If the Bible is so cut and dry why do no two Christians agree on doctrine?

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,505
Georgia
✟899,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Whether it's eternal security or some other basic truth of scripture how come no two Christians will agree with the Bible?

1. Christians in entire denominations agree with the Bible
2. What is more -- even BETWEEN denominations we get agreement on certain obvious Bible points ... for example...

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism. :groupray:

And of course 7th day groups

Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others) :cool:

Bob, do all of these groups agree on the result or consequence of following the Ten Commandments?

It is actually not hard to believe "in Jesus" but it is another matter to believe "on Jesus".

There can always be found "some difference" on "something" -- but the OP makes the opposite claim - it claims no agreement can be found not even between two individuals who are Christian. That is an extreme claim.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,505
Georgia
✟899,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The Bible isn't a manual of doctrine, theology, or practice. It is a collection of inspired, sacred texts which the Church confesses and believes to be divinely inspired for our benefit as the people of God. While there has never existed perfect unanimity on all matters in Christianity, there has always existed an apostolic, catholic, orthodox mainstream--it is this mainstream that itself gave us the Bible in the first place since the Bible is the result of Christian confessional consensus

We get that from Catholics all day long - but no NT writer claimed such a thing and no NT was arguing that nobody should read the NT texts until some Catholic council arrives a few centuries later to tell them what to read... and we all know it.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO" Acts 17:11.

Scripture is to be used for "doctrine and correction" 2 Tim 3:16
 
Upvote 0

jerry kelso

Food For Thought
Mar 13, 2013
4,845
238
✟104,142.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Whether it's eternal security or some other basic truth of scripture how come no two Christians will agree with the Bible? I mean there are Christians out there that dont even believe that belief is good enough for salvation when the Bible clearly says "believe in Christ and you will be saved" in multiple spots. I mean its extremely difficult to get the truth out of scripture because everyone will interpret a particular verse differently. Why isn't there just one huge believe all belief that one can pick and say "Okay I believe that. Yay! I am saved now!"? Why all the divisions in the church and among Christians? What is the truth about scripture?

neostarwcc,

1. Hermeneutics is the basic reason.
For example, Eternal Security is held by both parties whether Calvinist or Armenians.

2. However, one believes in Unconditional Eternal Security which is seen as Once Saved Always Saved which is based on God’s complete sovereignty not man’s choice.

3. The opposing side is called Conditional Eternal Security which is man’s free will cooperation relationship with God concerning true agape love which does not coerce.
Hermeneutics makes the difference which concerns interpretation.

4. There are plain statements, context and reconciling the scriptures and paradox passages.

5. Believing was a requirement in every age of stewardship’s and covenants.
Saved by grace through faith believing.
However, in the Old Testament we’re types and shadows of the death, burial, and resurrection.
6. The antediluvians had a conscience but no written law. So they knew murder was wrong when Cain killed Abel because of their conscious and what was contained in the written law (Mosaic) later was a law unto themselves Romans 2:12a.
7. The Mosaic law had to be doers of the law to be justified Romans 2:12b. This is justification of works such as in James 2:17-26 which is a fruit or proof that you have believed. This is different than Justification by grace as in Romans 4:8.
When Jesus came he lived under the Mosaic law and they had to believe in Christ and that he would save them from their sins because he was the reality of what the law and prophets said about him Luke 1:77.
8. Today, we are under the New Covenant of the Cross and resurrection of Christ. Paul’s gospel was based on this 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and he brought it out more clear to the Gentiles in his gentile ministry Ephesians 2:14-15; 3:5-6; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

9. So the overall context was believing in each age of what their revelation was of redemption which was different in each age.

10. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:10 to speak the same thing so they would have no divisions among them.

11. The context was about saying they were of Paul, Apollo, of Cephas and of Christ v12. Was Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

12. The point was that the gospel was what was important which was Christ crucified 17-18 not Water Baptism, whether you believe in baptismal regeneration or water baptism for a good conscience 1 Peter 3:8 and Christ had not sent him to water baptize verse 17.

13. Other reasons for schisms as shown in Revelation 2-3 in John’s day.
Paul had his trouble with new converts in his church in his day and the more the apostles died off the more false preachers and teachers etc. would enter in to play.

