mark them which cause divisions and offences

[gord44]

Here is a clue:

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,

Always one of my favorite passages from Proverbs!

 

[JM]

hedrick, we disagree often but I never find you to be a disagreeable person.

Thanks

AW, excellent question.

 

[JM]

The specific context in Rom 16:17 is presumably the issue of works of the Law. It seems reasonable to assume that the context is the context of the rest of the letter. These are people who were trying to impose additional restrictions on being a Christian, and were trying to convince people that they were not satisfactory Christian until they had complied.

(I should note that this is my interpretation. Of the two commentaries I consulted, one found the passage hard to understand, and the other thought it was a non-Pauline interpolation. It seems to me that given the disruptions that legalists caused for the early Church the warning is perfectly reasonable.)

You have given us your opinion on what it means but still believe it is "hard advice to follow in any principled way...just another way to attack people you disagree with?"

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Good advice is often hard to follow, I've had to learn much the hard way throughout my life.

 

[hedrick]

You have given us your opinion on what it means but still believe it is "hard advice to follow in any principled way...just another way to attack people you disagree with?"

Yes, I believe it's hard to follow. While I think the primary meaning is to accept each other as Christians and avoid divisiveness, there are times when we really need to assert the truth as we know it, realizing that it's going to cause trouble. How to do that in a Christian manner is a real challenge.

This is a Reformed group. I know best the history of the Presbyterian Church in the US. We've dealt with lots of disagreement over the last hundred or so years. And not always very well. And it's not always one group's fault. As you know, I'm from the liberal side. But I think Maachen was mistreated. I doubt there was much chance that he would have been able to exist within the mainstream Presbyterian Church, but it should have been his decision. I also think the Kenyon decision was a mistake. Its shadow is still causing us problems. I think a lot of people are trying to avoid a replay. I don't know whether they'll be able to or not.

But what we *don't* need is people who think it's always someone else's fault. Christians should follow Christ's call, even if I think it's a mistake. When we can coexist, when it's better for everyone if we separate, and how to respect each other as Christ's followers when that happens is a problem for all of us. Not just the other guy.

 

[JM]

hedrick, that is very ecumenical of you and I can see how you would want to be as inclusive as possible, I just don't believe it's biblical for the reasons already given.

What we *don't* need are blinders to false teaching, ignoring sin, calling good evil and evil good.

We *don't* need is a false sense of community and brotherhood.

We should *mark them which cause divisions and offences* because that is what we are told to do.

May God have mercy.

jm

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Hehe. The only thing I know, is that I know nothing. Too many think they know something when they don't know anything.

I know everything. His name is Jesus.

 

[AMR]

This is hard advice to follow in any principled way. Most people believe that anyone who disagrees with them is causing division, but seldom consider that they might be. So in practice it becomes just another way to attack people you disagree with.

So any instruction on the matter is pointless. Got it. Sigh.

Perhaps the following will suffice then:

WLC #143, #144, #145

Stand for something or fall for everything.

 

[AMR]

I suggest that the rules that Iosias posted from John Frame are the kind of thing Paul had in mind: http://www.christianforums.com/t7747701/#post63130230.

It is admirable to give someone the benefit of the doubt until the facts in evidence clearly declare otherwise. We have done that. But when others take advanatge of our long-suffering patience, the time comes to speak out.

The intentions of the person of whom you defend, when you examine the evidence in this entire forum it is my and many others' considered opinion that they are far from admirable. Instead it seems to us that these intentions are to call attention to oneself and to sow discord by posting content that is clearly to engender strife, discord, and divisiveness among those that are members of these particular faith-based forums. Anyone who has a discerning mind can see this if they will admit it to themselves. Rather than continue to feed this behavior why not call it what it is and brook no countenance in these actions?

Moderators are few and overworked here at CF. I know because I used to be one. Members should take it upon themselves to police their own faith-based forums as much as possible by reminding others of the purposes of our particular safe havens and steering those that want to obliquely debate our standards of faith to the proper forums within CF where all manner of discussion is possible and properly allowed. The most effective method members can employ with persons who disrupt the peace of our forums is to ignore there posts versus engaging them at every turn. This is especially true for persons who start many threads with pointers to this or that and tersely worded posts a la "What do you think about this?", "I like this, how about you?", and so on.

