Embracing Doctrinal Diversity - Unity in diversity

[St. SteVen]

In the same way we have learned to understand and respect cultural diversity,
we should learn to understand and respect doctrinal diversity.

Can Catholics and Protestants respect one another despite our doctrinal differences? (yes)
What about Baptists and Pentecostals? (yes) You name it. How far apart can we get?

Build bridges, not walls.

 

[Tommy Cool]

I always look for something that can be a positive in varying denominations ...which many times is just the fact the they do get people to accept Jesus Christ as their savior.
But when it comes to doctrines I draw a hard line...God's word and God's way or no dice.
Jesus did not say in Jhn 8:32 you shall know the truths and the truths shall make you free..... truth is singular ...not diverse.

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.


2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The intrinsic nuance of orthotomeō (rightly dividing) is that there is one way of cutting (dividing) the Word all other ways are wrong.

Everyone divides the Word …the question is ….is it rightly divided?

 

[St. SteVen]

Thanks for your response.

Everyone divides the Word …the question is ….is it rightly divided?

Does that describe doctrinal unity, or doctrinal diversity?
By what standard is "the Word" rightly divided?

Most would say that the Bible is the standard, but...
there is no consensus on WHAT it means.

Meaning is typically driven by preconception.
We see what we are looking for.

 

[marks]

Ephesians 4:11-16 KJV
11) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15) But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16) From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Why remain children?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Meaning is typically driven by preconception.
We see what we are looking for.

I heartily disagree with you on this point. Some are that way, yes. And there are many who have taken up the mantle to teach, who are not gifted from the Holy Spirit to do so.

I think it's the wrong question to ask, what doctrines can we ignore for the sake of camaraderie, but how can we all attain to unity in both our faith and our knowledge of the Son of God?

I fully believe the Bible says a certain thing. And while God has His marvelous way of using this part and that part, fully apart from any context, or fully within it, to speak personally to our hearts, I hope we all have that testimony, even still, the Bible says a certain thing, gives us a certain message.

The same thing applies, I think, in our pursuit of unity of the faith AND knowledge, as towards our service to each other. And really I think these are one and the same.

Ephesians 4:1-3 KJV
1) I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
2) With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3) Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

And then He goes right on to say there is one faith, one baptism, and so on, One. I think this passage above should be all of our daily meditation if we aspire towards serving others. Not just tossing out stuff from ourselves, I'll show you how stupid you are to think that way with all my superior knowledge, but to truly provide spiritual nourishment, a grace from God that is able to be received with thanksgiving.

If we don't have lowliness and meekness (power under control), with longsuffering and forebearance, well, the forum abounds in examples of this.

I think we can with humility and meekness point to the truth we believe, being patient with all, forgiving any offenses, showing our love for each other by trying to give to others a gift, and that a gift from God Himself.

Love covers a multitude of sins. If we have true Christian love for each other, and we treat each other according to the Scriptures, we will see the love I have for you, and I will see the love you have for me. And in that context, our differences over interpretations don't divide us, we are united in His Spirit, in His love.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Does that describe doctrinal unity, or doctrinal diversity?
By what standard is "the Word" rightly divided?

Most would say that the Bible is the standard, but...
there is no consensus on WHAT it means.

Either it means what it says, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, and it does have a meaning, it means what someone else says it means.

If it means what it says, then we go by that. Otherwise you get into all the diffenent denoms and cults.

If there is as disagreement over what it says, we can settle that. But in so many cases, people depart from that. They say they go by what it says, but then go on to say, when you read THIS, you have to understand it really means THAT. And then go on to present a lengthy and convoluted argument to show why you shouldn't accept the plain saying of a passage.

I think there's where the issue lies. By what standard will you accept something other than the plain saying of a passage? For me, it's when there is another plain saying that tells me to. Like, the red dragon, we are told, is that ancient serpent, the devil, Satan. That Jesus meant the temple of His body. Things like that.

On another thread I've been posting passages showing God's preservation of Israel, and His promises to return them to their land, every last one of them, to remain there. These are plain sayings of these many passages. Some members have posted how they think these don't mean what their plain saying is, but that they indicate spiritual things that have been fulfilled in Christ, or will be fulfilled in the church.

Kind of like how I come to rapture timing, the process of elimination. In their process, they've eliminated the possibility of fulfillment in the plain sayings of these prophecies. And so we remain in disagreement.

And on a personal note, it's their demeanor, not their POV, that decreases my interest in pursuing the conversation.

Somewhere you have to draw a line on what you will believe in the Bible, and how far you will allow your interpretations of various passages and doctrines to affect how you accept the plain sayings of the Bible.

