Why no unity?

[Guest shiloh357]

Unity in Christ means exactly, preciely that everyone, without exception believes in the gospel of Christ.  When the Holy Spirit gave the Gospel to the Apostles, He did not give one version to Mark, another to James etc.  They all were given the very same thing.  It is that very same Gospel that has gone forth unchanged by man for 2000 years.

It is Christ and the Holy Spirit that determined what was  contained in the Gospel.  Man has never had authority over that Gospel, man does not determine what it means. 

I think some of your are misusing the word, unity.  YOu should be using the word "union".  YOu are together in some form of union, though not in unity. 

All man can do is accept the Gospel or reject it.  It is not man's perogative to pick and choose what one will believe, even though it may be developed from scripture.  After 500 years it is quite obvious that man has developed thousands of variations to suit his own desires.  

 

What you are suggesting is that everyone must completely agree on every point of doctrine without question otherwise there is no unity.  The Bible does not present unity that way.   Paul expresses unity in terms of a like-mindedness, a harmony in the body of Christ.  But the Bible nowhere puts forth unity in terms of having the exact same doctrinal views on secondary matters.

 

Paul didn't require Christians to have the same views on eating meat sacrificed to idols.  He made concessions for both points of view and told them to honor each others' decision in the matter and to not begrudge the other for their choices.   When it came to views on fasting days, Paul said in Romans 14 to let each man esteem the day as he saw fit.  He did not claim that they had to be in exact agreement with each other on such matters.  There are examples in Scripture where Paul allows for differing points of view on secondary matters.  I could probably find more examples if I had the time.

 

 

 

Some are saying that there are some core beliefs but having been a Protestant, there is absolutely on unity, or even union to any extent on any core issue let alone several.  The best one can have is some unity within a single congregation and to a degree in a denomination.  Even the last two denominations I was a part of have been wracked by all the worldly influences.  Social mores lead the church instead of the other way around.

Within the Protestant melieu with the sola scriptura principle in force, you have many variations on the Trinity, the creation of man, the purpose of man, the fall of man, thus the salvation from the fall, the salvation of individual man, how that salvation is transmited to man, in the Incarnation. There is every variation regarding sacraments, even having them, but changing the meaning and purpose of them.

Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with the development of different denominations.  Sola Scriptura simply refers to the principe that the Bible is the final arbiter on all matters of faith and practice.   I don't have to be led around naively with a hook in my nose by some "magesterium" and be told what I can and cannot believe.  That is not unity.  It is

conformity of thought.  It is not unity. It is a matter of the Bible meaning only what certain people in the church say it means.

a huge contradiction here. Having one mind, the Mind of Christ is believing, practicing the Christian faith as the Holy Spirit gave it to us. It is precisely having all the very same doctrines.  The Doctrines define who Christ is and how we are being saved.  YOu change any one of them you by definition have a different Christ, as well as a different way to be saved. Just look at the Protestant landscape and you will see hundreds of changes, all changing who Christ is and how salvation is meted out.

 

 In the Greek, when Paul refers to having one "mind" it refers to the same attitude, the same spirit.  He is not making an argument for doctrine, but unity despite personal differences.  Paul didn't have to deal with denominations, but he did have to deal with strife and division within individual congregations and Paul's plea was for there to be unity in terms of loving one another, perferring one another and pursing peace with each other.  That is the type of unity Paul called for in the churches.

 

Diversity has nothing to do with unity. 

 

Diversity is not a threat to unity.  Diversity simply means that each of us is different.   Unity finds its greatest value when we can come together and be unified despite our differences.  Churches working together for the common good is unity.  It may not be the Orthodox church's definition of unity, but is true unity,nonetheless. 

 

not unity but union. Union can have diversity, different norms, procedures, cultural differences. However, unity of  the Gospel is the exact same things. Same doctrines to the dotting of the I and T's.

 

Union vs. unity.  Like saying there is a difference between cutting down a tree and chopping down a tree.   So who has the right to speak for everyone as to the correct doctrines they should be believing?  Which man or group of men did God give that authority to?  I mean there has to be one body on earth that believes the preserved doctrines and has it all right.  Who is that?

 

Yes, it does. YOu don't decide, man has never decided. The only thing you are able to do is accept His Gospel as He gave it, as He has preservered it for all time from the beginning.

