• Welcome to White Horse Forums. We ask that you would please take a moment to introduce yourself in the New Members section. Tell us a bit about yourself and dive in!

Why All the Divisions Within Christ's Church?

A

Arial

Guest
There is no question that there are many theological divisions among Christians, and that is not even taking into consideration what is often called Christianity but is not, as some or all of the foundational doctrines of Christianity are denied. Christianity, made up of those belonging to Christ and as is defined by Christ Himself and the apostles He appointed to set the foundational (teachings), is a definite. It does not have movable boundaries when it comes to who He is, what He did, how it is applied. This includes the Trinity, virgin birth, sinless life of Jesus, His substitutionary death, His resurrection. His ascension. It includes the justification of the believer through the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus, the impartation of the Holy Spirit for sealing the believer and for sanctifying and training the believer in righteousness, and this for Christ's glory not in order to save ourselves through our own righteousness. It includes the atonement.

The Bible speaks of those who are in Christ as being one body, His body. So why all the divisions we see? And why, at least in the format of forum but I suspect within many churches as well, are these differences in doctrine or theology never actually dealt with but simply argued over?

I have arrived at the suspicion, and it is not based on nothing but rather careful and concerted thought done mostly within the scriptures, that the most damaging thing that has happened in the modern church, is the very thing that stirs up the most anger and hatred from within the body of Christ towards one another, is the abandonment of Reformed theology. What has pretty much been reduced to the term, and that used in a negative way, Calvinism. Specifically the TULIP, even though that is only a small part of reformed theology, but is the premise from which all of scripture is understood and interpreted. Oddly enough, most of the church agrees on the conclusions that this premise leads to, though without this premise, those conclusions are only llp service. And by that I do not mean that a person is believing those truths of salvation in vain or without sincerity of faith. I only mean that if they followed their premise of free will consistnatly, rather than the premise of God's absolute sovereignty and man's fallen sinful nature as taught by the total depravity doctrine,and original sin, they would not arrive at the same place. The idea of man having a will that is willing to serve and love God and God alone, and that our salvation is dependant, not on what Jesus did for us but on what we do, our choice, of whether to accept this or not, completely tears down the premise of the total sovereignty of God. Anyone who has ever read with reverence and understanding Job chapters 38 through 41, ought to give pause when suggesting what God can and cannot do, what He will and will not do. Or ever having it cross their mind that they should reject a doctrine or doctrines that have been a part of Christ's church from its birth. That is, the doctrine of original sin, and mankind's unwillingness to come to Him with any kind of a pure heart, and God being the One who saves and chooses those He saves because He is sovereign in all things. These doctrines were not pulled out of thin air. They came out of the word of God, and they are in almost every confession of faith that came out of the Reformation. There were differences and divisions then too---but they were over minor things that did not pertain to salvation. It is thanks mainly to a man named Charles Finney in the 19th century, that these doctrines began to be overturned, and the gates of the church were torn down and left wide open for every wind of doctrine to march right into the church, so that now even the walls are burned to the ground.

If we begin with the premise that God is truly sovereign at all times and in all things----as the Bible makes clear that He is---we will have an entirely different view of Him and ourselves in relation to and relationship with Him. If we do not start there, and maintain that premise on every page and sentence we read, we will have contradictions in the Bible. If we stay with this premise, over time and with diligence, we can unravel those apparent contradictions, sometimes like the day dawning, and sometimes with the knowledge that it is a paradox or a mystery not yet revealed,or the secret things of God that our finiteness cannot fathom but that faith takes to heart, but that we have no more business probing than we have of going through a strangers personal things. The most common way we have of dealing with apparent contradictions is to pick the one that suits our image of God the best, or requires the least amount of thought, while ignoring whatever contradicts the belief we choose. While also shouting loudly that we are doing no such thing.

So I ask this. Is there anywhere in the Bible where God leaves a single element of His purpose and His plans determinate in the hands of mankind? Does not everything and everywhere always work towards His purposes? Does He not say this Himself? So why, at the most crucial point in His redemptive plan, that final step of a person being saved, or not, does He suddenly step back, out of the picture, and say I love you so much I will leave it up to each person whether or not they are redeemed. Mind you, this would be after He sent His beloved Son, and the Son came in the likeness of us, and sent Him to the cross to His suffering and death, to redeem a people, rescue them from their sin and from death. He then turns the efficacy of Christ's life and death and resurrection and ascension, over to a tiny, fallen, corrupted, creature? Gives the result of this into the hearts of the enemies of the cross? Gives to the rescued the glory due the Rescuer? I think not. May it never be!