If we wanted the sort of behavior we have been experiencing of late we would be partaking in those discussion forums or sites where such is the norm. It is not the norm herein and those are the plain facts of the matter.

Anyone here who feels compelled to push the boundaries on the fundamentals of our faith should not expect to find a very welcoming environment. Our safe-haven faith-based forums are not some theological proving ground for all manner of pet theories or views. Now this may come across as some sort of fundamentalist fanaticism, but I do engage the Scriptures daily, and I am daily changed by them. I also remain convinced of the wisdom of the forefathers that came before us when I read what they have written and compare their writings to Scripture. Sadly, it seems not a month or two goes by that someone somewhere decides they have a new view, new perspective, or new interpretation related to the fundamentals of our faith we hold dear; despite these fundamentals having withstood the test of time and painful examination for many, many, hundreds of years.

Thus we should become very concerned about discussions that start to challenge these fundamentals. For those who see themselves as theological sophisticates, I would submit that these persons seek a more pastoral approach, rather than trying to be innovative. I recognize that within theological circles it seems that only if one is radical or a trail-blazer that they garner attention. But the constant plowing up of new ground is not what I see as the task of discussions of our views. Indeed, I am very content to step back, ponder, and be satisfied to walk in the same steps of those who have come before me--those who have mapped out the road ahead such that we may avoid tripping over the rocks along the well-worn path. In fact, being more willing to do so is what is needed today, versus demonstrations to others how wonderful one's insightful exegesis, logic, "what do you think about this or that", or sophisticated reasoning may be.

I don't mean to be harsh, and my words may come across that way to some. It is not my intention. The reason this forum and others like it were created was to provide an escape from the hoi polloi who would intentionally or unintentionally seek to undermine our views and disturb our peace.

The persons at the root of this discussion is known at other sites for his propensity to just start numerous threads with pointers to questionable content, all in the guise of "just wondering" or "I like this, how about you" and so forth. His general tactic is to sit back and watch the ensuing fray for those who take the bait and feed his behavior. Or, when he "engages" it is superficially mounted with terse "Why?", "How do you see this?", "Can you explain?" and so on just to keep the pot headed towards a full boil. I would respectfully suggest not doing so and perhaps these sort of persons will eventually move on to other venues or will consider their odd behavior and comport themselves appropriately.

 

[DocNH]

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Verse 17 speaks concerning division "contrary to the doctrine which ye [i.e. the Church at Rome, etc.] have learned."

Note that it says "learned."

Before "learning" comes possible other views (unclear ones, possibly errant views, even doctrines of demons, etc.) which need to be discussed, understood, worked out, and possibly even repented of, etc. Paul was not addressing the Church at Rome because they had perfect doctrine, but imperfect! He was teaching and they were to be "learning" ...

Hedrick was spot on in his interpretation of this verse! (See Post 18). The Greek text agrees with him too. Even Gill did not miss this (in part ...):

The men he would have taken notice of were such who divided them in their religious sentiments, introducing heterodox notions, contrary to the doctrine of the Scriptures, of Christ and his apostles, and which they had learned from them; such as justification by the works of the law, the observance of Jewish days, and abstinence from meats, enjoined by the ceremonial law, and that as necessary to salvation.

So, Paul was commenting on specific false doctrines concerning Rome. If we do not read Paul carefully, and even Gill, we can emphasize something in error that a text does not say... Note, we may end up at a right conclusion or two when the dust settles, but that does not mean we arrived there in the right way.

Since, none have arrived, but all are learning, "certain" disagreements are part of growing in grace and truth. All true Christians should be attempting to learn and asking the Spirit to reveal to them "the truth" ... (2 Cor. 3:18).

JM you stated that your post was suppose to be a good reminder. The Bible is full of repeated reminders as all of us for various reasons at times forget ...Here are some reminders. I pray they may be taken in the spirit given:

1. Just because someone posts something we may disagree with does not make that someone a false teacher. Perhaps they are simply in error. Maybe we are? Maybe both are. Even Peter was wrong on more than one occasion (denied Christ; rebuked by Paul). 1 Thess. 5:11, etc. Peter confessed his sin, will we?

2. Every post should be written and responded to with a spirit of humility and charity. Eph. 4:2, etc. Are ours?

3. Every post should be a learning experience for all parties involved. If we are posting because we think we are a know it all (or with an attitude of such), then we very well may be a false teacher! True knowledge should be tempered with real charity. 1 Cor. 8:1, etc. What spirit do we post in? What would others say?

