Doctrine vs Unity

[FaithfulPilgrim]

How important is having sound doctrine at the expense of unity. It seems both are commanded by God to us from Scripture, but I don’t know if both can be achieved simultaneously in this fallen world.

I believe unity is important and we must not split on non-essential issues, though we may not agree on what is or isn’t essential. I have started thinking that water baptism isn’t absolutely essential and if it was there wouldn’t be so much disagreement over the proper way or meaning. I find it odd that Scripture isn’t more clear. I can point to texts that say only professing adult believers can be baptized and that it is not a requirement for salvation, but rather a symbol for an inward change tha that has already occurred. Yet, you can also point to just as many texts to defend infant baptism and baptismal regeneration.

I think secondary issues that are somewhat important but true believers on both sides disagree with each other should be decided at a congregational level.

To me, the absolute essentials of the Christian faith revolves around the divinity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and center our lives around the two greatest commandments.

While I believe the Bible teaches monotheism and the Trinity, I’d hesitate to call non-trinitarians or tritheists as not Christian or say it is impossible for them to genuine believers who love God.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How important is having sound doctrine at the expense of unity. It seems both are commanded by God to us from Scripture, but I don’t know if both can be achieved simultaneously in this fallen world.

Without true (sound) faithful to YHWH lives and doctrine , there is no unity /union in Christ.

With living in union in Jesus, living and abiding and dwelling in Christ and His Word dwelling in us, unity is practically automatic. (any problems being worked through as needed as YHWH says and as Yeshua leads, with continual (unceasing) prayer, in complete harmony with His Word) .

 

[Original Happy Camper]

How important is having sound doctrine at the expense of unity. It seems both are commanded by God to us from Scripture, but I don’t know if both can be achieved simultaneously in this fallen world.

I believe unity is important and we must not split on non-essential issues, though we may not agree on what is or isn’t essential. I have started thinking that water baptism isn’t absolutely essential and if it was there wouldn’t be so much disagreement over the proper way or meaning. I find it odd that Scripture isn’t more clear. I can point to texts that say only professing adult believers can be baptized and that it is not a requirement for salvation, but rather a symbol for an inward change tha that has already occurred. Yet, you can also point to just as many texts to defend infant baptism and baptismal regeneration.

I think secondary issues that are somewhat important but true believers on both sides disagree with each other should be decided at a congregational level.

To me, the absolute essentials of the Christian faith revolves around the divinity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and center our lives around the two greatest commandments.

While I believe the Bible teaches monotheism and the Trinity, I’d hesitate to call non-trinitarians or tritheists as not Christian or say it is impossible for them to genuine believers who love God.

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

abiding in his word keeps you in unity with God. Others who do not abide in his word and follow after their own ways, are not in unity with him. Light has no fellowship with darkness. Doctrine and unity go hand in hand with regards to God. Unity with non-believers is "unity" taken out of context. I second happy camper.... with Matthew 10:34 and by following with that its a process we all go through as we mature in the faith.
Ephesians 4:13-14 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Ephesians 4:4-5 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
It is quite obvious that most are divided about the word, as they care not to follow it, leaning on their own understanding, carried away by every different wind. When the word itself never changes and is alive.

 

[tdidymas]

How important is having sound doctrine at the expense of unity. It seems both are commanded by God to us from Scripture, but I don’t know if both can be achieved simultaneously in this fallen world.

I believe unity is important and we must not split on non-essential issues, though we may not agree on what is or isn’t essential. I have started thinking that water baptism isn’t absolutely essential and if it was there wouldn’t be so much disagreement over the proper way or meaning. I find it odd that Scripture isn’t more clear. I can point to texts that say only professing adult believers can be baptized and that it is not a requirement for salvation, but rather a symbol for an inward change tha that has already occurred. Yet, you can also point to just as many texts to defend infant baptism and baptismal regeneration.

I think secondary issues that are somewhat important but true believers on both sides disagree with each other should be decided at a congregational level.

To me, the absolute essentials of the Christian faith revolves around the divinity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and center our lives around the two greatest commandments.

While I believe the Bible teaches monotheism and the Trinity, I’d hesitate to call non-trinitarians or tritheists as not Christian or say it is impossible for them to genuine believers who love God.

