The same goes with truth, repenting and sincerity (and every other spiritual ideal). That is the point of grace. WE CAN’T GET IT RIGHT…and because of that, grace fills in the gaps created by imperfect doctrine, imperfect truth, imperfect repentance and imperfect sincerity. All doctrine condemns us because we can not live up to the perfectionistic goals it espouses and if we do, then we are condemned because, then, it is by our own efforts without God’s grace. We can not be saved without the grace of God.

Is this somehow related to persevering through trials and asking God for wisdom (James 1:4) or faith and actions working together to complete us (James 2:22)?

I’m really not trying to be obstinate … I just don’t understand the concept. Can somebody help me?

But what we know to be truth we are obligated to respect, and we must live in the light of that knowledge. …. However, we can arrive at personal “completionism” that entails walking in the light of what we know.

If you believe that, and carry it to its logical conclusion, there isn’t much left to argue about. By that rule, we’d be in fellowship with everyone who lives up to the portion of truth that they know. That would include instrumental and non-instrumental Christians as long as those people are not violating their own consciences.

Cessation followed later by another attack would not in and of itself prove that repentance had not earlier occurred. We are not told how much time there must be between acts in order for repentance to have occurred. It is not a matter of time as such. It is a matter of attitude toward the deed.

For the sake of discussion, let me point out that Jesus said to forgive even if our brother sins against us seven times in a day. If he merely says “I repent,” we are to take his word for it that he repents. That doesn’t necessarily mean that God accepts their statement, but he clearly instructed us to accept it. We can’t see the heart. And a frequency of repetition of the sin, seven times in a day, is not sufficient evidence to justify our refusing to accept their statement of repentance at face value. God clearly wants us to err on the side of acceptance and forgiveness, not law and judgment.

I don’t see IM directly referenced in his list. Who then is divisive? The ones who introduced it or the ones who objected?

Same question then arises about support of orphans homes by congregations, building of gyms, praise teams, etc.

Which is how we got into our current state of confusion.

“Doctrinal error that is clearly personally corruptive, congregationally disruptive, or doctrinally detrimental is condemned (1 Cor. 5:1-8; Tit. 3:10; 11, 2 Tim. 2:18; Gal. 2:5).”

That would appear to interpret what I would call immorality, divisiveness, and denial of the resurrection. I don’t know what the false brethren of Gal. 2:5 were teaching or how they were spying on the freedom of Christians or how they were trying to make them slaves. I’m guessing they’re the Judaizing, circumcising teachers Paul talks about later in the epistle. This does not seem to be a current challenge to Christians, and I’m unclear why the reference to it is made. (Except, of course, procedurally – not giving in to them for a moment – as a way of dealing with doctrinal error.)

So, to me, the next step is … Who determines when one or more of these three lines has been crossed?

No all doctrinal error damns.

Which begs the question, “What doctrinal errors damn and how does one tell the difference?”

Seems to be a very important next step.

With the emotionless conversation that is internet discussion, the best I can do is offer my sincerest apologies if anything I have said sounds sarcastic. None of it was meant to be. I value this conversation here greatly, as I have explained in many of my posts. Everything I have said here, I believe with all of my heart. I am super sensitive to the topic myself, and try to choose my words carefully. It hurts to know that I offended you, and again I offer my sincerest apologies.

In this light, perhaps you will consider reading my comments again not as sarcastic, but as soberly as I intended them to be. From the beginning, I have wanted this conversation to be productive, for I have a great desire to see the Churches of Christ reconciled.

And if everyone else is hearing me as sarcastic when that is not my intent, then I agree it is time to stop participating. Hopefully that has not been the case, and I pray earnestly that anyone who has also heard me as such will read my existing comments in a different light.

Peace and blessings to you. And may God continue to guide this conversation.

First of all thank you so much for stepping in and taking the place of brother Tidwell. It is encouraging to those like myself on the more “Conservative” side of this debate to have you a part of this discussion.

Despite most of the comments below (folks can we please drop the self-righteous, sarcastic tone and judgmental arrogance by some of those leaving comments–Rob, Brad, they don’t contribute anything to the discussion—especially those who hide under the cloud of “Anonymous”), anway, brother Mac, you did not disappoint in your first entry and have laid some very basic and fundamental principles and truths to hopefully move forward in this discussion and eventually when dealing with more specific questions and issues pertaining to faith and fellowship, they will be useful and provide some platform of agreement.