4. If we discover ourselves to be wrong concerning a particular issue, or part of the same, then we should be willing to openly express it. Pride is a mark of a false teacher, humility a mark of a true Christian. Prov. 28:13, etc. When was the last time we examined our own posts?

5. No Christian has perfect theology. While there are particular things we know with certainty, we do not always express them adequately for "everyone's" comprehension (this is where links and quoting several different theologians is often helpful ..). In addition, there are certain elements in particular doctrines - church gov't, eschatology, etc. - that are not 100% clear in Scripture and thus we need to leave room .... There is a time to be dogmatic and a time not to be, or else we sin .... 1 John 1:8-10, etc.

6. When we discover another in error, we should state and re-state arguments using various verses as one never knows when the Holy Spirit and how the Spirit (he uses secondary causes, etc.) to open ones ears to hear said truth (2 Tim. 2:24-26, etc.). Our goal is not necessarily to win an argument (Scripture when properly interpreted already does this), but to win others to Christ's truth - the final argument!, etc. Do you post to win, or because you have already be won? Does this come out in our posts?

7. Pray thru our posts (1 Thess. 5:17); before, during, after - edit as necessary. Got prayer, or even better, does prayer have you?

8. Do not belittle others that are our brothers and sisters with such things as "name calling." Names can be properly used for descriptive purposes, but also for attacking ones .... be cautious. While commenting on others views we need biblically firm, but respectful. Prov. 17:15; Isaiah 5:20, Amos 5:7, etc. What is your favorite name, phrase, etc. ... why do you use it?

9. Though much may be added to this list, remember, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." What is essential, what does false doctrine entail? What are the non- essentials where we may have room for disagreement? How may we charitably interact? When is it time to just walk away from a topic?

10. What can we each add to this list to improve our posts, defend the truth, and further defend against false doctrine and teachers?

May God continually help me understand what I have written more fully and assist me to employ it more and more as I see the day approaching.

 

[JM]

Doc, I did my best to include much of what you posted in the original post. I even included Gill for a difference of theological opinion. The quotes were full quotes, no selective quoting going on.

(Emphasis added.)

Romans 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you. 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. 19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. 20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary: v18 These false teachers are not obedient to our Lord Jesus Christ. They obey their own appetites. And they are all too successful in hoodwinking the unsuspecting by their winsome and flattering speech. v19 Paul was glad that his readers’ obedience to the Lord was well known. But still he wanted them to be able to discern and obey good teaching and to be unresponsive to evil. v20 In this way, the God who is the source of peace would give them a swift victory over Satan.

Martin & Richards, The Book of Romans: the Smart Guide to the Bible:Paul had a good eye. He had worshiped Jesus so long that he had gained wisdom. As a church planter, he had the heart and gifts of a pastor and teacher. Beyond the obvious expression of love and appriceciation, Paul is rightly concerned for the believers’ protection from false teachers who introduce division and pollute biblical teaching on the grace of God.
The apostle never loses sight of the fact that believers are engaged in spiritual warfare. In other epistles, he gives instructions on how to prepare for battle. In Romans 16, Paul is simply sounding the alarm and reminding these servants to be on the alert, not to tolerate anything that pollutes the faith. Martin & Richards, The Book of Romans: the Smart Guide to the Bible

Gill’s Commentary:

The apostle being about to finish his epistle, and recollecting that he had not given this church any instructions about the false teachers, who had been the cause of all their differences and uneasiness, inserts them here; or he purposely put them in this place, amidst his salutations, that they might be taken the more notice of; and very pertinently, since nothing could more express his great affection and tender concern for them; and these instructions he delivers to them, not in an authoritative way, as he might, and sometimes did, but by way of entreaty, beseeching them, and with the kind and loving appellation of brethren, the more to engage them to attend to what he was about to say to them:

