Unity and the Early Church

Post by **_Steve** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:25 pm

Hi Brian,

There seems to be a disconnect here. First, you wrote:

"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."

Then you concluded:

"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."

I am not sure how your first statements mesh with your conclusion. On the one hand, you acknowledge the need to "recognize [people with different views] as brethren"—that is, they are part of the same family as you and I are—and you can have "significant fellowship" with them. Yet, you think there is validity in the existence of a man-made organization (called a "local church") which acts as if this brotherhood either doesn't exist, or is unimportant, and which can exclude Christian people from its membership because it is "not wrong to enforce" one narrow viewpoint, believed by only a portion of the body of Christ?

Help me understand this strange concept of a "local church." Were there any of them in the first century? All the churches I read about in the New Testament were gatherings of the whole local body of Christ—i.e., all the Christians in the city (1 Cor.1:2; 14:23a)...or if they were a segment of that body, they were at least not divided from other segments, nor permitted to follow the special theological style or emphasis of Paul, Apollos or Cephas (each group believing themselves to be preserving the 'true' and 'apostolic' brand of Christianity)—to the exclusion of the other groups (1 Cor.1:10-13).

How can any group of believers justify "making....aspiring leaders agree" to some statement of faith that goes beyond the basic affirmations that all Christians acknowledge? Following such policies, a non-Calvinistic group would have to exclude Charles Spurgeon or D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones from their eldership, and a Calvinistic group would have to exclude John Wesley or A.W. Tozer. A church that defined itself as "dispensational" would have to exclude all of the above men, and a church that drew its boundaries to exclude dispensationalists would have to leave men like George Mueller and Hudson Taylor off their boards of elders. I certainly would not wish to be a part of any church that would require these men to change their doctrines before recognizing them as spiritual leaders in the congregation! I am not sure that Jesus would enjoy attending such exclusive churches either.

The idea of a local church that you seem to validate is just this kind of divisive group. On controversial issues, they decide which view they choose to call "apostolic" (even though they know they could be wrong, and that other brethren often would disagree with their choice) and then say, "We believe in 'significant fellowship' with brethren of different viewpoints—but less-significant fellowship than we are willing to have with those who are in our camp."

This carnal immaturity (as Paul calls it) not only limits the range of its fellowship to those who already believe their peculiar doctrinal positions (whether correct or incorrect), but also guarantees that the group can never outgrow its wrong beliefs or gain any ground in its grasp of the truth, since its present views are institutionalized, and the people and leaders are hermetically sealed-off from any interaction with the segments of the body of Christ that might otherwise be able to bring them correction—or that might be corrected by interaction with them.

Do you allow your own children to divide your family into such exclusive cliques? Even if you did (which I doubt) that doesn't mean that God is pleased to see such carnal attitudes among His children (1 Cor. 3:4). What must He think of your "local churches," thus defined?

Surely your position needs to be re-examined.

Post by **_AARONDISNEY** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:47 pm

I, for one, am glad for a local Church. My Church is non-Calvinistic, we are non-cessational, eschatologically dispensational and I believe we are Biblical. I believe a Calvinistic, cessational, preterist church to have points of view that are not Biblical and am glad for our framework that would exclude such from being teachers or preachers in our congregation. It would become a church that is a muddled up mess with no doctrinal structure.

Now, I don't mean to imply that those that hold the above views are not believers and followers of Christ, and I would hope if you are in disagreement with my viewpoint you would not see me as unChristian. I just want to be taught and to teach within a framework. The local church, that is so often bashed by some on here, is a safeguard against wrong doctrine. It is also a guideline to know where you belong in a group of believers.

There is nothing wrong with a Christian local group that disagrees on the minor points. But I'm so glad to be in one that agrees on the more important (IMHO) doctrines.

Post by **_Derek** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:11 pm

Hi Aaron,

I just want to be taught and to teach within a framework.

What if the framework if flawed?

The local church, that is so often bashed by some on here, is a safeguard against wrong doctrine.

Again, what if they are teaching wrong doctrine?

What worries me about "frameworks" in the denominational sense is that it seems that once that particular denomination's "framework" of orthodoxy has been set up, there doesn't seem to be room for growth or correction, seeing as how they "exclude such from being teachers or preachers" in their congregations.

