Heresy vs. Schism

[Gerr]

I heard the LLU pastor pose this question: If your church or our church were faced with only these two options, which would you choose?

[Woody]

I would choose what some call Heresy ... ANY day.

[Woody]

Most people believe the same on what is important. Usually ... the 'heresy stuff' is of little importance and not worth dividing us.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Woody, set aside your mental block that all heresy is only some imaginary line legalistic people draw, and answer the question Gerry really asked. Let me put it in other words. If your only options were giving up the truths of the Bible, such as believing in Jesus as your Savior, or schism, which would you choose?

I would choose schism. My allegiance is to the God of the Bible and the truth found in His Word, not to a church. If my church leaves God, I will leave my church.

Someday, possibly soon, that is the choice we will each have to make.

[Tom Wetmore]

And the choice for schism is why we have hundreds of Christian denominations.

What many wrestling with this choice forget or overlook or ignore is that EGW's emphatic answer to this question was for unity. Her words were "press together". She got that idea from Jesus and his prayer (John 17) for us to love one another and live in unity. I sometimes wonder how long that prayer will remain unanswered.

[Gerr]

And the choice for schism is why we have hundreds of Christian denominations.

What many wrestling with this choice forget or overlook or ignore is that EGW's emphatic answer to this question was for unity. Her words were "press together". She got that idea from Jesus and his prayer (John 17) for us to love one another and live in unity. I sometimes wonder how long that prayer will remain unanswered.

I am struggling with the question, and the answer is unsettled in my own mind. So you might find me arguing both sides of the question. My answer to your first line is this:

What happened to the early church when they tried to accommodate all kinds of heresies including acceptance of many pagan practices?

[GreatLakesGramma]

And the choice for schism is why we have hundreds of Christian denominations.

What many wrestling with this choice forget or overlook or ignore is that EGW's emphatic answer to this question was for unity. Her words were "press together". She got that idea from Jesus and his prayer (John 17) for us to love one another and live in unity. I sometimes wonder how long that prayer will remain unanswered.

At the time when most of the major denominations were coming into existence, the reason for each new denomination was that the churches refused to accept any new light that their founders hadn't discovered. They were persecuted, and in the case of the earliest Protestant churches, put to death for embracing Bible truth. The early adventists had no thought of leaving their churches, but they were kicked out because they would not give up the truth they had learned.

Are you saying the Millerites should have just forgotten about the truth and stuck with the limited knowledge their churches held, even though the churches of that day were in large part more like social clubs than gatherings of people honestly seeking truth? I should have stayed Methodist and forgot about the Sabbath and Jesus' soon return?

[GreatLakesGramma]

You can still love someone, even though you don't agree with them. It's a little harder if they persecute you, but you can do it, by God's grace.

What if it's closer to home? How about someone who has learned of Jesus, but whose spouse is an unbeliever and not only opposed to Christianity, but hostile and threatening toward the spouse who wants to become a Christian. Should they abandon Jesus to keep peace with the spouse?

If my husband were to abandon Christianity and become a worshiper of Satan in one of his milder manifestations, and gave me the option of either joining with him in his new-found religion or divorce, my marriage would be over. Period. I would not stop loving him, or grieving his absence in my life, or praying for God to somehow bring him back to Himself, but Jesus comes first, before my husband, or any other person or group of persons. I will never abandon God for the sake of unity with those who've rejected Him.

[BSW]

Thankfully those arn't our only two choices.

Silly question.

IMO

[GreatLakesGramma]

No, it's not a silly question. It's one we each may face at some point in our lives, and we need to have the question settled in our own hearts now. We don't need to settle the issue in our minds at this point as to what heresy we may be faced with. But we do need to keep our connection with God strong so that if/when the time comes that we are faced with the choice, we can know what is His will in the matter.

[Gordon1]

Unity with the Father and Son (John 17) will never exist where Truth is compromised. Schism over heresy has ALWAYS been the choice of the faithful - Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist, Paul and Christ. Luther, Wesley, Ellen White.

Forced unity will soon come from Rome and the Religious Right, but God would rather see hundreds of denominations with liberty, than a one-world Church under Satan's power.

When Ellen White wrote 'press together', she was not advocating an ecumenical sandwich. As God's people hear His call to 'Come out of her my people', (Rev. 18:4) THEN all those denominations will yield up their faithful seekers to unite together, and they will equally divide their goods.

(What kind of vehicle you driving Tom?)

[BSW]

Quote:

No, it's not a silly question.

For me it's a silly question because I was raised by God fearing parents to be a leader. As a leader I can submit myself completely to Christ and allow His Spirit to dictate the choice, which in reality will not be a choice but will be what I have become.