The men he would have taken notice of were such who divided them in their religious sentiments, introducing heterodox notions, contrary to the doctrine of the Scriptures, of Christ and his apostles, and which they had learned from them; such as justification by the works of the law, the observance of Jewish days, and abstinence from meats, enjoined by the ceremonial law, and that as necessary to salvation; to which some gave heed, and others not, and so were divided; whereas the doctrine of faith is but one, the Gospel is one uniform thing, all of a piece; and those that profess it ought to be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment: hence their minds were alienated from each other, and they began to despise and judge one another, yea, to go into factions and parties, being unwilling to receive and admit each other to communion; and thus by these men they were divided in sentiments, affection, and worship; and which must needs cause offence to the church and the godly members of it, as well as cause many so to be offended, as to stumble and fall from the doctrine of faith, and profession of it, and greatly stagger and distress weak believers, and bring a scandal on religion, and the name and ways of Christ among the world, as nothing does more so than the jars and discords among Christians: wherefore the apostle advises to "mark" such persons, look out for, narrowly watch, strictly observe, and diligently examine them: the metaphor is taken from watchmen, who look out from their watch tower, and observe who are coming, or pass by, and take up suspicious persons, and carefully inquire who they are, and what they are about, and whether friends or foes. So both ministers of the Gospel, and members of churches, should not be asleep, which is the opportunity false teachers take to sow the seeds of false doctrine, discord, and contention, but should watch, and be upon their guard, and look diligently, that none among them fail of, or fall from, the doctrine of grace, or any root of bitterness, error, or heresy as well as immorality, spring up, which may be troublesome, and defile others; they should observe, and take notice of such who are busy to spread false doctrine, should watch their motions, follow them closely, take them to an account, examine their principles according to the word of God; and if found to be contrary thereunto, note them as false teachers:

shun their ministry, drop attendance on it, depart far from them, have no private conversation with them, receive them not into their houses, nor bid them God speed; with such do not eat, have no communion with them at the Lord's table, withdraw from them as disorderly persons, who act contrary to the doctrine and order of the Gospel, and after proper admonition reject them from all fellowship with you.

Henry’s Commentary:

Those who burden the church with dividing and offending impositions, who uphold and enforce those impositions, who introduce and propagate dividing and offending notions, which are erroneous or justly suspected, who out of pride, ambition, affectation of novelty, or the like, causelessly separate from their brethren, and by perverse disputes, censures, and evil surmisings, alienate the affections of Christians one from another-these cause divisions and offences, contrary to, or different from (for that also is implied, it is para ten didachen ), the doctrine which we have learned. Whatever varies from the form of sound doctrine which we have in the scriptures opens a door to divisions and offences.

If truth be once deserted, unity and peace will not last long.

Now, mark those that thus cause divisions, skopein.

Observe them, the method they take, the end they drive at.

There is need of a piercing watchful eye to discern the danger we are in from such people; for commonly the pretences are plausible, when the projects are very pernicious. Do not look only at the divisions and offences, but run up those streams to the fountain, and mark those that cause them, and especially that in them which causes these divisions and offences, those lusts on each side whence come these wars and fightings. A danger discovered is half prevented. 2. To shun it: "Avoid them. Shun all necessary communion and communication with them, lest you be leavened and infected by them. Do not strike in with any dividing interests, nor embrace any of those principles or practices which are destructive to Christian love and charity, or to the truth which is according to godliness.—Their word will eat as doth a canker.’’ Some think he especially warns them to take heed of the judaizing teachers, who, under convert of the Christian name, kept up the Mosaical ceremonies, and preached the necessity of them, who were industrious in all places to draw disciples after them, and whom Paul in most of his epistles cautions the churches to take heed of.II. The reasons to enforce this caution.1. Because of the pernicious policy of these seducers, v. 18. The worse they are, the more need we have to watch against them.

Now observe his description of them, in two things:

(1.) The master they serve: not our Lord Jesus Christ. Though they call themselves Christians, they do not serve Christ; do not aim at his glory, promote his interest, nor do his will, whatever they pretend. How many are there who call Christ Master and Lord, that are far from serving him! But they serve their own belly —their carnal, sensual, secular interests. It is some base lust or other that they are pleasing; pride, ambition, covetousness, luxury, lasciviousness, these are the designs which they are really carrying on. Their God is their belly, Phil. 3:19 . What a base master do they serve, and how unworthy to come in competition with Christ, that serve their own bellies, that make gain their godliness, and the gratifying of a sensual appetite the very scope and business of their lives, to which all other purposes and designs must truckle and be made subservient.

