I think of the above saying from St. Augustine that John Wesley liked to quote whenever I am trying to decide if an issue is important enough to divide over, or if it should just be a matter of friendly debate. There are some things Christians must agree on, such as the Divinity of Jesus, the accuracy and authority of the Bible, that Jesus is the only way to salvation, etc. If we don’t agree on those then we’ve got big problems. But we should be as charitable as possible when disagreeing.
Some church leaders actually say unity is more important than doctrine, but that is counter to what the Bible teaches (see Doctrine Counts). Ironically, the fact that they hold that view is one of the reasons the church should split from them! When you review the beliefs on the essentials of the faith, the factions are so far apart that unity is impossible.
For example, some claim that the Bible is not the Word of God, and that it is merely a product of the perceptions of certain cultures at certain times. But the Bible makes literally thousands of claims to speak for God. So if someone thinks all those claims are wrong, why pick up the book at all?
But we don’t have to have unity on non-essential issues. For example, there are honest debates about how to interpret the Book of Revelation, and one can hold one of several views and still be an orthodox Christian. There are many worship preferences (music, style, etc.) that we don’t need to agree on. There is remarkably little guidance in the New Testament on how to conduct worship services, so a little flexibility should be in order. The main thing is to never alter the message of the Gospel.
When we are united on the essentials, Christianity is incredible. We all read the same book and serve the same God no matter where we are in the world. Some of my favorite worship experiences have been when I visited Singapore and Kenya, because the same Holy Spirit was present in radically different venues.
Filed under: Christian worldview, Favorites | Tagged: Bible, False teachers, God, religion
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
“I think of the above saying by John Wesley whenever I am trying to decide if an issue is important enough to divide over, or if it should just be a matter of friendly debate.”
Neal, John Wesley did not say this. St Augustine did. A Catholic Bishop in the 5th century. Google it.
God Bless you, Daniel
inri33ad@aol.com
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for stopping by and for your comment. I may tweak my wording above to note that the origin isn’t completely clear. The first hit I got on Google yielded this.
“A common quotation from “Augustine”? The question most commonly bouncing off the Internet wall to me about Augustine is the source of the following quotation: “in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.” It seems to have gotten into circulation as something attributed to Augustine, and so I am asked the source. I cannot find the text in Augustine’s own texts, nor does it sound Augustinian to me, but it is clearly popular. So I went on a web-crawl. To my surprise, delight, and then bemusement, I found that this quotation is a pan-denominational maxim, quoted as authoritative in a dizzying variety of incompatible Christian traditions. The closest I came to a source was Wesley, until I found a specific reference to John XXIII’s first encyclical, Ad Petri cathedram of 1959. I cannot find the Latin text on-line, but the English translation is available, whence this quotation, its paragraph 72:
But the common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.
I take that as suggesting that the Vatican’s own scribes and scholars cannot find a sure attribution. “
Neil, I am one of those who does not believe the Bible is that schindig of however many adjectives people claim it to be. And yet, I still hold reverence for the Bible as Holy.
1) The “OT” never was a settled matter to the Jews as a majority until 90 A.D.
2) The early church did not have the Bible as we know it.
3) I have observed that, through increasingly advanced studies of every aspect related to the Bible, less and less of the Bible (not the entire thing was messed with, undoubtedly) was actually written by who we once thought they were, and their content is from many sources. Such passages as 1 John 5:7 in the KJV (from the received Greek text) were inserted to produce Biblical evidence for the Trinity, and early church fathers chose to condemn non-trinitarians. Also, in the 4th Revised Edition of the Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies, the editors showed confidence in that, because of evidence, (and supported rather grudgingly by my Gospels; Acts & the Early Church; and Greek professor), some of the words of Christ were inserted.
4) More material is being called into question because of the Christianizing of pagan practices, such as the whole communion thing, which is practically a step-by-step parallel with the preceeding religion of Mithraism.
5) gra’fe could be translated as writings or Scripture. And even with it always being translated as “Scripture,” people still seem to either forget or ignore the fact that Scripture to the NT church wasn’t even all of our OT. So, no…the Bible does not make literally thousands of claims to be the word of God.
6) Taking into account that observant Jews (those like Jesus and his Disciples) would have never pronounced “God” as common as we translate it nowadays. Try retranslating, for the sake of today’s understanding, this for John 1:1 “In the beginning was the message, and the message was with the Divine (or the Divine One), and the message was divine”..///…and later on….//”and the message was lived out among us.” It makes so much more sense with the same message in it, and it’s not so magical and out-of-this-world of a phrase. Please do not even attempt to challenge my proposal unless you have completed and entire course in koine Greek from a Bible college. I have no idea, or time to hav e reviewed whatever credentials may be available for me to study about you, but your site – as unprofessional as it looks (after all, it is a blog
sorry, but the most important part of my message got cut off, but all I want to say is, I admire your judgment on this quote.
