Why Doesn’t Everyone Agree with Me?
I am a Calvinist; others are Arminian. I believe in a premillenial eschatology; others are amillenial. I am a traducianist with regards to the creation of the soul; others are creationists. I believe in reasoned inerrancy; others believe this is an archaic naive doctrine. There are many points of doctrinal division I am going to have with people, some of which are much more important than others.
Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? Who is causing this disunity in the body of Christ, them or me? Do these divisions demonstrate the doctrinal bankruptcy of sola Scriptura? Should we elect a Pope of Protestantism? Or could it be that God has a purpose in his allowance of disagreements?
There are a few different ways that I could answer this.
- Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied deeply enough (lack of scholarship).
- Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied broadly enough (lack of perspective).
- Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied long enough (lack of wisdom).
- Others don’t agree with me because their traditional prejudices have created a learning “disability” that keeps them from the truth (lack of freedom of thought).
- Others don’t agree with me because they have sin in their life that is blinding them to the truth (lack of holiness).
- Others don’t agree with me because we don’t have an infallible authoritative interpreter of Scripture that would bring doctrinal unity (lack of a Pope).
- Others don’t agree with me because they are not Christian. If they were, well . . . they would agree with me! (lack of salvation)
Generally speaking, I do not default to these possibilities. Don’t get me wrong, these really are all possibilities. It could be that people deny the truth (assuming that my position is such) due to ignorance, lack of perspective or wisdom, traditional bindings, sin, lack of authority, or a presupposition of godlessness or naturalism. But I think we need to be careful about any negative prejudgments about people’s motives and the ultimate reasons for disagreements.
We normally don’t know.
Here are the considerations I would aspire to make before I fall back upon the previously mentioned possibilities.
Others don’t agree with me because they are right and I am wrong.
Granted, I am convicted I am right. If this were not the case, I would simply change my position. But the possibility always exists that I am the one who is in error, misinformed, motivated by false pre-understandings, tradition-bound, or lacking perspective. I must consider this with great humility, as hard as it is to do.
There are some things of which I am more sure than others. For example, I am far less likely to be wrong about the existence of God than I am about my belief in a pre-tribulational rapture of the church. As well, I am humbled by the fact that there are many things I used to believe that I no longer do. I held to these former beliefs with (what seems to be) just as much conviction as many of the beliefs that I hold to now. What do I do with that? In most of those cases, the evidence, or lack thereof, militated against my previous doctrinal commitments and forced me to make hard adjustments. Very hard adjustments. For example, I used to believe that if someone did not accept the doctrine of inerrancy, they were not Christian. This was due to my fundamentalist presuppositions no doubt, but when faced with the evidence – that there are many people out there who do not hold to inerrancy, yet love and trust the same Christ as me – my position either had to change, or slumber in the bedroom of naiveté. I still have those decisions to make. It is called learning.
What I must realize is this: there is not one belief that I hold to which is protected by infallibility. Infallibility is the other side of the coin of absolute certainty. Absolute certainty can only be held by those who have all the information and are interpreting it correctly. To be infallible means that you cannot fail. Since I am not infallible, by definition, I can fail. All of my beliefs are subject to my attribute of fallibility. There is no one who possesses infallibility. Even Roman Catholics who try to alleviate themselves of this reality by trusting in the dictates of an infallible magisterial authority, such as the Pope, inevitably face the same problem, since their own trust in the infallible authority of the Pope is fallible. The same holds true for Evangelicals and our infallible Bible. Our belief in the Bible is fallible, even if the Bible itself is not. No one can escape their own fallibility. Therefore we all could be wrong. We are left to rely on a process of examining and weighting the evidence and following it wherever it leads. This will often cause us to change our beliefs.
Therefore, serious consideration must always be given to the proposition that people don’t agree with me because I am the one who is wrong.
Others don’t agree with me because God does not want us to agree, regardless of who is right.
This may sound odd, but we must consider it. I said earlier that I was a Calvinist. While this does not give me exclusive right to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, it does require me to consider what part it might play in the question: Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? What I am really asking is this: Why isn’t everyone unified around the truth?
