Christian: Denominations?

[Katzpur]

I don't agree. Just by using the word denomination you are, in effect, saying that the Church is divided because you are saying that these bodies, denominated as X, Y or Z are all parts of the Church.

What I can't understand is why you would choose to call yourselves by a term that tacitly agrees that you are not the One True Church as you claim.

I actually do understand what you're getting at here. I actually even agree with your conclusion, provided I am allowed to substitute the name by which Jesus Christ's Church is known on the earth today.

You can say the Church is not divided, but what you're really saying is that you belong to "the Church" that Jesus Christ established and that everybody else belongs to some sort of Christian "denomination." Am I right?

 

[James the Persian]

Using the word denomination or The Church is going to say whatever the reader gets out of it. I can say that the Catholic Church (in union with Rome) is "The Church" until I turn blue in the face. To outsiders, it is meaningless and we are no more then another denomination. Although I disagree that we are just another denomination, I won't spend a breath in fighting over the word. In fact St. Paul clearly tells us to be wary of such things:

2 Timothy 2:14
Remind people of these things and charge them before God to stop disputing about words. This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen.

I think there is bigger fish to fry. If you can help others on theological/doctrinal matters that seperate you, I think that is much more productive. God willing, he may just realize that it is The Church without you even saying it is.

I agree with you in that I won't waste time arguing with someone over the term if they choose to view Orthodoxy as a denomination. My only point was to ask why someone who believed that they were a member of the one true Church would use the term themselves to describe their church. Maybe some people don't see the inherent contradiction in that but I do and so I will never describe Orthodoxy as a denomination. I wouldn't expect you or Kat to describe your churches as such either. This is nothing to do with agreeing on whose claim is correct. I just prefer people's arguments to be logically consistent and saying something like 'My denomination is the One True Church' is simply incoherent.

As a saint once said (his name I can't remember at the moment):
Preach the gospel, and use words if you have to.

He's not a saint to me, but it was Francis of Assisi

James

 

[James the Persian]

I actually do understand what you're getting at here. I actually even agree with your conclusion, provided I am allowed to substitute the name by which Jesus Christ's Church is known on the earth today.

You can say the Church is not divided, but what you're really saying is that you belong to "the Church" that Jesus Christ established and that everybody else belongs to some sort of Christian "denomination." Am I right?

Of course you're right (Apart from what I'd call those outside the Church - simply using the term denomination implies a belief that the Church can be divided, which I reject, so I don't use that ever. I tend to contrast Church with churches or congregations). I think I pretty much stated that baldly before. You would say the same of your church, Victor would probably say the same of his (though I'm less certain of that since the 'two lungs' tripe that was put about by JPII and the EP). I doubt, though, that any of us would say that you cannot be a Christian outside the Church or that all non-Orthodox/Mormon/RC people are damned. Only for those people who believe in an invisible Church of all believers is Church membership and salvation so intertwined. For those of us who believe the Church to be a visible institution things are a little more complicated.

James

 

[sojourner]

It seems to me that most of the argument here centers around "my organization and particular tradition is 'right' and 'true.'" While I agree with James (I put it differently -- I say that the Church is "essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every time and place that profess their faith in Christ.") that the Church is one, I also believe that the Church exists as one in the same way that humanity exists -- as one family made of many members. The Body of Christ is comprised of many different smaller entities who all confess faith in Jesus as Lord. Unity depends upon who we proclaim, not upon what we particularly believe about who we proclaim, nor does it depend upon organization of human construct. (And please don't tell me that "Jesus' organization of his church" isn't a human construct. Jesus was fully human.)

To say that "denominationalism is bad," or to say that "my expression of Church is the correct one" is to cheapen the Body of Christ -- it's like slapping cheap paint on a beautiful piece of furniture, hoping that the paint job will make it match up to your idea of good decorating.

Just because some (most) Christians don't subscribe to one's own idea of worship, polity, expression, particular theology, I don't think one can equitably say that we are not "part of the Church." Christianity is not a "members only" country club, in which qualifications are set forth for who may or may not be member. Christianity is wildly inclusive, and does not care about the frail attempts of humanity to act as gatekeepers.

