Why no unity?

[Guest man]

To all,

 

    Interesting discussion. I have been keeping up with every post. I see the discussion about why there is no unity has drifted into doctrinal issues. I can't say I am surprised. I expected as much. So I will ask a couple questions about original sin doctrine.

 

1. Will the word of God fail?  Does God lie? The scripture states in Romans 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. If a baby is born and then dies 1 or 2 hours after birth, did it sin or is sin present , or is the Word of God wrong about all have sinned? You can't have it both ways. For if the Child has no sin nature, and has not committed a sin in it's short life, Then did this child or baby live a sinless life? Does the child need Jesus to get to heaven or since it did not sin, it got there on it's own merits of being sinless?

 

2. If children even small children have no sin nature, then does that not contradict this verse, which states a situation where children are unclean. 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy. Nothing unclean will enter heaven. If a small child has no sin nature, then how or why could it be unclean?

 

3. On the other side of the argument. The bible states in 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. What could a baby or small child do to transgress the law?

 

Final question

 

4. This is a major doctrinal issue. If issues like this can't be agreed upon, then how can there ever be unity?

 

 

If you answer one of these questions, then please take the time to answer all.

 

Firestormx

Joseph

 

 

1 Samuel 16

7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”

 

 

 

Unity isn't about agreeing on a list of do's and don't's. Unity is a condition of the heart. The Lord searches the heart because the heart cannot lie. All of our actions and reactions originate in the heart. The heart holds our motives and exposes who we are. Unity isn't about agreeing with one another, it's about living the commandments to the best of our ability. 

 

The purity of a newborns heart doesn't mean the sin nature isn't there. It just means the heart hasn't had time to grow. 

[oldzimm]

I think the answer to the original post is in the original post and the answer is "doctrine", When a Church makes a doctrine, they should be careful because there is a fine line between what the Bible tells us and if their adding or subtracting from the word.

 

I would rather not have any doctrine at all, my doctrine is the Holy Bible, we can't make a doctrine more perfect than that.

 

Oldzimm 

[nebula]

1 Samuel 16

7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”

 

 

 

Unity isn't about agreeing on a list of do's and don't's. Unity is a condition of the heart. The Lord searches the heart because the heart cannot lie. All of our actions and reactions originate in the heart. The heart holds our motives and exposes who we are. Unity isn't about agreeing with one another, it's about living the commandments to the best of our ability. 

 

The purity of a newborns heart doesn't mean the sin nature isn't there. It just means the heart hasn't had time to grow. 

 

 

Awesome answer!!!!

[Guest Butero]

To all,

 

    Interesting discussion. I have been keeping up with every post. I see the discussion about why there is no unity has drifted into doctrinal issues. I can't say I am surprised. I expected as much. So I will ask a couple questions about original sin doctrine.

 

1. Will the word of God fail?  Does God lie? The scripture states in Romans 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. If a baby is born and then dies 1 or 2 hours after birth, did it sin or is sin present , or is the Word of God wrong about all have sinned? You can't have it both ways. For if the Child has no sin nature, and has not committed a sin in it's short life, Then did this child or baby live a sinless life? Does the child need Jesus to get to heaven or since it did not sin, it got there on it's own merits of being sinless?

 

2. If children even small children have no sin nature, then does that not contradict this verse, which states a situation where children are unclean. 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy. Nothing unclean will enter heaven. If a small child has no sin nature, then how or why could it be unclean?

 

3. On the other side of the argument. The bible states in 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. What could a baby or small child do to transgress the law?

 

Final question

 

4. This is a major doctrinal issue. If issues like this can't be agreed upon, then how can there ever be unity?

 

 

If you answer one of these questions, then please take the time to answer all.

 

Firestormx

Joseph

1.  Everyone needs a savior to make it to heaven.  That includes children, but remember that I already stated I believe in original sin.  To me, this is not a theory, but a fact.  The Word of God won't fail, and God doesn't lie.

 

2.  It would contradict that verse, but everyone is born into this world with a sin nature. 

 

3.  A very small child would have no knowledge of the law.  The only spot they would have is a result of Adam's original sin.

 

4.  The direction this thread has taken shows there never will be complete unity till Jesus returns. 

[OneLight]

To all,

 

    Interesting discussion. I have been keeping up with every post. I see the discussion about why there is no unity has drifted into doctrinal issues. I can't say I am surprised. I expected as much. So I will ask a couple questions about original sin doctrine.

