Well, Kent, in 1 Cor 12.13, Paul says “by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

There is a pattern where Paul is teaching them something they ought to know and he includes himself in that number, but then he turns to exhortation and uses “you”. Check Romans 6 for a pretty dramatic contrast between “we, our, us” and “ye, you, your”. The transition is in 6.11.

So I think you are not considering the context in limiting 1 Cor 12.27 this way.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

1 Cor 12:27. The body of Christ is local only. Paul excluded himself. He said, “ye are the body of Christ.” If the body of Christ was all believers, he would have said, “we are the body of Christ.”

If the Lord’s Table is the communion of Christ’s body, when do all believers ever partake in that communion together? (1 Cor 10:16ff)

A church is an assembly, see the meaning of ekklesia. When do all believers ever assemble? Unassembled and assembly is a contradiction in terms.

D4,

The “council” was two churches, leaders from each. I think a lot of baggage comes with the modern understanding of council (council of Nicea, council of Trent, etc.). They were attempting to keep in fellowship with each, but it was based upon doctrine. It’s something I try to do too, that is keep true fellowship, which is only around the truth.

No I Cor. 8 type exhortation given at all.

That is what you keep hearing me say, but it is not what I’m saying. Of course unity must be around all of Scripture as one knows and understands it.

However, since no one except Jesus can know and apply all of truth from day one, there has to be a way of maintaining unity while people are growing and learning and when people come to different conclusions on less clear teachings.

There can be no Christian unity (even though there can be civility) between those who say Jesus has risen and those who don’t. Between those who say salvation is by grace and those who don’t.

But there can be Christian unity (or at least fellowship) between those, to give just one example, who think baptism requires full immersion and those who think it just requires water. Both cannot be right, but which ever one is in error is not in violation of such clear Scriptural teaching as to require ultimate disunity or disfellowship. Perhaps separate congregations will help preserve unity in this case — prevent conflict and disunity ever time there is a baptism. However, most of the time these separate congregations can still acknowledge their ultimate unity in Christ.

I don’t think we’ll get anywhere as long as you are settled in your “Local Only” paradigm with all of the logical results which flow from holding that paradigm (which is not taught in any passage). So, that’s probably it for me too.

OK. I don’t think we’ll get anywhere, because you are settled in this, ‘since there is no sinless perfection, then unity can’t practically be around all of Scripture,’ a position not found in any particular passage as well as contradicts others, based on reasoning.

They got together in Acts 15 because members from the Jerusalem church were causing problems for the church at Antioch. The Antioch church wanted those to stop. Churches do fellowship with each other based on doctrine and practice, not on the disregarding or ignoring of doctrine and practice.

This is probably it for me here, Keith.

Then you don’t have any fellowship because you do not understand or properly apply all of the truth — unless you have attained perfection.

If you are just saying that you must act on what you know — fine, no disagreement. We all have the responsibility to act upon what we understand the Bible to say.

However, if you are saying that you can know and apply with certainty and accuracy all of truth, every last bit of it — well your view of the effects of sin is far weaker than mine.

Of the Jerusalem Council, you say, “In Acts 15, leaders from two churches got together to solve a problem they had with each other.” Why did they bother to do this if all that matters is the local assembly? Why didn’t they each just mind their own business and stay united within their separate congregations? And, when they solved the problem, were they united or divided? And, did it/does it matter?

Further, the council did a bit more than you suggest. Acts 15 tells us that the apostles and elders who were present composed and sent a letter to the Gentile Christians in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. These apostles and elders called themselves the “brothers” of all those Gentile Christians, and they told them what to do: “28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.”

Through and through, this is the work and language and attitude of unity across multiple congregations. Nothing hypothetical or intangible about it at all.

“A great deal of unity” isn’t even unity. It isn’t the unity described in the NT. Putting up with a few different doctrines and practices isn’t something we see anywhere in the NT. Getting together despite different doctrine and practice isn’t unity. Fellowship, which I think is something closely related to unity is based on all the truth. All of it.

I’m local only, but I’m still just dealing with the passages on unity and fellowship.

What is the Jerusalem council? In Acts 15, leaders from two churches got together to solve a problem they had with each other. They came together, by the way, not to disregard doctrine. Doctrine was going to separate them if they didn’t come to agreement on it.

I don’t see a universal church in the Bible and if you do, you will struggle with understanding unity, which is why, I believe, this is the most debated topic in Christianity.

I didn’t criticize for ridicule either, but for ridicule, cold shoulder—the whole package. If he just ridiculed, it wouldn’t be much of an issue, but Ben practices the hit-and-run. It’s a common “fundamentalist” tactic. And you said I condescended. Maybe I did from your perspective, but I thought I was attempting to have you interact with John 17.

Unity like Jesus had with the Father was practical and it relates to everything the Father says, not just soteriology. The truth that unity does not require sinless perfection does not mean that unity disregards some belief and practice. The doctrine is regularly disciplined through the teaching of the pastor (Eph 4), the Lord’s Table (1 Cor 10-11), personal and corporate correction (Mt 18:15-17; etc.), to stay one loaf, one mind, one heart, one judgment, one mouth.

You seem to be theology by hypothetical. Even though people sin, if the blood of Christ is cleansing them of all sin, they still walk in the light as He is in the light. Your “if they aren’t sinlessly perfect” argument isn’t a scriptural argument. Sinless perfect isn’t what is necessary for unity on all doctrine and practice. And people who are being discipled, growing, are doing so around the same doctrine and practice. They’re less than same doctrine isn’t being accepted. It is being disciplined or discipled. They aren’t going to be discipled if different doctrine or practice is excused.

Fellowship is based upon the truth, so churches with different doctrine and practice will be affected in their fellowship with one another. They will not be in fellowship. Churches fellowship based upon doctrine and practice. There isn’t more than one doctrine and practice in the Bible.

The unity Jesus prayed for is fulfilled in the church. I believe that can be shown internally in John 17, but also through the rest of the NT.

I just want to take this opportunity to demonstrate that I don’t automatically oppose anything related to fundamentalism . . .

Lance you claim that in schools BJU, “Anyone who speaks in any negative way regarding Calvinism will be excluded from leadership or from the “platform” in order to avoid division and to maintain a pseudo-unity.”

I think it’s inacurate to say that BJU inappropriately favors Calvinism (I’m defending BJU here — can you believe it Don — not calvinism). I don’t think their “don’t talk about it” approach to the calvnism/arminianism debate is the best, but I think it developed to keep obnoxious calvinists (yes there are too many) quiet — not the other way around. To accuse them of being partisan calvinists strains credulity (ha).

Lance, sorry for misunderstanding your previous post. You wrote, “Their acceptable Gospel is as broad a stream as the reductionism of Only Believism to the extremes of Lordship Salvation and Calvinism’s Soteriology of Monergism and/or Limited Atonement.” To me, that sounded like you were criticizing individuals for being unclear about their doctrinal committments — which I think just isn’t the case.

However, if I understand your clarification, what you’re really concerned about is that they are really heavy-handed calvinists who merely pay lip service to not limiting fellowship/gospel to calvinism. Is that it? If so, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Again, I’ll have to agree with Don (gasp) here. There is a difference between disagreement and disunity. Wesley and Whitefield disagreed, but they were united in Christ, and in their better moments that unity even worked itself out practically.

I disagree with baptists about church governement and the sacraments — that doesn’t mean that I must be at odds with them in every way. I have real, practical, deep fellowship with many. Yes our unity is limited when it comes to our areas of disagreement, but it is not obliterated.

Lance, you ask: “How can we take a text like Ephesians 4:1-6 and apply it in any real & practical way to some universal, intangible, mystical entity?”

I never said that that verse is applied to an intangible, mystical entity. What I (and most Christians through most of history) am saying is that those verses apply to my interaction with every tangible, physical Christian church member I come into contact with — those in my particular congregation as well as those in other congregations. Are you really saying your obedience to those verses is limited to your congregation? Do you not have to be humble, gentle, and patient with Christians who aren’t in your congregation?

You say, “How can we “endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit” if we never can never have it in the first place?”

I never said that we can not have it in the first place. What I said was that there is no area of life — including doctrine or practice — in which you will have it perfectly, EXACTLY like the Son with the Father. I believe that we absolutely CAN have it substantially and increasingly. However, sin affects everything. Therefore, until all sin is gone, no one will have anything perfectly. Not having it perfectly does not mean not having it at all.

Lance, could you point me to a systematic theology or other resource that uses “theanthropic union” the way you do? I have never encoutered that use previously.

Finally, to say that MacArthur is a presbyterian and to say that Reformed Baptists = Presbyterians are both absolutely inaccurate statements.

MacArthur is a dispensationalist, credo baptist, independent — you don’t know much about presbyterians if you think that any of those things fit in our scheme.

Reformed Baptists have a long, long heritage, which is most definitely not presbyterian. Neither they nor we appreciate the confusion.

Lance, I don’t believe all that is true. Fundamentalism has always included Calvinists and Non-Calvinists, perhaps even some Arminians.

As for

This is similar to what someone wrote in this thread (but now has been deleted), “I am a non-Calvinist, but I am not anti-Calvinism.”

Well, that would be me, and I am pretty sure I didn’t delete myself.

I think Calvinism fails to understand Scripture, but it isn’t un-Scriptural. It is an error, not a heresy. Where I have a problem with Calvinists is when they talk and act as if they are the only ones holding the truth and the only ones with a pure gospel. As if they have arrived and completely know the mind of God.

So…

Let’s not get the Calvinism debated started here. That isn’t the subject of this thread and isn’t the reason for my objections about the goings on at Northland.

For our Calvinist friends reading this thread, please let Lance’s comments on this point go. I’ll not allow the discussion to head in that direction.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3