Unity and the Early Church
So aaron, did I make any good points at all? I think you may have. However, I have never retreated from a view I began to hold but instead improved on it. There was a time when I knew nothing but I have never gone back to that inspite of the fact that ignorance is bliss. I have moved forward and learned to recognize the variations. I have lined them up with the Bible and determined if I was comfortable with what I have seen. As far as determining the tone of someone, I think that is an impossible task if one has never met the other except this means. I have been accused of many attitudes on other boards and have been banned by the best of them but yet I wonder how I could have been taken so wrong. My point is this; do we want to live in disunity or do we want to love one another as Christ has loved us? I think we both want the latter. If we tend to be offended by words whether justified or not then we can and will never accomplish a task. God has made us ambassadors of Christ and as ambassadors we are never offended by words but instead we look upon the fruit of our brothers and sisters. I see you as an asset to your church and I hope that continues, Likewise I see Steve as a gifted individual who has dedicated his whole life to service for the Lord. God sees you both as righteous because of Christ and not of your own doing.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
First of all I must say the congregation we attend has a varity of people with varying views. Some from charismatic backgrounds, Baptist, Nazerene, Missionary Alliance, etc. There is little discussion of matters that divide. We are an Independent Christian Church who strongly believe "we are christians only, but not the only christians".
As I stated earlier, I believe unity and love among christians is of utmost importance. However, unity without truth is not worth much. In 2 John 6 we read "This is love, that we walk according to His commandments." I can not believe this means no more than we love one another. I can see both sides of this issue but I think Aaron, as I understand him, has a valid point.
Steve has said that truth has the best argument, and I agree. But truth may overcome error only after a long, long struggle, and much harm may be done in the meantime.
I would ask you all, if Bob George showed up in your congregation, would you advocate allowing him whatever time it took to preach his false doctrine? For those unfamiliar he is widely followed through his radio program and seminars. He teaches that during Jesus' ministry He was preaching law and Jesus' teachings, such as the sermon on the mount, have no application to christians. I have heard him inform a caller that Jesus' teaching, regarding forgiving others or God will not forgive us, did not apply to her, she was OK, did not need to be concerned with forgiving her offender. I have heard him repeatedly state that 1 John 1:9 regarding confessing our sins is not only not required of the christian, but is actually showing a lack of trust in the cross and is thus a sin. Would not 2 John 9-11 apply to false teacers in some sense? Is there no line?
2 John 9-11; "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrines of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into you house or greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." I follow Alford in his understanding of this passage, that the "doctrines of Christ" refers to Jesus' teachings.
Would this indicate that if Bob George was given a forum in your church and some person, or persons, were lead astray, God would hold you accountable? I have personally seen this happen. Some people happened to start listening to his program and appear to have abandoned the church; not just ours, but any church!
If Bob George came and spoke to your congregation, hopefully most would not fall for his line. But some might fall for his "itching ears" easy-believism. Those strong in their convictions would not be improved and the weak might be lead astray. I see little to be gained. He does not need to be heard to be refuted. Indeed, he should be refuted before he is heard!
Regarding 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was burried, and that He arose again the third day according to the scriptures"... If we affirm this passage is true and we love one another are we brothers? I am not sure this is the basis of unity. I have read a considerable amount on the Mormon's belief regarding the atonement. They would say they agree literally with this passage of scripture. I know well some Mormons and hold them in high regard as good moral people. I can say I love them and I believe they love me. Are we brothers in Christ? I do not believe so. They agree Jesus died for our sins but have a very different idea what it means. Would I advocate having them present their view of the atonement to our congregation? Never!
Perhaps I have misunderstood the position of many of you, including Steve. If so, I apologize.
As I stated earlier, I believe unity and love among christians is of utmost importance. However, unity without truth is not worth much. In 2 John 6 we read "This is love, that we walk according to His commandments." I can not believe this means no more than we love one another. I can see both sides of this issue but I think Aaron, as I understand him, has a valid point.
Steve has said that truth has the best argument, and I agree. But truth may overcome error only after a long, long struggle, and much harm may be done in the meantime.
