denominationlism is a sin

the predominant hard-line Churches of Christ are most guilty of this sin

Quite right!!!

 

Bmerr said: 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.

I suppose you are referring to things like Gnosticism and neoPlatonism. But, right or wrong, the philosophical postures of both Plato and Aristotle have affected systematic theology for centuries. Witness Thomism and its dependence on Aristotle. The "doctrine of Christ" is often ... one might even say always ... poured into a manmade wineskin.

In this discussion I am reminded of the wide gap between two ancient worthies -- Justin Martyr, who argued that "whatever has been said aright, by any man in any place, belongs to us Christians", versus Tertullian's blistering, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem, the academy with the church? Away with all philosophies ...". Of course he had a philosophical assumption!

All I am really asking is that we admit that even when we read the Bible we are reading it through the lens of our assumptions, and that those assumptions come from a philosophical system or a cultural conditioning that we may not even be aware of.

 

All I am really asking is that we admit that even when we read the Bible we are reading it through the lens of our assumptions, and that those assumptions come from a philosophical system or a cultural conditioning that we may not even be aware of.

That is very true. And keeping that in mind we should be careful not to add our own necessities, something which I find the CoC doing. "Denominationalism" is more than just having a name on the door. While I go to a baptist church I do not consider myself in any better standing than someone who goes to any other church as long as he/she has trusted Christ as savior.

Noe contrast this with the strict CoC member. Some would even go as far as to question my salvation because:
- I go to a church with a "name" on it.
- I participate in instrumental worship.
- I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and not "in the name of Jesus".

Which one of us judges according to his own presuppositions?

Which one of us is really guilty of "denominationalism"?

 

The church in Corinth, to whom Paul wrote, had division. There were no denominations. Divsion within the church is wrong. It was wrong in the first century and it is wrong today. There is even more division today, with the denominations.

God must be worshiped in truth (Jn 4:24). God's word is truth (Jn 17:17). Whatever we do in word or deed must be done in "the name of the Lord" or by his authority (Col 3:17).

If worship is according to truth, and God's word is truth, are we bound by what God did say or by what He did not say?

The only way to unity is to worship in truth. The only way to worship in truth is to worship according to God's word.

God's word says that we are to sing (Col 3:16, Eph 5:19, and other places). There is no authority to add instrumental music. Man has added this with the authority being "God didn't say not to". God didn't say not to on a lot of things. God didn't tell Noah not to use oak with the gopher wood. God did not say not to put jelly on the unleaven bread.

You cannot have faith in what God has not said.

I think it is wrong to use instrumental music in worship. Therefore, right or wrong, it is certainly wrong for me.

Does anyone think it is wrong to only sing? Does anyone think it is a sin not to use instrumental music?

You see, here is where divisiveness comes in. I have no where to retreat. I cannot worship with instrumental music and others will not worship without it, even though they can, but because they like it and God didn't say not to, they refuse to give it up. Therefore, we have division rather than unity.

We know that they come together on the first day of the week to partake of the Lord's supper. In I Cor 11, we know they were coming together to partake of the Lord's supper. Chapter 16 tells us that they came together on the first day of the week.

Would anyone think it is wrong to partake of the Lord's supper on every first day of the week? I think it is wrong to follow some schedule set arbitrarily by man. The example is the first day of the week. When God said to the Isrealites, Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, he didn't say "every" Sabbath, did He? They knew exactly what it meant. Again, I have no where to retreat, yet right or wrong, many groups do not partake of the Lord's supper on every first day of the week.

You see, if we limit our worship to what God said, we can be united. If we open our worship to everything that God did not say, then we will always have division.

Faith comes from God's word. Therefore, one cannot use instrumental music in New Testament worship, by faith.

No, division is wrong. Denominationalism is wrong. The only remedy is to worship in truth. One thing is for certain, that all denominations cannot be worshipping in truth. If everything we do or say is to be by the authority of Jesus, then by what authority were instruments added and who gave them that authority?

 

mman, your "music issues" have been pretty much annihilated on a similar thread.

If instruments are evil, why didn't God directly address it? And according to your arguments, they have to be evil: If "we can't use instrumental music in NT worship, by faith," and according to the scriptures, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin," then instruments must be sinful.

Some of the CoC positions I understand the reasoning behind (might not agree with them, but understand the reasoning). The more I look at this issue, the goofier the position looks to me.

You guys have to do some pretty drastic exegetical tap-dancing and logical gymnastics to make this work.