14. After John died the early church fathers came into existence and this is where different interpretations of the Bible.

15. The Dark Ages and the 1500’s was more legalism and it took the age of evangelism preachers in the 16-17 centuries to wipe out hermeneutical views of their predecessors which started with Luther though Luther wasn’t perfect in all his interpretations. After all he believed the book of James shouldn’t be in the canon of the New Testament because he thought it was works based to attain salvation which he was fighting.

16. We need to do our best to be as apologetic, honest and understanding by rightly diving the word with sound biblical hermeneutics and and being like the Bereans to see whether what a preacher or teacher or whoever claims to have truth of the word, and comparing scriptures, precept upon precept etc.

17. I am sorry I went a little long so if you have any questions let me know.
We are not perfect in our knowledge but we are to be perfect in love. Jerry kelso
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Whether it's eternal security or some other basic truth of scripture how come no two Christians will agree with the Bible? I mean there are Christians out there that dont even believe that belief is good enough for salvation when the Bible clearly says "believe in Christ and you will be saved" in multiple spots. I mean its extremely difficult to get the truth out of scripture because everyone will interpret a particular verse differently. Why isn't there just one huge believe all belief that one can pick and say "Okay I believe that. Yay! I am saved now!"? Why all the divisions in the church and among Christians? What is the truth about scripture?
Sometimes some take a concept and then tries to make the Scriptures fit it. Instead of drawing the truth from the Scriptures.

What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,505
Georgia
✟899,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
neostarwcc,

1. Hermeneutics is the basic reason.
For example, Eternal Security is held by both parties whether Calvinist or Armenians.

2. However, one believes in Unconditional Eternal Security which is seen as Once Saved Always Saved which is based on God’s complete sovereignty not man’s choice.

3. The opposing side is called Conditional Eternal Security which is man’s free will cooperation relationship with God concerning true agape love which does not coerce.
Hermeneutics makes the difference which concerns interpretation.

4. There are plain statements, context and reconciling the scriptures and paradox passages.

OSAS is often called "eternal security". Arminians believe in the assurance of salvation -- but not in OSAS.

You use the term Armenian which is not the same as "Arminian" rather it is someone born in Armenia.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Just Another User

Active Member
Nov 24, 2018
169
126
The United part
✟15,817.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hello!

1) Are you sure the "pillar" and "foundation" metaphors for the church are as you interpret them? The church is the total sum of all believers, those transformed by the good news, living new lives empowered by the Spirit and proclaiming the Truth of the Kingdom of God. Local churches are an expression of the universal "church". In this sense, the truth is held up by the people (individually AND corporately) which is what foundations and pillars do with roofs in ancient architecture. We see that explicitly in the very next verse (v.16) where Paul gives a quick outline of the "Truth" held up by the church. It is very concise and easily understood. To put it another way, the Bible contains the complete "Truth" about the reality of the Gospel-life, no additions necessary from the Church. The Church "upholds" that truth through our proclamation and active expression of the life of God in us.

I don't disagree with that at all and I think I was careful not to make a statement in respect to the church adding or changing the truth. What I think I was clear with is that the Church upholds and I think interprets the truth which an individual cannot do. The reason I didn't mention the actual Church was because that's an incredibly hard thing to ask for guidance from the whole church when it comes to living out a righteous and holy lives for God and thus I think it's apt to say that in most cases, all issues related to living such a life rests on the shoulders of the local church. Saying all that, I would say actual local churches are quite rare because we're commanded to be a family and to forsake our possessions for example, which is another reason why there's so much divide in Christianity.

2) The multiple uses of the plural "yous" in your second passage is does not support your point. This is exactly how John would have had to speak in a letter addressing multiple individuals simultaneously. Yes, they are the church, but that's like calling a collection of grapes a "bunch": the church is the collection of individuals.

If I told a gathering of people at a conference "You received a book when you came in", it doesn't mean that only one book was received by the entire gathering, just because I use the plural "you". John's use of "anointing" (v.27) is an individual anointing shared by all members of the group. This is consistent, for example, with the individual/corporate theme Titus 3:3-7 and in Ephesians 1:1-14. Additionally, other passages (notably Hebrews 8:10-11) explicitly reveal that God does teach individuals apart from other group members.

