Unity and Uniformity 2

My school (in NZ) has prayers but its up to the teachers whether they make the time with their children.
Some teachers don't.
I would do it first thing if I was teaching, but as I'm librarian I don't have a group prayer. I just pray on the way to school. Depends on what issues come up. God knows I don't have the mandate to teach Bible in my job as I did when I was doing Bible in Schools.

I do provide the Bible in the library though and have several copies and all the stories. It's up to the children if they are curious to seek the Bible out. I have had several come up to me wanting to read the Bible so we do read together though at their age it is a huge book so we can only read a few stories.

At assemblies there is always prayer even our national anthem is a prayer.
I do notice some schools they won't sing or pray or do anything but it just depends on the school. I don't think the govt can dictate whether children/students pray or not but it's more that PARENTS not wanting it than the children.
 
Bibles in schools

You can look it up - we had volunteers from different denoms of churches all over. It was non-denominational.
The only thing that divided was that the catholic schools did not want Bibles in Schools in their schools. I guess because they wanted Bible taught in their own way.
 
Here's website that leads to the US organisation https://www.biblesinschools.org/
If you are concerned about public schools then volunteer or pray for your schools in your area. It's only when christians actively do something about it rather than complain about the lack of it that God will work in those children's lives.

I can attest that if Bibles in Schools never came to my school when I was growing up, I would not be here today on this forum. They planted a seed. Even when at the time I did not understand the Bible and never went to church.




MODERATOR'S CAUTION:
The link in this post goes to a website which sells goods or services or solicits donations. Members are advised to be wary of ANY such donation requests or sales and to research the group or individual making the request or sales and to PRAY before sending ANY donation or before purchasing any goods or services.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is an opportunity to explore such things as to what is consistent with Jesus' prayer to the Father.

In other words, when it comes to doctrinal differences, it seems that many gauge the line between acceptable differences and unacceptable differences at levels they simply cannot agree.

For example, I ran across a group that has a loose affiliation with others of the same basic name, but that claim to not be a denomination as a whole. That one particular group lays claim to believing that they are the only ones who will populate Heaven since all other groupings and individuals will not make it to Heaven who are outside the ranks of those who attend one of the organizations with which they are affiliated by name.

When I asked one of the Th.D's, who presides over one of the other of the affiliated groups in that same town, about that group, he rolled his eyes to the ceiling and said, in veiled exasperation, that he was aware of their sentiments along that line, but that he and his group didn't agree with that other group.

When I asked how closely they fellowship with that other group, he said they have very good relations, and that their differences aren't a big deal along the lines of the essentials.

Now, AS referenced Romans 14 in the above post, a chapter that addresses such things as one day in reference to another, eating meats, placing stumbling blocks before another on the basis of freedom and judging on that basis, but that doesn't get to the level of doctrinal belief of the magnitude I'm speaking about.

So, rather than for me to launch into a full blown dissertation in this one posting, what are everyone's thoughts so far in reference to this:

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].

You see, when I look at all the differences, and therefore the lack of unity among the various groupings with their buildings and creeds and teachings that differ from all others not affiliated under some "denominational name" or other identifier, and therefore having little to absolutely no common ties of fellowship, I'm left wondering why their leadership has allowed this all to go on for so long. If they were spiritual, then would they not sense how wrong this all is?

I once asked why all the various groupings are NOT unified in each city. On the basis of that question, someone asked, "Well, who would be in charge?"

That one question pretty much is the eye-rolling core of this entire problem. When Paul addressed THE Church in any particular city or province, that puts to rest any idea that they were all divided on doctrinal distinctives like we have today. The horror of all this is that each group found for themselves leadership willing to put up with their demands for distinctiveness, and to lead on their side of the dividing lines.

Now, before I close this post, I will state to you my answer to that question: That person hit the nail on the head as to the problem in the thinking of the average believer. They see men as the leaders while turning a blind eye to the Head, which is Christ Jesus.

John 10:11, 14

11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. ... 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine.