And lest the argument come up that God did this because He wanted people who loved Him voluntarily, let's look at that a bit deeper. What we have are people who come to God for self preservation. Whereas, if we have a people who come to God because He has snatched them out of the kingdom of darkness and brought them into the kingdom of the Son of HIs love, what do we have? We have a people who love the Father and come to Him because He first loved them to such a great degree the He sent HIs Son to die in their place, for their sins, gave them personally to the Son, imputing Christ's righteousness to them in place of their filthy rags. And giving them what they need to trust in Christ and Christ alone---the very faith to believe the gospel when they hear it.

There are many other ways in which the abandonment of both original sin and predestination have weakened and change the church and our understanding of scripture that we can explore.


 
The abandonment of both those doctrines are a step toward the Truth, not against the truth.

I also don't believe that "self preservation" is why we are drawn to God, nor is it why we believe the Gospel.
 
There is no question that there are many theological divisions among Christians, and that is not even taking into consideration what is often called Christianity but is not, as some or all of the foundational doctrines of Christianity are denied. Christianity, made up of those belonging to Christ and as is defined by Christ Himself and the apostles He appointed to set the foundational (teachings), is a definite. It does not have movable boundaries when it comes to who He is, what He did, how it is applied. This includes the Trinity, virgin birth, sinless life of Jesus, His substitutionary death, His resurrection. His ascension. It includes the justification of the believer through the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus, the impartation of the Holy Spirit for sealing the believer and for sanctifying and training the believer in righteousness, and this for Christ's glory not in order to save ourselves through our own righteousness. It includes the atonement.

The Bible speaks of those who are in Christ as being one body, His body. So why all the divisions we see? And why, at least in the format of forum but I suspect within many churches as well, are these differences in doctrine or theology never actually dealt with but simply argued over?

I have arrived at the suspicion, and it is not based on nothing but rather careful and concerted thought done mostly within the scriptures, that the most damaging thing that has happened in the modern church, is the very thing that stirs up the most anger and hatred from within the body of Christ towards one another, is the abandonment of Reformed theology. What has pretty much been reduced to the term, and that used in a negative way, Calvinism. Specifically the TULIP, even though that is only a small part of reformed theology, but is the premise from which all of scripture is understood and interpreted. Oddly enough, most of the church agrees on the conclusions that this premise leads to, though without this premise, those conclusions are only llp service. And by that I do not mean that a person is believing those truths of salvation in vain or without sincerity of faith. I only mean that if they followed their premise of free will consistnatly, rather than the premise of God's absolute sovereignty and man's fallen sinful nature as taught by the total depravity doctrine,and original sin, they would not arrive at the same place. The idea of man having a will that is willing to serve and love God and God alone, and that our salvation is dependant, not on what Jesus did for us but on what we do, our choice, of whether to accept this or not, completely tears down the premise of the total sovereignty of God. Anyone who has ever read with reverence and understanding Job chapters 38 through 41, ought to give pause when suggesting what God can and cannot do, what He will and will not do. Or ever having it cross their mind that they should reject a doctrine or doctrines that have been a part of Christ's church from its birth. That is, the doctrine of original sin, and mankind's unwillingness to come to Him with any kind of a pure heart, and God being the One who saves and chooses those He saves because He is sovereign in all things. These doctrines were not pulled out of thin air. They came out of the word of God, and they are in almost every confession of faith that came out of the Reformation. There were differences and divisions then too---but they were over minor things that did not pertain to salvation. It is thanks mainly to a man named Charles Finney in the 19th century, that these doctrines began to be overturned, and the gates of the church were torn down and left wide open for every wind of doctrine to march right into the church, so that now even the walls are burned to the ground.

