can two walk together, except they be agreed?

[steve]

Amo 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

this verse is often pointed out in order to support the idea that people must be in full agreement in order to have fellowship. (let me hasten to add that i am not at all talking about the principle of being unequally yoked.)
this understanding of the verse has bothered me for some time. is it better to have separate schisms all over the theological landscape that cannot and will not fellowship together in the worship of Yehovah because we do not agree at certain points? and what point of disagreement is large enough to kick in the "Amos Clause"?

in perusing another book by Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson, (A Prayer To Our Father) i ran across a discussion of this verse and its meaning in the Hebrew language in which it was originally written.
it was a relief to find out that it has a lot more to do with the idea of agreeing to meet and walk together than with the idea of unanimity of theology. not that theology is not important, it very much is, but how can people discuss their differing understandings and come closer to the truth if they must shun each other?

 

[CecilW]

it has a lot more to do with the idea of agreeing to meet and walk together than with the idea of unanimity of theology.

If I understand you correctly, it is saying something more like, "How can two walk together, unless they agree to meet and do so"?

That seems almost a polar opposite of the accepted meaning, which isn't so unusual when studying the original language. Sorta like saying, "Their differences will keep them out of relationship unless they agree to surmount those differences by getting together to walk and talk them over."

*** Like ***

 

[Anonymous]

is it better to have separate schisms all over the theological landscape that cannot and will not fellowship together in the worship of Yehovah because we do not agree at certain points? and what point of disagreement is large enough to kick in the "Amos Clause"?

I guess it comes down to what one defines as "fellowship". Am I willing to have conversations with unbelievers and/or other believers who hold different doctrine from myself ?...yes I am and I do quite frequently. Am I willing to offer friendship to these same people?...Yes I am.

In respect to "worship", that is another deal entirely. Many sects, cults and religions revere "a" Jesus...but not necessarily the Biblically authentic one. I can't see myself linking arms in worship with someone who doesn't believe in the real Jesus. I would love them, pray for them and given the opportunity..I would witness to them........but standing by, believing that we are all brothers & sisters in Christ regardless of unbiblical doctrine isn't something I could ever do. For me, this is when the "Amos Clause" would kick in big time.

 

[steve]

cecil:
precisely

fairlight:
i understand where you are coming from. let me take this opportunity to repost something that i posted awhile ago. i think that it speaks to this.

Yeshua's prayer was that we all will be one. let us agree with him in his goal.................
he is to be our head. picture a pyramid, he is the peak (head) of it. if we both focus on him, no matter how far apart we are our vision will converge. the closer we get to him, the closer we are to one another. it is unavoidable!
we cannot maintain distance from each others beliefs, doctrines, whatever you want to call it while becoming more one with him. some beliefs will not converge on him and the ones who hold those beliefs will not become any more one with him and with each other than those beliefs will allow.
by all means, lets discuss our beliefs passionately. but focus on the fact that bringing each other into the unity of the faith is above our paygrade. it will be done seamlessly as we focus on him rather than on doctrine.
but fierce, friendly discussion can expose us to ideas we may not have been open to seeing.


p.s. i firmly believe that there will be some standing in front of the Judge quoting from His own Word trying to justify their beliefs '

 

[Anonymous]

Steve wrote

by all means, lets discuss our beliefs passionately. but focus on the fact that bringing each other into the unity of the faith is above our paygrade. it will be done seamlessly as we focus on him rather than on doctrine.

Herein lies the fallacy of your position Steve, one cannot focus on Christ Jesus without focusing on doctrine. Please note the link to the dictionary reference for doctrine, (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine). It is in the Word of God (which is doctrine) that we even know who He is. If we ignore the doctrine from and of the Word (Bible) we are left with our opinions and feelings. Such opinions and feelings are totally worthless without the Bible to give them structure. Even the book we call Revelation is properly named in the book "The Revelation of Jesus Christ". We cannot know Him without His revelation through the Word by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit uses the Bible to teach us about The Father, Son and Himself. If ANYONE is receiving revelation through any other source than the Bible, they are occultic and not genuine Christians. They are heeding another spirit, but not the Holy Spirit of God.

 

[Anonymous]

It is in the Word of God (which is doctrine) that we even know who He is. If we ignore the doctrine from and of the Word (Bible) we are left with our opinions and feelings. Such opinions and feelings are totally worthless without the Bible to give them structure. Even the book we call Revelation is properly named in the book "The Revelation of Jesus Christ". We cannot know Him without His revelation through the Word by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit uses the Bible to teach us about The Father, Son and Himself. If ANYONE is receiving revelation through any other source than the Bible, they are occultic and not genuine Christians. They are heeding another spirit, but not the Holy Spirit of God.

Exactly!

fairlight:
i understand where you are coming from. let me take this opportunity to repost something that i posted awhile ago. i think that it speaks to this.

Yeshua's prayer was that we all will be one. let us agree with him in his goal.................
he is to be our head. picture a pyramid, he is the peak (head) of it. if we both focus on him, no matter how far apart we are our vision will converge. the closer we get to him, the closer we are to one another. it is unavoidable!
we cannot maintain distance from each others beliefs, doctrines, whatever you want to call it while becoming more one with him. some beliefs will not converge on him and the ones who hold those beliefs will not become any more one with him and with each other than those beliefs will allow.
by all means, lets discuss our beliefs passionately. but focus on the fact that bringing each other into the unity of the faith is above our paygrade. it will be done seamlessly as we focus on him rather than on doctrine.
but fierce, friendly discussion can expose us to ideas we may not have been open to seeing.


p.s. i firmly believe that there will be some standing in front of the Judge quoting from His own Word trying to justify their beliefs '

Steve, I know you mean well but you just plain scare me.
Although I do agree with your "p.s."

 

[steve]

john;
it is easy (for any of us, including myself) to make the same mistake that the pharisees did, that of forcing an understanding of Yeshua through a rigid screen of doctrine that our view of scripture has led us to.
i am confident that no one's doctrine, including my own, is perfect. an example of this point is that at some point before you and i believed what we now believe about polygyny, we were sure that our monogamy only doctrine fully lined up with scripture. we found out that our doctrine was wrong, did we not? unless, of course, you have always believed in the true doctrine of marriage.

my point was that if any of us focuses more on the doctrines that we hold than on our relationship with our saviour and his Father, we will not be as open to deeper truths than the beliefs that we already held.

of course, if any of us already has all truth, then it would not be necessary to be open to anything further. but i strongly doubt that you would take the position that you hold all truth.

i do not quite get the point about the Holy Spirit teaching only through the Word, as it seems that the start of his teaching responsibilities predated the New Testament. he, of course, does not teach us anything contrary to what the Word says. just, sometimes contrary to what we might believe that it says.

 

[steve]

Steve, I know you mean well but you just plain scare me.

i am so sorry, may i ask what scares you?

 

[Anonymous]

i am so sorry, may i ask what scares you?

In multiple areas, your beliefs don't line up with Scripture.
And in the name of peace, that is all I will say on this matter.

 

[steve]

In multiple areas, your beliefs don't line up with Scripture.

i guarantee that someday we will agree on the true meaning of every word in scripture.

 

[Anonymous]

i guarantee that someday we will agree on the true meaning of every word in scripture.

Yes we will !