Should We Agree To Disagree?

jbearnolimits

Pastor
Mar 13, 2014
505
127
43
Mobile, AL
Visit site
✟16,256.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So there are so many people who believe different things. It seems like not a single Christian will be able to agree with everything another believes. So there are two ways people seem to go about handling this.

The first way is to become aggressive and insulting. They make a mockery out of the other person and shout at the top of their lungs that they are wolves in sheep's clothing.

The second way is a more passive "agree to disagree" sort of way. They say that we should be united in the subjects that matter such as salvation. But they say other subjects such as end times, the use of gifts, and so on are non-essential and we should learn to live in peace with each other and accept each others beliefs. This group often says "we just can't know for sure what is true." about those things.

First lets get the first group out of the way really quick. 1 Corinthians 14:36 isn't just for women. It shows us that we are not the only holders of truth. And it also shows us that we can be wrong too. So the judgment we place on others (if we point at them as false prophets because they are wrong in some of their teaching) will be the same we are judged with.

Those who are weak in the faith should not be removed and called a false prophet. They should be strengthened by those who are stronger in the faith. They should be taught, and then if they refuse sound teaching, at that point they can be removed.

But the main topic of this post is the second group. I want to ask you all this question:

What word of God is "non-essential"? Didn't Jesus say that man shall live by EVERY word that comes from God?

I also have to ask you this:

If a little leaven will leaven the whole lump, doesn't that show us that a "small" lie can effect the rest of the bread?

Wouldn't it be better to consider EVERYTHING as essential and search the scriptures for the truth so that we don't have wrong beliefs about everything? Because very ingredient in bread adds to the final product and they are ALL needed.
 

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
So there are so many people who believe different things. It seems like not a single Christian will be able to agree with everything another believes. So there are two ways people seem to go about handling this.

The first way is to become aggressive and insulting. They make a mockery out of the other person and shout at the top of their lungs that they are wolves in sheep's clothing.

The second way is a more passive "agree to disagree" sort of way. They say that we should be united in the subjects that matter such as salvation. But they say other subjects such as end times, the use of gifts, and so on are non-essential and we should learn to live in peace with each other and accept each others beliefs. This group often says "we just can't know for sure what is true." about those things.

First lets get the first group out of the way really quick. 1 Corinthians 14:36 isn't just for women. It shows us that we are not the only holders of truth. And it also shows us that we can be wrong too. So the judgment we place on others (if we point at them as false prophets because they are wrong in some of their teaching) will be the same we are judged with.

Those who are weak in the faith should not be removed and called a false prophet. They should be strengthened by those who are stronger in the faith. They should be taught, and then if they refuse sound teaching, at that point they can be removed.

But the main topic of this post is the second group. I want to ask you all this question:

What word of God is "non-essential"? Didn't Jesus say that man shall live by EVERY word that comes from God?

I also have to ask you this:

If a little leaven will leaven the whole lump, doesn't that show us that a "small" lie can effect the rest of the bread?

Wouldn't it be better to consider EVERYTHING as essential and search the scriptures for the truth so that we don't have wrong beliefs about everything? Because very ingredient in bread adds to the final product and they are ALL needed.

We can agree on some things, things that at this point in our existence have been "opened up" so as to agree on (topics like salvation) but other things we have differing opinions on because they (the way) to fully understanding (so as to each one of us, "agree" upon these things) has not been "made open" yet, I believe they will, in time...

But just not right now, these things are designed to "unfold" in their proper time (God's time and timing) but for now we have to accept differing opinions as "possibilities" until events that lead to greater understanding, "unfold" or open up, that will allow us to narrow down and agree upon one possibility/thought/idea...

Just my thoughts, God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

1watchman

Overseer
Supporter
Oct 9, 2010
6,039
1,226
Washington State
✟358,358.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have a thought on the thought of "essentials". The Word of God is essential ---right? Our interpretations and understandings might be faulty, and we should allow for that, and maybe show some other understanding to the Scriptures, but not with animosity.

There is essential truth in the Word of God, which individuals and all church groups should hold; and there are standards that honor and please God beyond "essentials". We ought to seek to know the difference.

This all comes down to how we minister to each other, to be a help and not a stumbling block --right? I think we all should proof-read our responses before printing them ---right?
 
Upvote 0

jbearnolimits

Pastor
Mar 13, 2014
505
127
43
Mobile, AL
Visit site
✟16,256.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We can agree on some things, things that at this point in our existence have been "opened up" so as to agree on (topics like salvation) but other things we have differing opinions on because they (the way) to fully understanding (so as to each one of us, "agree" upon these things) has not been "made open" yet, I believe they will, in time...

This is a very interesting thought to me. Because I have noticed something about the word of God. It is a mystery (closed and not opened up) until you begin to read it and have God open your understanding.

