Unity and the Early Church

[Guest]

Suppose Martin Luther had looked at things your way. He would have said, "My views cannot be correct, even though I see them taught in scripture, because the behavior of all the (Roman Catholic) clergy would be found to be in error if the Bible is true."

Do not judge what I say by what the institutional church has become and has trained its ministers to be, but by the biblical merits of my case. Shall we decide that the modern church is so healthy that it needs no continuing reformation? If reformation is an ongoing process, should not the Bible be the authority that directs the process?

[Guest]

Brian,

I remember a similar argument being used about Jesus:

John 7:48-49
48 Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him?
NKJV

I think you yourself will see the problem with your last objection once you think about it some more.

Lord bless.

[Guest]

In reading through the posts, it seems that maybe there is a misunderstanding about what the church is for. I keep reading comments about "what if someone says such and such" or "what if people disagree and there are lots of fights." Wouldn't a job of godly elders and leadership in the church be encouraging the body (like Steve has done on this forum) to have a right relationship and a humble attitude towards what they believe to be correct? Encouraging them to focus on love and service and a right and godly attitude towards people? Not to the detriment of Scriptural exposition, but alongside it.

And if the meeting (as well as the teaching) is to be interactive (which I believe it should be... although I'm open to being wrong ) then the rest of the people (especially those who know Scripture well) would be able to counter what the one teaching is saying if it be untrue to the text, or if there is another viewpoint to consider. And if someone is having a wrong attitude or is just wanting to show the teacher wrong (i.e. not correcting in gentleness and humility) then it would be up to the rest of the body (especially the overseers) to handle this divisive person. The body working together in this way holds the one teaching to a high accountability to be as true to the text as he/she is able, as well as holding anyone who would object or offer a different opinion to the same accountability with their objections.

And this is just ONE part of the functioning of the body.

[Guest]

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.

To attempt to obey the apostles through denominations would indeed be sad and unfortunate.

Paul seems to teach that sectarian spirit, following a certain leader or a group with sectarian distinctives is carnal, and to be avoided.

1 Corinthians 3:4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal?

[Guest]

If members of Christ's church were peacemakers as commanded by Christ (at least in regard to non-essential matters) perhaps denominationalism would not be necessary. the testimony of extensive denominationalism would seem to be a testimony of the inability to get along, which is exactly the opposite of the way that jesus said his followers should appear to the world. (By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another- John 13:35)

of course it's easier said than done. jesus never said it would be easy.

TK

[Guest]

Steve,

I posted part of one of your posts on unity in this thread on my blog. Here is what I posted...

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.

A friend of ours responded to your post with the following...

"I totally agree with the spirit of this post. However, the author repeatedly begs the question: who are the Christians/saints/believers? Is someone who fights agains the doctrine of God (Trinity, pre-existence and full humanity and deity of Christ) a Christian? Are these people not suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (their sinful thoughts concerning who God is), thus enemies of God, since they don't believe in the only God who is?

More practically, what about someone who underminds the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? How about advocating another form of church government, then undermining the authority of the church? How, practically, do we funciton in unity with these people?

Again, while I totally agree with the spirit of the ideas, I disagree with the asserted fact that all Christians are capable of opening their Bibles and understanding what God says. Where to go from here? Who knows...God help us, and grant humility to us all."

What would be your response to him? Thanks!

-Rachel

[Guest]

On the question of those who fight against the trinity or the deity of Christ, we would have to say that fighting against any doctrine that can legitimately derived by sincere people in their searching of the scriptures is not what the fellowship of the saints is about. There may may be (and have always been) Christians who question the traditional formulations of the trinity, and see the scriptures somewhat differently—and these differences should be discussed among the brethren in order that the truth of the matter might be more accessible to all the saints. "Fighting for" or "against" pet doctrines in the present church environment seem unnecessary. A debate does not have to be a "fight." We do not wrestle against flesh and blood.

As for the sola scriptura question, no one can be a follower of Christ and reject the authority of the apostles that he authorized. Therefore the sayings of Christ and of the apostles will be paramount to the disciple in discerning the mind and will of God. Those who reject such authority, or place a contrary authority on the same level or above that of Christ and His apostles is hardly a disciple, and has no place in the fellowship.

Can this model be lived? Yes, it has happened in at least two of the fellowships that I have been a part of. It simply takes a proper understanding of what Christianity is about—it is about Jesus, not about our theories about Jesus. There needs to be a paradigm shift in the mind and heart of every believer who has imbibed the assumption of the institutional churches that division in the body is "good business."

[Guest]

Here is his response (I hope you don't mind me copying and pasting his and your responses back and forth from my blog)...

"I do not believe that anyone who denies the Trinity is a Christian. I do not believe that anyone who denies the eternality of the Son is a Christian. They don't believe in the God who is. All heresy starts with the Bible. Thus, while there are certainly areas upon which we can disagree, I view certain positions as essential to the faith. Not understanding the name in which we are baptized is heretical and un-Christian, not something that we can agree to see differently within the faith. These are issues that define who is (and who is not) a Christian."

[Guest]

Our friend is very big on people having to believe the Nicene and Calcedonian creeds in order to be a Christian.

Although, from reading the Nicene creed, I think even Paidion could agree with it (Paidion, you can correct me if I'm wrong).

[Guest]

Also, he would fellowship and call a believer one who doesn't agree with the Trinity or full diety and humanity of Christ out of ignorance. But he has much less tolerance (and I believe this is what he is talking about here) for those who would teach contrary to the clarity of Scripture (as expressed in the early creeds). He believes that the creeds are the correct understanding of scripture. To contradict them is to make a fatal Christian error.