Church Unity Is More Important Than Being Theologically Correct

"An article in the Orange County Register reports that Rick Warren, the man dubbed “America’s Pastor,” has launched a new program called “King’s Way,” the purpose of which is to promote peace and unity between Muslims and Christians.

As part of their effort to promote their mutual goals, Warren’s pastoral staff and local Muslim leaders have co-authored a document outlining the points of agreement between Muslims and Christians. It affirms that both Muslims and Christians together believe in “one God” and share the “love of God” and “love of neighbor.”

From: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/rick-warrens-tower-of-babel/

Rev 3:16 KJV - So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

 

True Christian Unity

Does John 17 Teach Ecumenical Unity?

 

Its a balancing act. Dr Robert Jeffress is very fundamental but he has consistently refused to fight over "secondary and tertiary doctrines." I have doctrinal differences with the Methodist church down the road, but we can work together because we agree on the major issues. (They are independent, left UMC over homosexual issues.)

 

is Warren really a pastor or a guru? I disagree with him on primary doctrine.

 

I wonder what Stanley thinks of Romans 16:17.
Then there is Ephesians 4:1-15, where we are told that we are expected to have unity in the faith rather than being carried about with every doctrine that blows in.
I just don't get these guys and their lack of understanding.

 

Where in the bible is any doctrine described as secondary or tertiary?

 

Ex: "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Romans 14:5

Ditto, so long as folks agree that Jesus is the Son of God, He is the only way to Salvation, He died on the Cross for our Sins, and only His work can save us then I don't mind secondary differences. I don't understand why folks feel the need to argue about what color car we're in on the highway to heaven whilst there's still folks driving in the opposite direction.

Get all them folks Saved and then argue about the color, speed, make/model of the various cars on the road.

 

It depends on what you consider "Doctrine". The definition for Doctrine is "teaching; Instruction". It can be argued (and probably should be argued) that many people have made "doctrines" out of nothing. For Example: The Doctrine of "Who should eat the bread and drink the Juice when taking communion." Should it only be "Official Church members of the local body?" What if they "haven't joined yet" but are part of the Body of Christ? That brings up another doctrine: Is there a "Universal Church Body?" Or is the Church Body only represented by Single,Local Churches?

I believe there are very specific doctrinal points we should be unified about--"The Faith Once Delivered to the Saints." The necessary Truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that brings forth Salvation.

Dividing over some of these issues is, IMO, ridiculous. And I know several Baptist (Fundamental) Churches in the area that will separate from Godly, Healthy Christian Fellowship because of "secondary doctrinal issues." And Yes, it is worth repeating...That is ridiculous.

And I'll just say this--I've had pastors that will not allow me to pray or even speak at their services because I do not belong to a fundamental Baptist Church, yet will call/text me for prayer and advice all throughout the week.

 

Where in The Bible is the term "Trinity" used?

 

Why is it necessary to pit one against the other? Both are important. I will say I am of the belief that if we hold issue as more important than people we have lost sight of reality. We need to be careful trying to make these comparisons in such a way as Andy has done. Not helpful.

 

"Why is it necessary to pit one against the other?" Are both Children of God? If so, I agree, both are important to God and the two should not be pitted against on another. Otherwise, they have no common-ground on which to base a discussion.

2Co 6:16 KJV - And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

I can't find any post from Andy. I'd like to know what his comparisons are.

 

This is apples and oranges.

1 John 5:7 is a clear passage on the trinity. And I do fully accept the Johanine Comma as authentic.

Nowhere does the Bible teach that any doctrines are primary or secondary, there is no such concept taught in the word of God.

 

Romans 14:15 has nothing to do with doctrine, but deals with personal preferences and diet choices.

It is dishonest to use this to support the Neo-Evangelical myth of “secondary” doctrines.

The Bible describes false doctrine in two categories, one is “damnable heresy” and the other is just plain heresy.