So I think you may have something with this...on a personal level at least. Because until we search it out and find the truth, it is a mystery to us.

So when people say "We just can't know for sure" about the doctrines in the Bible it may not be because they are not written in the scriptures and explained fully, it may be because "We" just can't know for sure since we don't search for the truth in the scriptures.

****Hmmm...that is a good thought leading into worshiping God in truth...but that is another trail we may have to go down one day.****

Some things not "opened" to many people, are easily found by those who will search for it. God did say "Seek and you will find" and lets not forget these verses:

Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I think of Jesus speaking to the disciples in Mark 4 when they asked the meaning of the parable which was a mystery to the people. He told them the meaning but then said something that He has said in other places too. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

If we want to know the truth and have a strong foundation we must not say "This has been argued about for centuries and we just can never know for sure what is true." Instead we should search for the truth through the word of God. Because if it is hidden to others, it doesn't mean God will not open it to us.

Now... there is much more to say on the subject of having an ear to hear. But for now doesn't it seem right that if Jesus speaks, we should search out the meaning of His words? He spoke of end times, salvation, the use of the gifts of the Spirit, and so many things. Certainly He doesn't speak without the purpose of being heard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psalms 91
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
This is a very interesting thought to me. Because I have noticed something about the word of God. It is a mystery (closed and not opened up) until you begin to read it and have God open your understanding.

So I think you may have something with this...on a personal level at least. Because until we search it out and find the truth, it is a mystery to us.

So when people say "We just can't know for sure" about the doctrines in the Bible it may not be because they are not written in the scriptures and explained fully, it may be because "We" just can't know for sure since we don't search for the truth in the scriptures.

****Hmmm...that is a good thought leading into worshiping God in truth...but that is another trail we may have to go down one day.****

Some things not "opened" to many people, are easily found by those who will search for it. God did say "Seek and you will find" and lets not forget these verses:

Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I think of Jesus speaking to the disciples in Mark 4 when they asked the meaning of the parable which was a mystery to the people. He told them the meaning but then said something that He has said in other places too. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

If we want to know the truth and have a strong foundation we must not say "This has been argued about for centuries and we just can never know for sure what is true." Instead we should search for the truth through the word of God. Because if it is hidden to others, it doesn't mean God will not open it to us.

Now... there is much more to say on the subject of having an ear to hear. But for now doesn't it seem right that if Jesus speaks, we should search out the meaning of His words? He spoke of end times, salvation, the use of the gifts of the Spirit, and so many things. Certainly He doesn't speak without the purpose of being heard.

Different people are also each different, and none of us get's full access to all things, except Jesus Christ himself. We will have things "opened up" to us as we examine scripture, but one will have this part of truth, another, another part, the only way I believe we (one of us) could have full access to all things is if we were sinless, cause sin blindfolds us partially, so that's just not possible for us, but we can have many, many things opened up to us through the study of scripture, it is full of mystery, to that I have no doubt, but it is understandable to/for us who "search it out"...

Seek (study) and ye shall find, knock (prayer, worship, and praise) and it shall be "opened" to you...

As to each of having different parts, we will have to use careful discernment, when combining them, and establish the true from the false...

God Bless!
 
  • Like
Reactions: psalms 91
Upvote 0

jbearnolimits

Pastor
Mar 13, 2014
505
127
43
Mobile, AL
Visit site
✟16,256.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Different people are also each different, and none of us get's full access to all things, except Jesus Christ himself. We will have things "opened up" to us as we examine scripture, but one will have this part of truth, another, another part, the only way I believe we (one of us) could have full access to all things is if we were sinless, cause sin blindfolds us partially, so that's just not possible for us, but we can have many, many things opened up to us through the study of scripture, it is full of mystery, to that I have no doubt, but it is understandable to/for us who "search it out"...

Seek (study) and ye shall find, knock (prayer, worship, and praise) and it shall be "opened" to you...

As to each of having different parts, we will have to use careful discernment, when combining them, and establish the true from the false...

God Bless!

I do agree with you in that each one of us may have different parts of the whole. That is why we are called the body of Christ. We need each other. Because I may have a lot of understanding about what faith is, but you may understand how to use it. Together we are unstoppable.

But yes, we must take great care in joining together. Because light and dark do not mix...but let your light overcome my darkness by showing the word of God to me, and then let us be joined together in one mind. And I will do the same for you.

One other thing I want to say is that it is true that we deal with the flesh which would tear us away from seeking truth. But we are also new creations in Christ and without sin in the spirit. If we can crucify our flesh, and live in the spirit... imagine the mysteries we would know.

And yet, in all of this 1watchman is right. If we understand all mysteries and have not love, we are nothing. But when we have understanding of the mysteries AND love...WOW!
 
