that they may be one

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Where we likely disagree is on what is non-essential.
I agree that it is critical to decide that question if we would aspire to have clear bearings, but I was mainly floating the general issue when I wrote my post above. I would suggest, therefore, without forgetting your point, that anyone interested in the main issue contemplate the whole thing in principle, including the reference to non-essentials, before setting out to define what is an essential.

If we don't agree with the proposition itself, it won't be necessary to delve into all the doctrines and beliefs that should be considered essential and the other ones that would, therefore, be non-essential.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Yes, to a certain degree thats true, however, we're not saved by how well we always respond to given situations, that would be works/self-righteousness, and many of us have failed in situations many times, and probably will again.
That doesnt mean we werent saved then, or arent now.
If someone is fruit-inspecting, or wanting to SEE something (sort of like in JAMES faith/works treatise, a popularly misused letter) then they might see a poor reaction (in their opinion) and want to judge the person as unsaved, but perhaps the REAL test there would be how to treat the person.....do we ostracize, ignore, cast aside, ex-communicate .....or do we seek to restore the person in humility, knowing we might not be so 'strong-in-the-faith' ourselves in a certain situation?

Until you really know a person...what led up to the position theyre in now, you cant really judge their reaction in a situation and call them unsaved.

The better gauge is when the bible says we shall know them (wolves) by their fruit, it's the fruit of doctrine (especially when writing/speaking is all there is to go on).
Are they trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ alone for salvation, and encouraging others to do the same?
Or is there some sort of religion, ceremony, law-keeping, works, ritual, etc, in practice or in doctrine, creeping in and pulling them from the liberty they once had (or could have) in Christ?

Theyre described as being DISGUISED as messengers of light ... Whats their message... Salvation by grace thru faith in Christ alone?
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved?

Or is it, hmmmm not REALLY...You must obey this, confess that, perform this, stop that, start the other, etc?

And in sheeps clothing...
They look like sheep, they behave like sheep, theyre docile, theyre nice, they talk nicely, they dont fight, always get along (ahhh, but depending who you are, because they despise grace and the message of it)

They dont want you set free in Christ, mainly because they dont enter in themselves, thru Christ alone, or have been told you cant, thats not good enough, so they pass that message on to you, but they just seek who they may devour, and constantly cast judgement, preach fear, and point fingers at your behavior, as if theirs is ever so holy and righteous. Watch out, they'll seek to cast you out, not invite you in. If they pretend to, it will be on THEIR terms and standards, and theyll keep you guessing so you never know where you stand, or if this day, or that 'behavior' or just on their own whim, will be when the hammer falls.

They SEEM like sheep, they have a DISGUISED message, but a denial of the gospel and all that comes with it ... Grace, mercy, love, joy, forgiveness, fellowship, goodwill, not finger-pointing, judgement, condemnation and ex-communication.
Those are telltale signs, not necessarily a mighty response in trial.

But yes, its good for us to grow in grace, and the knowledge of Jesus, and if we notice a brother straying, not staying in the liberty of Christ, we should help him, encourage him with the love and grace and salvation of God, or if their struggling with some besetting thing, we should help them, making sure we're not judging them, bc we all have our own weaknesses and temptations that can harm us if we're not careful. So doing good as God lays out for us is right.

But thats more of a personal thing between a believer and God that comes thru sanctification, it's not the determiner of being justified freely by His grace.

Having that, (having Jesus) and our faith in that as our unity, moreso than our response to trial under fire, (but not purposefully having either one to the exclusion of the other) is ideal to aim for.

Sound doctrine and grace do compliment each other, but its sound doctrine, who and what we believe, that saves and unifies us in an eternal sense, not our responses to certain situations, good or bad.
(Btw, I know that you know that salvation is the gift of God and not based on our performance, but not everyone seems to believe that, and I was just making the distinction here, in the hopes of encouraging unity.) Let whosoever will take and drink of the water of life ... freely.
Believe in Jesus and be saved.
What greater love, what greater unity, than unity in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?
Snerf, you may have written good stuff, but I only have time for a couple paragraphs. It's just the way it is for me. If you wish to summarize or bullet point it works for me, but I won't read long posts. Just being honest.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
I agree that it is critical to decide that question if we would aspire to have clear bearings, but I was mainly floating the general issue when I wrote my post above. I would suggest, therefore, without forgetting your point, that anyone interested in the main issue contemplate the whole thing in principle, including the reference to non-essentials, before setting out to define what is an essential.

If we don't agree with the proposition itself, it won't be necessary to delve into all the doctrines and beliefs that should be considered essential and the other ones that would, therefore, be non-essential.
Huh, what!?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Snerf, you may have written good stuff, but I only have time for a couple paragraphs. It's just the way it is for me. If you wish to summarize or bullet point it works for me, but I won't read long posts. Just being honest.

Let's be honest. If you won't take the time to read and consider what other people share, that's YOUR choice and not the fault of any poster. IF you don't care what other people share, it's probably best to just not read it rather than rebuking them for your lack of interest and consideration. Just being honest.

Oh. And if you don't care what other people post, unwilling to take the time to even read it, don't be shocked if they assume the same attitude toward you. Just saying.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Let's be honest. If you won't take the time to read and consider what other people share, that's YOUR choice and not the fault of any poster. IF you don't care what other people share, it's probably best to just not read it rather than rebuking them for your lack of interest and consideration. Just being honest.

Oh. And if you don't care what other people post, unwilling to take the time to even read it, don't be shocked if they assume the same attitude toward you. Just saying.
Sure it's my choice. I'm just giving notice so you know and can't blame me when I don't respond to the extemporaneous stuff I don't care about.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Huh, what!?

