Denominations are bad mmmmkay?

[ViaCrucis]

Just ask these people who knew better that one should eschew all those bad churches that were teaching "traditions of men" and needed to just go by the Bible alone and that the Holy Spirit guide them completely:

Church of God (Anderson):

"The history of the Church of God (Anderson) begins in 1881 with Daniel Sidney Warner and several others.[2] Warner had been a member of John Winebrenner's General Eldership of the Church of God, whose members were called Winebrennerians. He differed with the Winebrennerians on the doctrine of sanctification,[3] which he held to be a second definite work of grace, and on the nature of the church. The desire of Warner and the others was to forsake denominationalism and creeds. To this end, they determined to trust in the Holy Spirit as their guide and the Bible as their creed. Warner's vision was that the Church of God would "extend our hand in fellowship to every blood-washed one", rather than align themselves with a movement."

Church of God (Restoration):

"The group believes that they are ordained by both prophecy and Divine command to restore the church of God as it was in the Book of Acts, and believes that it alone is the only true church.[3] Most of Daniel Layne's beliefs in Revelation originated from some ministers who had left the Church of God (Anderson) reformation movement thirty or so years earlier. This teaching is upheld by the official eschatology, which is a form of church historicism. This Church of God (Restoration)[4] teaches that the 7th Trumpet in the book of the Revelation began to sound around the year 1980 when Daniel Layne was saved, alleging that there was a general discontent among many of its current adherents that were in various Churches of God at that time."

Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement:

"The Restoration Movement has been characterized by several key principles:

• Christianity should not be divided, Christ intended the creation of one church.[7]:38[13]
• Creeds divide, but Christians should be able to find agreement by standing on the Bible itself (from which they believe all creeds are but human expansions or constrictions)[14]
• Ecclesiastical traditions divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by following the practice (as best as it can be determined) of the early church.[15]:104–6
• Names of human origin divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by using biblical names for the church (i.e., "Christian Church", "Church of God" or "Church of Christ" as opposed to "Methodist" or "Lutheran", etc.).[8]:27"

Stone-Campbel denominations:

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ):

"The name, Disciples of Christ, is shared by two groups, The Churches of Christ and the independent Christian churches and churches of Christ. They emerged from the same roots.[4] The Stone-Campbell movement began as two separate threads, each without knowledge of the other, during the Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century. The first of these two groups, led by Barton W. Stone began at Cane Ridge, Bourbon County, Kentucky. The group called themselves simply Christians. The second, began in western Pennsylvania and Virginia (now West Virginia), led by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell. Because the founders wanted to abandon all denominational labels, they used the biblical names for the followers of Jesus that they found in the Bible.[5]"

Churches of Christ:

"Churches of Christ are autonomous Christian congregations associated with one another through common beliefs and practices. They seek to base doctrine and practice on the Bible alone. They teach that they are the church written in scripture. They teach that any individual, from the time that the Church began until now, can become part of that church by hearing the truth, believing the truth, repenting from their ways to God's ways, confessing that Jesus in the Bible is Christ, and being baptized for the remission of their sins.

Historically, Churches of Christ in the United States have roots in the American Restoration Movement, and were recognized as a distinct religious group by the U.S. Religious Census of 1906. Prior to that all congregations associated with the Restoration Movement had been reported together by the Census Bureau. The Restoration Movement began on the American frontier during the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century under the leadership of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, and Barton W. Stone. Those leaders had declared their independence from their Presbyterian roots, seeking a fresh start to restore the New Testament church, and abandoning creeds. They did not see themselves as establishing a new church. Rather, the movement sought the restoration of the church and "the unification of all Christians in a single body patterned after the church of the New Testament."[2]:54 The names "Church of Christ," "Christian Church" and "Disciples of Christ" were adopted by the movement because they believed these terms to be biblical.

A division occurred between those who used musical instruments in worship (now usually known as the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ) and those who chose to sing a cappella because the use of instruments is not mentioned in the New Testament. The congregations in the a cappella tradition are the subject of this article. While the most visible distinction between the two groups was the rejection of musical instruments in the Churches of Christ, other issues also contributed to the separation. One was a disagreement over the appropriateness of organizational structures above the congregational level such as missionary societies.[3] Another was a difference in the underlying approach to Biblical interpretation. For the Churches of Christ, practices not present in accounts of New Testament worship were not permissible in the church, and they could find no New Testament documentation of the use of instrumental music in worship. For the Christian Churches, any practices not expressly forbidden could be considered.[4]:242–247 Though officially recognized as distinct movements from 1906, the actual separation of the Churches of Christ from the Christian Churches had already been taking place gradually for decades."

International Christian Church:

"The International Christian Church was formed in 2006 by Kip McKean[4] after his split with the International Churches of Christ. He sent out a mission team to begin a new congregation in Phoenix, Arizona, in 2006 and then led a team to Los Angeles in 2007 to start the City of Angels International Christian Church. Each member is expected to give 10% of their income to the church. Additionally there are two "Special Mission Contributions" during the year which each member is expected to financially support."

Here are a few more:

The Worldwide Church of God
Philadelphia Church of God
Restored Church of God
Assemblies of Yahweh
House of Yahweh
Two-by-Twos
Local Churches
Churches of Jesus Christ International

I'm of course barely scratching the surface.

Before anyone thinks my purpose here is to badmouth Christians who belong to any of these, no that's not what I'm doing.

General Theology, lately, has been bombarded by a host of "EVERYONE IS WRONG, HERE LET ME SHOW YOU HOW TO HAVE REAL CHRISTIANITY!" threads that basically say the same as we've all heard a thousand times before: denominations are bad, just use the Bible, the Holy Spirit will guide you to the fullness of the truth.

