denominationlism is a sin

Mr. Mitchell,

bmerr here. You know, if you're serious, I'll tell you how to be added to the body. You may want to drop the "Reverend", though, since that word is only used in connection with the name of God (Ps 11:9). How men came to use it for themselves, I don't know.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Joseph,

bmerr here. It's almost as if you're saying, "What is truth?"

The fact is, we can know the truth. More than that, we must know the truth if we would be made free, for only the truth can make us free (John 8:32).

It may not have been intentional, but underlying your comment is the post-modernistic view that truth is subjective, that "your truth" is just as valid as "my truth", nobody's really "right", so nobody's really "wrong".

The result is people splitting off into groups according to their own desires, instead of people uniting on the basis of what is written in God's word.

True, Biblical unity, for which Christ prayed (John 17), and for which Paul pleaded (1 Cor 1:10) can only be attained when men are willing to forsake the doctrines and traditions of men, and rely on the Bible as their sole authority in faith and practice.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

There isn't a Psalm 11:9

 

Ps 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: Holy and Reverend is His name.

 

While I personally do not think this is good, to you Church of Christ people who took this seriously, this was sarcasm.

The problem many Church of Christ people have is that they typically assume that they are the only ones who have actually studied the Bible itself. They are either told this out of slander or by someone down the line from the slander who does not know any better. Hence, Church of Christ people often assume that the passages they show others are being seen for the very first time.

Although I have great respect for the Church of Christ I have attended for two years, the Churches of Christ are most guilty of divisiveness. While Methodists and American Baptists typically consider each other Christian and nearby have joint VBS, the Churches of Christ typically demand that their members not even acknowledge `denomination members' as Christians in any way. There are multiple words used in the Greek New Testament for "division" and the strongest is not used at 1 Corinthians 1; the strongest word is used at Romans 16:17 where the sinners are those who cause "standing apart" per Vine's Expository Dictionary. The Churches of Christ are very guilty of this -- in many cases, their members are forbidden to even attend family functions at "denominational churches."

 

The word used in Psalm 111:9 is "fearful". It's used in 307 verses in the OT. It's translated by the Greek word for fear (a form of phobos) in the LXX, and is used in 28 verses. In the NT, it's used in Hebrews 10:27, Hebrews 10:31, and Hebrews 12:21. No, I don't want anyone calling me "reverend" or "fearful". (Unless, of course, you try a snatch-and-grab robbery with me, then you may call me fearful.)

 

When I use that word, I was thinking of how so many people can read the same book yet come away with so many different understandings. Each having scripture to support their understanding and believe know one else is reading the bible right. Even the varied viewpoints of the forum is a great example. Calvinist etc...

Why did Jesus not explain each parable so there was no misunderstanding? We can't even agree about the oil in a lamp. Then there is Christ in the OT. Who are the two witnesses? When will the Church be raptured? What are the true conditions of salvation? The list goes on...

 

No, that is not at all what I said. I do believe that there is such a thing as objective truth. That is not post-modern subjectivism at all. Nor is it relativism. I am, however, saying that unwittingly we read the Scripture from within a theological tradition. The idea that there is a "plain meaning of the text" is illusory, because we are conditioned to operate from within a philosophical framework. It is only occasionally that anyone escapes his/her philosophical bias or background and moves to another, different, one.

Somewhat whimsically, this can be illustrated by the comment made years ago by Samuel S. Hill in his writings about Southern religion, in which he said that in the south the Baptist way of thinking about Christianity and about church is so prevalent that his Episcopalian and Lutheran pastor friends said that they had to spend all their time teaching their people that they are different! Prevailing philosophical assumptions.

Another anecdotal illustration: a member of my church told me about going to a synagogue where a rabbi was teaching the Book of Jonah. He said he learned that there was within Judaisman entirely different framework of interpretation from what he/we were accustomed to. Not unexpected, after all. They would not likely read the missionary message of Jonah as Christians do.

Now, however, just to show that from the Scriptures it is possible to correct one's thinking: you doubtless know the story of how Luther Rice and the Judsons studied the Scriptures on board ship while they were en route to India for missionary work, and became convinced of the Baptist position on baptism. That does show that interpreting the Bible on its face can lead one to a new and true perspective; but, even so, they moved from one theological heritage to another. Most of us do.

 

Joseph, You are certainly on the right path of scriptural understanding. It is not as easy and simplistic as some would propose.

