Common ground and points of disagreement.

[37818]

Typically the common ground is the written word of God. Typically points of disagreement are interpretations.

Multiple points of disagreement regarding just one issue results in arguing in circles.

There are some points of disagreement where no agreement seems possible.
Sometimes it is just one individuals view. Sometimes its a group view.

Here is the question one needs to ask one's self: Can I give a clear Biblical reason of what I think I believe? What should be the common ground to hold this view if any?

1 Corinthians 1:10, ". . . Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. . . ."

 

[Dave G]

Typically the common ground is the written word of God.

I agree.

Typically points of disagreement are interpretations

If by the word "interpretations" you mean how one understands what is written, then I agree with that as well.

Multiple points of disagreement regarding just one issue results in arguing in circles.

Yes, they often do.

But when one realizes that among professing Christians, if a person doesn't agree with another's beliefs or doctrines,
that it's best to simply state what they believe to be the truth and then go one's separate ways, that right there is the solution to arguing in circles.

In other words,
Unity at the expense of the truth is not to be followed in the Lord's churches;
if the truth cannot be ascertained, then there's nothing to proclaim and no standard to hold to....

There is no Gospel and there is no faith once delivered to the saints that everyone can agree on, and it becomes relative.

 

[Dave G]

There are some points of disagreement where no agreement seems possible.
Sometimes it is just one individuals view. Sometimes its a group view.

I have no disagreement with you there.
I've experienced that not only in "Baptist" churches, but in other "denominations" as well.

Most of the time those who are in attendance agree, for the most part, with the pastor and the prevailing "powers that be" in the local assembly...
Whether or not the doctrines are Biblical is of little consequence;

The "popular vote" based on the esteem of men is what I often find carrying the day ( similar to secular politics ) not whether or not the actual words say what they say.

Here is the question one needs to ask one's self: Can I give a clear Biblical reason of what I think I believe?

Yet again I agree.
However, I find that even if I present my case in great detail, most of the time that work gets overlooked in favor of emotional "captures", such as:

"Would a loving God do such and such"...which it seems that most people are bound to follow rather than seriously looking at their Bibles and considering anything that is presented.
Stated differently, I've personally seen that whatever gives people a "warm and fuzzy" in most churches, is what is generally agree upon in matters of doctrine and instruction.

What should be the common ground to hold this view if any?

1 Corinthians 1:10, ". . . Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. . . ."

When you can answer what that common ground should be, and then get everyone who professes Christ to agree even on what the Gospel is and is not,
then I think the problem would be at least partially solved.
But I don't see that happening this side of His coming again.

Why?

Because of the very real fact that among God's people ( the "wheat", or the sheep of His pasture ) there are "tares" and false teachers ( 2 Peter 2 ), and this applies:

" For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." ( 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 ).


Good afternoon to you, sir.

 

[Reformed]

I get a chuckle when one board member accuses another board member of ignoring scripture, and the accused does the same thing back. There are times when agreement is impossible. We can debate until we are blue in the face, but that is not going to change anyone's mind.

 

[37818]

When you can answer what that common ground should be, and then get everyone who professes Christ to agree even on what the Gospel is and is not

It is called the New Testament. Upon which Christianity stands or falls.

 

[Dave G]

It is called the New Testament.

Yes it is.
It is the new testament in Christ's blood, and it seems throughout history ( and especially nowadays ) that everyone has their own take on it.

Upon which Christianity stands or falls

If by "Christianity" you mean the faith once delivered to the saints ( Jude 1:3 ), then I agree.

But if you mean the myriad of traditions and outright false teachings that have crept in to the professing body of Christ since the Lord ascended to Heaven to sit on the right hand of God,
Then I'll have to disagree.

To me, walking into a "church building with a steeple" that has a "choir", tells everyone that it is their duty to "tithe" and attend each and every "service" or they miss out on edifying each other ( even though during such occasions I've seen very little in the way of genuine edification actually happening, having grown up in Baptist churches since the age of 12 until I was 40 ), is not how the body of Christ should function...

What we find in the epistles and in the book of Acts, is.
What Peter, Paul and the Lord preached to believers, in the details and regarding true doctrine, is.

