Divided Believers Cannot Mature in Christ

[Jimbone]

Hmm. I didn't expect that from you.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean it as bad as it came across. Seeing the reaction and this reply I wish I wouldn't have left it. I meant it amore tongue in cheek, but it was in bad taste and I do see how it was just not nice or funny at all. Especially when I completely agree with your point. I apologize man.

 

[Aaron56]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean it as bad as it came across. Seeing the reaction and this reply I wish I wouldn't have left it. I meant it amore tongue in cheek, but it was in bad taste and I do see how it was just not nice or funny at all. Especially when I completely agree with your point. I apologize man.

I see that the way I understood your post was totally wrong.

Thank you Jimbone. I really appreciate your posts on this site.

-Aaron56

 

[maxwel]

"For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?

Context Matters:

I think you might be imbuing this word "division" with some particular ideas that aren't actually found in the context.

1.) In scripture, we must always look at the context.
2.) We cannot just arbitrarily say a SINGULAR WORD is referring to some particular issue, unless the context of the passage is actually referring that that issue.
3.) So is the passage in question (1Corinthians 3:1-5) addressing secondary doctrinal issue between brethren?
4.) No.
5.) The passage is about PRIDE, and the word "division" here, specifically refers to ENVY, STRIFE, and the underlying PRIDE.
6.) This passage is not about DOCTRINE, it is about ATTITUDE.
It isn't about well-meaning brethren disagreeing politely on doctrine; it is about people fighting because of underlying Pride.
7.) The "division" here is specifically referring to attitude, not doctrine.
8.) This verse has nothing to do with what we now call "Denominational Differences"... saved brethren disagreeing politely over secondary issues.
9.) This passage is not about doctrine, but attitude... pride, anger, envy... not doctrine.
10.) There are those who hold differences of secondary doctrine politely, and lovingly, and there are those who hold these differences with a great sense of anger and pride. This passage does not refer to these differences of opinion, but to the underlying attitudes.


Conclusion:
1. This word "division" here DOES apply to any Christians who are full of PRIDE and ANGER... which some are.
2. This word "division" here simply DOES NOT, contextually, have anything to do with matters of secondary doctrine alone.
3. Regardless of your doctrine, and regardless of your denomination, this word "division" applies to you if you are full of ENVY, STRIFE and PRIDE... but it does NOT apply to you, regardless of your denomination, if you are NOT FULL OF ENVY, STRIFE and PRIDE
4. This passage is NOT about doctrinal differences AT ALL. It is specifically referring to certain ATTITUDES: the attitudes of ENVY, STRIFE and the underlying implication of PRIDE.


God Bless, and I hope you all have a great week.

.

 

[maxwel]

Continued...

I was always taught this passage about "division" was pointing out the evils of anyone with "bad doctrine."
(And "bad doctrine" merely being any church that disagrees with the church you're currently at.)

But this interpretation of the passage simply can't be found in the context of the passage.
The "division" here is specifically about attitude, not doctrine.

.

 

[Aaron56]

Continued...

I was always taught this passage about "division" was pointing out the evils of anyone with "bad doctrine."
(And "bad doctrine" merely being any church that disagrees with the church you're currently at.)

But this interpretation of the passage simply can't be found in the context of the passage.
The "division" here is specifically about attitude, not doctrine.

.

Yeah, it's not about doctrine. Ironically, the passage is use to promote bad doctrine.

 

[Jimbone]

I see that the way I understood your post was totally wrong.

Thank you Jimbone. I really appreciate your posts on this site.

-Aaron56

I was in the wrong no doubt, so you weren't totally wrong in you understanding. It wasn't a nice thing for me to say. I also just realized that I was very immature in your thread about Christian maturity. How very "funny" (embarrassing) of me.

 

[wattie]

Well, feel free to utilize Lesson 2 in our website <truthseekersfellowship.com>
for help with explaining to your fellow church members the kerygma and proper or
biblical relationship between Spirit and water baptism.
(Your fellow Bible Baptist, GWH :^)

Thanks, nice to see another Bible Baptist

It's not an issue at my own church..but I see it in these kinds of christian forums.

 

[homwardbound]

There are essentials in doctrine though that affect salvation.