Christianity has never been an individual thing, some democratic process, or exerting ones own authority over a text that has been the witness to the Truth, it is NOT the Truth.

In the past I have noticed that when people call for complete and absolute doctrinal unity, it usually means the set of doctrines that the person calling for unity believes in.   There is a sense in which people like you have the mindset that if everyone was unified, they would believe the way YOU do.

actually it does. Does scripture give more than one doctrine of the Trinity? Of the Incarnation?  Of the fall?  of salvation from the fall?  The purpose of man? How one is to be saved?  Is there more than one Christ? More than one Church?  

Only man has developed hundreds of variations on a text.

 

Outside of some liberal fringe groups, I don't know of one denomination that disagrees on any of those issues. The lack of unity stems from much deeper problems than doctrinal issues.

 

None of us corner on the market on doctrine.  Paul says that right now, we see through a glass darkly.  The Bible is an infinite mine of wisdom and knowledge still waiting to be discovered.  None of us has a perfect doctrinal position on any given issue and as a result we each have an incomplete picture of God and even Jesus.  Because none of us can claim that we have reached the end of all the wisdom contained in the Bible, there is room for each adn every one of us to be wrong and as a result to differ in what we read. 

 

It isn't a case of people changing or rejecting certain doctrines.  That accusation is ludicrous and unfair.  I will admit that there are some who wear the badge of Christian who don't believe a word in the Bible.  They are not the norm, but even one is one too many.  That having been said, many of us are at different stages in our walk with God and some of our differences stem from different people living in different stages of spiritual maturity in their ongoing journey with the Lord.  I don't believe the exact same way I did ten years ago.  I am constantly learning and growing, but I can still walk in unity with other people who perhaps don't share the same convictions I do in secondary doctrinal matters.

 

Your definition of unity is simply wrong.   Unity is the ability to work and live in peace together as one body of Christ in spite of how we may differ on doctrinal matters.

[Enoc]

Why is there no unity in the body of Christ?

 

There are disputes on every single point of doctrine there is. Very few agree on a lot of things. Even fewer agree on most things. I've never come across 2 believers that agreed on everything. The bible states in the book of Acts that the Apostles were of 1 accord. The first believers were in unity. With each other and Christ.

 

Why aren't we?

 

People often say it's ok, because we are never going to agree on everything. But, the bible says Christ is not divided. Where is the unity? Is it we understand the scripture differently? Well, if we are all being led to the truth by the same Holy Spirit, then shouldn't it be the same truth we arrive at?  Is it because we are at different places in our walk with Christ? But even then, the same core truth should be there, should be the same. Just built upon. Line upon line. An unfolding living revelation coming from the living Word.

 

How can every believer be hearing and being led by the same Holy Spirit and all of us come to different answers to the exact same questions? Why is it seen as such a bad thing to say " I don't know " or " I was wrong ". If Christ is love, then shouldn't unity start there to? Isn't forgiveness apart of love?

 

Where is the Unity?

 

May the living Lord Jesus Bless you all

 

Firestormx

Joseph

 

Three factors:  

• New commandment - No capacity for GOD like love 
• Lack of spiritual fruit - Not spiritually mature
• Carnality - Most Christian are babes in Christ or carnal and have not progressed in their conversion

 

New King James Version (NKJV)

John 13:34

34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

 

Galatians 5:22

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness.

 

1 Corinthians 3

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.  I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?

Edited August 22, 2013 by Enoc

[Thaddaeus]

Butero,

 

I had never looked into the Orthodox Church before, so I spent some time last night looking into it.

Neither did I.  I have a degree in Bible and for 55 years of my life, or rather about 25 years taught basicly Protestantism and never knew anything about the Orthodox Church or even the Orientals.  

 

Protestantism has two major problems.
One, is is inherently anti-Roman Catholic. 
Secondly, Christianity as a whole has been dominated in the west by the Rcc, and since the Reformation by Protestants as well.

 

They do claim to be the original church, but they are not the only group that makes that claim.

Making a claim does not prove anything.  If you do the research it will be quite easy to find the one with the legitimate claim.  After all the Morman Church makes the claim as well and I'm sure there are others.  However, when founded by men it is quite easy and quick to dismiss the claims.