Also, ask anyone who professes to know the Lord what the Gospel of Jesus Christ actually is, and I daresay you will get a fair number of answers...up to and including "I don't know" and " 1 Corinthians 15".


I think that you'll find that what should be common ground ( the written word of God ) is the point of disagreement.

 

[Scott Downey]

Disagreements and factions must exist to show those who are true, for those who had God's approval will receive recognition, (rewards).

You are a spectacle to men and angels, you're on display, and the angels know who has God's approval and who does not.
There will be rewards handed out at the judgement and some will be scarcely saved, all their works will burn up.

1 Corinthians 11:18-20
New King James Version

18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.
19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.
20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.

 

[37818]

I think that you'll find that what should be common ground ( the written word of God ) is the point of disagreement.

Two sides of a disagreement both professing to believe the same passage to be true. Then the disagreement is no longer said passage, but how it is understood.

 

[Lodic]

Brothers (and sisters) in Christ must have some common grounds in our beliefs, otherwise we would not be brothers in Christ. Our common ground should include belief in the physical death and resurrection of Jesus, salvation by grace through faith, God exists as the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, etc.

Points of disagreement regarding some doctrines should be okay, as long as the views are how one interprets Scripture, and as long as the views held are not heretical. We have different views regarding whether the Gifts of the Spirit are for today, many different views of the "End Times", and other non-essential views. These different views may even be good for us, to expose us to other interpretations. Isn't that part of how "iron sharpens iron" (Proverbs 27:17)?

That being said, sometimes we may have trouble distinguishing essential doctrines from non-essential views. We should not let our different views on the non-essentials divide us. As Paul encourages us in Romans 14, we should not have quarrels over opinions (v. 1), and each person must be fully convinced of his views (v. 5).

 

[Dave G]

Brothers (and sisters) in Christ must have some common grounds in our beliefs, otherwise we would not be brothers in Christ.

I agree.
But to me, it's far more than simply having "common ground" or reducing things down to the "fundamentals of the faith" ( whatever that means ) as others on this board have expressed.

God's people are supposed to be one...
United in the truth and united in one body of doctrine.

For example, Ephesians 4:1-16 tells us that there is one faith, one baptism, etc...and that the body of Christ is given pastors, teachers, apostles, prophets, and evangelists to bring us to the point that we eventually come together in the unity of the faith.

Jude 1:3 tells us of the faith once delivered unto the saints.
The Holy Spirit through Paul commands that Titus speak the things that "become", or are suited to, sound doctrine ( Titus 2:1 ), which I understand to mean Biblically sound doctrine, and not doctrines that seem to be sound from a human reasoning and understanding point of view.

Our common ground should include belief in the physical death and resurrection of Jesus, salvation by grace through faith, God exists as the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, etc.

To me, it should include ( but not be limited to ) the things that you've stated above.
Rather, it should be composed of every word of God and what it teaches ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ).

Nothing that the Bible says should be "secondary", as again, there is only one faith, one truth, one Jesus Christ and one doctrine of Christ...
There is only one Gospel.

 

[Dave G]

Points of disagreement regarding some doctrines should be okay, as long as the views are how one interprets Scripture, and as long as the views held are not heretical.

I disagree, and ask, " Who determines what constitutes "heresy"?"
The biggest group ( what some call, "orthodoxy" )?

To me that doesn't work because of the realities of what's shown to us in places like Matthew 7:13-23 and Matthew 13...
"Wheat" and "tares".
Therefore, true doctrine and the true understanding of the Scriptures, especially during these end times and the great "falling away", cannot be determined by the largest group of those who profess Christ...if it were, then we'd all be following the same large group.

But even among "Baptists" ( the name that other so-called "denominations" give to those who preach and teach that baptism is an outward expression of an inward change and is to be done as the Lord showed us, full immersion ) there are sometimes vast differences in teachings and commonly-held beliefs.
For example, there are 3 predominant views of how the Lord works salvation depending upon who you were to ask:

1) "Wesleyan Arminianism", which is generally held by Free Will Baptists, is the truth as they see it.
2) "Traditionalism / Provisionism", sometimes referred to in certain circles as "4 point Arminianism" because of its basic agreement with 4 of the 5 "points" of Wesleyan ( or modern ) "Arminianism", is looked upon by most other Baptists as the truth.
3) "Calvinism", which is generally held as the truth among a much smaller number of Baptists, is the truth to them.

