On Unity

Why does it say “Those that love God and know HER”?…What kind of Presbyterian church do you go to?

Really, I think that God is above gender so that it really does not fit calling Him a male gender term or a female genter term. I just put that in there to see if it would rile anyone up.

Your commenting thing is messed up so I sent you an email with my thoughts on the subject of unity. Thing keeps saying “invalid comment” maybe its because I disagree with you….

I know that comments have to be approved now, under this new install of b₂evolution. When I get home and get your email, I’ll put it up here as a comment.

I think you get that error when something in a comment is on the anti-spam list. It could be something as simple as mentioning a certain phrase containing a certain card game.

Small potatoes aside, I think that the unification you are proposing is riddled with problems. Here are some of the ones that immediately come to
mind:

1. I think it will inevitably lead to a low view of doctrine. Doctrinal differences must be viewed as dispensable for unity you are envisioning to occur. Doctrinal differences are needed to be glossed over if not erased altogether. What really is more important truth or a unity? It shouldn’t be an either or because truth unites, but as for your example of the Methodist and Baptist church next door to each other, odds are that the Baptist church is a gospel preaching church and the Methodist has a lesbian woman pastor, should these two overlook their differences to hand out soup to bums? I don’t think so, one church preaches an entire different gospel than the other.
2. This calls for an insulting compromise. The reason why there are so many different denominations is because churches over time have a tendency to grow liberal. This is why there are 3 Presbyterian branches today, men like Machen and Warfield left Princeton seminary and eventually the PCUSA because of the strong liberalism infecting the denomination. Thus, today PCUSA is deciding whether or not to ordain homosexuals (shouldn’t even be an issue).

   I think it is insulting to say like the “2 mile plan” or whatever, to say the only reason why people travel far to go to a specific church is just preference, I am sorry but that is bull***t and very insulting. I pass by visible churches because they are not preaching the word…and it is not just my blend of theology its and issue of heresy. I as a Calvinist can go to a word faithful Arminian church that is fine and I have. However I don’t think it is just “preference” to never dare think of attending the mass, it’s not preference it is a love for the truth. When I am debating theology with people I never get near as irritated with someone who I am debating with as someone who says “who cares these issues don’t matter” just get over your differences. That’s very insulting (I don’t think you advocate the “2 mile” thing, just saying).

3. How far does this unity extend. So Catholics are ok, Catholics flat out teach works salvation, pray to saints, have a priesthood that offers sacrifices, say that my marriage as a protestant does not count, and ultimately say that unless you are a member of the Catholic church you are not saved….I’m supposed to overlook all this blatant heresy to get some kind of outward unity? Why not unify with the Mormons too? Frankly I think the Mormons are equally as heretical as the Catholics (in fact their whole structure really is a rip off of the Catholic one, with priests and instead of a pope they have a “prophet”)

   So I say NO, we do need Baptist churches across the street from catholic churches, because people need to hear the GOSPEL! That’s what is really at stake and why when people start talking about ecumenicalism it really grieves me…it reflects a low view of truth, and treats truth JUST LIKE OUR RELATIVIST COUNTERPARTS, like dude said it’s just “preference”.

There is a lot to talk about here, but I just wanted to talk about touch upon what Bob said some. First, your view on truth over unity is a good place to start, but not to end. Unity should never be subjected to a lowly place in our hearts, but we should strive for it constantly. The Pauline epistles are absolutely riddled with exhortations to be of one mind, one spirit (literally sympsyche in the Greek). However, true unity does not follow a disregard for truth or doctrine; all that does is say to each other that we do not care enough about each other’s souls to edify and strengthen our sanctification. This is to sacrifice the love of Christ on the alter of complacency.

But true unity presupposes amazing, objective truth. Take Bob, Henry, and I. In space in time, all three of us made an intellectual accent into the fact that Jesus Christ received the wrath of His Father on the cross on the behalf of ourselves. This was paralleled with a most profound personal security within our souls, from a personal trust in the work of Christ. Ergo, we all share a common bound and love for Christ and each other.