I believe that it is a real possibility—even likelihood—that God does not want absolute doctrinal unity right now. In fact, practically speaking, it could do more harm than good. I believe doctrinal disagreements are often healthy for the church. When there is conflict between opposing viewpoints, the issue at hand is understood at a more profound level than is possible in the absence of conflict. Conflict, in the end, can bring about a deeper conviction of the truth. When there is no conflict, there is no iron sharpening iron in the same way.
I am not in any sense trying to relativize the truth, but to help us understand that wrong beliefs, even our own, could be serving the purpose of God and bringing Him more honor than we recognize. It is often said that heresy is God’s gift to the church. Why? Because when a false option is presented the truth becomes much clearer. In contrast there is clarity. In clarity there is conviction.
It is for this reason that we must be continually engaged with alternative options. As hard as it is to engage in beliefs that go against our present convictions, we need to recognize the value of the struggle. Herein lies what I believe to be one of the greatest strengths of the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura—it presents the opportunity to wrestle with the issues at a level that is not allowed for in magisterium-based traditions.
What I am saying is this: it may actually be God’s sovereignty that brings about division over the doctrine of God’s sovereignty! This does not mean that wrong belief is always justified. Wrong belief is often (though not always) the result of sin. Neither does it mean that we need to be content with agnosticism or lessen our conviction about any doctrinal issue. To the contrary. It means that we engage in it more vigorously than we did before, being confident that God has a dignified reason for conflict resulting from diversity. In the end, we will find that through the conflict our beliefs become stronger, not weaker. I believe we must open ourselves up to the possibility of being wrong in order to find truer faith and conviction.
In Celebration of Division
We have learned to celebrate diversity in every area of life. We celebrate the diversity of the sexes. Men: can you imagine a world where women did not contribute to a balanced perspective? That is horrifying. Women, can you imagine the opposite (don’t answer that!)? Think of the diversity among personalities, nations, political parties, age groups, and cultures. While we may believe that our opinion is correct (and it may be), from a certain perspective we can appreciate dissent in values, beliefs, and practices. Understanding diversity can often cause us to see that the answer to many issues is going to be more of a both/and rather than an either/or. We could both be right and we could both be wrong.
In the end, if God is in control, then the answer to my question is relatively simple. Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? Because it is not God’s will for them to do so. This is to His glory. Why? His will is better accomplished through diversity. In this I think we can learn to celebrate diversity without yielding to the postmodern matrix of relativism, uncertainty, or apathy.
276 replies to "Why Are There So Many Divisions in the Church?"
@Pete: Yes, it is Western, but ‘right is right’…the true Church is always reforming itself, under the authority of “spirit and truth”. Btw, I see St. Paul as much more affected by the Greco-Roman in his Jewish Hellenism.
Hi Pete,
Yes he expresses the “orthodox” view very well, but still as opinion.
However the original question had to do with people not agreeing. I as an example, based on Jesus parable of the Wheat and Weeds, can’t help but see that the n”Church” of the second century at the latest, became weed filled.
This has led primarily to diverse Doctrine/teaching as compared to Dogma/Clear Scriptural directives. This is at the root of disagreement, following the teachings of men who “claim” to be spirit led. Unfortunately with the wide variety of doctrines and teachings, it simply can’t be true of all. Since peop0le hate to admit they are wrong, those they respect give nice arguments based on human reasoning as to what they aren’t and of course the ever present desire to BE seen as a Christian by Christ (I.e. saved and goi8ng to heaven), most won’t accept they and their “church” are …. well.. wrong.
Now EOC members will disagree. Fine , just as ROC members will advocate the ROC and Anglican’s, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc will advocate for non EOC/ROC Churches (With a mild exception of the Anglican, which seems to reject primarily the Vatican), we see distension.
OK, to me the way to know who, if anyone, is THE True Church is to check it’s history of behavior and teaching against Scripture and what Jesus said would identify the True Church, his followers.
Scripture NOT tradition or human reasoning.
