Christian: Demoninations - Good or Bad?

[chris9178]

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

 

[No*s]

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]

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.

 

[No*s]

Just read the directions: the Bible.

Hehe I think that teaches hierarchy, liturgical worship, "canned prayers," the use of incense, the use of icons (Old Testament here), One Church, and several other things we'd disagree on.

 

[Scott1]

Just read the directions: the Bible.

Just FYI Net Doc:
As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:


On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.' When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.
St. Justin, Apol. 1, 65-67G 6,428-429; the text before the asterisk (*) is from chap. 67.

 

[No*s]

Scott, I'd frubal you for that one...it's a better answer than mine, but I can't now...

 

[Scuba Pete]

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.' When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.
St. Justin, Apol. 1, 65-67G 6,428-429; the text before the asterisk (*) is from chap. 67.

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread.

I Timothy 4:13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.

I Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Well Scott,

This is from the scriptures, and works fine for us. I think that predates what you have written by at least a few weeks. Whaddaya think???

 

[No*s]

[/color]

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread.

I Timothy 4:13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.

I Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Well Scott,

This is from the scriptures, and works fine for us. I think that predates what you have written by at least a few weeks. Whaddaya think???

And they blatantly teach what St. Justin was saying: the Eucharist. When the Christians worshipped, they gathered together and broke bread, and thus, ate the Body of Christ. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, He plainly said it was His Body and Blood.

It is in perfect harmony with what Scott put up.

 

[Scott1]

Whaddaya think???

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."

I think we may be on to something here...... the Apostles tought it to their disciples, it's in the Bible..... I guess it's pretty conclusive.

So, I guess the question is..... why do you doubt the witness of both history and scripture?

Scott

 

[Scuba Pete]

It is in perfect harmony with what Scott put up.

THAT was my point. You don't need anything BUT the scriptures to know how to conduct worship.

 

[chris9178]

Personally I'd like to see one church united - whether it's under Catholocism or not doesn't matter. The only thing is, I think there should be different sorts of services for people. People should be able to worship God the best way that they are able to. You can't expect the Charismatics to worshi[ the same way as Catholics. And you shouldn't just label them off as kooks, because David danced around a city naked in a sign of worship to the Lord. I think that its just as pleasing to God as a sincere, pious persons worship is. As far as doctrine goes, I'm with most of you - it should come straight from the Bible. Christ resurrected, and the Son of God - Dogma. Once saved always saved - Opinion.... don't ostracize people for believing it, but don't make it doctrin either. In the end, we will be judged by our fruits, not our opinions.
Well, I didn't go into much detail at all, andthis post could drag out into a novel, but for the sake of brevity I'll leave it there.

 

[chris9178]

By the way..... just to clear any vagueness that may arise from that post.... I believe denominations are very bad for Christianity.

 

[No*s]

Personally I'd like to see one church united - whether it's under Catholocism or not doesn't matter. The only thing is, I think there should be different sorts of services for people. People should be able to worship God the best way that they are able to. You can't expect the Charismatics to worshi[ the same way as Catholics. And you shouldn't just label them off as kooks, because David danced around a city naked in a sign of worship to the Lord. I think that its just as pleasing to God as a sincere, pious persons worship is. As far as doctrine goes, I'm with most of you - it should come straight from the Bible. Christ resurrected, and the Son of God - Dogma. Once saved always saved - Opinion.... don't ostracize people for believing it, but don't make it doctrin either. In the end, we will be judged by our fruits, not our opinions.
Well, I didn't go into much detail at all, andthis post could drag out into a novel, but for the sake of brevity I'll leave it there.

Here's something to consider .

Maybe there still is one Church. Those that broke away from her broke away from the Church, and thus, the churches are not part of the Church.

When you cut off your hand, it dies, because it is no longer part of the body. Why not look at the sects that way?

 

[No*s]

THAT was my point. You don't need anything BUT the scriptures to know how to conduct worship.

You need tradition to uphold the authority of Scripture, translators to bring it across, and so on...and of course the tradition of Sola Scriptura .

Seriously, though, you seem to acknowledge the laying on of hands as essential to ordination. Who, then, ordained your ministers? Eventually they broke away from something, where did these minister's authority come from, or rather, where did they get their ordination?

If the authority of a minister ceases while being corrupt, then they had no valid ordination, and thus, cannot have the ordination prescribed by the New Testament.

However, if it is valid, then we have valid ministers in all denominations, even the extremes like the LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, various minor cults, and so on. Further, ministers regularly convert to another religion, and this indellible grace goes with them, and as such, it lends validity where they go.

In the first case, the authority is invalidated, because it ceased long ago. In the latter case, it validates the various religions of the world, because God continues his ordination down through it...corruption and heresy aren't a problem.

How, then, do you address the problems your approach creates?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Seriously, though, you seem to acknowledge the laying on of hands as essential to ordination.

I did??? Maybe we can discuss this in the thread about apostolic succession???