On a side note, it is slanderous and wrong to say that the Catholic Church does not recognized grace as a prerequisite for salvation. Grace, according to the Church, truly is a sine qua non in God’s redemptive act. However, unlike most catholic (little c) Protestant congregations, Rome acknowledges that grace does not exhaust the act of salvation. The Church does require works of merit and the sacraments as well, especially when mortal sins have been committed. But to say that the Catholic Church propones a salvation based solely on works is just not a statement of truth.

Travis-
I agree with you with the relationship of truth and unity, I was in my previous comment to NOT juxtapose the 2 but make a point that we can have a manufactured unity at the expense of truth, whereas as you have pointed out in the biblic sense the unity of the belivers is to be sought. BUT it is absolutely centered around truth “One Lord one faith one baptism one God and Father of us all who is above all and in your all” (Eph 4) Eph 4 is all about unity in the body and it is clearly based upon truth.

As for it being “slanderous” to say the catholic church is heretical in its view of salvation I think this sort of view of slander really undermines the work of apologetics…can’t argue against a groups bad theology. The chief difference all prayers to saints, pilgimages to Rome and masses aside is as RC Sproul lays out in his book “Faith alone” is just that, the bible teaches justification by faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone. Sproul rebuke JI Packer for signing on to the ECU (evangelical Catholic Unity) document…it was an effor similar to what Henry is proposing but less radical. I do not think that the Catholic church teaches works alone but a synergism of works and faith…your kinda straining a gnat here.

The fact still stands, are we justified by Christ’s finished work alone, or that PLUS somes thing? Hmmm **(Rom 4:6)** I think Luther was right. Luther did not intend to divide the church but to correct error, when it came to a point that the differences in the gospel were so stark protestantism was born.

Sola Christos

Bob,

First brother, I want to apologize if my comment came off as an assault against you; for my intention was not this. I wish to only assail arguments, never people.

Based on your first paragraph, it seems that we are both on the same page concerning unity and truth. We cannot deny that truth is apart of the very essence of Christ (full of Grace and Truth), and to deny it is to deny Him.

Now regarding our look at doctrines of justification and the Catholic Church, it was stated that my view of slander undermines the work of apologetics. This would be true if I did propone that all bad theology and secular philosophy was to be accepted of “truth for them,” with tolerance as the highest virtue. However, I have not, nor do I, accept this stance that all polemic works are by definition slanderous. This being said, true apologetics and polemics must be done by a correct approach. One must understand the opposition’s argument and premises in order to defeat the doctrine or view. For example, if we were to attack the doctrines of Mormonism by claiming that their view on torturing babies was wrong and that their belief in a cathedral made of cherry gelatin existed at the center of the earth was asinine, what would this do ourselves? Mormons do not torture babies nor have any conceived notions of such a cathedral, yet they do deny the eternal deity of Christ and that the Holy Bible is the sole source of special revelation; for this is where we should mount our apologetics.

How does this apply to what was said about the Catholic Church? Realizing my example was purposely exaggerated, far more subtle variations of it exist. One such popular dogma is that Catholics believe that human works alone can save them from God’s wrath. Although an indefinite number of Catholic individuals might believe, nothing from the papacy or any official confession of the Church has claimed this. Again, the official theology of the Church requires some amount of grace for justification. For example, within Catholic theology, there is some merit that demands a duty to reward (meritum de condigno) and other merit that does not demand a duty to reward (meritum de congruo). So if one commits a mortal sin, then by standards set by the Catholic Church, he must pay and/or do proper penance in order to receive absolution and be justified in the presence of a holy God. Yet the justification given to one from God and through the priest is based upon a congruous merit. This means that God would be perfectly righteous not to give His holy justification, thereby, making the salvation based upon a congruous merit, also a salvation based upon grace. From this vantage, we can begin to understand, sympathize, and lovingly assess the doctrines of our Catholic brethren. Dr. Sproul is very clear on how we should talk of Catholic theology before we critique their measures.