Baptism fo salvation is no secondary issue. It's the difference between biblical Christianity and a cult or cult-like belief.

So to see real biblical Christianity..it's going to be rare..its going to be a seperate ecclessia from the rest.

Unity in the body of Christ..is unity in a local NT church. Not unity across all redeemed.

Unity across all redeemed is a logistical nightmare and won't happen until New Jerusalem in heaven.

isn't the true Church (Ecclesia) the one God built in Heaven for su to be new in love and mercy to all, living in us and through us, just asking seeing Hebrews 8

 

[Aaron56]

Further discussions about maturity.

John wrote the following:

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

This is a verse where the KJV is a better translation. The underlined portion reads thus in the KJV: to them He gave the right to become sons of God...

It is important to note that "sons of God" is not a reference to a person's sex: male or female. In Christ Jesus, the sex of a person has no bearing on the favor of God. It should be understood that "son" is a reference to the connection one has with another, their father. Being a son requires a father. In the Spirit, saying that a someone is a "son of God" inextricably connects them WITH God. This is to establish a family lineage: you are a son of God - He is your Father.

A firm family lineage establishes the expectations of the son: as he matures he will become like his father. With God, this is the expectation for all sons: that they represent their father - The Father - in all they do. This is contrary to the Western view of parentage wherein each child is expected to find his or her own way by their own means. That's the language of orphans who have no father, no established lineage. And why not - Much of the West, the United States in particular, has rejected kingly rule and thereby their understanding of the art of royal lineage.

There are several words for "son" or "child" of God. Knowing the differences brings clarity.

For example, in the verse above, John writes that we all who receive Him (Christ) are given "the right to become sons of God." If we pivot on the word "right", as if it is not a sure thing but a possibility, we could conclude that some who receive Christ do not become sons of God - they missed it somehow.

But Paul would write that a child, born to a house, inherits the whole estate, even though he is a baby:

"Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all..."

John would write:

"I write to you, little children, Because you have known the Father."

Paul uses the word nēpios for "child". John uses the word paidion for "little children". These words refer to an infant or very young son. It's only because of a son's lineage that the child has any rightful claim to his father's estate. In this case, the child's father is the Living God. To note: This is the de facto standard for eternal life: that one knows God and Christ- just as Jesus said:

"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

In the first verse cited ("He gave the right to become sons of God") the word for son is teknon. This is an older child. In this stage, the child first begins to handle his father's work. Perhaps a teenager, he now begins to practice what he sees his father doing in an effort to be competent in all tasks like his father. Incidentally, teknon is the word from where we get "technology" which is like, if I may, knowledge into practice.

So, when one is given the right to become a son of God - a teknon - he or she may actually forfeit that right.

BUT, this is not about losing their place as a nēpios of God - a child who's lineage is tied to God. It is about not participating in the work God has for them and thus never maturing beyond being a babe in Christ.

Just as I referenced in my OP: they remain in a state of needing milk because they cannot handle solid food. Solid food is for the mature.

Grace and Peace

 

[GWH]

Thanks, nice to see another Bible Baptist

It's not an issue at my own church..but I see it in these kinds of christian forums.

Yes, it may seem ironic that Baptists believe baptism is symbolic rather than salvational or a sacrament.

 

[wattie]

isn't the true Church (Ecclesia) the one God built in Heaven for su to be new in love and mercy to all, living in us and through us, just asking seeing Hebrews 8

The true church is the local body of Christ. Although putting 'local' in front it is a bit nonsensical, seeing the body is localised, together, unified, by nature.

I joined all redeemed when i was converted. I didn’t join a body of Christ until later. That is the New Testament local assembly I joined.

You probably haven't heard this teaching before, but consider the body in 1 co 12. Paul is not describing all redeemed in this chapter.

Consider the 'there is one body..' in Ephesians.. that's the one body AT Ephesus. That local body.

Consider Jesus saying He will build His church in Matthew 16:18. In Matthew 18 its obviously the local church He means. Why would He introduce it differently in Matthew 16 to what it is in Matthew 18?

Anyway,

All redeemed obviously are an entity in themselves. But I don't believe they are the body of Christ. I believe the body to be a small c .. NT church.

 

[homwardbound]

Yes, I go to a Fellowship Bible Baptist church funnily enough.