(2.) The method they take to compass their design: By good words and fair speeches they deceive the hearts of the simple. Their words and speeches have a show of holiness and zeal for God (it is an easy thing to be godly from the teeth outward), and show of kindness and love to those into whom they instil their corrupt doctrines, accosting them courteously when they intend them the greatest mischief. Thus by good words and fair speeches the serpent beguiled Eve. Observe, They corrupt their heads by deceiving their hearts, pervert their judgments by slyly insinuating themselves into their affections. We have a great need therefore to keep our hearts with all diligence, especially when seducing spirits are abroad.

I pray they may be taken in the spirit given:

Of course.

Just because someone posts something we may disagree with does not make that someone a false teacher. Perhaps they are simply in error. Maybe we are? Maybe both are. Even Peter was wrong on more than one occasion (denied Christ; rebuked by Paul). 1 Thess. 5:11, etc. Peter confessed his sin, will we?

Agreed. I stated the same in post 11.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7747696-2/#post63130851

A few rules to add or that will expand on what you posted. Not directed at anyone in particular other than me:

1. If godly, biblical teachers declare some doctrinal position as false, you should consider their guidance on the issue. It is prideful to disregard the able ministers God has supplied the church.

2. If someone willingly promotes division by seeking to discuss fringe doctrine, non-essential doctrine, you should keep this mind before responding.

3. Not everyone who corrects you on the internet is a sound biblical teacher. You should seek fellowship with a local assembly of believers and be willing to accept the correction of your Elders, of your brothers and sisters in Christ. This happened to me recently. A kind fella started sending me private messages telling me how much we had in common doctrinally. This continued for a month or so. He was kind, extremely humble in his PM's but I found he was promoting the homosexual agenda on CF. He corrected me in PM's, always every humble, but direct. He even told me we were kindred souls, brothers, etc. Not everyone who corrects you is a sound biblical teacher.

(Doc is a sound teacher. I've seen his website.)

4. Humbly teaching false doctrine does not mean you are a true Christian. Not everyone who is cranky and impatient (like me) is an unbeliever.

5. Everyone believes they are correct or orthodox about what they believe to some extent.

6. We should be patient with those who are learning and find themselves in error. If wilful ignorance accompanied by pride persist it is best to avoid arguing over the issue.

7. Keep in mind this is a discussion forum. Not everyone has time to write theological dissertations, produce posts with multiple edits and spell checks. Most posters have a more conversational style which can easily be misunderstood. You may find yourself in the middle of a lengthily or on going forum wide conversation that you are not aware of.

8. Language is a tricky thing. Linguistic devices (dramatic language; emotive language; imperatives; alliteration; rhetoric; colloquialisms) used in conversation can be misunderstood due to many factors. Example: I tend to be very sarcastic and the sarcasm I employ that is normally excepted in conversation may not have the same effect online.

9. Being charitable does not mean we should be pragmatic or sacrifice doctrine for peace.

10. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." You shouldn't engage in endless debate. If someone digs into a theological position you must be willing to recognize the discussion is over.

I hope this contributes something to the thread.

jm

 

[JM]

The intentions of the person of whom you defend, when you examine the evidence in this entire forum it is my and many others' considered opinion that they are far from admirable. Instead it seems to us that these intentions are to call attention to oneself and to sow discord by posting content that is clearly to engender strife, discord, and divisiveness among those that are members of these particular faith-based forums. Anyone who has a discerning mind can see this if they will admit it to themselves. Rather than continue to feed this behavior why not call it what it is and brook no countenance in these actions?

Moderators are few and overworked here at CF. I know because I used to be one. Members should take it upon themselves to police their own faith-based forums as much as possible by reminding others of the purposes of our particular safe havens and steering those that want to obliquely debate our standards of faith to the proper forums within CF where all manner of discussion is possible and properly allowed. The most effective method members can employ with persons who disrupt the peace of our forums is to ignore there posts versus engaging them at every turn. This is especially true for persons who start many threads with pointers to this or that and tersely worded posts a la "What do you think about this?", "I like this, how about you?", and so on.

If we wanted the sort of behavior we have been experiencing of late we would be partaking in those discussion forums or sites where such is the norm. It is not the norm herein and those are the plain facts of the matter.

Anyone here who feels compelled to push the boundaries on the fundamentals of our faith should not expect to find a very welcoming environment. Our safe-haven faith-based forums are not some theological proving ground for all manner of pet theories or views. Now this may come across as some sort of fundamentalist fanaticism, but I do engage the Scriptures daily, and I am daily changed by them. I also remain convinced of the wisdom of the forefathers that came before us when I read what they have written and compare their writings to Scripture. Sadly, it seems not a month or two goes by that someone somewhere decides they have a new view, new perspective, or new interpretation related to the fundamentals of our faith we hold dear; despite these fundamentals having withstood the test of time and painful examination for many, many, hundreds of years.

