Church Unity Is More Important Than Being Theologically Correct

Then how do you explain Romans 16:17, do you read into Romans 16:17 the idea that it somehow only applies to "primary" doctrines?

 

It literally applies to false doctrines.

 

And so do you think false doctrine only applies to those related to "primary" doctrine?

 

Which wing of an airplane is more important?

 

The importance of doctrinal issues and unity among believers is mentioned in numerous bible passages.
A biblically healthy church should encourage both sound doctrine and unity.

When confronting issues one must perform a sort of theological triage, an assignment of urgency to decide the order of treatment.

determine doctrinal boundaries
Is this a congregational issue?…or does this concern an individual or small group?
Does this concern a primary biblical doctrine?
Is this a secondary doctrinal issue? (example those from which denominations arise)
Is this a third order doctrinal issue, (e.g. eschatology, creation)
Is there a way to resolve this disagreement? …or is this a disagreement that is unresolvable?
Is this a power play by a known troublemaker?
Is this a disagreement over perceived slights?

is the problem worth confronting?
Will confrontation stir-up problems or will it benefit the community?
Will the problem continue indefinitely without confrontation? …or is it likely to resolve itself in a short time?
Is it something that additional congregational teaching will address?

How will I approach the issue?
Is this a temporary congregational issue? …a personal issue? …or a small group issue?
​

There are times when you can be doctrinally sound but biblically wrong.

Rob

 

On a biplane (which has primary and secondary wings) the bottom wings are mist important. It can fly without the top wings. It can't fly without the bottom ones because the top wings are attached to them.

 

That's a great analogy!

 

Until recently, most Baptist Churches took the position that "the husband of one wife" meant the husband of one wife. Then in the 70's or 80's many Baptist Churches adopted a different interpretation to say it means "the husband of one wife at a time".

1Ti 3:2 KJV - A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Tit 1:6 KJV - If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

So which is it? One interpretation is true and the other is false. Would you leave a church because the church took the position opposed to yours? If you stay, are you compromising your doctrine?

This is a current, real-life controversy I have had to deal with.

When the long-time pastor of the Baptist church adopted the "one wife at a time" doctrine, after confronting him, I left his church. Now, a few decades later, he is on the pastoral staff of a local Presbyterian church.

 

Its not either or, as we MUST have both, for unless there is an agreement upon the essentials of the Faith, how can there be unity?
One church says love your neighbors, love everyone, and yet deny that jesus alone can save lost sinners, will there be unity with churches that teach Jesus is the Lord?

 

I would consider this a secondary doctrine. It is a doctrine that should be settled within each church, but it is not a doctrine for churches to disfellowship with other churches over.

 

Prove this statement from scripture please.

 

Until you can truly understand the issues involved you will have division. When you respectfully understand his reasoning you will merely have a difference of opinion with unity in fellowship.

Merely my interpretation (after all this is the BaptistBoard) I perceive you look down on you brother because of his interpretation of the issue and on Presbyterians as a group?

Rob

 

There are different understandings of the issues regarding divorce/remarriage, as there are differing viewpoints on this issue among devout and conservative Christians!
Not an issue that rises to level of dividing over to many persons...

 

Prove from scripture I am wrong.

 

If I take the position that all doctrine is vitally important and worth separating about then I’d have a very small fellowship.
Let’s see, there’d be me and my wife...

well, maybe not my wife...
​

Rob

 

The Apostles and early Church saw the basis of unity around Jesus, and being indwelt/infilled by the same Holy Spirit, maybe we are just made this too hard?

 

the burden of proof is on you to prove that Romans 16:17 only applies "within the local congregation".
There is ZERO scriptural support for two churches to fellowship together that have different "secondary" doctrines.

See my earlier post in the thread about the all things principle.

 

I already explained it to you.
Calvinism vs non Calvinism is a secondary doctrine. Should a church take a vote on how many Cals vs Non Cals they have and purge the minority? Should a church split over the issue? Should two Baptist Churches refuse to fellowship with each other over the issue?
How about grape juice vs alcoholic wine at communion?

Do you even understand Romans 16:17?
Romans 16:17 NIV
"I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them."

It does not even remotely say you have to agree on all doctrine.

Take Calvinism vs Non Calvinism. It is not a problem for Cals and Non Cals to fellowship. It is not a problem for them to be members of the same church. The problem would arise if I, a Classical Arminian, joined a Calvinist church and began to intentionally sow discord and attempt to convert and divide that local body.
Calvinism nor Arminianism are false doctrines. They are different doctrines. One is more right than the other. Which is more right will not be settled until we see Jesus face to face, but neither are false.

Romans 16:17 is talking about blatent false doctrine such as salvation through works.

 

Doctrine does divide. It just does. Often the division is never seen because people tend to choose churches with which they are in substantial agreement with. Because I am a Calvinist, a Covenant Theologian, and an Amillennialist I am not going to find too many Baptist churches that will welcome me with open arms. If I were to join a church that believes different than me, I would have to remain silent so as not to sow division. It is better for me to attend a church in which I am in doctrinal agreement on most major issues.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Would you refuse to fellowship with a "free will" Baptist?