 

The Catholic Church claims to trace it's roots back to the original church, as do some Baptists and Anabaptists.

Historically there are really only three that have any root to the beginning.

 

Besides the Orthodox, the Orientials were the first to separate from the Church after the Council of Chalcedon over the natures of Christ. However, they never made the claim that I am aware of.  At this point that issue is moot  since they have all agreed to come back into the Orthodox Church.  The only other one is the RCC but if you study the history of the Church and the history of the world at that time, along with the theology of the Church it becomes quite obvious again that the RCC did not begin until the 11th century and actually did not coalesce until the Council Florence and the 4th Crusade.

 

There is no way to prove that claim one way or the other,

there are many ways to prove it. I did it and I know many other converts did it as well.  It takes time but it can be done.

 

Even if the church can trace it's origin back as far as they claim, they do have practices that don't seem to be found in scripture?

found in scripture according to whom? YOU?  In my study which is why I took four years, I did not find any teaching or practice of  the Orthodox Church that cannot be found in scripture, or that scripture forbids.

 

The problem protestants have is that they take the text, void it of any meaning, then seek to find by deductive reasoning a doctrine or practice.  The Bible actually does not contain all the details on many items, yet infers them.  The Church existed for many decades before the first letter was even written.  The Church was already in practice before anything was written. It was written according to the practice at the time as established by the Apostles.  Also, the text as we have it today, did not exit until the end of the 4th century.  The Church never used the Bible as Protestants use the Bible. The Bible is NOT the source of anything, it is the witness to the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit in and through His Body, the Church.

 

I know they claim that some of their beliefs are based on oral tradition, and I suppose that would be their explanation, but we are talking about some things that are clearly not seen in any of the New Testament Churches in scripture, like having all those statues, and kissing the feet on them.

the Orthodox Church does not have any statues.  So I never kissed the feet of a statue, but I did venerate icons and the Bible.  But again that is a misconception and misunderstanding of all Protestants regarding veneration. The problem you and all protestants venerate a lot of things that maybe you should not.

 

I am not going to accuse them of idol worship or anything like that, as they make it plain they use those statues to remind them of the saints, but I don't see how this is a continuation of anything Paul or anyone else teaches? 

JUst make sure you don't confuse the Orthodox with the RCC. They are night and day difference and becoming more different as the centuries pass. 

The issue here is that even though scripture infers it and has icons all over the Old Testament, Christ or the Apostles never condemned them. They are the earthly, material vessels of God's love and mercy.

 

There is that matter of calling the Priest "Father," which Jesus tells us not to do.  There are just some things that I don't see as being traced back to the original NT church.

which is a genuine protestant claim and has no basis of truth in it.  If  the word  "Father" is at issue then all people, including Protestants are heretics in using it.  I would do a check on just what it actually means and not read a protestant explanation.  IN fact, protestants are the only ones that do not do what that texts actually means.

 

Your second statement is based on your personal interpretation and not what the Bible has always meant from the beginning. This is why the study is manatory, otherwise you will be left with false impressions and misinformation and misunderstanding.

 

Having said that, I am not looking to attack your church or make accusations towards them.

I know what you mean here, but that is really a protestant statement.  It can NEVER be MY Church.  It is Christ's Church, always has been and always will be.  I happen to be a member of that Church. 

 

I appreciate you sharing your faith, and I wasn't looking to find out your beliefs to jump on them.

They are my beliefs but they have also been the beliefs of Christians for 2000 years, unchanged, the same.

 

I would like nothing better than to find the perfect NT church, and I was hoping you perhaps had found it?

The Body of Christ is the perfect Church, it is the ONLY Church, It was founded by Christ, the cornerstone, with the Apostles as the foundation. Christ is still the Head and it is enlived by the Holy Spirit.  However, people belong to that Church and  they are not perfect by any means, including me. You won't find a perfect Church unless you consider yourself perfect.

 

I am still left with the conclusion that there is no absolutely perfect church. 

there isn't, not what you are looking for. You might as well, consider yourself your own church and thus since you are perfect, you will have a perfect church.

 

The church is made up of imperfect people, that don't have perfect understanding of everything, and until Jesus comes back, we won't have complete unity.  God bless, and thanks again for responding to my question.

