Why no unity?

[OneWithGod]

I do agree that the Apostles were flawed, just like all people are, but one thing I would like to say - After Pentecost, the Apostles did not knowing sin against God's known will, even though they did make some mistakes. They lived out of a pure heart of God and were led by the Holy Spirit.

 

Edited August 25, 2013 by OneWithGod

[OneWithGod]

 

One of the biggest reasons there is no unity in today's churches, is because the devil and man has changed the meanings of all the TERMS in God's Word.

 

The devil, with the help of man's sinful desire to believe lies has turned God's Truth into lies - Just like the devil did in the beginning with Adam and Eve.

 

The best deceptions are the ones that are mostly truth with a small amount of changes to that truth.

 

"Saved" does not mean what most Christians think it means.

 

"Born Again" does not mean what most Christians think it means.

 

What happens at "Justification" is not what most Christians think happens then.

 

Being a "son of God" does not look like or mean what most Christians think it looks like or means.

 

"Sanctification" does not happen the way or mean what most Christians think.

 

"Eternal Life" is not what most Christians think it means.

 

"God's Kingdom" does not happen or materialize like most Christians think.

 

"Christ's Return" does not happen like most people think.

 

And the list can continue, because most have refused to love God's Truth, so God has sent them an elusion - so that they would believe what they want to believe and be condemned by their love of evil instead of loving God's Truth with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.

 

2 Thess 2:10-12 - They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.  NIV

 

This is what is happening in our world today and this delusion has been building for hundreds of years as the selfishness and evil has taken stronger holds in "Christian" beliefs. The lies and deception are not new, but have been constantly growing to meet the demands of the increase in wickedness in God's so called people. Now these lies have become "truth" and part of the churches traditions - they now take the place of God's Truth.

 

There is one major delusion that all the lies come together to support. All TERMS and understandings have been changed to support this one main delusion. It is only the selfishness/evil of man that keeps this main delusion alive - because most refuse to believe and love the real Truth of God.

The scripture you provided as reference to why you believe this way is not talking about today, but the time after the lawless one is reveled. Let's look at these verses in context.

2 Thessalonians 2:5-12

Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

What you have described is what most people believe, but only because they are unwilling to look at the "lawless one" inside of themselves. This passage is actually describing the struggle of good and evil inside the person being sanctified. It is not about a future devil or lawless one.

Edited August 25, 2013 by OneWithGod

[firestormx]

Just so everyone is aware. I did start a Q and A thread about Original Sin a couple of days ago at the link below.

 

    That way if a mod decides the Original Sin discussion is to far off topic, you can continue your discussions. I post this for a simple reason. We all have topics we just haven't taken the time to study out. Well, original sin is one of those for me. Everyone talking about it has got me interested in this subject. I like to take as many different view points, as well as my own and then go into scripture and prayer and fasting on it. I will never think of every question, that's why I start threads like this one, or Original sin thread.

 

 

 

 

Firestormx

Joseph

[Thaddaeus]

Butero,

 

 

 

I did read your posts on original sin, and I completely disagree.  I do believe that mankind is guilty because of Adam's transgression, and that it was necessary for Jesus to be born of a virgin, so he wouldn't have Adam as his Father and share his guilt.  The sacrifice had to be spotless, as the lamb had to be spotless for a sin offering under the law of Moses.  Had Jesus had an earthly Father, he couldn't have met the necessary qualifications to pay the penalty for our sins.

 

That is your perogative to disagree. However, nothing in scripture says that you are guilty of the sin of Adam.  Read Ezekiel 18 for a better understanding.

 

YOur view is actually from pagan roots regarding who has dominance in birthing. This comes from Augustine who used Manicheanism and disguised it with scripture to support his erroneous view of Original Sin.

Augustine's doctrine of sin, with his belief in the inherent sinfulness of the physical constitution, is wholly Manichaean which Manus adopted from Gnosticism.  His idea that sin is propagated through the marriage union, that sexual desire is sin and that sexual lust in procreation transmits sin is also Manichaean. Augustine built his doctrine of original sin upon this premise that sexual lust in procreation transmits sin.

 

Not to go into too much detail but there are several variations of Augustinian Original Sin whereby later theologians tried to soften, but never renounced this doctrine  with roots in pagan philosophy.

 

Since scripture does not teach Original Sin but that man through Adam inherited a mortal nature, Christ can be born as any human being, innocent but did not sin thereby fulfilling the requirement for a spotless lamb.

