UNITY or DOCTRINAL PURITY?

I believe we are more seperated more than Christ would ever have us to be; so I believe in unity to an extent. But I don't believe compromising doctrine for the sake of unity. That is not real unity anway, real unity is when we agree on all issues, not when we put disagreements on the backburner and call it unity.

 

It is those who undermine doctrinal purity who undermine the unity of the Church IMO.

Joseph Botwinick

 

You cannot have Biblical unity without Biblical orthodoxy.

 

What are some examples of Pentecostalism being introduced into your Church?

How does your Pastor feel about them?

 

Exactly correct. In Acts 2, one church, one Spirit, one pure doctrine. Why do we have the mindset that unity and doctrine oppose each other? Only if unity means things not of the Gospel or Bible being brought into the church should there be disunity. Whose fault is that? Ours maybe? From one church 2000 years ago, to today, at least 2000 different "Christian" denomimnations or sects. What caused that? Very simple. Man's fallen and imperfect mind and state. Christ left us with the perfect, unified church. It is quite easy to see why there are so many churches. Look at all the disagreement about basic doctrine on this board within the Baptist community, and that is just a small sliver of the Christian totality.

If your church excludes false teaching and some leave, or false practices, then that is not sacrificing unity, that is purifying your local church.

One final thought. With all the different opinions that created all these church denominations, just be sure yours is correct before you go waving a banner.

 

I do not consider unity to be above doctrinal purity of Biblical faith.

But I do consider unity to be above doctrinal purity of the Baptist tradition.

I am not charismatic in any way, but I do encourage Christian unity with charismatic and pentecostal brothers and sisters.

 

==Personally I believe that the Arminianism that is running wild in the Southern Baptist Convention, and at several major seminaries, is a bigger problem. Of course most Pentecostals are Arminians, so I guess I am concerned about both. As for worship styles (tongues, etc) I don't get bothered by that unless it goes to the extreme (Charismatic).

 

Key words -- Baptist tradition. Tradition is not doctrine.

Consider, too, that in heaven we will be united in Christ with multiple denominations.

 

Somehow we perceive the current situation to be completely different. Calvinism is in control of the SBC Seminaries and also the leadership at least of the convention.

 

==I don't think that is a correct assesment. The major leaders of the Convention (including the president) all preach against Calvinism and the only SBC Seminary that is really friendly towards Calvinism these days is Southern (maybe Golden Gate as well, not sure though). Southeastern and Southwestern have presidents who are in open disagreement with Calvinism. Need I continue? Calvinism is certainly not in control in the SBC. If the SBC was consistant with it theological statements and its theological history on Calvinism, it would be different.

 

The Biblical Doctrine of Calvinism has control of one SBC seminary, and that is Southern. All the rest are run by Arminians. [Moderator Note: Embracing the extreme positions of either Calvinism (Hyper-Calvinism) or Arminianism (Open Theism) results in heresy. However, holding to the moderate view between the two associated biblical truths (and recognizing the necessary Theological tentions) is not heretical. Please refrain from throwing out the charge of heresy in such a blanket statement.]

You are clueless as to the facts. [Moderator Note: That seems the pot calling the kettle black... not all of the other SBC seminaries are run by Arminians. At SEBTS I'd say that we lean toward the reformed position with a good balance of both views on the faculty and staff. You gotta watch out for those blanket statements. ]

Joseph Botwinick

 

My goodness but that word is tossed about as a hand grenade!

 

'Tradition' is not important. Scripture is. Depend on God's word for the answers.

 

I agree. I am a Christian, my theology is based on Scripture, and I just happen to attend a Baptist church. IMHO, tradition is not a reason to accept or reject anything.

 

The Bible speaks of two kinds of traditions. Traditions instituted by man which when discussed by the Bible shows the context to be against God's will, and traditions within the Christian church, which the Apostle Paul tells the Thessalonian church to stand fast for, and to hold.

In Robert Guwapo's country, which is my country of origin, there are the man made traditions of holding a town fiesta, or feast, at certain days of the month, each year.

Each city, municipality, village, and region sets aside certain feast days for a patron saint, for example, St. Jude, Sts. Peter and Paul, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all those myriads of canonized Catholic saints.

On that special day, which begins at least a week before the day, hogs are slaughtered, foods of all kinds are cooked, drinks flow, alcohol flows, and all kinds of shows are staged, each house has its own visitor, or sets of special visitors, processions are held, and so on.

These are traditions of men, have nothing to do with God at all, except the lip service it offers to Him, and buries each household deep in debt. These are the types of traditions the Savior condemns.

However, there are traditions that Christians ought to stand fast to. These are the tradition of keeping the Word of God pure, the tradition of standing up for what is Scriptural and Truth, the tradition of separating from error, the tradition of trusting in the Word, the tradition of looking out for one another, the tradition of caring for our widows, the tradition of discipline when discipline is needed, the tradition of being known as hardworking, honest men who practice what they preach.

Along these lines, the Apostle wrote to the Thessalonian brethren.