Church membership requires obedience and not debate. Discuss.

Truly1999 said:

Many denominations in the Christian Church

Click to expand...

How do you define "denominations"?

BobRyan said:

And with that - JohnLove1's membership vanished

Click to expand...

Interesting. My membership also vanished during the recent transition, but I reincarnated myself without difficulty. My experience at CF has been quite excellent overall, but, then, I am surprisingly orthodox in my beliefs.

Dialogist said:

How do you define "denominations"?

Click to expand...

A group of churches holding to the same set of doctrines and having at least administratively - 1 head: So then 1 organization/person/body/ - and in the strictest sense their tithes/offerings are distributed throughout that single larger entity.

BobRyan said:

A group of churches holding to the same set of doctrines and having at least administratively - 1 head: So then 1 organization/person/body/ - and in the strictest sense their tithes/offerings are distributed throughout that single larger entity.

Click to expand...

How could two "churches" that hold different sets of doctrines be part of "the Church"? If there are two "denominations" that disagree on doctrine, must not either or both of them be wrong? Is not holding wrong doctrine tantamount to heresy?

It appears that all denominations differ on at least one doctrinal point with each other. For example - what is the EO doctrine on indulgences? Purgatory? The "doctrine of discovery"? And how would that differ from say... the Southern Baptists? Or the "Assemblies of God"?

Case in point.

Dialogist said:

What you say about the early Church having no concept of substitutionary atonement is true. I believe that that particular doctrine can be traced to the medieval Roman Catholic Church in the teachings of Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century - a time by which the Roman Church had split from the Eastern Church. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement - or, more precisely, penal substitutional atonement - is, as far as I know, considered to be heresy by the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as, I believe, by the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

It appears that all denominations differ on at least one doctrinal point with each other. For example - what is the EO doctrine on indulgences? Purgatory? The "doctrine of discovery"? And how would that differ from say... the Southern Baptists? Or the "Assemblies of God"?

Case in point.

Click to expand...

The Eastern Orthodox Church has never held any doctrine on indulgences or purgatory. Those are Roman Catholic doctrines. I don't know what the "doctrine of discovery" is.

Then you also agree that those two denominations "differ" on some doctrinal points. That is all I was saying.

Never heard of the doctrine of discovery either.

Doctrine of Discovery -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/10/catholic-church-doctrine-of-discovery_n_5793840.html

Fiedler first heard of the doctrine when her order marked its 200th anniversary by challenging “the papal sanctioning of Christian enslavement and power over non-Christians.”

The Doctrine of Discovery is a series of papal bulls, or decrees, that gave Christian explorers the right to lay claim to any land that was not inhabited by Christians and was available to be “discovered.” If its inhabitants could be converted, they might be spared. If not, they could be enslaved or killed.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

Then you also agree that those two denominations "differ" on some doctrinal points. That is all I was saying.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. Otherwise they would not be separate. I am not sure I am following what you are getting at.

In following what I said earlier, though, since the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church do not agree on these doctrines, then either (a) the Eastern Orthodox Church is holding heretical beliefs; (b) the Roman Catholic Church is holding heretical beliefs; or (c) both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church is holding heretical beliefs.

You could substitute any two "denominations" that hold different doctrines above for "Eastern Orthodox Church" and/or "Roman Catholic Church" and you will logically have to conclude the same, I think.

The elephant in the room, so to speak, is heresy, but how could a Christian sect hold some doctrine that is untrue and not be considered heretical? And if a particular sect is heretical, then how can it be said to belong to "the Church", unless one really stretches the meaning of "the Church".

BobRyan said:

Doctrine of Discovery -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/10/catholic-church-doctrine-of-discovery_n_5793840.html

Click to expand...

Interestingly, the 4th Ecumenical Council in 451 gave jurisdiction over the areas outside the boundaries of the Roman Empire at the time to the Patriarch of Constantinople and not the Pope of Rome. But the papal bulls cited in the article were issued long after the Eastern and Western Churches had separated.

Dialogist said:

Yes, of course. Otherwise they would not be separate. I am not sure I am following what you are getting at.

In following what I said earlier, though, since the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church do not agree on these doctrines, then either (a) the Eastern Orthodox Church is holding heretical beliefs; (b) the Roman Catholic Church is holding heretical beliefs; or (c) both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church is holding heretical beliefs.

