Does God care which denomination I belong to?

bmerr~
I have no problem with doctrine. Like you stated pretty much in your example... some don't have it all right and I am sure there is not one denomination that everyone agrees with 100% or we would all belong to it. :smilewinkgrin: All I know is I love Jesus! Like Paul said,
1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

I love all my brothers and sisters in Christ, but we don't all belong to the same denomination but we are of the same body because we belive in Jesus and accepted Jesus as our Savior.

 

Good grief. TaliOrlando asked a question, quoted a splendid answer, which was then ignored. Go figure.

 

bmerr represents the hard-line Churches of Christ given his posts on multiple topics. They typically teach that everyone else is a denomination and are wrong -- but that they are not a denomination, not wrong, and the only Christians.

When they call you to not be in a denomination, they usually expect you to leave your church, come to their church, disown `denominational churches' as being Christian, and adopt everything they tell you to believe about the Bible or be treated sharply.

Been there, done that. I have seen reports of it being done elsewhere. It was nearly four years before I ever considered another Church of Christ and it had to be a rare non-hardline good one.

 

Since bmerr belongs to a Church of Christ congregation and I belong to a Baptist church, we could find plenty to disagree about, but on this subject I'm with him. It does make a difference which body one belongs to.

Both of us believe strongly that our congregation's doctrines are Biblical truth, and I'll guarantee you that if we didn't believe that, we'd both be looking for the group which teaches truth as we believe it to be. Neither bmerr nor I think the differences we have are minor.

This whole idea that God doesn't care which denomination one belongs to as long as we're members of the great universal church is fuzzy thinking and reminds me of us all sitting around the campfire, Baptists, Church of Christ, RCCs et al, singing cum-bah-yah. And we all feel warm and fuzzy because God doesn't want us to argue over doctrine--he wants us all to just get along.

And by the way, have any of you ever visited the universal church? Ever worshipped in it? Ever seen the universal church send missionaries, baptize anyone, feed a single hungry soul? Have any of you ever examined the doctrines and practices of the universal church? Can anyone explain what purpose it serves, since it doesn't do anything commanded by the Lord Jesus? It's basically useless.

It's local assemblies which carry out the Great Commission as they see it, either as individual congregations or in partnership with others.

If Paul meant Eph 4:3 "Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace..", for the universal church, he was urging an impossibility. But if he meant it for local congregations like the one at Ephesus, then he was urging something achievable. Many, many congregations have a unity of the spirit, but not the universal church, not now, not ever. Only local churches can be unified.

I say this somewhat light-heartedly, but if God did not intend for his children to be divided, I think both bmerr and I would stand together to say, "well if they are, it's not my church's fault." Then we'd look at each other and say "naw, but it's your church's fault."

 

:type:i think we need to be careful as christians. i know that presbyterians can be saved, methodists can too and even some catholics but face the facts, the only denomination traceable back to the early church is the Baptists. All the other major "Christian" denominations came about during the reformation or after it. in essence denominations and reformers that came about during the reformation such as presbyterians, lutherins, and calvin, zwingli, luther were not seperating from catholicism but reviving an older catholic belief called Augustinianism. so for me the its clear baptists are original. but there can be many great gospel preaching presbyterian, methodist (not so much any more), and lutherin churches out there.

 

This whole thread is a double sided sword.

Does God care which denomination we belong to?
Yes and no.
Does He care what the sign out front says? Of Course not!
Does He care about our docrine? Ahh....there is the important part. Yes He absolutely cares about our doctrine.
Doesn't matter what the sign says, but signs are for man, to know what DOCTRINE we believe.

 

The Bible only discusses Christians saved by His Son through the Gospel that assemble in churches. I doubt that He recognizes individually anything about us except whether or not we have accepted the Gospel. The denominational signs are great for us mortals in that they give us an idea what doctrines and practices to expect inside so that we can make some informed decisions.

Does the Lord care about doctrine? Absolutely. I am sure that when we are assembled He prefers that we are "handling aright the word of truth" 2 Timothy 2:15 (ASV).

The Greek word translated "church" means "assembly" of people (Vine, Expository Dictionary, ISBN 0-8407-7559-8 page 42). People, not doctrines, make a church.

However, what is the main purpose of our assembly? Allow me to quote the Word of God on the matter:

The main purpose of our assembling is to encourage believers to love others and do good works.