Some false teaching damns the soul, like false gospels, but all heresy and false teaching is dangerous. Downplaying the importance of doctrine and breaking it down to “essentials and non essentials” does not come from the word of God.

 

Andy's

Reformation Theology: Primary and Secondary Doctrines

 

Still doesn't prove that any doctrine is unimportant and that we shouldn't be concerned with "secondary" doctrines.

"
The Bible position is the ALL THINGS principle.

Consider the Old Testament law. Its requirement was summarized in Deuteronomy 27:26, which Paul cited as follows:

“Cursed is every one that continueth not in ALL THINGS which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Galatians 3:10).

The Psalmist preached the all things principle.

“Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold. Therefore I esteem ALL THY PRECEPTS concerning ALL THINGS to be right; and I hate EVERY FALSE WAY” (Psalms 119:127-128).

Observe that the reason that the Psalmist esteemed all of God’s precepts was that he had a passionate relationship with and high view of God’s Word, loving it above gold.

Observe that the Psalmist did not merely hate those things that were contrary to the “essential” doctrines of God’s Word. He hated every false way.

There is no “non-essential” principle in the New Testament either.

The Lord Jesus Christ commanded His disciples to teach their converts “to observe ALL THINGSwhatsoever I have commanded you” (Mat. 28:20).

The apostle Paul reminded the elders at Ephesus that the reason he was free from the blood of all men was that he had preached the WHOLE COUNSEL of God (Acts 20:27).

The more plainly and fervently you preach the whole counsel of God, the less likely it will be that you will join hands in ministry with those who hold different doctrines.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2 Paul said to the church at Corinth, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in ALL THINGS, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.”

This passage deals with hair length and the Lord’s Supper, which are widely considered to be “non-essentials,” yet Paul praised the church for remembering him in ALL things.

In light of this clear Bible teaching, I reject the philosophy that rebukes those who make an issue of hair length rather than rebuking those who flaunt their “liberty” in this matter. When God’s Word speaks, our liberty ends. When God’s Word speaks on any matter, our liberty ends. When the Word of God says it is a shame for a man to have long hair and that long hair is the woman’s covering and glory, that is the end of the matter and it is our part to honor God by obeying His Word.

Paul instructed Timothy to “keep this commandment WITHOUT SPOT, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6:14). A spot is a small, seemingly insignificant thing.

This particular epistle contains commandments about such things as the woman’s role in ministry (1 Tim. 2:12), which is widely considered a “non-essential” today. Paul taught Timothy to have an entirely different approach toward such teachings.

I challenge anyone to show me where the Scripture encourages the believer to treat some doctrine as “non-essential” for any reason whatsoever. I have been issuing this challenge for years and I’m still waiting for a response.

We know there are “essentials” in the sense of salvation, but this is a different issue.

Some heresies are called “damnable heresies” (2 Peter 2:1). This refers to heresies that damn one’s soul, heresies a true believer cannot hold. They are things such as the virgin birth, deity, humanity, resurrection, and atonement of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, a sound gospel, and the divine inspiration of Scripture.

We know that not all doctrine has the same significance and weight, but none of it is “non-essential.”

Consider the following issues that are widely treated as “non-essentials” today, even by those who call themselves fundamental Baptists.

Modesty is considered a non-essential, but in reality it is a fundamental doctrine, because the Bible has a lot to say about it. (In the book Dressing for the Lord, we exegete 25 key Bible passages on this topic that contain principles that can be applied to any time or culture.) The Bible has spoken on the issue of modesty and we will not treat this as some sort of “non-essential.” Those who honor God’s Word might draw clothing lines in slightly different ways, but they will not treat this matter as a “non-essential.”

Sacred music, another so-called non-essential, is actually a fundamental doctrine (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Hundreds of Scriptures deal directly with music and many others contain principles that are applicable to music. Music is one of most powerful forces in modern society. Music is at the heart and soul of worldliness and compromise and apostasy today. It is a major element in the building of a one-world church. To treat music as some sort of non-essential is spiritual folly.