 

Part of your theological problem is that sin is not the primary problem for man.  It is death and it is because we are dead(mortal) that causes us to sin easily by the influence of that fallen nature.  Christ came first to give life back to man, the world, so that man could be rejoined with God for an eternity.  Sin is a problem man faces only in this life. Christ did not remove sin, did not prevent Satan from still working in this world. If man was to have a union with God in this life then  man's sin would need to be forgiven, and this was totally a free choice of each person. 

 

 

 

Had Jesus had an earthly Father, he couldn't have met the necessary qualifications to pay the penalty for our sins.

 

That would have made him only man and not God.  The reality is a mystery. The Son of God became flesh and dewlt among us becoming man as we are in every respect, but did not sin.  Christ had the very same ability to sin as we do, but he also had the ability to not sin. This is why the temptations are real, not some charade as the doctrine of Original Sin and the general concept of what passes as an Incarnation is most protestant 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.

 

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.

 

 

You asked real questions and I gave you real answers.   I don't think I am God and have a perfect understanding of anything.  However, what i said is correct and true. The fact is that your question was based on a faulty handling of Scripture.  I do have a good working knowledge of exegesis of Scripture.   I am sorry if that offends you, but facts are facts.  You made assumptions about what the Scripture said that were not true and tried to apply them to a doctrine that you truly don't understand.   It is not "holier than thou" to make that observation.  It just an honest evaluation of your line of questioning.

 

The bottom line is that you are ignoring the REAL reason for there being no unity.  It is pride, bitterness, strife, jealousy, selfishness, etc.  Those are the enemies of unity, not doctrinal differences.   It is humility and love that exists in spite of differences over doctrine that promotes true unity.    You can have people who share the same doctrinal positions who hate each other, who abuse each other.   

 

I have seen churches where there was complete doctrinal agreement, but they did not like each other.  There was bitterness and strife over everything where managing church matters were concerned, and that bitterness and strife split the church.  The disunity had nothing to do with doctrine.  It had everything to do with personality conflicts and deeper spiritual problems than any issue related to doctrine.

 

You are reading something into my posts that I did not intend.  Your exegesis is poor, but that is not saying you are a bad person.  You have already falsely accused me of attacking you and have failed to apologize for that false accusation.  Instead you ignored and now are lashing out at me again.   If you have a question about the lack of unity among the believers, it is the thin-skinned, immature attitude you have on display that is a good indicator of why there is no unity.  Look in the mirror.  You will see the answer to your question about the lack of unity.

[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.

 

 

You asked real questions and I gave you real answers.   I don't think I am God and have a perfect understanding of anything.  However, what i said is correct and true. The fact is that your question was based on a faulty handling of Scripture.  I do have a good working knowledge of exegesis of Scripture.   I am sorry if that offends you, but facts are facts.  You made assumptions about what the Scripture said that were not true and tried to apply them to a doctrine that you truly don't understand.   It is not "holier than thou" to make that observation.  It just an honest evaluation of your line of questioning.

 

The bottom line is that you are ignoring the REAL reason for there being no unity.  It is pride, bitterness, strife, jealousy, selfishness, etc.  Those are the enemies of unity, not doctrinal differences.   It is humility and love that exists in spite of differences over doctrine that promotes true unity.    You can have people who share the same doctrinal positions who hate each other, who abuse each other.   

 

I have seen churches where there was complete doctrinal agreement, but they did not like each other.  There was bitterness and strife over everything where managing church matters were concerned, and that bitterness and strife split the church.  The disunity had nothing to do with doctrine.  It had everything to do with personality conflicts and deeper spiritual problems than any issue related to doctrine.

 

You are reading something into my posts that I did not intend.  Your exegesis is poor, but that is not saying you are a bad person.  You have already falsely accused me of attacking you and have failed to apologize for that false accusation.  Instead you ignored and now are lashing out at me again.   If you have a question about the lack of unity among the believers, it is the thin-skinned, immature attitude you have on display that is a good indicator of why there is no unity.  Look in the mirror.  You will see the answer to your question about the lack of unity.

