Does unity transcend denominational l...

Does unity transcend denominational lines?

Posted in the Bassett Forum

Randy

Axton, VA

#1 Jun 27, 2014
Jesus said,“I pray that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity.”

Many have taken this [and other scripture] to mean that unity only exist in the confines of doctrinal agreement. Any honest person, however, will acknowledge, unity in doctrinal perfection is an impossibility. I don’t believe Jesus was speaking of unity of doctrinal perfection as some advocate. The kind of unity Christ prayed for is a unity in spite of our diversity; it’s a spiritual, not a corporeal/doctrinal unity.

Am I contending we should welcome into our circle of fellowship people who deny truths that are essential to the gospel? No. I don’t mean this at all. In fact, 2 John 7-11 says,

“For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him stakes part in his wicked works.”

My point: there are essentials about Jesus/the Gospel that we must agree on … however, it is unlikely that there are any two Christians anywhere who will agree completely on the meaning of every passage of Scripture. Unity does not mean that we must agree on every point of doctrine.

I’m not saying we should ignore doctrine altogether and settle for a superficial organizational unity. I’m not saying doctrine isn’t important. Again, no two people will see eye-to-eye on every doctrine. Take for example the new babe in Christ … how much doctrine does he/she know? Likely, very little. Shall we kick such a person aside because they lack our supposed understanding of scripture? We all understand things at different times. For example, I am a slow learner. I tend to overthink/overanalyze things. I can’t just except something without detailed explanation. This hinders me at times because I get so busy trying to make sure I properly understand every detail, I often overlook the obvious. My point: we all learn differently, far as time goes. What may take me months or years to figure out, may take you days. Does God only except the person who knows it all? Does God only except the person who figures out every doctrine in a timely manner?
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#2 Jun 27, 2014
Randy wrote:
Jesus said,“I pray that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity.”
Many have taken this [and other scripture] to mean that unity only exist in the confines of doctrinal agreement. Any honest person, however, will acknowledge, unity in doctrinal perfection is an impossibility. I don’t believe Jesus was speaking of unity of doctrinal perfection as some advocate. The kind of unity Christ prayed for is a unity in spite of our diversity; it’s a spiritual, not a corporeal/doctrinal unity.
Am I contending we should welcome into our circle of fellowship people who deny truths that are essential to the gospel? No. I don’t mean this at all. In fact, 2 John 7-11 says,
“For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him stakes part in his wicked works.”
My point: there are essentials about Jesus/the Gospel that we must agree on … however, it is unlikely that there are any two Christians anywhere who will agree completely on the meaning of every passage of Scripture. Unity does not mean that we must agree on every point of doctrine.
I’m not saying we should ignore doctrine altogether and settle for a superficial organizational unity. I’m not saying doctrine isn’t important. Again, no two people will see eye-to-eye on every doctrine. Take for example the new babe in Christ … how much doctrine does he/she know? Likely, very little. Shall we kick such a person aside because they lack our supposed understanding of scripture? We all understand things at different times. For example, I am a slow learner. I tend to overthink/overanalyze things. I can’t just except something without detailed explanation. This hinders me at times because I get so busy trying to make sure I properly understand every detail, I often overlook the obvious. My point: we all learn differently, far as time goes. What may take me months or years to figure out, may take you days. Does God only except the person who knows it all? Does God only except the person who figures out every doctrine in a timely manner?
Just before I read this message, I told my wife she needed to calm down. Her Mom is in the hospital again. She said you are right and reached for her bible.

That said, I truly love your message, it is a great basis for christian unity. Why? Basically it is because we are all at different places in our walk with God. Thank you for a great message!

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#3 Jun 27, 2014
Randy wrote:
Jesus said,“I pray that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity.”

My point: there are essentials about Jesus/the Gospel that we must agree on … however, it is unlikely that there are any two Christians anywhere who will agree completely on the meaning of every passage of Scripture. Unity does not mean that we must agree on every point of doctrine.
I Does God only except the person who figures out every doctrine in a timely manner?
Who is going to decide on what the essentials are.
Until 1500 all Christians were in complete unity in believing essentials. Why don't we make that the starting point?
Lets all believe in those essentials and then you when disagree on everything the protesters have changed since then.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#4 Jun 27, 2014
Randy: I Does God only except the person who figures out every doctrine in a timely manner?