What if "such" are teaching the correct doctrine? Should we not simply weigh what is taught with the scriptures? I would hope that is done even once someone has decided that their particular denomination has the correct doctrine.

God bless brother,

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:14 pm

I, for one, am glad for a local Church. My Church is non-Calvinistic, we are non-cessational, eschatologically dispensational and I believe we are Biblical. I believe a Calvinistic, cessational, preterist church to have points of view that are not Biblical and am glad for our framework that would exclude such from being teachers or preachers in our congregation. It would become a church that is a muddled up mess with no doctrinal structure.

Call me crazy but if i were a pastor and had the authority i would present the biblical evidence for all these positions and let people decide what makes sense, but i would welcome everyone. I think it would ultimately become much more thought provoking but maybe i'm to idealistic.

Post by **_Steve** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:16 pm

The posts by Derek and Steve above were apparently posted while I was writing this post, so there is significant overlap in their content...

Dear Aaron,

Of course, I don't think you are unChristian—but I believe that the attitudes you have just expressed are both unChristian and unbiblical. Especially naive is the following statement:

"The local church, that is so often bashed by some on here, is a safeguard against wrong doctrine."

How is the local church a guard against "wrong doctrine"? If a particular local church itself has wrong doctrine (as you acknowledge that some do), then those local churches actually guard their mistaken members against correct doctrine. Of course you believe your church's doctrine to be correct, but so do others who disagree with your doctrine. Is the local church a good thing for them, or would it perhaps be more healthy for them to be exposed to some of your pastor's beliefs once in a while, and be allowed to decide for themselves what is more biblical.

It is natural enough, I suppose, for young Christians, who are incapable of judging spiritual things or studying the Bible without the help of human teachers, to prefer "to be taught and to teach within a framework." It keeps all thinking nicely "inside the box." The problem is that man-made frameworks (Calvinism is one, and so are dispensationalism and amillennialism) have a very restrictive effect upon freedom of thought. I believe that embracing the risks associated with freedom is a mark of maturity.

Post by **_Anonymous** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:19 pm

I think it would ultimately become much more thought provoking but maybe i'm to idealistic.

I agree with you, Steve7150. I think it's much more interesting to hear about others' veiws, even if I disagree. I learn a lot from people I disagree with. Not only that, sometimes they turn out to be right!

Post by **_AARONDISNEY** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:19 pm

Hello Derek,
The fact of the matter is that there are thousands of different important doctrinal differences. Rather than having argument upon argument over scripture, why not check your beliefs with scripture, and then put that up against a denominational statement of beliefs and then you will see where you understand the truth to be taught.

It's just a natural thing that these groups have branched off into denominations. I don't consider a Baptist brother to be any less a brother of mine than someone in the denomination I attend. Nor a Wesleyan, nor a Methodist, and so on and so forth (with some exceptions of course). They have simply come to a different understanding of the Word of God than I have in certain areas and I choose to be among those that I agree doctrinally with. Besides God places us where He wants us and if that's in a non-denominational house Church, great! But I get kind of tired of seeing the local church condemned around here. Remember, folks, GOD places the members where He wants them. No point in complaining about it.

Post by **_Micah** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:21 pm

STEVE7150 wrote:Call me crazy but if i were a pastor and had the authority i would present the biblical evidence for all these positions and let people decide what makes sense, but i would welcome everyone. I think it would ultimately become much more thought provoking but maybe i'm to idealistic.

Don't you have to have some kind of standards though? You don't want to allow all kinds of corrupted ideas into the church. You might end up with a wolf in sheep's clothing as suggested in Acts 20:28-31.

Post by **_Steve** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:26 pm

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.

Post by **_AARONDISNEY** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:26 pm

Steve wrote:Dear Aaron,

Of course, I don't think you are unChristian—but I believe that the attitudes you have just expressed are both unChristian and unbiblical. Especially naive is the following statement:
"The local church, that is so often bashed by some on here, is a safeguard against wrong doctrine."

Steve,
It's very difficult to respect your opinions when you belittle me in such cutting words as calling me naive and imply that I have an unChristian attitude. Neither statement was true for my post. I was not being unChristian or naive. You disagree with me so you cut me down with such things. Which simply illustrates my point that people that disagree with each other and can't be kind in doing so should not be in a church together.