  • Like
Reactions: psalms 91
Upvote 0

1watchman

Overseer
Supporter
Oct 9, 2010
6,039
1,226
Washington State
✟358,358.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Norah, Paul said that --right? In the context of who and why he was speaking, that is applicable, but we need to also recognize beyond that, our need to NOT be determined to refuse to know about God's given testimony in the world and our need to embrace it; also not refuse to know about love and spirituality in our walk, etc. Would you agree with that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: psalms 91
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So there are so many people who believe different things. It seems like not a single Christian will be able to agree with everything another believes. So there are two ways people seem to go about handling this.

The first way is to become aggressive and insulting. They make a mockery out of the other person and shout at the top of their lungs that they are wolves in sheep's clothing.

The second way is a more passive "agree to disagree" sort of way. They say that we should be united in the subjects that matter such as salvation. But they say other subjects such as end times, the use of gifts, and so on are non-essential and we should learn to live in peace with each other and accept each others beliefs. This group often says "we just can't know for sure what is true." about those things.

First lets get the first group out of the way really quick. 1 Corinthians 14:36 isn't just for women. It shows us that we are not the only holders of truth. And it also shows us that we can be wrong too. So the judgment we place on others (if we point at them as false prophets because they are wrong in some of their teaching) will be the same we are judged with.

Those who are weak in the faith should not be removed and called a false prophet. They should be strengthened by those who are stronger in the faith. They should be taught, and then if they refuse sound teaching, at that point they can be removed.

But the main topic of this post is the second group. I want to ask you all this question:

What word of God is "non-essential"? Didn't Jesus say that man shall live by EVERY word that comes from God?

I also have to ask you this:

If a little leaven will leaven the whole lump, doesn't that show us that a "small" lie can effect the rest of the bread?

Wouldn't it be better to consider EVERYTHING as essential and search the scriptures for the truth so that we don't have wrong beliefs about everything? Because very ingredient in bread adds to the final product and they are ALL needed.
It seems to me you are missing the "disputable matters" Romans 14:1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.

I'm not sure who you are referring to in the group you want to talk about, but from where I stand, it's all about disputable matters, which even scripture says exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psalms 91
Upvote 0

Norah63

Newbie
Jun 29, 2011
4,225
430
everlasting hills
✟14,569.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Watchman, my take on 1 cor.2:2 is that Paul did not think that his speach was the be all to end all.
He had the deminstration of spirit and power.
This tells me that when we have these forum conversations there may be many things we cannot understand, so keep the simple things first that we do know, among ourselves.
Some want the fine points explained, this may not happen to our satisfaction. Keep the fellowship so that we can grow togeather in faith.
Just my two cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psalms 91
Upvote 0

jbearnolimits

Pastor
Mar 13, 2014
505
127
43
Mobile, AL
Visit site
✟16,256.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It seems to me you are missing the "disputable matters" Romans 14:1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.

I'm not sure who you are referring to in the group you want to talk about, but from where I stand, it's all about disputable matters, which even scripture says exist.

I wasn't referring to any certain person. I was making a general statement about things I have heard A LOT from everywhere.

I know where you are coming from with Romans 14. I actually looked into it before making the post. The issue talked about in Romans 14 is not a matter of doctrine, but faith. It says we should receive those who are weak in the faith, but NOT to doubtful disputation.

In other words, we do not condemn our brother just because he doesn't know the truth.

BUT, that doesn't mean we should let our brother remain weak in faith. The Bible tells us that we are to strengthen each other. We build faith through hearing the word.

In the case of the person who eats only herbs in this chapter, his faith could be made stronger through reading about how God told Noah to eat animals, and by reading that nothing is unclean of itself.

So this chapter does not speak of the "agree to disagree" doctrine that is well known these days. Instead it speaks of building up the faith of another while walking in love towards them.

As I said in an earlier post:

"And yet, in all of this 1watchman is right. If we understand all mysteries and have not love, we are nothing. But when we have understanding of the mysteries AND love...WOW! "

Romans 14 tells us how to walk in love towards others who may not have a clear understanding. But it does not say that we should allow it to continue, only that we should not attack each other for not having understanding, and we should not attack those who do have understanding either. Instead we should walk in love.

The stronger should build up the weaker, and the weaker should listen to the stronger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psalms 91
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I wasn't referring to any certain person. I was making a general statement about things I have heard A LOT from everywhere.
I was referring to my not being familiar with the argument other than the occasional discussion with close friends, IOW's I have never really run into it much therefore I can't speak in any way as to what others might mean when they say it.
I know where you are coming from with Romans 14. I actually looked into it before making the post. The issue talked about in Romans 14 is not a matter of doctrine, but faith. It says we should receive those who are weak in the faith, but NOT to doubtful disputation.

