Christian Unity

[Lloyd]

Rom 15:5,6 "Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of the same mind one with another according to Christ Jesus: that with one accord you may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

That's one of many Biblical quotations on the subject of unity listed at http://www.freewebs.com/bilib/righteousgovernment.htm.

The article there says the disciples gave an example of how to attain such unity in Acts 15, where I think they decided that circumcision is symbolic, rather than a commandment for the flesh.

We all find ourselves disagreeing with other forum members about what exactly is correct doctrine. If we were a literal family, would we be more tolerant of each other's differing views? My own literal family is divided between quasi-fundamentalist and non-religious. The 2 sides disagree with each other, but we all still care about each other. We don't disown each other.

I don't consider that a good example of unity, but maybe a fair example of tolerance.

Maybe it would help if all of us who disagree with others here list some of our major concerns and then see if we can appreciate those concerns and then maybe come to agreement on what we think we should and should not tolerate in doctrine. Or maybe there are better ways to seek unity.

[jabcat]

Maybe it would help if all of us who disagree with others here list some of our major concerns and then see if we can appreciate those concerns and then maybe come to agreement on what we think we should and should not tolerate in doctrine. Or maybe there are better ways to seek unity.

Lloyd, this is at least real close to being against forum guidelines (and probably actually is).  This has been in place for years, before myself or any of the current active mods were here;  "What You May Not Do" - 6. Starting a new thread of a similar topic as one that is recently locked."

I'm not locking this at this moment, but I don't know how you/anyone posting is going to get around the above guideline, as well as just not get right back into the same topics that got the missionary thread locked in the first place - i.e., according to expectations/guidelines.  My impression is, whether intentional or not, you're basically opening the door to people breaking forum guidelines by invitation.  How might you see this differently than that?  Is there some way to restructure it so that it's not just inviting the same tension, conflict, and wandering into things discouraged/forbidden by Forum Expectations that have just been addressed? 

(One thought that occurs to me is, the Forum Guidelines already set in place some sense of unity if followed, i.e., having (although pretty loose and much allowed) some structure.  Some find it or it develops, some don't and move on.  Again, for anyone concerned, I'd recommend reading the Expectations/FAQ, including Gary's "TM's Beliefs/Universal Restoration" as a place to start.)    Thanks.

[WhiteWings]

My own literal family is divided between quasi-fundamentalist and non-religious. The 2 sides disagree with each other, but we all still care about each other. We don't disown each other.

I don't consider that a good example of unity, but maybe a fair example of tolerance.

The main question is: What the Bible teaches about that?
Simply put Jesus didn't accept anything that was not His own doctrine. (and still doesn't). We all know Jesus often verbally assaulted the Pharisees. Was that unity, tolerance, care of disowning?

I think people with the wrong or non religion will be disowned. That doesn't mean anything ET like but for starters not being part of the 1st resurrection/Kingdom.

Your family isn't at war but how is that accomplished? My guess is that the religious aren't constantly ramming their beliefs down the throats of the non-religious. Is that the correct way to handle things in a Biblical way? Obviously it's good there are no fights because I don't believe Jesus is happy with any sort of fight whatever the reason. But Jesus didn't stop preaching to keep peace. He preached, said His thing time after time until He was killed by those who felt very insulted. I think the verses below show the state of your family is bad. Luke warm I guess.
Don't get me wrong Lloyd; this isn't a holier than you are speech because I'm handling things badly too. But at least I see and admit the flaw.


Jesus Causes Division
Luke 12
49 "I have come to set the world on fire, and I wish it were already burning! 50 I have a terrible baptism of suffering ahead of me, and I am under a heavy burden until it is accomplished. 51 Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other! 52 From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or two in favor and three against.

53 'Father will be divided against son
    and son against father;
mother against daughter
    and daughter against mother;
and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law
    and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.'[a]"
54 Then Jesus turned to the crowd and said, "When you see clouds beginning to form in the west, you say, 'Here comes a shower.' And you are right. 55 When the south wind blows, you say, 'Today will be a scorcher.' And it is. 56 You fools! You know how to interpret the weather signs of the earth and sky, but you don't know how to interpret the present times.

I believe Unity Church is right all roads lead to Father, Son and heaven because eventually all will be there. But most roads are vast detours. I think that's best explained with an example. Say someone lives in Indiana and wants to travel to Ohio. That person can travel eastward (true doctrine). That person also can travel westward (false doctrine). Both reach Ohio but not at the same time and same cost.

