What would you do for unity?

[W2L]

But so many people believe different things that THEY think are true, and they are not willing to give those things up. For instance, you are Sola Scriptura, so things like the Eucharist actually being the Body and Blood of Christ SHOULD be okay with you, but I'm sure you think I'm smoking something, right? Scripture is not the only Word from God! Jesus said and did a lot of things that are not written down IN THE BIBLE. Therefore, some of the things that I believe are part of God's word.

It seems that unity is a futile endeavor.

 

[Monk Brendan]

NO™

I am sorry about this, but you cannot register NO as a trademark. There is no regulatory system in the world that would allow you to register that. And seeing as how NO is not intellectual property, you can't trademark it.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Would you be willing to give up any divisive theology, for the sake of unity?

Unity is forged out of the whole church maturing spiritually by trusting God and then Trusting God and then Trusting God like breathing. If the body of Christ becomes spiritually mature enough then that self same spirit will allow us to come together just like the 12 disciples did with Jesus amidst all of our explosive social and theological contradictions.
.
As Paul taught, divisions such as I am of this teacher or that school are an example of carnal thinking. The fruit speaks for itself, maturity is the way.

 

[chevyontheriver]

LOL!

Now this is perhaps one o' those "sticklers" in question, yes?

Yup. If we all correctly understood Scripture we undoubtedly would be much less fractured. But we think we understand Scripture better than everyone else. So we say we follow Scripture alone and say the other guys obviously don't or they would agree with us. Sola Scriptura becomes the way we justify our disagreements.

For the record, I can't find Sola Scriptura actually in Scripture. It was an invention by Luther to justify his rebellion, not a doctrine of the Church from 1500 years earlier. I don't see it working either, except to fragment us. Luther was all for Sola Scriptura as long as everybody agreed with him. But when the peasants had their own views, he didn't approve.

More for the record. I think unity without correct doctrine is worthless, or even of negative worth. The only unity worth anything is unity in truth, or at least unity in the direction of truth. I hold out a tiny hope of that between evangelicals and Catholics even while I wonder if I'm deluding myself that it could ever happen.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Duplicate

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yup. If we all correctly understood Scripture we undoubtedly would be much less fractured. But we think we understand Scripture better than everyone else. So we say we follow Scripture alone and say the other guys obviously don't or they would agree with us. Sola Scriptura becomes the way we justify our disagreements.

For the record, I can't find Sola Scriptura actually in Scripture. It was an invention by Luther to justify his rebellion, not a doctrine of the Church from 1500 years earlier. I don't see it working either, except to fragment us. Luther was all for Sola Scriptura as long as everybody agreed with him. But when the peasants had their own views, he didn't approve.

More for the record. I think unity without correct doctrine is worthless, or even of negative worth. The only unity worth anything is unity in truth, or at least unity in the direction of truth. I hold out a tiny hope of that between evangelicals and Catholics even while I wonder if I'm deluding myself that it could ever happen.

Blessed are the peacemakers, the children of God. Making peace is hard, compromising does not result in peace, it just delays further conflict.

 

[Monk Brendan]

It seems that unity is a futile endeavor.

There you miss my point. In my years on the earth, I have had friends and acquaintances of all different faiths--Jews, Jains, Sikhs, Muslims, a couple of pagans, a witch, and more non-Catholic Christians than you can shake a stick at. But that did not stop us from respecting and understanding each other. We were able to sit down at a meal, eat, and walk away afterword, after having an honest discussion about faith--theirs and mine. I walked away enriched, as I could understand that person more. They walked away enriched because they had heard me talk about Jesus.

And if any of my friends get to heaven, I will smile and praise God.

 

[brinny]

Yup. If we all correctly understood Scripture we undoubtedly would be much less fractured. But we think we understand Scripture better than everyone else. So we say we follow Scripture alone and say the other guys obviously don't or they would agree with us. Sola Scriptura becomes the way we justify our disagreements.

For the record, I can't find Sola Scriptura actually in Scripture. It was an invention by Luther to justify his rebellion, not a doctrine of the Church from 1500 years earlier. I don't see it working either, except to fragment us. Luther was all for Sola Scriptura as long as everybody agreed with him. But when the peasants had their own views, he didn't approve.

More for the record. I think unity without correct doctrine is worthless, or even of negative worth. The only unity worth anything is unity in truth, or at least unity in the direction of truth. I hold out a tiny hope of that between evangelicals and Catholics even while I wonder if I'm deluding myself that it could ever happen.

And where does that TRUTH come from, my friend? It comes from God's Word, which is the very thing that Christ Himself quoted, and as it is written, Christ Himself said that HE is:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." ~John 14:6

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes it can, one only need to read history of the Reformation, history of the uniting creeds and confessions (The Three Forms of Unity is a collective name for the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Heidelberg Catechism for example) to get a much clearer picture of unity among Protestants. Church unity was by far greater during the Reformation period than today. But I already hear the protest, creeds and confessions are not Scripture. True, but as secondary guides (of lesser authority), they serve to safeguard against human errors (among other things) in the quest of applying Sola Scriptura. It is of utmost importance to understand exactly what is meant by Sola Scriptura. I humbly refer to an article written by a far more capable theologian than myself: What Does Sola Scriptura Mean?

