Christian: Demoninations - Good or Bad? (Jesus Christ, ritual, Earth, Kingdom)

[chris9178]

Do you believe that diversity is better for the church, or unity?

[No*s]

Originally Posted by chris9178

Do you believe that diversity is better for the church, or unity?

I don't know how to say this in any way that will sound good .

Christ founded one Church, and used His apostles to found this. He promised that the Gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against her. He promised the Spirit would guide her. Indeed the Spirit did, and He guided the Church into the Seven Councils, the formation of Scripture, and many other things.

Denominations, though, are breaks (or breaks of breaks of breaks for who knows how long) away from the Church. In doing so, they broke away from the Body of Christ, and act as a trap for subsequent believers who never knew what happened.

Another side-effect is that they relativise spirituality and doctrine. In the end, people keep trying to determine what is Christian, so they define it by lower and lower denominaters. After a while, there is no Christianity left, because to acclaim union, the spiritual principles must be done away with.

I'm afraid, with the above, I have very little good to say about denominationalism .

[angellous_evangellous]

I also understand that Christ founded one church, and the church is defined and identified by the confession that Jesus Christ is Lord. We are unified by one Body, one Spirit, one Baptism, and one Lord by means of the grace of God and his Holy Word. He saves those who believe, and by his grace his Holy Spirit unifies all who confess that Jesus is the Son of God as affirmed by Scripture. Denomenations are good as they give somewhat unified doctrine as teachers and leaders are of one mind, and having one Chrsitian denomenation at this point would be difficult and not pragmatic for many reasons. I am by tradition a Baptist, and I will recognize and unite with all who confess Christ in order to fulfill his purposes on earth, as we will be united in the coming kingdom. I pray with the rest of the saints "Thy Will Be Done," and look forward to the absolute unity that Christ will bring when we are all in his glorious presence.

[Dr. Nosophoros]

I think any religion benefits by diversity as long as the bedrock foundation of that system is the core of the denomination, (the bedrock is the skeleton, the denomination is the flesh). Diversity helps those with diverging viewpoints feel like they can participate in the belief and ultimately reaches a larger audience because of it instead of turning them away because of disagreements with method or interpretation.

On the downside, I think where things go wrong is when "interfaith" squabbles over particulars occur because it only weakens the system overall (no matter what it is) instead of strengthening it, it makes no sense.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I also understand that Christ founded one church, and the church is defined and identified by the confession that Jesus Christ is Lord. We are unified by one Body, one Spirit, one Baptism, and one Lord by means of the grace of God and his Holy Word. He saves those who believe, and by his grace his Holy Spirit unifies all who confess that Jesus is the Son of God as affirmed by Scripture. Denomenations are good as they give somewhat unified doctrine as teachers and leaders are of one mind, and having one Chrsitian denomenation at this point would be difficult and not pragmatic for many reasons. I am by tradition a Baptist, and I will recognize and unite with all who confess Christ in order to fulfill his purposes on earth, as we will be united in the coming kingdom. I pray with the rest of the saints "Thy Will Be Done," and look forward to the absolute unity that Christ will bring when we are all in his glorious presence.

This is all well, and true, but you must set up arbitrary standards in this manner about where the Church is manifest, and ultimately define it away. In the Early Church, the Gnostics, Sabellians, Judaizers, and Arians would all make that confession, as would the Manicheans. They would each mean something different, though.

When we add to that creed, we accept and understand that there must be more implicit in it than simply some generic "lord." It means something, and requires certain implications for it to be valid. What are those?

First we have salvation. Jesus became man, because we were subject to sin, death, and corruption. By death, He conquered death. That is the reason God became man. This, in its turn, necessitates the resurrection. Without it, there would be no salvation.

However, it goes a step further. How is salvation dispensed, the restored union with God? The creed now requires this explanation. This is accomplished, principally, by the Eucharist. In essence, we must ingest God to receive union with God. Christ claimed that "Unless you eat my flesh, and drink my blood, you have no life in you."

This is, in effect, the Incarnation of God in our lives. Well, that means that God is physically Incarnated in His people. This brings us to Paul's analogy of "The Body of Christ." Where, then, do we find the Body of Christ? We already know that it is incarnated by an act. The fact that this is done by an action, suggests that it isn't simply effecacious because we want it to be. There is a pattern of transformation, where those who have the Living Water pass it down to those who do not. Those with empty buckets have nothing to pass on.

This, in its turn, indicates to us that it is important who and where we get the Eucharist, but we need the Eucahrist. Where will we get it? Well, that brings us back to the Body. Christ has a body, and we go to it to take part in the Incarnation. We need this body to have the Eucharist and Eternal Life.

What happens when a part of a body is cut off? It dies, and one can see this in Paul's questions about "Is Christ divided?" A hand cut off from the body loses its life, and so, schisms are particularly heinious.

What does this bring us to? One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The confession, "Jesus is Lord" thus has within it much implicitly, unless we want to make soteriology and the Incarnation optional.

[Scuba Pete]

There were denominations in the Bible... Well, kinda sorta! There was the church at Ephesus, the church at Rome etc. etc.

None of them believed exactly as the other churches, were independent and had their own set of problems. However, they were given only three ways to identify believers: either as believers, disciples or Christians. Collectively, they were referred to as the churches of Christ, the churches of God, or as "The Way".

You can tell how far a church has strayed from God and Jesus by how far it has strayed from being like the New Testament churches. Many who claim to be "the one true church" bear little resemblence to the First Century Assemblies.

[No*s]

And how would you know what they looked like? Do you worship liturgically? Do you have a heirarchy? Those things existed in the first century and weren't innovated later.

Do you use a New Testament? Do you have a formalized Bible? Do you believe in the Trinity in its finalized form? Those things did not exist in the first century, but were clarified under the guidance of the Spirit.

[Scuba Pete]

And how would you know what they looked like?

Just read the directions: the Bible.