Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
"Born Again" is used twice in John 3, and once in 1st Peter. It isn't just a Protestant Evangelical term.
Would you surrender your own beliefs in the cause of doctrinal unity?
- Thread starter St. SteVen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
It seems most Christians see this as a terrible problem. I see it as a magnificent opportunity.
What do we look like to the world when we fight amongst ourselves over petty differences?
I think we have the total wrong idea about unity.
I don't think it means SAMENESS as much as it it means acceptance of one another.
Within reason, of course.
/
Agree.
I was objecting to the term being used as synonymously for "saved".
Not everyone views it that way. Especially as a "Born-Again" descriptor.
/
ScottA
Well-Known Member
The call is not to surrender to each other, but rather to surrender to God and the only actual unity that is His.
Agreed.
But can this happen corporately, or only individually?
Corporately would be corrupted by humankind. IMHO
/
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
Saved is weird terminology, anyway. It really only occurs in Eph 2, and even there it isn't clear that it should be in past-tense.
It's probably more theologically correct to say that one has been re-generated (past tense) and that he shall be saved (future tense).
But there's no stopping the vernacular.
Agreed.
Well, I think it does apply to those that God has drawn to himself in this lifetime.
And I believe that we cannot undo what only God could do in the first place.
I believe in eternal security. Even reprobation is God's choice.
And I believe the good shepherd uses it to redeem (bring back) the "lost sheep".
That's a good way to put it. There are many levels of salvation.
Not limited to the salvation of our souls. God saves us from something every day.
And I'm a Universalist. So I believe everyone is saved already. But yet to "realize" it.
Indeed.But there's no stopping the vernacular.
/ @Hillsage
ScottA
Well-Known Member
I do get your point... I suppose it is the result of our nature and being weak in the flesh that sees our being different members of the same body competitively and with rivalry. Too many Martha's.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
Saved is weird terminology, anyway. It really only occurs in Eph 2, and even there it isn't clear that it should be in past-tense.
It's probably more theologically correct to say that one has been re-generated (past tense) and that he shall be saved (future tense).
But there's no stopping the vernacular.
It is best to consider past, present, and future tense with a grain of salt. It is better as followers of Christ to begin to consider all things as God does: "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (by the renewing of our mind).
Right.I do get your point... I suppose it is the result of our nature and being weak in the flesh that sees our being different members of the same body competitively and with rivalry. Too many Martha's.
As I wrote in the OP...
"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."
/
ScottA
Well-Known Member
Yes, the emphasis really should be to understand and respect that we have but one unity and it is being our own part(s) of Him, which is the very thing that makes us One--one new man in Christ, but otherwise a body of many (different) members.
Runningman
Active Member
It depends on what sense you mean by accepting doctrinal differences. Insofar as accepting that people exist who attach their non-Biblical doctrines to the Bible, then yes I accept it. There is no way to change that. Do I accept them insofar as coddling and enabling them to distort scripture? I do not personally, but there are people who do.
There is a point where someone should be more or less ostracized from the church for what they say, do, and/or believe. Tolerance is okay up until a point, but the actual things they say, do, and/or believe shouldn't be accepted without exception. I believe one of the main ideas in the New Testament is to actually achieve doctrinal unity. I would refer to Matt 18:17 and 2 Thess 3:6,14.
@Runningman welcome to the forum.
I'm glad this topic caught your eye for your first post. Thanks.
/
I'm glad this topic caught your eye for your first post. Thanks.
/
Of course. There needs to be standards.
What makes a doctrine non-Biblical? The reason I ask is because the forum is overloaded with fine individuals
who claim a doctrine is non-Biblical if it disagrees with their own doctrinal opinion. Even though biblical support was provided.
Where do you draw the line?
Would you surrender your own beliefs in the cause of doctrinal unity?
/
I see now where our difference is. It's slight but all important.
I would never surrender my personal understanding of the Bible for doctrinal unity among teachers of the Bible. I only surrender my personal beliefs to the one doctrinal unity of the Bible itself.
However, I would also certainly and willingly (and have done so at times), surrender my personal understanding of the Bible, to anyone teaching the Bible to me more accurately. I can be corrected by sound doctrine show me from the exact words of the Bible. But I never forsake sound doctrine simply to please men for the same of unified error.
I can be corrected by the Spirit of truth personally, when reading and meditating on the words, as well as through others teaching it to me more clearly.
It's the Spirit doing the correcting in both cases. I only teach what I believe the Bible says, and can be changed to something better from the Bible by God and man. However, some things are not disputable in the Bible, such as the principles of the doctrine of Christ unto salvation and resurrection unto life. But I am more than glad to be corrected in things I find I am erring in.
Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.
Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.
Not all Christians are wiling to be corrected in any part of certain things, because I have learned their very consciences depend upon their doctrine justifying them, while their life certainly does not.
For me it's all about the true doctrine of Bible prophecy and revelation, so that perfecting my understanding of it is all that matters. I already know the truth of the word to do in repenting of sinning and living righteously toward God. My conscience only depends on doing just that, and not at all on doctrine alone. I don't make for myself and put my trust in a doctrine alone, to be saved and justified by.