First let say in general, truth has truly fallen upon hard times recently and someone needs to call for its correction. Sincerity is important, to be sure. There’s one thing, however, which sincerity cannot do. Sincerity cannot turn error into truth. Walking in light is walking in light; walking in darkness is walking in darkness. No degree of sincerity will change such. Sanctify them in your truth, your word is truth.” (John 17:17)

Now, let’s talk about “perfectionism.” Today, more and more it just seems that the most common statement we hear regarding perfection today is “no one’s perfect,” and if we think anything otherwise then that eliminates the grace of God and thus our salvation then becomes based on our perfect keeping of the law (God’s commandments). Not so however. We live in a religious climate of extremes (those on far right and those on far left).

First of all, in Hebrews 5:11-14, the recipients of this letter were criticized for not attaining this perfection: “we have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.” (Heb. 5:11-14)

The word translated here as “mature” is the same word telios, which is translated “perfect” in other verses. These believers were told that by this time they should be mature; but instead they were still infants. He goes on to state, “Let us leave behind the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity (perfection)” It is also significant to see that this isn’t described as the religion of “supersaints.” It is spoken about and expected of every believer.

It is possible to attain this perfection (teleios) without being sinless. All of these verses are directed toward people who most definitely were not sinless. We cannot change our past, but we can with God’s help change our future! I personally would not use the term “sinless” in reference to anyone except Christ. Yet this cannot be considered inconsistent with the position and truth of the passage above. The fact that we have sinned does not prove that we have to continue sinning. If I would live the rest of my life without sin (which won’t happen:)! I would not consider it correct to call me sinless, as I cannot deny that I have sinned.

Now the balance comes from the apostle John clearly giving us the confidence and assurance that: “if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.” (1 John 1:7-10)

The purpose of the confess found in 1:9 is to get the Christian into a place of being forgiven and cleansed by God and therefore in fellowship with Him, but the purpose of John was obedience. And this, in 1 John, is repeatedly given as the mark of the authentic Christian.

Walking in the darkness is not a form of inferior Christianity, but is about living as a non-believer; walking in the Light is not being spiritual as a Christian, but is just a description of being a true Christian.

Obedience or walking in the Light characterizes all true believers, although this does not imply perfection. When the Christian does such, the believer has the assurance of his/her continually being cleansed from all sin and nothing more could be done to accomplish that end other than what Christ has already done for the believer.

Now, I do want to make an important remark of a “pastoral nature” relating to assurance. Neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian would give assurance to someone who is living in continual sin. The Arminian would say the person might have been saved but lost their salvation, and the Calvinist would say their life is evidence that they never were saved. The point I want to make is that they both would agree that the person, is at present, under condemnation.

Passages such as those in 1 John make at least this conclusion impossible to escape. While this is often admitted, the connection between assurance and obedience is often left out. There is, however, a very clear connection. “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” 1 John 5:13 The question is how do you know that you have a biblical faith. The answer is plain in the context: if you believe in Christ, if you will love the children of God, if overcome the world, and if you cease to continue to sin. “We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands.” (1 John 2:3) Can anything be simpler then that?

Now, what I’ve written has by no means practically speaking, really addressed the fellowship questions being addressed here, but this is a web site about Grace Conversation and to the degree my thoughts have helped clarify and bring better understanding between the conservatives and progressives, then I hope they are taken in such light.

I do hope and pray for any positive progress towards truth in unity that the New Testament advocates.

In Christ,
Robert Prater

“Blaming the Spirit could lead to many inventions of man in the worship of the church. My facetious answer to the elders would be: Oh Yeah? Well, the Spirit told me for you not to use it.”

This attitude does not exhibit the heart of God. This is why it is so difficult to have these discussions. To be premeditating facetiousness instead of the love of God is a sign of more than immaturity. It is the very spirit of deviciveness that “progressives” would be accused of.

It is also an indicator of a perfection-driven religion, where all the right knowledge = salvation. Anything that threatens such dogma becomes worthy of scorn and ridicule.

Oh, come, Lord Jesus! Clean up your bride for they great day as you promised! Take away hate and bring your love! Put an end to all self-righteousness in your kingdom, so that we may be one, just as you prayed for. For if we can’t even love the brother we can see, how can we love you whom we can not see? Forgive us for shaming you in public with our bickering and strife, and restore to us the joy of our salvation and the truth of your gospel to our lifestyles. Bring humility to the proud, and unity to your church!