When truth matters.

[tango]

Why don't you believe that any one 'denomination' is correct on all matters?

Because if any one denomination were correct on all matters it should be fairly straightforward to demonstrate why they are right and others are wrong with simple appeals to Scripture.

Seems to me from what I've seen in debated about synergy in salvation that some monergists regard synergists as non-christians. Clearly some in this form give every indication of regarding Catholic teaching as wicked and satanic and even blasphemous so that seems like more than a secondary issue. And debates about baptism of infants often ends with mutual anathemas. So I can't help but think that characterising the differences between various denominations, groups, and churches as "secondary" really misses the mark.

I think part of the problem is that issues that should be secondary end up elevated to being perceived as being of critical importance. To take a simple example I don't honestly see drinking alcohol as a big issue. I drink in moderation - sometimes I'll drink a beer or two most nights of a week and other times I'll go a fortnight without having any at all. If others choose not to drink I don't have an issue with that. I don't see how people can conclude that Scripture forbids drinking so wouldn't agree with a statement of faith that requires me to abstain from drinking, nor would I join a church that required me to abstain from drinking because I see no reason to do so. If the issue of alcohol was the only thing that divided me from another I wouldn't become a member of their church and wouldn't agree with their stance but wouldn't see any reason not to regard them as a brother or sister in Christ.

On the other hand the "can't we all just get along" appeals seem to try and overcome issues that potentially run much deeper. I have a friend who is a minister of a church, and I have a lot of respect for him as an individual but also have grave concerns about some of the teachings that are tolerated within his church. He and I have talked at great length, and I've made it very clear that I think some of the teachers who are highly regarded within the church are building the kingdom of the antichrist while acting as if they are building the kingdom of Christ. That's not something that can be brushed aside with "can't we just all get along" - I can't see how that falls anywhere else than under what Paul talked of "what does Christ have in common with Belial?".

In my post you quoted I listed alcohol as a secondary issue, and believe it to be a secondary issue. Where theological disagreements are more fundamental it may well be far more than a secondary issue, like the example I gave in the previous paragraph. Honestly, where two come together and consider the differences to be of such fundamental importance that they can't consider each other to be brothers and sisters in Christ, it makes sense to me to go back to Scripture to seek the truth. At that point I'd ignore church tradition, I'd ignore national tradition, I'd ignore all human traditions, I'd go back to what Scripture teaches with a view to finding truth. In that sort of situation I'd rather see the truth and realise I was wrong then hide the truth, bludgeon someone else into accepting I was right, and end up with both of us led away from the truth. I realise sometimes, especially in online settings, it appears the the Ultimate Goal is to Win At All Costs, where "Win" means to defeat your opponent so they either agree with you or merely get worn down through endless attrition. But if we can't go back to Scripture to seek the truth there's little point having theological discussions at all.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Because if any one denomination were correct on all matters it should be fairly straightforward to demonstrate why they are right and others are wrong with simple appeals to Scripture.

Aren't you question begging by assuming that it is appeals to holy scripture that will decide the issue? Isn't that one of the matters to be decided?

I think part of the problem is that issues that should be secondary end up elevated to being perceived as being of critical importance. To take a simple example I don't honestly see drinking alcohol as a big issue. I drink in moderation - sometimes I'll drink a beer or two most nights of a week and other times I'll go a fortnight without having any at all. If others choose not to drink I don't have an issue with that. I don't see how people can conclude that Scripture forbids drinking so wouldn't agree with a statement of faith that requires me to abstain from drinking, nor would I join a church that required me to abstain from drinking because I see no reason to do so. If the issue of alcohol was the only thing that divided me from another I wouldn't become a member of their church and wouldn't agree with their stance but wouldn't see any reason not to regard them as a brother or sister in Christ.

On the other hand the "can't we all just get along" appeals seem to try and overcome issues that potentially run much deeper. I have a friend who is a minister of a church, and I have a lot of respect for him as an individual but also have grave concerns about some of the teachings that are tolerated within his church. He and I have talked at great length, and I've made it very clear that I think some of the teachers who are highly regarded within the church are building the kingdom of the antichrist while acting as if they are building the kingdom of Christ. That's not something that can be brushed aside with "can't we just all get along" - I can't see how that falls anywhere else than under what Paul talked of "what does Christ have in common with Belial?".

In my post you quoted I listed alcohol as a secondary issue, and believe it to be a secondary issue. Where theological disagreements are more fundamental it may well be far more than a secondary issue, like the example I gave in the previous paragraph. Honestly, where two come together and consider the differences to be of such fundamental importance that they can't consider each other to be brothers and sisters in Christ, it makes sense to me to go back to Scripture to seek the truth. At that point I'd ignore church tradition, I'd ignore national tradition, I'd ignore all human traditions, I'd go back to what Scripture teaches with a view to finding truth. In that sort of situation I'd rather see the truth and realise I was wrong then hide the truth, bludgeon someone else into accepting I was right, and end up with both of us led away from the truth. I realise sometimes, especially in online settings, it appears the the Ultimate Goal is to Win At All Costs, where "Win" means to defeat your opponent so they either agree with you or merely get worn down through endless attrition. But if we can't go back to Scripture to seek the truth there's little point having theological discussions at all.