If we begin with the premise that God is truly sovereign at all times and in all things----as the Bible makes clear that He is---we will have an entirely different view of Him and ourselves in relation to and relationship with Him. If we do not start there, and maintain that premise on every page and sentence we read, we will have contradictions in the Bible. If we stay with this premise, over time and with diligence, we can unravel those apparent contradictions, sometimes like the day dawning, and sometimes with the knowledge that it is a paradox or a mystery not yet revealed,or the secret things of God that our finiteness cannot fathom but that faith takes to heart, but that we have no more business probing than we have of going through a strangers personal things. The most common way we have of dealing with apparent contradictions is to pick the one that suits our image of God the best, or requires the least amount of thought, while ignoring whatever contradicts the belief we choose. While also shouting loudly that we are doing no such thing.

So I ask this. Is there anywhere in the Bible where God leaves a single element of His purpose and His plans determinate in the hands of mankind? Does not everything and everywhere always work towards His purposes? Does He not say this Himself? So why, at the most crucial point in His redemptive plan, that final step of a person being saved, or not, does He suddenly step back, out of the picture, and say I love you so much I will leave it up to each person whether or not they are redeemed. Mind you, this would be after He sent His beloved Son, and the Son came in the likeness of us, and sent Him to the cross to His suffering and death, to redeem a people, rescue them from their sin and from death. He then turns the efficacy of Christ's life and death and resurrection and ascension, over to a tiny, fallen, corrupted, creature? Gives the result of this into the hearts of the enemies of the cross? Gives to the rescued the glory due the Rescuer? I think not. May it never be!

And lest the argument come up that God did this because He wanted people who loved Him voluntarily, let's look at that a bit deeper. What we have are people who come to God for self preservation. Whereas, if we have a people who come to God because He has snatched them out of the kingdom of darkness and brought them into the kingdom of the Son of HIs love, what do we have? We have a people who love the Father and come to Him because He first loved them to such a great degree the He sent HIs Son to die in their place, for their sins, gave them personally to the Son, imputing Christ's righteousness to them in place of their filthy rags. And giving them what they need to trust in Christ and Christ alone---the very faith to believe the gospel when they hear it.

There are many other ways in which the abandonment of both original sin and predestination have weakened and change the church and our understanding of scripture that we can explore.
I will firmly stand against some of the things you assert and obviously believe deeply, but it is clear you have a heart for God.
 
I will firmly stand against some of the things you assert and obviously believe deeply, but it is clear you have a heart for God.

A lot of people—- for example, someone who has escaped the legalism trap of the Seventh Day Adventist organization will tell you how glad they are to have done so. And how happy they are (Praise God) that they NOW are walking in the truth.

But they were equally as convinced that they were walking in the truth back then.

Isn’t that something? You don’t know what you don’t know until you know how much you didn’t know.
 
The abandonment of both those doctrines are a step toward the Truth, not against the truth.

I also don't believe that "self preservation" is why we are drawn to God, nor is it why we believe the Gospel.
You make a couple of assertions here. I know many don't agree with what I have said. What would be helpful is if you would explain why you make these assertions and where scripture disproves what I have said and where it agrees with your assertions.
 
You make a couple of assertions here. I know many don't agree with what I have said. What would be helpful is if you would explain why you make these assertions and where scripture disproves what I have said and where it agrees with your assertions.

Good to see you back Arial. Merry Christmas.
 
I have arrived at the suspicion, and it is not based on nothing but rather careful and concerted thought done mostly within the scriptures, that the most damaging thing that has happened in the modern church, is the very thing that stirs up the most anger and hatred from within the body of Christ towards one another, is the abandonment of Reformed theology.
It's not the abandonment of Reformed theology that has caused divisions and hatred but "reformed" theology itself. Before the "Reformation" there were three groups of Christians with very little difference in theology: - the Catholic Church and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Now there are 30,000+ Protestant denominations, sects, cults and one pastor churches with wildly conflicting doctrines. Division leads to more division.
 
It's not the abandonment of Reformed theology that has caused divisions and hatred but "reformed" theology itself. Before the "Reformation" there were three groups of Christians with very little difference in theology: - the Catholic Church and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Now there are 30,000+ Protestant denominations, sects, cults and one pastor churches with wildly conflicting doctrines. Division leads to more division.
While that is true of the pre-reformation, there was much in those theologies that was dead wrong and in direct opposition to the foundation of Christ's church that the apostles were appointed by Jesus to set, and which they did. The foundation being the doctrines.