I didn't apologize because you attacked first and what I said was right. What I posted was accurate to the best of my understanding. Instead of speaking to me from a position of love you condemned me as intentionally twisting scripture to promote a disunity that was not there. That's what you said. Twisting scripture to fit your own agenda is Satan's work. If you are going to accuse me of doing Satan's work, then I am going to respond. You say I handle scripture poorly. According to whom? According to you? Well, lucky for me your opinion means nothing. All that matters is what the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings, my Savior thinks of me, which is Jesus Christ. Every time you  post it's with all this knowledge and no love.  Reminds me of the verse. Knowledge puffs up but love edifies. This is twice you have accused me of doing Satan's work. Before you say that's not what you said. Yes it is. If you are say I twist scripture to fit my agenda, then you are saying I am doing Satan's work. You give no allowance that not everybody has a degree in the bible. According to you, someone like me is stupid and worthless because I have no degree and my exegesis is not up to your standard. But all that is ok. I have been called trash my whole life. That's how you treat me, like since I don't meet your standard, then I'm trash. It couldn't possible be that I am trying with a pure heart to learn and draw closer to Jesus. No that couldn't possible be it. You judged me then as you just did in your response. As for the immature attitude on display....Maybe your the one who should look in the mirror.

[other one]

no unity = non comprehension.

 

it's simple..........     about half of you can't read and comprehend........    neither do you write well.

[Guest Butero]

I can't accept the notion that the only thing keeping us from coming to unity is pride or spiritual issues.  Even the most educated people disagree over major doctrinal positions.  The people who started the churches most people attend didn't agree on doctrine.  You have Calvin, Luther, and Wesley, and you can trace most of the churches back to them, and they are completely different in what they teach.  Then you have a multitude of splits that took place with modified doctrines based on their original teachings.  I suppose there are some people that simply put their faith in a church, but there are sincere Christians that just don't see eye to eye when they read the same passages.  I don't think you can judge someone's heart, just because there is disunity? 

 

Lets look at this for just a moment.  There are three people here, and none of us agree.  All three people believe they are right, so how do they come into unity?  The only way they can do that is if two decide the other person is right on all points, and they may never believe that in their heart? 

[OneLight]

One of the biggest reasons there is no unity in today's churches, is because the devil and man has changed the meanings of all the TERMS in God's Word.

 

The devil, with the help of man's sinful desire to believe lies has turned God's Truth into lies - Just like the devil did in the beginning with Adam and Eve.

 

The best deceptions are the ones that are mostly truth with a small amount of changes to that truth.

 

"Saved" does not mean what most Christians think it means.

 

"Born Again" does not mean what most Christians think it means.

 

What happens at "Justification" is not what most Christians think happens then.

 

Being a "son of God" does not look like or mean what most Christians think it looks like or means.

 

"Sanctification" does not happen the way or mean what most Christians think.

 

"Eternal Life" is not what most Christians think it means.

 

"God's Kingdom" does not happen or materialize like most Christians think.

 

"Christ's Return" does not happen like most people think.

 

And the list can continue, because most have refused to love God's Truth, so God has sent them an elusion - so that they would believe what they want to believe and be condemned by their love of evil instead of loving God's Truth with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.

 

2 Thess 2:10-12 - They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.  NIV

 

This is what is happening in our world today and this delusion has been building for hundreds of years as the selfishness and evil has taken stronger holds in "Christian" beliefs. The lies and deception are not new, but have been constantly growing to meet the demands of the increase in wickedness in God's so called people. Now these lies have become "truth" and part of the churches traditions - they now take the place of God's Truth.

 

There is one major delusion that all the lies come together to support. All TERMS and understandings have been changed to support this one main delusion. It is only the selfishness/evil of man that keeps this main delusion alive - because most refuse to believe and love the real Truth of God.

The scripture you provided as reference to why you believe this way is not talking about today, but the time after the lawless one is reveled. Let's look at these verses in context.

2 Thessalonians 2:5-12

Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

What you have described is what most people believe, but only because they are unwilling to look at the "lawless one" inside of themselves. This passage is actually describing the struggle of good and evil inside the person being sanctified. It is not about a future devil or lawless one.

What I posted was scripture and scripture does not say the lawless one has arrived yet nor that he lives in any believer. God lives in every believer and we are sealed by the Holy Spirit. You are trying to "spiritualize" scripture just as the Gnostic believers did, where they were proven to be false.

[enoob57]

Imagine the foolishness of removing the tether of God's Word and just floating around in ones own thoughts

to whatever fancy they seem to deem as truth... scary is it not?  Love, Steven