Please take notice that Jesus did not say that He AND all those others are the good shepherds (plural). So, when I heard that question, it set in stone the core problem in the thinking of the professing masses and their leadership. They fail to give thought to the very words of Jesus:

John 10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

John 10:13-15

13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Who among the leadership out there are those hirelings Jesus talked about? Might they include those who do not collectively (with each other across unbiblical lines of division) seek to break down the doctrinal distinctives that keep them separated from being actively unified with the other groupings. Men shepherding is a function, not a position or office that places them above the others in their grouping, as many tend to claim and practice.

So, what are your thoughts?

MM
Bible doctrine is important because Jesus thought it was important. Over my years I have seen it said.......
“We emphasize the Gospel, not doctrine,” some believers boast about their church.

I have heard others tell me..... “Doctrine divides.”

Today many evaluate churches and parachurch organizations not by of what they believe or teach, but on the basis of their programs. It seems to me that Bible doctrine has become irrelevant to our needs today?

The Bible word for “doctrine” simply means teaching. Those who think doctrine is not important have missed what the Bible is all about. Doctrine is not only important, it is vital!

Jesus said in John 7:17,............
“If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”

In this context Jesus is saying that the one who truly seeks after God will come to an understanding that Jesus’ teaching is from God and that it is important to understand this because that is the way to life.

Notice also John 8:31, 32 ..........
“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

The words that Jesus taught are often used to represent within the scriptures the whole of Jesus teaching. The words in which Jesus was instructing others to abide is His teaching–His doctrine.
 
Dare I say it, but all true believers in each city who see the Bible as the doctrinal authority, if they we were unified in accordance with Jesus' prayer to the Father, this nation wouldn't be in the mess it is right now, and historically. Salt and light cannot help but to keep evil at bay; much further back than it is right now with us all being divided along our petty distinctives.

MM
Paul warns us in 2 Tim. 4:3..........
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears,”.

MM, I think that you will agree that from reading some of the posts on this very site we share that I believe we are in those days. We must be careful no to give in to false doctrine or those who promote it.

The Bible commands us in Romans 16:17 to,............
“mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them,”.

Please note that it is not Bible doctrine that divides, it is incorrect doctrine that divides.

Thoughts????
 
Bible doctrine is important because Jesus thought it was important. Over my years I have seen it said.......
“We emphasize the Gospel, not doctrine,” some believers boast about their church.

I have heard others tell me..... “Doctrine divides.”

Today many evaluate churches and parachurch organizations not by of what they believe or teach, but on the basis of their programs. It seems to me that Bible doctrine has become irrelevant to our needs today?

The Bible word for “doctrine” simply means teaching. Those who think doctrine is not important have missed what the Bible is all about. Doctrine is not only important, it is vital!

Jesus said in John 7:17,............
“If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”

In this context Jesus is saying that the one who truly seeks after God will come to an understanding that Jesus’ teaching is from God and that it is important to understand this because that is the way to life.

Notice also John 8:31, 32 ..........
“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

The words that Jesus taught are often used to represent within the scriptures the whole of Jesus teaching. The words in which Jesus was instructing others to abide is His teaching–His doctrine.

YES! Jesus Himself said that He brought a sword, not unity. He brought division on the basis of Truth versus falsehoods.

When people have no love for absolute Truth, they are loving the world, which puts them at enmity with Christ Jesus. Loving complete unity (which includes light joining with darkness) at the expense of Truth is a hatred for God.

MM
 
BL, I didn't want to put the name to what grouping I was talking about as that may be viewed as a personal assault by some. That's why I stuck to addressing primarily the beliefs of the group rather than to call them out by name.

Yes, I'm very aware of the history and beliefs you mentioned. They are very internally authoritarian as an 'elder rule' grouping.

I figured someone would pick up on what belief system I was talking about. That Th.D I mentioned was beside himself in grief over a number of his group's affiliates, and their claims to being the only people who will populate Heaven. His pain was evident on his face, and I felt for him, although I don't subscribe to a number of his beliefs.

MM
I'm sorry for any slights or inferred attacks. I've learned to be more carefully thoughtful with comments. God bless all of you.
 
