Agree to disagree - is wrong.

[Marilyn C]

14 hours ago, other one said:

I disagree.....

If we can't agree to disagree, when we really do disagree, then we can't walk together.   That I agree with....   but if you only walk with people you agree with you will most likely be a lonely person......    I don't know a single person that agrees with everything their friends think.....

I would agree that there are a few things that would keep two people from walking together if they didn't agree, but taking it to not being able to come together and just agree to let the other person have thier view is just wrong.   And constantly arguing  over the disagreement will drive people apart.  

 

Hi other one,

Good point, yet I think that believing that Jesus is both Lord and Christ would be the basis of `walking` fellowship together, for God`s word says that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth. Thus there is a time element for the details.

What do you think?

Marilyn.

 

[Marilyn C]

14 hours ago, OneLight said:

I'll start with this one.

You and I have bumped heads on a few subjects in the past.  I stand firm in my theology and you in yours.  Yet, we do not change our stance due to "evidence" the other provides.  Notice this all has to do with prophecy, something that has not come to pass yet?  How can one person be so sure of the future when we are not given unmovable specifics?  We can't, which is why we agree to disagree as it is theology we have come to believe about the future and no evidence is available as the event has not happened.  We try to "fill in the gaps" of information we garner from scripture, needing to have a full picture instead of just accepting that we don't know.  That is our nature, a nature that caused Adam and Eve to sin, and a nature to divides the body still today.

When it comes to salvation, there is only one truth, and we should not accept nor rest when we see false teachings on this particular issue.  Here I will agree with your statement.

Hi OneLight,

Yes, but I haven`t had a sore head.  All`s well, do like talking to you as I know your heart somewhat from your posts.

regards, Marilyn.

[Marilyn C]

14 hours ago, Cobalt1959 said:

Not written in stone when it comes to theology and doctrine.  The dividing line comes when it either is, or is not a salvation issue.  

What is, or is not a salvation issue is pretty easy to figure out no matter what anyone might say on the issue.

 

Hi Cobalt,

Mmmm now I think God wrote more than John 3: 16. So...I would say that the bottom line is whether or not Jesus is both Lord and Christ. He is God`s purpose (Eph. 1: 9 & 10) and we come under that.

`...he  (God) purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one, (unity and harmony) all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth - in Him.` (Eph. 1: 9 & 10)

All of God`s word is to reveal Christ to us in all His glory. To just focus on the means (salvation) to the ends, (eternal purposes) would limit our appreciation and understanding of Christ and God`s purposes in Him.

regards, Marilyn.

[Marilyn C]

12 hours ago, No124get1952 said:

On the salvation issues, I agree with Cobalt1959 and OneLight. However, Marilyn C was speaking of our dealings with atheists and other non-believers. Romans 12:18 says, " If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. " Since "all men" most likely includes atheists, non-believers and other assorted miscreants, I believe "agree to disagree" would be appropriate. Our agreement extends only to the topic we disagree about and in no way obligates us to any worldly doctrine or heresy. At least by being agreeable, we sow the seed for future discussions at which time we plant another seed for Jesus. While man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, we have been given dominion over words, so we should be able to use them however we see fit to give glory to God and promote the Kingdom.

Hi No124get1952,

If we `agree to disagree,` then we are virtually cutting ourselves off from any other conversation with the other person on a topic. We are `agreeing to` (continue) to disagree. Not a healthy position for a believer to take in regard to sharing God`s word.

We are not being `agreeable` when we do this but stopping ourselves from future discussion as we said, `I agree to disagree,` I agree to hold a different position from you and for you to hold a different position from me. I agree with that, and therefore ends future talks.

However when we say `I agree THAT we disagree, acknowledges the fact that there is a difference BUT does NOT cut off further discussion.

Subtle difference. Marilyn.

[Marilyn C]

7 hours ago, WalkingMyFishLikeABoss said:

I think Marylin is entitled to her opinion. We speak for ourselves. Not the whole of Christendom.

For my part, if I agree to disagree with someone it means we've arrived at an impasse in our discussion and neither side is going to concede to the other's perspective. Rather than butt heads in an endless round of work to change the others mind we simply agree we've arrived at an impasse, agree to disagree with each others perspective, and move on.

