Would you surrender your own beliefs in the cause of doctrinal unity?

[St. SteVen]

Doctrinal unity can be cause for compromise if the doctrine itself is compromised.

If doctrinal unity means everyone holds to the same doctrine, compromise is UNAVOIDABLE.

What doctrinal set would be acceptable to everyone? No matter the denomination, or background.
Would Mary be the Mother of God to please the Catholics? Would speaking in tongues be acceptable?
Would both Calvinism and Arminianism be outlawed? - LOL

 

[WalkInLight]

Thanks for your response.

This is the problem.
Doctrinal unity would require some level of compromise.
Unless by some means the standard happens to match your own set of beliefs.
Seems that everyone wants unity in theory, but would refuse it in practice.

Therefore, refusal to compromise prevents the possibility of doctrinal unity. IMHO

Perhaps to "resolve our insecurities" about who we think "the Lord is and how He works"?

Reading some of the responses raises in my mind the issue of behaviour verses belief.

Part of the essence of Jesus's message is God is love, and if one walks in love you will accept Jesus.
Doctrine or theology is trying to make sense of judgement, salvation and our walk.

We are always conflicted by emotional circumstance and the passing of life with its joys and challenges.

I read the story of a nun who lived a life since 18 of isolation, and on one occasion just brushed by a monk
who was visiting the convent. She ended up meeting this monk, leaving the convent and he his monastery
and getting married. These frameworks of commitment and lifestyle vary such a lot, and often doctrinal perspective
is wrapped up in our experience and often personalities.

Some believers I talked with disputed my position because of their contact with legalism in their home communities,
suffering later rejection, and resolved their inner turmoil with a view of God that rejected the need for a heart transformation.
Now their view of my words was seen in one light and belief system, which was not mine, but no matter what I shared they
were convinced they were right and I was a fraud. For them "aim at perfection" was just a joke by Paul, to make us rely on
Christ all the more.

Going deeper some religious expression is "it just feels nice but I do not believe its real". Others are shy and find comfort
in ceremony and litergy, while others feel the romantic and emotional expression is all that matters, like a play on a stage.
I spent time talking to people in a congregation at a United Reformed Church and was surprised at how varied the belief
systems were, even though the preaching was aspiring to spiritual things, the congregation were definitely not clear as to
what biblical faith actually was.

So unity is mute, until you find the number of people who know what they believe in a reasonable common way. In our
Baptist church, we had a session to encourage people to witness with a 3 minute description, 1 minute on before you came
to faith, 1 minute on coming to faith, 1 minute on how this changed your behaviour. It became clear some did not know what
coming to faith was and had a more fuzzy view of their journey. Even committed believers were actually afraid of opening up
and being honest about their life history and its issues. Some never shared one to one with anyone.

My son was challenged by a minister that the spiritual have God speaking to them daily in a recognizable form of spiritual
experience. I would agree Gods word speaks to me every time I read it, but not like I am talking to another person, it is still a
book with words written and I have to interpret meaning and significance into it. Questioning the minister over his view was
responded to like a unbeliever questioning God, so unity when people take this type of view in impossible, because its accept
my sharing or leave.

The phrase "Talking against the Lords anointed" has been used to justify silence on the sins of leaders or heresy in organisations.

For me our unity is in walking in humbleness with the Lord and seeing need and meeting it as it arises.
God bless you

 

[Cassandra]

There will be perfect unity under the A.C. new global one world religion I believe. It will be full of fun and games, and any and every will be welcomed...except for those who shun it. Satan impersonates Christ and fools many people. This is my belief from different readings and scripture and, it is already happening. Back in the day, I would have ran to a place like this only to become more worldly as that is what it will promote.

YES!!!!!! This!!!!! Thanks for saying it!!!!!! This is what is coming!
I haven't watched the video yet, but I sure will

 

[St. SteVen]

My son was challenged by a minister that the spiritual have God speaking to them daily in a recognizable form of spiritual
experience. I would agree Gods word speaks to me every time I read it, but not like I am talking to another person, it is still a
book with words written and I have to interpret meaning and significance into it. Questioning the minister over his view was
responded to like a unbeliever questioning God, so unity when people take this type of view in impossible, because its accept
my sharing or leave.