In other words, we do not condemn our brother just because he doesn't know the truth.
amen...it also means however, that we are not to make a federal case out of things that don't matter to our faith. Here is an example. My husband grew up brethren, there have been many church splits over the years, one such split was over whether or not to baptize forward or backward. Really!!!!! that is a disputable matter that does not affect our maturity in Christ. However, that being said, how we address the dispute does say a lot about our maturity in Christ. IOW's if I make a federal case over whether or not to dunk forward or backwards, I am the immature that should be led to growth in Christ. If we disagree over whether or not to dunk forward or backward, no issue, call it agreeing to disagree, call it tolerance of one anothers differences, or call it something else, either is a pleasing aroma to God and thus both are equally acceptable in the kingdom, and yet, there are denominations in which this is their primary difference.
BUT, that doesn't mean we should let our brother remain weak in faith. The Bible tells us that we are to strengthen each other. We build faith through hearing the word.
amen...see above.
In the case of the person who eats only herbs in this chapter, his faith could be made stronger through reading about how God told Noah to eat animals, and by reading that nothing is unclean of itself.

So this chapter does not speak of the "agree to disagree" doctrine that is well known these days. Instead it speaks of building up the faith of another while walking in love towards them.
It might help you to understand my POV if you knew this about me 1. I am all about the body of believers building one another up in the faith...so much so that we are talking about whether to leave our current body or not because they no longer are encouraging us in the faith. In fact, the goal of the Church should be to present everyone mature in Christ. In fact, I have done a study on how to love in our various relationships, even wrote a book about it, and one of the relationships we studied is that of our relationship to the church body. another thing you might benefit from know about me is that 2. I do not shrink back from what scripture says, including but not limited to 1 spirit means only 1 interpretation. IOW's I don't believe for half a second that there can be two right interpretations of a single passage. There is only one interpretation because there is only one God who authored it. The key is to allow the HS to interpret it for us, and that isn't just proclaiming that you (the one speaking, not you specifically) is listening to the HS thus no one else is. To know what is from the HS and what isn't, requires study, prayer, testing, unity, etc.
As I said in an earlier post:

"And yet, in all of this 1watchman is right. If we understand all mysteries and have not love, we are nothing. But when we have understanding of the mysteries AND love...WOW! "

Romans 14 tells us how to walk in love towards others who may not have a clear understanding. But it does not say that we should allow it to continue, only that we should not attack each other for not having understanding, and we should not attack those who do have understanding either. Instead we should walk in love.

The stronger should build up the weaker, and the weaker should listen to the stronger.
It seems you don't quite understand my post, this is totally in sink with the intent of my post, see if the above clears it up for you, if not, feel free to ask for more clarification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psalms 91
Upvote 0

jbearnolimits

Pastor
Mar 13, 2014
505
127
43
Mobile, AL
Visit site
✟16,256.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
amen...it also means however, that we are not to make a federal case out of things that don't matter to our faith. Here is an example. My husband grew up brethren, there have been many church splits over the years, one such split was over whether or not to baptize forward or backward. Really!!!!! that is a disputable matter that does not affect our maturity in Christ. However, that being said, how we address the dispute does say a lot about our maturity in Christ. IOW's if I make a federal case over whether or not to dunk forward or backwards, I am the immature that should be led to growth in Christ. If we disagree over whether or not to dunk forward or backward, no issue, call it agreeing to disagree, call it tolerance of one anothers differences, or call it something else, either is a pleasing aroma to God and thus both are equally acceptable in the kingdom, and yet, there are denominations in which this is their primary difference.

Thanks for helping me to understand your point of view. I do see what you mean now. It is a little crazy that the issue of being baptized forward or backwards was an issue at all. Especially since there is nothing at all in the Bible about the subject.

In that respect there is neither a stronger or weaker person in the faith. They are both weak. Because neither side know the scriptures. This no longer becomes an issue of receiving someone in the faith. It isn't even about doubtful disputation. Because there is nothing for faith to stand on here.

I do see your thought though. If they knew (at least some of them) that it wasn't even a subject of scripture then they could yield to the other side. That would be the act of not putting a stumbling block in front of them. It would not be agreeing to disagree, it would be saying that there is nothing to argue about in the first place. To disagree normally means to take an opposing position. In this case there is no opposing position...only the making of peace.

When I speak of the "agree to disagree" doctrine I am speaking of people having 2 different interpretations of the same scripture. I see that you and I are actually in agreement on this.

I am not going to split the church over the color of the carpet, because it isn't even something God has given instruction on in the scriptures. If someone wants red and they would rather fight and scream about it to get their way then fine, it can be red for all I care. But after I make peace in that, I am going to help them come to an understanding of what the scripture says as it relates to being peace makers and not causing strife.

I can agree quickly with my adversary when there is no cause for opposing them. But when there is a cause (2 interpretations of one scripture, meaning someone, me or them, is wrong) I can not simply agree for the sake of "peace". Even Jesus said He did not come to bring peace but a sword. Instead I must search the scriptures together with my "adversary".