Hi WalkingMyFishLikeABoss,

I think you also have not seen the subtle difference. To say` I agree to disagree,` says more than just arriving at an impasse. It also says that you agree that that person can hold that position and you will not discuss further with them, as you said `I agree to the differences.`

If however we say `I agree THAT we disagree, then that acknowledges we have a difference BUT does not close the door on the discussion.

Marilyn.

[Marilyn C]

6 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

I believe on issues where there is no consensus, "agreeing to disagree" (such as what Paul wrote concerning foods, holy days and the like) is going to be the best way to proceed. In those matters where it is one's preference, we are not clones of one another, nor did the Lord ever intend us to all be just "one model" of mind and person. But in the essential matters of salvation, where Scripture speaks clearly on it, "disagreement" is throwing out the gist of Salvation itself (which Cobalt1959 said much better than I).

Hi Sojourner,

Good to bring up Paul`s thoughts, (by the Holy Spirit). Paul acknowledges that there are differences BUT does not say that he agrees to leave it there. Instead he says (for example) in Philippians -

`Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.` (Phil 3: 15)

Paul is giving room for the Holy Spirit to work in people`s lives to bring more truth. He doesn`t say that He agrees to them continually holding a wrong position.

Marilyn.

[Marilyn C]

2 hours ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

But what if all your heart loves is TRUTH.  I desire fellowship with others, but never at the expense of the TRUTH.

JESUS is truly first.  From that I see HOW to do all THINGS righteously .

I had sooner be alone than to be unequally yoked together.   Not that I hate anyone.

BUT , anyone who truly knows the LORD will understand clearly what I say next.

I have no real peace in it.  It is truly as though my only family are those who love truth.

I have all in common with a stranger who loves the LORD , than I do with my own flesh family who serves not GOD.

The love of TRUTH is my hearts desire and from that LOVE comes the real LOVE for mankind.

the Love that don't worry about where one spends vacation , but rather ETERNITY

the LOVE that aint all about hugs and being a friend of the world , but CORRECTION < SOUND DOCTRINE and hugs.

We cannot be in harmony with those who are not agreed in the LORD , in love with TRUTH.

Any who don't understand this..........my advice is start over , pray , seek only HIM , forget all cares and pleasures in life which choked the word.

Just seek him with the whole heart..........the whole heart and find Him you will.  Be encouraged peoples and praise the LORD>

Hi frienduff thaylorde,

Yes to many of your great comments. However this topic is not about being in harmony with others, but to keep the door of communication open and not close it by saying `I agree to - let you hold your error.` We would never discuss anything with each other if we held that view.

Marilyn.

[Marilyn C]

43 minutes ago, other one said:

Usually people are disagreeing as to what the truth is.  So you are basically saying if you don't agree with me it'd be goodbye guy.

 

Hi other one,

That sounds like a good explanation in everyday language & not a catchy phrase like - `Agreeing to.....whatever.`

Thanks, Marilyn.

[Marilyn C]

32 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

You guys are wayyyy over thinking this. Agree to disagree is totally acceptable.

The term "agree to disagree" or "agreeing to disagree" is a phrase in English referring to the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s).

Hi missmuffet,

We as believers should NOT have the language of the world. I even have changed the phrase, `Oh that is to die for,` to `that is to live for.` Why accept the language of those in darkness. Now why would we agree not to discuss further with someone on spiritual things. That is what we are saying.

How can we contend earnestly for the faith, (Jude 3) if we are telling the other person that it is OK to continue in error, in fact we say, I agree....that it is OK for you to hold that error!!!!!

Marilyn. 

[missmuffet]

6 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

Hi missmuffet,

We as believers should NOT have the language of the world. I even have changed the phrase, `Oh that is to die for,` to `that is to live for.` Why accept the language of those in darkness. Now why would we agree not to discuss further with someone on spiritual things. That is what we are saying.

How can we contend earnestly for the faith, (Jude 3) if we are telling the other person that it is OK to continue in error, in fact we say, I agree....that it is OK for you to hold that error!!!!!

Marilyn. 

" That is to die for" and " that is to live for" are very different phrases than " agree to disagree". Not even in the same ball park.