The Separation of Christianity

[Last Things]

Though God looks at the heart, the practice is also important. Not forgetting that James 2:16 can be applied in a wider context of believers and how they worship and meet together.

Where they meet affects their ability to serve God, and their spiritual growth, and they miss out on the extra blessing which comes by believers meeting in the name of Christ and none other. It is failing to recognise that once we become believers we don't have to find a church, we are already part of it. The problem is this belief that we must belong to something extra or in addition to the membership in Christ's body that we already have as believers.

Every person that goes to a denomination meets with other believers on a basis of what the denomination stands for, rather than Christ alone. Whether it is the mode of baptism, the practice of speaking in tongues, or keeping of the Sabbath. We find no example in the bible of believers meeting together on any other basis other than belief in Christ.

The word denomination means "to give a name to". What makes a church a denomination is whether or not a group of believers denominate themself (name themselves) something which separates themselves from all the other believers in their local district. It does not mean every believer in an area has to meet with everyone else - meeting in different places with different or exclusive groups of believers is not against Scripture. But what is against Scripture and God's desire is the denomination of Christians under different names. This is basically rebellion.

The bible names churches - Church of Corinth, Church of Jerusalem, etc.
By 100 they had a concept for who they were collectively, which they call 'universal' or 'catholic'.

 

[brakelite]

The bible names churches - Church of Corinth, Church of Jerusalem, etc.
By 100 they had a concept for who they were collectively, which they call 'universal' or 'catholic'.

Sadly, that 'catholic' collective which had its modest beginnings in the 2nd century grew to a monolithic monster which decided it had the prerogative to persecute and/or destroy any and all who decided to worship according to conscience, rather than the dictates of the 'catholic' potentate. A decision to remain apart from the 'universal collective' invariably resulted in war. Remember the Hussites? The Celtic church in Britain? The Waldenses? The Albigenses? Lollards, Huguenots.....???

 

[HarpT]

All of this nonsense about groups of Christians practicing different doctrines is ridiculous! It's not even Scriptural. The Bible says, "Be of sound doctrine, be of one mind." The separation of the church (this is a theological term or reference, but in reality no such thing has ever happened or ever will) has reduced people to quarrelling and striving to no avail therefore quenching the power of the Holy Spirit to operate through them. Is this a satanic or demonic tactic to disguise the real truth and mislead those who are searching for it? Absolutely!

The focus here is all wrong. We don't need to be identified with a church body to know who we are in Christ! Those of us who are in Him are the Church! This is how it's been from the beginning. Rather than disputing about doctrines and reaching a conclusion which is merely trivial because it has no power to show Christ through it, what people need to be thinking about is how the Lord is going to use them to produce His fruits. It is not even necessary to be aware of this smoke screen of doctrinal dispute in order to keep our minds focused on the Lord and to receive Him in all of the things that we will do. Trying to figure out how it is that we're going to put ourselves on the right page or in the right position to receive what we need from God to get the job done is never going to work!

You know how the gospel story goes! Does anyone really need to explain this to you? God sent His Son when we had done nothing to deserve it! The same is true now! We can't figure out how we're standing in the right place and doing the right thing, because we aren't! Where is this need to show that someone else is wrong in order for us to keep our own convictions from? The truth doesn't work that way! A lie works that way, but not the truth. The truth is already what it is, but a lie can't be there if the truth is gone because then there would be nothing left to lie about! But take away the lie and has the truth changed at all? The truth is self evident, but a lie breeds unproductive contention.

 

[Last Things]

Sadly, that 'catholic' collective which had its modest beginnings in the 2nd century grew to a monolithic monster which decided it had the prerogative to persecute and/or destroy any and all who decided to worship according to conscience, rather than the dictates of the 'catholic' potentate. A decision to remain apart from the 'universal collective' invariably resulted in war. Remember the Hussites? The Celtic church in Britain? The Waldenses? The Albigenses? Lollards, Huguenots.....???

And who started those wars? They were doing fine until they decided to revolt and siege cities. That tends to make the local king weary of them and desiring for an inquisition to figure out who they are so they don't rise up again.

It is worth noting that these groups, which began in the 1200s or so, were not like protestantism. They are actually inspired by ideas from Manicheanism, a blending of paganism, Christianity, Gnoticism, and in some cases eastern traditions.

