The Narrow Path Ministries

Hello,

Today, I was listening to Steve Gregg's audio titled "Strategies for Unity." I found myself agreeing with much of Steve's opinions on this matter. However, there is one spectrum that I think a lot of Christians fail to understand when they attempt to relate the early Church to the modern day dilemma (where denominationalism abounds).

I think the New Testament record (as well as the early post-apostolic writers) conveys the idea that doctrine was deposited and settled by the apostles. The New Testament simply does not bear out that unity on doctrine was not important, or that each Christian had the right to to develop their own beliefs independent from the teaching of the apostles. Furthermore, it was the role of each independent local Church to preserve the apostles teaching. Early on there were no disagreements about unconditional election, once saved always saved, baptism, Charismatic issues, etc.. Iranaeus, the early Church apologist, testifies to the agreement that each independent local Churches had concerning doctrine and teaching.

Steve is correct when he says that one primary difficulty today is that every Christian believes that their persuasions are the same as that of the Apostles. Because we do not have the direct influence of the Apostles to tell us who is right and who isn't, I believe that patience, tenderness and contention should not characterize how we respond to others who disagree. He is also right that there is always the chance that we are wrong on a particular matter.

Yet this does not subtract from the fact that there is one apostolic teaching for any doctrine; that some people do not have as teachable spirits as others; and that it is not always pride that causes one to not accept a teaching from another brother as legitimate. If we employ proper hermeneutics, logic, and come to a conclusion that we think is right, I think it is ok to make a certain belief vital for the lifeblood of the Church (yet always standing in humility, and trembling in fear before the Lord).

Brian

My question is how far does one take the unity? How many points of contention can there be until you say I need to find another body of like mindedness? Or is there no break off at all and you just keep trying to convince others that your viewpoint is more scriptural?

Early on there were no disagreements about unconditional election, once saved always saved,...

No there weren't. And no wonder. Such concepts had never entered the heads of the apostles or their immediate successors.

Paidon,

I was a little careless with how I phrased the sentence that you responded to. I actually agree 100% with what you wrote.

I should have said: "early on there was no one debating (successfully, that is) for unconditional election or once saved always saved."

Thanks for pointing out my error.

Brian

Hi Prepost,

This is a topic that is very near to my heart. I was present when Steve gave that lecture and it was during a time that I was going through a painful separation from my church family because of what I consider minor doctrinal differences that the leadership found intolerable and non-negotiable. In fact, Steve used my circumstances as an example in that lecture.

I've done a bit of studying on this topic and found that unity does not equate to "uniformity" as some think it does. When the NT speaks of "unity", it is speaking of an attitude, not a theological system or viewpoint. Paul says:

Eph 4:1-6
4:1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, 2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
NKJV

for how long do "keep" this "unity of the Spirit"?

Eph 4:13-16
13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 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, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head--Christ-- 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
NKJV

Apparently there will be a day when we even our knowledge will be unified. We're getting there. But for now, Paul says:

1 Cor 13:9-10
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
NKJV

I always see unity in the scripture as speaking of love and forbearance toward each other and tolerating one anothers' weaknesses during this time of maturing (1 Peter 3:8-10, Phil 1:27-28, Phil 2:1-3, 2 Cor 13:11, Rom 15:4-6, Heb 12:14-15, 2 Tim 2:22-24, Ps 133:1, Rom 12:16-18, Rom 14:17-20, 2 John 5-6, John 13:35).



You wrote:

The New Testament simply does not bear out that unity on doctrine was not important, or that each Christian had the right to to develop their own beliefs independent from the teaching of the apostles.

I don't think Steve ever suggested this in his lecture. Rather, he speaks of tolerating differing conclusions insofar as we're all seeking the truth and commited to the truth rather than a denominationally sponsored theological system.

It's interesting to do a study on what the apostles considered "sound doctrine". When we think of non-negotiable doctrinal differences in our day, we tend to think of things like election, OSAS, baptism, eschatology, etc. But what were the apostles thinking of? They always seem to attribute sound doctrine as being related to the obedience to Christ's Lordship. Paul tells Timothy:

2 Tim 3:10-4:5
10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra--what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Submission to Christ and Godliness seems to be the issue with Paul, not what someone believes about eternal security. He continues and echoes this thought in other passages as well (2Tim 4:1-5, Titus 2:1-10, 1 Tim 6:3-5, 1 Tim 4:6-8, Rom 6:17)

You wrote:

If we employ proper hermeneutics, logic, and come to a conclusion that we think is right, I think it is ok to make a certain belief vital for the lifeblood of the Church (yet always standing in humility, and trembling in fear before the Lord).

