Love, Unity, and Doctrinal Precision

It is currently in vogue within American evangelicalism to play against each other the complementary realities of Christian love and unity, on the one hand; and on the other hand, the necessity for a strenuous biblical precision in formulating and contending for those points of doctrine which are secondary in importance – that is, those doctrines which, to believe one way or the other, would not per se corrupt the essential purity of the gospel. A concrete example of such secondary matters would be one’s beliefs in the debate between cessationism or continuationism of the so-called “sign gifts”; or else one’s understanding of the nature of the millennial reign of Christ, or one’s position on the mode of baptism. Of those who (perhaps subconsciously) accept that these two realities are not entirely complementary, but to some degree mutually exclusive of one another, two basic camps tend to emerge: there are those who will accept into fellowship any professing believer, and thereupon studiously avoid any discussion that would call into question the doctrinal discrepancies between themselves – as if to reject one’s doctrinal understanding of a matter were tantamount to denying that person the love and unity which ought to bind Christians together. On the other side, there are those who will not merely bring under scriptural scrutiny the erring doctrinal beliefs of another genuine believer in Christ and his gospel; but will, at the discovery of the most minute difference, essentially cut off all contact with that brother, implying in the transaction either that he is not a true Christian (and therefore, that for one to be a true Christian he must have an identical understanding of every point of doctrine, however minor); or that he is not a good enough Christian to be worthy of the unity and fellowship that by all scriptural accounts ought to characterize the church. Although these two descriptions characterize believers at the extreme ends of a very wide spectrum, I would contend that both varieties, as well all those Christians who are somewhere in the middle, are affected by the unspoken (not to mention thoroughly unbiblical) presupposition that these two basic approaches to Christian fellowship – love trumping doctrine or doctrine trumping love – are necessary antitheses; in other words, that, given the ongoing fallenness of Christians yet in the flesh, there must be a point at which one must make the choice between doctrinal purity or loving fellowship; and that a relative weight must therefore be assigned to each of the virtues in question. These metaphysical presuppositions lead, accordingly, to a grappling with practical questions along these lines: “How many doctrinal dissimilarities should I be willing to gloss over before I make a big deal of something?” “At what point should I refuse to cooperate/fellowship/associate with another Christian who believes differently than I?” “To what extent should I carry out my severance of fellowship?” “If I cannot join together with him to worship in church, may we still enjoy a cup of coffee together at the local diner?” My contention is that this sort of reasoning is informed by underlying errors in one’s understanding of the true nature of love, of fellowship, and of purity. What we need is not more wisdom in determining the precise spot of “balance” on the continuum, the spot which would at once do justice to the importance of both love and doctrine. What we need is to call into question the metaphysical undergirdings of the continuum itself. Let us not be content to do the best we can within the paradigm we have been given; on the contrary, let us be careful that our paradigm reflects as closely as possible the paradigm of New Testament Christianity. That in itself is the larger portion of the battle.

In order to move from the realm of general abstractions to the more tangible realm of concrete examples, let’s call into question a specific strand of feedback on this web page. “How,” say some, “can he speak so certainly of the need for all Christians to be in fellowship with one another, and yet be so quick to attack any doctrinal understanding different from his own? How can it be loving to speak so negatively, for example, of Dispensationalism? Is he suggesting that Dispensationalists are not true believers?” This line of questioning is positing something very definite with respect to what love is. Love, in this way of thinking, is essentially affirmation, a recognition of the validity of the one loved to hold his own opinions. Love, in other words, is predicated on the lovableness of its object. But if this is the case, how could it have been possible, when we were sinners and unlovely, for Christ to express his love to us? This sort of love is not the kind of love that Christ has given to us. It is not Christian love. Now, what does this reasoning say about unity? Essentially, that unity is superficial politeness, the ability to get along with one another by avoiding topics which would bring to light the differences between us. The problem with this, once again, is that it is not a scriptural conception of Christian unity. Unity is founded, not upon superficiality and avoidance, but true commonality and partnership in precisely the same realities. Christians are united because, when they were sinners alike, they were given God’s free gift of justification, and are now essentially righteous in Christ. Their fundamental reality, through the gospel, is that they are by nature children of light; and the commonality that inheres in being in the light is an inexhaustibly deep source of unity. Any practical denial of unity among Christians is a falsification of the essential commonality that they share. With regard to our discussion, this means that to assume that the rejection of a Christian brother’s doctrine is a breach of fellowship is essentially the same thing as to assume that, for one to believe wrongly on any secondary matter is tantamount to his being removed from essential righteousness in Christ. Let me be more clear on this last point: to be in error on the mode of baptism does not exclude me from being counted righteous in Christ; being counted righteous in Christ is what likens me to other Christians – it is the source of my unity with them; therefore, being in error on the mode of baptism does not negate my unity with other believers who are correct on that point. Calling doctrine into question does not constitute a denial of essential unity; quite the opposite, it is the means by which we are enabled to reflect more accurately, in practical out-fleshing, the incontrovertible fact of our essential unity. We would do well to observe how Paul so often moves from essential reality to practical exhortation: e.g., “[Because] you are light in the Lord, walk as children of light” (Ephesians 5:8). So let us be content to reason, “Because we are in fact united, let us labor to think in unity on this particular point.”

In order to substantiate the foregoing, let me adduce a few truths from the scriptures, first, with regard to the nature of Christian love; and second, with regard to the nature of Christian unity.

  • Love is the willingness to give oneself for the good of the beloved.

Christ taught this truth in brief when he told us, “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Love is ultimately the willingness to do whatever it takes to bring good to its object. Christ displayed the perfection of love when he gave his life for our good. In order to follow his example, we ought to be willing to give ourselves for the good of our brothers. This leads us to the question, “In what does the good of my brother ultimately consist?”

  • The good of man is ultimately the true knowledge of God.

When Christ spoke more specifically of the nature of the good that he was giving his life to accomplish in those whom the Father gave him, it was invariably wrapped up in the knowledge of God. “This is life eternal,” he proclaims in his high priestly prayer, before delivering himself up in our behalf, “that [those you have given me] might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” And a little later, “Father, I will that they also, whom you have given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which you have given me” (John 17:24).

  • True knowledge of God comes from a right understanding of the bible.

Hence, Christ’s prayer included the following request and accompanying observation: “Sanctify them through your truth: your word is truth.”

  • Therefore, love is the willingness to give oneself so that the beloved one may understand the bible more accurately.

Christian love, that is, the sort of love Christ perfectly displayed and which he commands us to emulate, demands that we be willing to give of ourselves so that our brothers are aided in coming to a deeper and more accurate knowledge of God. This in turn demands that we be willing to labor for doctrinal precision by submitting our reasoning to the pages of scripture, the only place where we may confidently learn the deep things of God. Doctrinal precision, far from being the counter-balancing reality to Christian love, and therefore mutually exclusive of it, is in fact the great means through which Christian love expresses itself. We may know a man loves the heathen tribes if he is willing to give up his life in order to go to them with the good news of Jesus. And we may know that a man loves his Christian brothers if he is willing to give of his life to confront doctrinal error and use the light of scriptures to point them to a deeper knowledge of the God whom to know is itself eternal life.

This brief survey should make clear that the need for Christian love is no reason for minimizing doctrinal precision. The same may be said of Christian unity, when its scriptural nature is perceived. Let’s mention a few truths we may learn from some pertinent texts.

  • Unity is shared commonality in an essential reality.

The apostle John assures us, in his first epistle, that “if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). In other words, if we are true believers, whose sins have genuinely been cleansed by Christ’s blood (as may be perceived by how we walk), then by virtue of that fact alone we have fellowship with one another. It is not said that, because we have been cleansed we ought to have fellowship with one another; but rather, if we display that we have truly been cleansed, we do have fellowship with one another. (It is possible that this “one another” actually intends the fellowship between us and God; but even if so, the basic point is not thereby invalidated – the third verse of the same chapter demands that the reality of our fellowship with the Father necessitate fellowship among ourselves, as well.) In other words, our fellowship consists in the reality that we have all been cleansed by the blood of Christ. This is what unites us. It would take a reversal of this reality in the life of one believer or another to separate them. If both are in Christ, they are not divided from one another.

  • Unity is displayed to the extent that the shared essential reality is understood.

When Paul was dealing with the divisions and factions in the Corinthian church, he asked the rhetorical question, “Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:13). In doing so, he was assuming that if Christians were truly divided, then Christ himself is divided. But since Christ is not divided, neither can those who are in Christ be divided. In giving the appearance of division, the Corinthian believers were bringing reproach upon Christ by presenting to the world a false reality. They were living as if they were all in Christ and yet divided from each other, so that Christ appeared to be divided from himself. In reality they were not divided at all: Christ had effectually made in himself “one new man” of those who were formerly at enmity (Ephesians 2:15-16). The Corinthian problem was not that they had essentially broken their unity, but that they failed to recognize and display their unity in Christ.

  • The display of unity demands an increased understanding of doctrinal reality.

It is clear throughout scriptures that our reality should motivate our practice: who we are should be the foundation for what we do. We should not act righteous so that we may become righteous, but we should act righteous because we already have been accounted righteous in Christ. So we should not act like we are united in order to become united, but we should act united because we already are united in the same doctrine. How then do we go about the process of displaying more clearly the reality of our essential doctrinal unity? There is no other way than to come to a fuller recognition of the extent of the unity we have. Because there is “one body, and one Spirit… one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Ephesians 4:4-6); therefore, we should be involved in the work of edification of the body of Christ until we all arrive at the “unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God” (Ephesians 4:13). Our struggle for unity in the body of Christ has everything to do with growing in our doctrinal understanding. The more we see the true nature of the doctrine we all have in common, the more our lives will display the essential unity that we have been brought into by the blood of Christ. The display of Christian unity, far from being a cause for glossing over doctrinal discrepancies, should be the motivation for pursuing ever greater doctrinal precision. It is instructive that, in so many of the passages in which we are commanded to pursue unity, such terms as “thinking the same thing,” being “likeminded,” or “thinking one thing in Christ” are employed (cf. Philippians 1:27; 2:1-2; 4:2, for example). A growth in the practical outworking of essential unity among believers is enabled only by an increase in precise doctrinal knowledge.

It is singularly tragic that love and unity are so often employed as excuses for minimizing the importance of doctrinal precision. Love and unity demand that we be intensely interested in doctrine. Doctrine is the pathway to greater love and unity, and the means by which that love and unity is expressed. If we are one in Christ, and if we love each other as Christ loved us, then let us labor for the edification of the body by giving our lives to learning the great truths about God from the pages of his word, teaching those scriptural truths to other Christians as we have opportunity, and learning from them as the Spirit opens their hearts to see more of Christ in the bible. In this way our love and unity will thrive.

It is also tragic that doctrinal purity is so often employed as an excuse to set before the world a picture of Christ divided. There is nothing doctrinally correct about a divided Christ or a divided Christianity. If we “separate from” or cut off from united fellowship any professing believer, we are sending the message, “This is not a Christian.” There may be cause for doing so, if the professing believer by his teachings or actions has indicated that he is not truly a Christian. But to separate from a true Christian because of doctrinal differences is not only not scriptural; it is a denial of true Christian doctrine and a blight on the name of Christ. If we separate from a brother, we are considering him a heathen. There is no room to refuse to worship with him in church, because he has a different opinion on church government, or some such thing, but to continue to chat with him in a friendly manner over coffee, recognizing him as a true Christian – but just not a Christian of my particular camp. If he is doctrinally immature, then his place in the body may not be a position of teaching or some other place of authority. But wherever else his place is not, it is certainly not merely at the coffee table, with only the most basic of doctrinal discussions permitted. And it is not at the church down the street, which happens to see things in a similar light. If there is a Christian (or group of Christians) down the street, we are responsible to be laboring for his growth in Christ, just as he is responsible for us. To refuse to acknowledge that is a doctrinal error just as surely as any wrong opinion he may have on any other secondary issues is a doctrinal error.

As Christians, let us labor in love for the fuller recognition and expression of our essential doctrinal unity. Let us do this because we love each other as Christ loved us; and let us do it because there is a watching world that needs to see a truer picture of Christ.

14 Responses to “Love, Unity, and Doctrinal Precision”

  1. Chris says:
    March 17, 2006 at 3:55 pm

    Well written. This is such a hard topic to discuss on both sides of the fence.

    I respect your work, and I would like your opinion on my recent essay on the relation of the Biblical covenants.

  2. fitzage says:
    March 17, 2006 at 4:12 pm

    Excellent. I am increasingly saddened when I see (or cause) factions within Christianity, especially over very minor issues.

    It’s very comfortable hanging exclusively with believers who believe the same things as you do about all but the most minor of doctrines, but there is much less giving of yourself to promote doctrinal purity in this environment. Perhaps this is partly why there is so little discussion of spiritual things even when around other Christians.

  3. Bob Hayton says:
    March 22, 2006 at 11:15 am

    Nathan,

    Great post. I really appreciate your dealing with this issue in such a thoughtful way.

    I think those who are so quick to separate and cut off unity with other believers due to their desire to defend secondary doctrinal matters, actually are maximizing the importance of their interpretations of secondary matters and minimizing the importance of the major doctrines around which Christians have real unity. Is not our unity in Christ which is based on our mutual affirmation of the huge truths of the Gospel and the authority of Scripture, etc., big enough and amazing enough to demand that we recognize our unity in Christ with others who interpret secondary doctrinal matters differently than we do? This methodology stands the Bible on its head. That which is explicitly and very clearly declared and which is explicitly declared to be central and absolutely essential is made to be very minor–not a big enough reason to unify in meaningful fellowship with others. And that which the Bible does not explicitly and clearly address, but which addresses in a less clear way than other doctrines, and that which clearly does not affect our understanding of other more major doctrines–and even those points which Scripture itself declares to be of secondary importance–these doctrines are made to be so important that unity itself must bow down to our interpretation of them.

    One more thing, congrats on your being made a contributor to Reformation Theology Blog. I am waiting for your first post over there! I am very excited that you will have an increased opportunity to minister to the body of Christ through the wider reach of that blog.

    God bless you and yours,

    Bob Hayton

    Striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God. (Eph. 4:3,13; Rom. 15:5-7)

  4. nathan f says:
    March 23, 2006 at 10:25 pm

    Again God is using you in my sanctification.

    Here is what’s been bothering me lately in light of recent discussions on blogs. What you’ve said is what the Bible teaches in regard to the reality of our unity in Christ with other real believers. My problem revolves around passages like I Timothy 4:1-5 that speak of teachers who in fact “depart from the faith” and devote themselves to “deceitful spirits and teachings of demons.” In a fit of fury and frustration, I may have implied recently that a pastor who was requiring from his readers abstinence from alcohol as the only wise thing to do was in fact one such “false teacher.” Of course, this was met with anger and an invitation to not post comments on that site again. At first, I paused and thought that I may need to apologize for such an accusation. I realized, though, that this is exactly the kind of deceitful teaching that I Timothy is referring to. That said, forbidding marriage and consumption of food is seemingly insignificant in my mind compared to the dangers of such secondary doctrines as dispensationalism.

    What I’m saying is that the visualization of unity as a promotion of doctrinal growth in our brothers would only seem to be possible if all parties exhibit a level of respect for the Word as the final authority. My experience is that the Bible plays second fiddle to the so-called “common sense” of man (i.e., “yes, the Bible allows it, but look at [anecdote][statistic]” – from the alcohol discussion). Is the intellectual brick wall I keep running into something deeper than just stubbornness? Or, at what point is the essential unity of the gospel no longer an issue because a party may in fact have departed from the faith? Basically, how does a continual refusal to accept the clear teaching of Scripture – or an overruling practice of trumping Scripture with personal opinion – play into the model you’ve laid out? I understand a definitive answer may be tricky here, but I’d appreciate some help.

  5. fitzage says:
    March 24, 2006 at 10:53 am

    Nathan makes some good points, and I would like to add to 1 Corinthians 11:19 – “for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.”(ESV)

    Which seems to indicate that there is some level of separation that is necessary. I obviously wouldn’t draw this line where Fundamentalists tend to these days, but there’s still some necessity for this. But then it all comes back to the question, what is important enough to draw this line?

  6. pitchford says:
    March 24, 2006 at 11:52 am

    Chris,

    I was finally able to read your article: you made a lot of good points, and for the most part I agree with you. There are a couple of things that I see differently (which I’ll get to in a minute), but I would definitely say we’re in the same camp. Some of the points that I particularly appreciated are as follows:

    1. You are clearly against the Dispensational idea of an ongoing distinction between Israel and the church as two peoples of God. That is vital.

    2. You fully appreciate the typological nature of Israel’s national form, history, etc.

    3. You reject the commonly accepted threefold division of the law, as do I (although most Covenant Theologians [as I would label myself] argue for that division). I would agree that there seems to be no basis for it in Paul’s way of speaking.

    4. You recognize that the Mosaic Covenant is different from others, such as the Abrahamic and New, in that it alone was designed to be impermanent (as per Jeremiah 31, Hebrews 8:13).

    5. You acknowledge that the Holy Spirit was active in regenerating the Old Testament saint, but allow for some definite advance in the days of the New Covenant (such as his permanent indwelling of all believers). I am not sure what to think of his indwelling of OT believers, but I am certain that he has always regenerated every true believer; and yet his work did change dramatically beginning at Pentecost.

    6. You are at least open to the Covenant of Redemption idea from John 17. I would agree that John 17 (as well as other passages throughout that gospel, Psalm 2, etc.) definitely indicates that this is a biblical concept.

    As far as points of difference, I would suggest the following:

    1. Your contention that, in the New Covenant all members are true believers, and that, therefore, the New Covenant is different from what went before (in particular, the way you use the idea to support credo-baptism), is too ambiguous. Yes, Jeremiah 31 states that, in contradistinction to the Old Covenant, New Covenant members would have God’s law written on their hearts — but what was the Old Covenant contrasted with the New? That which was given on Sinai. The Abrahamic Covenant, just as certainly as the New, was given in a way that demands the true regeneracy of all who are partakers of it. Those who are in the Ab. Cov. are God’s people and he is their God. However, there was a set of criteria given by which to determine whether or not to recognize someone formally as a member of the covenant, which was broader than the set of those who were essential, inward partakers. Romans 11 seems to indicate that this is also the status of the New Covenant. Those who are formally incorporated into the covenant, if they prove to be unbelievers, will be broken off. Those who are true partakers of the Abrahamic Covenant were a subset of those who were formally partakers. That this is still the case today is indicated by the parables of the wheat and tares, dragnet of fishes, etc. One more point: the fact is very clear (as you recognized) that the Ab. Cov. was given as a permanent covenant. Which would mean that the New Cov. is not an entirely different covenant, one that replaces the Abrahamic — it is just a new administration of the Ab. Cov. It is the Ab. Cov. in the days of fulfillment, not just the days of promise.

    2. The main point in which I would disagree is your contention that the church is not in the OT. Israel was not merely an earthly picture of the spiritual realities that would later be given to the church. Outward Israel typified the true Israel which actually enjoyed those spiritual realities that were typified. Many Israelities may have experienced no true spiritual blessings, but were content with physical sacrifices, physical land, etc. But true Israelites, such as David, rejoiced in the physical blessings predominantly because they recognized the spiritual realities that they pormised. David rejoiced at the animal sacrifices because he looked ahead to the resurrection of Christ and the non-imputation of sin. Abraham was pleased to wander in the promised land, because he looked ahead to a heavenly city. In other words, true Israel reached beyond the types and embraced Christ and his cross, the fulfillment of all the types. And this true Israel was the same church that we as believers in Jesus are today.

    3. Your rejection of the Covenant of Grace is my last point of disagreement. I would contend that God gave to Adam a covenant of works in the garden — which he failed to keep. In response, God devolved the Covenant of works upon the coming promised Seed of the Woman, his own Son, and offered again to Adam the blessings of that Covenant — but this time, without the necessity of works, only of believeing in the Mediator who would come to fulfill the works Adam had abrogated. This was the Covenant of Grace, and it is the heart of all subsequent scripture. While I recognize (in contradistinction to many Covenant Theologians) that the Mosaic administration was temporary, from texts such as Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, I also recognize that, at the same time the impermanent covenant of law-fulfillment was given, the ongoing gospel-promise of grace was reaffirmed for those who would trust in the coming Rdeemer. In other words, the law, which came 430 years after, could not negate the covenant of grace, i.e. the permanent covenant first made with Adam, and coming to its definitive form with Abraham. The end of the Bible, Rev. 21, is simply a look ahead to the final fulfillment of the covenant made with (fallen) Adam, and definitized with Abraham. Galatians 3 and Romans 10 are two texts which lead me to affirm that, contemporarily with the giving of the impermanent covenant of law, the permanent covenant of grace was reaffirmed for those who had hearts to look to Christ.

    I guess I’ve rambled enough. Thanks for the link. Your article was helpful. In spite of my differences, I think I am in basic agreement with the majority of what you had to say. God bless.

    Nathan and Matt,

    Your points are excellent and necessary — and I’m not sure how to respond. It’s somewhat baffling to me how Paul can respond so differently in what seem to be very similar situations. How, for instance, can he “be as under the law to the Jews,” (I Corinthians 9), and yet say that, if you are circumcised then Christ profits you nothing, and if you are under the law you have fallen from grace (Galatians 5)? How can he say, “If meat makes my brother stumble, I will eat no meat until the end of the world” (or something like that — I Corinthians 8), and yet say, “Let no one judge you with respect to meat or drink, etc.”(Colossians 2); not to mention his labeling of abstainers as men characterized by the doctrines of devils in I Timothy 4?

    There is definitely a need for much discernment in determining who is truly clinging to Christ alone for righteousness, and yet a weaker brother in non-essential matters; and who is a false teacher, propagating works-righteousness. Maybe we could say that, if someone is abstaining from alcohol due to past addiction, a perceived relationship to immoral parties, etc., he is a weaker brother who should be deferred to and lovingly taught; but someone who is actively condemning others and asserting that one cannot drink and be accepted by God should be openly resisted. That’s still vague and general. I definitely think we need to work through this issue a little more fully.

  7. Francesco De Lucia says:
    March 31, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    I appreciated your point of view about unity. I was in a pentecostal arminian congregation, and I left because of very different views between me and the elders of the church on the doctrines about the sovereignty of God and salvation (foreknoweldge, foreordination, election, regeneration, original sin, total depravity, forensic justification by faith alone, preservation of the true saints, etc.). I tried to seek dialogue, but I received prejudices, I saw fear because they saw me as a danger for the church, and they said to me that I had to be silent about everyone of this points; that is, not only I should have been silent not taking the initiative in speaking about that (condition which I agreed with), but I should have remained silent EVEN IF someone had asked me something about ANY of that points ‘by accident’. So I decided not to accept that second condition, because my conscience was bound to the Word of God about SO MANY and SO FUNDAMENTAL points.

