Spiritual Treason

[Hekuran]

You are adding your own negative interpretive layer and using that to condemn the message. I think you've misread it.

I hope you agree with Jesus as recorded in John 17 that the unity of believers is important.

 

[Wired 4 Fishen]

The OP advocated putting all else, petty differences he said, aside and unify. In other words, any understanding you may have learned of God via the Bible and the Spirit and the intellect, you need to put aside and unify.

No that's not correct!!
Stop all the nit picking about each other and walk in Love.
One Accord unto His Ways not ours.

Blessings

 

[Quantrill]

You are adding your own negative interpretive layer and using that to condemn the message. I think you've misread it.

I hope you agree with Jesus as recorded in John 17 that the unity of believers is important.

Of course unity is important . I have never said otherwise. You may disagree with me, but I did not misread the OP.

Are you saying because I disagree then I am being negative? In other words, for me to be positive is to agree with the OP, and keep unity.

Tell me, when you drop your 'petty differences' for the sake of unity, where do 'you' draw the line? Is there a line?

Quantrill

 

[Hekuran]

Of course unity is important . I have never said otherwise. You may disagree with me, but I did not misread the OP.

Are you saying because I disagree then I am being negative? In other words, for me to be positive is to agree with the OP, and keep unity.

Tell me, when you drop your 'petty differences' for the sake of unity, where do 'you' draw the line? Is there a line?

Quantrill

The line is the lordship of Jesus Christ risen from the dead and glorified.

There are many areas where I have a different understanding of particular theological points or aspects of the Christian life to many of my brother and sisters. (In fact, I struggle to think of a single person with whom I agree on every point, including my church leader). When appropriate I engage on those issues. But our unity in Christ is far greater than these disagreements.

And I have to acknowledge that in many areas it is me who ought to learn and change, not others.

 

[Quantrill]

The line is the lordship of Jesus Christ risen from the dead and glorified.

There are many areas where I have a different understanding of particular theological points or aspects of the Christian life to many of my brother and sisters. (In fact, I struggle to think of a single person with whom I agree on every point, including my church leader). When appropriate I engage on those issues. But our unity in Christ is far greater than these disagreements.

And I have to acknowledge that in many areas it is me who ought to learn and change, not others.

When you engage on issues with your church leader, you are already in an arena where you are united closely as possible in doctrine. This is what we do when we find a church.

Let's say your church is making an evangelistic effort in a certain neighborhood. You go house to house in pairs. Along the way you run into two Mormons doing the same. They hold to the resurrection and Lordship of Christ also. They desire to go with you and any differences you both have you need to drop and present a united front. Do you?

Quantrill

 

[Hekuran]

In answer to the Mormon question, I think that Mormon beliefs would not pass the bar on the question of the lordship of Jesus Christ. And if my test needs clarification or refinement, so be it - it's a personal rule of thumb rather than an attempt at a universal definition. The Apostle John writing to churches with the gnostic heresy swirling around them gave a similarly broad test: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. 1 John 4.

My broad point is that we unite around the person of Jesus Christ.

May I ask if you determine the basis for unity in a similar way to me?

 

[Hekuran]

Another aspect is that different levels of unity are appropriate in different circumstances. A local mosque is organising a clean streets campaign and flower planting in our neighbourhood. I'd be very happy to join in with that. Inviting people to study the Qu'ran I'd have nothing to do with.

 

[Quantrill]

In answer to the Mormon question, I think that Mormon beliefs would not pass the bar on the question of the lordship of Jesus Christ. And if my test needs clarification or refinement, so be it - it's a personal rule of thumb rather than an attempt at a universal definition. The Apostle John writing to churches with the gnostic heresy swirling around them gave a similarly broad test: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. 1 John 4.

My broad point is that we unite around the person of Jesus Christ.

May I ask if you determine the basis for unity in a similar way to me?

The Mormons would agree that Jesus is Lord. And they would agree that He rose from the dead. But then their Jesus is not quite the same as the one in the Bible. The Person of Jesus Christ is an all important factor in our unity.

