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

[Stouts989]

Interesting quote, but perhaps it would be even more intereting to note the context in which it is said. Paul is reading these people the riot act for coming to The Lord’s Supper and basically “partying” instead of partaking of the Mass in a reverent and Christian manner. Please go back and read the entire passage and then tell me if you think Paul is supporting factions as a healthy thing in th eBody of Christ.

The last thing I want to do is take scripture out of context. I re-read the passage and I still stand with my point, but I will clarify a few things.

1 Corinthians 11: 16-19

16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (this is interesting that he says churches, never noticed this before)
17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.
18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.
19 For** there must also be factions among you**, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

In verse 18 Paul clearly says that there is division within the church in Corinth. (hence the verse preceding talking about head covering and the verse after talking about the proper use of the Lord’s Supper). Then in verse 19 Paul tells us that God uses these divisions/faction within the church, "so that those who are approved may become evident among [us]. If you want to look at the bigger context of 1 Corinthians, Paul is spending chapters of his letter correcting what the church is doing wrong and is divided over.

I don’t think Paul is supporting division, but is telling us that division exist, and will continue to exist, and God will continue to use the arguments and divisions within the body of Christ to reveal His Truth among believers.

This is the crux of my frustration I think. NCC’s will point to the Bible as demonstrating division, but they cannot demonstrate from Fracture from the Bible.

I share you’re frustration. I hate that there are so many denominations and divisions among the body of believers.

 

[Tanner9188]

In my scenario we have (or rather we are trying):

How would my wife and I faithfully carry out this command of Scripture under your idea of what the Church is? All we are trying to do is follow this command of Scripture, but how do we do this?

What if my wife attends one and I the other? My Catholic Parish considers it a mortal sin, so it is a salvation issue. The Faith Community doesn’t. The question is, which local Church do we listen to in order to comply with Matt. 18?

I am not assuming anything. My Catholic Parish considers it a sin but the Faith Community doesn’t. As far as I am concerned the local Church has made it decision per Matt. 18. I am just curious which local Churches decision we should listen to.

So which local Church should we listen to?

God bless you

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

It is your decision; hopefully you come to an agreement and she honors you and in turn honors God.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

It is your decision; hopefully you come to an agreement and she honors you and in turn honors God.

Tanner I don’t think you are seeing my question. Say it is not my wife but a good friend who thinks contraception is okay. I don’t believe it is. I tell it to his face, show him Scripture verses which I believe support my case. He shows me Scripture verses which he thinks indicate that contraception is okay. So we go to the next level and bring “others” to try to convince us of our transgression. Again there is no resolution so we go to the last command of Matt 18 and tell it to the Church. Only he goes to the Faith Community Church which tells him that it is not a sin and is therefore okay and I go to a Catholic Parish which tells me that it is indeed a sin. So which local Church do we listen to?

You are getting caught up with the particular sin and the people involved in my scenario. Try to see the problems with the application of Matt. 18 with your view of what the Church is.

God bless

 

[brb2]

Jesus prays here that they “be one “ as the Father and Jesus are one. How can we just “agree to disagree”? Can there be disagreement between the Father and the Son who are One? So when someone wishes to end a discussion with “agree to disagree” they are asking that we agree to disobey Jesus plea for complete unity.

We can only ‘be one’ when we are united in Christ’s Church. Those with differing ideas will only obtain unity of mind/purpose … when they accept Church dogma on ‘faith & moral’ issues.

Martin Luther refused to work out his disputes within the Church … and now we have millions of like-mined schizmatics who have no connection / loyalty to Mother Church. Apart from the Church … there is no real agreement.

And people wonder why Catholics insist on the essentialness of the Church [which the essence of Christ to the believers] .

 

[Tanner9188]

The last thing I want to do is take scripture out of context. I re-read the passage and I still stand with my point, but I will clarify a few things.

1 Corinthians 11: 16-19

16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (this is interesting that he says churches, never noticed this before)
17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.
18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.
19 For** there must also be factions among you**, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

In verse 18 Paul clearly says that there is division within the church in Corinth. (hence the verse preceding talking about head covering and the verse after talking about the proper use of the Lord’s Supper). Then in verse 19 Paul tells us that God uses these divisions/faction within the church, "so that those who are approved may become evident among [us]. If you want to look at the bigger context of 1 Corinthians, Paul is spending chapters of his letter correcting what the church is doing wrong and is divided over.

I don’t think Paul is supporting division, but is telling us that division exist, and will continue to exist, and God will continue to use the arguments and divisions within the body of Christ to reveal His Truth among believers.

I share you’re frustration. I hate that there are so many denominations and divisions among the body of believers.

searchgodsword.org/desk/?l=en&query=%22churches%22&section=0&translation=nas&sr=1&Enter=Perform+Search (“Churches” is used 34 times in the NT-FYI)

 

[Tanner9188]

We can only ‘be one’ when we are united in Christ’s Church. Those with differing ideas will only obtain unity of mind/purpose … when they accept Church dogma on ‘faith & moral’ issues.

Martin Luther refused to work out his disputes within the Church … and now we have millions of like-mined schizmatics who have no connection / loyalty to Mother Church. Apart from the Church … there is no real agreement.

And people wonder why Catholics insist on the essentialness of the Church [which the essence of Christ to the believers] .

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.

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner I don’t think you are seeing my question. Say it is not my wife but a good friend who thinks contraception is okay. I don’t believe it is. I tell it to his face, show him Scripture verses which I believe support my case. He shows me Scripture verses which he thinks indicate that contraception is okay. So we go to the next level and bring “others” to try to convince us of our transgression. Again there is no resolution so we go to the last command of Matt 18 and tell it to the Church. Only he goes to the Faith Community Church which tells him that it is not a sin and is therefore okay and I go to a Catholic Parish which tells me that it is indeed a sin. So which local Church do we listen to?

You are getting caught up with the particular sin and the people involved in my scenario. Try to see the problems with the application of Matt. 18 with your view of what the Church is.

God bless

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.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

What if the friend’s interpretation of Scripture were incorrect? Would that change your conclusion?

 

[Tanner9188]

What if the friend’s interpretation of Scripture were incorrect? Would that change your conclusion?

**Teaching on Marriage

1 Corinthians 7:1-5 “Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is *good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The **wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. ***Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

How many marriages would be saved if we took this a serious as we ought?

• speaking of a harlot
  ** getting to the main point
  *** “Stop depriving one another” Why? “come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” No mention of procreating; warning against the temptation of lust and infidelity; if there was reason to be concerned; this would be the place in Scripture to emphasize."

Genesis is not the place to look for answers IMO because the earth was just in the process of being populated, which is what the issue in Genesis is.

If I were Catholic in this situation; I would do like many Catholics and use some form of birth control and ignore the notion of marital relation are for procreation or whatever prevents them to use contraception. God knew contraception would be here and he could have addressed it specifically and did not; in light of this passage and in light of human nature and in light of the reality of infidelity in the population as a whole; I conclude the Bible is silent on the specific use of contraception; therefore you must go with you conscience.

To answer your question directly; no.**

 

[Peter_J]

To answer your question directly; no.

Thanks, that wasn’t really clear in your previous post (which started with the words "Since your friend is correct in his interpretation of Scripture … ").

 

[Stouts989]

searchgodsword.org/desk/?l=en&query=%22churches%22&section=0&translation=nas&sr=1&Enter=Perform+Search (“Churches” is used 34 times in the NT-FYI)

TY!

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

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.

This didn’t answer my question. My friend thinks he is correct, don’t most people in error believe that they are correct? I have never heard of someone believing something they know is false

So which local Church are we to listen to. How do we faithfully carry out the command in Matt 18?

God bless you

 

[StillWondering]

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.

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.

 

[Tanner9188]

This didn’t answer my question. My friend thinks he is correct, don’t most people in error believe that they are correct? I have never heard of someone believing something they know is false

So which local Church are we to listen to. How do we faithfully carry out the command in Matt 18?

God bless you

**
The friend goes with what he believes Scripture teaches and his church is in agreement that it is not a sin; therefore in your friends church it is not a Matthew 18 issue.

I gave another scenario in a different post here; you might check that one out and modify the situation to fit the point you are trying to confer.

I’ll post, then edit and come back. see post #37**

 

[JonNC]

=brb2;5536771]We can only ‘be one’ when we are united in Christ’s Church. Those with differing ideas will only obtain unity of mind/purpose … when they accept Church dogma on ‘faith & moral’ issues.

Actually, I kind of agree with this. Using the *Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification *as an example, would you say this is an effective model for bringing this about?
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Martin Luther refused to work out his disputes within the Church … and now we have millions of like-mined schizmatics who have no connection / loyalty to Mother Church. Apart from the Church … there is no real agreement.

This represents a simplistic view, which is much more rhetorical and polemical than historical. Even the Catholic Church does not take this stand against Luther, and recognizes blame on all sides of the Reformation era.
In addition, this kind of polemics is not condusive for developing an atmosphere where convergence can occurr.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

**
The friend goes with what he believes Scripture teaches and his church is in agreement that it is not a sin; therefore in your friends church it is not a Matthew 18 issue.

I gave another scenario in a different post here; you might check that one out and modify the situation to fit the point you are trying to confer.

I’ll post, then edit and come back. see post #37**

One of the difficulties with what your saying is what C.S. Lewis called (in The Screwtape Letters) the “congregational principle” – namely, that many Christians join a parish/congregation (or local church, or whatever you want to call it) on the basis that it preaches what he/she thinks already. Thus “his church is in agreement that it is not a sin” becomes a given (otherwise he wouldn’t have joined that particular congregation in the first place).