It really comes down to this: either we fully understand our opposition’s argument in order to bring it to its logical conclusion (reductio ad absurdum), or we can deny tenets that do not exist in the minds of our challengers. The former is true apologetics, whereas the latter is plainly slander.

I always find it intersting how non-Catholics can criticize Catholic doctrines. They mis-state the Catholic teaching on justfication by erroneously stating that good works justify man, and that “some amount of grace of is required”. They mis-state the doctrine by identifying it as semi-pelagianism without even knowing this is what they are doing. If they did know what they were writing, they would realize that the Catholic Church condemned semi-pelagianism as a heresy in 431 A.D. at the Council of Ephesus.

For the sake of Truth, how about at least looking up the doctrine in question in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (it’s online) before mis-stating it and wasting all of this effort to knock down a straw man?

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said there are probably only about 100 people that really hate the Catholic Church. All of the others hate what they think is the Catholic Church.

Mere symantics…

Whether or no you want to deny that we are “saved by works” (by that meaning God infuses grace into us and the works we do are not really works WE dothough they are meritorious).

Unity is something really on my heart

I think, with regards to this conversation (and I think i’ve probably come in late here) that if we want to approach unity, we’ve got to agree on a couple of things.

1. No one has a copyright on Truth (ie, no one church denomination or one Christian knows or understands the real truth entirely, but all Christians know the Truth personally because we know Christ.)

2. Appreciate that we sometimes say the same things, but understand it differently. The same words carry different meanings for us.

3. Explore a more relational model of church. Denominations are not biblical, and neither are institutions. Although I can’t claim everything to know about truth, I don’t believe the true Biblical model embraces institution or denomination. This is how the early church (which had obvious significant doctrinal issues) could still get a long. They were relational and organic. In other words, local churches carry their own authority, have their own vision, and differing (minor) doctrines. And even within that body, a team of elders could disagree on certain (minor) theologies because the real purpose of the church is to extend the Kingdom, the Reign of God, and to work together in seeing the truth.

4. Embrace a more relational form of leadership. The model of the Catholic church, in a grass-roots way, is a correct model but has been destroyed by institution. Ie, it is good to have an Apostolic leader, such as Paul was, who had authority over local churches (that he planted) but did not have any say in that local church’s VISION or MISSION. In other words, he carried an authority not because of position but because of FUNCTION. He was an apostle of Jesus Christ, which immediately gives him a certain authority, much like a father looking over his family. But the idea of family shows that there is an organic, repecting each other’s freedom sort of authority. I have a different vision for my life than my dad, but he still carries authority over me. The Pope is really supposed to be a kind of Paul, in my opinion, but because of the integration of church and state he became a heirarchial figure instead.

5. Embrace a more relational theology -I don’t mean some of the weirder theologies that go down as ‘relational’ theology, but embrace a family look at the Gospel. Ie, church is about family not institution or tradition. Also, what I mean, is looking at how theologies can RELATE and not how they OPPOSE. What I mean, is that there is a way I believe that Calvinism and Arminiasm can relate to each other in a wonderful way. If one takes both into consideration, they can keep you on the ’straight and narrow’ quite nicely. We ought to be working at theology together, not going on lone-wolf escapades about how our denomination or ideas are really the truth and no one else’s is

In other words, there IS REAL TRUTH TO BE FOUND within the Catholic Church. They have parts of their theology which Protestants SERIOUSLY lack, such as their more mysterious outlook at the gospel, their teachings on union with God etc. Many protestants are guilty of making the gospel so practical, it’s no longer spiritual at all. The Catholic church dichotomises less, whereas traditional protestants like to dichotomise.

6. Study the Bible historically, and try and apply the context to today.

7. Understand the historical Hebrewness of the Bible and Christ’s teachings, and not just our American or culture’s ways

8. Understand the original greekness of the early teachers, so we can understand the mistakes they made and where they moved away from a hebrew model.

Before I write an entire book, I’ll leave it at that for some people to mull over. :)

I agree with a lot that you have to say.