 

1. Will the word of God fail?  Does God lie? The scripture states in Romans 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. If a baby is born and then dies 1 or 2 hours after birth, did it sin or is sin present , or is the Word of God wrong about all have sinned? You can't have it both ways. For if the Child has no sin nature, and has not committed a sin in it's short life, Then did this child or baby live a sinless life? Does the child need Jesus to get to heaven or since it did not sin, it got there on it's own merits of being sinless?

Scripture is true, but the understand of scripture may not be. This is the fault of man, not God.

I see the question boiling down to the question, When does a newborn first sin? I say this because when sin is mentioned, it is tied to the heart of the person. Does a newborn baby have a sinful heart? I do not believe they do. I believe they just came from God and are without sin until they know that what they are doing is right or wrong, in other words, an age of accountability comes into play.

 

2. If children even small children have no sin nature, then does that not contradict this verse, which states a situation where children are unclean. 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy. Nothing unclean will enter heaven. If a small child has no sin nature, then how or why could it be unclean?

Look again at what the scripture said. Is it the act of the children, or the act of the parents that is the reason for them being unclean? Our faith as parents are a covering for our children, If there is no faith, there is no covering. If there is faith, there is a covering. In this case, I do not believe the term unclean means they sinned, for they did nothing wrong.

 

3. On the other side of the argument. The bible states in 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. What could a baby or small child do to transgress the law?

Nothing until they know the difference between right and wrong in their own heart. When does that occur? Only God knows for sure, but we, as parents, are to raise our children in the Lord for this purpose.

 

Final question

 

4. This is a major doctrinal issue. If issues like this can't be agreed upon, then how can there ever be unity?

 

 

If you answer one of these questions, then please take the time to answer all.

 

Firestormx

Joseph

Unity is only stiffened by the pride and arrogance of man, not scripture. Yes, we all make mistakes and need correction, but when correction is stopped because the one in error refuses to accept correction, the growth of unity among believers also stops. I have been corrected so many times I lost count. Yet, when I was a young believer, I balked at correction because I thought I had the right answer instead of backing off my "understanding" and take a real look at scripture. Yep, I was full of pride and arrogance. We need to approach scripture in all humility in order for the Holy Spirit to teach us. When we approach scripture to back up what we hold close in our theology, then we are trying to make scripture fit our beliefs instead of allowing scripture to form our beliefs and theology.

[Guest shiloh357]

Interesting discussion. I have been keeping up with every post. I see the discussion about why there is no unity has drifted into doctrinal issues. I can't say I am surprised. I expected as much. So I will ask a couple questions about original sin doctrine.

 

1. Will the word of God fail?  Does God lie? The scripture states in Romans 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. If a baby is born and then dies 1 or 2 hours after birth, did it sin or is sin present , or is the Word of God wrong about all have sinned? You can't have it both ways. For if the Child has no sin nature, and has not committed a sin in it's short life, Then did this child or baby live a sinless life? Does the child need Jesus to get to heaven or since it did not sin, it got there on it's own merits of being sinless?

 

2. If children even small children have no sin nature, then does that not contradict this verse, which states a situation where children are unclean. 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy. Nothing unclean will enter heaven. If a small child has no sin nature, then how or why could it be unclean?

 

3. On the other side of the argument. The bible states in 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. What could a baby or small child do to transgress the law?

 

Final question

 

4. This is a major doctrinal issue. If issues like this can't be agreed upon, then how can there ever be unity?

 

 

The problem here is that you quote three different verses from Scripture that are speaking to completely different issues.  But you are stringing them together and ignoring the different contexts that are in play.

 

1.  In Romans 3:23, Paul is not addressing the spiritual state of newborn infant.  His overall purpose in the context of Romans 1-3 is to develop the argument that Jews and Gentiles stand in equal need of salvation.  Jews and Gentiles, according to Paul stand in equal need of salvation because both stand before God as sinners.  That is the overarching argument Paul is making.  The ground is level at the cross.  Being a Jew or Gentile offers no advantage nor sets one at a disadvantage where access to God's grace is concerned because both stand as sinners before God.