What irks me though, is water baptism for salvation seems to be getting more popular. It's a real spanner in the works, because the salvation is about something the person does rather than about trusting in Jesus.

Instead of responding to the question, why should you get into heaven with..

Because Jesus saved me when I believed in Him.

It'll be because I got baptized. Or because I go to church, or because i'm a good person.

'I' have no redemptive remit in being human. Nothing 'I' can do to gain salvation from my behaviour.

All Jesus and Father as Won (One) for us
Ends up to me to be Jesus plus nothing else to me at least as I think tha tis what you are saying in your post and thank you for your honesty

 

[GWH]

The true church is the local body of Christ. Although putting 'local' in front it is a bit nonsensical, seeing the body is localised, together, unified, by nature.

I joined all redeemed when i was converted. I didn’t join a body of Christ until later. That is the New Testament local assembly I joined.

You probably haven't heard this teaching before, but consider the body in 1 co 12. Paul is not describing all redeemed in this chapter.

Consider the 'there is one body..' in Ephesians.. that's the one body AT Ephesus. That local body.

Consider Jesus saying He will build His church in Matthew 16:18. In Matthew 18 its obviously the local church He means. Why would He introduce it differently in Matthew 16 to what it is in Matthew 18?

Anyway,

All redeemed obviously are an entity in themselves. But I don't believe they are the body of Christ. I believe the body to be a small c .. NT church.

Of course the body of Christ BOTH includes all saints or is catholic/worldwide, AND saints participate in a local body/church.

 

[wattie]

Of course the body of Christ BOTH includes all saints or is catholic/worldwide, AND saints participate in a local body/church.

I would differ on that with you.. I would seperate the body from all redeemed as different entities.

Of course, in the end there will be one body of all redeemed in heaven.. but I don't believe it is currently a body of all redeemed yet.

 

[GWH]

I would differ on that with you.. I would seperate the body from all redeemed as different entities.

Of course, in the end there will be one body of all redeemed in heaven.. but I don't believe it is currently a body of all redeemed yet.

Not sure why you want to divorce them.

 

[homwardbound]

Of course the body of Christ BOTH includes all saints or is catholic/worldwide, AND saints participate in a local body/church.

personally I do not attend any Church building, not called there
I was told to come out her my people by God to me personally. Not my call to go to a building, was once called there, not anymore
Yet here I am called I was asked to go here and chose to do it. Trusting Father alone thank you all

 

[GWH]

personally I do not attend any Church building, not called there
I was told to come out her my people by God to me personally. Not my call to go to a building, was once called there, not anymore
Yet here I am called I was asked to go here and chose to do it. Trusting Father alone thank you all

I attended weekly or more often while living at home and while raising kids, but now I have not been able to find a satisfactory church, so my attendance is sporadic and CC is my main ministry, (which I attend daily :^) Is that what you mean by "here"?

 

[homwardbound]

I attended weekly or more often while living at home and while raising kids, but now I have not been able to find a satisfactory church, so my attendance is sporadic and CC is my main ministry, (which I attend daily :^) Is that what you mean by "here"?

exactly, thanks

 

[wattie]

Not sure why you want to divorce them.

Because 1 co 12 describes the current body as local. So does Matthew 16 and 18 so does Ephesians..etc.

All redeemed isn't a body currently. One member does not suffer with all. It is not unified, it's unassembled, it's disjointed. This is not the description of the body in scripture.

But .. Ill leave it at that and talk on other things. A small percentage of Christians agree with this and most will disagree here.

Last thing on the body is that it is not a building. It's the saved, baptised, covenanted together group that meets there.

 

[Kroogz]

What irks me though, is water baptism for salvation seems to be getting more popular.

Water baptism for salvation isn't growing or dying where I am from. There are folks who believe it and won't change, but it seems to be staying in those groups, not getting more popular.

Lordship salvation, reformed/calvinism theology is gaining popularity at an alarming rate where I am from.

The depravity of the creature is the sermon. The solution to that depravity by the Lord Jesus Christ is not mentioned.

1. You are the scum of the earth, and you can't even believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

2. You better persevere or you were not really saved.

This is what is gaining popularity where I am from.

Sad.