 

[Quiddity]

(though I'm less certain of that since the 'two lungs' tripe that was put about by JPII and the EP).

He was however referring to the Eastern Rite churches in full communion with Rome. This has always been my understanding of it.

 

[athanasius]

Indeed JPII was refferring to the 22 eastern rite Catholics that are in full union with Rome. That is why the Church just isn't Roman Catholic, its Just Catholic as our Catecism says. We have to breath from both sides of the church, the eastern Catholics(Byzantines..Maronites etc) and ther western Roman rite.

I have been to a byzantine rite Catholic church. Beautiful liturgy! the Liturgy of John Chrysostom I believe...and they prayed for and professed thier allegience to the Holy Father in Rome and thier local eastern bishop.

 

[athanasius]

Indeed JPII was refferring to the 22 eastern rite Catholics that are in full union with Rome. That is why the Church just isn't Roman Catholic, its Just Catholic as our Catecism says. We have to breath from both sides of the church, the eastern Catholics(Byzantines..Maronites etc) and ther western Roman rite.

I have been to a byzantine rite Catholic church. Beautiful liturgy! the Liturgy of John Chrysostom I believe...and they prayed for and professed thier allegience to the Holy Father in Rome and thier local eastern bishop.

 

[athanasius]

Indeed JPII was refferring to the 22 eastern rite Catholics that are in full union with Rome. That is why the Church just isn't Roman Catholic, its Just Catholic as our Catecism says. We have to breath from both sides of the church, the eastern Catholics(Byzantines..Maronites etc) and ther western Roman rite.

I have been to a byzantine rite Catholic church. Beautiful liturgy! the Liturgy of John Chrysostom I believe...and they prayed for and professed thier allegience to the Holy Father in Rome and thier local eastern bishop.

 

[athanasius]

sorry the computer jammed. I didn't mean to print it 3 times. Mea Culpa

 

[Katzpur]

I doubt, though, that any of us would say that you cannot be a Christian outside the Church or that all non-Orthodox/Mormon/RC people are damned. Only for those people who believe in an invisible Church of all believers is Church membership and salvation so intertwined. For those of us who believe the Church to be a visible institution things are a little more complicated.

Amen to these sentiments. I'm with you totally.

 

[shema]

Focusing on Denomonations tears Christians apart in ways, a house divided by itself cannot stand, I guess as long as you follow all of the doctrine dirived out of the bible in an understood way.

 

[roli]

Does anyone here think that denominationalism is wrong? I'm beginning to after this sermon:

http://www.franklinchurchofchrist.com/sermons/date/2006/htm/20060507AM.htm

Well ,the question should be is there denominations in the kingdom of God,the answer I would say is a resounding ,"no"
Psa 133:1 [[A Song of degrees of David.]] Behold, how good and how pleasant [it is] for brethren to dwell together in unity!

Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

1Cr 1:10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
4Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in *you all.

Denominations are anything but unified, they are nothing more than the results of men taking upon themselves their own interpretations of scripture and doctrine.

 

[Bishka]

Denominations are anything but unified, they are nothing more than the results of men taking upon themselves their own interpretations of scripture and doctrine.

As everyone, including yourself does. We weren't meant to be perfect, but to become that way.

 

[James the Persian]

He was however referring to the Eastern Rite churches in full communion with Rome. This has always been my understanding of it.

I've heard that interpretation, too, but I've also heard the other from some RCs (and others on your side, just so Athanasius doesn't have a go - Uniates, Maronites and the like). That's why I said that I assumed you would agree (more or less with what I was saying) but wasn't sure. I have to say, however, that some of the joint satements by JPII and Patriarch Bartholomew certainly seemed to suggest that the 'two lungs' were Roman and Orthodox Catholics rather than the alternative. Maybe he was being deliberately vague?

James

 

[James the Persian]

Indeed JPII was refferring to the 22 eastern rite Catholics that are in full union with Rome. That is why the Church just isn't Roman Catholic, its Just Catholic as our Catecism says. We have to breath from both sides of the church, the eastern Catholics(Byzantines..Maronites etc) and ther western Roman rite.