 

2.  I Corinthians 7:14  Is not talking about children being unclean spiritually the way you are reading it.   The issue raised in this chapter pertains to whether or not a man or woman who becomes a believer, after they have been married, needs to divorce their current spouse and marry a believer.  Paul's point is that is that the marriage is sanctioned even if the other spouse isn't a believer so there is no need for a divorce.  The issue about the children concerns whether or not the chilidren are legitimate.   The Corinthians were wanting to know about the status of their children in a mixed believer/unbeliever marriage.  Are the children born to them before one spouse got saved, legitimate or illegitimate?   Paul's use of "unclean" doesn't refer to spiriutal uncleanness but rather fitness to be allowed into the external community of the church.  Paul's point is that the children are sanctified (not to be confused with "saved") by the believing parent.  They are made holy or are set apart.  The child will still have to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus later, but is considered eligible to be included in acivities and worship services.

 

Keep in mind that I Corinthians is a letter answering questions Paul received from them.  It is not a general epistle, necessarily meant to address the whole Church at large. Where there are spiritual truths and lessons we can glean from it, one needs to keep in mind that much that is in the letter was meant to address specific needs in that particular congregation.

 

3.   I John 3:4 occurs in a book that was trying to teach us how to recognize true and false professors of the faith.  One way to know is how they conduct their life.  The Greek text of I John 3:4 tells us that John is referring to those who practice sin habitually, who make a daily practice of sin.  They say one thing, but their lives are entirely different. 

 

4.   None of those verses address the doctrine of Original Sin.  The Bible doesn't teach that babies go to hell.  That is not in the Bible.  Original Sin is the doctrine that mankind is corrupted by the fall of Adam.  This is not to be confused with imputed sin, which is the doctrine that man has inherited Adam's guilt.   Original Sin teaches what Paul says in Romans 5:12-21. 

 

I don't know of any mainstream Chrisitan denomination that doesn't accept Original Sin.  As far as I can tell, only fringe groups and psuedo-denominations, which have alot of other wacky theology, reject Original Sin. 

 

It appears you are trying to manufacture the appearance of disunity and what is worse you are mishandling the Bible and using very poor exegesis in the process.  Anyone can grab some Bible verses and string them together to make the Bible say what they want it to say.  You need to examine context a lot better and get a clearer understanding of the verses you are using to make sure they actually address the issue you are trying to apply them to.

[Guest Butero]

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.

 

If you look at the Book of Acts carefully, you don't see everyone in absolute unity.  Look at the falling out between Paul and Barnabus, over whether or not to take John Mark on the next missionary trip with them?  Was it God's will that he go, or remain behind? 

 

I would love to see 100 percent, absolute unity on everything, but I don't believe that has ever been achieved?  We do have one person who gave us a method of obtaining unity over most doctrine.  That is by joining with the Orthodox Church, where only the leadership decides what is right and what is wrong, and nobody is supposed to question it?  The Catholics have the Pope as the final person deciding right from wrong?  The only way to get the kind of unity you are seeking is for everyone to stop thinking for themselves, and put all their trust in one leader. 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

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.

 

If you look at the Book of Acts carefully, you don't see everyone in absolute unity.  Look at the falling out between Paul and Barnabus, over whether or not to take John Mark on the next missionary trip with them?  Was it God's will that he go, or remain behind? 

 

I would love to see 100 percent, absolute unity on everything, but I don't believe that has ever been achieved?  We do have one person who gave us a method of obtaining unity over most doctrine.  That is by joining with the Orthodox Church, where only the leadership decides what is right and what is wrong, and nobody is supposed to question it?  The Catholics have the Pope as the final person deciding right from wrong?  The only way to get the kind of unity you are seeking is for everyone to stop thinking for themselves, and put all their trust in one leader. 

 

Good point.  Acts 15 and the dispute over uncircumcised Gentile believers is another good example of how the issue was handled without coming to absolute doctrinal unity among the Jewish Christians over the matter.  They unified despite their different points of view and provided a united front.

[TsukinoRei]

 

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.

 

If you look at the Book of Acts carefully, you don't see everyone in absolute unity.  Look at the falling out between Paul and Barnabus, over whether or not to take John Mark on the next missionary trip with them?  Was it God's will that he go, or remain behind? 

 

I would love to see 100 percent, absolute unity on everything, but I don't believe that has ever been achieved?  We do have one person who gave us a method of obtaining unity over most doctrine.  That is by joining with the Orthodox Church, where only the leadership decides what is right and what is wrong, and nobody is supposed to question it?  The Catholics have the Pope as the final person deciding right from wrong?  The only way to get the kind of unity you are seeking is for everyone to stop thinking for themselves, and put all their trust in one leader. 

