: I completely agree that Paul wasn't writing about opinions on doctrinal issues.
:
: I also believe that he wasn’t talking about Baptists getting along with Lutherans. I believe that his point was directed much more at interpersonal relationships.

I think we're on the same page if I understand you right. Maybe Unity is completely and entirely an interpersonal thing, an attitude we have toward God's people wherever they are. To that extent, unless we believe there are absolutely no saved individuals meeting among Baptist or Lutheran organizations, it would have to apply in some degree to Baptists and Lutherans getting along with each other, but not to the Baptist and Lutheran factions joining hands and singing Kum Bay Yah. :-)

: Paul teaches that the righteous were “quickened together with Christ.” ... Christ broke down the dividing wall between the Jews and Gentiles. Those two groups are now “fellow citizens.”

Agreed, except that we are dealing with individuals, not groups. All Jews and Gentiles are not fellow citizens, but those believers who are Jews and those who are Gentiles are now fellow citizens. Likewise, believers today may erroneously consider themselves Baptists-Christians, Lutheran-Christians, or even Church of Christ-Christians, but if they have been immersed into the Jesus Christ of the Bible, the same God has called them into the same body. Just as Christ has received us (individually, not as a sect or denomination), we are to receive one another (Romans 15:1-7).

: The application is that understanding God’s desire for the Jews and Gentiles was important because in their interaction with each other the two groups needed to be unified in purpose and also needed to show love for each other.

Amen, although that unity of purpose and love for each other would include the believers still scattered among the sects, I would propose.

: The gifted teacher in Ephesus has the primary responsibility of edifying the Christians that worshiped with him.

Amen again. Of course, that doesn't mean the gifted teacher has no responsibility to encourage the saints wherever else they may be found. The Living Waters website is here to refresh the saints wherever they are. Our primary responsibility is the local church family, but that doesn't mean we aren't called to mutually edify our brethren in other locations.

: Condemning others is a dangerous slope to go down and there are many scriptures to back that up. However, how we define “opinion” is a massive issue. How we define “opinion” has torn church families apart. It has worked in both directions. Legalistic views have torn groups apart (e.g. if you use more than one cup your going to hell). But permissive attitudes supporting acceptance at all costs have also torn groups apart (e.g. why not have female ministers). Who’s right? The answer is neither...

And another amen. It's the attitudes involved in tearing groups apart that are the works of the flesh and that condemn both sides. Apparently clapping is a big issue right now in mainline groups. But did God intend for us to create "clapping" and "no clapping" factions? Is this a valid deduction from 1 Corinthians 11:19? I don't think so. One was for moral problems--getting drunk at the Lord's supper and despising the brethren, "shaming those who have not"--the other is for a scruple argued from the "law of silence," which is highly suspect in my mind for creating the multitude of factions that we see today. The correct answer is much like the one I give my kids when they argue: Work it out between yourselves so that your own consciences are clear, but remember above all that you're brothers and sisters and that you love each other.

: The Corinthians seemed to have been the later example. They boasted of the righteousness even though they had a sinful fornicator among them. Were the Christians at Ephesus supposed to overlook the action by calling it opinion?

There is an intuitive difference between an innocent error of thinking and unabashed unrighteousness. It was a morally depraved act that was being promoted and relished. I think you'd agree that this is different from whether a group claps or not or has a single "pastor" or not.

: Too many Jews in the first century church are like today’s legalistic Christians. They wanted to force circumcision and other requirements that weren’t a part of God’s expectations of the Body under the new Covenant.

Those of you who know me best know that I've been there, done that, and bought the t-shirt. I've had to retrace my steps back to that fork in the road a million times and agonize over which path to take.

Now, "I have to rejoice that to my own satisfaction, as well as to others, I proved that truth, and not popularity, was my object; for I was once so strict a Separatist that I would neither pray nor sing praises with any one who was not as perfect as I supposed myself. In this most unpopular course I persisted until I discovered the mistake, and saw that on the principle embraced in my conduct, there never could be a congregation or church upon the earth." (Quote from Alexander Campbell.)

: So how do we define “opinion?” Some of the items you brought up may not be opinion. Is a preacher opinion? Maybe and maybe not. What about a preacher that is not under elders, is it his church? What about a female preacher? What about a homosexual preacher? Is the preacher the only one that teaches or edifies? What about a choir? or a 12 piece band? Is that still opinion? You see, I could go on and on. And I guarantee that I can find a baptized believer that will tell you that everyone of those topic and more are opinion.

Ah, the questions of the ages. I don't have any pat answers or easy ones, but I'm convinced that there are those who embrace some of these erroneous practices who are our brethren. That fact induces a set of responsibilities for how we behave toward them. With the exception of the morally depraved (i.e., the homosexual preacher), brothers who have departed from the gospel, denied Bible authority, or who are out to create disharmony and promote factions (all of whom we are explicitly told to eject from our midst), I do believe there is to be a level of tolerance for any of the "errors arising from weakness of mind" in that list and other lists we might make.

The tolerance is not for the error, but for the people who mistakenly embrace it, with the intent of edifying them in love. We shouldn't endorse any practices our consciences don't allow, nor should we put an embargo on using appropriate opportunities to enlighten those who are doing something out of their own doctrinal misunderstanding.

But we can never forget that obedience to the good news of Jesus Christ provides our entrance into the fellowship, not our "stand" on other issues of the day. The teachings of the apostles make up our curriculum for those who are in that fellowship. Some are further along in the curriculum than others. Sometimes we think we're further along that we really are.

: This topic comes down to where you want to draw the line. I hate the idea of a line at all but I’m also not very comfortable erasing a line just to draw another one.

I really do understand the discomfort. I'm definitely not comfortable with it either--in fact, I'm totally out of my comfort zone. But I'm compelled by my conscience to eliminate creeds, which are tests of fellowship, which are lines of association drawn between brothers. Another AC quote: "Why not, then, dispense with this piece of popish furniture in the church, and allow Christians of every stature to meet at the same fireside and eat at the same table?"

In a sense, we are free to retain personal lines. That's called a conscience, and "blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves." But when I delineate a test of fellowship for a group, I'm now imposing my conscience on other people. That's what I am questioning our right to do.