When this topic comes up, I think of Acts 15: "after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them..." (v. 2) "And after there had been much debate..." (v. 7) "And there arose a sharp disagreement..." (v. 39) Yes, we all should agree; it's a sin that there are parties within the church (1 Corinthians 1:10-13). But, it seems to me that there won't be agreement without repentance, and there won't be repentance without people speaking God's Word to each other and hashing out what it has to say. The sooner that we learn how to talk and argue about even the "smallest truths of God" (quoting Baxter), the better.

jam, excellent! Great scriptures, and I especially liked how you phrased "the sooner that we learn how..." The how is so important, isn't it? Let's not appear to be squabbling over pointless and personal matters, but let's argue and debate with love and the greatest consideration & humility, while still conveying the gravity of the matters that we discuss. It doesn't come naturally! But for the most part, I believe we MyChurchers are successful. Here's a great example.  ~mike

I spent seven months arguing with non-Calvinists.  I think from it I have a more scriptural understanding of God and hopefully so do those I argued with.

R.C. Sproul likened theology to any other science (it used to be called the mother of all sciences).  Just as physics isn't simple, neither is theology.  C.S. Lewis alluded to the same in Mere Christianity.  Just as physics has theories and speculation, so does theology.  And as long as there is speculation, there will be debate over it.

Baxter is interesting in that I believe he was the last person to write a book on Biblical Casuistry. There is a deep need for this type of writing today IMNSHO. Biblical casuistry refers to the application of the Bible into every area of life...etc.

As to debate amongst Christians I think we need much, much more. The puritans debated strongly about Biblical issues and were thereby strengthened. Nowadays, Christians easily take offense when their own viewpoint (not necessarily scripture's) is assaulted. But, we must remember that Love is not easily offended (1 Cor. 13). 

Let's debate but can we develop less sensitivity (to our own feelings)? 

I think, Eric, that one thing that helps is for a theologian to put the label on as speculation when it is such. One theologian James Jordan posited a theory of Rm 11 on the Jews that was not the common one and some erupted with anger. (They failed to understand that he clearly said it was speculation).

So when speculating we should clearly state that to ease conflict, IMHO. Style is a thing that can be very easily misinterpreted. Some of us have dry humor that can be interpreted as maybe pride or arrogancy, etc. It is equally important for the reader to NOT be easily offended and to realize that there are different styles. 

Recon wrote:  "Let's debate but can we develop less sensitivity (to our own feelings)?"

I haven't met too many like this, but I think it may be when people trust their own conclusions and theories above God's Word.  Of course, I may be treading on dangerous generalities here.  On the other hand, attacks against the core truths of God really rub me the wrong way too, like cheap potshots in comics.

Mike:  next debate, I'll bring the argument if you bring the chips and salsa.  ;)

Wow!! I am lost. I just do not understand.

Perhaps, our purpose should be to bring about understanding and edification in order to build up one another in the faith. I do realize that some folks do argue for the sake of arguing. (They really enjoy it). Let's ask ourselves why are we doing it? What is my motive in this activity? How can God be glorified in the things I do and say?

JR

JR,

    I think what is being referred to here is healthy debate about scripture. Scripture is multi-faceted like a diamond with many faces. Often a person will think they have it all figured out but in reality only are looking at one facet of a diamond. This is why we need each other and why Paul applauded the Bereans for searching the scriptures and holding him, Paul accountable. This is healthy! However what Brad refers to above, the holding out of dirty laundry publicly is certainly not always healthy. Now, there have been "christians" accurately labelled as heretics in the past but that probably is not the way in which it was done as mentioned by Brad above.

In general, our dirty laundry should probably be aired out in private. Certainly, the civil government should have no say in heresy trials and has nothing to say about them!

One time at my mamma's church they had a fella that started comin there, joined the church, and then started arguin with people about the doctrine. I thought that was crazy because when this fella joined the church he knew what they believed... so why join somethin that you disagree with?  With all the different denominations out there surely a believer can find a congregation that matches purty close to his/her own beliefs right? 