@Pete, I read your link/article and I both enjoyed it immensely and had to chuckle…enjoyed your pointing to the Truth of Jesus as a person, enjoyed the humility of tone. Nevertheless I chuckle, because underneath it all there remains the same certainty that Christ is embodied in a specific institution you call the Orthodox Church. Change the names and you have Roman Catholicism; change the names yet again and add nasty angry shouting and you have Westboro Baptist Church. In the final analysis you’re still talking fundamentalism, even if it’s with a soft voice and a gentle smile.
Don’t get me wrong…I’ll take gentle fundamentalism over the militant, screaming, hateful kind any day of the week, but still…
Hi Dan,
I don’t have a problem with it being a specific institution, as Christ does not exist divided. The question is WHICH institution? God has always dealt since Moses day with ONE institution and as a previous poster pointed out Acts 15 endorses that.
How do we identify the True Church, knowing then we have found the True ekklesia. Mind you this does not leave others out in the cold totally. Revelation 18: 4 however does give direction to such.
IN cae you are wondering my Father was Catholic and my Mother was raised in the Presbyterian church. I have family members in many different churches: from the Catholic Church, Presbyterian, 7th Day, Non Denominational, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Bahia and a few who are probably atheists as well.
Makes for interesting views. Now why don’t we agree as Michael asked? Different teachings, even if we hold to the same essential Dogma’s. ALL cannot be right, and that means one must be. How do we tell?
@Paul Leonard, ALL cannot be right, and that means one must be.
No, it means nothing of the sort. All may be wrong in different ways. I rather suspect all have some truth but none have all of it. I am completely convinced that the Church…that is, the Body of Christ…spans institutions, denominations, and time. I repudiate *any* institution that claims to have a lock on it.
@Dan, if you see Orthodoxy as equal to the teachings & traditions of the RCC or Westboro Baptist…I don’t know how to respond.
@Paul, “Scripture NOT tradition or human reasoning.” Do you really believe that Scripture can be interpreted without being interpreted? Because interpretation itself is tradition. Baptist tradition is based upon their interpretation of Scripture. RCC’s interpretation is part of their tradition. Etc. And EVERY tradition has elements that are not SPECIFICALLY written in the Bible.
Orthodox tradition is the oldest, most unchanged interpretation of Scripture. If you can find otherwise, let me know.
Hi Dan,
I see one institution. God, as long as he has had a people, not simply of one family like Abraham, has always gathered them together into ONE group. Revelation 18:4 tells us to get OUT of those that are not true. Jesus said the wheat would be gathered into ONE storehouse not many. Acts 15 shows a united “Church”, not each ekklesia going it’s own way in partial error; and Paul’s words in 1 Cor 1:10 must be obeyed.
ASV 1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
If God can’t bring His people together, then we have a serious problem. It makes no sense for Him to let His people wander in confusion as He is Not a God of confusion.
KJV 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Note; as in ALL the churches.
DRA 1 Corinthians 7:17 … And so in all churches I teach.
The problem again is that no one wants to address the reality because it eliminates so many “Churches” and to a degree isolates true believers from the “mainstream”. Yet that is what it also did in the 1st century.
Hi Pete,
Pete:, “Scripture NOT tradition or human reasoning.” Do you really believe that Scripture can be interpreted without being interpreted?
Paul: Yes, as we can simply take what requires NO interpretation. We need no interpretation to know that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, as an example. That is “Dogma” and superior to traditions. Interpretation can lead to doctrine/teachings, but such are Not equal to the clear teaching requiring no man’s interpretation.
Pete: Because interpretation itself is tradition. Baptist tradition is based upon their interpretation of Scripture. RCC’s interpretation is part of their tradition. Etc. And EVERY tradition has elements that are not SPECIFICALLY written in the Bible.
Paul: Yep tradition based on man’s reasoning NOT clear Scripture. Tradition is not equal to Scripture except for those who want THEIR tradition to be equal so THEIR beliefs cannot be questioned. What did Jesus say about the traditions that went beyond Scripture?
NKJ Mark 7:7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
Whaat was he talking about?
ESV Mark 7:4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.)