 

And God didn't say to use or not use hymn books either, yet you accept that as what you call an "expedient". As I have been telling bmerr, siging+instruments is not the same thing as thephysical examples )such as Noah's wood) you keep using, because the instruments do not take away with singing, like mising physical elements does.

The division is because you make an issue where there is none. It's like "it's too quiet around here, what can I stir up things with? Ah, instruments aren't mentioned in the NT, so let me say they are unauthorized, and only my church is 'following the NT'".

Actually, it does not say this was a specific "Sunday Meeting". They met and broke bread every day, and 1 Cor.16 is about storing goods to give; not about meeting for "worship" on "Sunday". Division comes when we snatch up isolated passages like this and read meanings into them. The sabbathkeepers can find several similar references to meetings on the sabbath, as well, and that day has more authorization than Sunday, which is never proclaimed as a new day of worship; (you want to speak of "authorization" vs "silence"!)

That still won't work, because then people will rise up and find fault with things you think are "expedient" ("how to carry out the commands"). That is a hole in your ideology that basically leads to contradiction, so this "only what God says" rhetoric is not even consistently practiced by you, and with the one-upping spirit of schismatics, someone will always come and claim something else is unauthorized. Every way you look at it, we do not have absolute detail about every single aspect of running a church, so some things have to be added, unless it can be shown that it contradicts a command, and you have not shown that with instruments.

As has been pointed out, it was allowed in the Old Testament, and unless you can show that this was somehow a shadow of Christ, there is no reason to assume it "passed" with the sacrifices and the rest of the ceremonies. People though the centuries have attempted to make such a link, but it is all non-sequitur. And I find it ironic how you rely almost exclusively on the OT in proving your examples for both "mixing of unauthorized items", as well as baptism.

 

I believe that I have used Hebrews 10:24-5 to show that the real main purpose of church assembly in Scripture is to exhort to love and to good works. Hence, our unity should be in purpose -- doing the good things Jesus wants us to do. Recall that most of these works that Jesus talked about were deeds to be done in and out of assembled worship settings.

Great, go open a whole new congregation which does not use musical instruments -- not a whole new divided confederation of churches contentious against the rest of those trying to serve the Lord.

We are all to cater to your individual preference? To the marginalization of countless instrumental musicians who wish to follow Psalm 150? Psalm 150 was not nullified by the New Testament, nor was it Judaic Law because it was directed to "everything that hath breath" (ASV).

I do not. I prefer a capella.

Every week? Does it say that? Acts 20:7 says that the Ephesians had gathered on the first day of the week to have the Lord's Supper. It seems assumed.

Not at all.

Agreed.

So great -- take it in your home with your family or by yourself. Open a new congregation where you meet every Sunday and break bread. However, where are you required to create a whole new confederation of churches that is contentious against every other group of people serving the Lord?

Possibly -- if we can all agree on the meaning of what God said alone.

By what authority were they removed? The Old Testament advocates them and the New Testament does not mention them. My `almost certain inference' is that the New Testament just assumed worshippers of God would continue as they have been in that matter.

I HATE musical instruments in worship at least when singing traditional hymns. I much prefer a capella. However, I cannot contribute to divisiveness for that preference.

As I have shown in previous posts, among all organizations professing allegiance to Christ, none is more guilty of divisiveness than the predominant hard-line Churches of Christ. They violate the original language of Romans 16:17 repeatedly. Remember, that passage warns against "causing" (ASV) "standing apart" (Vine, Expository Dictionary). The predominant hard-line Churches of Christ typically demand their members engage in a near-total disassociation from `denominational church attenders.'

Those same Churches of Christ are also guilty of self-righteousness by refusing to acknowledge their sin at all while condemning everyone else whose sin in this regard is far less -- Matthew 7:3-5. At least those in "the denominations" want to be united around opinion, typically do not shun each other entirely, or forbid visits to each other's churches if fitting.

What I have seen in these posts is an infantile obsession that reminds me of how children play on a playground: `If you don't play the way I want, I won't play with you.' Children are sweet and wonderful, but such selfish behavior by adults who are supposed to have grown up is repulsive -- the sentiment expressed here is `If you don't do things the way I want, I will neither worship with you, serve the Lord with you, or allow you to associate with anyone else who does not do things the way I want.'

 

Darron,

bmerr here. Tell me, what do you see in 2 John 9-11?