Further, on denominationalism. The moment oe forms a new groups, thinking they are biblically correct, they have a new "denomination". With our intellectual climate it can be no other way. If I isolate myself as a church of one, I will prolly end up with two opinions!

"What a chimera is man. What a contradiction." Blaise Pascal

Cheers,

Jim

 

Mr. Mitchell,

bmerr here. Sorry. Typo. Ps 111:9, "He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name."

It's the only place the word is used.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Joseph,

bmerr here. I had hoped you weren't saying what it sounded like. I would agree that what we have been taught can have an effect on the way we interpret the Scriptures. It is unfortunately the case that ofttimes men rely more on what they have been taught by others than what is actually written in the Bible.

This has been the case since the Garden of Eden. God had plainly told Adam (who then told Eve) that if they ate of the forbidden tree, they would surely die. Then a false teacher came along and said "Thou shalt not surely die", and he presented a slick, convincing sermon to show that his word should be taken over God's. Well, we know how that all turned out...

The philosophies of the world have been a hindrance to NT Christianity since very early in the church. I don't guess we need to go into a history lesson right now, but suffice it to say that the doctrine of Christ and the doctrines of men do not, and cannot mix.

Another example of how doctrine other than that which is of Christ prevents a proper understanding of Scripture. Since Judaism is no longer a religion authorized by God, it is a philosophy conrtary to the doctrine of Christ.

I think I'd stop short of saying they "corrected" their thinking on baptism by opting for the baptist position, but it certainly changed. What did they believe about baptism when they started out?

At the risk of being accused of trying to hijack the thread, let me submit that there are some things that do not need much, if any, "interpretation". Since you brought up baptism, we might look at what is written concerning the topic, and compare that with some of the ways the Bible is interpreted when folks talk about baptism.

Let me know if you'd be interested in following such a line of discussion. And again, I apologize if I put words in your mouth. It was not my intention.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Darron,

bmerr here. I for one, came from a Baptist background, and after studying for myself, (which the majority of religious people do not do), i realized that what I was being taught in the Baptist church was not always in agreememt with what was written. At that point, I didn't know exactly where to look for a group that would simply teach what was written, so I started looking around. I eventually visited a congregation of the church of Christ, and was impressed with how they had a Scriptural reason for everything they taught and practiced. It was not long before I obeyed the gospel and became a Christian.

Looking back at around four years in the Baptist church, I recall several passages of Scripture that were never, not even once, read aloud or taught from. Among these were Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 6:3-5, 16-18; and 1 Pet 3:21.

I actually had the nerve to mention Rom 6:3-5 during some pre-baptism counseling between the "pastor", the baptismal candidate, and a few others, and the "pastor" had to fumble around for a few minutes to make sure that nobody was given the idea that baptism was essential for salvation.

The above mentioned verses were avoided like the plague, or, if mentioned at all, explained away with great effort so that everyone would know that they couldn't possibly mean what they said. I have yet to hear such explaining away of Scripture in the Lord's church.

you make it sound like division is always a bad thing. In Luke 12:51, Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division".

How can we "...come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing..." without division (2 Cor 6:17)?

Methodists and American Baptists get along when they have similar numbers, and they benefit from working together. In situations where one or the other is dominant, they are often less than civil when speaking of each other in their pulpits.

Eph 5:11 tells us that we are to "...have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them". The Scriptures are profitable for reproof (2 Tim 3:16-17). Rom 16:17 referred to christians who would later introduce false doctrines into the church (Acts 20:29-30), thus causing division. Who separated from whom? If one or a group depart from the doctrine of Christ, who moved? It wasn't Christ, that's for sure!

And how can we who are faithful to Christ lend support to those who are teaching and practicing false doctrine? Can two walk together, except they be agreed (Amos 3:3)? The best denominationalism can do is melt together in some sort of "union". It's not unity. That must be based on truth (John 17:17, 20-21).

In Christ,

bmerr

 

What you say is true, but still, the fact is, that those truly causing division with error will not come saying "we are separating from the truth", but rather, "we are the truth; you moved from us; we are separating from error". So just claiming that does not prove you are in fact on the side of truth, even if you have a ton of proof-texts, for so did the false teachers, and even Satan himself in the Temptation of Christ.
It is whether the teachings really line up with the scriptures, and the proof-texts are in context and truly support the doctrine that determines who is on the side of truth in divisions, and in many cases those causing division are making up ridiculous issues to divide over, and reading them into the scriptures, and the CofC is aprime example. This is the division condemnes in scripture, not separation from error.