Of course not.. That is why he left us a Church to teach us that. It is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#5 Jun 27, 2014
Mike_Peterson wrote:
Randy: I Does God only except the person who figures out every doctrine in a timely manner?
Of course not.. That is why he left us a Church to teach us that. It is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Why don't you just mail us that book?
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#6 Jun 27, 2014
Better yet go here, they are all the same as they create human robots who gave up thinking for themselves long ago.

http://catholicapologeticsacademy.com/

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#7 Jun 27, 2014
Bobby wrote:
Better yet go here, they are all the same as they create human robots who gave up thinking for themselves long ago.

http://catholicapologeticsacademy.com/
Once again you prove my point. If you have original ideas about salvation after 2000 years., it is all in your mind.
Randy

Charlottesville, VA

#8 Jun 27, 2014
Mike_Peterson wrote:
Randy: I Does God only except the person who figures out every doctrine in a timely manner?
Of course not.. That is why he left us a Church to teach us that. It is the pillar and foundation of truth.
The "Church" had letters from Apostles and others in their hands long before the Bible. In the sense that the "Church" upholds truth, yes....... the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. In the sense that added doctrines like infant baptism....no, not the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. Infant baptism was not an apostolic teaching; it came much later.
Randy

Charlottesville, VA

#9 Jun 27, 2014
Mike, perhaps w should make a thread discussing the evolution of Catholic doctrine. Roman Catholics laity were forbidden to drink the blood at one time? True? What Pope(s) changed it? When did it change back? I like History too but please share it all. You have to know that the Catholic Church have changed on things....evolved...or whatever you want t call it. "If" they were THE ALL KNOWING CHURCH, then why change??? For almost 1000 years, the laity were not allowed to "drink the Blood". Who changed this? Who change it back?

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#10 Jun 28, 2014
Randy wrote:
Mike, perhaps w should make a thread discussing the evolution of Catholic doctrine. Roman Catholics laity were forbidden to drink the blood at one time? True? What Pope(s) changed it? When did it change back? I like History too but please share it all. You have to know that the Catholic Church have changed on things....evolved...or whatever you want t call it. "If" they were THE ALL KNOWING CHURCH, then why change??? For almost 1000 years, the laity were not allowed to "drink the Blood". Who changed this? Who change it back?
You are wrong. No one was forbidden. It became a custom. Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each
Even today many do not recieve the chalic but they still receive the entire body and blood of Christ in the host.
7. From the first days of the Church's celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord's command to "take and eat ... take and drink." The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.
18. The practice of Holy Communion under both kinds at Mass continued until the late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a "custom" of the Church.28 This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed to the faithful.
19. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium:
The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See....29
20. The Council's decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop's discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:
Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.30
The General Instruction further states that "at the same time the faithful should be instructed to participate more readily in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident."31
21. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church's immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545.32 But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience "a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet."33

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#11 Jun 28, 2014
Randy wrote:
<quoted text>
The "Church" had letters from Apostles and others in their hands long before the Bible. In the sense that the "Church" upholds truth, yes....... the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. In the sense that added doctrines like infant baptism....no, not the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. Infant baptism was not an apostolic teaching; it came much later.
Very true. But not one of them had yet to be defined as the inerrant, infallbilbe written word of God. Some Churches had none of the writings that eventually made the canon and most had many that did not make the canon of the Bible. There were literally hundreds of scriptures being read in the Church each week.

Not only that, for the few that could read, if they held of copy of any of these writings, they could be killed by the Romans for not handing over the scriptures to be destroyed.

For these 2 main reasons, the Church in her wisdom started meeting in the 4th Century to officially decide which of the scriptures were inspired by God and were inerrant and infallible, so the Churches would know which to read at Mass and those who might hold a copy would know which to risk his life over.

That was when the Bible was created.

As for as infant baptism, and only discussion on that in the early Church was whether you had to wait 8 days to baptist your children like the Jews had to. Of course you didnt . Baptism was the new circumcision made without hands.

You would have never gotten one Jew to convert if they thought a child could not be part of their household. We all know whole households were baptized.

My children were part of my household the moment they were conceived. Yours were part of yours for tax reasons, but you kept them pagan for a long time for some selfish reason you made up in your mind.

That belief was only prevalent from 1800 on. The bible does not say to treat your children like pagans.
Randy

Axton, VA

#12 Jun 30, 2014
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Basically it is because we are all at different places in our walk with God. Thank you for a great message!
True, Bobby. This why "Unity in Diversity" is a true statement. None of us have mastered the Word nor come equal with/to God. Each of us grow in Grace and knowledge of the truth at different times. In fact, while growing in grace, we may even change certain beliefs along the way.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bassett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I like to get on some buttseckz.. I aint gay.. ... Jun 23 Captain peckerlips 1
Who got da biggest pecker in all uh Furrum? Jun 23 Captain peckerlips 1
Christians Murder American Indians (Jan '12) Jun 18 Kevo8263 32
Catholics (Feb '14) Jun 17 mpetershat 3,338
Sarah Smith nude ! (Jul '12) Jun 13 sarasmith 2
The Bible teaches that the Earth will never end (Apr '15) May '16 Anonymous 38
thomas jefferson edwards Apr '16 nuks67 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bassett Mortgages