I disagree. John uses several singular yous throughout his letters despite the fact that letters are directly written to a congregation rather than an individual. When John was using plural yous he was saying to those in the church that while they remained in Christ they did not need man to teach them because they could find the truth themselves. I don't disagree that God teaches people and I won't even disagree that people teach other people in regards to discipleship. What I think is clear is that if you remain apart of the church, you would only need the holy spirit to guide you. I think an example could be that if you had an opinion on an issue related to Christian life and the rest of the church disagreed then you would refrain from speaking about the opinion. This would be the church teaching you as well. This presupposes that you're apart of a church and not just a "Christian" get-together.
 
Upvote 0

Devin P

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2017
1,280
631
31
Michigan
✟99,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Whether it's eternal security or some other basic truth of scripture how come no two Christians will agree with the Bible? I mean there are Christians out there that dont even believe that belief is good enough for salvation when the Bible clearly says "believe in Christ and you will be saved" in multiple spots. I mean its extremely difficult to get the truth out of scripture because everyone will interpret a particular verse differently. Why isn't there just one huge believe all belief that one can pick and say "Okay I believe that. Yay! I am saved now!"? Why all the divisions in the church and among Christians? What is the truth about scripture?
Because so few actually read it on their own. Everyone filters it through the lens of whichever denomination they choose instead of reading it for what it says. People have habits of placing tradition over scripture.
 
Upvote 0

jerry kelso

Food For Thought
Mar 13, 2013
4,845
238
✟104,142.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
OSAS is often called "eternal security". Arminians believe in the assurance of salvation -- but not in OSAS.

You use the term Armenian which not Arminian rather it is someone born in Armenia.

bob Ryan,

1. Sorry for the typo, I know the difference.

2. I believe I said in Eternal Security that Arminians believe but, it built on conditions of free will choice and freewill cooperation.
OSAS is an oxymoron and impossible in Arminianism theology.
Even in Calvinism the term in itself is an oxymoron because it says God takes in backsliders who were Christians and will keep them saved in that state.
Jerry Kelso
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobRyan
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,505
Georgia
✟899,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
bob Ryan,

1. Sorry for the typo, I know the difference.

2. I believe I said in Eternal Security that Arminians believe but, it built on conditions of free will choice and freewill cooperation.
OSAS is an oxymoron and impossible in Arminianism theology.
Even in Calvinism the term in itself is an oxymoron because it says God takes in backsliders who were Christians and will keep them saved in that state.
Jerry Kelso

Ok thanks for that. I do agree on what you say about the Arminian POV.

However there are "flavors" of Calvinism and one flavor of them do as you say - and would take the "P" in the TULIP and change it from the classic "Perseverance of the saints" into "Preservation of the saints" so that those living like the devil after getting saved "get heaven all the same".

But the 3 and 5 point Calvinists will not do that. They will say that if you get saved today then 20 years from today end up living like the devil - then you were never saved to start with and so had nothing to fall away "from".
 
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

jerry kelso

Food For Thought
Mar 13, 2013
4,845
238
✟104,142.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Ok thanks for that. I do agree on what you say about the Arminian POV.

However there are "flavors" of Calvinism and one flavor of them do as you say - and would take the "P" in the TULIP and change it from the classic "Perseverance of the saints" into "Preservation of the saints" so that those living like the devil after getting saved "get heaven all the same".

But the 3 and 5 point Calvinists will not do that. They will say that if you get saved today then 20 years from today end up living like the devil - then you were never saved to start with and so had nothing to fall away "from".

bob Ryan,

I agree with your statement about the preservation term they hold and the view of the of the 3 and 5 point Calvinists. Jerry Kelso
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,548
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,475.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I want you to sit down and imagine a society far different from ours. How different? Perhaps more different than most of us can even imagine.

It is a society without mass media. There is no radio, no television, no telephones, no cell phones, no telegraph, not even a printing press. Even if the printing press existed, it would be of little worth since the great majority of people were illiterate. Only the rulers, court officials, military officers, the rich, the merchants and the priests but very very few of the common people could read or write. Most news or information had to be transmitted orally person to person.

