The point with which I shall occupy my reader is that of the idea of union on the principle of mutual concession with respect to the diverse views which are found among Christians, and of conciliation by these means. This principle has a great repute and a very fair appearance, but it is profoundly evil and presumptuous. It supposes that truth is at our disposal.
Phil. 3 teaches quite a different principle: there is no idea of concession nor of any arrangement in expressing the truth so as to reconcile different views. It is said, "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded." It is not that we lower the truth to the measure of him who has not come up to it; it is not two persons ignoring which of the two has the truth, or content to suppose the possibility of error in giving up more or less what they hold in order to express themselves so as to be agreed. All that is an infringement upon the authority of the truth on us. "And if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." v. 15. There is no question here of concessions, but of the revelation from God to enlighten him who is not perfect in the truth.
“Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing." v. 16. There is no question here of concessions, but of walking together in the things which we possess, with regard to which, because recognized as being the truth of God, there is no giving up anything, all being subject to it. In that case, there is no concession, either on the one side or on the other, for all possess the same truth, having already attained to it in a measure, and they walk together minding the same thing. The remedy for the diversity of mind which may remain is not to make concessions (how deal thus with the truth?), but the revelation from God in favor of him who is ignorant, as we are all of us on divers points.
But I shall be told, On that footing one will never come to an agreement. Where will you find in the Word such a thing as coming to an agreement? To come to an agreement is not the unity of the Church of God. The truth is not to be modified, and we are not called to force our imperfect views on anyone. I must have faith, and one must have the same faith to walk together. But in the things received as the truth of God by faith, I can make no concession. I may bear with ignorance, but I cannot arrange the truth to please another. You will ask me, In that case, how walk together? Why lay down grounds of unity which require either unity of views, or so evil a thing as concession on such or such a truth? As to the things on which we possess the truth, and with regard to which we have faith, we have the same mind, we walk in them together. If I acquire some knowledge more, I bear with the ignorance of my brother until God reveals the thing to him.
Our unity is in Christ Himself. If unity depends on concessions, it is only a sect founded on human opinions, because the principle of the absolute authority of the truth is lost. The Word supposes the bearing with ignorance, but never concessions, because it does not suppose that men could make a rule different from itself in order to come to an agreement.
I receive a man "weak in the faith," but I do not yield anything to him as to the truth, even on such a point as eating herbs. I might perhaps deny essential truths by so doing. Such a case may happen, where to observe days might lead to doubt of the Christianity of him who does it. (See Gal. 4:9-11.) There might be another case where I could only say that on this very point, "Let every man be fully persuaded." Rom. 14:5, 6.
J. N. Darby