When the sincere disagree

[Endtime_Survivors]

1 hour ago, Ezra said:

Some Christians will simply not concede that they are mistaken, and must change their minds or their attitudes.

I wouldn't see it as "some Christians" but rather all of humanity having this issue.  All learning is about changing our minds and attitudes.

[Ezra]

1 hour ago, Endtime_Survivors said:

I wouldn't see it as "some Christians" but rather all of humanity having this issue. 

We need to exclude "all humanity" and focus on Christians. As one can see from Paul's epistles, while there was generally a unity of the faith, there were also false brethren, false teachers, and false apostles who destroyed that unity.  Today, one may find such unity in small groups, which will generally be in a minority. Ecumenical unity is false because truth is sacrificed for superficial unity.

[Endtime_Survivors]

15 hours ago, Reformed Baptist said:

Think about like this, if we were always all in agreement there would be very little need for us to exercise grace. One of the most powerful witnesses we have is the ability to still love another whilst disagreeing about truths that are very precious to us. Now, i think it very sad that we often fail in this and resort to ad-hom and various logical fallacies as we try to defend those precious truths - but that just shows how much more grace we all need. Every disagreement is an opportunity to grow in grace and demonstrate the love of the Lord Jesus.

A second point to consider is that disagreements should take us back to the word of God.  Every time I come across an opinion that I disagree with is an opportunity to have my understanding challenged, I should go to the word of God and allow it to show me the truth, either I will be confirmed in my understanding or I will altar it -  again we not very good at this, sadly we tend to jump to our set of 'proof texts' and if we are not careful all we have achieved is setting scripture against scripture - is it any wonder those in the world don't think the bible makes sense or that it is full of contradictions - we present it like that every time we simply proof text against 'an opponent'. We do much better when we actually interact with the texts others have posted to show how they are compatible with our own position. 

As for the possibility of two people disagreeing, clearly it does happen, when we are talking theology there are several reasons for it, we all approach scripture in a context and with certain presuppositions and understandings - these things all frame our understanding of God's word and influence our interpretations of the text.  We are all under different ministries - listening to people with different presuppositions and understandings - this enforces the understandings we have added to this are those who do not study the bible but like what a certain teacher has to say it means, then there are those who have various agendas that might influence their teaching/understanding  - in short we all start from different places, and we are all under didn't influences as we seek to grow in understanding - the reality is we will arrive in heaven and be surprised by just how little we knew, and probably by how little we got right (salvation is by grace, not understanding after all)

As for how disagreement should look, well as I have implied that is very different from how it often does look - Christians should be able to have frank discussions on points of disagreement where we respect each other enough to interact with their arguments (rather the strawmanning them) and where we demonstrate our love and unity in the essentials of the gospel - to be honest if we can't do that we are better off keeping our mouths shut and not disagreeing (or at least keeping that disagreement to ourselves).    

I enjoyed reading your post.   I find it difficult sometimes to achieve a balance between confidence and humility during disagreements.  It just seems like it's always easier to focus on the disagreements rather than the agreement we may have with others.

For example, two people who have a heart for helping the poor may end up refusing to work together because they've got some disagreement about the trinity.  Or, more than that, what if it was an atheist and a Christian who both had a vision for helping the poor (and in that regard they are both sincere about loving their neighbor), but couldn't get along because of their theological differences?

This is part of what I like about Jesus' message.  He definitely wanted people to appreciate him and God, but it seems he could also recognize that God was working through people at different levels, according to his understanding of what would be good for them at the time, like the story of the "good" Samaritan, who was neither a Jew nor a Christian, and yet was the hero of the story because he showed love to his neighbor.

 

 

 

[Endtime_Survivors]

10 hours ago, Davida said:

This is a pretty broad question so I'm not sure where to go with it. As far as '"all of humanity having an issue" --Is  this a broad generalization  of people ?

Yes it is broad, but I don't think unfair or inaccurate.

 

10 hours ago, Davida said:

or does it pertain to Christians towards other Christians or Christians towards the world?