Thanks for your post. Good points. This bit caught my eye.

This is a common problem.
Someone trying to force their experience on others as if it is normalized somehow because they experienced it.

I have heard a clear directive from God on occasion, but it was extremely rare and very meaningful.
I would neither expect that, nor want it, every day. It can be exhausting.

 

[David in NJ]

If doctrinal unity means everyone holds to the same doctrine, compromise is UNAVOIDABLE.

What doctrinal set would be acceptable to everyone? No matter the denomination, or background.
Would Mary be the Mother of God to please the Catholics? Would speaking in tongues be acceptable?
Would both Calvinism and Arminianism be outlawed? - LOL

Compromise is unavoidable ONLY because we have been compromised by SIN.

TRUTH is not compromised.

We are sanctified by His Truth = "Thy word is Truth"

Therefore, the only compromise we make is to let go of that which FIRST compromised us!

Hebrews 12:1
Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

[St. SteVen]

Compromise is unavoidable ONLY because we have been compromised by SIN.

TRUTH is not compromised.

We are sanctified by His Truth = "Thy word is Truth"

Therefore, the only compromise we make is to let go of that which FIRST compromised us!

Hebrews 12:1
Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

So, you agree that there can be no doctrinal unity?
Doctrinal unity requires compromise.
No compromise = no doctrinal unity

 

[David in NJ]

So, you agree that there can be no doctrinal unity?
Doctrinal unity requires compromise.
No compromise = no doctrinal unity

When you say 'compromise' you are alluding to the fact that there are existing 'doctrines' that do not agree with "it is written".
Wayward doctrines give birth to religious compromise.
The question then is = What must we compromise in order to walk with God?


God has given us His Word and the First Commandment is to love the Lord God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.

The Holy Scriptures, from Beginning to End are about believing God's words as the only Way to Salvation.

Doctrinal unity and doctrinal purity are a mainstay of walking with God.
Without such we flounder which results in doubt, becoming confused and/or misguided.

Amos 3:3
Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?

Hebrews 12:1
Therefore I urge you, brothers, on account of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.

Ephesians 4:11-16
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
14that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men,
in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

 

[St. SteVen]

When you say 'compromise' you are alluding to the fact that there are existing 'doctrines' that do not agree with "it is written".

No.
When I say 'compromise' I am stating the fact that there are existing doctrines that do not agree. (period)
Calvinism and Arminianism do not agree. Infant baptism and believer's baptism do not agree.
PreTrib, MidTrib, and PostTrib do not agree.
Mary being a perpetual virgin and Jesus having brothers and sisters does not agree.
Who would compromise one for the other?

 

[David in NJ]

No.
When I say 'compromise' I am stating the fact that there are existing doctrines that do not agree. (period)
Calvinism and Arminianism do not agree. Infant baptism and believer's baptism do not agree.
PreTrib, MidTrib, and PostTrib do not agree.
Mary being a perpetual virgin and Jesus having brothers and sisters does not agree.
Who would compromise one for the other?

This has to do with the 'Covering Dynamic' that is the result of us being born into a world that has been 'compromised' by sin.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:

No.
When I say 'compromise' I am stating the fact that there are existing doctrines that do not agree. (period)
Calvinism and Arminianism do not agree. Infant baptism and believer's baptism do not agree.
PreTrib, MidTrib, and PostTrib do not agree.
Mary being a perpetual virgin and Jesus having brothers and sisters does not agree.
Who would compromise one for the other?

This has to do with the 'Covering Dynamic' that is the result of us being born into a world that has been 'compromised' by sin.

I'm not familiar with that term. Tell us more.
How does that relate to conflicting doctrines? (or true and false)

 

[David in NJ]

St. SteVen said:

No.
When I say 'compromise' I am stating the fact that there are existing doctrines that do not agree. (period)
Calvinism and Arminianism do not agree. Infant baptism and believer's baptism do not agree.
PreTrib, MidTrib, and PostTrib do not agree.
Mary being a perpetual virgin and Jesus having brothers and sisters does not agree.
Who would compromise one for the other?

I'm not familiar with that term. Tell us more.
How does that relate to conflicting doctrines? (or true and false)

It is irrelevant that all those doctrines disagree with each other.