So most religions are totally wrong compasses. They teach vast detours. And when they arrive they are already converted of will be converted because no way someone praying to satan, allah or <insert a false God> will be let into heaven.

Ok, for the proud ones here.... I'm not saying Ohio is heaven  :LH:

:2c:

[Lloyd]

Jabcat and WW, you're not trying to say that Jesus was encouraging division among his followers, are you? I don't imagine you are.

You're also not clear on what isn't supposed to be discussed from the other thread.

Are yous going to write up a creed that people have to agree with before they can be forum members? Like do you want all members to agree what believing in Jesus Christ as savior means? Like does it mean having the right idea in one's mind or does it mean behaving the way he said to? Or is that something I can't discuss here?

Are we also not allowed to discuss the meanings of the original wording of the Bible?

After writing the above, I checked out the top section of the forum again.

In the Explanation of Universalism thread at
http://tentmaker.org/forum/rules-and-faq/explanation-of-universalism/
it says:

New Age Movement
There is a Universalism taught in what is commonly called the "New Age Movement." They speak of a cosmic Christ, an ascended Master, [etc.] This is NOT the universalism of Tentmaker Ministries, or true Christian universalism. We have nothing to do with the various forms of the New Age Movement. There is only one Name under heaven by which one must be saved as far as Gary Amirault and Tentmaker Ministries goes -- that name is Jesus the Christ (English), Yeshua Ha Machiach (Hebrew), Iesus Christos (Greek). There are no "ascended masters" as far as we are concerned. Everything we believe centers around the Father of Creation, His Son Whom the Father sent to redeem the world and His Holy Spirit, Whom Jesus sent to "lead us into all truth."

Yous seem to invite atheists and agnostics to share their views, but it's sounding like yous may not want others who don't share all your views to do so. So, to be clear, if someone believes Jesus' existence isn't certain, but they believe God wants everyone to follow his example to be saved, whether Jesus actually lived or not, would the views of such people be unwelcome here? I personally think Jesus probably existed and performed the "miracles" accredited to him, but I see no reason to think that's certain at this point. If such a view is unwelcome, or if discussion of such matters is unwelcome, I'll oblige and stop discussing such things and may also decide then to leave the forum (I don't know yet, as there may still be reason to discuss missionary work here).

[jabcat]

Lloyd, I hope to work today on bringing some things together that are scattered here and there, into one more readable, synthesized version of the basic forum expectations.  Generally, yes, certain things are expected for someone to post.  It says clearly to read the forum expectations, and making ones' first post indicates an agreement to abide by those guidelines.  However, again, I believe they need to be more succinct.  Also, basically, an atheist, agnostic, ET believer etc. is very welcome to post.  But it's more in the vein of asking questions, or even challenging a bit - but with limits that have to be assessed by the mods, i.e., are they just "preaching/teaching" things considered a clear contradiction to BASIC scriptural/spiritual truths (as understood and considered by the ministry and noted in the Guidelines), stubbornly continuing to do so, is it no longer fruitful, i.e., ANY HOPE of CONCILIATION, or has it gone beyond its point of "usefulness" for these specific boards.  Again, the mods - sometimes consulting with Gary - must make those decisions.  Sometimes it's not easy, judgment calls - hopefully always with the Spirit's leading - must be made. 

As far as saying there shouldn't be unity, WW would need to answer for himself.  Here's my current understanding/belief.  Generally, I personally don't believe in "total" unity with "just whatever".  I believe there are differences, and there are supposed to be.  Light/darkness, flesh/spirit, obedience/disobedience, clear conscience/seared conscience, sound doctrine/apostacy.  I don't believe there was what some might consider "unity" when Paul taught that if someone sinned against you, to let them know, then let them know again, and if they continued, to separate yourself from them.   Nor, when he dismissed the one from the assembly and turned him over to satan.  Or when Jesus said to shake the dust off your feet and move on.   

From enduringword.com

2. (2) The reaction of the Corinthian church to the sin.


