Unity and the Early Church

[Guest]

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.

Aaron, try reading Steve's comments objectively, without allowing your emotions to take control. Steve was not "belittling" you, nor did he call you "naive" or imply that you have an unChristain attitude. He said that one of your statements was naive, and that the attitudes you expressed in your post was UnChristian. Any of us may express similar attitudes on occasion, and the criticism of such attitudes is not tantamount to negatively criticizing your character. Steve doesn't "cut" anyone down. He deals with the words people express. He has done the same with me, and I highly respect him for it. Indeed, Steve has often corrected people who actually have attacked people's characters.

I have been privileged to personally meet Steve, and listen to a few of his lectures in person. Steve is one of the humblest servants of God I have met. In my opinion, if Steve tells someone that one or more of his statements is naive or unChristian, one should consider the possiblity that Steve may be correct, examine those statements in that light, and possibly correct one's own attitudes.

[Guest]

Steve,

Since my last post (I'm not sure if you intend on offering a response) I have been thinking more about your position.

Please don't take offense at this, but it seems that regarding this issue you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the unity as exhibited by the infant Church, but you do not see it important to achieve this unity as set forth by the Apostles. Unity in the early Church was not about fellowshipping in spite of doctrinal differences among Christians. Unity was about fellowshipping in the truth.

Christians today see denominations as an opportunity to fellowship in the truth. If we are to obey the Apostles, denominations are the only way to achieve this. This is the sad but unfortunate truth of the matter.

Again, please don't take offense. I respect you a lot and have learned much from the Forums and your teachings.

Brian

[Guest]

Hi there Postpre,

I realize that you post was directed at Steve, but while you wait for his reply may I ask you a couple of quetsions?

First:

You want the unity as exhibited by the infant Church, but you do not see it important to achieve this unity as set forth by the Apostles. Unity in the early Church was not about fellowshipping in spite of doctrinal differences among Christians. Unity was about fellowshipping in the truth.

How do you know this? You probably have studied a LOT more than I have, so do you have scriptures to show that "unity was about fellowshipping in the truth?" I'm wondering because it seems to me that even the Apostles disagreed sometimes. And if the very early churches had the same, unadulterated teaching of the Apostles, why did they fall into error so often? And why did Jesus have to tell six of the seven churches in Revelation 2 - 3 where they had gone wrong?

Also:

Christians today see denominations as an opportunity to fellowship in the truth. If we are to obey the Apostles, denominations are the only way to achieve this. This is the sad but unfortunate truth of the matter.

Do you believe the Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit? If so, are you saying that to obey Christ we should divide?(!)

Also, it seems to me that if you believe that quote, you would have to believe that one denomination has all truth; many denominations have some truth, some error; and some denominations are all error. Please, please, please tell me which one has the whole truth.

[Guest]

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

Aaron, If God did'nt want us to search the scriptures like the bereans and to seek Him with all our heart then he would have had angels personally deliver simple instructions to each one of us. But we received the scriptures in the format we did for a reason which must have something to do with seeking,searching,maturing,overcoming,learning to respect differing interpretations,growth and other reasons that have to do with charactor building.
Once you close the door and lock out "so called heretical thinking" IMO you've put yourself on a counterproductive path. Just like physical muscles grow by overcoming resistence so do spiritual muscles grow that way.

[Guest]

Michelle,

Thanks for your contribution.

To answer your question, "no", I do not not believe that any particular denomomination has the whole truth. There could be ones that are pretty close to embracing the pristine apostolic teachings, but I would never go on record as saying that they (as opposed to other denominations) are accurately teaching the complete body of Christian doctrine.

But, here's the key. It's just fine to believe that YOUR teachings are reflective of Apostolic times. The mere fact that there is an Apostolic teaching on a doctrinal issue, and that the Holy Spirit's role is to CONFIRM this apostolic teaching, can I not humbly form an opinion that I think is right? And if I think my opinion is right and important to the welfare of the body (that there is some spiritual benefit to believing it) then I must take steps to see to it that this teaching is promoted. If Church X down the street won't recognize my belief as credible, that means I must attend/form a Church consistent with my convictions.

My view rests heavily on the well-established fact that doctrinal agreement was a hallmark of the primitive Church AND that the Holy Spirit is still attempting to lead believers toward these truths. If the Holy Spirit is so intent on confirming Apostolic doctrine then I see no problem with the notion of humbly separating from other Christians (ie. Denominationalism), yet still loving and serving other believers as best I can.

And if the very early churches had the same, unadulterated teaching of the Apostles, why did they fall into error so often?