As I consider what the Bible says on this here, I submit that given the choice:

A) Congregation 1 that teaches excellent doctrine in my opinion, spends the majority of its time discussing said doctrines that have relevance only in religious controversies, and spends little if any time, resources, or effort pushing Christians to do good to people out of love, or
B) Congregation A that has some things that are off doctrinally, but spends most of its time, resources, and energies teaching people and urging people to go out and serve the Lord in how they treat people in and out of church seven days a week,​

biblically, I see myself having to go for option B regardless of the scorn. When I was younger in the Lord I would have opted for Option A, but since then I have noticed some things in Scripture that caused me to come to a different understanding.

 

This is probably a post for another thread somewhere, and I'm new here, so it has probably been discussed, but Baptists don't go back to the early church, and can't be traced back there. I've seen a few of those authors make that attempt, but there is overwhelming evidence against it. Baptists are the product of the early 1600's, almost 150 years after Luther, and originated among English separatists living in the Netherlands, a blending of separatist and Anabaptist influences. I've seen some pretty strong arguments here for strict adherence to literal interpretation and application of scripture as a doctrinal standard. If you trace Baptist history back through some of the pre-reformation groups that existed outside of the Catholic church, you're going to have to accept some doctrine that would be considered heretical by the more fundamental and conservative Baptists today.

 

Let's take an even easier example - the case of believers baptism and the difference between Baptists and Presbyterian, or Baptist vs Methodist.

Is it really true that there was nothing ever suffered by Baptists or anabaptists for holding to believer's baptism? Where they just being silly to be willing to sacrifice so much for that belief?

For the sake of this discussion point - be a little objective on this one point - suppose that the Bible argument made in favor of believers baptism by the anabaptists is true - is it really worth sacrificing for?

Is the "difference" significant enough to give up job, money, health, freedom, life - as some of them did?

 

Tom,

bmerr here. I liked your post, sir. I might comment that when Paul wrote his letter to the Ephesians, there was only one church. Divisions didn't take long to split the brotherhood, but in the early part of the church, there were apostles to bring correction, as Paul did with the church at Corinth.

But the unity of the Spirit can only be achieved if we unite on what the Spirit said. Division has always resulted from either adding or subtracting from the word of God. When men resolve to lay aside the traditions and doctrines of men, (church manuals, creed books, catechisms, etc), they are then free to return to the Bible, and seek the unity for which Christ prayed (John 17) and which Paul pleaded for (1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:3).

God certainly did not intend for His children to be divided, for the unity (not to be confused with union) of His people would show the world that Jesus had come from the Father (John 17).

And, yes, I'm sure "you guys" are to blame :laugh: .

In Christ,

bmerr

 

.......and that's the name of that tune. Those who are united on what the Spirit said are the church, the Body of Christ, forget any other label.

:Fish:

 

And they would be right.:thumbs:

 

i strongly disagree with the statement that baptists aren't ancient. every baptist historian before 1899 said that baptists were ancient and many could trace their principles back to Christ and his disciples. every baptist historian held this view. heres a list of baptist historians that bilieved this:
john spittlehouse (1652)
theilman van braught (1660)
henry d'anvers (1670)
thomas crosby (1740)
isaac backus (1770)
david benedict (1813)
joseph ivimey (1830)
g.h. orchard (1830)
j.m. cramp (1868)
william cathcart (1887)
thomas armitage (1888)
j.m. carroll (1901)
john taylor christian (1926)

you would think that pedobaptist historians would try to prove wrong or discredit the ancient nature of baptist history, but the renowned catholic historian and president of the council of trent in 1565 said "there shall be no faythe more certayne and true, then is the anabaptists, seeying there be none nowe, or have bene before time fore ye space of these thousand and two hundred years, who have bene more cruelly punyshed, or that have more stoutly, steadfastly, cherefully take theire punishment, yea or have offered them selves of theire own accorde to deathe, were it never so terrible or grevouse. yea in saint augustyn his time, as he hymselffe sayth, there was a certaine monstrous desire of death in them." clearly he raletes the history of baptist to about A.D. 300 (beller, pg 3)

After 1899 those that held to the belief that baptists were ancient were labeled as " landmarkers" or " trail of blood adhereents" or baptist briders.