If I am wrong then so be it. If they are, then so be it. If we both are, then so be it. But in the end we are both stronger. If however we "agree to disagree" and go our separate ways, we have only said that it is ok for one of us (or possibly both) to believe and teach a lie. In so doing we have condemned each other and those we teach to standing on shifting sand. When the waves come someone will drown.

Sorry, I didn't mean to get all preachy about it. I agree with the thought you shared. I believe we both agree. I am glad to make your acquaintance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psalms 91
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for helping me to understand your point of view. I do see what you mean now. It is a little crazy that the issue of being baptized forward or backwards was an issue at all. Especially since there is nothing at all in the Bible about the subject.

In that respect there is neither a stronger or weaker person in the faith. They are both weak. Because neither side know the scriptures. This no longer becomes an issue of receiving someone in the faith. It isn't even about doubtful disputation. Because there is nothing for faith to stand on here.

I do see your thought though. If they knew (at least some of them) that it wasn't even a subject of scripture then they could yield to the other side. That would be the act of not putting a stumbling block in front of them. It would not be agreeing to disagree, it would be saying that there is nothing to argue about in the first place.
but that in and of itself is to agree to disagree....iow's if I say, there is nothing to argue about, I am disagreeing with those that want to argue about it, thus disagreeing with them on the very premise that it is an issue in the first place. I guess the heart of what I am getting at, is that there is a time (just like Ecc. tells us) for everything under the sun, including but not limited to, agreeing to disagree. Here is another example...I was talking to a friend, we were talking about pastoral mandated education. As best I could tell, we agreed, however, she kept insisting that we would just have to agree to disagree. I asked her where we disagreed, cause I couldn't figure it out, and she kept repeating that we would just have to agree to disagree. This then, was a situation in which I was not afraid to agree to disagree with her, because quiet frankly, to this day I have no idea how we disagree, thus I disagree with her assertion that we disagree. But I can do so peaceably, without argument, without hostility, etc. which I think is the point people are making when they say we will agree to disagree, they are saying, it isn't worth a fight over, we are two different people with differing opinions that are not contrary to scripture, so let's leave it there.

Another issue I take, which is related but a bit different, is when people try to force scripture and the conforming to that scripture onto others. God gave us a right to choose what we believe, no man has a right to take that from me, this too them can become an issue in which two people might use the "agree to disagree" argument in the case of a serious doctrinal issue. The bottom line as best as I can see it, is that we are not to fight with each other. In fact, truth is able to stand on it's own without mine or your or anyone elses defense. When we allow God to defend Himself and His word, there is no reason to carry the disagreement beyond here is what scripture shows us, reason together in love, and if we still disagree, pray and allow God to do what He does best, transform lives. That being said, we need to also make sure that the life needing transformed is not our own, and our understanding.
To disagree normally means to take an opposing position. In this case there is no opposing position...only the making of peace.
but the point is, that in and of itself is an opposing position. One thinks it's an issue to split the church over, the other thinks it's a "disputable" matter in which there is no argument to have. Two opposing positions, thus, the argument "agree to disagree" could be wise counsel.
When I speak of the "agree to disagree" doctrine I am speaking of people having 2 different interpretations of the same scripture. I see that you and I are actually in agreement on this.

I am not going to split the church over the color of the carpet, because it isn't even something God has given instruction on in the scriptures. If someone wants red and they would rather fight and scream about it to get their way then fine, it can be red for all I care. But after I make peace in that, I am going to help them come to an understanding of what the scripture says as it relates to being peace makers and not causing strife.
amen...got a devils advocate question for you to ponder for a moment. What about the color, dimensions, etc. of say the temple, or the ark? Things that God did specify materials for, would they become matters to "split" a church over? The answer helps us know where to draw the line and how then to define the argument. Let's say that we are living in the age before Christ. God has handed down the instructions for building the ark of the covenant, you want to save money so you want to cover it in...silver rather than gold, you might even just like silver better than gold. I stand up and say, no, it is to be gold, gold it will be. Is this a matter in which we take each other to task, as in the color of the carpet?

I'll give my answer after you offer yours, I have a feeling they are the same.
I can agree quickly with my adversary when there is no cause for opposing them. But when there is a cause (2 interpretations of one scripture, meaning someone, me or them, is wrong) I can not simply agree for the sake of "peace". Even Jesus said He did not come to bring peace but a sword. Instead I must search the scriptures together with my "adversary".
amen, I think I covered that agreement already.
If I am wrong then so be it. If they are, then so be it. If we both are, then so be it. But in the end we are both stronger. If however we "agree to disagree" and go our separate ways, we have only said that it is ok for one of us (or possibly both) to believe and teach a lie. In so doing we have condemned each other and those we teach to standing on shifting sand. When the waves come someone will drown.
but, there is a time and point in which we are to shake the dust off our feet and move on...a time in which we are to end the arguing and have nothing more to do with the person (you seem to know scripture if you need the references let me know)

A few weeks back, I was face to face with the question, when do you know it is time to move on, shake the dust off your feet, and when to stay. I even went so far as to ask our pastor who couldn't answer the question either. So I went to scripture. In scripture there are 3 things that endure forever, (depending on how you separate them, they could be more) 1. God, here is one place you could separate by saying name of Jesus, I lump them together. 2. Love, this is biblical love, which is much broader and deeper and higher than most will ever be able to grasp and 3. righteousness. So, if the issue at hand and the discussion I am having with another person lacks one or more of these three things, then there is an end to the issue, not an enduring forever.

