Division & Unity in the Church: What's Worth It? [Think Biblically Podcast]

How important is unity for Christians today? What issues and circumstances should we divide over? In this discussion, Scott and Sean offer some biblical insights about unity in the church today. They discuss what issues we should "die on" and what issues we should seek unity over.

0:00 Introduction
1:34 How Concerned Should We Be About Church Unity?
3:00 Just Love Like Jesus Did
6:14 What Issues Are Essential?
9:07 Practical Approaches
12:36 Philosophy on Unity
15:05 Biola's Essentials
19:03 The Millennium
22:04 Abortion
25:38 Gun Control
29:33 What Makes Something ""Essential""?"
33:00 Marriage
36:57 Interacting With Other Christians
39:55 Conclusion

[christiantwombly]

I really appreciate what the podcast is trying to do here in distinguishing essentials and non-essentials from a salvation perspective. I also recognize the purpose is to give an overview - and that the particular example given 30:13 is meant to be fairly mundane. But the statement "there is one key passage on the Millennium, Revelation 20, and a few others, " and "we don't consider it essential because it is not littered through Scripture and tied to the Gospel in the same way the deity of Christ is, " does not take into account the prolific Millennial statements in the Old Testament (Zech 14, Ez 36-38, Jer 31:31-42, Ez 40-48, Isaiah 9, Isaiah 11, Joel 3, Dan 2, Dan 7, to name only a very small limited of the examples), where few statements on the deity of Christ are present. And according to commentators like C.E.B Cranfield, Paul's argument in Romans 9-11 is that Israel needs to have assurance of these O.T. promises because if they do not the Church can have no assurance of the promises regarding salvation made in Romans 8. And again I recognize the goal of the statement was to provide a mundane comparison, but the Millennium promises are "littered though Scripture" and are tied to the Gospel by Paul in the New Testament. Whereas, while I and most every Christian agree the deity of Christ is necessary for accomplishing our salvation, the Scripture itself never makes the claim directly. I do appreciate the podcast and what you guys were doing on this episode, I just don't think that this particular statement is accurate to the data and was hoping for more in approaching complicated doctrinal issues with direct salvation implications.

[readyfireaim]

[Leibniz's contingency argument for God, clarified]:

Ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D.

0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D are:
1) whole
2) rational
3) not-natural (not-physical)
4) necessary

1-9 and their geometric counterparts 1D-9D are:
1) whole
2) rational
3) natural (physical)
4) contingent

Newton says since 0 and 0D are
"not-natural" ✅
then they are also
"not-necessary" 🚫.

Newton also says since 1-9 and 1D-9D are "natural" ✅
then they are also
"necessary" 🚫.

This is called "conflating" and is repeated throughout Newton's

con·flate
verb

combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one.

Leibniz does not make these fundamental mistakes.

Leibniz's "Monadology" 📚 is zero and it's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space.

0D Monad (SNF)
1D Line (WNF)
2D Plane (EMF)
3D Volume (GF)

We should all be learning Leibniz's

Fibonacci sequence starts with 0 for a reason. The Fibonacci triangle is 0, 1, 2 (Not 1, 2, 3).

Newton's 1D-4D "natural ✅ =
necessary 🚫" universe is a contradiction.

Natural does not mean necessary. Similar, yet different.

Not-natural just means no spatial extension; zero size; exact location only. Necessary.

Newtonian nonsense will never provide a Theory of Everything.

Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason should be required reading

[nathanteele]

First and foremost, this conversation fails to understand that God is good! Paul Tries at every turn to, on the one hand defend the gospel, and on the other hand to upstage it. You all are talking in circles here. Confusion, not conclusions that look like the kingdom of Jesus Christ. You lost me.