Denominational division

I have a more important question JSM17, tell me how I can come into Christian unity with you. What must I do? Is there something you must do? Is there something we must do together?

Sorry, that's more than one question.. But I want to please God, and I desire unity among brothers and sisters.

 

The use of various musical instruments in the church, for example.

Whether Christians can consume any alcohol.

There are some believers who won't wash a car or ride a bike on the Sabbath.

I find car washing and bike riding relaxing, and have no moral compunction against either. But I will refrain so as not to offend the weaker brother.

Sorry -- IMHO one's view of baptism is not essential to salvation (and I can see that others here disagree -- that's fine).

Baptism is a sign of dying to the world and rising to Christ. Some Christians claim they can support their view that Adult Baptism must occur in order for one to be truly regenerate. Others disagree and can provide scriptual evidence to the contrary.

Quiblling over jots and tittles often supercedes the "weightier matters of the law" -- "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures..."

 

I agree, but those aren't denominational issues.

It can be, if someone teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, or that baptism saves.

But both are not right. That's the point. And that's not a point of application, but of theology.

But we must have some way to decide what those issues are. Just because people differ doesn't mean there isn't a right position.

 

Sure are -- do some more reading on church history and you will find fairly minor issues driving like a wedge.

"Halfway covenant" sound familiar?

Sure.. as long as we do our best and can support our contention from the source.

Still, cessesionists and charasmatics have some pretty good evidence to support either side, yet can both be "right?"

 

What denominations started over those things? Denominations may, to some extent, view things differently, but that's not why they separated in any case that I know of.

That wasn't about any of those things. That was over a doctrinal issue of church membership ... ecclesiology. That is a major issue, not a minor one.

But at the risk of being pedantic, doing our best and supporting our contention from Scripture is not the test of being right. Being right is the only way to be right.

Case in point: Both are not right. Someone has misread the evidence, and no amount of sincerity will make that right.

 

So -- who is right?

 

> . . . tell me how I can come into Christian unity with you. What must I do? . . . .

For approx 1000 years, maybe until Darby invented dispensationalism, the answer would have been for you to accept the ecumenical creeds as teaching the truth.

If you accept the creeds and have been baptized with a Christian baptism you are welcome to join my congregation in communion.

 

You see, the reason your question is not more important than mine is, mine cannot be answered, yours can. Since you want a karma psychic connection to Mr Kumbaya, we will get started tomorrow. After church I will help you rip out the piano and organ from the auditorium. We also need to print in the bulletin "Warning: Any delay between declaring the Lord Jesus as Lord and Savior and Baptism carries the risk of a hot eternity if death occurs before immersion."

 

Hmm, nobody ever 'splained it to me like that before.

Listen, can we keep the tape and CD players? The CDs aren't really instruments--just recordings of instruments. Will that fly?

And can we keep the microphones, even though the New Testament doesn't mention them?

Oh, by the way, you and I both have confessed Christ as Lord, and we've both been baptized by immersion. Is that worth anything toward unity with JSM17?

 

Probably not; as someone with a lot of time in the Churches of Christ, I can tell you that there is probably a bunch of things you will have to agree with them about in order to be fully `acceptable.'

 

Being anti-denominational is setting yourself up as another denomination.

 

Well, I know this was not to me, but I want to comment.

You want Christian unity with me?

You are a Christian I assume? In other words, you serve Jesus Christ?

Wow! I do too.

Then we have got Christian unity.

That was easy.

 

Well, as the person who created this thread, you ought to be able to tell us what the point of the OP.

Really?

Well, I work in a mathematics department and we do not all agree on every single thing, I assume.

So we do not all work for the same boss?

Yes we do.

Same for Christians.

Right; a lot of what we call "doctrine" is not "doctrine" in Scripture.

"Doctrine" in Scripture was about overall living and proper esteem of Jesus Christ and His work.

The New Testament was written before the speculations and arguments of the ensuing centuries.

We are largely in consensus about what is "doctrine" in Scripture.

"if they agreed they would not have to divide" ... that is like saying `If the person did not leave that money laying around, I would not have to steal it.'

It is hard to like people who hold views we strongly disagree with. We tend to want to divide against such people and rival against them.

Disagreement is not an approved reason to divide in Scripture. The temptation is to be resisted.

We are to serve the Lord Jesus Christ united in our common task despite our disagreements. We are to put Him above our desires to be agreed-with.

 

So what in the world do verses like these mean?

Romans 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.
Galatians 1:7 ...only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
2 John 1:9-11 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
Titus 1:10-11 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.

It sounds an awful lot like the Bible is saying that if people disagree we are to separate from them.

 

Let us try these:

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them” (ASV).

“I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them” (ESV).

“But I warn you, brothers, to keep an eye on those who cause divisions and temptations, quite out of harmony with what you have been taught, and to keep away from them” (NBV).​

Put together: “keep an eye on those who cause divisions and temptations, |contrary to| what you have been taught, and to keep away from them” (NBV|ESV|NBV).

Greek translated "divisions" has a literal meaning "standing apart,"* as in acts of dissociating.

Christians had been taught not to cause acts of "standing apart." The act of dividing is prohibited; getting Christians to divide is prohibited.

Are these people Christians?

No.

Are these people Christians? No.

What does this have to do with Christians dividing against Christians?

You have not shown me a single passage where Christians are told to divide against Christians over disagreement.

Romans 16:17 and other passages warn Christians against dividing against each other. Disagreement is never shown to be an approved exemption.

____
*Vine, et al, Expository Dictionary, page 179 NT; in Mounce, Complete Expository Dictionary, page 1126.

 

In every single passage, these people are false teachers within the church whose Christianity was presumed, and yet their doctrine necessitated separation. When someone disagrees with biblical doctrine, division is necessary. I don't know how you get around these passages. Saying they aren't Christians doesn't really help because the way we know they are not Christians is because of what they teach. Even in cases of church discipline, you have separation over disagreement about what is acceptable in living the Christian life. In the case of denominations, when someone teaches contrary to the Bible, you have to separate.

 

The root of this issue is highlighted.

Which doctrines are required in Scripture and which are secondary?

As someone mentioned earlier, the historic creeds have provided well-thought synopses of Bible doctrine.

But creeds are not scripture, and God will not be squeezed into a systematic box.

 

Scripture requires whatever doctrines it teaches. I don't think God intended for truth to be optional. All are not equally clear, but all are equally required to be believed. There are things on which someone can differ and still be a believer, but they still believe incorrect doctrine.

Take, for instance, baptism. If someone believes that we should baptize babies (for whatever reason ... covenant, regeneration, etc), then they will not be able to be a part of a church that teaches believer's baptism. That division is necessitated by false doctrine. No matter how sincere it is, it is still false.

Not sure what a "systematic box" is, but God has one system of truth. It does not contradict. That means every verse fits with every other verse.