 

[W2L]

Unity is forged out of the whole church maturing spiritually by trusting God and then Trusting God and then Trusting God like breathing. If the body of Christ becomes spiritually mature enough then that self same spirit will allow us to come together just like the 12 disciples did with Jesus amidst all of our explosive social and theological contradictions.
.
As Paul taught, divisions such as I am of this teacher or that school are an example of carnal thinking. The fruit speaks for itself, maturity is the way.

What about the different views between these mature believers? Do they simply learn to respect each others differences?

If that's the case then they themselves admit that these things don't matter, and can free themselves from its bondage.

 

[W2L]

compromising does not result in peace, it just delays further conflict.

exactly. thats why we must free ourselves from the bondage of divisive theology. We must look at our religion and ask ourselves if these things which divide us are actually necessary. If not then we should rid ourselves of that theology.

 

[brinny]

exactly. thats why we must free ourselves from the bondage of divisive theology. We must look at our religion and ask ourselves if these things which divide us are actually necessary. If not then we should rid ourselves of that theology.

What is divisive theology?

 

[W2L]

There you miss my point. In my years on the earth, I have had friends and acquaintances of all different faiths--Jews, Jains, Sikhs, Muslims, a couple of pagans, a witch, and more non-Catholic Christians than you can shake a stick at. But that did not stop us from respecting and understanding each other. We were able to sit down at a meal, eat, and walk away afterword, after having an honest discussion about faith--theirs and mine. I walked away enriched, as I could understand that person more. They walked away enriched because they had heard me talk about Jesus.

And if any of my friends get to heaven, I will smile and praise God.

Im referring to division between believers, not believers and unbelievers. Do you respect the differences between you and other christians? If so then you agree that those differences dont matter, and you can stop debating them and living by them. If you sacrificed part of your theology in that way, the part you say doesn't matter, then you have walked in love, truth, and peace, in my opinion. You are left with a more pure religion.

 

[W2L]

What is divisive theology?

Look at the difference between catholic and protestant. Surely this is the result of divisive theology. IMO.

 

[brinny]

Look at the difference between catholic and protestant. Surely this is the result of divisive theology. IMO.

Well yes, and what are you suggesting re: "unity", amigo?

 

[W2L]

Well yes, and what are you suggesting re: "unity", amigo?

Unity in belief, not just word.

 

[brinny]

Unity in belief, not just word.

That's kinda' vague, amigo.

On a side note, are you sure you wanna go there?

(((hug)))

 

[W2L]

That's kinda' vague, amigo.

On a side note, are you sure you wanna go there?

(((hug)))

That's kinda' vague, amigo.

I mean that we (protestants and catholics) should all agree on one set of rules instead of two.

On a side note, are you sure you wanna go there?

I respect your opinion, is there a reason for your concern?

 

[brinny]

I mean that we (protestants and catholics) should all agree on one set of rules instead of two.



I respect your opinion, is there a reason for your concern?

i dunno.....a volcano-like eruption?

LOL!

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes it can, one only need to read history of the Reformation, history of the uniting creeds and confessions (The Three Forms of Unity is a collective name for the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Heidelberg Catechism for example) to get a much clearer picture of unity among Protestants. Church unity was by far greater during the Reformation period than today. But I already hear the protest, creeds and confessions are not Scripture. True, but as secondary guides (of lesser authority), they serve to safeguard against human errors (among other things) in the quest of applying Sola Scriptura. It is of utmost importance to understand exactly what is meant by Sola Scriptura. I humbly refer to an article written by a far more capable theologian than myself: What Does Sola Scriptura Mean?

Thank you for the reference link.

I noticed you mentioned that Protestants were more united before than they are now. Something IS broken now. But even then the Calvinists and the Lutherans and the followers of Menno and Henry and whoever else didn't get along. One almost has to view there being multiple independent reformations including a Catholic reformation. Multiple distinct traditions, as that is what it really is.

One could, I suppose, say our differences are all due to our various competing man-made traditions. Traditions that claim mostly to be Bible alone but disagree nonetheless. Your references to those three confessions I see as a tradition that perhaps stabilized the Reformed reformation for a while. Huh. No reference to the Westminster Confession? Anyways, I see tradition as a necessary, unavoidable, sometimes correct adjunct to Scripture. It comes down to the particulars of the tradition and who originated it. But to say one has no tradition is to be solidly in the tradition of denying one has a tradition, with all of the traditional baggage that entails. You seem at least to lay claim to actually having a tradition. Not mine but one that provides definition to your beliefs.