There needs to be a unity with all believers, not segregations. We need to work together for the glory of God. I am assured that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit look at our squabbling and hatred of each other because of minor differences of belief. We are to be of one mind, one body, and of one spirit.

The trick is getting there. I don’t think many disagree with your overall vision, but how to effectively put into place is the hard part.

How do you deal with differences of belief, minor and major? What are the marks of a genuine Christian?

[...] in responding to my idea about unifying the lovers of Christ makes several points that I want to bring up here. [...]

If we want change at a local level, it seems to me that we start thinking and creating change on a local level. This gets really practical. How many friends do you have that are from a different church/denomination? Friends being someone you go get coffee with, BBQ with your families, do life, talking about the differences.

There is a lot to agree with and think about above what I am about to post. One thing that I think is missing though is love. Before I hit the ground running on that idea, let me back up one step.

How important are our differences? I am certainly not saying that our differences are not important because there are things in every denomination (including whichever one I happen to be a part of at the time) that I strongly disagree with. But why are we Christians in the the first place? And really, what does it mean to be a Christian? This is where we can get started. I am stunned by how much and how deeply I learn about who God is and what it means to be a Christian (in both the theological and day-to-day sense) when I sit down with somebody and essentially all we have in common is that we speak English and we call ourselves Christians.

Okay, with that background (which is basically more words on point #1 from #rpeter), hit the ground running. It seems to sum up everything, the core of what we are dancing around is love. It’s a word that Christian circles throw around but don’t necisarily practice. But when they do, miracles happen. I love theology and crafting arguments and all that jazz and it is certainly important. Yet lives are not changed nor hearts won by winning arguments (this applies for Christians and non-Christians both).

The New Testament (it was probably Paul who said it) says that we will be known by our love for each other.

I’m not saying that we should put aside our differences. I am suggesting that the change we desperately want and the world is literally dying for is to focus on what it means to be a Christian and who God is. Furthermore, I propose that the best way to do that and also at the core of who God is and therefore the core of who we are is love. Practically, that means making relationships in your life today.

Amen, Amen, Amen, (I think that is Chistianeese for “I agree with you.”)

The trick is love, real love. It is either the most natural thing in the world or takes more work that one thinks they are capable of.

You know what is interesting is that Jesus, Paul, and John really emphasized that the world will know that we belong to Christ by our love for each other, our love for those who are fellow believers. This love is what separates us from the world because the world loves its own. While I feel that denominations serve a good and needed purpose, they can keep believers from doing what they were called to do: love the brethren.

I would argue that real love is not something that is "the most natural thing in the world" but rather it "takes more work than one thinks they are capable of." Paul does say that love is the fruit of the Spirit. Apart from the work of the Spirit and him bearing the fruit of love in our lives, it isn’t true 1 Corinthians 13 love.

i think sympsyche which means we should be one in spirit and purpose does not mean we should be one in spirit and purpose with anyone as far as the person is a christian. The passage in Philippians 2:1-4, if interprated in context, Paul was telling the Philippians that if the have followship with the Holy Spirit, then they should make his joy complete by being one in spirit and in purpose. God is using this passage to tell the twentieth century christian to be one in spirit and purpose with the Holy Spirit not man. When Christian A is one  in spirit and pupose with the Holy Spirit and christian B is also one in spirit and purpose with the Holy Spirit. Then the two shall be one.

Hola. Very good conversation going on here. But, actually, the only reason I came across the page is because it says “Christian Church” AND “Evangelical Free Church” on it. :) I am a third-generation (both sides) Christian Church-raised pastor who is considering going to work at an Evangelical Free Church. I have pored over their official denominational website and the particular church website and find nothing that would be a stumbling block for me and my convictions. But I’m wanting to connect with someone who has had experience in both kinds of churches, so as to get the “inside scoop” on what kinds of differences I could possibly expect in the day-to-day world after such a change in fellowships. Any help you might be able to give me would be super-sweet! ;P

[...] the hard nuts and bolts of theology and Christian history.  We differ on a lot of things, but we are called to be a unified body and as such, sweeping dismissals of his practices and beliefs, which include a sweeping away of a [...]