Unity of the faith - at what cost?

[Behold]

Its being made a new creature! First our dead spirit is resurrected.

So, if the dead spirit is resurrected, and is"in Christ". "one" with God...

And your body is dead because of sin, and your mind is just your mind....then where is the REAL YOU, that is the "new Creation In Christ"?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What is "in Christ"?

"your body is dead because of sin"... and your mind is not born again.

What is "in Christ"?

We are in Christ! OUr mind is being renewed by studying to show ourselves approved. It means that believers positionally are hidden with Christ in God. Our experience is growing onto that psoition.

I believe you called it staus and state.

 

[Behold]

We are in Christ!

What part of you, is born again, that is the New Creation. ?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So, if the dead spirit is resurrected, and is"in Christ". "one" with God...

And your body is dead because of sin, and your mind is just your mind....then where is the REAL YOU, that is the "new Creation In Christ"?

You in body, soul and spirit.

 

[Behold]

You in body, soul and spirit.

If your body is the real you, then why is it being replaced?
And if your mind is born again, then why do you have to renew it?

So, once again, what is born again, and "In Christ", one with God?

 

[BarneyFife]

Do you not know how to talk to people in a colloquial way?

Lol - A really good way to talk to people in a colloquial way is to avoid the use of words like "colloquial."

 

[Lambano]

In this world, diversification seems to be a survival trait. Adapt or perish. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, the investment advisors say.

Thus, is "unity of doctrine" even desirable?

(I think Jesus had something else in mind when He prayed that we would be one, with He in us and us in Him.)

 

[St. SteVen]

Thus, is "unity of doctrine" even desirable?

Right. Undesirable.

The only way there can be doctrinal unity is if everyone comes under ONE doctrinal authority.
No one wants to do that. (except the Catholics - assuming it is THEIR doctrine)

Those who cry for doctrinal unity want to be the ONE to determine WHAT that means.
Or they cite the Bible as the authority, when there is no consensus on what it means.
What a mess!

 

[Lambano]

Those who cry for doctrinal unity want to be the ONE to determine WHAT that means.

That's just the normal human craving to be the one calling the shots. Everybody wants to be on top.

 

[St. SteVen]

That's just the normal human craving to be the one calling the shots. Everybody wants to be on top.

Like a game of King of the Hill with Bibles. - LOL

Imagine all the Theologians chasing each other around the hilltop with their Bibles.
Whack, whack...
"My Bible's bigger than yours!" Whack, whack... thud. "Ha, ha, ha..."
Quite the image.

 

[amadeus]

That's just the normal human craving to be the one calling the shots. Everybody wants to be on top.

Pr 16:2

All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.

Pr 21:2

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

 

[Behold]

Those who cry for doctrinal unity want to be the ONE to determine WHAT that means.

Pauline Theology.

A.) Final answer

There is the "unity".
There is no other.

 

[Lambano]

Pauline Theology.

A.) Final answer

There is the "unity".
There is no other.

Marcion of Sinope established the first biblical canon in the 2nd century. His "Bible" included the Pauline epistles and an idiosyncratic "Gospel of Marcion" that is thought to be an edited version of the Gospel of Luke. No Revelation. No Hebrews. No other Gospels. No Matthew, no Mark, no John or the Johannine letters. Or any other non-Pauline letters. And certainly not that pesky letter from James. No OT. No Torah, no Prophets, no Psalms, no Proverbs, no Ecclesiastes, no Song of Solomon, and no Job.

Marcion lives.

 

[Behold]

Marcion of Sinope established the first biblical canon in the 2nd century. His "Bible" included the Pauline epistles and an idiosyncratic "Gospel of Marcion" that is thought to be an edited version of the Gospel of Luke. No Revelation. No Hebrews. No other Gospels. No Matthew, no Mark, no John or the Johannine letters. Or any other non-Pauline letters. And certainly not that pesky letter from James. No OT. No Torah, no Prophets, no Psalms, no Proverbs, no Ecclesiastes, no Song of Solomon, and no Job.

