How can we "Agree to Disagree" When the Bible says to be of "One Mind"

[JRKH]

There is a lot of disagreement even among the “Mother Church”; the unity of the church is two-fold 1) the local church (visible) & 2) the true church, which consists of the elect (invisible)
In the local churches; there are and will always be tares among the wheat. This is not complicated.

Neither is it complicated to realize that a mind, when confronted with an issue of import upon which it must make a decision will exersize care and discuss with itself many viewpoints and evidence before arriving at a decision. Even then, within that decision there may be special cases or other specifics that need considered. But always within the context of being of One Mind and holding to it’s highest moral decision.

Differences within the Church are not necessarily contrary with being of One Mind. It is only when these differences lead to Schism that the Body of Christ is Grieviously wounded.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Since your friend is correct in his interpretation of Scripture and he goes to a different church; then he is to follow his conscience concerning the matter ; just as you are to follow your conscience in the matter. The last thing you want to do is cause unnecessary stumbling blocks for each other.

And so in the matter of the need for circumcision in “Acts 15”, they should not have taken the matter to the Apostles in Jerusalem but each simply listen to their “Local Church”.
That is the Jewish from Jerusalem should have required circumcision, even from a Gentil convert in Jerusalem, and the Gentile Christians in Antioch should have not required circumcision.
By your rule, Paul and Barnabas erred in taking the matter to the Church leadership in Jerusalem. The division in Doctrine should have been allowed to stand. Each Community being allowed to go it’s own way.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

My instincts tells me that we can agree to disagree either when the topic has no meaningful answer one way or another, there is inadequate information to come to a proper conclusion and must rely on opinion, or when our human pride is too strong for us to climb that hill of charity, understanding, and compassion.

Much will depend on that the topic is - such as whether it applies directly to Dogma - faith and morals - or more toward practice. In this regard we need to be careful not to become sidetracked and lose our charity over mere practices.
Humilty is probably the longest journey of all.

There are many situations that have a combination of all three above. However, in my opinion, anytime pride interferes whether definitively or not, it is against the Love of God.

Beautifully said. It is pride that has led to the rending of Christ’s body into so many pieces. It is humility that allows one to say - I don’t fully understand the Churches teaching on something or other, but I accept it because of My Love and obedience to Christ in His Church.

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

I think that a lot of Protestant posters (and, for that matter, a good number of Catholic posters as well) greatly underestimate the “Traditionalist Catholic” presence here.

The reason I bring this up is this: when you speak of 'suggesting that any theological disagreement within the Church is incompatible with being of “one mind” ', you are in fact describing what I consider to be one of the central tenets of “Traditionalist Catholics”. Or, looking at it the other way, when you say ‘Nor does it give us a clear guideline as to how much theological disagreement is legitimate’, you’re making a nonsensical statement from the “Traditionalist Catholic” point of view.

Very good. These are answers that any sane person will give becuase the mind cannot be divided against itself. It cannot simultaniously hold that two opposing things can be correct. You see? This is what we get when we strip the idea down to it’s fundemental base. To be of One mind means to be in agreement with ones self. To be One in Christ is to be in agreement with Christ. This is what it means to be of “One Mind”. This is what it means to be "In Christ as Christ is in the Father and the Father in Christ. But this is not what we see in the “Body of Christ”.

Thank you, I think you’ve expressed better than I did what I was trying to say in my post to Contarini.

 

[Contarini]

Since your friend is correct in his interpretation of Scripture and he goes to a different church; then he is to follow his conscience concerning the matter ; just as you are to follow your conscience in the matter.

But if the two friends live in the same place, and yet go to separate local churches, and if they and their churches simply ignore each other and follow their differing consciences, and if this is perfectly OK, then everything the New Testament says about the local Church is a lie and a sham, and we have no business being Christians at all.

Christ came to gather us into one. If people naming Christ’s name in the same place cannot worship together and cannot hold each other accountable, then there are three possibilities:

1. One of the factions is wrong and needs to repent and submit to the other (the view held by most Catholics on this forum, and by some other Christians as well)
2. Both factions need to repent and humbly listen to one another, recognizing that our division is among our greatest sins (the view that I hold); or
3. Jesus died in vain and we should find some other religion.

What other possibility is there?

Edwin

 

[Tanner9188]

Neither is it complicated to realize that a mind, when confronted with an issue of import upon which it must make a decision will exersize care and discuss with itself many viewpoints and evidence before arriving at a decision. Even then, within that decision there may be special cases or other specifics that need considered. But always within the context of being of One Mind and holding to it’s highest moral decision.

