What's Interesting

[journeyman]

From another thread, I started thinking about what's interesting. I think what's interesting is how one believer believes another believer to be wrong. We should all speak the same thing, but we don't. Why is that?

[RabbiKnife]

Because we all selfishly investing in "our" view as the "right" view.

or

Because we all suffer from confirmation bias.

or

Because we all think that "rightly dividing the word of truth" means that a literary text was written that is completely different from every other literary text ever written to the degree that each letter has to be scrubbed and wrung dry of every potential inference, which we then call "doctrine."

or

Because we are all individuals, all priests and kings before God, all having unique and multi-faceted relationship with our Creator, who speaks to each of us individually

or

Because we reject the ideas of "community" and "corporate knowledge" in our quests for individual affirmation and identity.

Other than those guesses, no idea.

[Athanasius]

From another thread, I started thinking about what's interesting. I think what's interesting is how one believer believes another believer to be wrong. We should all speak the same thing, but we don't. Why is that?

Where have you gotten the idea that we should all speak the same thing?

[journeyman]

Where have you gotten the idea that we should all speak the same thing?

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 1Cor.1:10

[RabbiKnife]

Paul's focus is on actual "schismata" - divisions, and he smacks that issue pretty hard.  I think the "speaking the same things" has to be understood in that context.

"Speaking the same thing" relates to essentials, not to non-essentials, as Paul later demonstrates in Romans 14,etc.

Unity is not the same as uniformity.  There is a Scriptural call to unity, but not to uniformity.
 
Unfortunately, often we require "uniformity" on non-essential issues, while permitting disunity on the essentials.

[journeyman]

If you read 1Cor.1, Paul is teaching on believing the gospel, which is essential. Eating things sacrificed to idols as Rom.14 talks about is non-essential, except to a person who might be defiled by false belief.

The "gospel" includes everything Jesus said.

[Athanasius]

If you read 1Cor.1, Paul is teaching on believing the gospel, which is essential. Eating things sacrificed to idols as Rom.14 talks about is non-essential, except to a person who might be defiled by false belief.

The "gospel" includes everything Jesus said.

Okay, what essential items do you think believers are speaking differently on? Maybe it would be helpful if you had a few examples anyway, and then we can consider the reality, beyond the essentials (if we can agree on even those) that different people find different things compelling.

[RabbiKnife]

If you read 1Cor.1, Paul is teaching on believing the gospel, which is essential. Eating things sacrificed to idols as Rom.14 talks about is non-essential, except to a person who might be defiled by false belief.

The "gospel" includes everything Jesus said.

Not to be too picky, but the "gospel" does not include everything Jesus said.  For instance, Jesus said, "I thirst," but that's not an essential part of the Gospel.  Jesus said " that thou doest, do quickly," but that's not an instruction for all disciples to go out and hang ourselves.  Jesus said to "flee to the mountains when you see the city surrounded," but that doesn't mean we should all sell our houses and move to the mountains.  (Well, I must confess, I did sell and move from the city to the mountains, but it wasn't in response to the NT.) 

The gospel... the incarnation, the sinless life, the vicarious atoning death, the resurrection, the ascension... yes, these are essentials.  Not much else is.

[journeyman]

Not to be too picky, but the "gospel" does not include everything Jesus said.  For instance, Jesus said, "I thirst," but that's not an essential part of the Gospel.  Jesus said " that thou doest, do quickly," but that's not an instruction for all disciples to go out and hang ourselves.

Jesus never told anyone to hang themselves.

Jesus said to "flee to the mountains when you see the city surrounded," but that doesn't mean we should all sell our houses and move to the mountains.  (Well, I must confess, I did sell and move from the city to the mountains, but it wasn't in response to the NT.)

I think Jesus could have been reffering to Zech.14:5, where he turned the Mount of Olives into a plain by his teaching.

The gospel... the incarnation, the sinless life, the vicarious atoning death, the resurrection, the ascension... yes, these are essentials.  Not much else is.

And none of this wiuld have happened, unless Jesus practiced what he preached every day.

[Redeemed]

The gospel... the incarnation, the sinless life, the vicarious atoning death, the resurrection, the ascension... yes, these are essentials.  Not much else is.

I'd throw saved by grace, one true God ( the Trinity of course ) and love, love, love into it as well. But yeah, that's pretty much it.   

[Athanasius]

The doctrine of the Trinity is foundational to a proper understanding of God as He's revealed Himself to us. I think it's at the core of the Christian faith, and all sorts of issues can arise from a rejection of the doctrine -- but it is not an essential doctrine for salvation.

It wasn't essential for Noah, or Abraham, or anyone who came before Jesus.
It's not essential for those who express faith in Christ prior to hearing anything about the doctrine.
It's not essential for those who think they understand the doctrine and have no clue what it actually teaches.

I say this in disagreement with my own creed, so it's not something I've considered lightly.

What is essential is faith in Jesus and who He said He was. If we get that wrong, which is a risk when rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, then the question of salvation comes up.

[Redeemed]

As far as that goes I believe that someone can be called and saved without reading a word of Scriptures, hearing a hell and brimstone sermon etc etc.

The father can call us and the Holy Spirit can lead us to where and how He wants us.

I just thought that the context of the thread was agreeing on essentials between brothers and sisters who do read, study and discuss. If I was wrong my apologies. 

[Athanasius]

I just thought that the context of the thread was agreeing on essentials between brothers and sisters who do read, study and discuss. If I was wrong my apologies.

Yeah that's cool. Even here, I don't think the doctrine is necessarily salvific.

[Redeemed]

Well, doctrine doesn't save anyway. Faith and grace and that Jesus fella does. I just don't think that we, no matter how puffed up we can get, can ever say God can't or won't do anything He wants as far as calling and saving.
I mean, the very stars in the sky and beautiful sunrises etc testify. Someone in the deep of the rainforest could hear God's "voice" and be led.

Of course that's just my own personal way of thinking that I can't "prove."

   

[Athanasius]

Well, doctrine doesn't save anyway. Faith and grace and that Jesus fella does. I just don't think that we, no matter how puffed up we can get, can ever say God can't or won't do anything He wants as far as calling and saving.
I mean, the very stars in the sky and beautiful sunrises etc testify. Someone in the deep of the rainforest could hear God's "voice" and be led.

Of course that's just my own personal way of thinking that I can't "prove."

Yes, God can do whatever He wishes.

I agree, by the way. I'm in an odd situation myself: my only hope is Jesus. My doctrinal positions? Those somewhat condemn me -- for the moment. For most people, doctrine follows from faith. Understanding is important, but we need to be careful not to create a burden where Jesus offered none.