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
You seem to be reading too much into the question that I ask.
Forget Scripture, forget interaction with other people or other faiths etc.
I Am Talking About what it means to be of ONE MIND.
HOW DOES ONE MIND THINK?

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”.

Example: The Body of Christ, having one Mind, cannot legitimately hold that the Eucharist is Really and wholly Christ AND hold that it is merely symbolic. These are opposing viewpoints that cannot be reconciled in “One Mind”. The Mind of Christ, in His teaching as recorded in the Bible, and as held by the Church since the earliest days says that the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ. To believe otherwise is not a point upon which True members can disagree and be "One as Christ and the Father are One.

A good example is purchasing products on the internet that you have not paid sales tax on; then at the end of the year when you do your state form and the question is asked if you made those types of purchases and how much, so the state can collect taxes. Well it is an honor system, are you diligent to keep good records and report and pay the sales tax or not? I know “Christians” that will not; to me that is a violation of God’s law and command to obey authorities and to give to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things of God. It is cheating and stealing IMO.

In this you are correct. To fail to pay ANY legitimate tax is a sin.
Again, a man cannot serve two masters - God and Money So it becomes obvious which is ruling the people in your example.

“One Mind” in Scripture would be akin to having the “mind of Christ” and the fulfillment would be “love” ; love one another and love the Lord.

Correct -
AND to stive to be "Perfect as your heavenly Father is Perfect.
AND to strive to fulfill Christ’s Prayer that we be One as He and the Father are One.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

It depends on what you mean by “agree to disagree.” If you mean “go our separate ways,” then I totally agree with you. But if you are suggesting that any theological disagreement within the Church is incompatible with being of “one mind,” then this is clearly an untenable position. Catholicism has always contained within itself an abundance of theological perspectives (the obvious example is Thomism vs. Molinism, because in that case you actually have a papal degree *ordering *both sides to “agree to disagree”).

Clearly the “one mind” in question is the “mind of Christ,” not total theological agreement, which is impossible. We are to be united in Christ and hold one another accountable in love as we all grow together toward the full stature of Christ. That doesn’t mean that we have all the same opinions. Nor does it give us a clear guideline as to how much theological disagreement is legitimate. But it does mean that we can never be happy to just go our separate ways and develop our separate versions of Christianity in competition with each other.

In Christ,
Edwin

Sorry for the delay in responding but there has been much going on.
Primarily yes I am refering, not to dicussions within the church, but to those disagreements that led, and continue to lead. to fracture of the Body of Christ.

As for disagreements within the Church, I don’t find this to be incompatible with “One Mind”. Everyone who is presented with an issue upon which they must make a decision will mull over various aspects of the issue before arriving at a position. This is normal and may take minutes or years. In the case of the Church, such disagreements and discussions are all a part of that same issue. It is only when someone denies the authority of the Church in making a decision and, not being satisfied with simply leaving the Church, they rail that the Church is wrong and set up a rival church that the Body of Christ is grieviously wounded. Could cells of the brain, not satisfied with the decision of other cells of the brain set up a rival brain?

Yes we may have differences within the Church, but these differences should remain IN the Church and we should remain humble and obedient to Her in Christ.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The last thing I want to do is take scripture out of context. I re-read the passage and I still stand with my point, but I will clarify a few things.

1 Corinthians 11: 16-19

16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (this is interesting that he says churches, never noticed this before)
17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.
18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.
19 For** there must also be factions among you**, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

In verse 18 Paul clearly says that there is division within the church in Corinth. (hence the verse preceding talking about head covering and the verse after talking about the proper use of the Lord’s Supper). Then in verse 19 Paul tells us that God uses these divisions/faction within the church, "so that those who are approved may become evident among [us]. If you want to look at the bigger context of 1 Corinthians, Paul is spending chapters of his letter correcting what the church is doing wrong and is divided over.

I don’t think Paul is supporting division, but is telling us that division exist, and will continue to exist, and God will continue to use the arguments and divisions within the body of Christ to reveal His Truth among believers.

I share you’re frustration. I hate that there are so many denominations and divisions among the body of believers.

Yes it is frustrating. Also I think that you do understand better than perhaps I gave you credit for originally.
There will always be differences within the Body of Christ, but those differences need not fracture the Body and thus injure the Body. Within the Catholic Church there are many issues and discussion and argument. But you note that Paul, while recognizing it’s existance, does not approve of it. In addition Paul does not hold that the Church in Corinth should believe one way and the Church in Ephesis believe another way.

Yes Paul does use the term “Churches” but that simply refers to the different geographical communities and not to differing belief systems. Unless you think that Paul was teaching different things to different “Churches”. Teaching one “Church” that the “Lord’s Supper” is the Real Presence, and was teaching another “Church” that the “Lords Supper” is merely symbolic.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

searchgodsword.org/desk/?l=en&query=%22churches%22&section=0&translation=nas&sr=1&Enter=Perform+Search (“Churches” is used 34 times in the NT-FYI)

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