"And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you."

a. And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned: As bad as the sin itself was, Paul was more concerned that the Corinthian Christians seemed to take the sin lightly, and they were unconcerned (have not rather mourned) about this behavior.

i. Previously in the letter, Paul had been dealing mainly with the "mental" problems of the Corinthian Christians: their wrong ideas about God's power and work and His servants.  Now, Paul is starting to deal with their "moral" problems.  But the two are connected; their moral problems come because they aren't thinking right about God and His word.

b. That he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you: Clearly, this was Paul's solution to the problem – to take this notoriously unrepentant man away from the protection of the fellowship of God's people.  Yet, the Corinthian Christians were not doing this.  Why not?  How could this kind of thing be allowed?

i. Remember that Corinth was a city notorious for sexual immorality, and the pagan religions did not value sexual purity.  It wasn't hard for a Corinthian to think you could be religious, yet still act any way you pleased when it came to sex.  Greek culture could matter-of-factly say: "Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of the body, but wives to bear us legitimate children."

iii. More than anything, the Corinthian Christians were probably allowing this in the name of "tolerance."  They probably were saying to themselves, "Look how loving we are.  We are accepting this brother just as he is.  Look how open-minded we are!"  We should never underestimate what people will allow in the name of "open-mindedness."

c. The Corinthian Christians were proud (you are puffed up) of their acceptance of this man; they thought it said something good about them!  But instead of glorying, they should have been grieving, both for the man and for what they must do to him (be taken away from among you).
-------

There was not "total unity" when God brought the flood.  There was not "total unity" when God destroyed Sodom for its (some argue otherwise, which I personally believe is fallacy) sexual immorality, especially sodomy/homosexual acts - at least it was part of the "last straw".

There also wasn't "total unity" when Paul and Barnabus separated.  Did they still love each other and treat each other as brethren?  I believe so, because they were both spiritually renewed saved men of God through having been given faith to believe on Jesus as Savior.  But they still weren't speaking and thinking all the same things, didn't have the same goal/vision at the time, so they went separate ways.

I know Jesus prayed the disciples would be one, and I believe they were.  I know Paul says (and it's been a little troublesome for me, because I think I know there will NOT be total unity on this side of the veil, until Christ returns, ushers in His kingdom, and makes it so) to be in unity, think and speak the same things, etc.    However, as I understand, that's within certain parameters.  I believe one of the parameters he set clearly, was to not depart from his instructions to the church (some listed above from enduringword), in fact, he said if anyone preached anything else, let them be accursed.  So scripturally, I don't believe it's "unity at all costs".   I see it more as this - "live peaceably with all men, as much as (is possible) it depends on you".  I don't believe it is always possible, because many "depart from the faith", and many are not "of the faith" at all, as Paul says - and light and darkness don't mix or have intimate fellowship.   It doesn't mean "don't love"; always love.  But loving doesn't do away with other VITAL truths as set forth in the scriptures.  In fact, I believe it's sound to say, sometimes difficult things have to be done - even separation - and can still be done in love, with the right motive (and hopefully reconciliation occurs this side of things, but will surely the next, when we're all made completely whole).  We all need help doing it or we'll likely mess it up, but believing and doing the "right" things, with a right heart before God, and with the right motive, does not equal unloving.  All things in proper context.     The scriptures say one thing about that, that has 2 vital parts - speak the truth.....in love.  Another way to say that might be,  in love speak the truth.  I don't believe that Paul could be categorized as "unloving", yet he talked of limits, right/wrong and separation, or Jesus when He said to shake the dust and move on.   

[WhiteWings]

As far as saying there shouldn't be unity, WW would need to answer for himself.  However, generally, I personally don't believe in "total" unity with "just whatever".

The life of Jesus, should I say Bible, is about creating unity. all-in-one.
Not unity in satanism.
Not unity in  atheism.
Not unity in <insert false god>
Not unity in wrong (semi-)Christian denominations

Only unity is 100% correct pure Bible teachings as Jesus taught it.
That excludes a zillion false teachings.

[jabcat]

As far as saying there shouldn't be unity, WW would need to answer for himself.  However, generally, I personally don't believe in "total" unity with "just whatever".

The life of Jesus, should I say Bible, is about creating unity. all-in-one.
Not unity in satanism.
Not unity in  atheism.
Not unity in <insert false god>
Not unity in wrong (semi-)Christian denominations

Only unity is 100% correct pure Bible teachings as Jesus taught it.
That excludes a zillion false teachings.