I would ask you all, if Bob George showed up in your congregation, would you advocate allowing him whatever time it took to preach his false doctrine? For those unfamiliar he is widely followed through his radio program and seminars. He teaches that during Jesus' ministry He was preaching law and Jesus' teachings, such as the sermon on the mount, have no application to christians. I have heard him inform a caller that Jesus' teaching, regarding forgiving others or God will not forgive us, did not apply to her, she was OK, did not need to be concerned with forgiving her offender. I have heard him repeatedly state that 1 John 1:9 regarding confessing our sins is not only not required of the christian, but is actually showing a lack of trust in the cross and is thus a sin. Would not 2 John 9-11 apply to false teacers in some sense? Is there no line?
2 John 9-11; "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrines of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into you house or greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." I follow Alford in his understanding of this passage, that the "doctrines of Christ" refers to Jesus' teachings.
Would this indicate that if Bob George was given a forum in your church and some person, or persons, were lead astray, God would hold you accountable? I have personally seen this happen. Some people happened to start listening to his program and appear to have abandoned the church; not just ours, but any church!
If Bob George came and spoke to your congregation, hopefully most would not fall for his line. But some might fall for his "itching ears" easy-believism. Those strong in their convictions would not be improved and the weak might be lead astray. I see little to be gained. He does not need to be heard to be refuted. Indeed, he should be refuted before he is heard!
Regarding 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was burried, and that He arose again the third day according to the scriptures"... If we affirm this passage is true and we love one another are we brothers? I am not sure this is the basis of unity. I have read a considerable amount on the Mormon's belief regarding the atonement. They would say they agree literally with this passage of scripture. I know well some Mormons and hold them in high regard as good moral people. I can say I love them and I believe they love me. Are we brothers in Christ? I do not believe so. They agree Jesus died for our sins but have a very different idea what it means. Would I advocate having them present their view of the atonement to our congregation? Never!
Perhaps I have misunderstood the position of many of you, including Steve. If so, I apologize.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
No one here, so far as I can tell, has misunderstood my position as much as Aaron has. Every position he attributes to me is the exact opposite of what I have said in my posts.
First, he writes as if I am incapable of reaching a firm opinion on any disputed doctrine. The truth is, there are very few disputed doctrines upon which I have not reached a settled opinion. What I said was that one should not settle upon one side of the aisle while one is still unable to refute the points presented on the other side. If the other side has unanswerable arguments, one should be modest enough to consider that the other view may turn out to be true. I do not settle on a viewpoint until I know that every argument for the other side is invalid, and am able to answer them exegetically. If I cannot do this, then I must remain undecided.
Aaron has assumed that my willingness to allow other views to be heard reflects my own indecision. He does not consider that I may be fully persuaded of my viewpoint, and yet think it tolerable for a brother to have an opposing view and to express it as freely as I express my own. My appeal in this thread has not been for endless indecision on the part of the Christian individual, but of all-embracing grace and acceptance on the part of the community of believers. I am just idealistic enough to believe that, were Christians to allow free dialog among those who have different interpretations among themselves (a concept never widely embraced in church history) that the Holy Spirit might just be able to lead the church as a whole to the most biblical viewpoint in the end.
I must walk on eggs around Aaron, because he does not follow the thought of a sentence, and simply grabs at individual words that he considers offensive without paying any attention to how they are used in sentences. For example, I did not call anyone "arrogant spiritual babes"—least of all his church. I said that he had expressed a low view of the flexibility (hence, the maturity) of his own church, but I did not say (because I don't profess to know) whether his assessment is true or not. I have never said or believed that being intelligent is a measure of maturity or spirituality. I also doubt that I ever called anyone on this forum "stupid." He is referring to my remarks to Asimov, whom I did not call "stupid."
Aaron seems unwilling to take generic statements as such, and insists on taking them personally. He was extremely bothered when I pointed out (Sept.23rd, in this thread) that the attitude he had expressed was both "unChristian and unbiblical," and that one of his statements was "naive." Since when is it unloving to point such things out to the brethren? I didn't simply make an irresponsible swipe at him. I gave the biblical reasons for my critique. He went ballistic at having been thus criticized. I could not count the number of times people have made such criticisms of my viewpoints—often without even providing a biblical critique—but it never occurred to me that I should find such criticism offensive.
Contra Aaron's accusations, I have nothing against non-intellectuals (nor did I say anything that would remotely impugn the intelligence of Aaron's fellow congregants). I do have problems with "anti-intellectuals," which is something entirely different. If a person does not have intellectual gifts or inclinations, I do not fault him or think less of him for that. However, if his lack of such gifts or inclinations leads him to take offense to those who actually wish to think clearly and accurately and to speak responsibly, this is a troublesome and divisive attitude.