  Now I do like to discuss thangs with my buddies... like did Jesus have long hair or not... or what did Moses think when he saw God's hind parts(exodus 33:23)... but when we discuss stuff we ain't tryin to change the other ones belief we're just exchangin ideas. It rarely turns into a argument. That's my 2 cents on it. God bless.

I hate the sound of arguing. It's just loud angry noise to me. That's all I hear, not the points being made. But I also know God hates the lukewarmness that sometimes causes people to "just go along." So apparently I'm not reacting to your main point but to the one word. Discussion among believers can be a good thing, and yes, iron sharpens iron, but only if we speak our truth in love.

What can be gained if the people arguing are only expounding loudly on their own point of view and aren't listening to each other? This kind of thing has a way of ending in namecalling as Brad said. God will certainly not be glorified, which is our purpose in life.

If we get involved in an intense debate, we need to continually monitor ourselves to be sure the discussion remains healthy as recon77 says. And if we lose our cool or our fellow debater does, somebody needs to apologize, not for what they believe but for putting what they believe above loving their fellow believer, whom Christ died for.

Anyway, that's the way I see it. And if you disagree with me, please say so in a quiet and mannerly way. I can't seem to "hear" otherwise. 

Well I for one agree.  I have no idea what I agreed to, but in a blog on disagreement, it sure does sound like someone should agree for the sake of disagreement.

Oh wait, you mean we've had that already?

Nevermind then.  Carry on disagreeing about agreeing.

In the meantime, who is going to tell this guy the next blog over, that he should stop going around circumcising everyone?

Actually in all seriousness, as I've stated elsewhere I do feel there is a time to disagree.  However I also have come to realize that there is a time to take the discussion and leave it.  Sometimes I wait to long.  Sometimes I poke and prod too long.  And sometimes I completely skip the tact part.

Blogs here do not lead themselves to easy conversation.  Usually in a discussion (face to face) you have the opportunity to go back and forth on points rather than trying to sum them all up in one large comment (which itself is a response to a really large comment).  Additionally the inability to quote well (or at all) makes it hard to point out what you are responding to.  Especially when there are multiple comments people could be responding to and directions to go.  And then there are those wackos with a dry sense of humor (where it's hard to tell if they are serious or joking) that really muddy the place up.  So a lot of times I will take it to e-mail where you can limit some of the noise.

Oh and one other thing I miss... Built in emoticons... This was always one of my favorites.  Believe it or not it made me chuckle.

Not to argue, but it's not all in the delivery.  In order for there to be a conversation/discussion there are at least two people involved (unless I'm talking to myself which is always a fun time).  The receiver is just as responsible for understanding what is being said as the sender is for conveying the message in the first place.

Additionally in the last decade (maybe longer) there has been a change in the way conversation happens.  Somewhere in there, the person speaking has become responsible for not only conveying the message, but not offending the receiver.  Instead of things being "Correct", they are now "Appropriate" (after all nothing is absolutely true, is it?).  BEWARE, if receiver is not paying attention this last comment in quotes could be taken incorrectly!  There's that pesky "correct" thing again.

Excellent points in both of your last posts Norm. There is a responsibility with the receiver as well AND there is a time to leave discussions. And also the point about nothing absolutely being true...I take this as a postmodernist approach. Having just finished a radical feminist philosophy course in education (it was proclaimed such from the outset), I know of whence I speak.

The attitute that we can never know absolute Truth, that all we can know are shifting truths with a small "t" is postmodernism and it HAS crept in big time into the body of Christ in the very way you mention above. Emphasis being on appropriate rather than correct, on feelings rather than truth....very well said....and I would go further and say it may also be very Marxist and certainly was in the case of my class.

Oh, and I love the emoticon...I think I'll steal it. I've never seen it before. 

I forget how an emoticon can soften our speech but that one really does...