Continued:
HI Pete,
Continued:
I would expect you or anyone to hold strongly to their “church” and have strong reasons for doing so. Yet the parable of the wheat and weeds, clearly shows the early church became weed filled. This is brought out in Rev chapters 2 and 3 and those were Eastern Churches.
The traditions are still traditions of men not God. Lo0ok at all the rites, dress, celebrations that are not found anywhere in Scripture. They are the commands/doctrines/traditions of men. Their age does not make them scriptural at all.
I notice no one addresses the behavior of believers, why not? I believe Jesus clearly said:
ASV Matthew 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
DBY Matthew 12:33 Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt. For from the fruit the tree is known.
ESV Luke 6:43 “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit,
Paul saw it happening in his day:
NAB 2 Corinthians 11:15 So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
No, traditions and claims of historicity are of no avail as everyone has the same position based on their beliefs and traditions. Fruitage in harmony with clear Scripture is evidence.
Hi Paul, good discussion.
Paul: Yes, as we can simply take what requires NO interpretation.
Pete: We would get, maybe, one half of one page that we all agree on! For example, “this is my body, this is my blood.” “whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life.” Pretty clear, eh Paul? No? OK, see what I mean?
Did you know that the eastern church has a different interpretation than you on: sin; salvation; what constitutes the Bible; church structure; the Mother of God; communion of the saints; icons; the incarnation; church authority; confession; Liturgical worship; the Trinity; the Eucharist; eschatology; sanctification; original sin; fasting; etc. I could go on and on, unfortunately.
Paul: What did Jesus say about the traditions that went beyond Scripture?
Pete: in those passages he is talking about the Jews and the Old Covenant. The New Testament, on the other hand, commands us to “keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you”. 1 Cor 11:2.
When Jesus ascended after 40 days, he didn’t throw copies of the King James down on everyone; instead, after 10 days, he sent the Holy Spirit down and established the Church. “He have Him to be head over all things to the church, the fullness of Him who fills all in all”. Eph 1:23. As Fr. Robert has quoted several times, the church is “the pillar and ground of the truth”. 1 Tim 3:15.
Paul, re: continued:
I’m not sure what you are asking?
If you believe that the church failed and that the “weeds” took over; or that the church is “always reforming”, which means “always failing and the true believers have to split off and start their own church”…then sorry, I don’t agree. I guess we’ll agree to disagree.
I take Christ at his word when he said that the church would never fail. I guess that could be considered child-like faith. If it is, then I’m guilty as charged! 🙂
@Pete: I think, as you said earlier, were beating a dead horse seeking to talk “fundamentalism” with these said brethren! Note, some deny the Trinity of God here!
And the idea of the ‘Church always reforming’ is not the Church breaking down and reconstituting in some complete reconstructionism (aka the anabaptists), as the church renewing constantly by “spirit and truth”. There is a big difference! Our fundamentalist brethren, have the church broken and even overcome, but this was not the Church of the Reformation!
@Paul Leonard, I’m thoroughly confused. I see you disagreeing with @Pete’s Orthodox institution and @Robert’s combination of Calvinist Anglican, but I also hear you saying there is “one institution.” I’m curious which “one” is your “one?”
Hi Pete,
<Paul: Yes, as we can simply take what requires NO interpretation.
Pete: We would get, maybe, one half of one page that we all agree on!
Paul: Yep, those would be Dogma.
Pete: For example, “this is my body, this is my blood.” “whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life.” Pretty clear, eh Paul? No? OK, see what I mean?
Paul: And that "could" be an example of doctrine/teaching. That is assuming no other verses or verses makes it clear as to what was meant, or the language.
Pete: Did you know that the eastern church has a different interpretation than you on: sin; salvation; what constitutes the Bible; church structure; the Mother of God; communion of the saints; icons; the incarnation; church authority; confession; Liturgical worship; the Trinity; the Eucharist; eschatology; sanctification; original sin; fasting; etc. I could go on and on, unfortunately.
Paul: Yep and ALL of those are traditions or teachings, not Dogma based on clear scripture. They "could" be true, but not if the Group holding to them does not match the descriptions given by Christ of his followers and their history is in conflict with clear scripture.
