Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

When professing Christians disagree.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 37818
    replied
    Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post
    I like your restatement.

    May I suggestion there some important distinctions to be noted when professing Christians disagree. At first glance, it reads like mature Christians disagreeing. To my mind, there are the following causes and to me an example of each:
    • Christians genuinely disagreeing over doctrine that is not clearly established in Scripture. Example: debate between Calvinism and Arminanism.
    • Christians who are in error and not admitting it. Example: a new Christian denying the necessity of the bodily Resurrection of Christ.
    • Outsiders coming in to change the church to conform to a non-Christian standard. Example: Someone who comes in with an agenda of converting the church's position on abortion.
    • Christians disagreeing over non-doctrine issues (this is probably the biggest cause). Example: do we build a new building?


    While outsiders may not notice the difference in cause, I think we should and have different responses accordingly.


    Also different conclusions mean different presuppositions. Identifying what they are can often help understand another's point of view.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    It appears to me that often the split is justified over difference in doctrine when actually the real reasons are much more trivial.
    I heavily suspect you're correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    Offhand, I can think of a few places where Paul indicates that it's okay for people to have different opinions/convictions about some things, so I see that as a hint that we can't press the principle in 1 Corinthians 1:10 so far as to say that everybody has to think identically.

    What CP was saying about Christians dividing over things other than doctrines/personalities made me think about how Paul and Barnabas split, and how it wasn't over doctrine.
    It appears to me that often the split is justified over difference in doctrine when actually the real reasons are much more trivial.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thoughtful Monk
    replied
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    You are correct, in that disagreement does not necessitate division. But that does not change the fact that division involves disagreement.
    Would you have preferred, "Church divisions we see are the result of professing Christians disagreeing." Which being stated that way is always true. Generalizations are not always true. My original statement was in the form of a generalization.
    I like your restatement.

    May I suggestion there some important distinctions to be noted when professing Christians disagree. At first glance, it reads like mature Christians disagreeing. To my mind, there are the following causes and to me an example of each:
    • Christians genuinely disagreeing over doctrine that is not clearly established in Scripture. Example: debate between Calvinism and Arminanism.
    • Christians who are in error and not admitting it. Example: a new Christian denying the necessity of the bodily Resurrection of Christ.
    • Outsiders coming in to change the church to conform to a non-Christian standard. Example: Someone who comes in with an agenda of converting the church's position on abortion.
    • Christians disagreeing over non-doctrine issues (this is probably the biggest cause). Example: do we build a new building?


    While outsiders may not notice the difference in cause, I think we should and have different responses accordingly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thoughtful Monk
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    The fundamental point of disagreement generally seems to boil down to an argument over authority and interpretation of those authorities. Divine truth is not so easy to nail down into binary right and wrong pairs of statements. I think some contradictory views can, from a larger perspective, be seen as both containing true elements of a much larger truth that is beyond our present comprehension and ability to define. The authoritarian approach to truth does not have a particularly good track record, in my opinion, because they are, from a larger perspective, only human authorities usually doing the best they can to understand the divine Author.


    I wish more Christians had this recognition.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thoughtful Monk
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Lots of good stuff here. I disagree that disagreements necessarily cause division; there are some differences which are simply not important enough to divide over. When there is agreement that an issue is not important enough to divide over, then disagreements on it will not cause division.
    Sorry on coming in late. I agree with you One Bad Pig. My experience with divisions is too many are over the non-essentials of the faith. KJV Onlyism comes to mind and there are many others.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    You are correct, in that disagreement does not necessitate division. But that does not change the fact that division involves disagreement.
    Would you have preferred, "Church divisions we see are the result of professing Christians disagreeing." Which being stated that way is always true. Generalizations are not always true. My original statement was in the form of a generalization.
    Yeah, that would've been somewhat better. I wasn't intending to show sharp disagreement.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Offhand, I can think of a few places where Paul indicates that it's okay for people to have different opinions/convictions about some things, so I see that as a hint that we can't press the principle in 1 Corinthians 1:10 so far as to say that everybody has to think identically.

    What CP was saying about Christians dividing over things other than doctrines/personalities made me think about how Paul and Barnabas split, and how it wasn't over doctrine.

    Leave a comment:


  • 37818
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    . . . I disagree that disagreements necessarily cause division; . . .
    You are correct, in that disagreement does not necessitate division. But that does not change the fact that division involves disagreement.
    When professing Christians disagree results in the church divisions we see.
    Would you have preferred, "Church divisions we see are the result of professing Christians disagreeing." Which being stated that way is always true. Generalizations are not always true. My original statement was in the form of a generalization.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    This brings up the famous line often attributed to Augustine[1] "in necessary things unity; in uncertain things freedom [or liberty]; in everything compassion" which I think is by far the best approach to take. This method is further supported by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica when he wrote
    "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."








    1. The actual quote, "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas" actually appears to originate from Marco Antonio Dominis who said it in 1617, although as Aquinas shows, this seems to reflect a sentiment held by Augustine.
    Yeah.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Lots of good stuff here. I disagree that disagreements necessarily cause division; there are some differences which are simply not important enough to divide over. When there is agreement that an issue is not important enough to divide over, then disagreements on it will not cause division.
    This brings up the famous line often attributed to Augustine[1] "in necessary things unity; in uncertain things freedom [or liberty]; in everything compassion" which I think is by far the best approach to take. This method is further supported by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica when he wrote
    "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."








    1. The actual quote, "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas" actually appears to originate from Marco Antonio Dominis who said it in 1617, although as Aquinas shows, this seems to reflect a sentiment held by Augustine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    The fundamental point of disagreement generally seems to boil down to an argument over authority and interpretation of those authorities. Divine truth is not so easy to nail down into binary right and wrong pairs of statements. I think some contradictory views can, from a larger perspective, be seen as both containing true elements of a much larger truth that is beyond our present comprehension and ability to define. The authoritarian approach to truth does not have a particularly good track record, in my opinion, because they are, from a larger perspective, only human authorities usually doing the best they can to understand the divine Author.
    And I believe that our "focus" has a lot to do with this. If we are focused on winning the lost and ministering to others, there's less opportunity for internal conflict. If our focus is "in these four walls", there's much greater opportunity for conflict.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    The fundamental point of disagreement generally seems to boil down to an argument over authority and interpretation of those authorities. Divine truth is not so easy to nail down into binary right and wrong pairs of statements. I think some contradictory views can, from a larger perspective, be seen as both containing true elements of a much larger truth that is beyond our present comprehension and ability to define. The authoritarian approach to truth does not have a particularly good track record, in my opinion, because they are, from a larger perspective, only human authorities usually doing the best they can to understand the divine Author.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Such as yourself?
    Laughing.... perhaps!

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    polices,
    Such as yourself?

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Cow Poke, 08-16-2021, 09:05 AM
105 responses
503 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X