The Reformation was needed in a big way, and I believe brought forth by the merciful hand of God. And though many denominations formed out of the reformation, in large part they were differences over issues that did not affect or change the core salvation message. Those that did, were brought before councils or bulls etc and removed from official doctrine of Christianity. But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the modern church and its moving away from the doctrine and theology established in the Reformation and turning to one of the heresies that was removed all those centuries ago. The heresy, according to the church, of Arminius, that denies the sovereignty of God in all things, including salvation of an individual. Where a person stands on this issue, in my opinion, does not affect whether or not they are saved, (that is determined by what a person believes about the person and work of Jesus), it does affect one's theology. How they interpret a great deal of the rest of scripture. And it does affect their view of God, even, depending on how far off the premise of sovereignty they wander, their ability to truly trust Him. In addition, removing original sin from the equation greatly affects our view of ourselves in relation to God and in our relationship with Him. Though not all the glory will be removed from the atonement and the magnitude of the power and love and mercy involved in the incarnation and rescue that Jesus accomplished, there is still some held back from our awareness. Why? Because we do not truly recognize the hopeless and ugly condition we are in and therefore can not fully appreciate what Jesus did for us. There is some of His glory that we give to ourselves, no matter how we look at that or deny it.

In my opinion, the reckless abandonment of those two foundational things has left the door wide open for all sorts of false teachers and teaching to come into the church. The shepherds themselves have no solid foundation, and the sheep are hungry and thirsty and scattered.
 
There is no question that there are many theological divisions among Christians, and that is not even taking into consideration what is often called Christianity but is not, as some or all of the foundational doctrines of Christianity are denied. Christianity, made up of those belonging to Christ and as is defined by Christ Himself and the apostles He appointed to set the foundational (teachings), is a definite. It does not have movable boundaries when it comes to who He is, what He did, how it is applied. This includes the Trinity, virgin birth, sinless life of Jesus, His substitutionary death, His resurrection. His ascension. It includes the justification of the believer through the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus, the impartation of the Holy Spirit for sealing the believer and for sanctifying and training the believer in righteousness, and this for Christ's glory not in order to save ourselves through our own righteousness. It includes the atonement.

The Bible speaks of those who are in Christ as being one body, His body. So why all the divisions we see? And why, at least in the format of forum but I suspect within many churches as well, are these differences in doctrine or theology never actually dealt with but simply argued over?

I have arrived at the suspicion, and it is not based on nothing but rather careful and concerted thought done mostly within the scriptures, that the most damaging thing that has happened in the modern church, is the very thing that stirs up the most anger and hatred from within the body of Christ towards one another, is the abandonment of Reformed theology. What has pretty much been reduced to the term, and that used in a negative way, Calvinism. Specifically the TULIP, even though that is only a small part of reformed theology, but is the premise from which all of scripture is understood and interpreted. Oddly enough, most of the church agrees on the conclusions that this premise leads to, though without this premise, those conclusions are only llp service. And by that I do not mean that a person is believing those truths of salvation in vain or without sincerity of faith. I only mean that if they followed their premise of free will consistnatly, rather than the premise of God's absolute sovereignty and man's fallen sinful nature as taught by the total depravity doctrine,and original sin, they would not arrive at the same place. The idea of man having a will that is willing to serve and love God and God alone, and that our salvation is dependant, not on what Jesus did for us but on what we do, our choice, of whether to accept this or not, completely tears down the premise of the total sovereignty of God. Anyone who has ever read with reverence and understanding Job chapters 38 through 41, ought to give pause when suggesting what God can and cannot do, what He will and will not do. Or ever having it cross their mind that they should reject a doctrine or doctrines that have been a part of Christ's church from its birth. That is, the doctrine of original sin, and mankind's unwillingness to come to Him with any kind of a pure heart, and God being the One who saves and chooses those He saves because He is sovereign in all things. These doctrines were not pulled out of thin air. They came out of the word of God, and they are in almost every confession of faith that came out of the Reformation. There were differences and divisions then too---but they were over minor things that did not pertain to salvation. It is thanks mainly to a man named Charles Finney in the 19th century, that these doctrines began to be overturned, and the gates of the church were torn down and left wide open for every wind of doctrine to march right into the church, so that now even the walls are burned to the ground.

