Tolerance among Unitarians
March 7th, 2010 by Brian Keating
As most of us are probably aware, there are very, very few “Unitarian Christians” in the world; i.e., Christians who recognize that Almighty God is only one person - our heavenly Father, Yahweh. In fact, the only belief that almost all mainstream churches agree on is that God is not one person, but rather that He is “three persons in one Godhead”.
As a result, the number of Unitarian Christians around the world is extremely limited - Unitarians presumably account for (much) less than 1% of all Christians. Therefore, in my opinion, it is very important for Unitarians to be able to fellowship with each other; even if we have disagreements about other issues.
For me, there are only three “vital” issues: God is one person - Yahweh; Jesus is the Son of God (not God the Son); and Jesus will establish the kingdom of God, on the earth. I would hope that everyone who holds those beliefs would be able to fellowship gladly with each other; regardless of other issues.
Sadly, from my experience, some other issues have caused severe divisions, and hard feelings, among Unitarians. Some of those issues are as follows:
- Following elements of the Mosaic law (Sabbath keeping, Kosher laws, etc).
- The personal pre-existence of Christ (as opposed to his “ideal” pre-existence).
- And, most notably, Speaking in Tongues.
I don’t have any problems fellowshipping with people who hold the above beliefs. However, in some cases, people who hold the above beliefs have had problems fellowshipping with me!
From what I have seen, the issue that has caused the most discord is Speaking in Tongues. What I mean by that is the following doctrine:
“All Christians have the ability to do legitimate speaking in tongues, whenever they decide to.”
From my experience, some people who do hold that belief tend to “look down” on Christians who do not - regardless of any other issue! In other words, that particular doctrine seems to be the “test of a true Christian” for some people. In my opinion, this should not be the case; Christians should not cause divisions - and certainly should not form “cliques” - based upon that one specific belief.
So, I’d like to solicit information from all of you. In particular, I would like to ask you all the following questions:
1. Have any of you seen the above issues cause divisions, in any of your fellowships?
2. Do you think that the above issues should cause divisions? In other words, are those issues important enough to risk destroying a fellowship?
Please let me know what you think!
My best friend is a non-conformist Roman Catholic who accepts most (but not all) of their teachings. He is of course a Trinitarian and a Sunday keeper. We sometimes seem to disagree on more things than we agree on but this is only superficial. In reality we agree on more things than we disagree on.
He respects my opinions because he knows I’m sincere even if we disagree on some fundamental things. I also respect his opinions because I know he is sincere. He often gives me spiritual advice and I often give him spiritual advice.
Like I have said before, I do not believe we will be judged by our doctrines but rather by our behavior. Doctrines are very much dependent on our mind set and our preconceptions. Our behavior on the other hand is very much dependent on our hearts which makes our actions much more important in the eyes of our Lord and God than our doctrines.
At least in my humble opinion anywaze…
Hello Brian,
You wrote:
What does the last issue about a kingdom on earth have to do with unitarianism?
That is also a divisive for some of us on here.
Hi Karl,
I agree - the kingdom being on earth does not, itself, have to do with unitarianism. The reason why I consider it a “vital” issue is because from what I can see, there are three items that we need to understand, in order to be saved: God, Jesus, and the kingdom of God. The scriptures that appear to indicate that are as follows:
John 17:3 (ESV):
3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
Matthew 13:18-19 (ESV):
18 “Hear then the parable of the sower: 19When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path.
Luke 8:12 (ESV):
12Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.
So, since understanding about the kingdom of God is apparently necessary for salvation, I place a very high value on it! What do you think?
Brian
In addition to the three “vital” issues that you mention, I would add one more. The belief in conditional immortality and the sleep of the dead, as opposed to natural immortality and the conscious survival of the soul after death is foundational to the entire message of the Gospel. Missing this can be seen to be the root of many other false doctrines, including going to heaven replacing the hope of the Kingdom.
As for those issues you mention that have caused division, I have seen that happen, especially speaking in tongues. I have been in fellowships where those who speak in tongues consider those who don’t to be less spiritually mature. Many of them are from a background in which they were taught that it was the only true indication that you are saved.
There are also so many other issues that people divide over, which I don’t think are worth such division. With many of them, a case can be made for both sides of the debate, and there is room for differing opinions, so long as the “vital basics” are adhered to.
If the Bible does not unequivocally state something, we should not be so dogmatic about it that we no longer walk in love, which is something that the Bible does unequivocally command.
Brian Keating and Mark C,
I am curious as to whether those folks with whom you had negative and divisive encounters concerning speaking in tongues, otherwise met your “vital” points or conditions for fellowship.
Brian
We should at all costs try to strive and “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” [Eph 4.3]. Let’s not forget that amongst the Apostles and their disciples there were very pronounced disagreements regarding Torah and personal traits.
Hello Brian,
But it doesn’t say that understanding that the kingdom of God is going to be an earthly political kingdom is necessary for salvation. Should it be vital to believe that the kingdom of God was going to come within the lifetime of the apostles as well? (Mk. 9:1)
I disagree that conditional immortality is vital. It also has nothing to do with unitarianism.
Hi Everyone,
Thanks for all of your comments! I think I should stress that the “vital” issues that I mentioned only apply to formal fellowships with others. Certainly, we should strive be kind and loving to everyone we encounter - regardless of their beliefs. However, it would be difficult for me to have formal Bible studies with people who do not share at least the three “vital” beliefs - because that would probably lead to arguments over what important parts of Scripture mean.
Mark - that is a good point; I also consider conditional immortality to be “vital”. In my mind, though, the kingdom being on earth “implies” conditional immortality; that’s why I didn’t mention it explicitly. (I probably should be more explicit, though.)
Brian - yes I have encountered divisions in groups over speaking in tongues - even when everyone in the group agrees on the three “vital” issues. Basically, the speaking in tongues issue, itself, has caused fellowships to become divided into two different “cliques” - and in my opinion, that should not be so. In particular, that issue should not cause people to show favoritism to some members, and to look down on others - but unfortunately, that is exactly what I have seen happen.
Xavier - thanks for the info. I would hope that more fellowships will adopt the que sera sera attitude!
Karl - from my understanding, in Mark 9:1 Jesus was referring to the “transfiguration” - i.e., the vision of Jesus, Moses and Elijah in glory. There are two reasons for this: first, because that event starts being described in Mark 9:2 (right after Mark 9:1!), and because Peter mentions that event in 2 Peter 1:16-18. Of course, I could be wrong!
The other item to note is that there are two different concepts: the definition of Unitarianism, and items that are necessary for salvation. In the strictest sense, Unitarianism just means the belief that God is one person (not three persons in one Godhead.) Items that are necessary for salvation (in my view) comprise Unitarianism, plus a few other concepts.
Brian
Hi again,
If any of you are interested, I have posted a PowerPoint presentation on the kingdom of God, at this URL:
http://ncbf.homestead.com/The_Kingdom_of_God.ppt
I hope it will be useful to you!
Brian
Hi everyone.OK, here is my (female) perspective on the whole debate. I agree wholeheartedly that we biblical Unitarians are few and (very) far between. This makes it even more important that we stick together. The only fellowship that I have found is on the internet, due to geographical constraints. One specific group stonewalled me when I said (point blank, sorry, won’t budge on this one) that I just could not agree on speaking in tongues, and especially when they are waiting for you to do it as a sign that you are a “real” Christian. I do think, though, that us Unitarians can be a rather argumentative bunch. This i say not as criticism, but as a comment on character. After all, most of us have spent many soul-searching hours in prayerful contemplation of our “different” from the world views- hence we are not in a hurry to accept even minor changes to what each individual feels to be the Truth. I do agree with all your vital points. Let’s try to celebrate what we have in common,rather than how we differ.
Fiona
Very interesting questions to contemplate Brian!
I agree with Mark C. that belief in a fully mortal soul (vs. an inherently immortal one) is also vital. Why? Well, it’s what Scripture says. It is beyond me how people can recognize that after the death of the Apostles, Greek thinking overtook Hebrew thought on the nature of Jesus the Messiah - and yet not see that Greek Platonic thought on the afterlife also overtook Hebrew thought of resurrection of the whole man at the last day? Of course I know pastors who preach the truth of Conditional Immortality and fully understand the history of how the immortal soul belief became entrenched as Church doctrine from that Greek thought-world influence - yet fail to see the same kind of error from the man-made trinity belief. I just don’t get how you can see one and not see the other. They both stem from the Greek thought-world over-taking the Hebrew one.
I guess I’m the reverse of what you said Brian. I think of the Kingdom of God stemming from the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, where you’re seeing it from the opposite side. But it is the same vital truth. Jesus is coming back to EARTH. The throne of David is ON EARTH. The promised land that was promised to Abraham, Issac, & Jacob to be theirs for eternity was/is ON EARTH. The Kingdom of God will be here as this was the home God created for us - not some unknown heavenly realm. We are to have the dominion over our world under Christ - the dominion the first Adam gave up.
Fiona,
I agree with you on the speaking in tongues thing. I don’t buy it either. And I also agree for somehow keeping ALL “BIBLICAL” Unitarians networked or in friendship/open dialog with one another. We need that. We are too small and scattered to simply push away from one another over smaller issues. Also open & honest dialog can lead others who differ to change their minds to the truth. Truth is truth after all. Anyone who earnestly desires it, can find it if they search, are honest with themselves, and let God’s Spirit guide them to it. Truth doesn’t change. It stays the same. WE have to change when we discover it.
So how do we communicate and talk with one another while not letting smaller disagreements (which happens a lot here in these comment discussions) tear us apart?
I think the bottom line point that Brian was making in his original article is that a line has to be drawn somewhere regarding true belief. But the harder question(s) is how wide is the gray area between the borders of that line to allow for smaller, less vital Scriptural interpretations??
Brian,
In my experience they did.
Karl,
What it does say is that salvation is dependant on believing the Gospel of the Kingdom. That Gospel includes the future reign of Messiah on earth. That’s why I consider it vital.
While it has nothing to do with unitarianism, it is vital for the same reason that the Gospel of the Kingdom is vital, since it is implied by that Gospel, as Brian K. said.
Ron S.,
The Kingdom on earth being replaced by going to heaven stems from the same Greek thought world as well. And just as there are those who see the Trinity and not Conditional Immortality (or vice-versa), there are those who see both but fail to see the Kingdom on earth. I don’t get how they could see only part of it either.
The vast majority of people who have some sort of positive belief about speaking in tongues are either trinitarian or oneness. Are there any unitarians who also speak in tongues, apart from those who are either with The Way or with a group that was formerly with The Way?
Fiona (msg. 10)
You said, “I do think though that Unitarians can be a rather argumentative bunch. This I say not as criticism, but as a comment on character. After all many of us have spent many soul searching hours in prayerful contemplation of our “different” from the world views - hence we are not in hurry to accept even minor changes to what each individual feels to be the truth.”
I can certainly relate to this myself. Sometimes I wonder if I’m not just being stubborn in my beliefs but I can’t help how I feel. It took me years to come to my beliefs and I don’t imagine they will change easily (at least not the feelings). I depend on God’s Holy Spirit to guide me and steer me to where he wants me to go. So listening to my heart is important to me. I’m sure I am not alone in this.
Xavier said, “We have enough enemies at the gates.”
I believe that we as reformers we are willing to question Christian traditions that others would not. This may lead to an outside observer looking in on this website and concluding that we are maybe a little bit crazy. But I think that searching for the truth is a noble endeavor. I enjoy reading all the different points of view expressed here.
The bible says, “TEST EVERYTHING. Retain what is good.”
Asking questions and exploring new ways of looking at things shouldn’t be a bad thing. It should be encouraged. At least from my perspective anywaze…
Brian
I agree with you. Talking in tongues seems to be limited to some trinitarians, and to faiths that are either still linked to the Way, or were originally from it. I would love to hear from anyone who has more info about this. It is also very interesting how many people have moved away from The Way and Oneness into a simplified version of Yahweh, and his son Jesus. (Joel Hemphill as example). These people have changed as, over time, usually, the holy spirit has progressively demonstrated to them the errors of some of their beliefs.
Thomas ( I refuse to call you Doubting, you have a very definitive mind!)
I think that all you need is prayer and PATIENCE
Psa25:5 “For You are the God of my salvation; for You I wait all the day”
Isa40:31 “Yet those who wait for the LORD will gain new strength”
Gal5:5 “For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of the righteous”
Fiona
Actually, the Biblical Unitarian view was one of the few things The Way had right. I have changed many other beliefs, especially regarding the Kingdom and Dispensationalism, but the concept of one God and His Son Jesus is what I had believed for many years in The Way.
Brian ~ Interesting blog topic & discussion! And indeed it is a problem, when you ‘come out of the closet’ so to speak, as a Biblical Unitarian within the majority of Trinitarian churches. It leaves only other Unitarians to fellowship with, and if they fraction off over minor differences, than the sphere of people we can worship and study with is even smaller!
I find the solution in two things, really. 1) I Corinthians 13:2. It’s a reminder to us, when we think we have ‘the truth’ to always remain humble in our study and that we are nothing without love. Sometimes as a ‘minority’ group of believers, we tend to become defensive in our discussion with others…but, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think argumentative debate ever leads someone to change their mind and beliefs, but rather further entrenches them into their existing belief system, however fragile, as they have to defend their beliefs. Rather, we need to have an attitude that Thomas reminds us to have: “Test everything” in an environment that encourages study and questions. Are we not always students of Scripture, always searching for truth, an unending quest until our death, because we might not know & understand everything?
The problem arises when we have this attitude towards others, but it is not reciprocated to us. When other groups fail to extend the right hand of fellowship to us over minor (not the major) points in our interpretation of Scripture. The sting of rejection hurts. The isolationism and ostracism they force upon us is lonely. We desire fellowship with other like-minded believers who are pursuing truth and who desire to know God, also. Which leads to #2.
2.) Share the Gospel of the Kingdom and Jesus Christ with others.
There really is no other solution, but to begin building relationships, loving others, and sharing what we believe with others, in hopes that God will avail us opportunities to spread the Gospel of the kingdom, one heart at a time. Sometimes our isolationism is a good thing, for it projects us out of our comfort zone and into the will of God for our lives, to become an ambassador for Christ. When you do so, you will no longer be alone. There is no sweeter thing.
I just want to encourage other Biblical Unitarians out there, who feel alone & isolated, to be of good courage, be patient, wait upon the LORD, for if you’re willing and open to share what you know with others in a loving manner, and truly care and love people, God will not keep you isolated for long. You will get to experience the joy of fellowship with others! It’ll just take time, effort, boldness in the Gospel, and a discipleship process that is very Scripturally sound, which happens to be Jesus’ commission to us as His followers.
Mark C
Thanks for clarifying the doctrines of the Way. I have come across so many people who have left the Way. I wonder how many of them did it because of the pressure put on them to talk in tongues? Anyone have any ideas?
Fiona
Hi Everyone,
Thanks everyone for your comments. I agree with the general thoughts here - that there are only a few beliefs that we need to agree on, in order to fellowship with others.
If there are persistent disagreements on other issues, then I would say that those issues should just be avoided in fellowships; in order to prevent the fellowship from devolving into arguments - and even more importantly, to prevent the fellowship from splitting into multiple “camps”.
On a related note, Robin Todd, over at kingdomheart.org, has started up a new project called the “Worldwide Scattered Brethren Network”. The whole point of that project is to allow Unitarians around the world to find each other - so that hopefully, additional Unitarian fellowships will be created. On the main page for that project, Robin lists four specific beliefs that everyone in the network has in common, as follows:
The commonalities of this fellowship are found in the following beliefs: 1) God is only One Person, Yahweh, the Father and Creator of us all; 2) Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son; 3) the biblical gospel is primarily concerned with the yet to come Kingdom of God which will be ushered in on this earth at the return of Jesus when he will raise the faithful dead from their graves where they have been asleep; and 4) issues of food and calendar are not prerequisites for salvation or fellowship.
That mirrors very closely what we have been discussing on this post! If you’re interested. the main page for that project is as follows:
http://www.kingdomheart.org/WorldwideScatteredBrethren.htm
Brian
Fiona,
Not many, from my experience. Speaking in tongues was usually something people were happy to do, and many continue the practice in offshoot groups. The biggest issues that caused people to leave involved the leadership’s attempts to legalistically control people’s lives, as well as issues of doctrine.
I guess I might as well put in my two cents worth here.
I am a unitarian in a trinitarian congregation.
I became a unitarian by default. All the “proofs” that God is tri-une turned out to be fallacious. All the evidence pointed to a God who is one, and that one is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Everyone in the congregation knows what I believe, but for reasons I won’t try to determine, I have not been excommunicated, and we all worship and work together in love.
I don’t think unitarians are nearly as scarce as you think they are. I know of several Christians in other (related) trinitarian congregations that do not believe in a tri-une God, but who are not prepared to say so openly and try to defend their position.
Unitarian fellowships are probably scarce. And they (apparently) have their own shibboleths. Christadelphians seem to consider that anyone who believes demons exist is a polytheist and therefore cannot have fellowship with them. And I wouldn’t be surprised if some in their fellowship just keep their beliefs to themselves as a result.
Judging from what has been said on this thread, other groups have other defining characteristics, all of which can cause unnecessary division between children of the same family. (I’m talking about God’s family.)
To be honest, I agree with many of the details of trinitarian thought – and most of you would probably bar me from your fellowship. But maybe we could find a way to live in the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17. We could, if we allowed the Spirit of God to control.
One last thought. Some years ago, the comic strip “Peanuts” caught my eye. Snoopy was on the roof of his doghouse, typing. Charlie asked him what he was doing.
That we might be wrong – in some detail or another - is something we all need to keep in mind.
Margaret
You said, “We could, if we allowed the Spirit of God to control.”
I agree 100%!!!
You also said, Snoopy’s title for his theology book was “Has It Ever Occurred to You That You Might Be Wrong? - That we might be wrong - in some detail or another - is something we all need to keep in mind.”
Ever since I listened to Sean’s radio show Truth Matters with Servetus as his guest several months ago, I have been praying to God to reveal to me any false beliefs I have. Of course for my part I have to keep an open mind to any new ideas in order that God can reveal to me whatever it is that he wants to reveal to me…
“That we might be wrong – in some detail or another - is something we all need to keep in mind. ”
Marg
thats why i am here and why i ingage into discussions. while i have felt i have proven every belief i have it doesnt hurt to still test it. Some of the best testing tools post here and they dont mind testing. this site is unmatched.
Yes sometimes it gets heated but it comes from the love of our belief not hatred of other beliefs.
Thanks Margaret for sharing the “Peanuts” funny. That made me LOL! Love it! And it is SO true.
I too agree that we should let the “Spirit of God” have control of our lives. I’d just ad the important caveat to test it and make sure it IS the “Spirit of God” and not some other spirit. Remember 1 John 4:1 (do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God…”).
I’ve said this before here many times, and I’ll say it again. Always in my prayers to God, I ask for Him to show me the error of my ways with any of my beliefs or current understanding of things. I only want to know HIS TRUTH. I don’t want to be right for my sake - only His. And I am willing to go wherever that truth leads me - just please guide me in the right direction. I believe I presently have many of the correct understanding of Scriptural subjects (e.g. God is truly one, our Messiah is not literally God, the dead are not conscious until the resurrection at Jesus’ return, the Kingdom of God will be a literal, earthly kingdom, etc.). But I am open to the possibility I could be off-track with any of these or other beliefs.
That said, I need to be able to see how I am wrong using what I would call the “Main 3″ tools for proper theology. They are:
1. Scripture - if it doesn’t match up with the whole of it, the overwhelming evidence of The Bible - beginning to end, then it is probably wrong.
2. History (related to Scripture) - if something goes against the evidence of what the people and cultures of Scripture thought and did, then that should throw up a lot of red flags.
3. Common Sense/Logic/Reason - if something is nonsensical, doesn’t make any sense, or seems irrational, then you should rightly question the believability in it. God gave us a brain - use it! God designed us with the capability for sentient thought for a reason. He wanted to us understand Him, our world, and ourselves using our ability to reason. He wants to be able to comprehend truth from falsehood.
I agree with you, Ron, that we can’t be carried away by everything we hear. And I absolutely agree with the first and third of your “tools” - Scripture/strong> and
common sense.
I’m not so hung up on history. You can use church history to teach almost anything. I have had church history pounded into me as clear evidence for tri-unism, for example. The claim is - if the majority teach it, it must be right.
The basis for everything has to be the Word of God. If you can’t give clear and unambiguous scriptural evidence for something, you shouldn’t demand that others agree with you.
And yes – if it sounds irrational, it probably is.
I agree 100% with the list Ron posted and feel that history is of equal importance as the other 2. Using history we can understand the mindset at a particular time. This is very important in understanding the issues the NT writers were addressing. It helps us understand who lived in what regions. It helps us understand how certain beliefs came about and when. But as Margaret mentioned it can be misused.
I believe there is no way to understand something that happened 2000+ years ago without history. this biggest problem with history is the victor almost always writes it , but using step 3 of Ron list will help with that.
Hi Margaret,
you mentioned above
what do you mean with “allowed the Spirit of God to control”? I’ve heard at various times and in various places people make quick reference to “the Spirit of God in control” or “being taught by the Spirit of God (rather than teachers, preachers, ministries)”, etc … and yet, what usually has been promoted by such folks as stemming from being being controlled by the Spirit of God has not been unifying at all, but rather been at times even more divisive than if they had left behind “the talk and claims about the Spirit of God influence in their lives” and concentrated on plain and clear reasonable reading of the OT and NT Scriptures ….
Could it be that many folks are actually mistaking “by the Spirit of God” with “being moved by their own emotions of some kind” ?? I mean, how else could it be that what some folks claimed was taught by the Spirit of God contradicted what some other folks claimed had been taught to them by the Spirit of God ? Seems to be that there weren’t two Gods and two Spirits of Gods at work but rather two people being self-deceived in believing that what they came up with from their own emotions and understanding was what they had been taught by the Spirit of God ?
Thus, how do you determine whether or not one is “controlled by the Spirit of God”?
Cheers
Wolfgang
I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you that this is often the case.
The Word of God should be our guide. If I think the Spirit is guiding me to do something that the Bible forbids, I am wrong.
My own personal responsibility is to examine myself (as Paul commands) and consciously desire that GOD should examine me (as David did). Have I any wrong motives? Am I looking for praise, or even trying to avoid criticism? Am I unwilling to count others as more important than myself?
Do I really love the Lord my God with all my heart and with all my soul and with all my mind and with all my strength?
If I do, then I probably won’t be allowed to go on in a way that is dishonoring to him.
In any case, I am counting on that. My job is to love and obey him totally. I count on him to do the rest.
Margaret,
Thanks.
I wasn’t referring to “church” history really. More of history as it specifically pertains to the people, culture, and times of the biblical record. “Church” history got off track right after the Apostles died off by using Greek thought instead of Hebrew thought in regards to the bible. And that right there is what I’m talking about. Robert addressed it above. We must understand the times & culture of the people who wrote the bible. This is especially true with subjects such as the trinity. If the Hebrew people of the 1st century & on back understood God to be one, single person, then we should pay special attention to that fact.
What you mention in the way of “church history” is more of what I might term “tradition”. Though they’re really the traditions of men instead of the traditions of God.
That said, we should look at the actual history/performance of the church through time. Look at how & when the trinity came into being. Look at how it was ENFORCED by the tip of the sword for the next 1400 years! To me that really speaks volumes about its origins. It isn’t from God. And Jesus (nor his apostles) ever said we’re to believe Jesus is the co-equal, co-eternal, God the Son or be imprisoned and/or put to death by the church & state! Again, that’s a spirit polar opposite of God & truth.
BTW, a good counter to any “the majority has believed this way for centuries so it has to be right” talk is to say “the majority also believed the earth was flat for centuries. How did that pan out?”.
I guess my experience with history has left me a bit cynical. My own conviction is that the Bible will interpret itself, if we let it.
History, along with all its majorities, may or may not be in sync. The final court of appeal is still the Bible.
It seems that anytime we humans try to define the essential doctrine, divisiveness quickly ensues. Why do we insist on trying?
I’m a new Christian (six months ago). My church is trinitarian. About four months ago, I was given the book “One God & One Lord”. For the first time, I questioned the trinity. I re-read the NT with my newfound critical eye and cannot go back. I don’t profess to know for sure God is unitarian (though it seems pretty clear to me), but I am certain that the doctrine of the trinity is not required to be a Christian.
I keep coming back to Acts 10. If God baptizes someone with the HS, who are any of us to deny them baptism with water? How can any church declare someone a heretic that has been baptized with the HS? Would we preclude ourselves from fellowshipping with any brother or sister in heaven based upon theological differences?
Fiona,
Are you interested in information about speaking in tongues? If I was reading you correctly it seems that you are interested in tongues. There are some people here who know a lot about it.
Did Jesus come for fellowship or to send a sword?
I suppose we could say that he came into this world as Abraham did, looking for a city, but he also came to divide by the truth.
We can’t well have fellowship with the world can we?
Trouble comes when we think we are right and we are wrong.
The answer for that is the cross.
It seems to me that a true Christian will tend to forbear a lot but he will come around to confronting error and evil. How could he do anything less? We suffer our injuries and continue to seek the fellowship that is in Christ. In him there is no error. In him there is healing.
I found Brian’s choice of words interesting. “God is one person.”
They say, “One God in three persons.” , but not “One person in three persons.” do they? Because it’s so confusing, I don’t need to teach it to others. Why would I unless I think it’s the clearest and best thing, or what…to be accepted in my group? Better for me to be despised and rejected.
Let’s do continue to confront error. Let’s take heed to be certain that we are right before we tell someone else they are wrong.
Hi Ray
Thanks for your question about “tongues”. Even from before my JW days, I was always sure that talking in tongues ( ie ecstatical uttering) was not scriptural. Years in the WT only enforced that. After leaving there, it took me a while to figure out that it is OK to search for the truth (WT strongly discourages research outside it’s own literature). Freedom has now given me time and opportunity to go into it, and I have only discovered that I was right all along! Those who are interested, Ray Faircloth has written three new articles on tongues, under the heading “Studies relative to oneness pentecostalism” . All three are marked with a banner “NEW”. His site is at www.biblicaltruthseekers.co.uk
Enjoy!
Welcome Antioch (Msg. 31)
You asked, “It seems anytime we humans try to define the essential doctrine, divisiveness quickly ensues. Why do we insist on trying?”
I guess there is a natural tendency for humans to want to associate with like minded people. For example - All three of my best friends are Christians (even though they are Trinitarian). Having shared Christian beliefs with my friends helps me feel closer to them than to other atheist or agnostic friends that I have. I suppose this is human nature.
You also said, “I am certain that the doctrine of the Trinity is not required to be a Christian.”
I agree. Just like our Unitarian beliefs are not required to be a Christian.
You also said, “Would we preclude ourselves from fellowshipping with any brother or sister in heaven based on theological differences?”
Excellent point. I personally am very open minded. Some others (especially certain religious groups) are not. Outlined in the article above are 3 basic points that everyone here shares. Beyond that you will find a multitude of beliefs among the people on this site…
Thanks for the welcome DT.
I cannot disagree with the three points. And I am probably just as guilty of labeling Christians by my own man-made criteria as anyone. I guess you cannot have a church without some definition of what the church is all about and what the church members hold in common.
Antioch - my history is similar to yours. I didn’t read a book about unitarianism, but I did TEST the evidence given for tri-unism, and concluded that it did not hold water.
But I am still with the congregation that is officially “trinitarian” in the orthodox sense.
And I am happy to say that their use of words has modified a bit. They do avoid such obviously non-biblical terms as “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit”.
If they are willing to put up with my non-conformance to official dogmas, I am glad to be able to worship and serve in fellowship with them.
Fortunately, there is no “statement of faith” that I have to sign, or that would probably end the relationship. To my sorrow.
Margaret, what you say about your church reminds me of a supple
wine skin.