the Church (big C church)? What are the things that we are not willing to allow teachers to bring in?

In my mind, there is a line somewhere (I'm just not sure where) and I think that the church at large has generally not put the line at a place where it included enough people.

But I do think that there is a line that should not be crossed. I wouldn't bring in (if I was an elder, which I don't believe I can be, nor would I want to be, so this is VERY hypothetical) a "Christian" turned Athiest to teach a class so that everyone can have a variety of opinions... or a mormon, or JW, or someone else who denied something that was ESSENTIAL to Christianity. The slippery slope that I could see happening with some of the comments made by others is that maybe we should bring in these people to teach on a variety of things so that we can all grow and mature through it.

I think Aaron is right in that we need a safe place to come together with true believers who love the Lord and are committed to following Him no matter what. A place where heresy is not going to be taught as truth. But what should we consider heresy? That's my question. What are the things that we will not allow to be taught to the young sheep who, if we are an elder, we have a job to protect? I think maybe that is where some of the disagreement lies.

It seems that many on this forum feel that the different churches have made their boundaries of orthodoxy too small, and should be open to more differences in things not essential to someone being a follower of Jesus.

Post by **_Steve** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:55 am

An atheist would, of course, have no place in any church, since no atheist could confess that Jesus is the Son of God.

A Mormon or a JW should not be "brought in to teach" in the church—that is, as an outsider coming in to indoctrinate the church. However, if a Christian with JW-like theology but a meek and loving spirit thought himself a Christian and was willing to be a part of the fellowship of the saints—not to win converts to his views, but merely to be a part of the Christian community—what biblical reason can we produce to forbid him?

Our problem may be that we have never seen an Arian or a trinitarian who was not determined to win everyone else over to his side of the dispute. Determination to win the debate is not necessary. What if love for Jesus and love for the brethren were the leading qualities of everyone in the church (since they are the leading qualities of true disciples, this should not be unrealistic), rather than demanding that everyone conform in their opinions? Couldn't mature Christians tolerate some who were confused about these disputed questions? What did Paul mean when he said, "Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things" (Rom.14:1)?

I think most Christians are afraid of this kind of open discussion and would prefer to pick a church where everyone believes as they already do because Christians find it threatening to think critically about or challenge the views in which they find their security. I have two thoughts about this attitude:

First, our security should not be in our views, but in Jesus Christ.

Second, if we are too mentally weary to search the scriptures and refine our grasp of biblical truth (and thus want for the pastor to do all that "heavy lifting" for us), it may very well be because we are expending our mental energy in other pursuits less worthy of our time and attention. How much serious study of the scriptures might the average Christian find the time and energy for, if there were no televisions, DVDs or videogames to rob them of their valuable time?

To "love the Lord your God...with all your mind" (Matt.22:37) and to be "valiant for the truth" (Jer.9:3) would seem to produce a more lively interest in such critical examination of the traditional beliefs handed down to us by our denominations. Why can't we be bothered by such a pursuit of truth?

Post by **_Jim** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:24 am

A BIG Amen!! steve.

I do believe the Good News aka gospel is so simple but we make it hard. I feel that most teachings won't lead to death, but thier are some. What I mean by teachings that won't lead to death for example is calvinism/arminian debates.

Jim

Post by **_AARONDISNEY** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:17 pm

Steve wrote: A Mormon or a JW should not be "brought in to teach" in the church—that is, as an outsider coming in to indoctrinate the church. However, if a Christian with JW-like theology but a meek and loving spirit thought himself a Christian and was willing to be a part of the fellowship of the saints—not to win converts to his views, but merely to be a part of the Christian community—what biblical reason can we produce to forbid him?

There is never in my mind any problem with one with this sort of doctrine to enter into my particular church. And it's not a problem if they explain privately what they believe. It is a problem though if they were allowed time to speak their false doctrine in a setting where they are the speaker. That is not for them to do.

What Biblical reason do I have for this belief????