Marcion lives.

Jesus read from the Torah.
That was before Marcion was born.

Peter said that Paul's letters were "Scripture", and that was before Marcion was born.

Many teach that the "original koine greek" is superior to the word of God. "Holy Bible".
However, as these who teach that dont realize there is no extant "original Koine Greek" Text, ... we simply ignore their "ignorance" regarding "manuscript evidence" reality.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

If your body is the real you, then why is it being replaced?
And if your mind is born again, then why do you have to renew it?

So, once again, what is born again, and "In Christ", one with God?

1. Our bodies will not be replaced but clothed with immortality and incorruptibleness
2. Our mind is the soul of man and must be renewed to match the regenerated spirit.
3. Being born again- is being born again.
Translated out of the kingdom of darkness to His kingdom
Justified, glorified, being conformed to the image of Jesus.
Now a child of God instead of Stan- new parent!
Name written in the Lambs Book of life.
Given eternal life, saved forever.
Given the mind of Christ to learn the ways of God
Learning to walk as a child of God

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Lol - A really good way to talk to people in a colloquial way is to avoid the use of words like "colloquial."

Like you just didn't?

 

[BarneyFife]

Like you just didn't?

Can you think of another way I could have told that joke?

"words that begin with 'colloq' "

Love you, Ron, you cranky old TULIP peddler!

Shabbat Shalom!

 

[Behold]

1. Our bodies will not be replaced but clothed with immortality and incorruptibleness

Ronald.

they are going to put your body, in a box, then in a hole, or they are going to burn it, till the bones are left.

You get a new one.
You can't put new wine in that "body that is dead because of sin"..

Also, i asked you.

If your body is not born again, and you mind is not born again, then what is left ?

 

[St. SteVen]

... no Psalms, no Proverbs, no Ecclesiastes, no Song of Solomon, and no Job.

Rats! No job?
Was he able to collect unemployment benefits? (hope so) Poor guy.

 

[quietthinker]

The call for doctrinal unity has gone out across the centuries.
Are we there yet? (not by a long shot)

Where is the problem?
Perhaps it is in the assumption that the unity of the faith is doctrinal unity.

- Can there be unity of the faith that overlooks doctrinal differences?
- Does the Body of Christ have room for differing views on doctrine?
- What would the church look like if we didn't label differing views as BAD or FALSE doctrines?
- Is a differing view unbiblical simply because it doesn't agree with our own biblical position?
- Can two opposing views BOTH be biblical, if biblical evidence to support each view is given?

Equating the word 'biblical' with the right doctrine or inerrant thing to believe is in a sense an oxymoron. For example, slavery was justified from the bible in the southern states of the US ....yes, 'slavery' is biblical.

The subjugation of women is justified by many from the bible......by and large the Bible is a patriarchal document; for example, does anyone know the names of Noah's wife or the names of the wives of his Sons? why not? because they were hardly counted worthy in the authors reality....again, when a woman is caught in adultery, it is she that gets shamed....even stoned. etc etc

As believers in Jesus we need to be asking how the scriptures testify to Jesus.....and if they don't (as in the commands to commit genocide in the OT) we are to learn what brought such about.

It is clear that the word 'biblical' is too broad a brush for it to qualify as an inerrant term. We view Judas poorly because he betrayed and suicided yet Samson who was a womaniser and a murderer is listed among those of faith in the book of Hebrews.
It is also evident that Samson is not a good role model to follow in spite of being listed in the list of the faithful.......and King David? have you considered his history because the question needs to be asked, what part of his life would you hold up as exemplary?

If one wants to be selective, meaning one puts their head in the sand when 'inconvenient' facts/ truths are presented that are also 'biblical' then one has swallowed the blue pill.

.....and for those unfamiliar with the analogy, here is a search definition:
'The red pill and blue pill represent a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth by taking the red pill or remaining in the contented experience of ordinary reality with the blue pill. The terms originate from the 1999 film The Matrix.'