How would you go about determining which beliefs are vital for the church? I'm just curious, because many councils have endeavored to do the same thing and they overdid it IMO. We now have schisms in the church due to differences in theological conclusions based on the same bible. So how do we decide this without being exclusionary of true born again believers?

One of Steve's main points in that lecture was:

Acts 10:15
"What God has cleansed you must not call common."
NKJV

I'd be happy to hear any further thoughts on this.

Lord bless.

i sometimes wonder if the reason denominations have "acceptable" and "unacceptable" views of certain doctrines is to protect the leadership. i think some pastors are very threatened by church members who begin introducing "new ideas" even if the new ideas may have a strong biblical basis. the pastor is generally bound to certain denominational beliefs, and the fear is that if these differing views spread, then the church may split.

in the church i attend, our pastor was burned rather badly by 15-20 or so members in the church who began to expound "word of faith" teachings contrary to his understanding of scripture (as well as most of the rest of us). those 15-20 left the church. as a result, i notice that my pastor is very "insecure" (for lack of a better word) about anything charismatic taking hold in the church. the church is not charimatic per se but many of us are open to some aspects of the charismatic experience.

this is just an example of what can happen.

TK

Christopher,

I'm sorry to hear about what happened at your former Church. Since it seems like you were not forcing your doctrinal disagreement upon the Church elders, it's unfortunate that the outcome ended the way it did.

You wrote:

When the NT speaks of "unity", it is speaking of an attitude, not a theological system or viewpoint.

I don't think the Scripture presents an either/or to this issue but a both/and. You referenced Ephesians 4 and other verses which support attitudinal unity. But even in Ephesians Paul writes about "one Lord, one faith, on baptism", which is uniformity in at least some doctrine. My proposition is simply that doctrine was settled by the Apostles of Christ.

Jude 3: Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Acts 20: 26-27: Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.

2 Thessalonians 2:15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

2 Thessalonians 3:14: And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed

Below Paul thought that being misinformed about the coming of Christ amounted to being deceived:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3: Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,
Not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

There are two links concerning a rule established by Tertullian and Iranaeus that established the premise that doctrine was settled by the early Church.

http://www.pfrs.org/foundation/hist01.html

http://www.pfrs.org/foundation/hist02.html

Today's job is to find what the teachings of the Apostles were. Do I think this method is foolproof. No. And I do find myself agreeing with Steve and your approach on how to treat others who disagree. My only point is that this really isn't the way it was supposed to be. We as Christians were supposed to have uniformity in doctrine (with slight variations in some manners).

Since we find ourselves in a position today that the Apostles never encountered, nor that the Bible ever addresses, I still think that there are Biblical principles to be followed (and you and Steve present a fine approach to the dilemma) until the return of Christ.

Brian

Hi Brian,

you wrote:

I don't think the Scripture presents an either/or to this issue but a both/and. You referenced Ephesians 4 and other verses which support attitudinal unity. But even in Ephesians Paul writes about "one Lord, one faith, on baptism", which is uniformity in at least some doctrine. My proposition is simply that doctrine was settled by the Apostles of Christ.

You may be right. But Paul could be simply saying that we have the same saving "faith" in the one true "Lord" in who we were all "baptized" (1Cor 1:13) so there's no reason to divide.

It seems to me that if God thought the things we quibble about today were important for us to know, He would have clearly revealed them to us in the Word. The fact that we do spend time quibbling over them indicates to me that those things are not so clearly spelled out in scripture. However, some things are clearly spelled out. Jesus said:

John 13:34-35
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
NKJV

Dividing the body of Christ over non-essentials is not an act of love IMO, and I realize that you and I agree there.

The scriptures you listed contain verbs like "stand fast" and "obey". The phrase "counsel of God" suggests instructions. I don't know how you would "obey" the doctrine of OSAS, the trinity, or the pre-trib rapture. This underscores what I said in my previous post that the apostles main doctrinal concerns were about obedience to the commands of Christ. After all, that is what He commissioned them to do....