Differences within the Church are not necessarily contrary with being of One Mind. It is only when these differences lead to Schism that the Body of Christ is Grieviously wounded.

Peace
James

**There is theory and reality and the reality is a vast majority within the US are cafeteria Catholics. I also can’t help but notice a good portion have left the Catholic Church and then come back sometime down the road. I don’t know what that means if anything.

The “one Mind” is in relation to having the mind of Christ and following His two commandments which are love your neighbor and your God. That is the “One Mind”.

I believe we have officially strayed from the topic. I will check any replies tomorrow, Lord willing, and then this will be it for me in this thread since all that can be said about the topic is exhausted IMO.**

 

[Tanner9188]

But if the two friends live in the same place, and yet go to separate local churches, and if they and their churches simply ignore each other and follow their differing consciences, and if this is perfectly OK, then everything the New Testament says about the local Church is a lie and a sham, and we have no business being Christians at all.

Christ came to gather us into one. If people naming Christ’s name in the same place cannot worship together and cannot hold each other accountable, then there are three possibilities:

1. One of the factions is wrong and needs to repent and submit to the other (the view held by most Catholics on this forum, and by some other Christians as well)
2. Both factions need to repent and humbly listen to one another, recognizing that our division is among our greatest sins (the view that I hold); or
3. Jesus died in vain and we should find some other religion.

What other possibility is there?

Edwin

**And there is the reality of the visible church; many tares among the few wheat; the story of Christianity at the visible level. Just look at Revelation chapters 2 and 3 and most of those churches are gone. The “schisms” that people are always referring to are a good thing IMO; it helps to purge the church of the false teachers and followers IMO because they go and follow some other gospel IMO.

Christ has not come back yet; therefore He has not come to “gather us as one”; the important thing now is to make sure you are one of the “us”.

Remember in the early church, during the life of the apostles there were already false teachers, false Christ’s, anti-Christ’s & apostates. How much more now that we are 2000 years into the future; there is no surprise in light of Scripture.

FYI - since the topic has gone astray; I will check and reply to any post tomorrow and then move on; I believe the topic is exhausted.**

 

[Tanner9188]

And so in the matter of the need for circumcision in “Acts 15”, they should not have taken the matter to the Apostles in Jerusalem but each simply listen to their “Local Church”.
That is the Jewish from Jerusalem should have required circumcision, even from a Gentil convert in Jerusalem, and the Gentile Christians in Antioch should have not required circumcision.
By your rule, Paul and Barnabas erred in taking the matter to the Church leadership in Jerusalem. The division in Doctrine should have been allowed to stand. Each Community being allowed to go it’s own way.

Peace
James

**This is a different matter in this sense; their was no NT written to refer to and the church was struggling, not too large, in its infancy, and people were being lead astray. IMO you cannot compare the circumstances. Just as you would have difficulty or maybe even your pastor to take a matter directly to the pope. Just too big.

What surprises me about this whole episode is the fact that James gave the opinion and the others agreed of restraining from eating foods sacrificed to idols, which is not with accord to the actual teaching of Scripture.

Since Scripture does not contradict itself; then there must be a valid reason for such a decision. I believe it is because the they so use to idolatry, that if they ate food sacrificed to idols, then it would have caused a great stumbling block to these fledgling believers and may have been tempted to go back to the previous way of life and I think that is why obstaining from fornication is also mentioned in the same sentence. I’m not dogmatic because I basing this of of my memory about the world at that time in relation to Scripture; so without really seeking the Scripture I cannot be dogmatic.**

 

[Tanner9188]

And of those 34 times, Church is used only Twice in the Gospels. Both times Spoken by Jesus and Both times in the context of giving Authority. (Mt 16:18-19 and Mt 1815-19)

Peace
James

**
That is impossible for the word is “churches”; not “church” that we are referring to. The word “church” is used 76 times in the NT. I must be misunderstanding your point there.

The same authority that comes with the message of the gospel; the power is in the message, not the messenger. That is another thread and off topic.

