Unity and the Early Church

[Guest]

I can see aaron's point-- and i can see steve's. the fact of the matter carnality is a major problem. most local church pastors dont have the security to allow what he might label "subversive views" to be taught by other members of the congregation. in a perfect world this would not be the case, obviously.

which is EXACTLY why i visit this forum, and listen to teachers like steve, because i can get differing viewpoints that i am not going to get in the local church. you see, I WANT differing viewpoints. if i learn something here or in one of steve's teaching that i believe to be correct, and is contrary to what my pastor believes (or the denomination), i am not going to start an underground movement in the church to try to change everyone's mind. rather, i may have normal conversation with christian brothers and sisters about what i have learned. generally they are interested. but i dont necessarily feel that the local church i attend has to agree with every little thing that i believe, as long as it stays true to the basics, which it does.

TK

[Guest]

I can see aaron's point-- and i can see steve's. the fact of the matter carnality is a major problem. most local church pastors dont have the security to allow what he might label "subversive views" to be taught by other members of the congregation. in a perfect world this would not be the case, obviously.

Hello TK,
I see what you mean. It should be that we can all discuss these things. However, I don't think it should be that the pastor is insecure to have differing views expressed. I think it's simply a matter of a pastor protecting his church members. He is (as a pastor means) a shepherd. Not the True Shepherd. But a man that is called to keep those that God has entrusted to Him from straying off into odd beliefs.

While it is true that there are many that are keeping their flocks in wrong (IMHO) doctrine. They are doing so in love for their congregation. Doing what they believe to be right.

My pastor would not allow there to be a man to get up and teach Calvinistic doctrines and such in my church because he is certain that it is a wrong doctrine. He is protecting the less studied up members.

[Guest]

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.

It has been my observation here, that if someone comes in with guns a blazin about anything they are shut down pretty fast, because that is carnal behaviour.

I think any view that has been presented in a humble Christlike manner has been answered in kind. Maybe I can't remember or something.


That's why I love this forum so much.

God bless you guys. You're a blessing!

[Guest]

Steve,

You are right. When I read my thoughts again I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

From the beginning of this dialogue I have argued that during apostolic times unanimity of doctrine was a hallmark of the Churches (in each city). I have also conveyed that the biblical writers never directly address how the situation we currently find ourselves living in (the plethora of denominations) should be dealt with. To the first century Church, it was important to remain faithful to apostolic teaching/doctrine. If a particular city Church in those days was told that they were to accept the brethren adjacent to them (in another city) even though they were in significant doctrinal disagreement, they probably would have been utterly confused. Such was not the predicament of the first century Church.

I am really not that far off from the argument that you opined in your last post. As I see it the differences between you and me (and I'm still working through my conviction on this matter) are:

1) You are applying biblical principles to a modern day situation that bears no resemblance to apostolic times. In doing so, you rightly emphasize the importance of accepting all true Christians into close fellowship (such would have been the case for the primitive church).

2) I am attempting to exemplify, perfectly, apostolic times. In doing so, I humbly ascertain which doctrines were those held by the apostles, which the Spirit is still integral in guiding Christians. While I would never estrange myself from a group that disagrees with my conclusions, I would feel it my duty (as an elder- I am not currently) to preserve what I believe (and why shouldn't I if I'm humble and have spent years letting the Spirit guide me through intense study and scrutiny) are the pristine apostolic teachings. To do anything else would be to violate my conscience and, in my mind, to potentially jeopardize the welfare of my sheep. (Again, I speak above as the leader that I'm not)

Some may consider me prideful to think that I can nail down with accuracy the doctrines of the disciples. I don't see what I shouldn't expect the Spirit to perfect me in this way.

I am in complete agreement with your definition of Church. I am very close to saying (not there yet) that I believe your arguments work fine as long as everyone gives each other an equal voice to express their views. I will be speaking to a pastor of my church of five years on Monday to discuss, among many things, if I- as a non OSAS'er-could ever hope to be a consistent elder/teacher. The answer that I don't want to hear and one that would not be acceptable is- yes, given that you don't ever teach this to the rest of the congregation.

As for the "narrow" view excluding past great champions of the faith. I think God is big and finds ways to use men in spite of their doctrine. Who knows if these men were not rejected from teaching in a certain fellowship before they made a name for themselves?

Brian

[Guest]

I think that the reason many of you think it is 'unscriptural' to have a local church is because you don't see it in the N.T. Well, those were different circumstances.

They had the Apostles. The very foundation layers of the gospel. We now have their writings which can be interpreted in different ways. The local church or denominations lay out their view of the sense with which the epistles are to be doctinally applied.

We don't have the Apostles around any longer and so there are different views and they are difficult to reconcile. I believe it to be naive to say that since there are no local denominations mentioned in the N.T. that it should never be so. Actually I take that back, I do believe that it would be a perfect world scenario to say that we should not have denomintations and that all Christians would follow the perfect doctrine of the Church fathers, but it can't be so.

A mixture of right and wrong doctrine doesn't enrich the churches, it dilutes them and leaves them lagging.

[Guest]

I believe it to be naive to say that since there are no local denominations mentioned in the N.T. that it should never be so.