 

[Last Things]

All of this nonsense about groups of Christians practicing different doctrines is ridiculous! It's not even Scriptural. The Bible says, "Be of sound doctrine, be of one mind." The separation of the church (this is a theological term or reference, but in reality no such thing has ever happened or ever will) has reduced people to quarrelling and striving to no avail therefore quenching the power of the Holy Spirit to operate through them. Is this a satanic or demonic tactic to disguise the real truth and mislead those who are searching for it? Absolutely!

And whose beliefs should we adopting? Catholic, Anglican, Baptist?
Sound doctrine, one mind- so that means that we have to have doctrine and agree on it.

The focus here is all wrong. We don't need to be identified with a church body to know who we are in Christ! Those of us who are in Him are the Church! This is how it's been from the beginning. Rather than disputing about doctrines and reaching a conclusion which is merely trivial because it has no power to show Christ through it, what people need to be thinking about is how the Lord is going to use them to produce His fruits. It is not even necessary to be aware of this smoke screen of doctrinal dispute in order to keep our minds focused on the Lord and to receive Him in all of the things that we will do. Trying to figure out how it is that we're going to put ourselves on the right page or in the right position to receive what we need from God to get the job done is never going to work!

You know how the gospel story goes! Does anyone really need to explain this to you? God sent His Son when we had done nothing to deserve it! The same is true now! We can't figure out how we're standing in the right place and doing the right thing, because we aren't! Where is this need to show that someone else is wrong in order for us to keep our own convictions from? The truth doesn't work that way! A lie works that way, but not the truth. The truth is already what it is, but a lie can't be there if the truth is gone because then there would be nothing left to lie about! But take away the lie and has the truth changed at all? The truth is self evident, but a lie breeds unproductive contention.

While you are very passionate about what you are saying, you are not saying how to resolve this. I don't think 'agreeing to disagree' is what sound doctrine, of one mind is asking for.

 

[HarpT]

Last Things. While I appreciate your comments, I think you're missing the point. I'm not agreeing to disagree, and I don't have to argue to prove it. If you want to fan the flames, be my guest. But it isn't going to make any difference. There is no issue to resolve. Christ has already done all that.

Let me explain something to you about faith in Christ (since it doesn't seem that you have heard anything from Him your self.) It is your responsibility to believe who you are in Him. This means your faith is for accomplishing a purpose, not just to create a sense of self by standing on one side of an "issue." The reason that you believe Jesus is because it actually makes something happen when you do. Your faith has real power to cause those things which are in Christ to occur.

Contention is not what faith in God is about. If you want to contend with something, contend with the powers of darkness who are attempting to prevent the true nature of God's holiness from being expressed through you. If you want to win a doctrinal debate, you have accomplished nothing (though I'm sure it would be quite self gratifying and something you could be proud of.)

 

[Last Things]

Last Things. While I appreciate your comments, I think you're missing the point. I'm not agreeing to disagree, and I don't have to argue to prove it. If you want to fan the flames, be my guest. But it isn't going to make any difference. There is no issue to resolve. Christ has already done all that.

Then what is your point of advocating of being of sound doctrine and one mind without defining what that means?

Let me explain something to you about faith in Christ (since it doesn't seem that you have heard anything from Him your self.)

You are in no place to judge my relationship and knowledge of Christ because I disagree with you.

It is your responsibility to believe who you are in Him. This means your faith is for accomplishing a purpose, not just to create a sense of self by standing on one side of an "issue." The reason that you believe Jesus is because it actually makes something happen when you do. Your faith has real power to cause those things which are in Christ to occur.

Contention is not what faith in God is about. If you want to contend with something, contend with the powers of darkness who are attempting to prevent the true nature of God's holiness from being expressed through you. If you want to win a doctrinal debate, you have accomplished nothing (though I'm sure it would be quite self gratifying and something you could be proud of.)

You are not saying anything as far as I can tell. You advocated being of sound doctrine and one mind but you have not said how this is to be accomplished or observed. Your post reads like a common sermon during the American revival movements in which various Christian mantras were repeated without actually getting at some point. If we are to be of sound doctrine and one mind, then we must believe the same thing and hold to the same doctrines. Please explain how this is to be accomplished.

 

[HarpT]

Then what is your point of advocating of being of sound doctrine and one mind without defining what that means?



You are in no place to judge my relationship and knowledge of Christ because I disagree with you.



You are not saying anything as far as I can tell. You advocated being of sound doctrine and one mind but you have not said how this is to be accomplished or observed. Your post reads like a common sermon during the American revival movements in which various Christian mantras were repeated without actually getting at some point. If we are to be of sound doctrine and one mind, then we must believe the same thing and hold to the same doctrines. Please explain how this is to be accomplished.