If we begin with the premise that God is truly sovereign at all times and in all things----as the Bible makes clear that He is---we will have an entirely different view of Him and ourselves in relation to and relationship with Him. If we do not start there, and maintain that premise on every page and sentence we read, we will have contradictions in the Bible. If we stay with this premise, over time and with diligence, we can unravel those apparent contradictions, sometimes like the day dawning, and sometimes with the knowledge that it is a paradox or a mystery not yet revealed,or the secret things of God that our finiteness cannot fathom but that faith takes to heart, but that we have no more business probing than we have of going through a strangers personal things. The most common way we have of dealing with apparent contradictions is to pick the one that suits our image of God the best, or requires the least amount of thought, while ignoring whatever contradicts the belief we choose. While also shouting loudly that we are doing no such thing.

So I ask this. Is there anywhere in the Bible where God leaves a single element of His purpose and His plans determinate in the hands of mankind? Does not everything and everywhere always work towards His purposes? Does He not say this Himself? So why, at the most crucial point in His redemptive plan, that final step of a person being saved, or not, does He suddenly step back, out of the picture, and say I love you so much I will leave it up to each person whether or not they are redeemed. Mind you, this would be after He sent His beloved Son, and the Son came in the likeness of us, and sent Him to the cross to His suffering and death, to redeem a people, rescue them from their sin and from death. He then turns the efficacy of Christ's life and death and resurrection and ascension, over to a tiny, fallen, corrupted, creature? Gives the result of this into the hearts of the enemies of the cross? Gives to the rescued the glory due the Rescuer? I think not. May it never be!

And lest the argument come up that God did this because He wanted people who loved Him voluntarily, let's look at that a bit deeper. What we have are people who come to God for self preservation. Whereas, if we have a people who come to God because He has snatched them out of the kingdom of darkness and brought them into the kingdom of the Son of HIs love, what do we have? We have a people who love the Father and come to Him because He first loved them to such a great degree the He sent HIs Son to die in their place, for their sins, gave them personally to the Son, imputing Christ's righteousness to them in place of their filthy rags. And giving them what they need to trust in Christ and Christ alone---the very faith to believe the gospel when they hear it.

There are many other ways in which the abandonment of both original sin and predestination have weakened and change the church and our understanding of scripture that we can explore.
God is sovereign only within his holy just nature. God cannot and will not do evil.

If God predestinated some to salvation and not all to salvation, that would make God unjust. The purpose of Calvinism is to make God unjust. Who can trust in an unjust God? Satan's will has been accomplished in Calvinism. He has invented a religion that not only makes God unjust, but also makes his Son Jesus Christ a complete failure. CALVINISM: The abolishment of faith in God and his Son Jesus Christ.
 
While that is true of the pre-reformation, there was much in those theologies that was dead wrong and in direct opposition to the foundation of Christ's church that the apostles were appointed by Jesus to set, and which they did. The foundation being the doctrines.

Untrue.
The "Reformers went into heresy splintering into more and more factions.
The Reformation was needed in a big way, and I believe brought forth by the merciful hand of God. And though many denominations formed out of the reformation, in large part they were differences over issues that did not affect or change the core salvation message.

Again untrue.

An example of the reformers beliefs that anyone could take scripture and make up their own doctrines is given by Dave Armstrong:
From the beginning, the fault lines of Protestantism appeared when Zwingli and Oecolampduis [two lesser Reformers] differed with Luther on the Real Presence, and the Anabaptists dissented on the Eucharist, infant baptism, Ordination, and the functions of civil authority.. Martin Luther regarded these fellow Protestants as "damned" and "out of the Church" for these reasons....
By 1577, the book 200 interpretations of the Words, "This is my Body" was published at Ingolstadt in Germany.
 
Untrue.
The "Reformers went into heresy splintering into more and more factions.


Again untrue.

An example of the reformers beliefs that anyone could take scripture and make up their own doctrines is given by Dave Armstrong:
From the beginning, the fault lines of Protestantism appeared when Zwingli and Oecolampduis [two lesser Reformers] differed with Luther on the Real Presence, and the Anabaptists dissented on the Eucharist, infant baptism, Ordination, and the functions of civil authority.. Martin Luther regarded these fellow Protestants as "damned" and "out of the Church" for these reasons....
By 1577, the book 200 interpretations of the Words, "This is my Body" was published at Ingolstadt in Germany.
Hey Mungo and welcome to the forum.