It is true that we should have right doctrine and unity. It is also true that the universal church as a whole does not have doctrinal unity in all matters of faith and practice. It is also true that most Christians are not rightly educated in correctly interpreting the scripture, and this is one of the dividing points. It is also true that Jesus commanded us to be perfect (in our love for each other) as God is perfect, but very few, if any, are.

I'd like to point out that there is a constant tension between acceptance of others and commitment to truth. Any imbalance of this will cause disunity or corruption. It's the big tricks of living the Christian life and one of the reasons why we must be committed to being led of the Spirit.

Since most people are not rightly educated, or are too lazy to study the scripture, or simply don't have a desire to understand it, they rely on professionals to tell them what the scripture means. If they trust their pastor or spiritual leader enough, they will believe what is told them. Unfortunately if the pastor gives them a wrong interpretation (for whatever reason), they will be badly educated, and this is not a good thing, since wrong doctrine ultimately leads to stumbling and hindrance of spiritual growth.

IMO bad doctrine keeps the church in a immature state, and thus divides Christians into camps (cliques). One day Christ will come and put all things in order. Until then, we have to make do with what we have. Wheat and tares, so to speak. Everyone is responsible for himself, as every person will account to God what he has done in life. Yes, the teachers will be held responsible for what they taught. But individuals will also be held responsible for their part in accepting the deceptions.

Therefore we cannot lower the standard of truth for the sake of unity. We must have both, and eventually will have. In the meantime, we should "contend earnestly for the faith" as the scripture says.
TD

 

[~Anastasia~]

I believe right teaching is essential to hold onto.

But as the previous poster said, for any number of reasons, some people believe wrong things.

I also believe that it is never our place to judge others as regards their standing with God.

I do not want to usurp God's place, but I suspect that He is quite willing to show mercy on one whose heart is at least bent toward love and humbleness, who might get any number of doctrines wrong, perhaps more so than one whose pride is in what they think they correctly believe, but which produces little if any fruit in them.

The thing is, right doctrine will produce fruit. (Though it may happen quickly or after a longer struggle - it's never a good idea to judge "results" from just a very few.) So ideally, we would have both right doctrine and unity.

I do not think we should compromise what we know to be true, and beneficial, for the sake of trying to create a false unity. But on the other hand, I accept anyone who calls on Christ as my brother or sister, so in a sense I assume that level of unity, trusting God to sort out the rest.

In other words, I do not cut myself off from them as being totally unrelated to me, even if they believe different doctrines. That is for God to decide. In the meantime, I regard us as having that fellowship.

 

[Albion]

I also believe that sound doctrine is important, but as regards the matter of unity, that refers to essential doctrine.

While I find that the OP is generally on target, to conclude, as was done, that almost nothing is an essential doctrine, not even the identity of Christ, goes much too far for me to agree with.

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

I also believe that sound doctrine is important, but as regards the matter of unity, that refers to essential doctrine.

While I find that the OP is generally on target, to conclude, as was done, that almost nothing is an essential doctrine, not even the identity of Christ, goes much too far for me to agree with.

You have a point. That’s why I made this thread. What is essential doctrine and what isn’t? And if there are varying interpretations of even an essential doctrine, then who is right?

 

[Albion]

You have a point. That’s why I made this thread. What is essential doctrine and what isn’t? And if there are varying interpretations of even an essential doctrine, then who is right?

Well, you see that I did agree with the general thrust of your OP, but I couldn't agree on what constitutes essential doctrine. THAT would be a tough problem to resolve, yet it holds the key to the unity you said would be desirable.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I also believe that sound doctrine is important, but as regards the matter of unity, that refers to essential doctrine.

While I find that the OP is generally on target, to conclude, as was done, that almost nothing is an essential doctrine, not even the identity of Christ, goes much too far for me to agree with.

That's a good point - it really does come down to what is considered essential and that's always important to define.

 

[Anto9us]

Ideas on the nature(s), person, deity and pre-existence of Christ are to me ESSENTIALS to have correct.

CF uses Nicene Creed more or less as a litmus test, although there are Oneness Pentecostals and Unitarians that wouldn't pass that.

The "non-Chalcedonians" of the Oriental Orthodox, I must admit their views on whether Christ has TWO NATURES are not something I understand, yet they affirm full deity of Christ.