All humans have problems.  To the extent that we are following "the way" we are Christian.  To the extent that we are not following "the way" we are not Christian. I think this is the difference between the "Law" and the "spirit".  I don't think the title of "Christian" should ever be static or presumed and I think this is why Jesus told Nicodemus, "the wind blows where ever it wants and you cannot see where it comes from or where it goes".   I think this philosophy has helped me, personally, to better appreciate the efforts of those whom I'd normally not think of as Christian.

 

10 hours ago, Davida said:

it seems it should be a given,  that Christians would not be in agreement with the unsaved world , but that doesn't mean we go around arguing with people....we should as Romans 12 18 "endeavor to live in peace with all people."  Plus-> Especially to Learn how to share the Gospel-- so other people can get saved.  As far as the segment of the p.c. body of Christ's almost constant call for unity no matter what with other Christians - we are never to compromise on the Word.  There will NEVER be that complete unity because their are tares grown up within the wheat.  The fact is some Churches do Not believe in the inerrant Word of the BIBLE , they believe that it is a lot of allegory and so they can make up doctrines of men / disobey the Bible basically so they make stuff up to adhere to instead of adhering to God's Word that is written. 

I take your point and I appreciate your conviction. I think the word "compromise" covers a pretty huge spectrum between point A where we deny our faith and point B where no amount of torture, persuasion, or temptation could cause us to deny our faith.  Paul talked about becoming all things to all people, which is pretty vague.  The spirit of the teaching is that we need to be willing to change to suit the situation, but I think there's a lot of room there for people mistaking such change as compromise.

Jesus sometimes walked around in a disguise to hide himself from the authorities?  Was that a compromise? One minute Jesus would say, "Don't argue with them, they are blind leaders of the blind" and the next he'd spend whole chapters arguing with them.

Peter corrected God himself when God told him to change.  He thought it would be compromising on his faith to eat "unclean" animals. Faithfulness and conviction can easily become hard-headed stubbornness without flexibility. 

11 hours ago, Davida said:

A Christian Community is a mixed bag,  there are people who are Christian in name only & others who self-identify as Christians  who don't believe in 2/3's of the Bible  so why would it be a thought of as a godly goal to be united with them?

Should we reject the 1/3 which they do agree with because of the 2/3 which they do not agree with?  None of us has perfect understanding of all truth.  There may be times when we do need to, as Jesus suggested, wipe the dust off our feet as a testimony against them, but then again James and John wanted to destroy a village for rejecting them and Jesus rebuked them, two of his closest followers, for getting it so wrong.

I don't think Jesus contradicted himself, but I do think the Kingdom of Heaven is set up in such a way that we can't rely on our own understanding.  In acts, Peter is thrown in jail and miraculously escapes.  Later, Paul is thrown in jail and a miracle occurres allowing him to escape, and yet he doesn't.  He stays.  As a result something good happens but how did he know to stay?  The miracle of the earthquake opening the doors was surely a sign that God wanted him to leave.  Anyone attempting to know what to do based solely on examples from the Bible won't know what to do.  They'd be just as likely to get it wrong as to get it right. I think this again points to a need for flexibility in how we understand/interpret the Bible, not only for ourselves, but on behalf of others we interact with.

God may be leading them in a different way to how he leads us (i.e. to leave jail or to stay in jail despite the miracle?) and we need to have the faith to accept that God may have a different understanding of truth and compromise than we do.

[Endtime_Survivors]

17 hours ago, George said:

I hope that happens all the time on WCF!   I disagree with a lot -- however, I don't let that interfere with my love for someone.  Once you are so engaged in a disagreement that your love is lost, it's because Pride has entered into the picture.   Remember what Proverbs says,

Proverbs 13:10  Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom. 

In the Modern KJV,

Proverbs 13:10  Only by pride comes argument, but with those who take advice is wisdom. 

So if you're driven by love -- then you should be able to agree to disagree without any offense being taken.  At least one would hope!

Your brother in the Lord with much agape love,

George

Thanks for this encouraging contribution to the topic, George.