9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not inot your house, neither bid him God speed:

11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

How apostolically childish, huh?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

yes...I definitely see how 2 John 9-11 spells out specifically the prohibition of fellowshipping with someone who uses instruments in worship.

 

Well, the `childish' referred to your previous post that basically indicated that you had to have somewhere to go to do whatever you wanted AND that you had to disassociate with whomever would not want to do what you wanted.

Since you have changed topics, I guess I will go to 2 John with you. Let us read 2 John verse 7 "For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist" (ASV). The people John is describing here are people who denied that Jesus Christ is Who He said He is -- come from above in incarnation of flesh. They are liars because they have the Lord Jesus Christ's personal apostles on the earth, know the truth, and still they refuse to teach in accordance with that. These are lying non-Christians who deny that Jesus Christ is Who He was.

Being a first century document, this referred to Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a heresy that taught that the physical universe was entirely evil, that the Christ did not have a body of flesh, and that salvation is obtained by recognizing an inner spark of additional knowledge about this.

2 John verse 9a, when read according to the oldest manuscripts, says "whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching |of the| Christ hath not God" (ASV |in McReynolds, Word Study Greek-English Interlinear..., pg 874 | ASV). Older manuscripts are different from what the KJV translated at the underlined portion.

2 John verse 9b "he that abideth in this teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son" (ASV).

Verses 10 and 11 indicate that we are not to admit anyone into our meeting who would teach denial of the incarnation in flesh of Jesus Christ.

This is a specific case -- the commands on divisiveness are general. I believe we must have specific authorization to suspend in any way a general command, and to limit the suspension to only what is specifically authorized. Again, this passage does not refer to people who are obedient to the Lord Jesus Christ's commands and teachings -- it refers to His detractors, from whom we are to separate.

The hard-line Churches of Christ go beyond Scripture in this passage and they behave most contrary to Romans 16:17, which is against those who "cause" (ASV) "standing apart" (Vine, Expository Dictionary) as I have repeated over and over again and have explained in previous posts.

 

If Church of Christ is not a denomenation but rather just calling it what it is, why isn't it, "Church of the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit," or "Church of Jesus?"

 

HP: I can think of no other church with more division than what was present at the Church of Corinth. There was obvious confusion and practices going on that was not in the best interest of the congregation, causing disunity among them. Paul admonished them in many ways, including telling them to let all things be done decently and in order. We obviously must see Paul’s writings to them in a different light.

HP: If by “his authority” you infer that there must be a written command to do something, I would disagree. God allows for great latitude in our actions and approaches and allows men the opportunity to utilize their wisdom to direct much of the activity of the Church. Worship is not some authorized and rigid structure or form, but is the free expression of man’s conscience and spirit directed in admiration and praise to God. Everyman worships according to the dictates of his or her conscience. I fully believe that in corporate worship we must, as Paul advised the Corinthians, pay attention to the needs of others around us, and let all things be done decently and in order.

HP: God leaves latitude for man to freely enter into worship via the dictates of ones conscience. God does not desire worship to be hampered by a codified set of rules dictated by some church board. He desires everyman to worship Him from a heart of gratitude and love for Him and for the opportunity of salvation and protection He affords His children. Sure we have moral restraints, and restraints upon us in the assembly due to the need to do things decently and in order and to allow for the free expression of others around us as well as ourselves.

HP: Here we find ourselves at a crossroad. Should we, out of concern for the brother that does not believe in instrumental music within the church, refrain from utilizing instruments in our worship?

Your logic seems to be that if God did not specifically authorize instrumental music, it should not be utilized within the assembly. You appear to go as far as to say ‘for you’ it would be a sin. Utilizing your logic, that if it is not specifically authorized, it is wrong and as such it is a sin to do it, and therefore in Christian love others should refrain from the practice in order to have unity within the assembly. You seem to indicate that if one finds no specific mandate by God for a particular form or practice within worship, one cannot ‘in faith’ pursue that form or practice. Before I go any further, have I misrepresented your position and logic in any way? Have I addressed your beliefs fairly, or am I missing something you desire to add or point out?

 

We are united in Christ by our faith, no matter what our denomination may be as long as it stands on the essentials of the faith.

We are not to divide over non-essentials, and this is what this passage is about. We do divide over essential doctrine, so believers cannot have Christian fellowship with those who deny essential beliefs of the historic Christian faith.

 

Now, if you all move over to the Church of England (Anglican) we can all be unified. Simple, isn't it?