To send a message over a distance a scribe might be employed to write it and another to read it upon arrival. It would have had to be carried by a person on foot, or horseback, or camelback or by ship at sea. All of these were by no means certain. A message from Jerusalem to Rome might take weeks even months to arrive if at all.

What about the people themselves? As mentioned earlier, most were illiterate. This is not surprising for a society in which most lived a hand to mouth existence. Mere survival was of utmost importance. Few people traveled any more than a few dozen kilometers from their native town. Few people were ever exposed to thoughts from anyone more distant than that.

Is it possible to even translate these conditions into the present day? Imagine, if you will, trying to describe an event that happened in the 1960's, say, the assassination of President Kennedy. There are no videotapes to view, no audio tapes, and not even any photographs. There might be written accounts but 95% of the population are illiterate. The story is passed down orally from person to person. Even in a society where oral transmission is valued and respected, the chance of getting the story straight is almost nil. This is the situation the author of the Gospel of Mark (whoever he was) was in. Remember we are only looking at 40 years. Add another 20 to 30 years and we have the situation of the author of the Gospel of John (whoever he was).

Can we trust these accounts? As literal history? No! As an embellished, allegorical, midrashic accounts? Yes! But we must always remind ourselves that they are embellished, allegorical and midrashic and deal with them as such. To grant these accounts more credence than that is to ignore the entire context of the times in which they were written.

Am I trashing scripture? By no means! I am respecting scripture by being realistic about it. Our Judeo-Christian scriptures were a very human endeavor in a certain context of history. When we lose sight of that context, then we also lose sight of the meaning and value of those scriptures. At this point, I have not even yet addressed the many other contexts of scripture ---- historical, scientific, economic, military, religious, literary and more! All of these contexts affect the interpretation of scripture. We ignore them at our peril.

You can't say for example that the letters of Paul were embelished or allegorical, those were specific things written to churches or people to deal with issues. If not even that is written as truths because was embelished or allegorical or something, we are crazy to follow him in what he said/did.

A large part of the gospel you must believe as historical or it wouldn't make sense to you to be a christian. In what to base our doctrine and morals if the bible is that vague?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
We get that from Catholics all day long - but no NT writer claimed such a thing and no NT was arguing that nobody should read the NT texts until some Catholic council arrives a few centuries later to tell them what to read... and we all know it.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO" Acts 17:11.

Scripture is to be used for "doctrine and correction" 2 Tim 3:16

We believe the Scriptures for Christ's sake, we do not believe Christ for Scripture's sake. Christ is Lord.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Tutorman
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,503
6,392
Midwest
✟78,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
JOHN 10
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Christian Bible Verses 4.jpg


God sees the hearts of people everywhere. We don't know where He will lead them, or when, or why.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,505
Georgia
✟899,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The Bible isn't a manual of doctrine, theology, or practice. It is a collection of inspired, sacred texts which the Church confesses and believes to be divinely inspired for our benefit as the people of God. While there has never existed perfect unanimity on all matters in Christianity, there has always existed an apostolic, catholic, orthodox mainstream--it is this mainstream that itself gave us the Bible in the first place since the Bible is the result of Christian confessional consensus

We get that from Catholics all day long - but no NT writer claimed such a thing and no NT was arguing that nobody should read the NT texts until some Catholic council arrives a few centuries later to tell them what to read... and we all know it.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO" Acts 17:11.

Scripture is to be used for "doctrine and correction" 2 Tim 3:16

We believe the Scriptures for Christ's sake, we do not believe Christ for Scripture's sake. Christ is Lord.

-CryptoLutheran

They "test Paul" to "SEE IF" those things the Apostle spoke - were even true at all.


"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO" Acts 17:11

Scripture is to be used for doctrine - 2 Tim 3:16

"though WE (Apostles) or an angel from heaven should come to you bringing a gospel other than we have given - let him be accursed" Gal 1:6-9 so then the saints are prepared to "test" any and every one - angel or apostle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToBeLoved
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

Mark51

Newbie
Supporter
Nov 11, 2014
495
97
72
✟89,056.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is a very somber question. We all need to explore this phenomenon carefully because our salvation depends on it. I cannot list nor know all of the reasons but some may encompass a chronology of learning. We learn from generation to generation; and, the substance of what we learn is usually acceptable because our parents, educators, others held in high esteem are deemed to be trustworthy. We, also, have the innate tendency-because of sin-to accept or reject what fits our beliefs that conform to our personalities and lifestyles.