I agree.  In accord with that, further on down I mentioned that my belief is, that won't fully happen until Jesus returns, establishes His kingdom, and we're all completely restored.  I believe that's part of why He returns to judge the living and the dead - prior to that ("the consumation of all things"), it won't be complete.  He will work that "final" miracle.    In the meantime, we need to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, use discernment, live peaceably when possible, be led by the Spirit, etc.  Which leads to   "that excludes a zillion false teachings"  as you say.  And I believe it means we all have to decide, most preferably with the leading of the Holy Spirit, with what we accept or reject, and with what we unite ourselves.   :2c:

[Tom]

It seems the word "Christian" was used as a reproach for followers of Christ, and, according to Merriam-Webster, "unity" means "the state of being in full agreement." I prefer to say I'm a believer, and I think unity in "the body of Christ" is the agreement that Christ is the savior of the world who died for our sins and was roused from the dead. All the other doctrine churches like to add to that evangel is what causes the disunity of churchianity. I'm not interested in church doctrine. Scripture is sufficient.

"28 Yet Agrippa to Paul: "Briefly are you persuading me, to make me a Christian!"
29 Yet Paul, "May I ever wish to God, that briefly as well as greatly, not only you, but also all who are hearing me today, become such a kind as I am also, outside of these bonds!"" (Acts 26:28,29)

"28 Agrippa was not "almost persuaded." His remark is sarcastic to a degree. Christian was not the honorable term it is today, but a name of reproach and scorn. He suggested that Paul is too hasty in supposing that, as he believed the prophets, he would believe the evangel. But Paul ignores his sarcasm and turns it into a sober wish. He could wish that all that noble company had the true treasures of nobility and wealth which were his in Christ! Thus ends Paul's testimony in Judea. This part of his course is finished." (Concordant Commentary on the New Testament page 222)

"15 For let not any of you be suffering as a murderer, or a thief, or an evildoer, or as an interferer in other's affairs;
16 yet if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, yet let him be glorifying God in this name,
17 seeing that it is the era for the judgment to begin from the house of God. Now if first from us, what is the consummation of those who are stubborn as to God's evangel?" (1 Peter 4:15-17)

"15 Paradoxical as it may seem, only Jews are Christians in the Scriptures. The term is never applied to the nations, but only to Jews or proselytes. Paul never uses the name in his epistles. It occurs only in Acts, which is concerned with the past rejection of the kingdom, and in Peter, which looked forward to its future realization. It is a notable example of the manner in which Scriptural terms have been utterly perverted from their original use." (Concordant Commentary on the New Testament page 361)

"Wherefore, thus says my Lord, Yahweh: Behold, I am laying a foundation stone in Zion, A choice stone, a precious corner, a well-founded foundation; The one believing shall not be put to shame." (Isaiah 28:16)

"14 Do not become diversely yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness? Or what communion has light with darkness?
15 Now what agreement has Christ with Belial? Or what part a believer with an unbeliever?
16 Now what concurrence has a temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God, according as God said, that I will be making My home and will be walking in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." (2 Corinthians 6:14-16)

"14 The church has fallen so low and has compromised so thoroughly with the world that the sharp distinction between saint and sinner has been almost obliterated. And with this the separation between believer and unbeliever is rarely acknowledged. Were we, who are Christ's, living up to our privileges, we would not even consider any alliance with unbelievers. In business we should have a standard of righteousness unknown to them. No partnership is possible between righteousness and lawlessness. The social organizations of the world are darkness to one who is light in the Lord. There can be no agreement between the religions of the world and Christ. The true believer cannot share in that which appeals to the unbeliever.

16 A due sense of the solemn fact that God is making His home in us is the best preventive from contamination with the pollutions of the world." (Concordant Commentary on the New Testament page 271)

"Yet the timid, and unbelievers, and the abominable, and murderers, and paramours, and enchanters, and idolaters, and all the false-their part is in the lake burning with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." (Revelation 21:8)

"20 Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the Firstfruit of those who are reposing.
21 For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead.
22 For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified.
23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;
24 thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power.
25 For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy is being abolished: death.
27 For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him.
28 Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all." (1 Corinthians 15:20-28)

http://concordant.org/expohtml/TheEvangel/BelievingAndUnderstanding.html

http://concordant.org/expohtml/TheEvangel/WhatIsABeliever.html

http://concordant.org/expohtml/HumanDestiny/unbeliever.html

[attachment deleted by admin]

[jabcat]

Here are some more thoughts on what you posted and my reply Tony.  It seems to me, that if God had intended complete, total unity in this age - He would not have done several things;

hardened some people's hearts, and dimmed their eyes;

made vessels of honor and dishonor (I know some believe that's ALL/ONLY within each individual, I don't.  I believe it has that application, but applies to different "groups" of people as well).  For instance,

setting Israel aside for a time, bringing in the Gentiles, then turning again to Israel - until ALL are finally brought in;  and, importantly,

not doing His heart's desire and intent IN THIS AGE - having "all men be saved and COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH".  I Timothy 2:4   

[jabcat]

Good post Tom.