Gal 1:8-9
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
(KJV)

2 Cor 11:3-4
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
(KJV)

Gal 5:10-12
10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
(KJV)

II Jn 1:9-10
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
(KJV)

So I think it's obvious enough from the Bible that a person with JW beliefs should never be allowed to speak in the Church of their doctrines because they are false. If they do come into the church....great!! But they better keep their beliefs to themselves, change them, or be politely (if possible) asked to keep quiet....

So there is Biblical reason for my beliefs.

Post by **_Christopher** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:38 pm

1 John 4:20-21
20 If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

I personally would not want to stand before God someday faced with the knowledge that I did not act in love toward a brother in Christ by ostracizing him for not sharing my beliefs. Since I don’t know who is and is not a brother/sister, I prefer to use the biblical example given by the apostles:

1 John 5:1-3
5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.
NKJV

I’d rather attend a church with people I disagree with but are committed to keeping the commandments of Jesus than a compromised church that shares my views. Unfortunately, we too often choose the latter.

I’ve heard much lip service from pulpits about “unity” and “love for the brethren” from the same people who will not fellowship with others of different viewpoints. Many churches will forbid the exercising of a persons’ gifts and callings in “their church” because someone can’t sign on to their statement of faith. I agree with Rae that there is a line that is to be drawn, but it's become far too narrow.

John says:

21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.
NKJV

And what is love? You know where I’m going next.

1 Cor 13:4-8
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
NKJV

Is it “loving” for a church to treat those with differing (or changed) opinions like they’re not welcome in their congregation? Most church leaders these days won’t come out and say it, but they sure have a way of “encouraging” people to find another congregation if they don’t agree with them. I find that attitude no different than Peter’s when he gave gentiles the cold shoulder. Ironically, he was sharply rebuked for it from a guy that once persecuted the church.

I presently fellowship with a house church that I share many fewer views with than I did with my previous church. However, this group is more committed to following Jesus and is more spiritually alive than my previous church ever was. The people there hunger and thirst for righteousness. Jesus is the center and whoever loves and obeys Jesus is welcome. We have discussions about many things and everyone feels free to use the gifts and callings God has given them.

Since I’ve joined this forum, I’ve become much more understanding and less alarmed about people that I differ with on things like: The Trinity, Views of Hell, Soul sleep, Baptism, The atonement, and many others. Some of these things are considered non-negotiables by the majority of Christians today.

But I consider it a blessing from God and part of Him growing me up that I can now consider these people my brethen rather than naively and arrogantly seeing them as “unclean” people that need the truth that I “possess”. I had to learn this lesson just like Peter did. I’ve been humbled by many a discussion on this board with perspectives I’ve never considered and I feel better off for it. I expect nothing less from the church I attend and will settle for nothing less.

Post by **_Paidion** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:56 pm

I’d rather attend a church with people I disagree with but are committed to keeping the commandments of Jesus than a compromised church that shares my views.

SO WOULD I!

I’ve heard much lip service from pulpits about “unity” and “love for the brethren” from the same people who will not fellowship with others of different viewpoints.

There seems to be two distinct concepts of "unity".

Some have in mind coming to complete theological agreement. This is not "unity of the Body of Christ". This is "division of the Body of Christ."

The second concept is unity of the spirit, unity in Christ, unity in our devotion, worship, and submission to Christ.

In my opinion, every scripture that Aaron quoted to justify his position actually supports the second concept of unity. In particular, the "doctrine of Christ" mentioned in 2 John, which is a reference to Jesus' teaching, most of which is found in Matthew 5,6, and 7. This passage certainly is not teaching the necessity of abiding in theological agreement on the subjects such as the atonement, the Trinity, eschatology, or any other theological matter.

Post by **_AARONDISNEY** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:37 pm

Couldn't disagree with you more, Paidion....

Those verses that I quoted were warning against false teaching. I don't know how you got anything other than that from them

Gal 1:8-9
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The thing we have to do is get in the book, find the truth and flee from any variation from it and defend the truth. I don't want to be in a mixed mess of theological positions...

That doesn't mean that there can't be some hair splitters that myself and other members of my congregations disagree on. But you may think that "love, peace and togetherness no matter what the concept of truth is" should take priority over purity of truth - I do not. If you only look for sincerity of convictions to allow someone to have a voice intended for instruction in your group, that's a slippery slope....