As for Bob George, I would not have been afraid to have him come and speak at my school, since I was also there to speak and to bring balance or correction, as necessary. As I said in a prior post, every church must have some men capable of doing this.
I deliberately invited teachers with whom I disagreed to speak to our students about their beliefs. None of our students were led astray by them, so far as I know, since the false teachings can, with patience and appeal to scriptural exegesis, be shown to be what they are—false.
However, if the students never had opportunity, under our oversight, to hear these false teachers, this does not mean that they would never hear them elsewhere. What safer place could there be to be exposed to views presented by different teachers (since they are likely to hear them somewhere), than in the midst of the discerning community?
Remember, all the views, that keep being referred to as "false" in the above posts, are views that some Christians believe to be true. When we speak of false teaching, in this regard, we mean teachings that are contrary to our own views. If I decide that my views are the only views that Christians can possibly believe, then I am defining a "Christian" as one who holds my particular viewpoint.
Of course, there are certain views that do not fall within the pale of Christianity, and I have identified which ones I think are essential elsewhere in this forum. The most important declaration of true Christianity is: "Jesus is Lord." If Bob George's teachings deny the lordship of Christ over our lives, then they are not "Christian" by this definition. However, in making this observation, it is not I that decide this matter, but it is one of the few clear "litmus tests" given in scripture.
Bob George is confused on this issue because he is a consistent dispensationalist. Darby and C.I. Scoffield taught the same thing that Bob George teaches on this matter, as does Hal Lindsey, Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, and other consistent dispensationalists. If any of these men are or were Christians, then Bob George might also be. If he believes this false doctrine, but privately lives under the authority of Christ in his own conscience, then maybe he (along with others who believe as he does) could be a confused brother who needs correction. I know of no better way to minister correction to a brother than to dialog in the spirit of love and acceptance (Eph.4:15).
If a person holding a disputed doctrine has an agenda to bring the congregation into mandatory conformity with his teaching, he should not teach the church—not because his doctrine is flawed, but because his character is. Only mature believers should address the assembly to teach, and it is a mark of maturity for a man to recognize the points of his personal beliefs that are disputable, and to accept without rancor those who hold opposing views on those disputed points.
The idea of a church that deliberately invites heretics to speak in their pulpit (which Aaron and Homer seem to be concerned about) bears no resemblance to what I have suggested. Only mature believers in the Lord Jesus Christ should ever stand before the congregation to disciple the flock—except in the case of heretics being invited for the purpose of debate and refutation (e.g., churches sometimes sponsor debates with atheists and evolutionists).
My point, which has been so caracatured by Aaron and perhaps others, has always been to recognize that not all differences of doctrine constitute heresy, and those who are submitted to Christ and the scriptures should be heard with respect by their brethren, rather than sent off to find a sequestered group that believes just as they do. To my mind, this is so self-evident that I can hardly imagine anyone who loves the Lord (and who therefore loves the brethren) would find it objectionable. I have read nothing in this thread that would challenge its validity.
P.S. to Aaron,
You wrote:
"I did not try to tell the cessationalist at the church I visited that they should seek the power of the Holy Ghost... I would not dare go there and try to see if I could speak out my views that are contradictory to their own and cause nothing but trouble."
Here is the problem: It should not cause "trouble" in the body of Christ for you to share your views with a cessationist. In fact, your beliefs about the Holy Spirit may be something that would enhance the Christian life of the cessationist, if only he were allowed to hear and assess them. It is the politics of the church, not your expressing your view, that would make "trouble." It is those very politics that I am critiquing, and you are defending. You say that you would not dare express your views in that church to a cessationist who went there. Where, then, would you approach him about your views? In a coffee shop? In your living room? On an internet discussion board? Why should he not be able to hear what you have to say in his own fellowship—and why should his fellowship not be your fellowship?
If his views have more scriptural support than yours do, his pastor and he should not be threatened by your position. Why must people like you and people like them hide in separate fortresses, pretending to honor each other's right to be wrong and uncorrected—and then sneak around behind the pastor's back and try to correct them on the internet or elsewhere? Why should open dialog not take place in the church, instead of being confined to sneaky, "extracurricular" dialog in a forum or a lunchtime handball match?