a group of dissenters arose about a.d.150 they were called the novationists charles spurgeon wrote about them: "Novation held that apostacy was a sin which disqualified them from again entering into church fellowship and to secure a pure community he formed a seperate chuch which elected him for its pastor. these purer churches multiplied and continued in existence for more than three centuries the members being everywherelooked upon as puritans and dissenters. they were anabaptists, baptising all who had been immersed by the orthodox and corrupt church the novatians were then Baptists. "

ther have been many other baptist- like groups which have striking resemblances with modern baptists
donatists (398)
paulicians (690)
petrobrussians (1126)
waldenesians (1487)
anabaptists (1530)
lollards (1575)
of course there some doctrinal deviances but the similarities are striking. their most outstanding characteristic was immersion for believers only,going agianst the belief of infant baptism for non-believers.

and the quote that "baptists are the product of the 1600's" is wrong that theory was developed by william whitsitt in1880. whitsitt insisted that baptists did not exist until the reformation. (Beller, pg 7-9,12-13,21-23)

a couple great authors on the subject of baptist history are David L Cummins and James Beller theyre great. somehow on does god care which denomination i belong to we started talking about baptist history but its been!:type:

 

where is it?

 

Back to the OP (Which is not the same as "Did anabaptists go on to become baptist by changing their name").

#1. ASSUME ALL Christians in ALL churches believe their group is right -- like Catholics do.

#2. Assume ALL Christians in ALL churches agree with the unity of the spirit - like Catholics do.

STILL the question remains -- does it matter which denomination?

For example - the Methodist vs Baptist issue (Presbyterian vs Baptist as well) and the HISTORY of those who died/sufferred for their faith. Is the DIFFERENCE in doctrine "important" to God? Important enough to sacrifice and die as did the anabaptists?

The question remains.

 

Both the ecumenical and the Charismatic movement are transcending the barriers of denominationalism woriking together to bring about a one world church which eventually will climax in the Tribulation Period under the Antichrist and the False Prophet.

It is sad to see in these last times that doctrine is sacrificed on the altar of unity.
DHK

 

Agreed. I am not opposed to Christians of different denominations having Christian fellowship - but what I wonder about is the degree to which they are grounded in the Bible itself - or are they merely grounded in "the group think" model.

According to "group think" unpopular denominations are out and popular leaders are "in" regardless of the number of texts we need to "turn a blind eye to".

So in the days of Christ "the people following that carpenter around are definitely OUT and the priests and Bible teachers in the mainline temple are IN".

Matt 24 warns of false Christs, Acts 20 warns of error to enter the church "after my departure" - and then there is the warning of the dark ages which shows the willingness of Christians to be led around by authorotative leaders that have a lot o freedom to add more errors to the foundation of error that they stand upon.

 

So are we in the times of the first anti-christ or will it get worse?

What is the purpose of GOD sending antichrist if he wants all men to be saved?

 

God does not "Send antichrist".

In 1John 2 the reader is told by John that "many antichrists have already come" -

They were not sent by God.

Things will get worse as we are told in Matt 24 that things get worse as time goes on. In Rev 16 we see the seven last plagues poured out just before the Rev 19 coming of Christ that he promised in John 14 "If I go I will come again".

In Rev 12 we see the birth of Christ and then 1260 years of persecution of the church and then the dragon in rage and anger targeting the people of God right through to the end.

In 2Thess 2 we see things getting worse and worse - until the very end. But 2Thess 2 points to a special evil power that is now being restrained - and yet will one day be set free. IN Rev 7 we also see this process of restraint of evil being employed "UNTIL" the servants of God are sealed.

Satan himself has caused many great evils in this world but the world is still divided between saved and lost and some of the lost will respond to God and be saved. Satan can not simply do with them as he pleases without restriction because some will yet convert to the Gospel of Christ.

But there will come a day "Let him who is filthly be filthy still" will be pronounced - just before the end.

 

DHK,

bmerr here. What is often promoted as "unity" is actually only "union". It comes escorted by phrases like, "Agree to disagree", and "Unity in diversity", which are oxymorons, I believe.

True Christian unity can only be achieved on the basis of God's word (John 17:20-21). We've got to get the traditions and doctrines of man out of the way if we ever want to see unity.

It's a worthy goal to work toward.

In Christ,

bmerr