So, let's apply the concept, let's go back to the issue of baptizing forward or backward. We get into a "battle" in the church over whether or not it is an issue to even fight over. But the battle lines are drawn by people who refuse to hear the truth of scripture. We continue to try to teach them, but they continue to argue and fight over which way it should be done. When 1 or more of the three things above cease to happen, we need to follow scripture and walk away leaving these people to their own sin.

In fact, we are in a similar battle in our own local body at the moment. They want to do everything emotionally, without scripture while claiming scripture to be their basis. Our "fight" is to get them to understand that God wants us to follow scripture. This fight has been going on for about 4 1/2 years now. The word is preached, but no one is listening to it and obeying it. So how long do we try to teach them the truth, and when do we shake the dust off our feet and say, respectfully, understanding their God given right to reject God, "we will agree to disagree" and move on? Where I agree with you on the principle of this thread, I do see times where agreeing to disagree is a wise thing.
Sorry, I didn't mean to get all preachy about it. I agree with the thought you shared. I believe we both agree. I am glad to make your acquaintance.
lol...I don't mind preachy, I get that way sometimes myself, especially on the topic of love...I also am glad to meet you, looking forward to more chats and the give and take of learning all we can about our Lord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psalms 91
Upvote 0

jbearnolimits

Pastor
Mar 13, 2014
505
127
43
Mobile, AL
Visit site
✟16,256.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
amen...got a devils advocate question for you to ponder for a moment. What about the color, dimensions, etc. of say the temple, or the ark? Things that God did specify materials for, would they become matters to "split" a church over? The answer helps us know where to draw the line and how then to define the argument. Let's say that we are living in the age before Christ. God has handed down the instructions for building the ark of the covenant, you want to save money so you want to cover it in...silver rather than gold, you might even just like silver better than gold. I stand up and say, no, it is to be gold, gold it will be. Is this a matter in which we take each other to task, as in the color of the carpet?

I'll give my answer after you offer yours, I have a feeling they are the same.

I enjoyed what you have to say in this matter. I see that we indeed are of the same mind in this. I am sure my answer here would be the same as yours. Because yes, it is wise to agree with another on matters such as those not spoken of specifically or in concept by God.

When I say by concept I mean that God has not said specifically that thou shalt not play video games instead of doing your homework. But the concept of being a good steward is spoken of and would apply to it.

But not all things are like that, including the color of carpet (when not given instruction). These are places when we can yield to each other. They are the only things that are non-essential because they are not spoken of in scripture.

So to answer your devils advocate question:

When God gives instruction, specific or concept, we must follow it. When He is silent, we must also be willing to be silent and yield. In the case of the temple and ark He gave instruction. It is because of this that we can not disobey God to please men.

Now you also bring up another question which relates very well to this. And yes, I knew what scriptures you spoke of by the way. When do we shake the dust off of our feet?

Lets take the ark for example. You and I want to use gold (according to the instructions from God), and the other group wants silver. What is our first step to take in the matter?

They are basically in disobedience which is sin. Here is Gods answer:

Matthew 18:15-17

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

First we simply tell them about the matter and explain our reason.

If they refuse to hear us we bring 2 or three witnesses. There is no stronger witness than the word of God. It is the Father, Jesus, and Holy Ghost. They basically wrote a statement stating their testimony as the witness.

If they refuse to hear the word of God then we take the matter to the church. Now here is where the problem comes. There are tares among the wheat. The people in the church have never been the final authority...it has always been God.

So why bring the matter to the church? This is more of a dividing point. In the day of Moses there were some who claimed they should lead instead of Moses. This was in direct violation to Gods anointed authority over them. They came to Moses with others (basically skipping the process of going in private, which normally happens when we are not led of God).

After that Moses had the matter come up before all of Israel. This is the equivalent of bringing it before the church. This was not however for the people to make a choice as to who would lead, but rather who they would follow.

The line was drawn, and those who followed God were on one side with others on the other side. This is a split in the church. But not all splits are bad. Because it divided those who were truly following God from those who were not.

I am sure you know what happened at this point. The ground opened up and judgment came to those who refused to listen.