The only RELEVANCE is if they agree or disagree with "it is written" = God's words.

Our relevance is found in our Creator = the WORD by which all things were made.

Now where in Scripture can you find this playing out in the most prolific way?

 

[St. SteVen]

It is irrelevant that all those doctrines disagree with each other.

The only RELEVANCE is if they agree or disagree with "it is written" = God's words.

All these doctrines, and many more, have biblical support.
- Calvinism, or Arminianism; which one agrees with "it is written" = God's words?
- Infant baptism, or believer's baptism: which one agrees with "it is written" = God's words?
- PreTrib, MidTrib, or PostTrib, which one agrees with "it is written" = God's words?
- Mary being a perpetual virgin, or Jesus having brothers and sisters; which one agrees with "it is written" = God's words?

Now where in Scripture can you find this playing out in the most prolific way?

I'm stumped. - LOL
Did you have something in mind?

 

[David in NJ]

All these doctrines, and many more, have biblical support.
- Calvinism, or Arminianism; which one agrees with "it is written" = God's words?
- Infant baptism, or believer's baptism: which one agrees with "it is written" = God's words?
- PreTrib, MidTrib, or PostTrib, which one agrees with "it is written" = God's words?
- Mary being a perpetual virgin, or Jesus having brothers and sisters; which one agrees with "it is written" = God's words?

I'm stumped. - LOL
Did you have something in mind?

We both had a joyful LOL this morning - thank you my Brother

The first thing that comes to mind is the first place 'doctrinal compromise' took place = Genesis/the Garden

You remember = "Did God really say.........."

 

[face2face]

Having said that, I reject the claim that there is a single right wisdom in response to every foolish situation but many right wisdom (beyond generic truisms like 'act in the Spirit of God' or be kind, etc.) Consider Solomon and the scenario with the 2 women claiming to be the mother of the baby. With today's technology a blood test could prove decisive. If not, certainly a DNA test.

Correct, change the historical setting and you may well have found the right wisdom for that situation.

I've been thinking about 'sound doctrine' when it comes to consolidation of power is killing the enemy, even if they are children. Two examples come to mind. Just yesterday I watched a Great Courses on Charlemagne. When his father died, he split his kingdom between his 2 sons. The other son died and many in that kingdom pledged allegience to his 2 sons rather than Charlemagne. To take his sister-in-law and nephews into custody, Charlemagne laid seige to, not one, but 2 cities. Contemporary sources state Charlemagne was successful in having them in custody.

There is extensive documentation of how Charlemagne put others in monestaries but not one document survives stating what happened to Charlemagne's nephews once he had them in custody. The lecturer tells us he undoubtedly murdered them. Then there is Octavian, who after defeating mark Anthony, pursued Cleopatra's son by Caesar. His forces caught up to him on a bridge and killed him.

These 2 men both established dynasties that passed the test of time, each lasted for over 1,000 years. Had they not had the wisdom to effectively consolidate power, there could have been power struggles preventing these great cultures from ever forming in the 1st place: The Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. So, it is not merely 'sound doctrine' that allowed them to personally achieve total power, it was better for societal development. Other wisdom might suggest the same scenario could have played out if these children were allowed to live. Could be. (And also, could not be, right?)

I suppose I am arguing for pragmatism and wisdom must certainly be pragmatic as well as theoretically insightful. Our own Bible is filled with morally dubious examples of wisdom. I was struck just last week at the end of Judges were 'grace' was extended to prevent a tribe of Israel from destruction by stealing Shiloh dancing girls to become their wives. In today's culture, this is called kidnapping, abduction, and raping. Doubtless any feminists today would say it is perfectly fine for men to take girls by force and call them ones wife by proclamation. Yet, it worked and was called grace.

Have you ever studied providence?

“The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise that they are vain. . . .The wisdom of the world is foolishness with God. . . .The foolishness of God is wiser than men.”

When I study history, I'm often confronted with providence, whats interesting about this subject is every person chooses their own level as to the degree God intervenes in His Creation. One person might prayer to God when buying a new car while another might say "God is not interested in the type of car I buy" - one might praise God for providing a reliable car, while the other is thankful but diminishes the cars importance.