 

 

I think that agreeing on all the same little tenets and interpretations doesn't bring real unity, it just creates slavish followers who depend on an unquestioning suspension of disbelief to hold them together, rather than anything resembling a living faith.  Real unity comes from humility - serving one another in love and each trusting the other to do the same.

[firestormx]

 

Interesting discussion. I have been keeping up with every post. I see the discussion about why there is no unity has drifted into doctrinal issues. I can't say I am surprised. I expected as much. So I will ask a couple questions about original sin doctrine.

 

1. Will the word of God fail?  Does God lie? The scripture states in Romans 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. If a baby is born and then dies 1 or 2 hours after birth, did it sin or is sin present , or is the Word of God wrong about all have sinned? You can't have it both ways. For if the Child has no sin nature, and has not committed a sin in it's short life, Then did this child or baby live a sinless life? Does the child need Jesus to get to heaven or since it did not sin, it got there on it's own merits of being sinless?

 

2. If children even small children have no sin nature, then does that not contradict this verse, which states a situation where children are unclean. 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy. Nothing unclean will enter heaven. If a small child has no sin nature, then how or why could it be unclean?

 

3. On the other side of the argument. The bible states in 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. What could a baby or small child do to transgress the law?

 

Final question

 

4. This is a major doctrinal issue. If issues like this can't be agreed upon, then how can there ever be unity?

 

 

The problem here is that you quote three different verses from Scripture that are speaking to completely different issues.  But you are stringing them together and ignoring the different contexts that are in play.

 

1.  In Romans 3:23, Paul is not addressing the spiritual state of newborn infant.  His overall purpose in the context of Romans 1-3 is to develop the argument that Jews and Gentiles stand in equal need of salvation.  Jews and Gentiles, according to Paul stand in equal need of salvation because both stand before God as sinners.  That is the overarching argument Paul is making.  The ground is level at the cross.  Being a Jew or Gentile offers no advantage nor sets one at a disadvantage where access to God's grace is concerned because both stand as sinners before God.

 

2.  I Corinthians 7:14  Is not talking about children being unclean spiritually the way you are reading it.   The issue raised in this chapter pertains to whether or not a man or woman who becomes a believer, after they have been married, needs to divorce their current spouse and marry a believer.  Paul's point is that is that the marriage is sanctioned even if the other spouse isn't a believer so there is no need for a divorce.  The issue about the children concerns whether or not the chilidren are legitimate.   The Corinthians were wanting to know about the status of their children in a mixed believer/unbeliever marriage.  Are the children born to them before one spouse got saved, legitimate or illegitimate?   Paul's use of "unclean" doesn't refer to spiriutal uncleanness but rather fitness to be allowed into the external community of the church.  Paul's point is that the children are sanctified (not to be confused with "saved") by the believing parent.  They are made holy or are set apart.  The child will still have to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus later, but is considered eligible to be included in acivities and worship services.

 

Keep in mind that I Corinthians is a letter answering questions Paul received from them.  It is not a general epistle, necessarily meant to address the whole Church at large. Where there are spiritual truths and lessons we can glean from it, one needs to keep in mind that much that is in the letter was meant to address specific needs in that particular congregation.

 

3.   I John 3:4 occurs in a book that was trying to teach us how to recognize true and false professors of the faith.  One way to know is how they conduct their life.  The Greek text of I John 3:4 tells us that John is referring to those who practice sin habitually, who make a daily practice of sin.  They say one thing, but their lives are entirely different. 

 

4.   None of those verses address the doctrine of Original Sin.  The Bible doesn't teach that babies go to hell.  That is not in the Bible.  Original Sin is the doctrine that mankind is corrupted by the fall of Adam.  This is not to be confused with imputed sin, which is the doctrine that man has inherited Adam's guilt.   Original Sin teaches what Paul says in Romans 5:12-21. 

 

I don't know of any mainstream Chrisitan denomination that doesn't accept Original Sin.  As far as I can tell, only fringe groups and psuedo-denominations, which have alot of other wacky theology, reject Original Sin. 

 

It appears you are trying to manufacture the appearance of disunity and what is worse you are mishandling the Bible and using very poor exegesis in the process.  Anyone can grab some Bible verses and string them together to make the Bible say what they want it to say.  You need to examine context a lot better and get a clearer understanding of the verses you are using to make sure they actually address the issue you are trying to apply them to.

 

I'm sorry I'm not like you and have all the answers. I was asking real questions I had about the issue. Unlike you, I don't think I'm God and that I have perfect understanding. You can take that your holier than thou attitude and go somewhere else with it.