So this is the pattern we follow. The Bible says this:

Titus 3:10-11

10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

The first abomination is when they refuse to listen as we tell them in private. The second is when they refuse the witness of scripture.

It is at this point that we shake the dust off of our feet, and hand them over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. They are to no longer be called part of the body...because they reject the word of God.

Today, many churches do not seem to understand this. They hate the thought of not allowing someone to be called a member of the church. They think it is cruel to reject someone from them. But this is the word of God.

Now there is a difference between someone who is ignorant and learning, and someone that refuses to learn. Those who are learning should remain in the body since they are in the process of being won over. They are still being shown the testimony of the witness. But those who refuse to listen to the witness of scripture...they are to be rejected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psalms 91
Upvote 0

jbearnolimits

Pastor
Mar 13, 2014
505
127
43
Mobile, AL
Visit site
✟16,256.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One more thing I would like to say is that I have seen this happen in person. I was a fill in preacher for a church without a pastor. I was ready to leave because of the hard hearts of the people. They wanted to follow their bylaws instead of the Bible.

I felt the need to continue with them however and tried my best to open the scriptures to them. All the while I prayed that God would let me know when the time to leave would come. I asked that they would simply tell me that they refused to listen.

One day I got a call after a very hard situation came up in the church with people verbally abusing a member who had spoken in private with someone to help them understand that they had been speaking gossip about someone. This was a private conversation and done with gentleness (I know because I heard testimony from both sides about it).

But the person refused to listen, and instead they gathered other members of the church together and began to accuse the innocent of being cruel, a gossip (because the person had asked me for advice on if they should speak at all with the person), and they also made many other personal attacks against the person.

I witnessed the pain and looked at the tears they cried, all because they wanted to help someone see what they were doing. At one point I actually witnessed them sit on the church pew crying, with a crowd of angry faces surrounding them and speaking harshly to them.

It was then that I explained to the people that what this person did was out of love. Everyone went home upset. The next day I got a call from a member who then began to accuse me of gossip because I had given counsel on how to handle the matter to them. They believed that since I heard of the sins of another that I was somehow gossiping.

At which point they said the words I longed to hear. "You can tell me anything you want, but you are not going to make me understand!"

It was then that God answered my prayer (and that of the abused member, because they stayed only because I did). I had been told that they would not listen. So I shook the dust off my feet and left.

It hurt...bad. Because I wanted nothing but good for them. But I had to reject those who reject God.

Just thought I would share a little bit of my own story in this type of thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psalms 91
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I enjoyed what you have to say in this matter. I see that we indeed are of the same mind in this. I am sure my answer here would be the same as yours. Because yes, it is wise to agree with another on matters such as those not spoken of specifically or in concept by God.

When I say by concept I mean that God has not said specifically that thou shalt not play video games instead of doing your homework. But the concept of being a good steward is spoken of and would apply to it.

But not all things are like that, including the color of carpet (when not given instruction). These are places when we can yield to each other. They are the only things that are non-essential because they are not spoken of in scripture.

So to answer your devils advocate question:

When God gives instruction, specific or concept, we must follow it. When He is silent, we must also be willing to be silent and yield. In the case of the temple and ark He gave instruction. It is because of this that we can not disobey God to please men.

Now you also bring up another question which relates very well to this. And yes, I knew what scriptures you spoke of by the way. When do we shake the dust off of our feet?

Lets take the ark for example. You and I want to use gold (according to the instructions from God), and the other group wants silver. What is our first step to take in the matter?

They are basically in disobedience which is sin. Here is Gods answer:

Matthew 18:15-17

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

First we simply tell them about the matter and explain our reason.

If they refuse to hear us we bring 2 or three witnesses. There is no stronger witness than the word of God. It is the Father, Jesus, and Holy Ghost. They basically wrote a statement stating their testimony as the witness.

If they refuse to hear the word of God then we take the matter to the church. Now here is where the problem comes. There are tares among the wheat. The people in the church have never been the final authority...it has always been God.

So why bring the matter to the church? This is more of a dividing point. In the day of Moses there were some who claimed they should lead instead of Moses. This was in direct violation to Gods anointed authority over them. They came to Moses with others (basically skipping the process of going in private, which normally happens when we are not led of God).

After that Moses had the matter come up before all of Israel. This is the equivalent of bringing it before the church. This was not however for the people to make a choice as to who would lead, but rather who they would follow.

The line was drawn, and those who followed God were on one side with others on the other side. This is a split in the church. But not all splits are bad. Because it divided those who were truly following God from those who were not.

I am sure you know what happened at this point. The ground opened up and judgment came to those who refused to listen.

So this is the pattern we follow. The Bible says this:

Titus 3:10-11

10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

The first abomination is when they refuse to listen as we tell them in private. The second is when they refuse the witness of scripture.

It is at this point that we shake the dust off of our feet, and hand them over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. They are to no longer be called part of the body...because they reject the word of God.