I’ll give a quick example; Catholics are taught that Isaiah 22 refers to Peter, but Revelation 3 says otherwise. (see church of Philadelphia)

Perhaps this is why you see very little laity within the Catholic faith fulfilling the great commission; especially in comparison to its size. They leave it to others to do it. I mean is direct outreach in the community like the JW’s.**

 

[JRKH]

There is theory and reality and the reality is a vast majority within the US are cafeteria Catholics. I also can’t help but notice a good portion have left the Catholic Church and then come back sometime down the road. I don’t know what that means if anything.
Perhaps instead of saying there is the “Theory” and the reality we should say there is the “ideal” and the reality. Since the Ideal is to, “be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect”, it can be easily seen that the “reality” falls short of that. So - Would Jesus, who is one iwth the Father, wish us to look at the “reality” or at the “Ideal”?
Unfortunately you are correct in that many catholics today are “cafeteria” catholics and that is sad. It is a reality that needs to be addressed with better catachesis and teaching from the pulpit. In this way the “reality” can be adjusted to reflact the “Ideal”. As a revert, I can say that I returned to the Church because after considerable study, experimentation, and reflection I discovered that no other faith system offers the security and satisfaction that the Catholic Church does, having as it does the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The “one Mind” is in relation to having the mind of Christ and following His two commandments which are love your neighbor and your God. That is the “One Mind”.

As you wish.
As the OP I think the Topic has gone very well and remarkably charitably, for which I thank you and all the Posters here. Our discussion, even though we’ve not reached a consensus none-the-less is fruitful so long as we keep reading and writing to each other in charity. I hope the discussion has been profitable for you.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

This is a different matter in this sense; their was no NT written to refer to and the church was struggling, not too large, in its infancy, and people were being lead astray. IMO you cannot compare the circumstances. Just as you would have difficulty or maybe even your pastor to take a matter directly to the pope. Just too big.

You are missing th efact that the Catholic Church teaches and publishes a single set of Doctrines and practices. This is contained in the Catachism as well as canon Law. This volume of work, which has evolved over nearly 2 millenia, allows the lay person or pastor or bishop to indeed “go directly to the Pope” for the Pope’s teaching is the teaching of the Church contained in the aforementioned documents. Thus, not only do we have the “Scriptures” to guide us, just as the early Church did, we have the sum total of the teachings of the Church on more specific matters, which was the crux of the issue addressed in Acts.

What surprises me about this whole episode is the fact that James gave the opinion and the others agreed of restraining from eating foods sacrificed to idols, which is not with accord to the actual teaching of Scripture. Since Scripture does not contradict itself; then there must be a valid reason for such a decision.

Yet if you consider the time and place, the decsion taken was outside of “Scripture”. The decision of the council was recorded in a letter, which we do not have, and summerized in Acts which was not part of Scripture until 400 AD. So in point of fact, the decision of “The Church”, acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Did take a position not in accord with OT teaching. This should give you some idea of the relationship of “The Church” (not just the apostles) and Scripture. Jesus left His message in the Hands of “The Church” which then taught that message both orally and in writing as attested to by St Paul.

I believe it is because the they so use to idolatry, that if they ate food sacrificed to idols, then it would have caused a great stumbling block to these fledgling believers and may have been tempted to go back to the previous way of life and I think that is why obstaining from fornication is also mentioned in the same sentence. I’m not dogmatic because I basing this of of my memory about the world at that time in relation to Scripture; so without really seeking the Scripture I cannot be dogmatic.

An interesting interpretation. I’m not sure if the Church would agree with it but I will not counter you on it. I’m sure teh Holy Spirit had His reasons for the Decision.

peace
James

 

[JRKH]

**
That is impossible for the word is “churches”; not “church” that we are referring to. The word “church” is used 76 times in the NT. I must be misunderstanding your point there.

The same authority that comes with the message of the gospel; the power is in the message, not the messenger. That is another thread and off topic.

I’ll give a quick example; Catholics are taught that Isaiah 22 refers to Peter, but Revelation 3 says otherwise. (see church of Philadelphia)

Perhaps this is why you see very little laity within the Catholic faith fulfilling the great commission; especially in comparison to its size. They leave it to others to do it. I mean is direct outreach in the community like the JW’s.**