 

That is why we have the Church. It may be made up of people, but no person has authority over that Church, or the Gospel, as it is custom within the RCC or Protestantism.  Christ is the Head and the Holy Spirit works through the Body to preserve both the Body and the Gospel entrusted to it from the beginning.  Christ has unity.  The problem is that man thinks he can have unity without the Holy Spirit or on the outside of the Church.
It was this confusion, disunity, and the omeba explosion of religions, all based on man's own personal developments that aroused my thought process, This mass confusion and division is not what scripture describes.  Except the condition of the end times of man with all his fables and notions in competition with each other and nothing more than philosophies and pyschological egoism of these individuals.

 

As to their being one church, I believe that is true, but the members of that church are scattered among many denominations, independent churches, and some who are not part of any organized church.

which is a purely protestant statement. It is at best a good philosophy but hardly scriptural.

 

It has been a pleasure,
God Bless.

[Guest Butero]

Could you explain exactly what you mean when you say that you have "venerated icons?"  I understand the idea of having objects to remind people of the saints or the virgin Mary, but an object isn't the real thing.  In the Bible, the only one I ever saw having someone kiss his feet was Jesus.  The saints washed each other's feet, but never kissed anyone's feet.  Could you explain why anyone does that?

 

I understand that the saints are still alive in Spirit, as nobody really dies, and I understand there is a great cloud of witnesses.  At the same time, I have never seen where we are taught to ask anyone who physically died to pray for us.  Where did that practice originate?  In the original church, we see the gifts of the Spirit in operation.  Do those in the Orthodox Church have those gifts operating in their congregations, like we see in Acts and Corinthians?  How do those in the Orthodox Church view those who are in other churches, whether it be the RCC or protestant denominations?  You mentioned how many protestants are very anti-Catholic.  How does your church view outsiders? 

 

Thanks in advance for helping me better understand your church.  God bless, and I have enjoyed conversing with you as well.

[Thaddaeus]

shiloh357,

What you are suggesting is that everyone must completely agree on every point of doctrine without question otherwise there is no unity.  The Bible does not present unity that way.   Paul expresses unity in terms of a like-mindedness, a harmony in the body of Christ.  But the Bible nowhere puts forth unity in terms of having the exact same doctrinal views on secondary matters.

Paul didn't require Christians to have the same views on eating meat sacrificed to idols.

 It is precisely what those words mean. Unity is the same as the Son, Christ has with the Father.  Is Christ, Methodist, and the Father Baptist?  Does Christ believe in the Incarnation, and the Father does not? 

Paul excommunicated HYmenaeus because he taught a different understanding of the Resurrection.  He also chastised the Corinthians for claiming it was their gospel.

All through history the Holy Spirit has preserved that original Gospel but evicting through the Councils and the Body itself, any false teachings. I think you have a completely different concept of essentials as well versus minors.  Those terms are relative to the person making them which is why Protestantism is so divided.  Whatever it is  that one things are the core essentials you do not have unity even on those because each has his own essentials based on his own personal insight and interpretation.  No place is scripture is man ever determining what scripture means. Of course it would have been impossible since scripture, as you hold it in your hands, did not exist until the end of the 4th century.

The eating of sacrificed mean is NOT a doctrine.  It is about serving God, liberty.  It is more about not judging our brother.   It is not salvational, and even at that, do you know any who sacrifice to idols today that it would be an issue?

Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with the development of different denominations.  Sola Scriptura simply refers to the principe that the Bible is the final arbiter on all matters of faith and practice.

I don't have to be led around naively with a hook in my nose by some "magesterium" and be told what I can and cannot believe.  That is not unity.  It is conformity of thought.  It is not unity. It is a matter of the Bible meaning only what certain people in the church say it means.

 exactly and each person uses scripture, his interpretation to develop all the differing doctrinces, notions, ideas of each denomination or sect.  What it has meant in practice is that MAN is the final and only arbiter of what scripture means. five hundreds years is ample evidence, especially within the last 100 years.

Your typical protestant anti Catholic bias seems to be rising.  I am not RCC. I don't hold to a magisterium either. I hold to Christ and the Holy Spirit, what He gave and what the Holy Spirit has preserved within Christ's Body.  It is why the Body exists in the first place. 