[Lloyd]

I don't know why you all are trying to pretend that I said anything about unity with everyone. I was talking about unity among Jesus' followers and I said so. I also specified those followers who believe in not harming anyone, which I take to be a large part of the law of Love.

You don't seem to have answered my main question. If someone isn't 100% convinced that Jesus existed or that the Bible tells his story entirely accurately, do you want such people not to be members, or at least not to discuss any such doubts? It's hard for me to believe that anyone feels 100% certain about all that. How could you be certain, if you weren't there? As for faith, do you all have 100% certainty that the word "faith" in the Bible wasn't meant as "faithful"? If you're 100% certain, it seems you'd have to be omniscient.

Are you absolutists?

[jabcat]

You don't seem to have answered my main question. If someone isn't 100% convinced that Jesus existed or that the Bible tells his story entirely accurately, do you want such people not to be members, or at least not to discuss any such doubts?

Also, basically, an atheist, agnostic, ET believer etc. [add: doubter/extreme doubter (we're probably all doubters/lack of faithers to some extent), etc.]  is very welcome to post.  But it's more in the vein of asking questions, or even challenging a bit - but with limits that have to be assessed by the mods, i.e., are they just "preaching/teaching" things considered a clear contradiction to BASIC scriptural/spiritual truths (as understood and considered by the ministry and noted in the Guidelines), stubbornly continuing to do so [add: having once or several times been requested to redirect/reminded of guidelines, etc.], is it no longer fruitful, i.e., ANY HOPE of CONCILIATION, or has it gone beyond its point of "usefulness" for these specific boards.   Again, the mods - sometimes consulting with Gary - must make those decisions.  Sometimes it's not easy, judgment calls - hopefully always with the Spirit's leading - must be made [add: up to and including requests, warnings, deletion of posts, locking of threads, and banning]. 

No such decisions (unless it's totally egregious) are made without consideration and communication with the person(s) involved - either in threads, or by PM.  In this most recent instance, notice, no one's been banned, no one's posts have been removed, much communication has occurred.  But with us all being human and life being what it is, there's a limit even to that.  Sometimes we either do it as needed/requested or we don't, and then further decisions have to be made according to guidelines and purposes of the boards.

[Tom]

"faith is an assumption of what is being expected, a conviction concerning matters which are not being observed" (Hebrews 11:1)

"Happy are those who are not perceiving and believe." (John 20:29)

[jabcat]

I'll note - one member involved in the "missionary" thread PM'ed, apologized, offered that she realized she'd not followed forum guidelines, voluntarily removed 2 of her posts that she stated she realized "served no positive purpose", and would make an effort to stick to the focus of the boards;  helping share the Victorious Gospel of Jesus Christ to those coming in who either have never yet met Him, or are coming out of institutionalized religion and perhaps religious abuse, including fears of eternal torment.  Her offer was appreciated and accepted. 

..with us all being human and life being what it is, there's a limit even to that [communication/reasoning about it].  Sometimes we either do it as needed/requested or we don't, and then further decisions have to be made according to guidelines and purposes of the boards.

[jabcat]

I don't know why you all are trying to pretend that I said anything about unity with everyone.

Isn't "pretend" an assumption assigning motive?   :mshrug:

Actually, I included professing believers in much of what I wrote.  Ex., Paul and Barnabus.

[dajomaco]

Thank you Jabcat for careful considerations as a moderator. 
I know that this service you give is time consuming.
I also imagine that there may have been posts that you felt enlightened by,
and others that where frustrating.

I liked that you posted:

made vessels of honor and dishonor (I know some believe that's ALL/ONLY within each individual, I don't.

I am someone who believes the two vessels are the old me and the new me, an individual.

You disagree with my belief, or should I say I disagree with your belief.

It is so refreshing that you understand what I believe.

I find it so frustrating when someone distorts my belief and then tells me why they disagree with my distorted belief.   

May be I should start a new thread for this question.
Can the vessel for destruction and the vessel created for honour be an individual,
who is separated by the sword of the Spirit.