First, he writes as if I am incapable of reaching a firm opinion on any disputed doctrine. The truth is, there are very few disputed doctrines upon which I have not reached a settled opinion. What I said was that one should not settle upon one side of the aisle while one is still unable to refute the points presented on the other side. If the other side has unanswerable arguments, one should be modest enough to consider that the other view may turn out to be true. I do not settle on a viewpoint until I know that every argument for the other side is invalid, and am able to answer them exegetically. If I cannot do this, then I must remain undecided.
Aaron has assumed that my willingness to allow other views to be heard reflects my own indecision. He does not consider that I may be fully persuaded of my viewpoint, and yet think it tolerable for a brother to have an opposing view and to express it as freely as I express my own. My appeal in this thread has not been for endless indecision on the part of the Christian individual, but of all-embracing grace and acceptance on the part of the community of believers. I am just idealistic enough to believe that, were Christians to allow free dialog among those who have different interpretations among themselves (a concept never widely embraced in church history) that the Holy Spirit might just be able to lead the church as a whole to the most biblical viewpoint in the end.
I must walk on eggs around Aaron, because he does not follow the thought of a sentence, and simply grabs at individual words that he considers offensive without paying any attention to how they are used in sentences. For example, I did not call anyone "arrogant spiritual babes"—least of all his church. I said that he had expressed a low view of the flexibility (hence, the maturity) of his own church, but I did not say (because I don't profess to know) whether his assessment is true or not. I have never said or believed that being intelligent is a measure of maturity or spirituality. I also doubt that I ever called anyone on this forum "stupid." He is referring to my remarks to Asimov, whom I did not call "stupid."
Aaron seems unwilling to take generic statements as such, and insists on taking them personally. He was extremely bothered when I pointed out (Sept.23rd, in this thread) that the attitude he had expressed was both "unChristian and unbiblical," and that one of his statements was "naive." Since when is it unloving to point such things out to the brethren? I didn't simply make an irresponsible swipe at him. I gave the biblical reasons for my critique. He went ballistic at having been thus criticized. I could not count the number of times people have made such criticisms of my viewpoints—often without even providing a biblical critique—but it never occurred to me that I should find such criticism offensive.
Contra Aaron's accusations, I have nothing against non-intellectuals (nor did I say anything that would remotely impugn the intelligence of Aaron's fellow congregants). I do have problems with "anti-intellectuals," which is something entirely different. If a person does not have intellectual gifts or inclinations, I do not fault him or think less of him for that. However, if his lack of such gifts or inclinations leads him to take offense to those who actually wish to think clearly and accurately and to speak responsibly, this is a troublesome and divisive attitude.
As for Bob George, I would not have been afraid to have him come and speak at my school, since I was also there to speak and to bring balance or correction, as necessary. As I said in a prior post, every church must have some men capable of doing this.
I deliberately invited teachers with whom I disagreed to speak to our students about their beliefs. None of our students were led astray by them, so far as I know, since the false teachings can, with patience and appeal to scriptural exegesis, be shown to be what they are—false.
However, if the students never had opportunity, under our oversight, to hear these false teachers, this does not mean that they would never hear them elsewhere. What safer place could there be to be exposed to views presented by different teachers (since they are likely to hear them somewhere), than in the midst of the discerning community?
Remember, all the views, that keep being referred to as "false" in the above posts, are views that some Christians believe to be true. When we speak of false teaching, in this regard, we mean teachings that are contrary to our own views. If I decide that my views are the only views that Christians can possibly believe, then I am defining a "Christian" as one who holds my particular viewpoint.
Of course, there are certain views that do not fall within the pale of Christianity, and I have identified which ones I think are essential elsewhere in this forum. The most important declaration of true Christianity is: "Jesus is Lord." If Bob George's teachings deny the lordship of Christ over our lives, then they are not "Christian" by this definition. However, in making this observation, it is not I that decide this matter, but it is one of the few clear "litmus tests" given in scripture.
Bob George is confused on this issue because he is a consistent dispensationalist. Darby and C.I. Scoffield taught the same thing that Bob George teaches on this matter, as does Hal Lindsey, Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, and other consistent dispensationalists. If any of these men are or were Christians, then Bob George might also be. If he believes this false doctrine, but privately lives under the authority of Christ in his own conscience, then maybe he (along with others who believe as he does) could be a confused brother who needs correction. I know of no better way to minister correction to a brother than to dialog in the spirit of love and acceptance (Eph.4:15).