This is a dead end conversation. I have expressed my doctrine, you did not receive it. If I stated some other position you would have argued with that as well. You are not in search of true doctrine, but pointless debate. Neither are you capable of disagreeing with me.

I'm not interested in judging your relationship with God or your historical or intellectual knowledge of "Christ." True knowledge of God comes through suffering. If you have suffered for your faith in Christ and endeavor to do more so then you will gain the knowledge that you claim to be asking about. Then you will have no need for fruitless arguments.

I suggest you seek out and find what sufferings you can be subjected to for the sake of Christ. Put your self in a situation where you are most certainly going to be uncomfortable and that there will be no possible way for your escape but for the mighty hand of God's delivering power. Then you will have the answers that you seek.

 

[Last Things]

This is a dead end conversation. I have expressed my doctrine, you did not receive it. If I stated some other position you would have argued with that as well. You are not in search of true doctrine, but pointless debate. Neither are you capable of disagreeing with me.

I'm not interested in judging your relationship with God or your historical or intellectual knowledge of "Christ." True knowledge of God comes through suffering. If you have suffered for your faith in Christ and endeavor to do more so then you will gain the knowledge that you claim to be asking about. Then you will have no need for fruitless arguments.

I suggest you seek out and find what sufferings you can be subjected to for the sake of Christ. Put your self in a situation where you are most certainly going to be uncomfortable and that there will be no possible way for your escape but for the mighty hand of God's delivering power. Then you will have the answers that you seek.

You did make a judgment about my faith. I never made claims to my historical or intellectual knowledge of Christ.

The only doctrine I saw was that you said were should be of sound doctrine and one mind - I asked you how that would be achieved and you tell me I haven't accepted your doctrine.

 

[HarpT]

You did make a judgment about my faith. I never made claims to my historical or intellectual knowledge of Christ.

The only doctrine I saw was that you said were should be of sound doctrine and one mind - I asked you how that would be achieved and you tell me I haven't accepted your doctrine.

I'm not capable of judging your faith, but thanks for the offer. The knowledge you presented of Christ was merely intellectual and didn't have anything to do with what's translatable into your actual experience with Him. If you need me to interpret the Bible for you maybe you shouldn't be so testy, otherwise refer to the things Jesus said to know how to live. This argument isn't one of them. Thanks.

 

[brakelite]

And who started those wars? They were doing fine until they decided to revolt and siege cities. That tends to make the local king weary of them and desiring for an inquisition to figure out who they are so they don't rise up again.

It is worth noting that these groups, which began in the 1200s or so, were not like protestantism. They are actually inspired by ideas from Manicheanism, a blending of paganism, Christianity, Gnoticism, and in some cases eastern traditions.

I am unsure as to what era or specific people you refer to, but you surely need to revise your Christian history.
The Roman church has no interest of course in admitting that Christianity spread throughout the world independently of Roman authority. The churches of Britain that existed before the time of Patrick had no connection with Rome., and it is only Roman engendered myth that has Patrick himself submitting to Roman authority. The Roman Church 'adopted' such early stalwarts of faith such as Patrick and Columba, building her own edifices on the sites of the original colleges. Patrick, Columba, Columbanus, Dinooth and Aiden were all true evangelists and helped establish a network of colleges and churches all over Britain, a long time before Rome had any real foothold there. These theological colleges and missionary schools were established completely independantly of Roman authority, one example being the famous college of Iona, from which Columba sent missionaries to Scandinavia, Holland, and Germany.
When the gospel was first introduced by Paul to the Galatians, even Paul could not have known the widespread impact his missionary ministry would have. The Galatians were of Celtic origin.Originating in Britain 3 to 4 hundred years before Christ, these fiery warriors at first settled southern France, then ventured into Italy where they decimated Rome, and finally settled in the area of Asia Minor where Paul found them. These Celtic people retained their connection with their homeland and with their own blood, regularly traveling back through the south of France to Britain for trade. For hundreds of years these Celtic people of Asia minor even spoke the same language as those in Italy and France and Britain. The Celtic influence throughout Asia was in fact so strong that Alexander the Great chose to agree to terms with them rather than risk combat.
After Paul's visits and success with the gospel, these people took the gospel with them back to Britain. The Celtic church of Britain therefore had its origins possibly before the turn of the first century, spread quickly throughout Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, bringing peace to those who embraced it, and uniting tribes and clans that formerly were bitter enemies.