Unconformity to the world is a fundamental doctrine. Many Scriptures directly and plainly teach the doctrine of separation from the world (e.g., Romans 12:22; Ephesians 5:11; Titus 2:12; James 1:27; 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17; 5:19; Proverbs 4:14-15).

Worship in spirit and truth is a fundamental doctrine (John 4:23), so the contemporary worship issue CANNOT be a non-essential.

Preservation of Scripture is a fundamental doctrine (1 Pet. 1:25).

“Whosoever will” election is a fundamental doctrine (as opposed to “sovereign” election). “Whosoever believeth” is repeated seven times in five books. The Bible clearly teaches that everyone is invited to be saved and everyone can be saved.

Repentance and proper soul winning is a fundamental doctrine. (I am convinced that “quick prayerism” is damnable and I refuse to associate closely with and minister together with those who practice it.)

Baptism is a fundamental doctrine, and the Bible’s teaching on the method of baptism is as clear as its teaching on the purpose of baptism. This is why I declined an invitation a few years ago to preach at a Bible Presbyterian seminary. I cannot treat election or baptism as “non-essentials.”

Pastoral humility is a fundamental doctrine (1 Peter 5:1-3).

Church discipline is a fundamental doctrine (1 Corinthians 5).

Separation from compromising brethren is a fundamental doctrine (e.g., 2 Thess. 3:6).

Reproving compromising preachers is a fundamental doctrine (Galatians 2:11-15)."

In Essentials Unity

 

"WHAT ABOUT ROMANS 14?

Some try to use Romans 14 to support the philosophy of “in non-essentials liberty,” but Romans 14 does not say that some Bible doctrine is non-essential. It says that we are to allow one another liberty in matters in which the Bible is silent! The examples that Paul gives to illustrate his teaching are diet and the keeping of holy days. Those are things about which the New Testament faith is silent. There is no doctrine of diet in the New Testament, so it is strictly a matter of Christian liberty.

The “non-essential doctrine” is a doctrine not taught in Scripture or a doctrine that is not clear in Scripture. When we are dealing with such things as diet or holy days or the order of service or the time and the day of prayer meetings or the number of deacons or to use or not use musical instruments or whether or not to get involved in politics or to have or not have a Sunday School or formal youth ministry or the time and frequency of the Lord’s Supper or to have or not have a bus ministry or how much to support missionaries or what the preacher should wear when preaching or is it right to sell books or other things in church services and a thousand other such things, we are dealing with opinion and tradition and practicality rather than the clear teaching of God’s Word, and each church must make up its own mind in these matters.

These are the types of things that are “non-essentials.”

And if something is not exactly clear in Scripture, it should not be an issue of division. There are many things like this, such as the following: Who are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6? Who is the 12th apostle (Matthias or Paul)? When did the church start? Does 1 Timothy 2:12 mean that a woman cannot lead a mixed choir? Who are the two witnesses of Revelation 11? What is the head covering of 1 Corinthians 11? Does the Bible teach closed communion or close communion?

There are differences of opinions on such things for the very reason that the Scripture does not speak with a clear voice on these particular issues. It is not completely silent, but it is also not completely clear. Since the Lord knows how to speak clearly, this must be for a reason, and I conclude that in such matters we should allow differences of opinion.

Each church can make its own decision in such things, but decisions in such matters don’t rise to the level of law and dogmatic doctrine. "

 

“Many have been carried away from full obedience by a noble-sounding motto which has been applied to Christian work. ‘In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity.’ Some things are not essential to salvation but they are essential to full obedience, and the Christian has no liberty under God to sort out the Scriptures into essentials and nonessentials! It is our duty to declare the whole counsel of God, and to do it wherever we are” (David Nettleton, “A Limited Message,” Baptist Bulletin, December 1955).

 

I did not say we should not be concerned with secondary doctrines. I said we should not divide and fight over them.