To one, the other two constitute heresy... or doctrine that divides the body of Christ with things that the Bible does not teach;
And I haven't even brought up the subject of end-times prophecy and the several viewpoints held among all of the respective groups.

Do you see the problem?
In the details, there is no agreement...

And the way I see it, there cannot be any agreement if one takes every word of God, every doctrine and teaching, seriously and without compromise.

We have different views regarding whether the Gifts of the Spirit are for today, many different views of the "End Times", and other non-essential views. These different views may even be good for us, to expose us to other interpretations. Isn't that part of how "iron sharpens iron" (Proverbs 27:17)?

Respectfully,
Not if the "iron" never gets sharper, it isn't.

In other words, given that there is one truth and one faith that we are to eventually come together in the unity of, if we, as a group, never arrive at it ( and continue to be divided by certain teachings and doctrines ), then the iron isn't really getting any sharper, is it?

We're still reduced to disagreeing over what we see in the details and going our separate ways.

 

[Dave G]

That being said, sometimes we may have trouble distinguishing essential doctrines from non-essential views.

If you know of somewhere in God's word that, when it comes to doctrine and practice, there are "essentials and "non-essential" teachings, then please show it to me and I would consider yielding to a middle ground;
Uniting with those who hold to vastly differing teachings ( and even loving this world and its ways ) as being all brothers and sisters of the same body, having the same Spirit and preaching the same Gospel.

Until then,
I see that God's word never speaks of such things, and I am to mark and avoid false teachers ( Romans 16:17 ) who trouble the body of Christ with doctrines and practices that are not Scriptural.
I am also to withdraw myself from those who have a form of godliness, but in their actions deny that they know God ( 1 Timothy 6:3-5, 2 Timothy 3:1-9 ).

As emphasis for this point,
I submit that Paul spoke of "his doctrine" in places like 2 Timothy 3:10, and "his Gospel" ( Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25 ), and that all of this was given to him by the revelation of Jesus Christ and not by men ( Galatians 1:11-12 ).
What Paul wrote to the churches is the truth that God delivered to him, to minister to those churches.

That is why I will not practice what is commonly referred to as "ecumenism", neither will I ever condone it.

As Paul encourages us in Romans 14, we should not have quarrels over opinions (v. 1), and each person must be fully convinced of his views (v. 5).

Here's what I see when I read the passage you've referred to ( Romans 14:1-23 )...
It's not about doctrines and the Gospel as a whole;
It's speaking to and about things like eating certain foods and drinking certain drinks, and in 1 Corinthians 8 I see a similar thing:
What "liberty in Christ" is actually defined as.

Other passages speak about the body of Christ being divided over having "heroes in the faith", like Peter, Paul, Apollos, etc. and we are not to get caught up in such things.
But I see nothing in the Scriptures that give me any indication that God's ministers to the churches were not all teaching the very same truths, instead of differing ( and often times competing ) ones.

They were not teaching an "essentials / non-essentials" philosophy, they were teaching a body of truths that all held in common ( and that came from God Himself through His apostles ), while exercising their liberty to eat and drink and to observe days ( or not ) unto the Lord.

This is my final post in this thread.


Apologies to you and to the readers for my long replies,
and may God bless each and every one of you with His grace and kindness through Christ Jesus.

 

[George Antonios]

However, I find that even if I present my case in great detail, most of the time that work gets overlooked in favor of emotional "captures", such as:

"Would a loving God do such and such"

That's a Biblically valid argument and not merely an "emotional 'capture'".
There are numerous passages in the Bible where things are presented as being consistent or not consistent with God's nature; and God's nature is love, as it is written: God is love.
It's a parallel argument to the question; "Would a just God do such and such?" since whatever is unjust could not be of God.

Now, can that argument be misused? Sure. Example: "Would a loving God send people to hell?"
But even misused, there is a valid question there which can be addressed by, for example, the reply: "Would a loving God not punish sin?"

I agree with you that it gets misused, but to reduce all people's use of it to an emotional capture is...an emotional capture of a sort.