I agreed with you about there being essentials and also non-essentials. Before deciding which belief goes into each category, it would help to know if the idea is accepted that non-essentials ought not prevent believers of different denominations from considering and treating each other as being of one accord.
 

Imalive

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
2,315
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Sure it's my choice. I'm just giving notice so you know and can't blame me when I don't respond to the extemporaneous stuff I don't care about.

You did read all my links w dozens of pages yesterday didn't you, when you asked if there was antisemitism in Holland. I was busy for an hour looking it all up, as if you needed to know the whole history of 400 years ago LOL.
Then I thought: what am I doing? It reminded me of when someone asks a Dutch person they barely know how they're doing and get an hours long explanation of how exactly they have been doing the last year and the whole family.

Btw Lamm, it's fabulous that you read that link w 350 pages. That was the biggest post. I win.
 
Last edited:

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Sure it's my choice. I'm just giving notice so you know and can't blame me when I don't respond to the extemporaneous stuff I don't care about.

Its ok, and I absolutely appreciate you even saying that, its more than I get most times even all put together, unless its just another dart or insult thrown my way, then back to being ignored.

I gave up expecting anyone to actually dialogue with me, but there may be someone somewhere out there that appreciates something I have to say, especially trying to get the gospel out, and if they get saved or even consider it as a result it will be worth it.

I could keep it short, but if theres no genuine conversation I guess there isnt much of a point anyway. God bless you and thx at least for the reply.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
I agreed with you about there being essentials and also non-essentials. Before deciding which belief goes into each category, it would help to know if the idea is accepted that non-essentials ought not prevent believers of different denominations from considering and treating each other as being of one accord.
Huh, what!?
Here's my interpretation:
Can we agree that a non-essential doesn't break fellowship?

The answer to that question is: Yes, we can agree.

What is non-essential becomes an important consideration. I have no desire to share pearls with swine.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I could keep it short, but if theres no genuine conversation I guess there isnt much of a point anyway.


Very true.....


The length of a post probably doesn't mean much if there's no interest in its content. MY only point is not to rebuke the poster for the READERS lack of interest and consideration.

THAT said, I do acknowledge that we live in a world where attention spans have shrunk to microscopic levels, a world of the one-liners (because people's attention spans often won't permit two lines). But sometimes truth can't be boiled down to a 5 second commercial (It took God 66 books).

I may not always respond to what you post, Snerfle, but when I post in a thread I usually care about the topic and generally do read what all post in it - although I may find no cause to post a specific reply. I am thankful to those who take the time to share with us. And I acknowledge posters have various styles of posting, which is usually perfectly okay.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Huh, what!?
Here's my interpretation:
Can we agree that a non-essential doesn't break fellowship?

The answer to that question is: Yes, we can agree.

What is non-essential becomes an important consideration. I have no desire to share pearls with swine.
To share your ideas on what is an essential or not an essential is something for you to decide. However, the topic of this thread is not "What's a non-essential doctrine?" It instead is "that they may be one."
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
To share your ideas on what is an essential or not an essential is a decision for you to make. However, the topic of this thread is not "What's a non-essential doctrine?" It instead is "that they may all be one."
"They" is referring to the elect, not to the damned. The elect will not be one with those who are perishing. The elect can only preach reconciliation to the perishing and hope that God gives them ears to hear.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
They is referring to the elect, not to the damned. The elect will not be one with those who are perishing. The elect can only preach reconciliation to the perishing and hope that God gives them ears to hear.

Does that mean that you still don't understand what I was saying, or just that you don't understand what the topic here is?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Does that mean that you still don't understand what I was saying, or just that you don't understand what the topic here is?
I'd have to say that you are speaking in a foreign tongue. Is Imalive or Hoffman around to translate?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Albion, would you care to talk about John 17 and Jesus prayer that the elect might be one?
 

hedrick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
683
Age
75
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
On the one hand, it probably would be good if all 2.2 billion Christians all totally agreed with ME on absolutely everything so that we're all eating one dish called "Right." But I'm not sure it's tragic and unforgiveable that Christianity has a bit in common with Restaurant Row - there's some value there. We just need to end the food fights. And the humility to admit that we came up with the recipes, we developed our menu.
I'm fine with churches that have different styles of worship, and while it's not ideal, I accept that theology is going to differ as well. But as long as disagreements prevent us from gathering together at the Lord's table, I think we've got a problem.

Unfortunately that's nearly an intractable problem. I've been part of these discussions for my whole life, and not much has changed. There are beliefs that I don't think are essential that seem important enough to people that they're unwilling to accept those who disagree at the table. Those barriers haven't changed as long as I've been alive (68 years now), and I don't see much sign that they're changing. Everyone agrees that we should be one, and that inessential differences shouldn't separate us, but there's no sign of anyone changing their ideas of what is essential. Disputes over sexuality have actually made the situation worse than it was a few decades ago, since traditional sexual ethics seems always to be considered essential by those who hold them.

The main exception is the mainline churches, which are slowly moving in the direction of full communion with each other. Catholics are also involved in those discussions, but they've got a barrier in their ecclesiology that I don't see changing in the foreseeable future.
 

popsthebuilder

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
1,850
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Single
John 17:20-24
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

What do you think that Jesus meant "that all of them may be one". verse 21.

How are we as a church doing that now?
Limbs of the Vine.

Digits of the Hand.

Organs of the Body.

Blessed life as a whole is a unit.

When it is united by the teachings and example and Spirit of GOD through Christ, then we will witness things beyond our scope of imagination.

Surely this is the will of GOD though we all no the end is close. Would GOD not repent from the destruction of the masses and the Earth as a whole, HIS creation, if we did indeed come into harmonious accord by HIS will?

May the will of GOD be done through HIS means, will, and time, and our abiding by such for the sake of All.

peace

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom