Division & Unity in the Church: What's Worth It? [Think Biblically Podcast]

Рет қаралды 2,494

Күн бұрын

How important is unity for Christians today? What issues and circumstances should we divide over? In this discussion, Scott and Sean offer some biblical insights about unity in the church today. They discuss what issues we should "die on" and what issues we should seek unity over.
Subscribe to the Think Biblically podcast wherever you listen to podcasts: think-biblically.buzzsprout.c...
0:00 Introduction
1:34 How Concerned Should We Be About Church Unity?
3:00 Just Love Like Jesus Did
6:14 What Issues Are Essential?
9:07 Practical Approaches
12:36 Philosophy on Unity
15:05 Biola's Essentials
19:03 The Millennium
22:04 Abortion
25:38 Gun Control
29:33 What Makes Something ""Essential""?"
33:00 Marriage
36:57 Interacting With Other Christians
39:55 Conclusion

Пікірлер: 5

@christiantwombly3862 Жыл бұрын

I really appreciate what the podcast is trying to do here in distinguishing essentials and non-essentials from a salvation perspective. I also recognize the purpose is to give an overview - and that the particular example given 30:13 is meant to be fairly mundane. But the statement "there is one key passage on the Millennium, Revelation 20, and a few others," and "we don't consider it essential because it is not littered through Scripture and tied to the Gospel in the same way the deity of Christ is," does not take into account the prolific Millennial statements in the Old Testament (Zech 14, Ez 36-38, Jer 31:31-42, Ez 40-48, Isaiah 9, Isaiah 11, Joel 3, Dan 2, Dan 7, to name only a very small limited of the examples), where few statements on the deity of Christ are present. And according to commentators like C.E.B Cranfield, Paul's argument in Romans 9-11 is that Israel needs to have assurance of these O.T. promises because if they do not the Church can have no assurance of the promises regarding salvation made in Romans 8. And again I recognize the goal of the statement was to provide a mundane comparison, but the Millennium promises are "littered though Scripture" and are tied to the Gospel by Paul in the New Testament. Whereas, while I and most every Christian agree the deity of Christ is necessary for accomplishing our salvation, the Scripture itself never makes the claim directly. I do appreciate the podcast and what you guys were doing on this episode, I just don't think that this particular statement is accurate to the data and was hoping for more in approaching complicated doctrinal issues with direct salvation implications.

@JoelFischer Жыл бұрын

Hey Christian, I appreciate the argument you brought here and the tone that you brought it with! With that said, I do want to note that all those passages you brought to bear from the OT for the millennium do not relate to the millennium (or at least, it cannot be shown that they do). They refer to the Day of the Lord, to new creation, and so forth. I would certainly argue that whether there is a millennial period prior to the eternal state of new creation is not in view there. I have often found these points conflated among proponents of the millennium (I'm a-millenialist myself). The OT points toward the Day of the Lord (culminating tribulation leading to eternal justice) and a new creation (partially fulfilled in Christ's first coming, fully fulfilled in his second). I have yet to be convinced that there is an OT passage that fits a millennium more than the other two categories. Therefore I do think that Sean is right that there's really only one key passage on the Millennium. As far as the deity of Christ goes, I think that the author of Hebrews would dispute your point that nowhere in scripture is Jesus' deity and salvation tied! For example, Hebrews 2:17. Having just spent a year in a classroom study of Hebrews, I do think that these statements are implied and explicit throughout the book.

@christiantwombly3862 Жыл бұрын

Hi Joel, I don't think I can go through these passages over KZfaq comments to talk about implications. However, Amillennialists like Cranfield, Kostenberger, Poythress, or even Sproul would also see these as "Millennium" passages - but would place them in the Church age in terms of fulfillment; save perhaps Daniel 2. Biola obviously would place them in the future prior to the Eternal State. But the crux of what I am trying to say is that such Millennium promises related to a restored nation of Israel specifically have soteriological implications via Romans 9-11. As for Hebrews 2:17, this verse and accompanying passage argues that Jesus had to become a man "like his brethren" to accomplish redemption. But does not argue He needed to be God to accomplish the redemption. I agree that the Scriptures argue that Jesus is God; and I also agree He needed to be God to accomplish redemption - there is simply no argument made in Scripture that relates this fact. Even if one were to say it is "implied" somewhere, the problems remains that no explicit argument is made whereas an explicit and lengthy argument is made concerning the Millennium promises. And so my angst around this particular question of essential and nonessential forms; because the Scriptures frequently stress doctrines as salvation related that we do not see as "essentials", but others which seem quite essential, it has no argument for their place in soteriology.

@ready1fire1aim1 Жыл бұрын

[Leibniz's contingency argument for God, clarified]: Ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D. 0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) not-natural (not-physical) 4) necessary 1-9 and their geometric counterparts 1D-9D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) natural (physical) 4) contingent Newton says since 0 and 0D are "not-natural" ✅ then they are also "not-necessary" 🚫. Newton also says since 1-9 and 1D-9D are "natural" ✅ then they are also "necessary" 🚫. This is called "conflating" and is repeated throughout Newton's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. con·flate verb combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one. Leibniz does not make these fundamental mistakes. Leibniz's "Monadology" 📚 is zero and it's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space. 0D Monad (SNF) 1D Line (WNF) 2D Plane (EMF) 3D Volume (GF) We should all be learning Leibniz's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. Fibonacci sequence starts with 0 for a reason. The Fibonacci triangle is 0, 1, 2 (Not 1, 2, 3). Newton's 1D-4D "natural ✅ = necessary 🚫" universe is a contradiction. Natural does not mean necessary. Similar, yet different. Not-natural just means no spatial extension; zero size; exact location only. Necessary. Newtonian nonsense will never provide a Theory of Everything. Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason should be required reading 📚.......

@nathanteele7568 Жыл бұрын

First and foremost, this conversation fails to understand that God is good! Paul Tries at every turn to, on the one hand defend the gospel, and on the other hand to upstage it. You all are talking in circles here. Confusion, not conclusions that look like the kingdom of Jesus Christ. You lost me.