I think Marcia is bang on.........The diversity of denominations actually aids unity. We each take what we believe to be biblical truth and worship together as one.

Cheers,

Jim

 

HP: And what might those essential beliefs of historic Christian faith consist of? You say that we are not to divide over non-essentials. How would you address Mman’s point about refraining from something in worship that another feels is sin for them to do, such as participate in worship by the utilization of instruments within the sanctuary. I am not asking you if Mman is debating about a non-essential, for to him it is sin. I would see avoiding sin as an essential and if I am commanded not to eat meat if it offends my brother, what should our response to this issue be?

I am not suggesting that I have a pat answer ready. I do see this as a real pertinent issue to be addressed in a loving, Scriptural, and reasonable manner. Something tells me that in the end we might still find division between some on this issue regardless of the manner in which one might approach it. Just the same, surely there is something for us to learn by attempting to find and offer a resolution to the problem.

 

Having a denomination isnt a sin.

We are to have unity but not at the expense of truth.

Lk:12:51: Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division

Any time you defend truth there will be division.

Jude:1:3: it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Also, if God identifies the true last day Church in this way:

Rv:12:17: And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


and those who have the mark of the beast are those who obviously do NOT keep the commandments of God:

Revelation 14:
6: And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7: Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
8: And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
9: And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10: The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
12: Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

then how can you not have divisions?

 

This is not an issue for me because if he's Church of Christ, they have already made the decision not to fellowship with anyone else. I am not refraining from fellowship with them; it's the other way around. If people choose to divide over non-essentials, such as this, there is nothing that can be done. Christians wil divide over things that may not be essential. It is not something I or others can do anything about.

I do not see it as pertinent since I don't have time to persuade the Church of Christ to accept musical instruments. In fact, I think this kind of thing detracts from time and energy for the important stuff like spreading the gospel, bible study, growing in Christ, etc. We can't fix Christians who choose to divide over things like musical instruments. If they feel it's sin, then you just let them go their way. It's even a waste of time, imo, to discuss musical instruments with them.

 

That, for the most part is correct.

We have latitude where God gives us latitude. Let me explain.

We are to assemble. The church in Corinth "came together". Hebrews says to not forsake the assembling of yourselves together. Using the approved examples and instructions, we should come together. The Corinthians came together on the first day of the week to partake of the Lord's supper and give of their means.

We read in Acts that they met daily. We only have examples of the Lord's Supper being eaten on the first day of the week.

Where are we to assemble? It is not specified. Therefore, to meet the requirement to "assemble", we can use a building, a riverbank, a park, or where ever it is decided, as long as we assemble.

At what time should we assemble? The time is not specified. Therefore, any time would be acceptable.

What did they do in N.T. worship on the first day of the week?

They sang
They gave of their means
They prayed
They partook of the Lord's supper
They listened to preaching

Are there any specifics given with any of the instructions?

Yes, singing is to be done with understanding, in the right spirit, teaching, and admonishing. We are to sing psalms hymns and spiritual songs, from the heart.

Giving is done cheerfully, as God has prospered us. The church is to be funded by free will offerings from the members, not bake sales, raffles, or bingo.

Prayer is to God though Jesus. I have no authority or example to pray to Paul, Mary, or my dead uncle. To do so in worship because it is not strictly forbidden, would be divisive and unscriptural.

The Lord's supper is unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. We are to partake of it in a worthy manner, discerning the Lord's body, showing His death until He comes again.

Preaching Christ and Him crucified, the good news, or gospel, while reproving, rebuking and exhorting.

God did not say "not to use jelly on the unleavened bread", therefore that must be acceptable, in some people's view. Now, if I showed up to worship with a church that spread jelly on the unleavened bread because most folks like the taste better and gave me a piece with jelly already on it, I could not do that in good conscience. By what authority did they do that? Are that doing that to please themselves or God? What if that caused division in their group and caused some to leave and find a place that did not put jelly on the unleavened bread, would that be alright also? You know what, that jelly is messy, so let's start putting it inside a biscuit. Since we're eating a biscuit, lets add water to the fruit of the vine and some more sugar. While this may sound absurd, the attitude that anything not strictly forbidden is permissible would allow for this situation.

Could you worship with that group? You would still be getting the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine, however, some other things have been added because man likes it better, even though it has and will cause division.

This is EXACTLY what has happened with the introduction of instrumental music.

Gotta run. Hope you could follow my logic.