Re Charlemagne, I believe him to be a pivotal figure in the development of the apostate church. Pepin & Charlemagne supported the Papacy; history shows how they supplied the arms used successfully against the Lombards, and in the year 799 an alliance was completed between the Pope and the Emperor of the Franks.

This laid the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire, the two-horned Beast Of The Earth. Political movements such as these have the divine hand all over them, especially when the fulfillment of prophecy has been already uttered.

F2F

 

[face2face]

I've never heard that before, how interesting!

An example would be misunderstanding the principles of atonement. For instance you have ransom, redemption, propitiation, substitution, and Christ as moral example (representative) models.

The later, is the one which I hold, as is clearly taught in the Bible, however the throngs believe mostly in the substitution model, which unfortunately has many flaws.

Of all the doctrines to be known and understood, this subject of atonement is the one which is highly salvic based, as without a knowledge of the method of forgiveness and offer of grace, how can one be saved?

Just to make that point even more certain one would only need to read Romans & Hebrews to appreciate the lengths the writer goes in teaching the nature of Christ; his sacrifice and what God achieved "through" his sons death.

I'm certain one could try and say doctrine is not required for salvation but the evidence in these two epistles alone would be impossible to refute.

F2F

 

[Gottservant]

From my POV, doctrine is a man-made attempt to codify what they think the Bible says.
[...]
Or religious preconceptions attract us to doctrine we think is TRUE, and repels us from doctrine we think is FALSE.

I think the thing is that we need to wait for our doctrine, to be "completed" in the right way (the right way is not before the end).

God has a Gospel of His Own, He has communicated that to me - I'm still trying to work out what that means!

Just talking about it, I have started to realise that there is more power, the more our doctrine is shared - which is power to change, not to stay the same (I will have to get back to you, if I get clarity on what my change is supposed to be - part of it, is not having preferred scriptures, but the rest is still ambiguous to me!)

 

[Gottservant]

I think something we all need to learn about scripture, for the sake of unity: is that God does not have a preferred scripture.

All scripture is "fit" - that's what the Bible says (you may have a scripture you use all the time, but the time may still come that you need to use a different one).

This also means that there are a lot of things that are "fit" the way scripture is (your testimony, for one thing), they just don't happen to be in the Bible.

 

[St. SteVen]

Memorandum = random memo

 

[BarneyFife]

This is a follow-up to the previous topic: Unity of the faith - at what cost? Link below.

Probably the biggest roadblock to Christian doctrinal unity is holding on to the freedom we have to determine our own beliefs.
Would you surrender your own beliefs in the cause of Christian doctrinal unity?

Unity of the faith - at what cost?

Just to be clear, I do not seek Christian doctrinal unity. Defined as EVERYONE surrendering to a predetermined set of beliefs.
I believe that unity comes when we accept each other no matter our differences.
That we seek to understand each other instead of rejecting those whose Christian doctrine may differ.
Which presents its own set of challenges, of course. But that's another topic. (I hope) - LOL

I see this as a geometry problem. We are all like points in a circle with God in Christ at the very center. We spend remarkably more time comparing ourselves to each other than we do fixating upon and moving toward the center point. If and when we tire of this and purpose in our hearts to behold and follow Christ we will have no choice but to come closer together.

I think it's worth noting that doctrine is like the space in the circle that is not God or people. The space near the center is much smaller and compact which indicates that if we are fixated upon and moving toward the center, the only doctrine we will have in view will be less diverse and more concentrated. The vast space of 'every wind of doctrine' will be behind us.

 

[St. SteVen]

I see this as a geometry problem. We are all like points in a circle with God in Christ at the very center. We spend remarkably more time comparing ourselves to each other than we do fixating upon and moving toward the center point. If and when we tire of this and purpose in our hearts to behold and follow Christ we will have no choice but to come closer together.

Wow, I really like that analogy. Thanks.

I think it's worth noting that doctrine is like the space in the circle that is not God or people. The space near the center is much smaller and compact which indicates that if we are fixated upon and moving toward the center, the only doctrine we will have in view will be less diverse and more concentrated. The vast space of 'every wind of doctrine' will be behind us.

YES !!!!!!!!!!!
Once we reach the center, doctrinal differences are left behind us. Excellent.