If a person holding a disputed doctrine has an agenda to bring the congregation into mandatory conformity with his teaching, he should not teach the church—not because his doctrine is flawed, but because his character is. Only mature believers should address the assembly to teach, and it is a mark of maturity for a man to recognize the points of his personal beliefs that are disputable, and to accept without rancor those who hold opposing views on those disputed points.
The idea of a church that deliberately invites heretics to speak in their pulpit (which Aaron and Homer seem to be concerned about) bears no resemblance to what I have suggested. Only mature believers in the Lord Jesus Christ should ever stand before the congregation to disciple the flock—except in the case of heretics being invited for the purpose of debate and refutation (e.g., churches sometimes sponsor debates with atheists and evolutionists).
My point, which has been so caracatured by Aaron and perhaps others, has always been to recognize that not all differences of doctrine constitute heresy, and those who are submitted to Christ and the scriptures should be heard with respect by their brethren, rather than sent off to find a sequestered group that believes just as they do. To my mind, this is so self-evident that I can hardly imagine anyone who loves the Lord (and who therefore loves the brethren) would find it objectionable. I have read nothing in this thread that would challenge its validity.
P.S. to Aaron,
You wrote:
"I did not try to tell the cessationalist at the church I visited that they should seek the power of the Holy Ghost... I would not dare go there and try to see if I could speak out my views that are contradictory to their own and cause nothing but trouble."
Here is the problem: It should not cause "trouble" in the body of Christ for you to share your views with a cessationist. In fact, your beliefs about the Holy Spirit may be something that would enhance the Christian life of the cessationist, if only he were allowed to hear and assess them. It is the politics of the church, not your expressing your view, that would make "trouble." It is those very politics that I am critiquing, and you are defending. You say that you would not dare express your views in that church to a cessationist who went there. Where, then, would you approach him about your views? In a coffee shop? In your living room? On an internet discussion board? Why should he not be able to hear what you have to say in his own fellowship—and why should his fellowship not be your fellowship?
If his views have more scriptural support than yours do, his pastor and he should not be threatened by your position. Why must people like you and people like them hide in separate fortresses, pretending to honor each other's right to be wrong and uncorrected—and then sneak around behind the pastor's back and try to correct them on the internet or elsewhere? Why should open dialog not take place in the church, instead of being confined to sneaky, "extracurricular" dialog in a forum or a lunchtime handball match?
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
I've been unable to participate much on this forum in the last couple of months due to my schedule, but I've just finished reading through this particular discussion and found it most interesting.
It's sadly ironic that a discussion about unity has devolved into accusations and recriminations, but maybe we can move forward.
It strikes me that one possible source of disagreement regarding whether or not to allow the presentation of opposing doctrines in church has to do with how one perceives "church".
If, by "church", one means a series of meetings where only a handful of people ever teach (usually from a pulpit on a platform) while the majority sit passively and receive the teaching, then I can see why the idea of divergent teachers would be unsettling.
If, on the other hand, one thinks of "church" as a participatory, interactive gathering - then the idea of different viewpoints being discussed makes perfect sense.
I have experienced the former and found that it stifles biblical and theological maturity and can perpetuate faulty doctrine. I've experienced that latter and found a remarkable "self-correcting" seems to take place (the Holy Spirit at work perhaps?) as long as dialog is kept open and free.
I'm active in ministry at the local county jail. One of the interesting things that occurs there is that Christians from a wide variety of doctrinal viewpoints all work together towards a common goal of ministering Christ to the inmates. It's not unusual for me to literally bite my tongue to keep from disputing something that a fellow minister says during a service (especially some of the "Word of Faith" folks). I'll happily go to lunch with such a brother or sister and dialog/debate/dispute about various doctrines, but when we're ministering to the inmates, we try to keep the focus on Jesus.
It is enriching (and a bit challenging) to fellowship with brothers and sisters who are strong in the faith and have strongly held doctrinal viewpoints that differ from my own.
It's sadly ironic that a discussion about unity has devolved into accusations and recriminations, but maybe we can move forward.
It strikes me that one possible source of disagreement regarding whether or not to allow the presentation of opposing doctrines in church has to do with how one perceives "church".
If, by "church", one means a series of meetings where only a handful of people ever teach (usually from a pulpit on a platform) while the majority sit passively and receive the teaching, then I can see why the idea of divergent teachers would be unsettling.