I've learned that when I'm not seeing something plainly written in the Bible, If I have thoughts otherwise, set them aside, until further notice, and stay with the plain sayings. Yes, allowing for figures of speech, and all, but these are all seen in the plain sayings, passages interpret other passages.

It think where we go wrong is if we find we are negating the plain saying of a passage by our interpretation of another passage.

I suddenly feel like I've just written a long and convoluted post, so on that note, I'll toss it out there!

Much love!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

In the same way we have learned to understand and respect cultural diversity,
we should learn to understand and respect doctrinal diversity.

Can Catholics and Protestants respect one another despite our doctrinal differences? (yes)
What about Baptists and Pentecostals? (yes) You name it. How far apart can we get?

Build bridges, not walls.

There are differences that are not worth fighting about. but there are doctrinal differences that believers must stand, defend and resist those who promote anything diffferent.

while we are to encourage unity, it is not at the cost of doctrinal purity in the essential areas.

Example: I have no problem with those who wish to pray in tongues. but when they say that one is not filled with the spirit until they speak in tongues- I stand opposed to that because the bible says differently.

god commanded us in Jude to earnestly contend for the faith once for all time handed down. That is the bible.

 

[Keturah]

IMO, doctrine is attributed to the word of God as the doctrines of Christ & of God but now THEOLOGY and personal, denominal beliefs, that's a horse of a different color!

We must have unity of the faith of Jesus Christ & what was the last & only acceptable sacrifice for the sin of all mankind, to any that will believe on John 3:16.

If any one's personal or denominal beliefs are contrary to the word of God doctrines, I don't consider them family & I refuse to be unequally yoked!

 

[St. SteVen]

Love covers a multitude of sins. If we have true Christian love for each other, and we treat each other according to the Scriptures, we will see the love I have for you, and I will see the love you have for me. And in that context, our differences over interpretations don't divide us, we are united in His Spirit, in His love.

Right, that's my point. (said better than I could)

 

[St. SteVen]

If it means what it says, then we go by that. Otherwise you get into all the diffenent denoms and cults.

If there is as disagreement over what it says, we can settle that. But in so many cases, people depart from that. They say they go by what it says, but then go on to say, when you read THIS, you have to understand it really means THAT. And then go on to present a lengthy and convoluted argument to show why you shouldn't accept the plain saying of a passage.

Let's try that with this passage. Tell me what it plainly says without letting religious preconceptions get in the way. Thanks.

Romans 5:18-19 NIV
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

[marks]

Let's try that with this passage. Tell me what it plainly says without letting religious preconceptions get in the way. Thanks.

Romans 5:18-19 NIV
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Are we contriving a division? There is a broader context to the passage, just like there is always broader context to disagreement or disunity.

Fomenting a debate to test the bounds of unity lacks the context that makes it dynamic. Pastor/teachers, gifted teachers, in teaching those appointed them by God, in relationship, is where we see this really play out.

I'm curious why you picked that particular passage. I think I know, but I'm more interested in your answer.

Now, with that all being said, do you actually want to explore this passage with me to see if we are in agreement over what it means? And that if we are not in agreement, can we reach agreement? And if we cannot reach agreement, can we remain in unity, having come to actually understand the other's POV even if we don't agree?

Much love!

 

[St. SteVen]

Are we contriving a division? There is a broader context to the passage, just like there is always broader context to disagreement or disunity.

Yes, a broader context.
That's how those who disagree with what a scripture plainly says get around it. Claim it is "taken out of context."
Meaning, it can't mean what it actually says. It doesn't fit their preconception.

Fomenting a debate to test the bounds of unity lacks the context that makes it dynamic. Pastor/teachers, gifted teachers, in teaching those appointed them by God, in relationship, is where we see this really play out.

More context. What became of the plain reading of scripture? Now we need paid professionals to inform us?

I'm curious why you picked that particular passage. I think I know, but I'm more interested in your answer.

I'm a proponent of UR. Those outside that understanding reject a plain reading of this scripture.
But perhaps you had another thought about why I would choose this one?

Now, with that all being said, do you actually want to explore this passage with me to see if we are in agreement over what it means? And that if we are not in agreement, can we reach agreement? And if we cannot reach agreement, can we remain in unity, having come to actually understand the other's POV even if we don't agree?

I would be pleasantly surprised if we were in agreement on this scripture.
I picked that one to demonstrate that you would most likely reject a plain reading.

My interest is NOT in agreement, but rather in understanding.
I expect to encounter disagreement, which I embrace.