YES! Jesus Himself said that He brought a sword, not unity. He brought division on the basis of Truth versus falsehoods.

When people have no love for absolute Truth, they are loving the world, which puts them at enmity with Christ Jesus. Loving complete unity (which includes light joining with darkness) at the expense of Truth is a hatred for God.

MM
Luke 12: 51-53
"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
 
I'm sorry for any slights or inferred attacks. I've learned to be more carefully thoughtful with comments. God bless all of you.

BL, what I saw is your sharing of knowledge as you know it. I was raised Baptist, and never have taken offense, and never will, for anyone talking about what we believed, or what's going on with them now. Life is too short to be offended. My sins are enough of an offense before the Lord, so I tend to direct my energies to confessing before Him, and repenting of those sins.

Blessings to you and yours.

MM
 
I think there is a measure of agreement on essential doctrines... although I do sometimes wonder what might specifically be "non-essential", since if you go off the rails on one point, it can end up being a whole veering...

Take me for instance, I'm reformed. However, I don't think I'm hardball or anything. After I was saved I visited many churches and the one I enjoyed the most in my area wasn't reformed - Which to me wasn't a deal breaker. They were a lovely group, SBC, and attending church was nice, the fellowship wonderful...

I couldn't handle the women's Bible study group though, at times I wondered if the lady who led it was even saved, and it took all my will to keep my mouth shut at times...

But there was another Bible study that was pretty awesome, so I just attended that one instead of the women's group. I was sure the man leading it was actually saved.

Is that weird?

So I don't know where the line is in essential doctrines... But I do think it exists somewhere..
 
I think there is a measure of agreement on essential doctrines... although I do sometimes wonder what might specifically be "non-essential", since if you go off the rails on one point, it can end up being a whole veering...

Take me for instance, I'm reformed. However, I don't think I'm hardball or anything. After I was saved I visited many churches and the one I enjoyed the most in my area wasn't reformed - Which to me wasn't a deal breaker. They were a lovely group, SBC, and attending church was nice, the fellowship wonderful...

I couldn't handle the women's Bible study group though, at times I wondered if the lady who led it was even saved, and it took all my will to keep my mouth shut at times...

But there was another Bible study that was pretty awesome, so I just attended that one instead of the women's group. I was sure the man leading it was actually saved.

Is that weird?

So I don't know where the line is in essential doctrines... But I do think it exists somewhere..

C1, the line of distinction between essentials and non-essentials is subjectively placed by each individual. I don't know of any centralized authority over where that line should be placed.

Now, there are all manner of self-appointed authorities out there, and they are always glad to share their idea in how to define that line's location.

Given that the Bible is silent on the exact location of that line, what we do read is where Jesus prayed that we all in His body be "one" as He and the Father are one. I've never read anywhere Jesus telling the Father, "Yeah, Father, we agree on these essentials along the lines of salvation doctrines, but all others we can disagree on...and it be no big deal in confusing believers..."

No. Being one, and being a unified body is something I think has been missed to a far greater degree than most are willing to admit. Most prefer to hang on to their pet doctrines and other distinctives of faith and belief as if there is no consequence to maintaining those differences. We are so good at pretending that denominationalism is not a dividing force, alleging that we're only separated along "non-essential" lines.

If all beliefs were valid and true, then that statement and many others that defend differences would be valid arguments. However, opposing views and beliefs cannot all be true. Only one or none can be true, and that should concern us all, but, for the sake of "getting along," we move forward in the hope of...well, "getting along" without ever challenging the status quo. The voices out there calling for unity under the headship of Christ as the only source for truth in ALL doctrine, they go mostly ignored, and even trampled underfoot as trouble makers and nay-sayers.

I've asked myself many times why all TRUE believers are not concerned about seeking out and embracing ONLY Truth, as defined by the Lord, and given to us through His Spirit. It seems as though the Church in any given locale has some strange priorities, such as placing unity WITH differences above the necessity for unity under the banner of absolute truth...as if we can't all know absolute truth; even though we have the Bible and access to the very Spirit who is the Source for all truth.

How many sermons have you ever heard where there is a call to not just unity in the body of Christ, but beliefs defined by nothing outside of absolute truth in ALL doctrinal matters? Instead, we pretend as though doctrinal differences in the box of non-essentials is no big deal. It must have been a bid deal to Jesus when He asked of the Father that we all be one and He is one with the Father.

Are we not living a lie when pretending that the box of non-essentials can be left cast aside as something of no great importance to wrestle with? I'm not saying that all my doctrinal beliefs are totally absolute in the realm of Truth, but I do keep that topic in my prayer life that the Lord would fill me with ONLY HIs absolute truths in ALL things. The divisions in each local body across America and abroad over the pettiness of doctrinal distinctives is keeping each local Church in each city and province from being a unified, powerful force that we ALL have been called to be in this world.

Oh, well. Maybe I've gone off the deep end of expecting more than what professing believers are capable of, or even desiring to live up to in this life. Perhaps I expect too much.

mm
 
I have heard others tell me..... “Doctrine divides.”
I find a good comeback to those self defeating type statements is, "So is that your doctrine?"
We each have our 'doctrine' but the real question is 'how does it line up with Scripture?'

John 17:17 (KJV) Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

What really divides is when they, especially Christians, turn their noses up at the Bible.
 
I find a good comeback to those self defeating type statements is, "So is that your doctrine?"
We each have our 'doctrine' but the real question is 'how does it line up with Scripture?'

John 17:17 (KJV) Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

What really divides is when they, especially Christians, turn their noses up at the Bible.

In philosophy, the idea of opposing beliefs both being true is called a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Unitarians out there seem to be unfamiliar with that concept.

MM
 
Last edited:
C1, the line of distinction between essentials and non-essentials is subjectively placed by each individual. I don't know of any centralized authority over where that line should be placed.

Now, there are all manner of self-appointed authorities out there, and they are always glad to share their idea in how to define that line's location.

Given that the Bible is silent on the exact location of that line, what we do read is where Jesus prayed that we all in His body be "one" as He and the Father are one. I've never read anywhere Jesus telling the Father, "Yeah, Father, we agree on these essentials along the lines of salvation doctrines, but all others we can disagree on...and it be no big deal in confusing believers..."

No. Being one, and being a unified body is something I think has been missed to a far greater degree than most are willing to admit. Most prefer to hang on to their pet doctrines and other distinctives of faith and belief as if there is no consequence to maintaining those differences. We are so good at pretending that denominationalism is not a dividing force, alleging that we're only separated along "non-essential" lines.

If all beliefs were valid and true, then that statement and many others that defend differences would be valid arguments. However, opposing views and beliefs cannot all be true. Only one or none can be true, and that should concern us all, but, for the sake of "getting along," we move forward in the hope of...well, "getting along" without ever challenging the status quo. The voices out there calling for unity under the headship of Christ as the only source for truth in ALL doctrine, they go mostly ignored, and even trampled underfoot as trouble makers and nay-sayers.

I've asked myself many times why all TRUE believers are not concerned about seeking out and embracing ONLY Truth, as defined by the Lord, and given to us through His Spirit. It seems as though the Church in any given locale has some strange priorities, such as placing unity WITH differences above the necessity for unity under the banner of absolute truth...as if we can't all know absolute truth; even though we have the Bible and access to the very Spirit who is the Source for all truth.

How many sermons have you ever heard where there is a call to not just unity in the body of Christ, but beliefs defined by nothing outside of absolute truth in ALL doctrinal matters? Instead, we pretend as though doctrinal differences in the box of non-essentials is no big deal. It must have been a bid deal to Jesus when He asked of the Father that we all be one and He is one with the Father.

Are we not living a lie when pretending that the box of non-essentials can be left cast aside as something of no great importance to wrestle with? I'm not saying that all my doctrinal beliefs are totally absolute in the realm of Truth, but I do keep that topic in my prayer life that the Lord would fill me with ONLY HIs absolute truths in ALL things. The divisions in each local body across America and abroad over the pettiness of doctrinal distinctives is keeping each local Church in each city and province from being a unified, powerful force that we ALL have been called to be in this world.

Oh, well. Maybe I've gone off the deep end of expecting more than what professing believers are capable of, or even desiring to live up to in this life. Perhaps I expect too much.

mm

All in all there's only one true doctrine, but many doctrinal differences come from whatever perspective we had when coming to a saving faith.

Someone may think they had libertarian free will while others of a more Pauline conversion experience will see free will differently - just as an example.

They both can be equally saved while their own perspective can color doctrine.

Others yet see something different in scripture altogether from another reading the same Scripture yet both have the Spirit of God.

Why? Maybe for where they are in their walk as children of God different emphasis needs made.

I don't think we have to be identical clones, I do think we all need to be going in the same direction, standing upon the same foundation, with the same Head over us.

There are at the same time beliefs that can bing you off the path, or beliefs that one can hold that means a person was never on the path to begin with.
 
I find a good comeback to those self defeating type statements is, "So is that your doctrine?"
We each have our 'doctrine' but the real question is 'how does it line up with Scripture?'

John 17:17 (KJV) Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

What really divides is when they, especially Christians, turn their noses up at the Bible.

Yes....I like that!
 
In philosophy, the idea of opposing beliefs both being true is called a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Unitarians out there seem to be unfamiliar with that concept.

MM

Dr. J. Vernon MaGee says that philosophy is ..........
"A blind man, in a room painted black, with the lights out trying to find a black cat".

The words then is "Elusive"!.
 
All in all there's only one true doctrine, but many doctrinal differences come from whatever perspective we had when coming to a saving faith.

Someone may think they had libertarian free will while others of a more Pauline conversion experience will see free will differently - just as an example.

They both can be equally saved while their own perspective can color doctrine.

Others yet see something different in scripture altogether from another reading the same Scripture yet both have the Spirit of God.

Why? Maybe for where they are in their walk as children of God different emphasis needs made.

I don't think we have to be identical clones, I do think we all need to be going in the same direction, standing upon the same foundation, with the same Head over us.

There are at the same time beliefs that can bing you off the path, or beliefs that one can hold that means a person was never on the path to begin with.

Well, C1, that tends to poison the well to suggest that unity is a matter of everyone being a "clone." I don't think I came close to such a suggestion. If I did, then I certainly didn't mean to give that impression.

We would never suggest that the Father and Christ being one is a matter of them being clones. The relationship between the Father and Son is the level of unity at which I was pointing through my entire treatise.

But, it doesn't matter. This is a dead topic with most since we've all be born into what's going on all around us. We have no sensibilities for the disunity that defines Western Christianity today and historically. Luther, Zwingli, et al, they were the fathers of the disunity and schismatically fractured unity we now practice.

I'm resigned to the status quo since the Lord has not given to me the power of convincing others of the visions and thoughts He has given to me through His written word, and through His Spirit revelations of the Lord's desire, as encapsulated in Jesus' prayer to the Father. Most don't give a hoot about Jesus' desire, and even redefine that prayer into something totally foreign to the words as they're written. Nothing new there.

So, maybe it's best to just leave that one laying dead in the gutters of indifference. I shouldn't have brought it up, and so apologize for having done so. It's one of those topics that grate against the joys of the bandwagon experience to which we all have grown accustomed. I sometimes forget the golden rule for not "rocking the boat."

MM
 
I find a good comeback to those self defeating type statements is, "So is that your doctrine?"
We each have our 'doctrine' but the real question is 'how does it line up with Scripture?'

John 17:17 (KJV) Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

What really divides is when they, especially Christians, turn their noses up at the Bible.

In philosophy, the idea of opposing beliefs both being true is called a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Unitarians out there don't seem to be unfamiliar with that concept.

MM

All in all there's only one true doctrine, but many doctrinal differences come from whatever perspective we had when coming to a saving faith.

Someone may think they had libertarian free will while others of a more Pauline conversion experience will see free will differently - just as an example.

They both can be equally saved while their own perspective can color doctrine.