NO one is forcing you to believe anything. God created all men with a rational soul in order to make their own decision of what to do with the Christ. We can accept HIm or reject Him.

It is a matter of the Bible meaning only what certain people in the church say it means.

which is the epitomy of Protestantism. Every church, ever denomination, every sect has been founded by a person, who gathers a few followers of his hallowed interpretation.  You have one, I'm sure of as well. Therein lies the disunity.

In the Greek, when Paul refers to having one "mind" it refers to the same attitude, the same spirit.  He is not making an argument for doctrine, but unity despite personal differences.  Paul didn't have to deal with denominations, but he did have to deal with strife and division within individual congregations and Paul's plea was for there to be unity in terms of loving one another, perferring one another and pursing peace with each other.  That is the type of unity Paul called for in the churches.Diversity is not a threat to unity.  Diversity simply means that each of us is different.   Unity finds its greatest value when we can come together and be unified despite our differences.

a very narrow constrait so it fits your personal interpretion. I can assure you that Christ does not condone differing doctrines or different Christs, or our own imagined concept of him, even if based on scripture erroneously.

Which is why it has nothing to do with unity. There has NEVER been differences of doctrine that continued to exist simultaneously without correction.

This is why the discourse in this thread is misusing the words.  You are assuming you have some unity of doctrine, but differ on the minor things. If it was only minor things you would have "unity" because that is the diversity you are speaking about.  But unity, Christianity cannot abide with error.  There is no unity with the devil. The devil is all about division and he is conquering with confusion and division within the sola scriptura melieu.

Churches working together for the common good is unity. 

that is what I call union of differing groups. That is good, but general society is able to do that as well.

So who has the right to speak for everyone as to the correct doctrines they should be believing?

It has always been Christ and the Holy Spirit. I know of no other option, scripturally.

Which man or group of men did God give that authority to?

He gave it specifically in the beginning to the Apostles who established His Church, His Body over which Christ has always been the Head, enlived by the Holy Spirit. Both work through that Body. Individual man or even a group of men have never had authority over Christ or His Gospel. That notion is found only in the RCC and all denominations and sects.

I mean there has to be one body on earth that believes the preserved doctrines and has it all right.  Who is that?

Doctrines have been preserved because of the Holy Spirit through the Body, embodied today in the Orthodox Church.    But individuals don't have that perfection.

Outside of some liberal fringe groups, I don't know of one denomination that disagrees on any of those issues. The lack of unity stems from much deeper problems than doctrinal issues.

I can give you many. The reason you cannot is that you believe in the use of words, not the meaning or content of those words. For example, the Incarnation.  As a protestant I did not believe in the Incarnation as did the early Church. In fact, there is a real issue that not many protestants actually believe in the Incarnation as described in scripture.

As to the Trinity. Protestants use the word, but the word has no theological meaning. I know because I never taught it, yet it is central to the Gospel of Christ. I never taught any theology about the Incarnation either. Yet both are the distinctive hallmarks of Christianity.  The very issues we are discussing are based on the Trinity and the Incarnation.  You have disagreed with both because it does not fit your exegises of some verses, notwithstanding the larger theological use of those words.

Within Protestantism you have two larger groups, the Calvinists and Armenians that are diametrically opposed to each other doctrinally. Then you have all the take offs of those two encorporating a host of other erroneous interpretations of scripture. What you really have is toleration because the whole is simply based on individual interpretation and then you can use that text above regarding the liberty Paul was speaking about. You need to tolerate all views, not judge any.  Even those that some say are sects, which they are, but are still based on scripture with the same method and authority as any other group or denomination.

The Bible is an infinite mine of wisdom and knowledge still waiting to be discovered.   None of us has a perfect doctrinal position on any given issue and as a result we each have an incomplete picture of God and even Jesus.

but that is not doctrine. That is application of its Truths.  It is the daily living based on the knowledge of what and who Christ is.  The same text can have different meanings for a person from one day to the next based on his own circumstances. But that does not change the meaning of salvation, or the Trinity, or the purpose of man, or the fall of man and salvation from the fall.

Speak for yourself.  If the Church does not have a correct doctrinal position as given by Christ, then we are all lost and can have personal philosophies that as Marx states are opiums for the people.