Thx for the 2nd comment.
“Please do not even attempt to challenge my proposal unless you have completed and entire course in koine Greek from a Bible college. I have no idea, or time to have reviewed whatever credentials may be available for me to study about you, but your site – as unprofessional as it looks . . .”
I’m not sure I follow your argumentation and logic there. Sorry, but I’ll go ahead and challenge a couple points just for grins. Go ahead and fire me if you like.
1) I’m pretty sure the Septuagint comes awfully close.
4) Re. Mithra – who cares? Most of the examples I’ve heard of of Christianity “copying” things get it backwards (e.g., the Christian tradition came first). Either way, having a similar process doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.
5) Re. the “thousands” comment: You couldn’t be more wrong. Do a word search in some Bible software.
6) Yes, I suppose one could re-translate it with “message” and “divine,” except for one problem: That’s not what the text said.
My logic: Greek, as inflective as it is when it pertains to the word in the Greek language, can never be fully translated into an exact word in English or any other language. The same goes for any other language. One example is, 2 Timothy 3:16. Commonly translated as “All Scripture is God-breathed and therefore useful for doctrine, reproof, etc… However, the word “is” has to be supplied. The question is, where does it go? Any conservative will, without hesitation, say that it goes between “Scripture” and “God-breathed.” However, because of the vagueness, it can perfectly well be translated as “All God-breathed Scripture is also useful for doctrine, reproof, etc…” This I say with no doubt in mind – a professor of mine who was on the NIV council acknowledged this without hesitation.
As far as what it says…you are still speaking out of ignorance. If you do your homework on the way our supposed ecumenical councils work, it’s mob rule. Whatever the majority says, goes. The little guy is kicked out and crapped on. That is where “tradition” comes from.
1) “I’m pretty sure the Septuagint comes awfully close.” – The Septuagint uses “parthenos,” the closest in Greek, but still not correct. Isaiah 7:14 uses “almah,” which has nothing to do with sexuality, but rather the age of the daughter (who is old enough to be married). Isaiah chose to use this word, as compared to 32:12, where he uses “bethulah,” which has an extended meaning of a daughter who has never slept with anyone (meaning, from her privacy).
Not only that, but if you would read 7:14 in its context, it is fulfilled – as is common with OT prophecies – within one generation. Chapter 8 is the fulfiment. Matthew appealed to it out of the Septuagint, which was corrupted in transition. And he appealed to it to say that it is not impossible for the Messiah to be born from a really young woman.
Here’s the real kicker – why, on God’s green earth, would Matthew include Ruth the Gentile, Rahab the prostitute, Tamar – and the last being Mary in his true genealogy? The fact that they were all involved in sexual sin? Thr truth is, Joseph and Mary got a little hanky-panky, and God redeemed them.
4) “Re. Mithra – who cares? Most of the examples I’ve heard of of Christianity “copying” things get it backwards (e.g., the Christian tradition came first). Either way, having a similar process doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.” -I care. This is not backwards. Mithraism developed around 300 BC, from the Jewish exiles in Babylon, at about the same time the Septuagint came about.
5) Re. the “thousands” comment: You couldn’t be more wrong. Do a word search in some Bible software. Follow your own advice. In fact, whoever else reads this, never take anything for granted and do not fully believe anything you read or hear until you’ve examined it yourself.
6) “Yes, I suppose one could re-translate it with “message” and “divine,” except for one problem: That’s not what the text said.” – One problem: That (…Word, and the Word was with God)…..that’s what we (the church) have been forcing it to say, without equal mention of what else it could mean.
1) Not sure what the Isaiah comments are about. That wouldn’t be my number one virgin birth passage (plenty of those in the NT), but I always laugh when people think it was a prophecy about a “young girl” getting pregnant (gee, then they really went out on a limb with that one!). I do think it is significant that the 70-72 scholars for the Septuagint translated it with the word meaning virgin.
4) You missed my point. The “so what” is that there is no reason to discount what the Bible teaches about the Lord’s Supper.
5) I did follow my own advice. When you follow it you’ll come to the same conclusion that I did. Search for things like, “The Lord said,” “The Lord says,” “The Lord commanded,” “says the Lord,” etc. Since you are the Bible college guy and I’m the ignorant one, I look forward to your count.
“Joseph and Mary got a little hanky-panky, and God redeemed them”
Sheesh. Somebody’s been reading too much DaVinci Code-quality materials.
Ruth wasn’t involved in sexual sin. Nothing wrong with including Rahab and Tamar. It highlights how broad and deep God’s forgiveness and redemption is, and, of course, the fact that they were part of the genealogy might be one reason they were included!
