Doctrine Unites, Part 4

I want to add what I think are two helpful points to this discussion.

First, there are some doctrines that you cannot rightly divide over. Which doctrines fit into this category is a judgment call that will differ from person to person. In the following examples, I will assume charitable, well-informed, patient Christians are involved. I should be able to assume that, right?

Let's pick a doctrine that my wife and I experienced lately: head coverings for women in ministry. We were visiting some churches where a head covering was required of the ladies, particularly those ministering at the front of the church, so we purchased a hat / beret, and my wife wore it. It was not a big deal. What is not optional or debatable is that women must be in submission to their husbands, which we believe a head covering symbolized in the early church (Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1, 3:5, 1 Cor. 11:3-16). That symbolism has passed in many of our western churches so that a head covering does not have that meaning.

Here is another one that I believe we should not divide over: Whether Christ died only for the elect without any real reference to the non-elect, or he died to provide a salvation available to all but God only elected some to salvation. Some see these two views as insurmountably different. And they are different. But are they sufficient to cause a rift in fellowship, even church membership? Relatively speaking, they are in fact very similar views when compared to a view that says personal election is false (contrary to Matt 24:22, 31; Mark 13:27, Luke 18:7, 1 Thess. 1:4, Co. 3:12, Rom. 8:33, 11:7, 2 Tim. 2:10, Titus 1:1, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 John 1, 13). Or a view that says Christ’s death was only partially sufficient for our salvation and we have to supply the remainder of the merit, or that Christ did not die at all!

Here is a third example: do you believe that the two witnesses of Revelation 11 are Moses and Elijah? Or are you unsure of that identification? There is no way that this question should cause a division between Christians.

A second helpful point: separation or division is not the same thing as non-cooperation. I am not required to partner or cooperate with everyone or any particular person who claims to be a Christian. We do not partner with many churches, both near and far, simply because of distance, lack of familiarity, lack of time, etc. At the same time, we hold to a specific form of doctrine and invite people to fellowship with us on that doctrinal basis. But my point is that Scripture does not demand that I try to draw in the largest circle of fellowship I can simply for the sake of unity, or that I actually enact that circle of fellowship. Limited time and resources prevent it, among other things.

As time permits, I hope to add one more part to talk more about how exactly doctrine unites us.