As for the church of Christ being "the only one mentioned in scripture", "churches of Christ" is mentioned once, while some form of "church of God" is used 12 times, and also "the way".

 

By doing the same, I observed the same of both Baptist churches and Church of Christ congregations.

Looking at the passage within Romans 6:2-11 would have made it evident that it is part of a passage demonstrating how Christians are to view their relationship to sin: as dead to it. The passage is pictorial because in concrete reality we still sin per 1 John 1:8-10.

Accurate explanations of some of these passages can sometimes be so lengthy that they detract from points central to discussion. The facts are that what was written to the New Testament church was written in a language in common existence centuries before Old English appeared, and what was written to the New Testament church was written to cultures from ancient times. Too many people want to disregard this; they prefer to strip it of its context so that it matches what they teach, rather than understand what God was saying when He gave it.

 

These passages refer to division between people who follow Christ and those who do not. They do NOT refer to division among people who follow Christ.

This sometimes due to the fact that to one or the other, the "others" are just abstract realities. When the two must take the trouble to get acquainted with each other, they become real people and the matter is less academic.

The Acts 20:29-30 address was to leaders of the Ephesian congregations and refers to the then-future. Romans 16:17 is directed to the Roman congregation and refers to the then-present. All we know of the Roman situation is that there were people who were encouraging people to actively "stand apart" to refer to the Greek word at that passage. We do not know why. Again, the hard-line Churches of Christ are notoriously aggressive in this regard: often, members are directed to actively separate.

If I understand the hard-line definition of the Restoration, it means that the church was restored from the "denominational" system. This would mean that the present Churches of Christ separated from those churches before them. Since we are talking about "who separated from whom" rather than "who separated from what," and Romans 16:17 refers to divisions between people, I would posit that the Churches of Christ are the ones who separated. As Romans 16:17 condemns those who cause Greek "standing apart," the hard-line Churches of Christ are most guilty here because they not only separated but also often demand that their members decisively "stand apart" from those whom they separated from.

Really no: what is it the Christian serves? Check your New Testament: do we serve a body of doctrines, or do we serve a living Lord? Hey, I did not write the Bible -- God did. Christian unity is in purpose, not opinion. The proper purpose is outlined in the Word of God.

Hebrews 10:25 is often used to guilt-trip people who do not get "perfect attendance" at church. It really refers to totally abandoning assembly altogether. However, does anyone read Hebrews 10:24 where it is explained WHY we are to assemble? Here, let me help: "let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works" (ASV). While assembled we should teach the truth and try to be correct, but our purpose in assembly is to encourage love and good deeds. "Good works" include the good works Jesus preached about that we are to do in and out of church. I realize that our `doctrine first' congregations hate this message, but I did not write the Bible. Church unity must be in purpose: serving the living Lord.

 

I have no problem with the CoC desiring to seek the most biblically correct worship. We should all do that. But I do have a problem with those in the CoC who say that anyone in a denomination is not in the true church.

Though raised catholic I was saved in a baptist church and baptized the next week. I believe the preacher said, "I baptize you my brother in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." My life is completely different than it was before.

Now I have some disagreements with some Methodists, Catholics, Penetcostals, CoCs etc. But if anyone has placed earnest faith In Jesus for salvation then I would never question his/her salvation. If someone can look at me and say that I am not a Christian then he/she denies that Jesus' blood is effective for salvation.

Any member of the CoC who has a difference with me is still my brother - I do not claim to have it all right. But anyone who can look at me and deny my salvation solely because my building does not say "Catholic" or "Church of Christ" is a member of a cult and rejects that Jesus' blood is sufficient for salvation.

 

Denominationalism came about because for one thing, the Church became a corporate organization or "government"), which right there corrupted it into a worldly power base. So then, people broke off in protest, but then they followed suit and created new organizations, which were named after them or their doctrines; and since they still claimed to be "the one holy catholic church", the new organizations (distinguished by their names) were called "denominations".

So I say yes, it's sin, but the sin is in creating such power bases in the first place (with leaders profiting) around one's own pecular set of doctrines, and the Church of Christ is just another group guilty of this.

 

Indeed: "denominationalism" is the Church of Christ self-excluding spin of what the Bible deems "causing the divisions" (ASV) Romans 16:17. I believe I have shown above that among all organizations claiming allegiance to Jesus Christ, the predominant hard-line Churches of Christ are most guilty of this sin.