With all due respect, but I will never simply refer to your church as Catholic, as Victor is aware. I refer to you as the RCC because from our point of view your faith is not Catholic at all. I can't even make a distinction between RCs and the eastern rite groups given their submission to Rome. The Pope of Rome was never their Patriarch to begin with and so they have, in effect, left the sees to which they belonged and joined the See of Rome. The only real difference between they and you is that they dress like Orthodox Catholics and use an Orthodox Liturgy.

I have been to a byzantine rite Catholic church. Beautiful liturgy! the Liturgy of John Chrysostom I believe...and they prayed for and professed thier allegience to the Holy Father in Rome and thier local eastern bishop.

You're quite right about the Liturgy they use and it is beautiful - that's the one we use at almost every Liturgy also, but please refer to it by its proper name, it's the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. He's a saint in your church as well as ours.

James

 

[Louisa]

I'm Roman Catholic.

 

[RevOxley_501]

If I asked you what your denomination is, what would you say? (For those of you who haven't caught on, I'm asking. )

im not some huge fan of denominations---in fact i have a tendency to demonize them--im extra harsh with baptists

my denomination is more of a time line-- pentecostal when young-baptist in teens-Bapticostal later teens-Word of Faith (non denom)--after i left that group i dropped denominationalism all together --i believe it pleases God to just be a part of the Body of Christ and not require that i be defined by other things---even though im still guilty of having other sub-genre titles (pretrib-postmil-armenian, calvinist etc). Best policy for me is to wait for the Body of Christ to be shaken, for the chaff to fall away--and join back up with the body afterward.

 

[*Paul*]

I am an independant baptist but I am not totally in line with everything i've heard taught, nevertheless they are definatly the most biblical church i've been too.
I am glad there are so many denominations, at least then there is something for each type of person ,I think God is acknowledging the Christians individuality and is not demanding uniformity of us. God honoured most of the births of denomations with a revival, there have been methodist revivals, baptist revivals, lutheran revivals and so on. What's important to me is that we don't yoke ourselves to the great harlot, so I am very anti ecumenical any church that I have considered going to I always make a point of looking at their ecumenical purposes and avoid them like poison if they are ecumenical.

 

[James the Persian]

I am an independant baptist but I am not totally in line with everything i've heard taught, nevertheless they are definatly the most biblical church i've been too.
I am glad there are so many denominations, at least then there is something for each type of person ,I think God is acknowledging the Christians individuality and is not demanding uniformity of us. God honoured most of the births of denomations with a revival, there have been methodist revivals, baptist revivals, lutheran revivals and so on. What's important to me is that we don't yoke ourselves to the great harlot, so I am very anti ecumenical any church that I have considered going to I always make a point of looking at their ecumenical purposes and avoid them like poison if they are ecumenical.

What do you mean by the term ecumenical? I'm intrigued because what I understand by ecumenism (and it's been described as the Pan-heresy in the Orthodox Church, so you can see we aren't in favour) would be rather in line with your idea of different denominations for different people - i.e. it is the idea that different denominations all contain some of the truth and that together they make up the Church, contradictory doctrines and all. I just don't understand how the first part of your post, which sounds ecumenist to me, fits with denunciation of ecumenically minded churches at the end.

James

 

[*Paul*]

Not the response i expected. Me ecumenical? :areyoucra lol.

By ecumenical I mean a ones that seek to scrap there differences or say they don't matter for the sake of "unity". There is a strong move within protestant denomiantions to become joined again to the catholic church and all other denominations. I am against this. The real church is made up of individuals in each denomation that have been born again through faith, being baptised into one body. There are wheats and tares in each denomination. By the way when I say denomation I am being more specific than some might take me to be. When Christ snatches us home, there will be members left from each denomination who never really knew him, so I don't look at any visible organsiation as being the guardians of truth.

I had no idea that the orthodox church was not ecumenical, in my mind they are all but roman catholic now (no offense meant) as i thought it was decided that the split was just political. Thats what i've heard theologians say anyway.

Any way so I am one with any beliver who is saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone as revealed in the bible alone. Other diffrences we may have cannot change the fact that we are both members of the same body because we have been baptised by the same Spirit into one body.

I suppose this could get long, if you post and i don't respond pm me, because i'm having trouble finding my old posts. This site is BIG.