You could substitute any two "denominations" that hold different doctrines above for "Eastern Orthodox Church" and/or "Roman Catholic Church" and you will logically have to conclude the same, I think.

The elephant in the room, so to speak, is heresy, but how could a Christian sect hold some doctrine that is untrue and not be considered heretical? And if a particular sect is heretical, then how can it be said to belong to "the Church", unless one really stretches the meaning of "the Church".

Click to expand...

I was simply pointing out that by definition all denominations differ on at least one doctrine. (as a general rule). Your statement is that any denomination that differs with the right one (assuming one does indeed have all the right doctrines) is heretical. And heresy is a relative term meaning "belief or opinion contrary to orthodoxy". Which means that the Christian Jews like Paul and Peter were "heretics" in their break-away Jewish sect -- from the POV of the orthodox Jews of their day.

If you mean that in "God's eyes they are heretics" then you have to get a report from Him - an angel or direct communication from God in dream or vision (prophet -- Numbers 12:1-6) saying "this is the right set of doctrines and this denomination is the one that has it and all others are heretics".

Not sure that this "what is heresy" angle works without that sort of thing given that "by definition" the Christian church itself was out of line with the orthodoxy of its day at inception.

BobRyan said:

And heresy is a relative term meaning "belief or opinion contrary to orthodoxy"

Click to expand...

I would disagree that heresy means "belief or opinion contrary to orthodoxy". I would say, rather, that heresy means doctrine contrary to truth.

Would you disagree with this definition?

Gordon Wright said:

Well, I'd have jumped on this thread earlier if I'd seen it.

My own experiences have led me to these conclusions:

1. There is no perfect church in regards to practice or doctrine.

Click to expand...

Hello there ,

But always remember God gave apostles prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the sainst Ephesians 4 and Paul wanted to present every man perfect in Christ jesus, and God has perfected forever them that are sanctified. Paul also speaks to those who ARE PERFECT in 1 Corinthians 2. And all scripture is profitable to perfect the saints. God will also work in believers to make them PERFECT unto every good work as they abide and walk in His light.

If some today say there is no perfect church, what they mean is that they should net be corrected and perfected and shown all the glaring errors and doctrinal dangers and how they go against God's order at almost every point in their gatherings. They usually want to do whatever they want with no order. but their own. This thinking extends often to those who live in sin, they will say , there is no perfect Christians and we cannot be perfect so they dont even try. This is not the way we should be. if we see some imperfection we should seek to correct it and walk in truth. All believers should speak the same things and have the same mind and be perfectly joined together in love and unity. This is possible as Paul said for them to do in 1 Cor 1. and other places.

Gordon Wright said:

2. Pastors are subject to the same flaws as anyone else with influence.

Click to expand...

And that may be why John says in 1 John 2:27 that we have no need any man should teach us. if the other believers (not just the pastor gift) are in the anointing, we hear the truth of the anointing and not the mans wisdom and position. The old man must be crucified with Christ and we must live in the new man from Christ the head as he work's effectually in the measure of every part (Ephesians 4:15,16).

Also this idea of a one man pastor gift over the whole body of believers is wrong and found nowhere in all the new testament. If any can show where a single pastor is over a church and getting a regular salary in the new testament, please show me. Elders PLURAL are recognized in every church, not a one man exalted person over all. This putting a "pastor" gift above all others goes against Jesus teaching of not being like the gentile leaders where those that are great among them are over them and rule over in authority over them as Lords. It shall not be so among the believers Jesus said. Yet this is what we see all over today.

Gordon Wright said:

3. They only have as much power over you as you give them.

Click to expand...

No, they have no power from believers, all is from God who works in every part of the body not just the pastor gifting. It is not real power that others give them, but a false authority as exalted men and in some case as Lords over others.

Gordon Wright said:

4. You don't have to be all in or all out in regards to submission. Conditional/provisional submission works much better.

Click to expand...

We should be all out of one man forcing us to submit to him as an exalted lord over the flock or in some false clergy laity division that doesn't exist in the new testament. Every part of the body can edify one another as they all let the Word of Christ dwell in them richly, teaching and admonishing one another. This is a command of God for the body in 1 Cor 14:26-38 and 1 Peter 4:10,11, Romans 12 etc etc.

Dialogist said:

I would disagree that heresy means "belief or opinion contrary to orthodoxy". I would say, rather, that heresy means doctrine contrary to truth.

Would you disagree with this definition?

Click to expand...