If, on the other hand, one thinks of "church" as a participatory, interactive gathering - then the idea of different viewpoints being discussed makes perfect sense.
I have experienced the former and found that it stifles biblical and theological maturity and can perpetuate faulty doctrine. I've experienced that latter and found a remarkable "self-correcting" seems to take place (the Holy Spirit at work perhaps?) as long as dialog is kept open and free.
I'm active in ministry at the local county jail. One of the interesting things that occurs there is that Christians from a wide variety of doctrinal viewpoints all work together towards a common goal of ministering Christ to the inmates. It's not unusual for me to literally bite my tongue to keep from disputing something that a fellow minister says during a service (especially some of the "Word of Faith" folks). I'll happily go to lunch with such a brother or sister and dialog/debate/dispute about various doctrines, but when we're ministering to the inmates, we try to keep the focus on Jesus.
It is enriching (and a bit challenging) to fellowship with brothers and sisters who are strong in the faith and have strongly held doctrinal viewpoints that differ from my own.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Quote:
"It's sadly ironic that a discussion about unity has devolved into accusations and recriminations, but maybe we can move forward. "
I was thinking the same thing. I apologize for my part in aggravating Aaron and becoming aggravated by him.
"It's sadly ironic that a discussion about unity has devolved into accusations and recriminations, but maybe we can move forward. "
I was thinking the same thing. I apologize for my part in aggravating Aaron and becoming aggravated by him.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Mort, I respect your choice in keeping quite when you hear what you believe to be pseudo-truth but I am doublely glad that God has not called me to such a ministry where this must be tolerated. I am one who boldly speaks up when I hear what I believe to be wrong teaching. I tend to work alone in my ministry and so only have God to answer to. I suppose since God knows our personalities He then uses that to His glory inspite of ourselves.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Amen Steve, and thank you Father for hearing my prayer.Steve wrote:Quote:
"It's sadly ironic that a discussion about unity has devolved into accusations and recriminations, but maybe we can move forward. "
I was thinking the same thing. I apologize for my part in aggravating Aaron and becoming aggravated by him.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Mort said:
Yes! This is what I was trying to say earlier on the forum, but I think you made the point much clearer! Thank you!
It strikes me that one possible source of disagreement regarding whether or not to allow the presentation of opposing doctrines in church has to do with how one perceives "church".
If, by "church", one means a series of meetings where only a handful of people ever teach (usually from a pulpit on a platform) while the majority sit passively and receive the teaching, then I can see why the idea of divergent teachers would be unsettling.
If, on the other hand, one thinks of "church" as a participatory, interactive gathering - then the idea of different viewpoints being discussed makes perfect sense.
I have experienced the former and found that it stifles biblical and theological maturity and can perpetuate faulty doctrine. I've experienced that latter and found a remarkable "self-correcting" seems to take place (the Holy Spirit at work perhaps?) as long as dialog is kept open and free.
Yes! This is what I was trying to say earlier on the forum, but I think you made the point much clearer! Thank you!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"How is it that Christians today will pay $20 to hear the latest Christian concert, but Jesus can't draw a crowd?"
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
allyn wrote:
this discussion was getting a tad uncomfortable to read because it seemed a stalemate was reached, and nobody wanted to back down (not that they necessarily should). paul's statement comes to mind.. "Why not rather be wronged?"
i am grateful that in general the posters here are willing to disagree humbly, and will apologize if necessary. i am not sure that an apology was absolutely required here, but it is better to be err on the side of caution. thanks to steve, for taking the lead in this.
TK
mine too!Amen Steve, and thank you Father for hearing my prayer.
this discussion was getting a tad uncomfortable to read because it seemed a stalemate was reached, and nobody wanted to back down (not that they necessarily should). paul's statement comes to mind.. "Why not rather be wronged?"
i am grateful that in general the posters here are willing to disagree humbly, and will apologize if necessary. i am not sure that an apology was absolutely required here, but it is better to be err on the side of caution. thanks to steve, for taking the lead in this.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
For the edification of future readers of this thread, I have removed the last post of Aaron's and my last post to him. I hope no one objects. In my view, they became too personal and unedifying. Perhaps the same could be said of some of the posts that I left undeleted, but I don't feel the freedom to go through and remove another man's posts wholesale, nor to leave them intact without also leaving my responses to them.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve