To clarify my position, I was not referring to essential points of doctrine--such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the virgin birth, etc. etc. Rather, I meant points of practical living and standards that people vary on. Such as: Our family has very good friends who have a Mennonite/Anabaptist background. For example, the women and girls wear head coverings, and the family does not celebrate holidays. However, my mother and sisters don't wear head coverings, and we celebrate Christmas and Easter. In other words, our families are quite different on some points of interpretation, but we still had very good fellowship. Church fellowship betwixt Christians does not necessitate agreement on every little point of doctrine and/or standards. I believe the elders of a church should establish at least a basic core of beliefs that each member can agree to. The idea of "statements of faith" that many denominations put forth is going too far in micromanaging the membership of their churches.Zedekiah wrote:I cannot agree with this. Divergent opinions and interpretations of biblical matters are not a good thing. Better, I would think, that we all recognized the proper views on each point of doctrine. We clearly do not, and no, I certainly don't think we should be judgmental about non-essentials, but I still do not believe that it is better that some are wrong.Dr. Watson wrote:Moderating this, however; I think divergent opinions and interpretations of the Bible are good (barring blatant heresy of course). The Holy Spirit leads Christians in many different ways, and to think that all Christians should be made with cookie-cutters is also faulty. Thus we have the different modern denominations.
Quite true. But in matters of conscience, no; somethings are not mutually exclusive. E.g. the holiday example above.Zedekiah wrote: I do not say this to claim that I am always right on doctrinal issues; again, if you asked me about any individual matter, I would defend my belief as correct, but if you asked me in aggregate whether I believed myself right on all points of faith and practice, I would have to say, most emphatically, absolutely not. We see in a glass, darkly, and I suspect we're all wrong on some interpretation. Still, logic dictates that if two divergent views are held, they cannot both be right. No matter what your view on, say, eternal security, it clearly cannot be true that we are both eternally secure and able to lose our salvation. The two are mutually exclusive.
I think we agree here; see above.Zedekiah wrote: In non-essentials, liberty. We can debate endlessly about any number of doctrinal points not vital to salvation. There is nothing wrong with these debates, nor denominations formed out of these disagreements; rather, I find that healthy. The importance of correct doctrine is stressed repeatedly in scripture. Nonetheless, we must see those with whom we disagree on these non-essentials as brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we should indeed fellowship to some extent. We may not be willing to attend their type of church, but we recognize that they are part of the household of faith and, hopefully, we can respect them and work with them when such action would not compromise our own beliefs.
Me too. But putting aside denominations is a far cry from ecumenicalism.Zedekiah wrote:I strongly dislike the ecumenical movement.
Cheerio
Doctor W.[/i]
.jpg)