I think the answer to this is because early heresies were successful at disrupting the flow of the pure Apostolic teaching. Also, you will have to be more specific concerning the many "errors" which were common in the early Church. Yet, even with the presence of errors and that the apostles disagreed (which was very little actually and over only a couple of issues) does not mean that there wasn't established doctrine to be taught and injested.

One of my first posts in this thread listed different verses which have to do with fellowshipping in pure doctrine. I realize that Chris and Paidon suspect that this had more to do with attitude than theological agreement. However, I don't think that can be stated conclusively. And it is not quite congruent with the writings of the Church Fathers like Iranaeus, Clement, and Tertullian. The following link has, on the left hand side of the page, links to these writers concerning this issue:

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

I appreciate the dialogue, Michelle. To be honest, I am arguing somewhat hypothetically. I know the argument that I am proposing, but I am not as staunch on it as I may sound.

Thanks,

Brian

[Guest]

Hi Brian,

Michelle,

Thanks for your contribution.

Thanks. I usually think I should just quietly read because I am so uninformed. I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my questions!

To answer your question, "no", I do not not believe that any particular denomomination has the whole truth. There could be ones that are pretty close to embracing the pristine apostolic teachings, but I would never go on record as saying that they (as opposed to other denominations) are accurately teaching the complete body of Christian doctrine.

Shoot.

But, here's the key. It's just fine to believe that YOUR teachings are reflective of Apostolic times. The mere fact that there is an Apostolic teaching on a doctrinal issue, and that the Holy Spirit's role is to CONFIRM this apostolic teaching, can I not humbly form an opinion that I think is right? And if I think my opinion is right and important to the welfare of the body (that there is some spiritual benefit to believing it) then I must take steps to see to it that this teaching is promoted. If Church X down the street won't recognize my belief as credible, that means I must attend/form a Church consistent with my convictions.

My view rests heavily on the well-established fact that doctrinal agreement was a hallmark of the primitive Church AND that the Holy Spirit is still attempting to lead believers toward these truths. If the Holy Spirit is so intent on confirming Apostolic doctrine then I see no problem with the notion of humbly separating from other Christians (ie. Denominationalism), yet still loving and serving other believers as best I can.

Here's the problem I see:

It sounds really nice to say, "I still love 'em as brothers, I just need to humbly separate from 'em."

But it seems that historically it turns into, "God love ya, but if I see you on the street don't talk to me. Oh, and tell your son he can't date my daughter ever again. And, no, our children will not be playing with your children. Don't ever ask for my help, either!"

Quote:
And if the very early churches had the same, unadulterated teaching of the Apostles, why did they fall into error so often?


I think the answer to this is because early heresies were successful at disrupting the flow of the pure Apostolic teaching. Also, you will have to be more specific concerning the many "errors" which were common in the early Church. Yet, even with the presence of errors and that the apostles disagreed (which was very little actually and over only a couple of issues) does not mean that there wasn't established doctrine to be taught and injested.

Good point.

One of my first posts in this thread listed different verses which have to do with fellowshipping in pure doctrine. I realize that Chris and Paidon suspect that this had more to do with attitude than theological agreement. However, I don't think that can be stated conclusively. And it is not quite congruent with the writings of the Church Fathers like Iranaeus, Clement, and Tertullian. The following link has, on the left hand side of the page, links to these writers concerning this issue:

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

I pretty much agree with Paidion and Chris on this, but I will read at the website you linked to.

By the way, I disagree with Paidion on a few things, but I think I could worship and serve the Lord side by side with him, and I admire his Christlike attitude. That's what I think is wrong with your argument. I think we are missing out on a whole lot by separating ourselves because of non-essential opinions. I find the body of Christ to be rich with diversity of thought and denominationalism limits access to that beauty. (That sounds a little too ecumenical. I mean within the body... not admitting every heretical idea as acceptable.)

I appreciate the dialogue, Michelle. To be honest, I am arguing somewhat hypothetically. I know the argument that I am proposing, but I am not as staunch on it as I may sound.

Thanks,

Brian

I don't think I disagree with you that much. Thanks for the link and things to think about.

[Guest]

So, Brian, I just finished the introduction to the site, as well as the part about Tertullian. (I have to share that I have a brother who will be amazed to find out I've read any of Tertullian!)

Anyway...

I can't find anything in the introduction that I don't agree with. The same with the passages from Tertullian. I think I just disagree with your conclusion that dividing the body into denominations is the natural, unfortunate consequence of time marching further away from the apostles and the early fathers. It seems to me that there is apostolic doctrine which was delivered and was preserved, and which we can still learn of from the scripture. All else is not important enough to divide over.

Now...on to Iranaeus...