Continued:
Hi Pete,
Continued:Paul:
<Paul:What did Jesus say about the traditions that went beyond Scripture?
Pete: in those passages he is talking about the Jews and the Old Covenant. The New Testament, on the other hand, commands us to “keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you”. 1 Cor 11:2.
Paul: Fine what "traditions" do we see Jesus delivering to them? Please point out the specific verses, not later ideas of men who existed long after he left the earth. What makes you think man could not develop false traditions?
Pete: When Jesus ascended after 40 days, he didn’t throw copies of the King James down on everyone; instead, after 10 days, he sent the Holy Spirit down and established the Church. “He have Him to be head over all things to the church, the fullness of Him who fills all in all”. Eph 1:23. As Fr. Robert has quoted several times, the church is “the pillar and ground of the truth”. 1 Tim 3:15.
Paul: Nope no KJV then at all. However the question is not IF Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, rather who really received it.
The word "church" is ekklesia and refers to the "body" of believers, not a hierarchy. I am in agreement with Scripture, it is WHO makes up the "teachers" appointed by God over His sheep. Many claim it. After all does a historical existence make one right? Nope because for example, the EOC is rooted in the Eastern congregations exposed in Rev 2 and 3. The teachers were false, but "some" members were truly of the body of…
Hi Dan,
But that is the question. Not if their is one, but who make it up?
To me it would be the “one” group that best matches the description of Jesus disciples, not simply a confused mass of people who are all being misled. God is NOT a God of such confusion. IF we are in the Harvest/Last days all who truly respond will gather together into the one storehouse. If it is not the Harvest, it is all a mix of wheat and weed and you would be correct that all groups are a mix.
Hi Pete,
Pete: I take Christ at his word when he said that the church would never fail. I guess that could be considered child-like faith. If it is, then I’m guilty as charged! 🙂
Paul: and I do too. The difference is that in scripture it does not say “Church” as in an institution, rather it refers to the Body of Christ which has always existed. Hell has not overcome it in that there had never been a time when members of that Body did not exist. It says nothing about a “Church’ as in institution and in fact Jesus own words about the Wheat and Weeds clearly shows the Church/Institution would be polluted.
Rev 2 and 3 confirms that some were faithful, but not all.
The “Church” became weed filled, the Body still existed within that weedy field.
HI Paul,
On a quick lunch break, will respond more comletely later.
But, it always cracks me up when people talk about “those awful traditions of men”. Here’s an example:
Over 1,600 years ago (and surely earlier), our Christian priests and deacons began to dress in vestements during Liturgies. The 21st century western protestant sees this as obviously “too Catholic” and clearly “a bad tradition of men”.
Less than 200 years ago, someone reads Revelation and comes up with “the rapture”. “Rapture” is now a BILLION DOLLAR business. But that’s not a “tradition of men”? Of course it is.
Closing your eyes during prayer is a “tradition of men”. Is it a bad thing? Not to me.
Do you know what else is a tradition of men? A Southern Baptist preaching in a 3-piece suit. Do I think that this is “wrong”? No. Why? Because the Church isn’t some imagined idea, it is made up of human beings. The Church is both divine and human. And humas have traditions! Weddings are a tradition. Christmas is a tradition. Traditions can be good!
I would suggest that you get off the “traditions of men” rabbit hole/treadmill/blind alley and continue to your original search for the church that best embodies the True Church. 🙂
@Pete: Your wasting your time, note Matt. 7:6, one could at least make an application here! “Spirit and truth” is something that God alone does, and HE alone overcomes the “stiff-necked”! But, “Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord of hosts.” (Zech. 4:6) We so often forget that this is a spiritual reality, journey & battle! And so often one can read just the “letter” of the Word, and not see or understand the Spirit! This is what our Lord said so often Himself, in the Parable of the Sower… “And the disciples came and said to Him. “Why do You speak to them in parables?” He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” (Matt. 13: 10-11) So in reality this is often the confrontation of the Word & Spirit of God, itself! “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
Btw, this is an “existential” reality itself, in “Spirit and truth”! God is both transcendent and immanent, but always ‘In Christ’, and God triune!