Because none of us can claim that we have reached the end of all the wisdom contained in the Bible, there is room for each adn every one of us to be wrong and as a result to differ in what we read.

but that is not the issue we are even discussing. You are confusing the Gospel itself with the application of what scripture teaches of how to live a life IN Christ.  The Christ, who He is and what He did for us is the issue.  I stated this before. I'm sure you have a totally different understanding of who Christ is and what He did for mankind than the early Church because your understanding of basic doctrines of the Gospel are different. 

That having been said, many of us are at different stages in our walk with God and some of our differences stem from different people living in different stages of spiritual maturity in their ongoing journey with the Lord.

this has nothing to do with the issue. YOu are speaking about application.  I can assure you that the Jehovah Witnesses will  and can agree with this statement.  But they believe in a different Christ than either you or I. One can say the same for Mormons.

I don't believe the exact same way I did ten years ago.  I am constantly learning and growing, but I can still walk in unity with other people who perhaps don't share the same convictions I do in secondary doctrinal matters.

My belief is the same as it was when I converted, however, my walk has changed drastically and is maturing, at least, that is what it should be doing. But these are two different issues. 

Your definition of unity is simply wrong.   Unity is the ability to work and live in peace together as one body of Christ in spite of how we may differ on doctrinal matters.

not scripturally. Your application of the word is correct, but it has nothing to so with Unity in Christ.  I can work with Jews, Catholics and protestants but that is not unity in Christ. That is simply a social unity or union of groups around a common cause. In your definition you would of necessity need to accept Mormons as one is Christ just because you are working with them in a common cause but differ doctrinely.

[Thaddaeus]

Could you explain exactly what you mean when you say that you have "venerated icons?"  I understand the idea of having objects to remind people of the saints or the virgin Mary, but an object isn't the real thing.  In the Bible, the only one I ever saw having someone kiss his feet was Jesus.  The saints washed each other's feet, but never kissed anyone's feet.  Could you explain why anyone does that?

 

I understand that the saints are still alive in Spirit, as nobody really dies, and I understand there is a great cloud of witnesses.  At the same time, I have never seen where we are taught to ask anyone who physically died to pray for us.  Where did that practice originate?  In the original church, we see the gifts of the Spirit in operation.  Do those in the Orthodox Church have those gifts operating in their congregations, like we see in Acts and Corinthians?  How do those in the Orthodox Church view those who are in other churches, whether it be the RCC or protestant denominations?  You mentioned how many protestants are very anti-Catholic.  How does your church view outsiders? 

 

Thanks in advance for helping me better understand your church.  God bless, and I have enjoyed conversing with you as well.

Icons are pictures of the saints or scriptural events such as the Crucificion, or Ascension, or Transfiguration etc.  We venerate them as the persons who embodied the perfection of Christ. They are our role models, if you will.  The best example I can give is that in our modern world, for good or bad, individuals look up to actors/actresses, sports stars, music stars etc and consider them role models.   

 

About the kissing of feet, I have never done it, because we don't have any feet to kiss since we do not have statues in the Orthodox Church. 

 

Read Rev and in several places it speaks of the Saints gathered around the Throne with vessels filled with the prayers of those on the earth. It is also inferred in that we believe that all are still alive, as you state.  If you would ask your friend on earth to pray for you, why not a saint as well.  You need to understand that ontologically, when we celebrate the Eucharist, it is not done here on earth but in Heaven with all the saints. We have been transported to the Kingdom and share the Eucharist with all the saints, living and dead (in body).

 

The gifts of the Spirit are definitely operative in the Body, not necessarily all in one congregation.  It is also more in the orders, the monastics and ascetics that experience the higher levels of those gifts.

the Orthodox views all others as not being in communion.  It does not address their salvation since we do not presume to know how God can operate outside of his revelation. There will be many who have never heard Christ as you and I have, who will be in heaven.  Each person is given a measure of grace to know and come to Christ from Adam to the last person ever born, and each will give an account for the grace that was given to each.

[gdemoss]

The instructions admonish us clearly as you suggest that we ought to be unified as the body of Christ, however there would be no need for the instruction except it be possible to be in disunity though we be his body.  Directly related to this discussion is the admonishon found repeatedly throughout the NT telling Christians not to be deceived because Christians can be deceived.  I know. I have been.  

