Unity and the Early Church

Post by **_Steve** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:30 pm

Aaron,

It is a part of the freedom of our discussion that I or anyone else can call an attitude unChristian—especially if an apostle like Paul has already made the same declaration about it. You, or anyone else, may call my views unChristian any time you like. But unless you have a scriptural case, I will remain unconvinced.

Post by **_Micah** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:36 pm

Steve wrote:Micah,

The scripture you cited is actually talking about church elders (local church pastors) becoming wolves in sheep's clothing. As Derek and I have pointed out, the institutionalized church does not eliminate bad doctrine or "wolves" among the flock. It simply provides an environment in which they can become entrenched.

By contrast, an open fellowship of all who profess Christ and have been baptized, allows a free criticism of one another's views scripturally, leaving no place for the heretic avoiding exposure to hide. Light is a good thing. More light, better still.

Interesting. I viewed that as Paul instructing overseers (Elders) to keep a watchful eye over anyone coming in with false doctrine.

I agree that the institutionalized church has done a poor job of weeding out the wolves. I had to leave a church myself because I disagreed with the Pastor on his views of scripture and I had no elders to go to because he eliminated the position when he took over leadership. All they have now is a church council made up of men and women. The people there couldn't understand it when I told them that the council didn't have the authority to deal with such matters as layed out in scripture.

Post by **_AARONDISNEY** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:37 pm

Steve wrote: By contrast, an open fellowship of all who profess Christ and have been baptized, allows a free criticism of one another's views scripturally, leaving no place for the heretic avoiding exposure to hide. Light is a good thing. More light, better still.

Here's the situation.
You have an assembly. There is no doctrine laid out that we basically agree with, just an open Bible. We begin going through the BIble. THere is one teacher that notices passages in Romans and Acts that lead him to believe that God chooses to save certain people and to pass others by leaving them no option for salvation (Calvinism). This teacher teaches this on a Sunday morning. The following Wednesday evening another teacher that disagrees with this assessment gets up and lays out why that teaching is wrong. Naturally, there is tension between that man and the other. There are some that follow the one's beliefs and some that follow the other. And the Church is now divided because they do not see things eye to eye. And so now they can't doctrinally move forward because with each passage that brings this up they are stuck in this big question.

I firmly believe in the local church.

Post by **_Steve** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:38 pm

Hi Micah,

Yes, Paul is talking to a group of elders, and he says "even among yourselves shall men arise" (Acts 20:30)—whom he identifies as "wolves" (v.29). That is, even among the elders, there will be some wolves.

Post by **_AARONDISNEY** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:40 pm

Steve wrote:Aaron,

It is a part of the freedom of our discussion that I or anyone else can call an attitude unChristian—especially if an apostle like Paul has already made the same declaration about it. You, or anyone else, may call my views unChristian any time you like. But unless you have a scriptural case, I will remain unconvinced.

Right, Steve, but I was just pointing out that you were making a claim that was unfounded. You didn't point out any unChristian statement I made. There was no unChristian tone or spirit to my post. You just can't handle a little disagreement obviously and so you sling your little stones. It's cool though, I'm used to seeing such from you.

Post by **_Micah** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:44 pm

Steve wrote:Hi Micah,

Yes, Paul is talking to a group of elders, and he says "even among yourselves shall men arise" (Acts 20:30)—whom he identifies as "wolves" (v.29). That is, even among the elders, there will be some wolves.

I can see that now. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I always viewed 'yourselves' meaning people within your church and not necessarily within the elders, but I can see where your point is more valid.

Post by **_Steve** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:47 pm

Hi Aaron,

In your illustration of a congregation hearing the teaching of one leader who is a Calvinist and another who is not a Calvinist, you write:

"Naturally, there is tension between that man and the other. There are some that follow the one's beliefs and some that follow the other. And the Church is now divided because they do not see things eye to eye."

You are assuming a high degree of carnality on the part of the leaders and the congregation. I have had dispensationalists and Calvinists teach in the school that I ran for 16 years. These teachers felt no resentment toward me, nor I toward them. Why should we? This was not an ego-driven popularity contest! If teachers are men of God, they will respect and welcome other teachers who disagree on disputed matters.

Were the students confused? Not necessarily. There is another option: to remain undecided until all the evidence has been considered—even if this takes years—and to love one another without distinction in the meantime. Isn't this what any Spirit-filled Christians would do?

Why must we maintain carnal paradigms that cater to carnal believers and that guarantee that they will remain carnal?

Post by **_Micah** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:49 pm

AARONDISNEY wrote: Here's the situation.
You have an assembly. There is no doctrine laid out that we basically agree with, just an open Bible. We begin going through the BIble. THere is one teacher that notices passages in Romans and Acts that lead him to believe that God chooses to save certain people and to pass others by leaving them no option for salvation (Calvinism). This teacher teaches this on a Sunday morning. The following Wednesday evening another teacher that disagrees with this assessment gets up and lays out why that teaching is wrong. Naturally, there is tension between that man and the other. There are some that follow the one's beliefs and some that follow the other. And the Church is now divided because they do not see things eye to eye. And so now they can't doctrinally move forward because with each passage that brings this up they are stuck in this big question.

I firmly believe in the local church.

I don't see that situation being much of an issue because both can come to an agreement that they are followers of Christ. I don't even think it would affect how they evangelize to the lost.

However, one issue I see is if someone with unitarian ideas comes in and starts to claim that Jesus is not God. This would seem detrimental teaching to the unity of believers.

Post by **_Derek** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:53 pm

However, one issue I see is if someone with unitarian ideas comes in and starts to claim that Jesus is not God. This would seem detrimental teaching to the unity of believers.

IMHO, if someone is putting forth unitarian ideas, then they are not submitting to the word of God (if they have been corrected).

Personally, I would not want them to remain in the fellowship, should they not repent of this belief.

Post by **_AARONDISNEY** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:56 pm

Seems that there's so much tension even on this forum over high level disagreements. e.g. When a Calvinist comes on here he gets beat over the head by some people. Granted he usually comes on with both guns a blazin' and is just asking for tension, but nonetheless it's a rough situation.

Same thing with dispensationalists. If someone comes on as a dispensationlist around here. They are either outright ridiculed or passively told to go figure out why they are wrong.

There are differences that can be non-detrimental to a congregation. But divisive major doctrines are a problem.