[Contented]

I believe that when Ellen White called Christians to "Press together, press together!" she was talking about pressing together to stand for truth. The whole of the Protestant movement was schism. And many died for it. Without it there would never have been an SDA church. And while the world is still divided about believing in 'all paths to God', Jesus says I am the only way--and the path is narrow and and few there be that find it. God also calls us to 'come out of Babylon' and not be part of it. Heresy changes everything about how (and who) we worship, and how we follow Christ.

As for unity, Paul makes a call for overlooking differences that come up in another person's life because of their background, or previouse understanding, but he never compromises 'truth'. He explained carefully that Jesus has been given the right to judge all of us - and therefore we don't have the right to judge each other. So if schism occures because of petty differences that's too bad! But if schism occurs because a person stands for truth, - that's good. If heresy is really that - heresy, then what a shame to believe it - to avoid schism!

_________________________

[Gerr]

Thankfully those arn't our only two choices.

Silly question.

IMO

I posed the question as if there are ONLY two choices. It has happened over and over again. IF those were your ONLY choices, what would it be?

And what other options do you have in mind? Compromise? Which side should compromise?

[GreatLakesGramma]

Quote:

No, it's not a silly question.

For me it's a silly question because I was raised by God fearing parents to be a leader. As a leader I can submit myself completely to Christ and allow His Spirit to dictate the choice, which in reality will not be a choice but will be what I have become.

Calling someone's question silly just because you don't consider it relevant to you seems kind of rude to me.

[jasd]

Re: Heresy vs. Schism

>>I heard the LLU pastor pose this question: If your church or our church were faced with only these two options, which would you choose?<<

What is there to choose?—the NT uses the terms interchangeably, yes?—that is, heresy and sects...

Now were we to utilize the terms colloquially – I’d say one erred choosing only the one or the other. The correct answer must be predicated upon an option allowing the answer – BOTH!

[jasd]

>>Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.<<

Rev 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:

Rev 18:12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,

Rev 18:13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

It appears that the “merchandise” in the above is listed in descending order of value; in which case, it is no wonder that the time is coming when a man shall work the entire day for the equivalent of a loaf of bread.

Take especial note: that the ‘item’ of least value in Babylon will be

the life of a man.

Given the presaging upheavals in present Int’l money policies and concerns – do we err in suspecting that we stand upon Stephen Hawking’s descriptive – the “event horizon”? And, given the subsequent or following texts of this chapter, the question seems to obtain:

Where on the Roman Tiber or the Tyrrhenian Sea -- are the ports envisioned in Revelation 18? What!?—his Eminence hasn’t the Ports?

Oh, okay, I indulge a bit – there is some shipping capability...

[Bravus]

Schism is good, and many who have posted here seem to see it as the one way to preserve purity.

It can presumably continue to a reductio ad absurdem situation where there are as many - absolutely doctrinally pure - denominations as there are Christians...

[Twilight]

There is going to be schism, right at the end of time.

----------------

One side is going to be on Satans Bench and they will be arguing for "ecumenism".

One side is going to be on Christ's Bench and they will be arguing for "unity".

Those invited to Satan's bench, often take the lie of "ecumenism", thinking it signifies "unity".

When its very principles are exactly the opposite.

"Ecumenism" is about abandoning all differences so that all can have a group hug.

"Unity" is about everyone arriving at a central set of truths, so they can stand together as an army...

----------------

But the devil keeps feeding some in our church the soup of ecumenism, and they think they are fighting for unity...

[olger]

Those of us who gave up much to accept the Advent truth have already started a on journey that leads to The Lord.

[Tom Wetmore]

While there may well be points where EGW applied the "Press together" command as you suggest, she also very clearly applied it to conflicts and differences amongst us. Here are just two clear examples:

Quote:

Press together. Do not make little wedges of slight differences of opinion, and drive them in to separate heart from heart, but see how you can love one another even as Christ has loved you. See how you can forgive those who trespass against you, even as you want your Father in heaven to forgive your trespasses. Then you can be definite in your requests; you can be bold in Christ; for Christ presents your requests to God with the heavenly credentials which are His own righteousness, and you can believe that Christ does hear, believe that He does bless, and say, "I am His, and He is mine." {OHC 178}

Quote:

"Let no Christian be found an accuser of the brethren. Satan is the one who bears this title; he accuses them before God day and night, he stirs up the enemies of our faith to accuse us, and he prompts those of like precious faith to criticize and condemn one another. We are not to take part in his work. These are days of trial and of great peril; the adversary of souls is upon the track of every one; and while we stand out separate from the world, we should press together in faith and love. United, we are strong; divided, we are weak. . . . {RH, December 6, 1906 par. 7}

[GreatLakesGramma]

You are right, Tom. But I don't believe the question in the OP was about slight differences of opinion or accusations against each other. That does not even remotely fall into the category of heresy. Let's just leave it as it was intended, to apply to actual rejection of essential Biblical truths.