 

I simply seek to walk in the fellowship of the spirit with others of God.  I think a lot of my problem stemmed from having a desire to know more than a desire to truly love and serve.  I was more interested in having all my 'doctrine' in line and ready to defend it than I was to love and serve.  I was more prepared to debate than live life.  In the end, I came to believe that God was more interested in what I was doing with my income than he was in how well I could write a dissertation on the trinity doctrine.  But it is easier to study to seek to pass the test than to seek to love the unlovable unto life.

[Micheal Westin]

 

 

The majority is not being led by the Holy Spirit but a self spirit.

Unity in Christ;

One mind, One body, One Spirit. Worshipping HIM

If you can get a congregations attention on this, the congregation will witness a move in the congregated body by the Holy Spirit.

God Bless

I agree with you, Jesus plainly tells the believers that it was the Holy Spirit He would be sending that would lead the church, to me this is the most overlooked biblical truth, since so much of who the Holy Spirit is and what He does is not accepted in many churches which leaves them led by men and not by the Spirit

 

 

 

I certainly would agree and since I am a born again spirit filled tongue speaking Christian, if you disagree with me, you must not have the Spirit.... 

 

there are many spirits that work in this world, which is why the apostle Paul insist that Christians "test" the spirits, many of them love to speak in tongues too, some like to make people bark like dogs, and writh on the floor like a snake

 

then when this happens, some people resort in dismissing the "Spiritual aspect" all together and rather than risk the manifestation of a lying spirit, spirit of false prophesy or somthing else, they reject the Spirit and take the role of leadership much the same why Catholics gave Jesus's seat to one man, that they parade around and kiss his ring as if he were their king

[Micheal Westin]

basically there will be no unity among believers of all the different factions, because thats what the bible teaches, you can see this clearly if you go to the end of the story and see how it all pans out. everymans work will be put to the fire, and what he has built on the foundation of Christ will either be correct and stand like pure gold or silver or it will be burned up like chaff, the only real unity is seen in the great multitude which no man can count, but its up to each of us to try to be as loving as we can while not giving up the most basic truths of the bible

[Guest shiloh357]

It is precisely what those words mean. Unity is the same as the Son, Christ has with the Father.  Is Christ, Methodist, and the Father Baptist?  Does Christ believe in the Incarnation, and the Father does not? 

 

That is not a fair analogy as there are no mainstream authentic Christian denominations that reject the incarnation or deity of Jesus.

 

Paul excommunicated HYmenaeus because he taught a different understanding of the Resurrection.

 

 Right, but that is an essential doctrine and Hymenaeus was a heretic.  That doesn't reflect the secondary doctrinal issues and traditions that Christians of various persuasions might differ on.  Augustine wrote, "Around the essentials, unity, around the nonessentials liberty, and in all things, charity."  There is room for differnces without those differences leading to disunity.

 

 

All through history the Holy Spirit has preserved that original Gospel but evicting through the Councils and the Body itself, any false teachings. I think you have a completely different concept of essentials as well versus minors.  Those terms are relative to the person making them which is why Protestantism is so divided.  Whatever it is  that one things are the core essentials you do not have unity even on those because each has his own essentials based on his own personal insight and interpretation.  No place is scripture is man ever determining what scripture means. Of course it would have been impossible since scripture, as you hold it in your hands, did not exist until the end of the 4th century.

 

The difference here is that you are approaching this from the standpoint of apostolic succession and the presence of a magesterium that is presumably led by the Holy Spirit to tell everyone else what the Bible teaches.  Thus, everyone is supposed to be in unity around those teachings.  At least that is how it appears from this side of the computer screen.

 

The eating of sacrificed mean is NOT a doctrine.  It is about serving God, liberty.  It is more about not judging our brother.   It is not salvational, and even at that, do you know any who sacrifice to idols today that it would be an issue?

 

Ah but it touches on doctrine, particularly holiness.  Was it tantamount to approving of idolatry by eating such meat? Would lead one into the temptation to participate in idolatrous practices?  There were those who felt that they could eat such meat and that it did not affect any harm to their walk at all.  Others felt that to eat meat sacrificed to idols was a sin.   Paul made room for both views.  Again, we are talking about secondary views, not views that center around essential doctrine like the Deity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the Trinity, etc.