[Endtime_Survivors]

13 hours ago, missmuffet said:

If the other person is posting false doctrine we need to discuss it with kindness and grace.

I think it's good to keep this in mind, but there are times when it just feels right to blast a brother/sister who's teaching something contrary to what Jesus taught. I guess the best way to know what to do is to be constantly asking God, "should I be soft or hard on this person".

[George]

7 hours ago, Endtime_Survivors said:

I think it's good to keep this in mind, but there are times when it just feels right to blast a brother/sister who's teaching something contrary to what Jesus taught. I guess the best way to know what to do is to be constantly asking God, "should I be soft or hard on this person".

 

I believe we have to begin each conversation as Paul instructed Timothy.

2Ti 2:24  But the servant of the Lord must not strive, but to be gentle to all, apt to teach, patient, 
2Ti 2:25  in meekness instructing those who oppose, if perhaps God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, 
2Ti 2:26  and that they awake out of the snare of the Devil, having been taken captive by him, so as to do the will of that one. 

This is the ESV version --

2Ti 2:24  And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 
2Ti 2:25  correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 
2Ti 2:26  and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. 

What I find interesting in the ESV -- it says to patiently enduring evil.

However, once a person has been given that time / freedom to recover themselves out of the snare of the enemy, then I believe this Scripture applies.

Tit 3:9  but shun foolish questionings, and genealogies, and strifes, and fightings about law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 
Tit 3:10  A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse; 
Tit 3:11  knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned. 

The same passage in the MKJV

Tit 3:9  But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions, and strivings about the Law, for they are unprofitable and vain. 
Tit 3:10  After the first and second warning, reject a man of heresy, 
Tit 3:11  knowing that he who is such has been perverted, and sins, being self-condemned. 

So it depends where you are in the conversation, and if the issues at hand are salvational, or just different points of doctrine that the Lord will correct us on when He returns.

Your brother in the Lord with much agape love,

George

[kwikphilly]

Quote

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.                                                                         Ephesians 6:12

The question in the Title is a broad statement but then the OP narrows it down(imo) by asking about a Christian called to one purpose & others called to another.....so I take it we are not discussing merely differences of opinion or preference eg:I like pink & someone likes blue   those are not divisive disagreements,they are just different personalities........different personalities are just fine,God didn't Create mankind with a cookie cutter,we are all very different,unique  & very special individuals in His Eyes

It has been mentioned earlier in This THread that when it comes to the Word of God,His Will & HIs Ways,we should ALL be of like mind & judgement,in one accord because we are all members of the Same Body with Christ as our Head........George spoke about UNITY in LOVE......Well,if God is our FIRST Love then we,SELF,becomes secondary,irrelevant & not an issue ....love Him & others is first & foremost,having the Heart & Mind of Christ we have Wisdom & Understanding all flowing from that LOVE......the moment there is contention is a red flag that something is not quite right,"self' has popped up in someone and it is not flesh & blood we wrestle with

That is the time to say,why am I having the "need" to get "my" point across,is there something I am not hearing,could I be mistaken etc,,,,etc,,, & we should ALWAYS desire to "reason together"......the very moment there is division,something,someone is in the wrong.....there is no "your both right"....it is Gods Way & the wrong way....we have to work that out together,in LOVE                                         To God be the Glory                                                          With love-in Christ,Kwik

[missmuffet]

9 hours ago, Endtime_Survivors said:

I think it's good to keep this in mind, but there are times when it just feels right to blast a brother/sister who's teaching something contrary to what Jesus taught. I guess the best way to know what to do is to be constantly asking God, "should I be soft or hard on this person".

"Blasting" someone on a Christian message board is not the answer.

[Willa]

It is best to keep our blasting to the ideas, refuting with Scripture.  We may indicate that a teaching has long been considered heresy by the orthodox churches.  We should avoid calling a person a heretic, for instance.  Satan is the accuser of the brethren, so I try to avoid that and judge the ideas, not the person. 

2Co 10:4  WEB for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the throwing down of strongholds,  5  throwing down imaginations and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ;