Christian: Can Christians Be Unified? (Jesus Christ, Kingdom, beliefs, doctrine)

[Linus]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

How can a group become unified without leadership?

You're right. It can't. Not in any case. But we do have a form of leadership in the New Testament. Elders (bishops) and deacons are authorized leadership roles (1 Timothy and Titus), but their "power", as outlined by those books, only extends to the realm of the local church. Like I said, Christ is the Head, the leader. He should be the one to lead the Universal church. If we follow Him and follow Him truthfully, there won't be a need for earthly leaders to do this.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Linus

You're right. It can't. Not in any case. But we do have a form of leadership in the New Testament. Elders (bishops) and deacons are authorized leadership roles (1 Timothy and Titus)

Authorized by whom... and how were those leaders appointed?

Which faith has an unbroken line back to those leaders?

but their "power", as outlined by those books, only extends to the realm of the local church.

Not correct Biblically or historically..... (Paul collections for Jerusalem, the obvious need for cohesion of the Bishops in defending heresy :Judaizers/Gnostics etc.).

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

How can we begin to even begin the discussion for an attempt at agreement without leadership to direct the discussion?

How can a group become unified without leadership?

Please, don't answer these questions with the RCC in mind.... answer me generally... how could it be done?

I agree fully (particularly since you threw in the part about the RCC ). You know that's one thing Catholics and Latter-day Saints have in common. We both recognize the absolute need for authority. If Jesus Christ had thought the scriptures were sufficient, He wouldn't have bothered entrusting His Church to Peter's leadership.

[Pilgrim of this Reality]

Why must a leader be needed? If everyone acted as Jesus acted (and not what someone may Think he did.) than He would be the leader of the unified church.

Of course, the main problem is we think in a hierachical way. We think that someone must lead a movement, for example, when the movement itself doesnt need leadership because the people have the same unified goal. The fact such movements can continue when a leader of it dies etc, shows they dont need a leader. The trick is getting the same goal into the minds of people. Anything can be achieved if people are of the same mind. This lesson is learned with the story of the Tower of Babel: ""Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. " Genesis 11:6

[johnnys4life]

I don't know, Pilgrim. When MLK Jr. died, people started to totally throw out his peaceful resistance ideas, and to follow the much more violent, rather reverse racist Malcom X instead. People are always looking for a leader.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Authorized by whom... and how were those leaders appointed?

The Christians in a local church have the complete authority to elect its own elders and deacons as long as they are qualified for the position. In Acts 6 we have an example of this very thing happening. (in this particular case, overseeing the daily distribution of food). There is no mention of these men going out and working with other Chruch leaders to do such things.

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Which faith has an unbroken line back to those leaders?

Let me guess...

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Not correct Biblically or historically..... (Paul collections for Jerusalem, the obvious need for cohesion of the Bishops in defending heresy :Judaizers/Gnostics etc.).

Cohesion, yes. The elders and deacons should most definitely be in agreeance and work together, but this, in my opinion, does not necessitate any sort of centralized council of ordinance givers. As I mentioned, the Acts 6 passage does not show these leaders in any official form of council or organized, managed group to accomplish their tasks.

[brotherjim]

It would seem, then, that this is a Catch 22.

I see many personal opinions regarding hierarchy, what Jesus meant by His prayer for oneness, etc., and yet it is impossible to reach a correct doctrine of these things unless the heart has been purified wherefore it no longer has reason for self-justification of remaining sins such as rebellion to authority, pride and arrogance, divers lusts, etc. Unless the heart is pure, it will pervert the intentions of God and the Scriptures which support them.

But then, since these remaining-in-the-Christian idols of the heart are loved more than the pure motives of God, the stewards of them are not willing that such impurities be removed whereby they will then see clearly. And if we cannot see clearly what it truly means to be one as the Father and Son are One, unity is not possible insofar as how most or all here seem to be attempting to find answer.

John 3:19-20 clearly shows how man loves his darknesses more than he does the Light; what is not so clear is that this speaks also of Christian man--I'm truly sorrowed to say.

brotherjim@mail.com


(The answer, btw, is contained within the supernatural possibility of godly, unconditional Love despite doctrinal and organizational differences--not to homogenize and be under one universal manmade church; tensions must exist--we are commanded only to not boast about our divisions.)

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Linus

The Christians in a local church have the complete authority to elect its own elders and deacons as long as they are qualified for the position. In Acts 6 we have an example of this very thing happening. (in this particular case, overseeing the daily distribution of food). There is no mention of these men going out and working with other Chruch leaders to do such things.

Wow, I totally disagree! To begin with, Hebrews 5:4 specifically states (with regards to authority) that "no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." Aaron was ordained by Moses, and Moses had been given his authority by God himself. Serving others in an unofficial capacity is one thing, but deacons and elders are priesthood callings, and one's "qualifications" to hold these callings is totally beside the point. Jesus said, (in John 15:16), "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you." One absolutely must be ordained by someone who has the authority to do so, and that authority must be traceable back to Jesus himself.

Cohesion, yes. The elders and deacons should most definitely be in agreeance and work together, but this, in my opinion, does not necessitate any sort of centralized council of ordinance givers. As I mentioned, the Acts 6 passage does not show these leaders in any official form of council or organized, managed group to accomplish their tasks.

Huh? Again, the scriptures teach otherwise. In Ephesians 4:11-15, there is clear evidence that a "centralized council of ordinance givers" was established by Jesus Christ and that this council was to govern the affairs of the entire Church, not just until the original group of them died, but as long as the Church existed.

These verses state the following: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ."

A Quorum of twelve Apostles was intended to exist as long as it took for all to "come in the unity of the faith." Since we're getting farther from that goal instead of closer to it, we still need that same organization.

Kathryn

[brotherjim]

P.S. I.e., divisions are one thing, divisiveness another.

bj

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Linus

Cohesion, yes. The elders and deacons should most definitely be in agreeance and work together, but this, in my opinion, does not necessitate any sort of centralized council of ordinance givers.

How can you guarantee, then, that the interpretation of doctrines will not evolve over a period of time? If one group interprets certain teachings one way and another groups interprets them differently, you've lost your cohesion. Before long, it's hard to know which, if any, of the groups have a correct understanding of the original doctrines. I think that's something you've got to consider. The fact that one group of people can manage to get along with each other and even accomplish a lot of good things is never ultimately going to bring unity to the Church.