    Do you think that they are minor points too? Do you think I should have accepted their condition?

    Now I am striving to be equipped to learn better about the the doctrines of grace, so called…because I want the church around me to well understand and profess these precious truths. I am attending a congregation where these points are not refused, but not strongly affirmed, yet. At least, I can speak and say what I think, I can serve them, step by step, giving them studies for examples, being very patient…And I want to do that wherever I find a professing Christian, but I learn to be patient, and striving to avoiding sectarism, pride, and things like that…

    Blessings

    Francesco De Lucia

  8. pitchford says:
    March 31, 2006 at 1:07 pm

    Francesco,

    I commend your decision to leave the church, under those circumstances, and look for another. In order to grow in unity and maturity, I think it is vital that we have the courage to contend for doctrines which are thoroughly grounded in the scriptures. And I do not see those doctrines you mentioned as minor: they strike at the heart of God’s free grace, the very foundation of the gospel — and, if left unchecked, may pervert the gospel into that which is not the gospel at all.

    At the same time, I appreciate your desire to be humble, meek, and loving, and patient in your defence of these and other important matters. May the Spirit empower you to grow in these doctrines, to aid others around you in their doctrinal growth, and to be ready to be corrected by others whenever they bring the scritpures to bear on any point of discussion. If one should refuse to hear, it is not the wiser or more loving thing to see that as a reason for silence. That may result in a superficial appearance of unity, but in the process, the path to real Christian unity will be obstructed.

    Love in Christ, Nathan

  9. Francesco De Lucia says:
    April 1, 2006 at 7:27 am

    Thank you for your encouraging answer.

    Can I ask you something? Are you a cessationist or a continuationist? I don’t want to have an argument, I won’t think anything bad, I appreciate very much both cessationist and continuationist theologians. I ask only to know.

    Blessings

  10. pitchford says:
    April 2, 2006 at 7:55 pm

    I would hesitantly call myself a continuationist. I can certainly see no textual reason to suppose a cessation of any of the Spirit’s gifts (strained exegeses of I Corinthians 13 notwithstanding). But on the other hand, I can’t really say that I’ve ever seen what I think could be a legitimate occurence of tongues, prophecies, etc. But the Spirit can still do as he sees fit, no doubt — even if that includes the ongoing outpouring of sign gifts, and so on.

  11. nathan says:
    April 3, 2006 at 5:35 am

    This might be something I disagree with you on, Pitchford, though I must admit there is little to go on either way in this discussion. I agree that I see no verifiable occurences today, but I would agree that God can do what He wants. My feeling, though, is that God chose in the interest of having a church of individuals that live by faith and not by sight to give special gifts to establish His Church, but to do away with those gifts as quickly as possible when the canon of Scripture was complete. We feel very strongly about sola scriptura, and if I have to choose a position based on lack of clear scriptural teaching, I have to cling to that. Subjectively, if the gifts that occasioned so frequently in the New Testament church are no where to be found today, is that not itself an indication of God’s intention in this matter?

  12. nathan says:
    April 3, 2006 at 5:39 am

    Sorry, second sentence may be confusion. Conjunction should be “and.”

  13. nathan says:
    April 3, 2006 at 5:40 am

    confusion=confusing

    I’m tired.

  14. pitchford says:
    April 3, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    I’m not sure that these gifts “are nowhere to be found today”. Perhaps rarely to be found in America today, or at least in America in the circles with which I have most experience. But my interactions with various missionaries and other reliable Christians in different cultures/milieus have led me to believe that, in some situations, God is at least making use of dreams and visions and other miraculous occurences (jail doors coming open of their own accord, etc.) — things that seem commonplace in the book of Acts. I have a suspicion that in China, for instance, the persecuted church savors more of the Acts church in these matters than one might suspect.

Leave a Reply