 

[George Antonios]

I don't know why this has devolved into saved VS lost.
Heretics can still be saved provided at one point in their life they trusted nothing but the righteousness of Christ to save them from judgment.
Of all the people I ever interacted with on this board, despite all the disagreements, I would doubt the salvation of only a couple - people who apparently never trusted the blood alone.

 

[Lodic]

@Dave G has made several valid points, and I must confess that I do not disagree with what he has posted. I would like to expound a bit further on a couple of things. What is heresy should not be determined by the largest group, but is understood as what the Church as a whole hold to be true doctrines vs false doctrines. These "essential" doctrines were included in the early creeds such as the Apostolic Creed and the Nicene Creed. Unfortunately, these creeds seem to be overlooked today.

Even though we are brothers in Christ, we obviously interpret some passages differently, thus we have different denominations. Is this really a problem? Do we all proclaim Christ as our Lord and Savior? Those who do not proclaim His as Lord and Savior are not brothers in Christ. Do we all interpret Scriptures the same? If we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Does your view of the End Times affect your salvation? What about your view of whether the Gifts of the Spirit ceased when the last Apostle died?

I suggest that as brothers in Christ, we are indeed of "one faith" and preaching one gospel. Iron sharpens iron when those holding different views of Scripture can show others why he holds that view, and when we are open to seeing why some hold a different view of Scripture. We should discuss our different views using Scripture alone when possible, and always with an attitude of respect.

Until Christ returns, I suspect we will continue to have many different denominations and even more different interpretations of Scripture. That's okay. Probably none of us will be right on every point of our beliefs.

 

[37818]

These "essential" doctrines were included in the early creeds such as the Apostolic Creed and the Nicene Creed. Unfortunately, these creeds seem to be overlooked today.

Those creeds include doctrine which are actually false doctrines as essentials. Which creed acknowledges the Son of God as sole Creator on behalf of His Father? None.

 

[Lodic]

Those creeds include doctrine which are actually false doctrines as essentials. Which creed acknowledges the Son of God as sole Creator on behalf of His Father? None.

The Nicene Creed was adopted in 325, and is most universally accepted and recognized statements of the Christian faith. Which false doctrines are in the Nicene Creed? I suspect you may be thinking of the statement about "baptism for the remission of sins", which can easily be misunderstood to mean that baptism is necessary for salvation. The Nicene Creed does include a statement that all things were made through Jesus Christ.

The Apostolic Creed (aka Apostle's Creed) goes back to around 140. Again, what false doctrines are in this creed? Are you referring to the phrase "He descended into hell"? This doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus went to the place of eternal punishment, but went into the grave.

The main point I was making is that these early creeds capture "non-negotiable" doctrines about our faith. We can debate nearly any other doctrine, teaching, or interpretation of Scripture.

 

[37818]

The Nicene Creed was adopted in 325, and is most universally accepted and recognized statements of the Christian faith. Which false doctrines are in the Nicene Creed? I suspect you may be thinking of the statement about "baptism for the remission of sins", which can easily be misunderstood to mean that baptism is necessary for salvation. The Nicene Creed does include a statement that all things were made through Jesus Christ.

The Apostolic Creed (aka Apostle's Creed) goes back to around 140. Again, what false doctrines are in this creed? Are you referring to the phrase "He descended into hell"? This doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus went to the place of eternal punishment, but went into the grave.

The main point I was making is that these early creeds capture "non-negotiable" doctrines about our faith. We can debate nearly any other doctrine, teaching, or interpretation of Scripture.

The creed known as the Apostles Creed only lacks credit to the Son as Creator. Otherwise teaches no false teaching.

Now what is more commonly cited as the Nicene Creed, 381 AD. Has its unBiblical teachings. Such as:

". . . the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father, . . ."

". . . Light from Light . . . ."

". . . baptism for the forgiveness of sins. . . ."

 

[Reformed1689]

It is called the New Testament. Upon which Christianity stands or falls.

But you can't really say just that either. That doesn't tell us what the Gospel is.

 

[37818]

But you can't really say just that either. That doesn't tell us what the Gospel is.

Am I understanding you here? Are you really claiming the Gospel is not defined in the New Testament documents? That would be so anti-Baptist.