Matt 28:19-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
NKJV

I do agree with you though that anyone that defied the clear teachings of the apostles with their own made up doctrine were clearly in the wrong and probably not true Christians. And there were apparently no shortage of those in their day who did just that as many a scripture would testify.

I also agree that if we had the apostles here today to clear all these questions up, the church would probably be more unified is some of these doctrines. But would we really be unified? We most likely would always find something to divide over (worship style, dress, etc.). It seems to me more a matter of the heart than of the mind.

A certain brother on this forum when asked why didn't God make some of these things more clearer in the bible responded:

"Maybe He just wanted to see if we'd still love each other"


I think that is a very strong possibility IMO.



I appreciate the dialog brother.

Lord bless.

Christopher wrote:Hi Brian,

you wrote:

I don't think the Scripture presents an either/or to this issue but a both/and. You referenced Ephesians 4 and other verses which support attitudinal unity. But even in Ephesians Paul writes about "one Lord, one faith, on baptism", which is uniformity in at least some doctrine. My proposition is simply that doctrine was settled by the Apostles of Christ.

You may be right. But Paul could be simply saying that we have the same saving "faith" in the one true "Lord" in who we were all "baptized" (1Cor 1:13) so there's no reason to divide.

It seems to me that if God thought the things we quibble about today were important for us to know, He would have clearly revealed them to us in the Word. The fact that we do spend time quibbling over them indicates to me that those things are not so clearly spelled out in scripture. However, some things are clearly spelled out. Jesus said:

John 13:34-35
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
NKJV

Dividing the body of Christ over non-essentials is not an act of love IMO, and I realize that you and I agree there.

The scriptures you listed contain verbs like "stand fast" and "obey". The phrase "counsel of God" suggests instructions. I don't know how you would "obey" the doctrine of OSAS, the trinity, or the pre-trib rapture. This underscores what I said in my previous post that the apostles main doctrinal concerns were about obedience to the commands of Christ. After all, that is what He commissioned them to do....

Matt 28:19-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
NKJV

I do agree with you though that anyone that defied the clear teachings of the apostles with their own made up doctrine were clearly in the wrong and probably not true Christians. And there were apparently no shortage of those in their day who did just that as many a scripture would testify.

I also agree that if we had the apostles here today to clear all these questions up, the church would probably be more unified is some of these doctrines. But would we really be unified? We most likely would always find something to divide over (worship style, dress, etc.). It seems to me more a matter of the heart than of the mind.

A certain brother on this forum when asked why didn't God make some of these things more clearer in the bible responded:

"Maybe He just wanted to see if we'd still love each other"


I think that is a very strong possibility IMO.



I appreciate the dialog brother.

Lord bless.

Hi Christopher.

I agree with you Brother.
It seems that so many Brothers/Sisters are so dogmatic about every issue these days, that they miss the things that really matter. Roman's 14 and a few other verse's come to mind...

I was talking with a Brother the other day who is the pastor of a local Assembly of God church, and happens to be my 1st cousin. He contend's that anyone who joins the fellowship at his church must sign on to a list of what he calls "cardinal doctrines of the church" in order to become a member. The idea seems silly to me and I did all I could not to convey that notion to him(he is bigger than me . I then got a hold of one of the list, and wouldn't you know it, I disagreed with two major points on the list(Premill- and pre-trib).

Now on the other hand, I believe that there are some things that are essential to Christianity, for instance I could not fellowship with Mormon's and JW's and feel alright about it. But as far as secondary matters, I can go from a Baptist church to a Charismatic church all in the same day and not feel the least bit ackward.

Christopher,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Like I said, I see nothing wrong with how you approach this issue. You are doing it out of love and selflessness, and for that I commend you. Yet, let me challenge, in some sense, the logic of the arguments above.

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. How do we know that the one who derives a teaching inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostles is fully listening to the Spirit in their life? Maybe the Spirit has been trying to teach this person for years (undoubtedly through other believers) but they have been obstinate and strong-willed. Your view relies heavily upon the idea that the Spirit has no real doctrinal agenda today and is leading individuals into different doctrinal conclusions.

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.

Since the New Testament was written in the first century, to a first century audience, when doctrine was agreed upon and settled, any verse on unity would encompass remaining in the Apostolic teaching (Point 4). 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).

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.

Brian