Trusting in one's own doctrine alone to ensure we are resurrected unto life, is the result of teaching the doctrine of trusting in our own faith alone to save and justify us with God. That's the recipe for sinful Christianity, that tries to separate grace, faith, and salvation from our we actually live. It's a major cause for men justifiably blaspheming the grace, cross, and blood if Jesus Christ.
I mean, who wants to take any religion seriously, that is all inward and 'spiritual', and purposely set apart from what we are actually doing??
No man is a born son of the true God, while sinning with the god of this world. Period. And all the magnificently abundant efforts of words, doctrines, original languages, and manuscripts can put that humpty-dumpty back together again, especially not sufficiently to raise us from the dead unto everlasting life. All such great scholarly 'learnings' end in the grave, and then God will certainly judge us all by our works, and not by our personalized beliefs in not being judged by our works like all men.
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The one and only reason anyone ever learns more and more (that they want to believe from the Bible), without ever having knowledge of the truth of God's salvation and resurrection unto life, is simply because they still refuse to repent of their own sinning and just go ahead and do the truth already and sin not:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that is doing the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Like the marriage bed, people only know the truth of God, by doing the truth of God with His Son.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Runningman
Active Member
It's the same on all forums; it's as diverse as there are different denominations, which by some estimates is ~200 in the USA alone, there are more than 100 Bible versions translated into English, and there are numerous base texts from which the Bibles are translated. The base texts don't say the same things.
It is difficult to say what makes a doctrine non-Biblical without actually defining what info the original manuscripts contain. Since there are numerous versions of the Bible even in the earliest surviving copies of the original texts, then it's difficult to say which one is more accurate. I wouldn't say the age of a manuscript is congruent to its authenticity. The Bible has changed over the years and it started early on.
What else complicates the matter is that language translation isn't an exact science. It can all be translated in numerous ways that are not only valid, but can also be contradictory. As a result, theology is an intense study that should aim to harmonize the scripture in a way that removes all of the subtle contradictions. Once that is achieved, I believe there may very well be the doctrinal unity they seemed to enjoy more around the beginning.
Perhaps sin is a good place to start. There is sin being preached in churches and most of them aren't even aware as far as I can tell.
I would gladly change something I believe for doctrinal unity provided I knew it was accurate. I think we are at the point we need God to intervene in this, again, to set the record straight.
I don't think there was ever doctrinal unity, nor will there ever be. IMHO
Even Jesus knew that the questions are more important than the answers.
Luke 10:26 NIV
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
/
On that basis no doctrine could be proven to be "biblical". And I don't think that is the right way to look at it.
Personally, if someone can provide scriptural reference to support their doctrine, I consider the doctrine biblical.
Whether I agree with it, or not. I was raised Protestant. But I learned that Catholics have scriptural basis for their doctrines.
On that basis I can't declare their doctrines unbiblical, even if I don't agree.
This is helpful information on the subject.
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101
https://www.bereanpatriot.com/majority-text-vs-critical-text-vs-textus-receptus-textual-criticism-101/#Corruption-of-the-Alexandrian-text-type/
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
So, Jesus was a Jew born under the law which had a predetermined set of beliefs.
I don't see that Jesus accepted those beliefs no matter what the differences were.
Doctrines will always come and go with the wind, but truth is eternal and where there is no waivering.
For the sake of Unity Jesus did not bend. In fact, he created a great divide between that which had been predetermined by their own understanding and what the truth of what God said truly meant.
I will agree that there is a challenge for unity to exist as long as the winds of doctrines are allowed freedom to freely flow.
And interpretations are for the hearer of the word.
When the day is done We will know what is the truth and what is man's own understanding.
Everything will be made so clear there will be no question as to who's interpretation is correct. But each person will be held accountable for how they heard.
We should strive to live peacably among all people but not to the extent where we give up what each person believes.
It is better to be a listener than a preacher in my opinion. If you preach you have to walk the walk not just talk the talk and your own fruits will determine if you have listened wisely.
We aught not judge others according to their interpretations because you don't know if you or they have heard it the same way.
And each lesson in the bible, I believe, is individually crafted for the hearer.
Luk 8:18
Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.
Mar 4:24
And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.
Don't be a hypocrite. Don't preach one thing and do another.
If you believe in a particular doctrine don't stray from it. But don't judge others for how they believe in their doctrine.
God will judge in the end.
Discussions are good, sharing doctrines and interpretations are good. But if you don't agree don't argue about it, rather, just simply walk away. Or change the subject.
Or ask for clarification. Should we give up what has been given to us for something that was given to another?
If you find that their interpretation rings more truthful than your own, I would say there is no harm in consideration of the matter.
But if it is in total opposition to what you have been given to understand, then it is God that gave you that understanding and you should stand your ground without getting sour or angry about it.
Just my thoughts..
Hugs
Similar threads
