I have wrestled with this question and continue to wrestle with it. At present, I believe that I need to scrupulously avoid trying to judge who is a true Christian/saved person and who is not. Because God knows who are ultimately his, and who are going to be his, and I do not. That is not to say that all doctrines of all groups you mentioned are acceptable; many are not and conflict with the core teachings of the gospel.

My “policy” at the moment is that, if someone claims to love Jesus and be a follower of Jesus, I will take them at their word and assume they are in a personal relationship with Christ, even if their ideas differ substantially from mine. Because personal relationships are full of misunderstanding. God is willing to establish and maintain relationships with all kinds of people who currently misunderstand him and continue to do so. I will extend a hand of fellowship and worship alongside anyone who sees God as the Trinity, because that is who God is.

It is the officially policy of most churches — Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox — to accept the baptism of anyone in any church who has been baptized “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” and not expect them to be rebaptized into their own denomination. I think that is a good policy.

Lets just take those  7 that I mentioned above, is there any line that you would draw where you would say, “I think that my Christian fellowship would have to end there.” I am not saying that you would not LOVE the others (if there are others)  and help the others and pray for the others etc. But do you draw a distinction between any of those I mentioned?  

In the comments above, wherever someone is talking
about whether they would “die” for something, try substituting
the word “kill.” Would I kill someone over this? History has shown
that the line between willing to die for something and being willing
to kill for it is extremely thin, and people better than I have crossed over it. Much of what motivates people to die also motivates them to kill.

And then ask yourself, “Would I be willing to die for someone who is on the wrong side of this issue — not to demonstrate that I am brave, honorable or correct, but in the hope of establishing an eternal friendship with that person?” Jesus died for sinners, heretics, apostates, etc. whose principles were all wrong. And before he died, he submitted himself to all sorts of insults and mistreatment from them without retaliating.

Jesus never, ever  compromised on truth. But the people who were expecting a truth-warrior messiah were deeply disappointed in him, because he set the principles aside and went to the cross to save the people first.

Isn’t Christianity supremely ironic? So much of what put Jesus on the cross is right here in my heart, and in  the hearts of  everyone who follows him.

Speaking for myself, I have found that it is far easier to be a truth-warrior than to walk in the footsteps of our crucified Lord.

I no longer understand the Lloyd-Jones distinction between fellowship and doctrine, because in my understanding of the gospel, fellowship is a core doctrine which I confess in the Apostles’ Creed. That fellowship is established by Christ on the cross. Not by coming to agreement on what the cross means, but on Christ himself, and the cross itself.

My point is, this should be a space where ideas and arguments  are responded to in a Godly way and from wisdom. If anyone who claims to be a Christian absolutely refuses to have any more dialogue or contact with another Christian just because they are offended by an argument against their position, then I think that person need to remember the Grace of Jesus in saving them, and not become like the wicked servant who strangled his debtor for 100 denarii. Thats all

If my opinions are too much to handle, then perhaps it is better not to reply to them lest they cause you to sin in your anger. But like I said before, I hold no ill will toward you personally  whatsoever.

from John A’s  blogpost:

http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2011/03/praying-for-a-new-pentecost-in-rome.html

I know that this might sound controversial to a Catholic person, and I mean no ill will or offense to you personally  Gerardo, but when you say, “We can evangelize…” is part of what you mean by that, evangelization into the Catholic Church? because if that is so, I must give an answer from my conscience, that that is evangelization into an apostate church. Perhaps the Admin will disagree with me so much as to remove this post, but everything I said here is with a clean conscience, and with no malice.

If I was fatalistic about unity, why would I spend so much time and effort on this website which is explicitly dedicated to its pursuit?

I probably sound as a cold calculative individual who only cares for doctrine. That is not so. I care for doctrine because it informs me what is pleasing to God and what he wants of me.
You mentioned whether I would die for some of the doctrinal  differences  that divine us. I would answer Yes! Many of the earliest Christian martyrs died protecting the blessed Eucharist from roman pagans who were curious to see the “flesh of Christ.” One of the youngest martys was an 11 year old boy in  boy who was killed trying to protect the Eucharist from being stolen by pagan romans. If the time came, I pray that God would give me the strength to do the same. So yes, I would in fact die for Jesus in the Eucharist. That might seem foolish to some but I think it highlights the very real and very powerful  differences  between an evangelical and a Catholic view of communion. Would you die for the communion Joe? I ask this question in all seriousness. Would you lay down your life to prevent a non believer from tramping the host underfoot?  

If 30,000 denominations exists, there is ton you and I can do about it. We can pray! We can evangelize, we can offer up our suffering, we can martyr ourselves for the faith. Joe, you are so fatalistic. =P

You raise a lot of great questions which made me realize that my previous comments weren’t as clear as they should have been.

I don’t think I can address all the questions you raise in an online discussion, and I do hope to get together with you sometime in person.

I don’t think I said that the Nicene Creed is the definitive statement around which Christians should rally. But it does articulate a great deal of the Great Tradition, and taking this (or, perhaps, the simpler Apostles’ Creed) more seriously would help us to pursue unity.

My off-the-cuff definition of relational unity was “Christians of different stripes showing genuine love and respect for one another and learning from one another.” That doesn’t include Hindus, Muslims, etc. because they are not Christians. I can be friends with them and learn from them and respect them. But I can’t have the same kind of fellowship with them that I have with you: a friendship mediated by Christ. The common identity in Jesus is very, very important. It places us in the same spiritual family.

Many issues that you mention which are not in the creeds are important. But are they worth dying for, fighting for, or dividing over?  Doctrine is important. But I do not believe  that the unity for which Jesus prayed in John 17 was doctrinal unity. He wanted his disciples to be one with him and one with one another, just as he and the Father are one. I see that as a statement about relationship among persons. When I read John 17 — and the whole Upper Room dialogues of John 13-17, for that matter — I don’t see doctrine, doctrine, doctrine. I see relationship, relationship, relationship.

I hope this doesn’t  sound as though I think that all viewpoints are equally correct. There is a standard of truth, and that standard is Jesus. I want to perceive him better and pursue the kind of unity that he fostered among his disciples, a common identity rooted in the fact that they were all following him.

If 30,000 denominations exist and have different ideas, there’s not much you or I can do about it. Theorizing about whether there ought to be one governing authority is too academic for my taste; I don’t think it will lead anywhere. The Reformation happened, and  I want  to live within that reality and deal with the fact that the  church is diverse. The doctrinal differences are just the tip of the iceberg. There are also cultural differences, personality differences, political differences, and many other conflicts that keep Christians from being one. I’m sensing that you and I have some differences in epistemology that make it hard for us to communicate and  have led  to misunderstandings between us. Whatever unity we build, I want it to be based on our common identity as followers of Christ.

I think that the Bible itself is full of apparent contradictions. How do we reconcile the absolute requirements of God’s law in the OT with the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount? (If anyone thinks they have gotten that one all figured out, they are fooling themselves and haven’t thought very hard about it.) How do we reconcile the way God’s people were told to completely destroy certain nations in the OT with the NT teachings of Jesus on love and peace? How do we reconcile God’s soverignty with human freedom, and how does this play out in real life?
Wrestling with these, both at the individual and community level, is really, really good for us. The Bible is a record of God’s revelation of himself to human beings. It is also a record of human misinformation and misunderstanding about God’s character and intentions. And it is sometimes devilishly hard to separate the two. We need lots of help from one another, from diverse parts of the Body of Christ, I think, to sort these things out.

The desire for objective truth and certainty in our beliefs is always with us. But we have to  face the fact that we  are not objective beings. We are inherently limited, subjective and personal, and that is not because of the sinful nature; God made us that way. Perhaps the need to get to definitive, right answers on so many issues is part of Satan’s temptation to Eve, to try know as God knows, rather than to know in a way that is proper for human beings. (That’s not my idea, by the way. That comes from the fascinating book  Eyes That See, Ears  That Hear by  James Danaher.)

I like your point #2. I think it is apparent contradictions that lead us to delve deeper and try to come to greater understanding that helps to resolve. Striving toward that greater understanding and visible unity is important. And it is also  important to acknowledge our limitations, humbly assessing what we can truly accomplish in this life, and what God intends for us to accomplish. Christian unity is ultimately not about agreeing on doctrinal statements, but about being together in Christ, and knowing one another as distinct, varied persons, and seeing the presence of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in one another. It’s about being able to love another person in a mature way, without needing to change the person into someone or something that he is not.