[Guest]

Michelle said:

It seems to me that there is apostolic doctrine which was delivered and was preserved, and which we can still learn of from the scripture. All else is not important enough to divide over.

I agree. I don't think anything, beside what is nicely summarized by Steve G. below, should be elevated to enough importance to divide over. Debate? Sure, all day long. But let's just worship God together as a family and learn from one another to His glory.

If it is possible to figure out what the perfect, pure doctrine is, I bet it would happen much faster under these cicumstances than to divide.

We all acknowledge that there must be an essential core of belief that separates a Christian from a non-christian, but when we search the scriptures, that core seems to be restricted to general affirmations that Jesus is "Lord," "Messiah," and "the Son of God," as well as the belief that He died for our sins and rose again the third day.

God bless,

[Guest]

Hi Brian,

I would like to respond to the following statements of yours:

You wrote:
"...can I not humbly form an opinion that I think is right?"

Yes, but if your views are held humbly, you will not assume them to be beyond the need for correction, and will welcome ongoing cross-examination of them in the fellowship of the saints, so that either you or those holding opinions different from yours may have the opportunity to be corrected.

You wrote:
" And if I think my opinion is right and important to the welfare of the body (that there is some spiritual benefit to believing it) then I must take steps to see to it that this teaching is promoted."

In a fellowship where all views can be discussed, you can take any non-divisive steps you wish to see your view promoted. However, if the scriptures can be shown to better support a contrary viewpoint, your preferred view may not become the dominant viewpoint of the church. But if the disputed subjects are not salvation-crucial issues, what will matter most is not which view is ascendant in the ongoing dialog, but rather the humility and honesty of those who hold the respective opinions. To divide over non-essentials is to violate what both Jesus and Paul had to say about such attitudes (Luke 9:49-50/ 1 Cor.1:10ff).

You wrote:
" If Church X down the street won't recognize my belief as credible, that means I must attend/form a Church consistent with my convictions."

So has Protestantism thought for five centuries, resulting in almost infinite fragmentation of the body of Christ, to His reproach in the sight of the world. If Church X does not find your view credible, and it is not a salvation-critical view or a moral issue, you may continue to hold the view and advocate it, so long as you are not divisive in your attitude or manner of presentation.

If you, hypothetically, were to decide that your non-essential viewpoint is so important as to justify dividing the body of Christ over, then you are a divisive man (which is the meaning of the biblical word "heretic") and would do well to leave the group of Christians until you are mature enough to major on majors, and to be no danger to the souls of others. In fact, in such a case, the church would be biblically obligated to expose you, reject you, and avoid you (Titus 3:10-11/Rom.16:17-18). Any group you would start in such a case (like many denominations) will have been founded upon small-mindedness and a deficiency of love for the brethren, and will simply continue to bear bad fruit.

Why not let the hallmark of the fellowship be the observance of the great commandment, and obedience to Christ's teachings, rather than traditional interpretations of theology espoused by various teachers? "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples: if you have love for one another" (John 13:35).

On the continuing discussion of whether "doctrine" means "theological views" or "moral teaching," please note what is "contrary to sound doctrine" in 1 Timothy 1:9-10, and what is referred to as "sound doctrine" in Titus 2:1ff. You'll find that it has nothing to do with theological opinions at all, but is entirely concerned with godly behavior.

[Guest]

Steve,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Right now I don't have time to respond to all of your comments (I plan to later), but the following is one I'd like to immediately tackle.

If you, hypothetically, were to decide that your non-essential viewpoint is so important as to justify dividing the body of Christ over, then you are a divisive man (which is the meaning of the biblical word "heretic") and would do well to leave the group of Christians until you are mature enough to major on majors, and to be no danger to the souls of others. In fact, in such a case, the church would be biblically obligated to expose you, reject you, and avoid you (Titus 3:10-11/Rom.16:17-18). Any group you would start in such a case (like many denominations) will have been founded upon small-mindedness and a deficiency of love for the brethren, and will simply continue to bear bad fruit.

By arguing what you have stated above you are essentially characterizing the majority of Christian churches and leaders as divisive. How many Churches or leaders are willing to allow on-going discussion on doctrinal matters? Are they willing to give each view its due time and discussion among members of the congregation? Hardly! And by them taking a position or drafting a doctrinal statement and only promoting leaders who agree with their convictions are they not behaving immaturely and "majoring on the minors?" How is their attitude any different than what you are critiquing me for? Consequently, they must be single-minded and deficient in love

There must be a lot of divisive Christians out there!

I'm not willing to necessarily accept this. Please dont misunderstand me. I see some merit to your view on this. Ultimately, I will have to decide what course to take.

Brian