Fr Robert, against my better judgment, I’ll respond. 🙂
@Paul, you are referencing the book of Revelation, which you say shows that the Church failed in the last 1st century. Well, do you know when the canon of the NT was assembled? In the middle/late 4th century by the Church. Did you know that it wasn’t totally obvious which books should be in the NT canon? It took several councils to decide & recommend the final canon to the churches.
Each of these individual books were copied by hand and circulated. We know that the popularity of books were directly proportional the # of copies. So it is no surprise that we have the most copies of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. Paul’s epistles were also very popular and we have many surviving copies of these (none of the originals, of course). Some of the choices were tough: the epistles from Barnabus to selected churches, although thought to be genuine, were not added. The “least popular” book of the early Church, Revelation, was added.
Anyway, here is my point: why would the Church of the 4th century add any book that would obviously point to the corruption of the Church? Well, they wouldn’t, and they didn’t. The wheat survived the weeds. The field was harvested, not burned.
The churches of Antioch, Phillippi, Thessalonica, etc. and yes, Philadelphia all survived; these Christian churches are almost 2,000 years old. And they call themselves “Orthodox”.
Glory to God for all things!
Hi Pete,
Pete:Anyway, here is my point: why would the Church of the 4th century add any book that would obviously point to the corruption of the Church? Well, they wouldn’t, and they didn’t. The wheat survived the weeds. The field was harvested, not burned.
Paul: The corrupt Jewish religious leaders also approved of books that condemned them. God’s will does not require a faithful Church leadership. The Jewish system was corrupt before the last book was written that really takes them to task. Your appeal to God’s blessing on the 4th century (or earlier) “Church” is fallacious based on Biblical history with the OT canon.
Plus the harvest has not yet occurred, so it is still a mix or the Body is being called OUT of the weed filled Churches.
Just look at the history of these Churches and see if it matches what Jesus said would be identifying evidence of his followers. IT isn’t just growth but ……?
Hi Robert,
Well your argument covers Micheal’s point #4 in his opening commentary. Unfortunately it could just as easily apply to you and those who agree with you. Claiming to have the leading Of the spirit is vastly different than actually having it.
In reality your commentary here is basically an ad hominem attack and such is known to be used when a reasonable and logical rebuttal is lacking.
The divisions in the “Churches” is clearly a violation of clear scriptural direction, given by Holy Spirit (1 Cor 1:10).
Try Scripture directly addressing the points or in effect you are pointing out that one of Micheal’s points really fits …..
You will notice I have not attacked any person or said they do not truly love God, His Son or His word, just that part of the reason why disagreement exists is a refusal to follow clear scripture, Scriptural conformity) in favor of organizational conformity.
Hi Pete,
Re traditions.
You are painting with broad strokes and missing the meaning and examples in Scripture.
The things you list, say about dress, are traditions of men. So what? Not all are WRONG or BAD, just some when they contradict clear Scripture and advance the interests of a group, particularly the power of the “leaders”.
Two examples.
1. Wine at Passover in Jesus day. Jesus said nothing was wrong and in fact used this tradition (addition) of men as it is NOT found as a part of the passover in the OT, but was added by man. IT did not violate any command of God.
2. Scripture clearly says that a “tradition” making eating certain foods, that the Bible does not tell us to abstain from, is n a tradition of men and in violation of God’s will.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 KJV 1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Voluntary would be OK, but declaring such a sin would be a tradition of weeds.
Many traditions are clearly man made AND un-Scriptural, such as the wide distinction between clergy and laity, exalting of clergy and the giving of titles that glorify such, etc.
What did Jesus say…
@Paul: You have attacked the Historical Church of God! And there is no “Harvest”! I am not a Pentecostal! And I have come to the point that there is little sense in talking with you! This is not ad hom, so much as just ad hoc, there is a difference! I have not attacked your person, but certainly your “lack” of historical belief, in both the Church of God, and the Ecumenical Councils. That’s pretty much it. So there is really no sense in seeking to dialogue when there is almost no “common” ground! (Jude 1:3)
[…] here for my theories […]