You said that you think that each part sees and knows things that other parts do not know. I agree with that. But can one part contradict the other part? We might place a diffrent emphasis on this or that but when two major Churches disagree on important matters, it seems like a problem no?

Jesus prayed that we would be ONE, just as the Father and the Son are one. We do not see the Father and the Son disagree on the meaning of communion, whether babies should be  baptized, the authority to forgive sins, the authority to bind and loose in heaven what is on earth. The Father does not say that we once we are saved we cant loose our salvation while the Son says that no, we can loose our salvation if we fall away.
Some (if not none) of these things are not petty  differences.  
Jesus also prayed that we would have a visible unity in these things not a spiritual unity.  
So while I agree that all Christians are a part of the body of Christ and united in a spiritual way, I think we need to be united in a visible way as well and not contradict each other in vital matters.  

I also agree with you God often speaks to us  quietly  so that we can search for him and trust in him. There is a wealth of richness in the searching. But I find it troubling to extrapolate from this that contradictions on important matters are a way in which we grow closer to God. God speaking softly is  different  from the idea that God speaks in contradiction.

I see only two ways out of this:

#1 To say that these things are not in fact vital matters and that the only vital matters are those which are found in the nicene creed. But is power to forgive sins through men not a vital matter?  

#2 To suggest that  what seems like contradictions to us are actually not contradictions from a divine level. Perhaps, but again, Jesus prayed for our VISIBLE unity and oneness just as the Father and Son are one.  

The canonization of Scripture was, I believe,  a part of the ongoing  work of the Holy Spirit with respect to God’s word.   You are correct in pointing out that there is a big, big hole in the way that many evangelicals think about divine inspiration of Scripture. I think that any doctrine of divine inspiration is incomplete if it limits the work of the Holy Spirit to the process by which the words were written down on original manuscripts which no longer exist, and then allows everything beyond that point to be error prone. I believe that the Spirit has worked down through the ages through the entire process by which the words in the Bible were spoken, written down, collected, canonized, preserved, translated and retranslated, studied and restudied, interpreted and reinterpreted. Scripture is ineffective unless the Spirit breathes his life into the words and into our souls as we read it. I tend agree with A.W. Tozer who said, “For a man to understand revealed truth requires an act of God equal to the original act which inspired the text.” I have been trying to get through A Theology of Word and Spirit by Donald E. Bloesch which discusses these things in great detail. I cannot say that I understand it very well, but I am trying.

When you say, “Clearly, we need an authoritative body through which the Holy Spirit worked to canonize the Bible,” I do agree with you, but only  to a point. In my opinion, the authoritative body is the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church that we confess in the Nicene Creed, which is the body of all believers throughout the world who belong to Christ. That is a huge, diverse, body which is poorly organized and quite fragmented, yet precious and loved by Christ. I think that each part of the body sees and knows things that other parts do not know. So we need to listen carefully to what other parts  are saying. You are right  when you say  that it is sometimes like a crowded room with a cacophony of voices shouting different things. The desire to have law and order, to get  rid of chaos and  find one  definitive, authoritative and correct answer in this present world can be overwhelming, but that effort can be counterproductive. I think that God wants us to learn how to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty. It is part of growing in maturity and learning to humbly walk in the Spirit, trusting him in the present and relying on him to lead us when we don’t yet see things clearly, and to love him and one another despite the messiness of the world.

Could you  elaborate  on this statement?  I am not sure I follow. But if I understand correctly, I would like to ask what is the conclusion we can take from the Canonization of the bible? I feel this article ignores the big elephant in the room, namely the authoritative process or entity by which the bible was canonized in the first place. Certantly it was a work of the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit working through what body? Was this bodies authority limited to the canonization of the bible and then relinquished?  

Clearly, we needed an authoritative body through which the Holy Spirit worked to canonize the bible. If it was good enough to accomplish that particular job why should it not continue to exist?
I dont mean to sound controversial or start a catholic vs. protestant debate. I really dont. I just find that this series on the Holy Spirit and authority highlights a major hole reformed Christianity. How can we hear the Holy Spirit in such a crowded room of people who all want to throw their hat into the question of what is true in particular matters of faith.