Should We Agree To Disagree?

[razzelflabben]

The things of God are the things of Christ, and its you and me. Caring for it means feeding his sheep, which is a ministration of the spirit.

There are Pastors whose teaching is explaining what the scriptures mean, and there are those by whose teaching God opens eyes, that we live the truth. One does it by the intellect, and the other by faith.

maybe you have never taught through the gift of God. Teaching, as a gift from God, is when done through that gift, done through faith in the HS. Otherwise it is nothing more than talent or education. In the passage in question, we are talking about the gifts of preaching, teaching, prophesying etc. Dont' have that specific list present at the moment. Anyway, the point is, when we are operating in the gifts of the HS, we are operating in faith, not intellect. Maybe you would do better if you posted passages that 1. are consistent with your ideas and 2. consistent with the totality of scripture. Otherwise we will be forced to agree to disagree, because that is a matter I do not compromise on.

When your steps are ordered in the word, your development is also orderly. If you know something I don't doesn't make you right and I wrong, because by God I stand. He judges me for I know nothing by myself. Where then is the disagreement?

this circular reasoning is something I can't unravel right now, try again tomorrow. I'm still foggy from my ER visit last night, maybe I can unravel the double talk tomorrow, today, I'm afraid double talk sounds an awful lot like forked tongue.

If agreeing to disagree is "biblical", what can you do to help me get there by faith?

All glory to God

see the previous post that shows scripture telling us that there is a time to agree to disagree. In fact, agreeing to disagree is an issue of faith...maybe you aren't clear as to what faith is? Maybe it's just a "church" word you have been taught to throw around? I don't know, grasping for straws at this point.

 

[Free at Calvary]

Hey Razz, sorry to hear of your medical emergency, and glad you weren't admitted.

I'm getting the feeling you want me to agree to disagree with you, to prove it's as natural in the body of Christ as it is in the world. Actually I wasn't trying to prove anything and you don't have to agree. I just wanted to chat, hoping to stimulate anything but a boxing match.

If you are my brother you are not the opposition. I'll agree with your spirit, your faith, your prayer, but not necessarily your works, for which I have to be meek lest I be tempted. There really isn't any room in the church to be contentious. Some Christians use knowledge to differentiate themselves, but without charity they are nothing.

If your intention is to prove you are right and I am wrong, you will have to agree to disagree. If it was to edify (its a spiritual gift), exhort or comfort, you'll part with me differently.

 

[razzelflabben]

Hey Razz, sorry to hear of your medical emergency, and glad you weren't admitted.

I'm getting the feeling you want me to agree to disagree with you, to prove it's as natural in the body of Christ as it is in the world. Actually I wasn't trying to prove anything and you don't have to agree. I just wanted to chat, hoping to stimulate anything but a boxing match.

If you are my brother you are not the opposition. I'll agree with your spirit, your faith, your prayer, but not necessarily your works, for which I have to be meek lest I be tempted. There really isn't any room in the church to be contentious. Some Christians use knowledge to differentiate themselves, but without charity they are nothing.

this is exactly what I and everyone else (if I recall) on this thread have been saying. On matters like faith, Christ, salvation, etc. there is no difference to agree to, however, on things that don't really matter, you know disputable matters, there are times when we need to agree to disagree so that there is no contention. It's really not a hard concept and it is one that is getting me riled because of how badly the idea is being twisted to make a point that sounds holier than thou. And yes that is exactly what it sounds like you are doing, I trust it is just how it is coming across in this medium. It is also why I suggested you at least skim the thread before trying to get involved, so that you were up to speed on what we are talking about, something you refused to do. But in that refusal, there are only two options, 1. continue to argue about the value of your skimming the thread or 2. agree to part with disagreement on the value of the skimming being requested. Thus, there is a "season" in the body where agreeing to disagree is a very valuable and biblical concept because is simply means that we disagree but will refuse to argue about it, just like the passages I presented testified to and you ignored and refused biblical rebuttal.

If your intention is to prove you are right and I am wrong, you will have to agree to disagree. If it was to edify (its a spiritual gift), exhort or comfort, you'll part with me differently.

oh...but your stand is that there is never a time to agree to disagree when it comes to the body, so would that mean that you do not believe we are brother/sister? Look, I don't personally care what you believe about me or anything else, God gave you a free will, just like He did me and I have no authority to take that from anyone, that being said, I personally consider you a brother/sister and in that, trust that you will follow scripture when it tells us to come and reason together the things in scripture so that together we can grow in maturity in Christ. But you have refused to do so, insisting that even though scripture tells us there is a time to agree to disagree, you don't believe there is such a time and what? your word should be taken over God's? Sorry, not how I roll, so I guess we will agree to disagree, for me scripture trumps personal opinion every single time...it isn't about agreeing with one another it's about agreeing with scripture. In the body, we should all be able to always agree with scripture, one body, one spirit, one interpretation. But within those boundaries are issues that are irrelevant to our spiritual health, those issues are disputable matters and are according to scripture best dealt with by agreeing to disagree and thus, peace reigns supreme in the body.

 

[Free at Calvary]

It's really not a hard concept and it is one that is getting me riled because of how badly the idea is being twisted to make a point that sounds holier than thou.

I don't have to agree to disagree, and it shouldn't make me holier than thou.

I follow peace, I trust in the work of God, I believe only the Spirit of God knows the things of God which we obtain by faith, through Christ and him crucified. I avoid contests, debates, contentiousness, fending and proving, because they have no profit. I don't have to agree to disagree, but you do and find place in the scriptures to approve it.

I'm not offended. I'm learning from all of this, but it's my last post to you on the subject.

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't have to agree to disagree, and it shouldn't make me holier than thou.

so you think that disagreeing to disagree peacefully is somehow following peace? How would that work, exactly? Agreeing to disagree is nothing more than saying that we can disagree in peace, but you can't accept that there is ever a time to do that, yet you want to follow peace, how can you follow peace if everyone has to agree with you? Or is that your point, that you can be the only one that is right about every issue?

I follow peace,

what exactly does that look like if you can't be agreeable with disagreeing with someone? IOW's if agreeing to disagree is not following peace, what would following peace actually look like? Does it mean that I have to agree with you in order for peace to reign being that you don't think agreeing that we can disagree without arguing is peaceable?

I trust in the work of God, I believe only the Spirit of God knows the things of God which we obtain by faith, through Christ and him crucified.

amen, and so your point is what? We are not talking about the basics of our belief, which you have already been told, we are talking about disputable matters, those things that are not basic to our belief in God....therefore, this would just have been thrown in for the purpose of either stirring trouble, or to sound more spiritual than you really are...which are you trying to accomplish?

I avoid contests, debates, contentiousness, fending and proving, because they have no profit.

bravo, so you do agree to disagree with some people in the church even though you claim that you don't...why deny what you confess to doing, isn't that a form of false witness, which we are told not to do?

I don't have to agree to disagree, but you do and find place in the scriptures to approve it.

you just admitted that there are times you agree to disagree, so which is it, you agree to disagree sometimes in making peaceful resolutions to things that do not matter, in accordance with scripture, or you don't which is what you claim by showing where you do? Your using double talk which is a form of fork tongue which is sinful.

I'm not offended. I'm learning from all of this, but it's my last post to you on the subject.

cool! I don't like double talk anyway