Oh, and about that Bible-Study software…nothing beats a real education. If I just went out and made my own software or wrote my own book, does that make me any more authoritative than any of my peers? No! So what does?
Education. Not money, but education. Not owning the right books, not wearing the right clothes, not agreeing with the majority.
Honestly, I’m very disappointed in a majority of the American Church and their Jesus of Suburbia. You people need to think for yourselves (plural, as in: not drones), and learn about other religions so you can say why you still stick with Christianity as horrible as people paint it out to be, rather than sitting back and swallowing load after load from Matthew J. Slick (CARM) and people who worship him. The End Times (if they happen), may not happen according to Jenkins and his buddy.
You need to learn that narrowindedness, ignorance, and stupidity are no substitute for wisdom, faith, and trust.
Really, you might as well be saying “In the Beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God.”
The only essential doctrine is this: The Father made it possible through his chosen son for anyone to be redeemed. Jesus of Nazareth came to show us how to live – as if we are not condemned, for through our own judgment we are condemned. Through the Father’s judgment and ever-pervading Grace, all are forgiven chould they choose to be. For those who do not will be destroyed. and not resurrected.——but that’s just me.
If you wish to believe something diff, go ahead. We’ll just see in the end.
Mike,
I’m not far off on your essential doctrine, but the only way you can come to that conclusion is by reading the Bible. So that makes the Bible kinda important.
To recap, though, you dove into a post with an assortment of complaints, only 1-2 of which even were on topic. I tried to respond to one of your specific claims where you said, “So, no…the Bible does not make literally thousands of claims to be the word of God.” I pointed out a real easy way to confirm what I said or to prove me wrong. Instead, you just responded with insults. That isn’t very productive.
Your Bible software comment is off base for a couple reasons. I only mentioned it because it is an easy way to search for things. Go ahead and count the number of “The Lord says” comments by hand, if you like. Just quit trying to insist that my claim is wrong if you aren’t going to do a little more to prove your point other than hurling insults.
“You need to learn that narrowindedness, ignorance, and stupidity are no substitute for wisdom, faith, and trust.”
What makes you think I don’t know that? I would encourage you to learn that ad hominem attacks don’t accomplish much (you admit you haven’t even read my site, but you are accusing me of all these things?!).
I care a lot about false teachers and sound doctrine. Hey, I’m disappointed with the American church and the Jesus of suburbia as well. I’m just going about it with a little different approach than you. I don’t claim to be right on every point, as I am continually learning new things. But I think I have the basics down pretty well.
Peace.
I have no idea if either of you (Neil or Mike) will ever read this as I stumbled across this website when looking for the quote. But, Mike, you said everyone needed education not the latest tape or book. All education is taught verbally or by books. Whether a book is old or new in Greek or English you have no idea what motivation a particular author has or had. So an education of “so called” classics can be just as much in error as reading a book by a modern author. History is written by the victor is a well documented fact. So how can we know if something is real history or not? There use to be a standard or evidence. Suppose I wanted to know if a shot was fire into my great great uncle in WWII or did he die from heart failure. The first source would be an eye witness, the second would be someone that was near by and saw the after effects the third would be to dig up my great great uncle and look for a bullet. They are called 1) Primary Sources 2) Secondary sources 3) Physical Evidence. So just reading a book won’t do. I will say that with all the archeological digs going on the Bible is shaping up to be pretty well varified, at least the Old Testiment. As for the New Testiment, it is very true that the first Christians had only word of mouth (plus the Hebrew Scriptures) as their Bible. It was the councils that determined what would be in and out. However, as in their day also in ours, Jesus was the fulfiment of the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures. The one thing both of you have left out of the equation is the Holy Spirit. And there is where your arguements will have to stop. Because the truth is it is the Holy Spirit alone that can settle this. All the head knowledge in the world will never equal the knowledge of God. All the teachers and books and interpretations and point counter points on Greek or Hebrew pale in comparison to the TRUTH of God. We all see through a glass darkly. Some of us are willing to admit that others are “ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth”. So keep studying, and learning and reading, but never think for one minute that you know enough to answer the question.
Hi Nette – I sort of followed that until your last line. When you say, “never think for one minute that you know enough to answer the question,” what question are you thinking of? Is it a general “we can never be sure about anything” or a more specific question?
I do believe you can be sure of the Truth of God but only with the aid of the Holy Spirit and the Faith that He brings. Outside of that it is just two humans debating the color of the sky. I can debate “War and Peace” or the politics of “1984″ or the Bible from a strictly intellectual point of view and never come to the truth of the reality of war or totalitarian government or salvation.
Dear Stranger,
I was looking for this quote from St. Augustine, and lo and behold, I was happy to see you on Google.
Excellent (mr. burns)