Considering my lack of a more through explanation, I refer you to a few direct warnings-from the Bible-considering this doom that will effect most of the masses. Reference: Matthew 7:15, 21-23; Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 9, 10; 2 Timothy 4:3-5; 2 Peter 2:1-3,7.
 
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
There can always be found "some difference" on "something" -- but the OP makes the opposite claim - it claims no agreement can be found not even between two individuals who are Christian. That is an extreme claim.
It is definitely blown way out of proportion.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Whether it's eternal security or some other basic truth of scripture how come no two Christians will agree with the Bible? I mean there are Christians out there that dont even believe that belief is good enough for salvation when the Bible clearly says "believe in Christ and you will be saved" in multiple spots. I mean its extremely difficult to get the truth out of scripture because everyone will interpret a particular verse differently. Why isn't there just one huge believe all belief that one can pick and say "Okay I believe that. Yay! I am saved now!"? Why all the divisions in the church and among Christians? What is the truth about scripture?

Because everybody is going to find something in the Bible they don’t like, and that is the bit, or bits, they will try to ignore or explain away.

Or they might ignore the advice to take on board the whole counsel of God, and by fixating on just some parts of it, come up with a theology which is at best heterodox, if not downright heretical.
 
Upvote 0

Paul G West Sr

Active Member
Jan 29, 2019
51
23
85
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
✟17,839.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Whether it's eternal security or some other basic truth of scripture how come no two Christians will agree with the Bible? I mean there are Christians out there that dont even believe that belief is good enough for salvation when the Bible clearly says "believe in Christ and you will be saved" in multiple spots. I mean its extremely difficult to get the truth out of scripture because everyone will interpret a particular verse differently. Why isn't there just one huge believe all belief that one can pick and say "Okay I believe that. Yay! I am saved now!"? Why all the divisions in the church and among Christians? What is the truth about scripture?

The Bible seems not so "cut and dried" as some would have us believe.

Let me make totally clear that I can find nothing in the Bible that causes meany doubt whatsoever! But, here is what I wrote in my book, "It Seems To Me":

Another reason I felt directed to write this book is to reveal the purposeful obfuscations in the Word! The reason for these purposeful mis-directions/confusions in the New Testament, are the same reason today, as was the reason for Jesus' speaking in Parables, during His earthly ministry. Had Jesus spoken the truth, in clarity from the very start of His earthly ministry, He would not have lived even the three years that He needed, to accomplish all that He, God and Holy Spirit decided that He/They needed to accomplish prior to His crucifixion!


Today, those two reasons become one; to give man a chance to deny Him! God gives man plenty of rope to hang Himself. He does not want robots for a family, He wants faith-filled lovers of Him/Them, and man is just dying to deny Him; so determined are men to become gods unto themselves!


The Trinity decided, before the foundations of the earth, that Jesus would fulfill all the Messi-anic prophesies of The Old Testament, before going to the cross, and He needed three years to accomplish all of the dozens of Old Testament Prophesies that God, through the Prophets, had promised the jews that their Messiah would do.
 
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

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,505
Georgia
✟899,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Whether it's eternal security or some other basic truth of scripture how come no two Christians will agree with the Bible?

1. Christians in entire denominations agree with the Bible
2. What is more -- even BETWEEN denominations we get agreement on certain obvious Bible points ... for example...

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism. :groupray:

And of course 7th day groups

Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others) :cool:

Bob, do all of these groups agree on the result or consequence of following the Ten Commandments?

It is actually not hard to believe "in Jesus" but it is another matter to believe "on Jesus".

There can always be found "some difference" on "something" -- but the OP makes the opposite claim - it claims no agreement can be found not even between two individuals who are Christian. That is an extreme claim.

It is definitely blown way out of proportion.


True. Just one example of "Agreement" can be found in D.L. Moody's text on the TEN Commandments as well as the "Baptist Confession of Faith" Section 19, and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" section 19... those texts could have been written by me as far as the point of the doctrine that they are making there. It has agreement across the board.
 
Upvote 0