"...Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peach" (Eph. 4:3). "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10). "That ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel" (Phil. 1:27). "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" (Phil. 2:2). "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul" (Acts 4:32).
The verses you have just read from the New Testament leave no doubt but that the word of God teaches perfect unity among the followers of Christ. Whatever excuses may be offered and whatever conditions may prevail, it is not possible for the church today to be like the church in Jerusalem in the days of the apostles unless unity exists. If any one fact is in evidence at the present time it is that the church is not in the state of unity as taught in the above passages. What shall we say about it? What shall we do about it?
There are two good reasons why New Testament unity does not exist in many localities: the first reason is that many do not know what unity of the Spirit is, and the second reason is that the basis of true unity has been forsaken. It will be worth our while to spend a few moments studying these two facts.
The unity of the Spirit of Ephesians 4 is the unity of that which is taught by the Spirit; it means the oneness of things indicated in verses 4-6. One who accepts the one faith of the New Testament should not be carried about by every wind of doctrine, but should speak the truth in love (vs. 14,15). We are to stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving for the faith of the gospel. This does not permit divisions among the believers of Christ concerning what the Spirit has revealed.
Some brethren seen to think that opposing parties residing in the same building of worship constitutes the unity of the Spirit. Some will say: "Let us not divide over these things (unauthorized doctrines), but let us keep the unity of the Spirit." False brethren meeting together with faithful brethren does not constitute the unity of Ephesians 4 any more than Baptists and Methodists agreeing to meet together for worship constitutes a unity of these two groups. It is two separate groups agreeing to meet together in union. The unity of the Spirit is broken when different doctrines are taught and practiced which are unauthorized, whether the groups are meeting together or not.
This brings us to the second point: the basis of the oneness of mind and spirit. If each individual is to decide what his standard of unity will be, there is no possibility for true unity. In some circles the belief that Christ is the Son of God is the only standard for unity. One can believe anything else he wishes and still be as one with any other person who believes the same fact. Others have made the test of the unity of the Spirit the fact that one is baptized into Christ. The matter of the instrument in worship, missionary and benevolent societies has nothing to do with the unity of the Spirit to these fellows. If one is "baptized into Christ," he is in fellowship and is keeping the unity of the Spirit. This is not so! It is the lying doctrines of devils! (1 Tim. 4:1,2).
Jesus gave the only basis for true unity among the disciples: "Neither pray I for these alone," (the
apostles) "but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as
thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that
thou has sent me" (John 17:20,21). Paul said no other gospel could be preached aside from that
preached by the apostles (Gal. 1:6-8). We must strive for the unity of the Spirit by following only what
the Spirit reveals in the New Testament.
--- via Forest Hills bulletin (Oct. 21, 1962) ---
A familiar phrase from all denominational sources today regarding discussions of religious subjects is: "I do not believe in arguing about one's religion." This is to explain why they refuse to debate their positions in the light of the word of God. This same attitude may now be found among most of the liberal preachers in the church, perhaps not stated in the very words given above, but certainly the same reasons are found for their refusal to honorably debate their positions. If the few cases where they will enter a discussion of the "issues" they either demand unfair advantages or enter the debate to quibble and misrepresent the issues.
Is debating unscriptural? Should one refuse to debate his cause? Is arguing the same as debating? To answer these questions we must first find out what the term "argue"means. Webster defines the word as follows: "1. To invent and offer reasons in support of, or against, a proposition, opinion, or measure. 2. To dispute: to reason... 1. To debate or discuss; to treat by reasoning... 2. To prove or evince; to manifest by inference or deduction: to imply... 3. To persuade by reasons... 4. To accuse or charge with. (Obs.) Syn. -- Discuss, debate, dispute, prove, evince..."
Now with this definition of the word "argue", does the New Testament authorize Christians to argue with false teachers to discover the truth and convince the unbeliever? Of course, there is a bad sense in which the disputing or striving is done. If it is based on unrighteous desires it is sinful (Rom. 1:29; 2 Cor. 12:20). If it concerns fables and foolish questions, it is wrong (1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 2:23; I Tim. 6:5). There is no profit in debating who is the greatest (Mark 9:33,34). This does not mean that the act of debating is wrong within itself; it is wrong because the motive and objective are wrong. It does not profit anything. But the question is, Is it wrong to defend the truth against error and dispute with those who teach false doctrines? A few passages will help us to see that contending for the faith is required.
Certain in the synagogue disputed with Stephen and were not able to resist the wisdom and spirit by which he spake. (Acts 6:9,10). They stirred up many people against Stephen, using false witnesses (vs. 12). He was killed as the result of his debate with them.
Paul disputed boldly against the Grecians. They desired to kill him. (Acts 9:29). Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with those who came from Judea and taught circumcision as binding on Christians. (Acts 15:2). They went to Jerusalem to consider the matter and there was much disputing there (Acts 15:7).
When Paul entered Athens he disputed with the Jews and devout people in the synagogues and market places because the whole city was given to idolatry. (Acts 17:17). In the city of Ephesus Paul boldly disputed and persuaded in the synagogue for three months, and when some were hardened and believed not, he moved to the school of Tyrannus and continued for two years. (vs. 9,10).
Jude wrote and exhorted that "ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3). There is no question but that Christians should "dispute" or "contend" for the faith against false teachers.
When one says he does not believe in "arguing" or "disputing" over the Bible, at least one fact is
obvious: what he preaches or teaches will not stand the test of fair investigation in the light of divine
truth, and he is convinced of it. To be sure, many who teach error sincerely believe they are right, and
one of the evidences of it is that they are willing to discuss their doctrine and practice. A very few false
teachers are willing to debate their positions, but they have proved themselves so dishonest and
dishonorable that fair discussion is impossible. We are ready to dispute (in the scriptural sense of the
word) the faith once delivered to the saints with any honest man.
--- via Forest Hills bulletin (Nov. 11, 1962) ---