I usually use the term "error" as being that which is contrary to truth because it does not have the baggage of "whose orthodoxy do you bless to define the term heresy?". Absolute Truth from God's POV is contrasted to error.

However I don't consider it right to refer to everyone as a heretic that does believe/understand/affirm every detail of Truth known to God. So while they may hold to some form of "error" in that case they are not a heretic. Heretic implies an evil motive or deliberate rejection of truth rather than simply being mistaken on some point of doctrine.

BobRyan said:

I usually use the term "error" as being that which is contrary to truth because it does not have the baggage of "whose orthodoxy do you bless to define the term heresy?". Absolute Truth from God's POV is contrasted to error.

However I don't consider it right to refer to everyone as a heretic that does believe/understand/affirm every detail of Truth known to God. So while they may hold to some form of "error" in that case they are not a heretic. Heretic implies an evil motive or deliberate rejection of truth rather than simply being mistaken on some point of doctrine.

Click to expand...

The Lord commanded us to worship in Spirit and Truth (John 4:24). If we are following a sect that is in "error", regardless of how that may have come about, are we not disobeying this commandment?

The Lord also said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). If we hold false beliefs about God, does that not imply that we might be following our own particular imagined god - however we might have acquired our beliefs - and not the One, True, God?

Finally, if the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15), can it sustain a structure that includes falsehood?

Dialogist said:

The Lord commanded us to worship in Spirit and Truth (John 4:24). If we are following a sect that is in "error", regardless of how that may have come about, are we not disobeying this commandment?

The Lord also said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). If we hold false beliefs about God, does that not imply that we might be following our own particular imagined god - however we might have acquired our beliefs - and not the One, True, God?

Finally, if the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15), can it sustain a structure that includes falsehood?

Click to expand...

Very good questions, indeed. If one believes to be the Church to be a physical organization composed of human beings, then it is impossible for the Church not to include falsehood. No human is infallible or speaks infallibly in the place of God, despite what our RCC brethren would like to believe.

If the Church is a spiritual body of believers in Jesus Christ united by God, the Holy Spirit, outside of time and geography, then the gates of hell will never prevail against it nor can falsehood enter it.

Dialogist said:

The Lord commanded us to worship in Spirit and Truth (John 4:24). If we are following a sect that is in "error", regardless of how that may have come about, are we not disobeying this commandment?

The Lord also said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). If we hold false beliefs about God, does that not imply that we might be following our own particular imagined god - however we might have acquired our beliefs - and not the One, True, God?

Finally, if the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15), can it sustain a structure that includes falsehood?

Click to expand...

Have it your way then - but that means you had better be studying very carefully to be absolutely certain you do not have one spec of incorrect idea in your entire doctrinal position -- in the local church where you attend.

I for one think everyone should strive to make sure they do not have a spec of error - but I am not willing to call everyone a heretic if they happen to differ with me even though I am certain my views are correct according to the Bible.

ChristsSoldier115 said:

As I have traveled the world in the army. I have begun to wonder if America's certain brand of Christianity is the problem. It is different compared to the rest of the world.

Americans cannot reconcile our cultural expectations of self-determination and free will with the Christian worldview of submission to Christ, perhaps? We seem to try to mix the synthesize the two and it falls apart.

Click to expand...

Having also traveled around and been in fellowship with Christians in other countries--particularly in Asia, which doesn't have a history of the Western co-mingling with government and the taste of power it provided to the Church--indeed, that is different and far weaker than Christianity where the Church is in the same social position that it was in the first three centuries AD.

And yes, I see underlying this thread not a desire for 1st century Church, but rather a desire simply for plain old American individualism and free will. This thread is just about Americans wanting to do their own thing.

Spend some time with a congregation where they take roll every meeting to make sure they don't have someone else in prison to pray about, where they are shunned by their society and have to depend closely on one another...and you won't see a congregation where everyone is concerned about the importance of his own views.

Dialogist said:

How do you define "denominations"?

Click to expand...

Denomination means to make a name We see this Beginning in the Tower of Babel when they wanted to make a name for themselves. mystery Babalon the great is connected to this I believe. Allan made denominations that create confusion as well . gods people are in these places he says come out of her my people . So many man made telushious groups with a name are carnal as Paul warned 1 Cor 1 and yet Gods people can be in them . And all false doctrine comes from men who are not listening to the anointing of Hid in them and the scriptures of truth that were given by God.