Yes, if we can accept each other DESPITE our differences, that spells UNITY to me.
Mutual respect and understanding. Not a common theme in Christian circles. (unfortunately) IMHO

With all that in mind, here is what you wrote previously in post #6.

Either it means what it says, or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, and it does have a meaning, it means what someone else says it means.

If it means what it says, then we go by that. Otherwise you get into all the diffenent denoms and cults.

If there is as disagreement over what it says, we can settle that. But in so many cases, people depart from that. They say they go by what it says, but then go on to say, when you read THIS, you have to understand it really means THAT. And then go on to present a lengthy and convoluted argument to show why you shouldn't accept the plain saying of a passage.

The scripture I posted was a test of what you wrote. Did you pass or fail?

 

[marks]

Now we need paid professions to inform us?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Jesus gave to His church among others, Shepherd/Teachers. Do we sit under Jesus-appointed Shepherd/Teachers? The Holy Spirit gives gifts of teaching, do we receive spiritual teaching from those so gifted? And do we try to teach when we ought to be being taught?

I'm a proponent of UR. Those outside that understanding reject a plain reading of this scripture.
But perhaps you had another thought about why I would choose this one?

UR, that is universalism? Like I said, I prefer you tell me, and I appreciate that.

So then you've picked this text because it communicates to you that "Justification of life" is synonymous with eternal life, is that right? And so the question is, do I see that this plainly says that, and either accept or reject it? Am I at the heart of the question?

Much love!

 

[Keturah]

Hiccup noted.....UR!
This changes my views on the words of OP.
No offense intended but there is no UR.
It is God's way or the LOF !
I'm done.

 

[Keturah]

What does universal mean in Christianity?


In Christian theology, universal reconciliation (also called universal salvation, Christian universalism, or in context simply universalism) is the doctrine that all sinful and alienated human souls—because of divine love and mercy—will ultimately be reconciled to God.

No thanks. There is one God and he alone must be worshipped. Buddhist, Islams or any other religious factions who do not worship the one true God, they must repent & be converted to having the faith & the mind of Christ!

 

[St. SteVen]

UR, that is universalism? Like I said, I prefer you tell me, and I appreciate that.

Yes, Christian Universalism. Better known as Universal Restoration (UR),
or Universal Reconciliation, or my personal favorite, Ultimate Redemption.
But Christian Universalism works fine. Differentiated from Unitarian Universalism, NOT the same thing.

So then you've picked this text because it communicates to you that "Justification of life" is synonymous with eternal life, is that right? And so the question is, do I see that this plainly says that, and either accept or reject it? Am I at the heart of the question?

No. (well, sort of...)
And in case you are wondering, I have the gift of teaching you mentioned. (for what it is worth)
I was an elected Elder in the church I grew up in. And asked by other churches and organizations to lead adult Bible study classes.
I say this not to promote myself but since you created a (an unnecessary) barrier between teachers and students.
I am willing to learn from ANYONE, regardless of institutional status.

What this scripture plainly says is that "justification and life for all people" is the result of the actions of one man. (Jesus - the second Adam)
Note the "just as' and "so also" declarations before each statement. Meaning, in the same way.

The actions of the second Adam (Christ) nullified the actions of the first Adam.
That is the plain reading of this. Those who disagree, scrap up some context to nullify this scripture.
Gets back to the aforementioned preconceptions.

Romans 5:18-19 NIV
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

[St. SteVen]

What does universal mean in Christianity?

Universal means everyone. I thought this was obvious. - LOL

I guess Christianity is EXCLUSIVE in your view?
Only intended for the select few. Everyone else can burn.
No concern of yours. (unless you have unsaved loved ones)

Hiccup noted.....UR!
This changes my views on the words of OP.
No offense intended but there is no UR.
It is God's way or the LOF !
I'm done.

What does "I'm done." mean in Christianity? - LOL

 

[St. SteVen]

In Christian theology, universal reconciliation (also called universal salvation, Christian universalism, or in context simply universalism) is the doctrine that all sinful and alienated human souls—because of divine love and mercy—will ultimately be reconciled to God.

This is revolting to you? Why?
Did not Jesus die so that we could ALL be reconciled to God?

No thanks. There is one God and he alone must be worshipped.

I'm not talking about a different God. The same God.

Is it not God's will that ALL be saved?

 

[St. SteVen]

It is God's way or the LOF !

An eternal punishment for a finite crime?
Do you call that justice?

 

[Keturah]

So if I'm reading right you believe all religions will be saved & you reject a definitive punishment of ECT in the LOF, correct?

 If my loved ones reject God per Salvation through Jesus, then it was their CHOICE, no fault of God!