Church or Churches, I don’t see a big difference. I can say that there are many Catholic Churches in my city and that does not mean that they are independent of each other. If I say that there are many Baptist Churches in my city we know that they ARE independent of each other.
Again, if I refer to the Church in Cincinnati and the Church in Chicago, I am not refering to two different faiths, but rather two different jurisdictions of the same Church. Today we happen to use the term “Diocese” for this differentiation. In the Early Church they used teh term “Churches”.
The essential fact is that, in the NT those “Churches” refered to are not being permitted or encouraged to follow their own individual belief system independent of the Whole Church. This is precisely why St Paul exhorts them to be “Of One Mind”. To stand together as a Universal (that is the greek catholic) Church. One Body, One mind, One Church.
Do you believe that Paul would have accepted the Church in Antioch standing in opposition to the Church in Corinth on a matter of doctrine such as the real presence?
Think carefully now.
If the Church in Antioch declared that the Church in Corinth was wrong - That the Holy Spirit told them so - and that Paul had no right to override the “Local Church” decision, what do you think Paul’s response would have been - what might Peter have said, - How about James?
Would they have considered this to be acting “As One Mind” because both local churches still act in the Love of the Two Great commandments?
Read the Scriptures carefully and see what you think.

Peace
James

 

[Tanner9188]

Perhaps instead of saying there is the “Theory” and the reality we should say there is the “ideal” and the reality. Since the Ideal is to, “be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect”, it can be easily seen that the “reality” falls short of that. So - Would Jesus, who is one iwth the Father, wish us to look at the “reality” or at the “Ideal”?

I agree, a better choice of word, “theory” versus “ideal”.

Unfortunately you are correct in that many catholics today are “cafeteria” catholics and that is sad. It is a reality that needs to be addressed with better catachesis and teaching from the pulpit. In this way the “reality” can be adjusted to reflact the “Ideal”. As a revert, I can say that I returned to the Church because after considerable study, experimentation, and reflection I discovered that no other faith system offers the security and satisfaction that the Catholic Church does, having as it does the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

** I believe, one major reason, people come and go because of the burden the Church puts on its people; similar to the OT. For example, this is a small one, but getting a marriage annulled so they can come back to the communion table, which is a totally different issue. My mom grew up in a Catholic environment where her and her siblings were going to a Catholic Church, but the parents could not because my grandfather had a previous marriage and could not get cooperation form the previous spouse to have the marriage anulled and I sure i don’t know all the full details, but the point I’m making is that is a burden Christ would not have put on anyone and so the kids are going to Catholic school and Church, but the parents cannot set the example. I’m sure this happened and still happens on a regular basis; it is a big turn off that should not be IMO.
Another example is the teaching on the use of non embryo killing contraception; which has resulted in families that were too large to support as really needed and a bunch of guilt put especially on the women and particularly when the husband was not Catholic resulting in a greater number of divorces and infidelity IMO. These are burdens not taught in Scripture, but we all make our religious choices; so there are sometimes unwanted consequences to these choices. If i have offended you or anyone else in reading this part of the post; i apologize, I’m expressing some opinion and some of what i know about Scripture and I have seen the results in my own family and continue to.**

I agree with you in this, but I cannot think that it stops there. In talking with Jean earlier we see Paul writing to the Corinthians about problems in that Church. What we do not see is Paul saying that their factious behavior is acceptable. Nor do we see Paul supporting an idea that the Church in Corinth can believe one way and the Chruch in Antioch or elsewhere believe another way.
Being of One mind must certainly begin on the command of Love as you say, but it should not stop there. We need to remain in discussion and hammer out those differences that wound the Body of Christ.

In one sense, love is what brings “one mind” and beyond, the problem is that a majority of religious people that make the claim of Christ are phonies, just as the Scripture teaches; therefore they do not fulfill the “love” standard, if you will, that God has called people to. Someone may believe they are loving God with all their heart, mind and soul, but since they don’t know God because they are taught another gospel and believe it; they are self deceived and the love of God or neighbor is only at a carnal level at best.

As you wish.
As the OP I think the Topic has gone very well and remarkably charitably, for which I thank you and all the Posters here. Our discussion, even though we’ve not reached a consensus none-the-less is fruitful so long as we keep reading and writing to each other in charity. I hope the discussion has been profitable for you.

Peace
James

I appreciate the dialogue as well; you are very cordial and polite. God bless and Lord willing, we will talk some more in another thread. I have one I just started a few days ago that you are welcome to share your thought and/or insights.

The title is “Peters Restoration by the Lord - Feed My sheep” something like that…LOL
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=364190

 

[Tanner9188]

You are missing th efact that the Catholic Church teaches and publishes a single set of Doctrines and practices. This is contained in the Catachism as well as canon Law. This volume of work, which has evolved over nearly 2 millenia, allows the lay person or pastor or bishop to indeed “go directly to the Pope” for the Pope’s teaching is the teaching of the Church contained in the aforementioned documents. Thus, not only do we have the “Scriptures” to guide us, just as the early Church did, we have the sum total of the teachings of the Church on more specific matters, which was the crux of the issue addressed in Acts.