When Augustine arrived in Britain as a Roman missionary in the 4th century he was shocked to find a flourishing church already in existence there. His demands that the Celtic churches submit to Rome were roundly refused, while fellowship with Rome was respectfully accepted. Rome would have none of that of course, and political intrigue and war ensued over the centuries and continue to this day.

The same went for other independent churches such as the Waldenses. To allow a Christian church to exist within a stones throw of Rome yet not be subject to Roman authority was anathema to the Vatican and for centuries the Waldensian people were pursued, persecuted, and their books and writings destroyed to correct this anomaly on the papal doorstep. The Waldenses, named for the area in which they lived (Vallenses Valleys of Northern Italy east of the Cottian Alps around Milan), began as a small protest movement in the second century, their first leader being Helvidius, and they vigorously preached against the inroads of paganism into Christianity, particularly in Rome. Monasticism and asceticism plus the introduction of 'baptised' pagan festivals offended these simple people of the valleys but their protests went unheeded and eventually they were chased from their homes and were among the first Christians to flee into the wilderness and settle as Christian communities away from the influence of the organised church/state union developing in Rome.

I could continue to write of the churches that from the second or third centuries were established as far as China and all places in between....quite apart from any Roman influence.

 

[Last Things]

I am unsure as to what era or specific people you refer to, but you surely need to revise your Christian history.

In terms of the groups you mentioned, I was speaking in the centuries just prior to the reformation.

The Roman church has no interest of course in admitting that Christianity spread throughout the world independently of Roman authority.

Not sure of what you mean by Roman authority - do you mean beyond the empire or beyond the necessity of being united with the bishop of Rome?

The churches of Britain that existed before the time of Patrick had no connection with Rome., and it is only Roman engendered myth that has Patrick himself submitting to Roman authority. The Roman Church 'adopted' such early stalwarts of faith such as Patrick and Columba, building her own edifices on the sites of the original colleges. Patrick, Columba, Columbanus, Dinooth and Aiden were all true evangelists and helped establish a network of colleges and churches all over Britain, a long time before Rome had any real foothold there. These theological colleges and missionary schools were established completely independantly of Roman authority, one example being the famous college of Iona, from which Columba sent missionaries to Scandinavia, Holland, and Germany.

This is obviously an Anglican view. Just prior to the Reformation there was a question of whether or not kings had the authority to appoint bishops or suggest them. This practice continues in the Catholic Church in that a curia suggests a bishop, but it is the Pope that decides if one ought to be a bishop and most certainly as practiced, if a bishop ought not to remain a bishop. The Pope removed bishops. I do not see how kings can be a final authority on the appointing of bishops, as kings are temporal or earthly authority whom by birth, were not considered authorities on matters of faith. It was the bishops that were the teaching authority and so it seems inappropriate that a king, whom were never regarded as spiritual authorities, ought to say who was to be a spiritual authority. Regarding the role of Rome, it was held sense the earliest centuries that the Catholic Church was defined by those bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome. Never did the bishops of Britain argue they were outside of communion until proclaimed by Henry VIII, who was a temporal, not a spiritual authority.

When the gospel was first introduced by Paul to the Galatians, even Paul could not have known the widespread impact his missionary ministry would have. The Galatians were of Celtic origin.Originating in Britain 3 to 4 hundred years before Christ, these fiery warriors at first settled southern France, then ventured into Italy where they decimated Rome, and finally settled in the area of Asia Minor where Paul found them. These Celtic people retained their connection with their homeland and with their own blood, regularly traveling back through the south of France to Britain for trade. For hundreds of years these Celtic people of Asia minor even spoke the same language as those in Italy and France and Britain. The Celtic influence throughout Asia was in fact so strong that Alexander the Great chose to agree to terms with them rather than risk combat.
After Paul's visits and success with the gospel, these people took the gospel with them back to Britain. The Celtic church of Britain therefore had its origins possibly before the turn of the first century, spread quickly throughout Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, bringing peace to those who embraced it, and uniting tribes and clans that formerly were bitter enemies.

Various tribes and and peoples of Europe migrated. The Galatians reached their height around the time of the rise of the Roman empire as traders. Britons are primarily of Anglo origin, the tribe of Germans that were not Christianized until very late. Nevertheless I see how none of this describes some independent Church because it was never practiced as such until the time of Henry VIII. During the western schism in which another man proclaimed himself Pope, Britain took a side.

When Augustine arrived in Britain as a Roman missionary in the 4th century he was shocked to find a flourishing church already in existence there. His demands that the Celtic churches submit to Rome were roundly refused, while fellowship with Rome was respectfully accepted. Rome would have none of that of course, and political intrigue and war ensued over the centuries and continue to this day.

What is your source on this? What wars did Rome engage in following Augustine to establish authority over Britain?

The same went for other independent churches such as the Waldenses. To allow a Christian church to exist within a stones throw of Rome yet not be subject to Roman authority was anathema to the Vatican and for centuries the Waldensian people were pursued, persecuted, and their books and writings destroyed to correct this anomaly on the papal doorstep. The Waldenses, named for the area in which they lived (Vallenses Valleys of Northern Italy east of the Cottian Alps around Milan), began as a small protest movement in the second century, their first leader being Helvidius, and they vigorously preached against the inroads of paganism into Christianity, particularly in Rome. Monasticism and asceticism plus the introduction of 'baptised' pagan festivals offended these simple people of the valleys but their protests went unheeded and eventually they were chased from their homes and were among the first Christians to flee into the wilderness and settle as Christian communities away from the influence of the organised church/state union developing in Rome.

The Waldensians were a movement that began in the late 12th Century. They were not an independent historical group. They were a new type of Christianity that emerged as a result of a Manichaeism influence. They were of Gnostic origin and their view of the world as evil lead to the rejection of sacraments, which was picked up by Calvinist/Zwinglii/Anabaptist groups. That is to say, Gnostics believed that things of the world were evil, therefore nothing of the Earth could be used God to be of redemptive value.

I could continue to write of the churches that from the second or third centuries were established as far as China and all places in between....quite apart from any Roman influence.

Yes, and those groups where Nestorian as far as Iran and Manichean (Gnostic) as far as China.

 

[james1523]

Christian unity is not based upon doctrine or opinions about whether we can lose our salvation or not, or what day should we worship, or should we eat pork, or listen to rock music, but upon these one things:
One body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God, and one Father. Every Christian can agree on these 8 simple matters. It is by these 8 "one" things that the early Christians lived and had unity, and there were no divisions. Some came from Jew, some were Gentile background, some ate pork, some didn't, some worshiped in Saturday, others on Sunday, but they all lived in relative harmony with a single purpose to advance the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 4:4 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called;5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

All of the things which have happened in history are in the past, and there's nothing can be changed about that, but Christians should be looking forward to the future in which there is only one faith and one body and doing what they can to make this happen. Those who seek oneness between brothers and sisters in Christ have received the Father's heart and have their will aligned with the desires and prayers of Christ and the apostles.

 

[Last Things]

Christian unity is not based upon doctrine or opinions about whether we can lose our salvation or not, or what day should we worship, or should we eat pork, or listen to rock music, but upon these one things:

You said one faith and then say it isn't based on doctrine. You then create a doctrine of what Christianity is based upon.

One body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God, and one Father. Every Christian can agree on these 8 simple matters. It is by these 8 "one" things that the early Christians lived and had unity, and there were no divisions. Some came from Jew, some were Gentile background, some ate pork, some didn't, some worshiped in Saturday, others on Sunday, but they all lived in relative harmony with a single purpose to advance the kingdom of God.

Except Christians don't agree on what those men. Christians look at those issues in very different ways. We can both agree that being good is helpful for society, but we can have very different views of what good is.

I am not trying to sound divisive, but I do not think it helps to ignore some real differences.

 

[Last Things]

I'm not capable of judging your faith, but thanks for the offer. The knowledge you presented of Christ was merely intellectual and didn't have anything to do with what's translatable into your actual experience with Him.

That's a judgment. It was my understanding that this topic is about historical and theological issues, not a faith-experience sharing topic. If I am just sharing my experience of the faith, then it really does not seem relevant to this particular discussion. If, however, this was a topic about faith experiences and I was being purely intellectual, then you would have cause for concern. I am not speaking Spanish in this topic, that does not mean I don't speak it- I just don't find it relevant. In fact, it would be inappropriate.

If you need me to interpret the Bible for you maybe you shouldn't be so testy, otherwise refer to the things Jesus said to know how to live. This argument isn't one of them. Thanks.

I am not asking for an interpretation. You have said what 'should be' and I have asked you how you see the being accomplished which you have responded to by not doing so and making comments about my faith.

 

[james1523]

Except Christians don't agree on what those men. Christians look at those issues in very different ways. We can both agree that being good is helpful for society, but we can have very different views of what good is.

I am not trying to sound divisive, but I do not think it helps to ignore some real differences.

Are you saying that Christians disagree on who is the Lord, who is the Father, and who is God? If they do disagree on these things, then they are not Christians, and if they do agree on these things, there is no excuse for them to remain in division. According to Ephesians 4:4, all Christians can agree on who is the Lord, who is the Spirit, who is God, who is the Father, and any divisions based upon any other matters, doctrines and opinions, are carnal and fleshly divisions which are condemned (1 Cor 3:4).

 

[B-A-C]

Are you saying that Christians disagree on who is the Lord, who is the Father, and who is God? If they do disagree on these things, then they are not Christians, and if they do agree on these things, there is no excuse for them to remain in division. According to Ephesians 4:4, all Christians can agree on who is the Lord, who is the Spirit, who is God, who is the Father, and any divisions based upon any other matters, doctrines and opinions, are carnal and fleshly divisions which are condemned (1 Cor 3:4).

Agreed, never the less there are many people calling themselves Christians who deny Christ. Some say He is not THE God, he is simply "a god" ( small g). Some say he isn't God at all.
Some say the Holy Spirit isn't a being with a distinct personality, but just your own conscious feelings. Some say Jesus isn't the ONLY begotten Son. Some say Jesus wasn't resurrected in the flesh, but Spirit only.
Some say Jesus had a sinless mother and no siblings. Some say Jesus is the arch-angels brother ( Michael, Gabriel, and Lucifer ). Of course none of this is in the Bible, but many calling themselves Christians are proclaiming it.

Matt 7:22; "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
Matt 7:23; "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

 

[Last Things]

Are you saying that Christians disagree on who is the Lord, who is the Father, and who is God? If they do disagree on these things, then they are not Christians, and if they do agree on these things, there is no excuse for them to remain in division. According to Ephesians 4:4, all Christians can agree on who is the Lord, who is the Spirit, who is God, who is the Father, and any divisions based upon any other matters, doctrines and opinions, are carnal and fleshly divisions which are condemned (1 Cor 3:4).

What is the relationship of the Holy Spirit the among Trinity? Is He proceeding from the Father and the Son? Just the Father? Through the Son? Are they three distinct persons of one substance, or three like substances?
Ask a Christian about baptism and boy will you get some strong views.
One faith - what faith is that? As a Christian about what he believes, you will hear all kinds of things.

 

[james1523]

What is the relationship of the Holy Spirit the among Trinity? Is He proceeding from the Father and the Son? Just the Father? Through the Son? Are they three distinct persons of one substance, or three like substances?
Ask a Christian about baptism and boy will you get some strong views.
One faith - what faith is that? As a Christian about what he believes, you will hear all kinds of things.

What faith? The faith by which we believe in the Lord (John 3:36). All Christians should be able to agree that we must believe in the Lord.
What baptism? The baptism into Christ (Romans 6:3, Gal 3:27). All Christians should be able to agree that we must be baptized into Christ.
If a Christian disagrees that we must believe in the Lord by faith, then they are not Christian.
If they don't know that it is Jesus who is the Lord, they are not Christian.
If they don't believe that God is Father, Son and Spirit, the Trinity, they are not Christian.
All Christians can agree on these elementary matters. Matters such as the relationship of the Spirit in the Trinity are not so important, and people who divide themselves over non-essential doctrines (including methods of water baptism) are probably opinionated and divisive, and not making any effort to keep the unity of the Spirit.

 

[Last Things]

What faith? The faith by which we believe in the Lord (John 3:36). All Christians should be able to agree that we must believe in the Lord.
What baptism? The baptism which which we are baptized into Christ (Romans 6:3, Gal 3:27). All Christians should be able to agree that we must be baptized into Christ.
If a Christian disagrees that we must believe in the Lord by faith, then they are not Christian.
If they don't know that it is Jesus who is the Lord, they are not Christian.
If they don't believe that God is Father, Son and Spirit, the Trinity, they are not Christian.

The problem is that you are glossing over those words and using them very generally when they mean very different things to different people. For example, we might say we both like 'X', but learn what we think about X is very different. In which case to say we both like 'X' is meaningless because we are talking about different things.

Baptism? Which baptism? The one of water, the one of the holy spirit, or the one of both?
How do they know Jesus is Lord, that He is two distinct persons, both human and divine? Or one person?