 

Speak for yourself.  If the Church does not have a correct doctrinal position as given by Christ, then we are all lost and can have personal philosophies that as Marx states are opiums for the people.

 

So, are you thus claiming that you have a perfect understanding the entire Bible and all it contains??

You are confusing the Gospel itself with the application of what scripture teaches of how to live a life IN Christ. 

 

No, I'm not.  I am talking about secondary issues, like differences the center on eschatology, or speaking in tongues or immersion in water vs. sprinkling, or whether or not it is a sin to drink alcohol.   I don't think that we as Christians differ on the Gospel at all. 

 

Your application of the word is correct, but it has nothing to so with Unity in Christ.  I can work with Jews, Catholics and protestants but that is not unity in Christ. That is simply a social unity or union of groups around a common cause. In your definition you would of necessity need to accept Mormons as one is Christ just because you are working with them in a common cause but differ doctrinely.

The Bible defines our unity in Christ as one new man, Jew and Gentile.  We are one in Him.  In Christ is a positional term. We are in Christ as opposed to being "in Adam."  In Christ, we are under grace, as opposed to "under the law."   We call that positional justification.   "In Christ" is locative in nature.  It tells us where we are.  It doesn't carry the meaning or connotation of complete and aboslute doctrinal agreement.  Our "unity" in Christ refers to our unity in terms of being joined together in Him as one body, as His bride. 

 

There are two ways to approach the term, "doctrine."   There are primary or essential doctrines about which there can be no compromise and which are established doctrines of the Christian faith.   The other way to approach the word, "doctrine" concerns issues about which the Bible doesn''t give us as much light like which rapture scenario someone chooses to believe, or whether or not one should be baptised by immersion or sprinkled.  Those are issues about which we can differ without shredding our unity to smithereens. 

can give you many. The reason you cannot is that you believe in the use of words, not the meaning or content of those words. For example, the Incarnation.  As a protestant I did not believe in the Incarnation as did the early Church. In fact, there is a real issue that not many protestants actually believe in the Incarnation as described in scripture.

As to the Trinity. Protestants use the word, but the word has no theological meaning. I know because I never taught it, yet it is central to the Gospel of Christ. I never taught any theology about the Incarnation either. Yet both are the distinctive hallmarks of Christianity.  The very issues we are discussing are based on the Trinity and the Incarnation.  You have disagreed with both because it does not fit your exegises of some verses, notwithstanding the larger theological use of those words.

Within Protestantism you have two larger groups, the Calvinists and Armenians that are diametrically opposed to each other doctrinally. Then you have all the take offs of those two encorporating a host of other erroneous interpretations of scripture. What you really have is toleration because the whole is simply based on individual interpretation and then you can use that text above regarding the liberty Paul was speaking about. You need to tolerate all views, not judge any.  Even those that some say are sects, which they are, but are still based on scripture with the same method and authority as any other group or denomination.

 

I would be considered a protestant by you, but my experience has been that the incarnation, Trinity, etc. are all taught in protestant churches.  You cannont judge protestantism by your experience and the fact that you did not teach those things.

 

The Trinity, for example, is a major theological doctrine where I come from so I really don't get where you are coming from unless you were from some fringe or liberal group that didn't beleive the Bible.  It appears you are using a very subjective and person means of judging what Protestants believe.  Not all protestants would have shared your views back when you were a Protestant.

 

 

And by the way, historically, the "unity" of believers as it was applied in the Middle ages and prior was "convert or die."   "Unity meant the unconditional acceptance of all church teachings upon pain of death.  The only real difference is that the Catholic Church was de-clawed and de-fanged when the Bible was made available for the common man to read.  Suddenly he found out that he had been taught things that are not actually in the Bible, like the perpetual virginity of Mary, and her emaculate conception.  Confessionn to priests, the real Presence in the Eucharist elements, indulgences, Purgatory and a host of other Church teachings were not biblical. 

 

When people were united under "the Church" it was at a time when the Bible was read in Latin and men were kept illiterate and at the mercy of priests who taught false doctrines as "Scripture."   So "unity" under one teaching wasn't really the best thing for Christians.  Your definition of unity is really control, manipualation and conformity of thought without question.  It's not unity. It's slavery and in one sense, idolatry.