In which a good majority of Catholics in the US and probably the world do not follow; known as the “cafeteria variety” and I’m sure a lot has to do with plain ignorance of what the Church teaches and the fact that their is so much written; no one, even the pope, could know all that has been written by the Church IMO. That sum total you refer to is not divine in origin IMO for various reasons; the least being another view of salvation from that which is taught in Scripture.

Yet if you consider the time and place, the decsion taken was outside of “Scripture”. The decision of the council was recorded in a letter, which we do not have, and summerized in Acts which was not part of Scripture until 400 AD. So in point of fact, the decision of “The Church”, acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Did take a position not in accord with OT teaching. This should give you some idea of the relationship of “The Church” (not just the apostles) and Scripture. Jesus left His message in the Hands of “The Church” which then taught that message both orally and in writing as attested to by St Paul.

It was the decision of the church in Jerusalem with the assistance of the apostles because some Jewish Christians were teaching both the gospel and OT works as a means of salvation and they asked Paul and Barnabas to meet at Jerusalem to discuss the matter and they agreed. The fact that we have the summary; rather than the letter is further evidence that we should not be adding to Scripture that which was not given by divine inspiration. We have the summary because that is all God said we needed to know.

An interesting interpretation. I’m not sure if the Church would agree with it but I will not counter you on it. I’m sure teh Holy Spirit had His reasons for the Decision.

peace
James

**I have had some issues getting the thoughts into words lately and causing some of you to scratch your heads for good reason as to what I am trying to convey…LOL

This is what I was trying to convey, but failed miserably. So I’ll let Paul make the point.
1 Corinthians 8:7-13 -
“However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat {food} as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.”

I believe this was what was happening to the new gentile believers, who were use to pagan sacrifices, then having the Jews add circumcision to them as part of salvation, was not only another gospel, but a stumbling block as well. i believe the decision in Jerusalem was the wisdom of the apostles and Jerusalem elders in recognizing that eating the meat of idols was going to affect their conscience. I hope I conveyed this more clearly this time.**

 

[Tanner9188]

Church or Churches, I don’t see a big difference. I can say that there are many Catholic Churches in my city and that does not mean that they are independent of each other. If I say that there are many Baptist Churches in my city we know that they ARE independent of each other.
Again, if I refer to the Church in Cincinnati and the Church in Chicago, I am not refering to two different faiths, but rather two different jurisdictions of the same Church. Today we happen to use the term “Diocese” for this differentiation. In the Early Church they used teh term “Churches”.
The essential fact is that, in the NT those “Churches” refered to are not being permitted or encouraged to follow their own individual belief system independent of the Whole Church. This is precisely why St Paul exhorts them to be “Of One Mind”. To stand together as a Universal (that is the greek catholic) Church. One Body, One mind, One Church.
Do you believe that Paul would have accepted the Church in Antioch standing in opposition to the Church in Corinth on a matter of doctrine such as the real presence?
Think carefully now.

Both of those churches had problems that needed correction on doctrine; yes Paul would and did rebuke and make correction with encouragement.

If the Church in Antioch declared that the Church in Corinth was wrong - That the Holy Spirit told them so - and that Paul had no right to override the “Local Church” decision, what do you think Paul’s response would have been - what might Peter have said, - How about James?

Well Scripture teaches us that Peter did just that and had to be rebuked; as Solomon says; "there is nothing new under the sun"

Would they have considered this to be acting “As One Mind” because both local churches still act in the Love of the Two Great commandments?
Read the Scriptures carefully and see what you think.

Peace
James

The church or churches that have broken away are God’s way of purifying. For example, all those that follow Benny Hinn and the “health & and I get your wealth” gospels are easy to see and dismiss; sad to see all those souls being lead by blind guides. So division is not always a bad thing IMO. But even as those false teachers are preaching; the Holy Spirit can still move in the life of individuals to see through the error and be brought to the true Light. This happened while Paul was in prison and Paul was glad that Christ was being preached even by those who had sordid motives.

 

[Tanner9188]

**Hello all,

I have responded to all the posts; so I am out of this thread as I feel the topic is off and “we agree to disagree”, but we also have found some things “we do agree on”.