This is what I have been saying. We do not drop our differences and unify for the sake of unity. So the line you draw now, those differences you won't drop, are somewhat broader than before.

Quantrill

 

[Hekuran]

The Mormons would agree that Jesus is Lord. And they would agree that He rose from the dead. But then their Jesus is not quite the same as the one in the Bible. The Person of Jesus Christ is an all important factor in our unity.

This is what I have been saying. We do not drop our differences and unify for the sake of unity. So the line you draw now, those differences you won't drop, are somewhat broader than before.

Quantrill

OK. In the Christian church we tend to disagree on such subjects as infant baptism, church structure and authority, can one lose their salvation, biblical inerrancy, free will and predestination, the nature of the sacraments, theories about the end days, creationism, gifts of the spirit, and how the church should coexist with secular political power. I have strong views on most of these, but I don't allow them to break unity with other believers.

Is it fair to say that the key difference between us is that you say that "the Person of Jesus Christ is an all important factor in our unity" whereas my view is that the Person of Jesus Christ is the all important factor in our unity

If so, what else, for you, is necessary as a basis for unity?

 

[Quantrill]

OK. In the Christian church we tend to disagree on such subjects as infant baptism, church structure and authority, can one lose their salvation, biblical inerrancy, free will and predestination, the nature of the sacraments, theories about the end days, creationism, gifts of the spirit, and how the church should coexist with secular political power. I have strong views on most of these, but I don't allow them to break unity with other believers.

Is it fair to say that the key difference between us is that you say that "the Person of Jesus Christ is an all important factor in our unity" whereas my view is that the Person of Jesus Christ is the all important factor in our unity

If so, what else, for you, is necessary as a basis for unity?

Well, where else have you divided? Are you Protestant or Romanist? Because you are one or the other, then you have chosen accordingly where to attend church. There is a great ecumenical effort to unite Protestant Churches back to the Roman Church. Are you for this? Do you lay aside your differences for the sake of unity?

As far as 'breaking unity', I have never espoused breaking unity with any believer in Christ. Never. I am Protestant. I recognize there are believers in the Roman Church. But much of their doctrine I could never agree with or align myself with. And of course the Roman Christians would feel the same. Our doctrine divides, but I can fellowship with a Romanist, if he is a born-again believer. I can worship with him also. But, I cannot accept much of his doctrine. So there will always be that division.

In other words, you don't unify, unify, unify and lay your differences aside. We are united in Christ, by the Holy Spirit. But our doctrines and differences we maintain until convinced otherwise that we need to change our doctrine.

Quantrill

 

[Hekuran]

I agree with this. Back to the opening post, to be honest, I'm not at all clear why you responded to it negatively as it does not seem to be in conflict with anything you are saying.

The only way I can make sense of your concern is if we assume the "petty differences" the writer speaks of are in fact essential doctrinal principles.

 

[Quantrill]

I agree with this. Back to the opening post, to be honest, I'm not at all clear why you responded to it negatively as it does not seem to be in conflict with anything you are saying.

The only way I can make sense of your concern is if we assume the "petty differences" the writer speaks of are in fact essential doctrinal principles.

Where in the opening post is there any distinction made to the differences? You are trusting the writers interpretation on what is 'petty'. The emphasis in the OP is to unite and lay down your differences. He makes no distinction as to what should be considered petty and what you can't lay down. Nothing is said at all about the things you can't lay down. Nothing is said at all about the things which most assuredly divide.

If I do not contend with the opening post then the 'assumption' is, the Christian forgets his doctrine, and if another is called a Christian then I must ignore what he may believe and unite with him for the sake of unity.

The writer of the article himself has a doctrine. And he has made it so that no one can challenge him because to do so would mean you are unwilling to lay aside your 'petty differences'. And as soon as you do contend with him over his doctrine then you're aiding the enemy.

Quantrill

 

[Wired 4 Fishen]

The writer of the article himself has a doctrine. And he has made it so that no one can challenge him because to do so would mean you are unwilling to lay aside your 'petty differences'. And as soon as you do contend with him over his doctrine then you're aiding the enemy.

That's the first thing you said that makes sense.
Being it is a Word from The Father.......