I have stated that I realize many denominations came out of the Reformation, and as you imply, a lot of that is because of the RCC (nothing against them, just a fact. People are fallen and anything put into our hands will be flawed to one degree or another) claiming an authority over religious practice and belief that surpassed that of scripture. The Reformation returned authority to scripture alone, sola scriptura, rather than traditions and edicts of the church. As a result of this, and the Bible being made available in native tongues so it was available for "layman" to read for themselves, the natural result is going to be imperfect people doing that. That does not make what happened not right or not necessary.

Some think the things you mention specifically affect salvation, some do not. I think they don't, on either side of the argument as a person's heart towards God, rather than the teaching they heard would be what God is looking at. How Luther felt about it is irrelevant.

But a study of the Reformation from all sides, while an interesting topic and make a good thread, is not my intention in this thread. I am focused on what is happening and what has happened in the modern church---predominately from the 19th century forward. In this time period there was a beginning of a breaking away of two doctrines held by Christianity as a whole, during and for sometime afterward, the Reformation. Those being the absolute authority of God in all things and over all creation, including salvation, and original sin. That belief that there remains in fallen man an element of his will that is able to will towards God. That all man has to do is decide to believe something and that deciding makes it so. Or that what Christ did on the cross was give everyone enough grace to be able to choose God. It is this that I posit opened the door for all kinds of other beliefs to enter in and be counted as truth, even though they will not stand up to the totality of scripture, but only carefully selected verses. It is removing these two approaches to scripture that changes our understanding of God and the magnitude of Christ's substitutionary death. It removes the foundation on which all else should and would follow. Pretty soon, not even our preachers and teachers can approach the expounding of scripture from a definite and Biblical place, except in a very limited capacity. Which limits what is taught. Anything goes eventually in places becomes the doctrine, as long as Jesus is acknowledged by name at least. We have to move away from the focus being God and His Christ and pull the focus onto us. "What does this mean to me?" instead of "What is God saying about Himself?" "What would Jesus do?" instead of "Who is Jesus and what did He do?"
 
God is sovereign only within his holy just nature. God cannot and will not do evil.

If God predestinated some to salvation and not all to salvation, that would make God unjust. The purpose of Calvinism is to make God unjust. Who can trust in an unjust God? Satan's will has been accomplished in Calvinism. He has invented a religion that not only makes God unjust, but also makes his Son Jesus Christ a complete failure. CALVINISM: The abolishment of faith in God and his Son Jesus Christ.
I did not say that God could and would do evil. You are the one who is telling God what is evil. In my view, if God does something, it isn't evil, no matter how I may feel about it. In my view, if God does something, it is just, no matter how I may feel about it. The purpose of Calvinism is not to make God unjust. Such a statement is ridiculous. The purpose of Calvinism is to expound on God's word no matter what it is saying and whether it is likable to anyone's senseabilities or not. To let God be God rather than remaking Him in the image of a idol---a God that is and operates according to what persons wants Him to be. What Calvinism does for you Mr. Pate, is tear down this idol you have made and you are furious about it. You cannot and will not worship or put any faith in such a God, the God who is, the One true and living God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Calvinism, as you insist on calling the clear teaching of scripture, using that name as your primary weapon to defend your idol. gives every last speck and iota of salvation, including the faith to believe and trust in Jesus and Jesus alone to save, to the Savior. It gives all the glory and all the praise to Jesus. It takes away your insistence that no, not Jesus, Jesus and ME. He did the hard and painful part sure, but I RP, I'm the one that chose Him of my own free and glorious will. No wonder you hate it so much.

Calvinism (your word for sound doctrine and biblical teaching. To what God Himself has to say about it iow) presents Jesus as 100% successful instead of only 25% (if that). Jesus accomplished ALL that He came to do and saved EXACTLY who He died to save----all the ones God gave Him in fact. Not one was or will be lost.

So you continue with your hateful rant. Try and not tell so many bald faced lies while you are at it. Since you have several threads going that allow you to do that against this teaching, I would prefer that you kept it over there instead of bringing all that hate in here but you do as you please. I have an ignore button.
 
Back
Top