Thus we should become very concerned about discussions that start to challenge these fundamentals. For those who see themselves as theological sophisticates, I would submit that these persons seek a more pastoral approach, rather than trying to be innovative. I recognize that within theological circles it seems that only if one is radical or a trail-blazer that they garner attention. But the constant plowing up of new ground is not what I see as the task of discussions of our views. Indeed, I am very content to step back, ponder, and be satisfied to walk in the same steps of those who have come before me--those who have mapped out the road ahead such that we may avoid tripping over the rocks along the well-worn path. In fact, being more willing to do so is what is needed today, versus demonstrations to others how wonderful one's insightful exegesis, logic, "what do you think about this or that", or sophisticated reasoning may be.

I don't mean to be harsh, and my words may come across that way to some. It is not my intention. The reason this forum and others like it were created to provide an escape from the hoi polloi who would intentionally or unintentionally seek to undermine our views and disturb our peace.

The persons at the root of this discussion is known at other sites for his propensity to just start numerous threads with pointers to questionable content, all in the guise of "just wondering" or "I like this, how about you" and so forth. His general tactic is to sit back and watch the ensuing fray for those who take the bait and feed his behavior. Or, when he "engages" it is superficially mounted with terse "Why?", "How do you see this?", "Can you explain?" and so on just to keep the pot headed towards a full boil. I would respectfully suggest not doing so and perhaps these sort of persons will eventually move on to other venues or will consider their odd behavior and comport themselves appropriately.

I agree with him.

I'm often misunderstood. I do not wish to cause trouble but to promote good, sound, biblical doctrine. When I see confessionally Reformed doctrine attacked I do my best to defend it, when the flock is being nipped at I try to respond, it doesn't always come out the right way. I am charitable but making my posts sound charitable is another story.

It is admirable to give someone the benefit of the doubt until the facts in evidence clearly declare otherwise. We have done that. But when others take advanatge of our long-suffering patience, the time comes to speak out.

I think this is important.

jm

 

[gord44]

...

 

[twin1954]

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
(1Ti 6:20-21)

 

[drjean]

What if it is the minister and those who have blindly followed him that have left the essentials of faith and pointing fingers at those who wish to correct it but are being called dissenters?

 

[AMR]

What if it is the minister and those who have blindly followed him that have left the essentials of faith and pointing fingers at those who wish to correct it but are being called dissenters?

It is not schism when those[FONT=&quot] choose to separate from a "church" which effectively repudiated the teaching of the gospel. Such a "church" is not a true church. Do not concede the name of Church to such persons, despite the fact that a corrupt "church" may have true churches within it.
[/FONT]

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

What if it is the minister and those who have blindly followed him that have left the essentials of faith and pointing fingers at those who wish to correct it but are being called dissenters?

For there must be heresies euen among you, that they which are approoued among you, might be knowen.

I Cor 11:19 (1599 Geneva Bible):

 

[JM]

I Cor 11:19 (1599 Geneva Bible):

The note from the Geneva Bible reads:

Although schisms and heresies proceed from the devil, and are evil, yet they come not by chance, nor without cause, and they turn to the profit of the elect.
​

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

The note from the Geneva Bible reads:

Although schisms and heresies proceed from the devil, and are evil, yet they come not by chance, nor without cause, and they turn to the profit of the elect.
​

i don't want to seem flip about the matter, but i didn't quite get your point.

i was replying to the senerio that drjean had asked about.

The text does clearly indicate that God's purpose in schism is that the truth and the one's clinging to truth be revealed.

i believe that AMR said something to the same effect above.

i have no problem with the Geneva Bible note, and it does seem to answer drjean's question...thank you for that input. But one must clarify whether the orthodox believer leaving is the cause of the schism, or the effect.

 

[JM]

i don't want to seem flip about the matter, but i didn't quite get your point.

Ok.

i have no problem with the Geneva Bible note, and it does seem to answer drjean's question...thank you for that input. But one must clarify whether the orthodox believer leaving is the cause of the schism, or the effect.

If you have no problem with the note and it seemed to answer the question...?