I remember a sermon by Greg Laurie on marriage where he said the following.  (I'm paraphrasing since it's been a while since I've heard it)  "I'm tired of hearing of marriages ending because of irreconcilable differences.  My wife and I have had irreconcilable differences for 30 some years.  We have differences in opinions and they are irreconcilable".  That lines up with my wife and I.  We certainly don't agree on everything. 

So to answer the question of "Can those who agree to disagree walk together?".  I would have to say "Yep!".  

Mike I agree with you totally, and thanks because we do have choices and everyone opinons are on good and on different levels.
 
ORTHODOX, ORTHODOXY
Adherence to the accepted teachings of a religion. Christian orthodoxy is measured both by Scripture and by the long history of church teaching. The Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed are both basic guides by which to measure orthodoxy, as they are accepted by both Protestants and Catholics. If a particular belief (e.g., that Jesus was not really the Son of God) runs counter to one of the ancient creeds, it is not orthodox.
SCRIPTURE, SCRIPTURES
The holy writings of Judaism and Christianity. Jews recognize 39 books as comprising their Scriptures. Christians recognize these same Jewish writings—categorized as Torah (Law), Prophets, and Writings—as Scripture, along with the four Gospels, 21 Epistles, the book of Acts, and Revelation. Some Christians also recognize the Apocrypha and/or Deuterocanonical books as Scripture. See Bible, Canon of the; Bible, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament); Bible, Manuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament).

APOSTLES’ CREED
A statement of faith used in both Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, dating from about A.D. 150. Although it is an accurate statement of the beliefs of the apostles, it is highly unlikely that any of Jesus’ disciples had any involvement in composing it.

NICENE CREED
(325/381)

Church fights are nothing new. Almost as soon as Christians were free from Roman persecution, they had a major theological rift over the identity of Jesus. It took a major meeting to sort things out.
So in 325 Emperor Constantine called the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, held at Nicea in Asia Minor. About three hundred bishops gathered for the proceedings. All but six of them were from the Eastern Empire. The chief purpose of this council was to deal with controversy in the church, notably that which had been stirred up by the Alexandrian theologian Arius. His teaching, known as Arianism, began with the concept of God as absolute. It followed that everything else was created by the one God, including the Son of God. Arius held that there could not be a plurality of persons in one God and that if the Son was created, he could not be of the same nature as the Father. Christ was not the essential Son of God, declared Arius, but only the adopted one. Such views led to Arius’s excommunication by the bishop of Alexandria, but this merely increased the number of Arius’s supporters.
The largest party at Nicea was led by Eusebius of Caesarea. This party wanted to adopt a creed that accepted the divinity of Christ while still allowing room for Arian claims. Eusebius’s creed was rejected.
Finally, a deacon from Alexandria named Athanasius championed what has since become orthodox belief regarding the person of Jesus Christ. Like his adversary Arius, Athanasius was not a member of the council but could speak by invitation. Athanasius contended successfully for the orthodox doctrine of God and creation against Arius’s arguments. Athanasius saw the whole issue in terms of great principles, not of theological subtleties. Largely through Athanasius’s intervention, the council squarely countered Arian assertions by insisting on three points: (1) the Son was out of the being of the Father; (2) the Son was begotten, not made; (3) the Son was of the same nature with the Father rather than merely of a similar nature to that of the Father.
A creed was drawn up to include these assertions and to denounce those who affirmed Arian beliefs. This creed was probably modified from a Jerusalem baptismal creed. It was ratified by a majority of the bishops present. Another council was held at Constantinople in 381, and a second creed was produced, modifying and expanding the original one. Its text is as follows:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is visible and invisible.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again, in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Two dissident bishops were deposed when the Nicene Creed was adopted and, along with Arius and his colleagues, were condemned and banished. After the Council of Nicaea, disobedience to church decisions was regarded as a crime against the state. Although Athanasius made powerful enemies at Nicea, he became bishop of Alexandria three years after the council.

Mike yes I notice, and it's been done thank God, and it over so why are some still arguing now.