Do Mature Christians Pursue Unity or Do They Pursue Doctrine?

http://www.desiringgod.org/resourcelibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/1999/1132_Do_Mature_Christians_Pursue_Unity_or_Do_They_Pursue_Doctrine/ ^ | 4/17/08 | ALPHA-8-25-02

[dangus]

>> study-action-piety <<

Ah, the three-legged stool.

[streetpreacher]

Doctrine is what the Bible teaches...it is not how I see God and Christ.

Huh? You don't see God and Christ according to what the Bible teaches? That doesn't make any sense.

Charismatic?

[LiteKeeper]

"how I see God" implies my ideas - subjectivism

"what the Bible teaches" implies an objective revealed source.

Charismatic? No, but "evangelical" has lost it's meaning - perhaps my training history would be more indicative: Talbot Seminary and John MacArthur were my teachers.

[Appleby]

“It’s rather like being awoken by the Jehovah Witnesses early on a Saturday morning and being unable to get them off your property until well into Sunday afternoon, long after The Rugby has kicked off.”

Daddy always told the JWs that we were nudists and if they’d like to disrobe they could come in.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

particularly if it is catalyzed by a doctrine-waving bigot. In such cases it is perfectly OK to be judgmental and respond in kind. But it isn't pleasant, and I doubt that is what Christ intends for us to do.

Why is it "perfectly OK" to do something Christ doesn't intend us to do? What's "perfect" about that?

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Why is it “perfectly OK” to do something Christ doesn’t intend us to do? What’s “perfect” about that?

That’s easy. We are told to “Judge righteous judgment”, and that is perfectly OK to do. Indeed, it is expected whenever it is necessary so to do.

Christ’s intention, however, is for all His servants to serve Him — even doctrine-waving bigots. If doctrine-waving bigots were instead serving Him in the manner He intends, then it would be unnecessary for His other Servants to “judge righteous judgment” upon them.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It seems you want it both ways.

You appear to be saying it's okay for you to be judgmental but not for others with whom you disagree.

That's not a new approach, but longevity doesn't make it any more reasonable.

What is a "doctrine-waving bigot?" Why the word "bigot?"

[Sans-Culotte]

posted by Rightly Biased: Doctrine unites those that agree with said doctrine.

I agree. I think a lot of people here are assuming the doctrines in question must be things like election, limited atonement, etc. In many churches, the congregants cannot even agree that Christ was bodily resurrected. I personally cannot worship in a church that cannot state that it believes in Christ's (bodily)resurrection and that His death was for the remission of sins.

If people want to attend the "Church of Whatever" they are free to do so. But one must be on guard for the signs that one's church is going down that road.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> What is a “doctrine-waving bigot?” Why the word “bigot?”

You have surely seen “doctrine-waving bigots” before, so the concept is hardly new. However, on the assumption that your questions are in earnest, I’ll ping you the next time I encounter one. Deal?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You have surely seen "doctrine-waving bigots" before, so the concept is hardly new.

Nope, never saw one.

And don't call me Shirley.

However, on the assumption that your questions are in earnest, I'll ping you the next time I encounter one. Deal?

Deal.

[redgolum]

If you don’t have doctrine, you don’t really have unity.
With out doctrine you have at best a social club that meets on Sunday.

[PAR35]

I, too, try to avoid those threads, although I am not always successful. I really don’t see shouting and name calling to be good evangelistic or apologetic tools.

I’d say that there are a dozen or fewer RCs on FR that can be counted on to be unpleasant. A few I have had very good posting relationships with (although I’ve noticed that they avoid those threads as well.)

Let us learn from each other.

[ears_to_hear]

Not at all

[Cvengr]

Indeed Doctrine divides, and this is good.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The real key is to begin to study and understand the meaning of the Greek word PISTIS and how it is used in the New Testament.

Orthodox doctrine handed down to the church is called PISTIS in 2Peter 1:1 and in Jude 1:3, giving the justification for translating PISTIS in some cases as ‘doctrine’.

In the Koine Greek, there are three meanings of PISTIS.

1) as an attribute, or what causes faith, it is translated as reliability or faithfulness.

2) As a non-meritorious system of perception, which emphasizes the object of faith, such as Christ in salvation, it is translated as “faith”.

3) It also means that which is believed, the content of faith, the body of belief, and is so translated as “doctrine”. It is used for doctrine in 1Tim 4:6 and possibly in Gal 2:20 and Hebrews 11:1.

In Eph 4:4-6
(4) There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
(5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
(6) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Eph 3:17
Eph 3:16-19
(16) That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
(17) That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith (PISTIS also known as ‘doctrine’); that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
(18) May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
(19) And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.

All faith is provided to us from God.

In Romans 10:17 we see that faith comes from Him by hearing and hearing by the Word.

Rom 10:17
(17) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The “Word” is an interesting word study in itself. Known in the Hebrew Targums as MEMRA it is specifically referenced in John 1:1 to a Jewish audience which was well cognizant of the MEMRA in Jewish tradition, discerned from the Shechinah or direct presence of the Lord. Whereas we today quickly might identify the Word with the second person of the God head, it also reveals a great deal to us about the discernment of different persons in the Godhead and how they relate to one another, still one God but revealed in three persons so that we might understand Him.

I have specifically left the relationships between faith, the Word, Christ, and the heart out of these conclusions, because in order to understand them, they need to first come from being in fellowship with God through faith in Christ, so that they may be introduced to the reader’s spirit by the Holy Spirit, then worked upon in the soul and mind through faith in Him, then processed into the heart again by the Holy Spirit, then applicable for works by the believer while walking through faith in Him.

There is only one faith from Him, though each believer given some according to His measure. Where arguments arise, it is not due to differing faiths, but by one or both thinking processes not being from Him or missing the mark of what He provides.