[jabcat]

:)  Well, thanks, that's a bit of a surprise.  You probably don't know how much I'd prefer not to, but I know I've had on my hard toed shoes the past couple of days and been irritating some folks.   :sigh:  NOT my favorite thing to do - probably one of the hardest.  (yeah, yeah, I know you hear violin music).

Yes, I'm often edified, challenged, and assisted by many things people say - even if parts of it we don't agree on.   If it were in some other "free-for-all" board, which I didn't feel any calling to, in a sense to me it wouldn't matter, because I'd probably just not participate and walk away while  people slugged it out.   :eek:  I'd go golfin'  :).

As far as your other thoughts, as I did state also that I do believe [or could at least consider] that it does have that application (individuals) to an extent as well.  I may be wrong, but I believe though, when looked at in context of other things related, it's just not the primary application.  Without looking, it seems there's an indication surrounding it in context that it's applied to separate people primarily, rather that sections within a person (same with the wheats and tares discussion).  But that's a  :2c: and I probably need to look more closely before saying anything more than that. 

[Lloyd]

Well, if anyone comes along who actually agrees that Jesus told his followers to find Unity in him or in his teachings etc, I'd like to meet or hear from that person here or somewhere.

[JulieTang84]

Well, if anyone comes along who actually agrees that Jesus told his followers to find Unity in him or in his teachings etc, I'd like to meet or hear from that person here or somewhere.

I do believe that Jesus told his disciples [often] to find unity in him and even amongst themselves. In a prayer to Father, Jesus say's the the glory given himself, he also gave them that "they" maybe one as he and Father were one.

Jhn 17:21-26 ESV
That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me

If I understand JabCat correctly, it matters not that we do not "agree" on every single detail. Quite obviously Jesus's disciples did not. However, they did "agree" on the fundamental truth and that is that Jesus was LORD and Savior. They risked and lost their lives teaching the good news (read Eternal Reconciliation) They were unified in this.

I also fully understand JabCat's concern. If we are seen as nothing more than a bunch of squabbling "children," would't it be logical for one to think, that whatever we "say" we have in truth, we really do not.  It is important that we stand apart from the world and it is seen that we indeed do, because as Jesus said above: "so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me."

The world WON'T know until they "see" it in us.

1 Peter 3:8 ESV
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.

Love Julie :HeartThrob:

[Tom]

"1 I am entreating you, then, I, the prisoner in the Lord, to walk worthily of the calling with which you were called,
2 with all humility and meekness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,
3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit with the tie of peace:
4 one body and one spirit, according as you were called also with one expectation of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all, Who is over all and through all and in all.
7 Now to each one of us was given grace in accord with the measure of the gratuity of Christ.
8 Wherefore He is saying, Ascending on high, He captures captivity And gives gifts to mankind.
9 Now the 'He ascended,' what is it except that He first descended also into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He Who descends is the Same Who ascends also, up over all who are of the heavens, that He should be completing all.
11 And the same One gives these, indeed, as apostles, yet these as prophets, yet these as evangelists, yet these as pastors and teachers,
12 toward the adjusting of the saints for the work of dispensing, for the upbuilding of the body of Christ,
13 unto the end that we should all attain to the unity of the faith and of the realization of the son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature of the complement of the Christ,
14 that we may by no means still be minors, surging hither and thither and being carried about by every wind of teaching, by human caprice, by craftiness with a view to the systematizing of the deception." (Ephesians 4:1-14)

[Lloyd]

It's not clear to me if either of you do seek Christian Unity, or something like that, or how to do so. Does anyone see how to do so, besides having humility, patience etc?

[Tom]

It's not clear to me if either of you do seek Christian Unity, or something like that, or how to do so. Does anyone see how to do so, besides having humility, patience etc?

It's not through church doctrine. The church is divided. Unity is in the spirit, the body of Christ.

"we, who are many, are one body in Christ" (Romans 12:5)

[JulieTang84]

It's not clear to me if either of you do seek Christian Unity, or something like that, or how to do so. Does anyone see how to do so, besides having humility, patience etc?

Unity is based on what is shared, rather than what divides. As Tom just posted, true Unity is in Spirit and the fruits of the spirit are many, including humility and patience.

Gal 5:22,23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

You must notice Lloyd that the words: Belief, Understanding or Knowledge are not mentioned. Father is not in the least interested in what we profess to know, but rather "who" and "what" we ARE. Unity in Spirit is a natural bi-product of the Spirit.

Love Julie  :HeartThrob:

[Lloyd]

Disunity is likely a product of pride and complacency.