Hi Aaron,

Actually, I would say we do see at least the beginings of some denominations in the bible here:

1Co 1:11-13 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

[Guest]

I see what you are getting at, Derek. I refer you back to my statement that if it were a perfect world there would be one pure doctrine. The fact is there is not. There are 10 different views on everything. I just have to ask you this. Do you want a Oneness teacher to stand up and teach you that God is the Father that came to earth to be the Son and then turned into the Holy Ghost in your gathering?
Do you want someone standing up and preaching that you couldn't help but come to the Lord because he chose you from the foundation of the world in your gathering?
Seeing you are non-dispensational, do you want someone to stand up and preach the rapture and tribulation in your gathering?

The latter example is fine by me, but the first two ideas I don't want to hear in my church because they are unbiblical in my beliefs.

Do I consider those with those views not my bro's and sis's? No sir, but I don't want to waste my time in focus on the Word of God in hearing that.
I do absolutely shut my mind to some things!!!

[Guest]

I see what you are getting at, Derek. I refer you back to my statement that if it were a perfect world there would be one pure doctrine. The fact is there is not.

The fact that we don't have pure doctrine doesn't square divisions in the body of Christ with Paul's statement here.

There are 10 different views on everything. I just have to ask you this. Do you want a Oneness teacher to stand up and teach you that God is the Father that came to earth to be the Son and then turned into the Holy Ghost in your gathering?
Do you want someone standing up and preaching that you couldn't help but come to the Lord because he chose you from the foundation of the world in your gathering?
Seeing you are non-dispensational, do you want someone to stand up and preach the rapture and tribulation in your gathering?

I kind of have an easy out here, because at my church (a house church) we just go through the bible verse by verse and discuss it. We have various opinions about various things and we discuss our differences and many times just agree to disagree.

That being said, these differences don't bother any of us. If we were to bring in a teacher, well, we don't have any theological distinctives that would hinder us from letting anyone teach. (aside from the normal evangelical distinctives).

I think that the church needs to be discerning enough to hear a teacher without simply "swallowing" whatever they say. Only if people mindlessly accept what a teacher says, without comparing the teaching to the scripture is there a danger of someone being led astray.


To be honest, one of the things I love about house church is that we can discuss our different points of view. There isn't one guy teaching a group. So you can always balance teaching. Someone is welcome to teach dispensationalism there. And I am welcome to tell him he's wrong! Just kidding bro.

God bless,

[Guest]

Aaron,

You wrote:
"it would be a perfect world scenario to say that we should not have denomintations and that all Christians would follow the perfect doctrine of the Church fathers, but it can't be so."

Better still would be for all Christians simply to follow Jesus. We needn't wait for a perfect world for this to happen. We need only for all Christians to do what all Christians did at the beginning: love one another, follow Jesus, and live in peace with one another. Denominations would, of course, find such a development threatening, but why should that stop us?


You wrote:
"A mixture of right and wrong doctrine doesn't enrich the churches, it dilutes them and leaves them lagging."

I have two thoughts about this.

First, a mixture of right and wrong doctrine may enrich the church very much, if the only alternative is for a church with wrong doctrine to successfully seal out contrary views that may be correct.

Second, I think you are speaking from theory, not experience. The most vital church I ever was a part of was one that allowed Christians of many viewpoints to express their beliefs without censure or stigma. In a free marketplace of ideas, where every Christian is capable of opening a Bible and examining conflicting arguments, the church can be enriched in many ways, and can learn the most valuable lessons of maturity of all—namely:

1. that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." The minds of Christians are to be free from authoritarian human domination (1 John 2:27). Christians must be allowed to meditate day and night on the Word of God (not someone else's interpretation of it) so that they can be watered, fruitful, and unwithered (Ps.1);

2. that God appreciates variety, and has not given every member of the body the same gifts, nor the same insights;

3. that there are people as godly as (or more so than) ourselves and our circle of friends, who happen to think and see things differently than we do;

4. that humility and a teachable spirit, when present, may lead us to more accurate understanding of the truth from scripture, but only if we are in a place where our present opinions can be challenged;

5. that people who disagree with us need not be feared or viewed as enemies. The enemies are not those who require us to re-examine the truth, but are rather the ones who "suppress the truth in their unrighteousness;"

6. that there may well be a difference between the truth (to which we must be loyal) and our opinion of the truth (in which we must not place too much confidence);

7. that all of God's children can be loved equally—and that once we actually begin to do this, the differences in doctrine are much less frightening—and much less important.

In my experience, loyalty to a denomination or a local church which restricts the expression of dissenting views, inhibits the growth of the congregation into this kind of maturity. As long as we feel more comfortable only with those that think as we do, we show that,

1. We think that precise theological correctness is more important than the fellowship of saints in the Spirit—so that we think God favors us more for what we know than for whom we love;

2. We are rather insecure about our views being challenged—suggesting the nagging suspicion that our views could be wrong and subject to refutation; and

3. It would require more humility than we possess, to allow people to learn (or think) that what we have been saying is wrong, because they have discovered a more-scriptural way of understanding things from some other stream of the body of Christ.

Once we get over these hurdles (which requires repentance), the church can begin finding its way back to the unity that it had in its more mature infancy.

[Guest]

I'm afraid that you guys see denominations as threatening the love and unity we have with one another. It makes no difference whether we are in the same building or not. I disagree with many fellow Christians on many points and yet I feel a closeness of being in the family of God with these same folks.

Yet I do not want to beat topics to death when I've established where I believe the Bible to stand on an issue. I see no point in continual discussions that lead to an uncertainty on nearly every issue.

There is unity in the true body of Christ. But that we that disagree on major points should all assemble together in unity, yet disunity is not a concept I agree with.

Good night y'all - I'm hitting the sack.