Others yet see something different in scripture altogether from another reading the same Scripture yet both have the Spirit of God.

Why? Maybe for where they are in their walk as children of God different emphasis needs made.

I don't think we have to be identical clones, I do think we all need to be going in the same direction, standing upon the same foundation, with the same Head over us.

There are at the same time beliefs that can bing you off the path, or beliefs that one can hold that means a person was never on the path to begin with.

Hello crossnote, Chris and Musicmaster;

Does it seem that Christians who have these discussions are more divided? Not so. The statement, "non believers don't have these kinds discussions get along better and avoid division." I don't buy that because the purpose of having a God discussion is not sinful, yes, there will be different views but this can be healthy, not sinful. There's just one prerequisite, ya gotta know your Bible, whether a little or much.

Christians will shy away from these discussions of writing/speaking or listening because they are afraid of confrontation, or they don't want to be challenged and learn. Is this timidity?

MM, in your statement, In philosophy, the idea of opposing beliefs both being true is called a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Unitarians out there don't seem to be unfamiliar with that concept.

This is a good post but please elaborate, brother. I'm short of something and need a little help understanding what you're saying.

When Chris says, I don't think we have to be identical clones is so true and I feel that's the problem in God discussions. We're not recognizing God's creation of each of us that also includes being uniquely different in our individual thought, thus the reason for discussion which is one of the KEYS to being in one accord as disciples.

I agree with crossnote's post, once again, we are uniquely different in our individual thoughts but it has to align with Scripture. After all, shouldn't all we speak be God-breathed? If our doctrines are divided as many will say, then lets talk about it.

God bless you all and your families.
 
I think there is a measure of agreement on essential doctrines... although I do sometimes wonder what might specifically be "non-essential", since if you go off the rails on one point, it can end up being a whole veering...

Take me for instance, I'm reformed. However, I don't think I'm hardball or anything. After I was saved I visited many churches and the one I enjoyed the most in my area wasn't reformed - Which to me wasn't a deal breaker. They were a lovely group, SBC, and attending church was nice, the fellowship wonderful...

I couldn't handle the women's Bible study group though, at times I wondered if the lady who led it was even saved, and it took all my will to keep my mouth shut at times...

But there was another Bible study that was pretty awesome, so I just attended that one instead of the women's group. I was sure the man leading it was actually saved.

Is that weird?

So I don't know where the line is in essential doctrines... But I do think it exists somewhere..

ONLY to allow conversation and of course ADDITION-- I post a list of "Essentials" of the Christian faith.......

The deity of Christ.
John 10:30 says, “I and the Father are one.” Jesus was claiming deity, and, interestingly enough, He did not deny that He was God. Another example is John 20:28, when Thomas says, “My Lord and my God!” Again, Jesus does not correct Him by saying that He is not God.

Salvation by grace.
Ephesians 2:8-9
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast” There is nothing we can do to earn God’s favor or gain access to heaven apart from His grace.

Salvation through Jesus Christ alone.
Acts 4:12 tells us that “salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” This passage speaks of the name of Jesus and His saving power. Another example is found in the book of John. Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). No one gets into heaven except by faith in the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ on his or her behalf.

The resurrection of Christ.
The Christian faith is based on Christ crucified and resurrected to life. “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). Lastly, to deny Christ’s bodily resurrection (John 2:19-21) is to deny that Jesus’ work here on earth was a satisfactory offering to God for the sins of mankind.

The gospel.
“That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” This is the essence of the gospel.

Monotheism.
Quite simply, there is only one God

The Holy Trinity.
Three distinct Persons in ONE God head. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” While this verse mentions all three Persons of the triune God, it does not call them the Trinity. So to understand the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, we must look at the “totality” of Scripture and glean from it the definition.
 
MM, in your statement, In philosophy, the idea of opposing beliefs both being true is called a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Unitarians out there don't seem to be unfamiliar with that concept.
Bob, MM will speak for himself, but I took it that he is pointing out the fact that those who poo-poo doctrine with statements like 'doctrine divides' have that as their own doctrine, hence a contradiction.
 
Back
Top