Lord willing; I will see all of you around the threads and look forward to speaking on the things of God with you. God bless and enjoy the weekend!
Tanner

P. S. If I missed a question; please accept my apologies…thanks.**

 

[JRKH]

I believe, one major reason, people come and go because of the burden the Church puts on its people; similar to the OT. For example, this is a small one, but getting a marriage annulled so they can come back to the communion table, which is a totally different issue. My mom grew up in a Catholic environment where her and her siblings were going to a Catholic Church, but the parents could not because my grandfather had a previous marriage and could not get cooperation form the previous spouse to have the marriage anulled and I sure i don’t know all the full details, but the point I’m making is that is a burden Christ would not have put on anyone and so the kids are going to Catholic school and Church, but the parents cannot set the example. I’m sure this happened and still happens on a regular basis; it is a big turn off that should not be IMO.
Another example is the teaching on the use of non embryo killing contraception; which has resulted in families that were too large to support as really needed and a bunch of guilt put especially on the women and particularly when the husband was not Catholic resulting in a greater number of divorces and infidelity IMO. These are burdens not taught in Scripture, but we all make our religious choices; so there are sometimes unwanted consequences to these choices. If i have offended you or anyone else in reading this part of the post; i apologize, I’m expressing some opinion and some of what i know about Scripture and I have seen the results in my own family and continue to.

There is much that could be sid on the above, but it would be off topic. So i will only say this. Yes the Church requires much, just as Our Lord requires much. Believing in God and Christ and living the Law of Love is not an easy matter and is not a Pick and choose matter either. Christ said divorce is wrong, and He really didn’t provide any out on that one in the Gospels except “lewd” conduct". Yet you seem to think that Christ would have approved of your grandfathers divorce and remarriage. You seem to believe this based somehow on Scripture - which is the foundation of your belief system.
As to large families, my mother’s parents raised a grand a total of 3 children (she had 2 miscarriages) From those three children my grandparents got 18 grandchildren. (5, 5, 8). None of us kids were underfed, underclothed, underloved, or undereducated. This is not because we had money either, for instance my dad had an 8th grade education. What we did have was Love and Discipline.
I think this is where you lose the point. You hold strongly to the Rule of Love, but you miss the necessity of Discipline. Without discipline it is almost impossible to fully understand and apply the Rule of Love properly.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

**Hello all,

I have responded to all the posts; so I am out of this thread as I feel the topic is off and “we agree to disagree”, but we also have found some things “we do agree on”.

Lord willing; I will see all of you around the threads and look forward to speaking on the things of God with you. God bless and enjoy the weekend!
Tanner

P. S. If I missed a question; please accept my apologies…thanks.**

Thank you for your responses though you are wrong in saying that “We agree to disagree”. I do not make such agreement.
For one I, Who am the OP, do not feel the thread has gotten off topic - at least not terribly so.
For another, I believe that there are still misunderstandigs between us as to what it means to be of “One Mind” in Christ and In His Church. You bring up several good points in you replies that could be addressed if I could expect that you would continue to read and respond - Instead you have chosen to withdraw before reaching a consensus, or even an agreement to disagree for now.

To use your phrase, “IMO” there is still a lot that could be addressed and perhaps you would gain much from further discussion - if you were to remain.

In any event, I have enjoyed communicating with you and hope you gained some insight.

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

Hi again, Tanner9188. I, too, am a bit curious what you meant when you said “we agree to disagree”, since one of JRKH’s main points in this thread was not to agree to disagree.

**Hello all,

I have responded to all the posts; so I am out of this thread as I feel the topic is off and “we agree to disagree”, but we also have found some things “we do agree on”.

Lord willing; I will see all of you around the threads and look forward to speaking on the things of God with you. God bless and enjoy the weekend!
Tanner

P. S. If I missed a question; please accept my apologies…thanks.**

 

[mathematician]

This has been milling about in the back of my head lately and I decided to toss it out for comment among my friends here at CAF. I am not trying to start an argument here, nor am I putting anyone down by this, I hope it does not come off that way. It just troubles me sometimes when it comes up in discussion.

When a Bible believing Christian (catholics included), says that we will have to, “agree to disagree”. There needs to be a big red flag go up for they are, in effect, saying that we should simply disregard Jesus call for unity.

Jesus may have called for unity. He didn’t say everybody had to think the same way about everything. The attempt to insist that they must causes splits; it doesn’t heal them.