Today, many churches do not seem to understand this. They hate the thought of not allowing someone to be called a member of the church. They think it is cruel to reject someone from them. But this is the word of God.

Now there is a difference between someone who is ignorant and learning, and someone that refuses to learn. Those who are learning should remain in the body since they are in the process of being won over. They are still being shown the testimony of the witness. But those who refuse to listen to the witness of scripture...they are to be rejected.
It would seem that your post evidences what I suspected, that we are in agreement.

as to the reference to Matt. 18...that works when there is a person in sin, but what if the church is in sin, or when we go to minister to a group of people who have not heard the word of God? When then do we shake the dirt off our feet? and yes, you are right about people not wanting to exercise Matt. 18 and it is grievous to me that they don't
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
One more thing I would like to say is that I have seen this happen in person. I was a fill in preacher for a church without a pastor. I was ready to leave because of the hard hearts of the people. They wanted to follow their bylaws instead of the Bible.

I felt the need to continue with them however and tried my best to open the scriptures to them. All the while I prayed that God would let me know when the time to leave would come. I asked that they would simply tell me that they refused to listen.

One day I got a call after a very hard situation came up in the church with people verbally abusing a member who had spoken in private with someone to help them understand that they had been speaking gossip about someone. This was a private conversation and done with gentleness (I know because I heard testimony from both sides about it).

But the person refused to listen, and instead they gathered other members of the church together and began to accuse the innocent of being cruel, a gossip (because the person had asked me for advice on if they should speak at all with the person), and they also made many other personal attacks against the person.

I witnessed the pain and looked at the tears they cried, all because they wanted to help someone see what they were doing. At one point I actually witnessed them sit on the church pew crying, with a crowd of angry faces surrounding them and speaking harshly to them.

It was then that I explained to the people that what this person did was out of love. Everyone went home upset. The next day I got a call from a member who then began to accuse me of gossip because I had given counsel on how to handle the matter to them. They believed that since I heard of the sins of another that I was somehow gossiping.

At which point they said the words I longed to hear. "You can tell me anything you want, but you are not going to make me understand!"

It was then that God answered my prayer (and that of the abused member, because they stayed only because I did). I had been told that they would not listen. So I shook the dust off my feet and left.

It hurt...bad. Because I wanted nothing but good for them. But I had to reject those who reject God.

Just thought I would share a little bit of my own story in this type of thing.
I so appreciate your "story" more than will be understood through this medium....that being said, let me share a brief bit of where I am currently coming from. In our situation, it's a long story, so I will just hit the highlights...there was a man hired by the church to be the associate pastor that was not qualified according to scripture. We were not able to attend the meeting in which he was hired, therefore could not challenge them to follow scripture. Shortly thereafter, our son died and our world was in chaos for a season. When we finally were given opportunity to speak, we followed Matt 18 and went to the man about some issues. My husband was also on the ministerial commission at that time, so the authority of the church was also on his side. The man refused to hear any of it. So we went tried to take witness. No one wanted to confront the man, in fact, one person in leadership said that everyone was afraid of his wife because of her gossiping. Well, one time a witness came, that witness was mentally off in another world. My husband discussed it with ministerial commission. Again long story made really short, we were told that Matt. 18 doesn't apply and that we had no right to challenge because they may have followed the HS before, in calling the man. No one on committee would listen, so we "shook the dirt" and left the committee but not the church at this point, didn't feel God releasing us just yet, too many remnant that wanted to follow scripture. Eventually, ministerial committee gave in and recommendation to fire him was made. But he had friends in high places so to speak, so before the matter could come before the church, the recommendation was nixed by one person. This drove another faithful from the committee. Eventually, the matter went before the body, and the man ended up leaving, which should be the end of the matter. Except, his followers are now trying to take power that does not belong to them. We have been trying to convince the remnant to stand firm, to hold to scripture, but for how long? How long do we stay, how long do we tarry before we say, there is nothing more we can do? The whole ordeal has now stretched into 4 plus years.

Matt. 18 is an incredibly powerful passage when it comes to personal one on one issues, but when it is an entire church body, not so much, especially when there are those that are fighting along side to bring about obedience.

Here is another instance in which the same quandary came up. My husband's first church as pastor. His first sermon was loving even your enemy. The people got so angry that they threatened his job, he stood firm...to which they attacked me, still we stood firm...so they attacked our children, still we stood firm...if we try to apply Matt. 18 to every situation, then, there are a host of people who would not be saved today, because we would leave before the word had time to work in their lives.

My husband grew up an MK in Nigeria...perseverance was important, no 3 strikes and your out, today his tribe boasts 95% belief in Christ. Something that would not exist if all we saw was 3 strikes and your out. In fact, who do we go too when there is no church to take the matter to? Even if they claim to be the church, it doesn't make them so. Just some questions for thought.
 
Upvote 0