The thing that people who say these things continually ignore is that they aren't the first person to say this. Just take a glance at history over the last two hundred years. Everytime someone comes along and says these things, decides to go "Bible alone, the Holy Spirit will lead me" and start a church with these principles the result is a brand new denomination. Sometimes (oftentimes) the denomination will say it's not a denomination at all. And then people usually come along and go "Well Founder Bob certainly got it halfway right, but he didn't read the Bible quite right, so I really think it should be done this way instead" and--shockingly--a brand new denomination.

Oh, but perhaps you--person reading this getting mad because you have been saying these same things and don't like what I'm writing about here--are very different. Perhaps you, unlike all these other folks, really do have it right. You're not going to start a new denomination, no of course not. You're just going to start a Bible fellowship based solely on the what the Bible alone says. And if people at your Bible fellowship disagree with you, it's because they don't understand the Bible correctly because they aren't humbling themselves to the Holy Spirit and Christ's gentle voice. Certainly these members of this fellowship you have helped start would never--oh, never mind. Looks like they started a new Bible fellowship next door.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

To throw 2000+ years of teaching and tradition is the greatest of vanities. It is good to question bits here and there. I am glad we do, but to throw out everything over your personal interpretation? That is dangerous. We're a community as Christians, and "lone wolfing it" due to your own arrogance that you somehow know better than everyone before you is ridiculous. The Holy Spirit isn't stronger than you than every other Christian before you. That doesn't sound like the Holy Spirit at all to me.

I get it. When we first experience the new and lighter yoke of the Holy Spirit some of us suddenly want to grab our bibles and run the distance sometimes....but only a lunatic runs a marathon or a race without any sot of training or understanding how far they have to go. Training for a marathon or a race can take for months and months. I think Christianity in America suffers a mentorship and discipleship problem. They are winning people over to Christ, but not following up with instructions or guidance on how this Christian thing works to the new believer.

 

[Albion]

Just ask these people who knew better that one should eschew all those bad churches that were teaching "traditions of men" and needed to just go by the Bible alone and that the Holy Spirit guide them completely....
-CryptoLutheran

Here's the thing, though. While I agree in general with the idea here, most of those examples are of only two anti-denominational movements: the Campbellite/Restorationist movement and the Worldwide Church of God (no longer extant) along with its schisms.

 

[Soyeong]

I think it is only natural to think that you're right because if you thought you were wrong about anything in particular, then you'd change your views. The problem is that we've all been wrong about many things in the past, we will likely be wrong about many things in the future, so the chances are that we are wrong about many of the things that we currently hold to be true, we just don't know what they are. So we need to be humble about our opinions rather than prideful and shouldn't act like we are the one true church who has all of our theology correct. However, at the same time, not all interpretations are created equal.

Before I joined my current synagogue, we had a lot of people in the congregation who had a variety of opinions and were forming cliques. Some were speaking negatively about what the rabbi said and newcomers at a community meal were hearing different things about what we believed depending on who they sat next to. They had become stagnant, so my rabbi's solution this spend time going over what we believed and why we should believe it, what we didn't believe and why we shouldn't believe it, and to make that part of their statement of faith, which he required all regular attenders to sign. This caused some people to leave, but the many who remained were all on the same page, and they began to flourish again. To this day, my rabbi holds that it was one of the best decisions he's made.

So while there is something to be said about focusing on who we are in Christ, there is also something to be said about the importance of being on the same page doctrinally.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Just ask these people who knew better that one should eschew all those bad churches that were teaching "traditions of men" and needed to just go by the Bible alone and that the Holy Spirit guide them completely:
Two-by-Twos
-CryptoLutheran

Just ask these people who knew better that one should eschew all those bad churches that were teaching "traditions of men" and needed to just go by the Bible alone and that the Holy Spirit guide them completely:

Church of God (Anderson):

"The history of the Church of God (Anderson) begins in 1881 with Daniel Sidney Warner and several others.[2] Warner had been a member of John Winebrenner's General Eldership of the Church of God, whose members were called Winebrennerians. He differed with the Winebrennerians on the doctrine of sanctification,[3] which he held to be a second definite work of grace, and on the nature of the church. The desire of Warner and the others was to forsake denominationalism and creeds. To this end, they determined to trust in the Holy Spirit as their guide and the Bible as their creed. Warner's vision was that the Church of God would "extend our hand in fellowship to every blood-washed one", rather than align themselves with a movement."

Church of God (Restoration):

"The group believes that they are ordained by both prophecy and Divine command to restore the church of God as it was in the Book of Acts, and believes that it alone is the only true church.[3] Most of Daniel Layne's beliefs in Revelation originated from some ministers who had left the Church of God (Anderson) reformation movement thirty or so years earlier. This teaching is upheld by the official eschatology, which is a form of church historicism. This Church of God (Restoration)[4] teaches that the 7th Trumpet in the book of the Revelation began to sound around the year 1980 when Daniel Layne was saved, alleging that there was a general discontent among many of its current adherents that were in various Churches of God at that time."

Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement:

"The Restoration Movement has been characterized by several key principles:

• Christianity should not be divided, Christ intended the creation of one church.[7]:38[13]
• Creeds divide, but Christians should be able to find agreement by standing on the Bible itself (from which they believe all creeds are but human expansions or constrictions)[14]
• Ecclesiastical traditions divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by following the practice (as best as it can be determined) of the early church.[15]:104–6
• Names of human origin divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by using biblical names for the church (i.e., "Christian Church", "Church of God" or "Church of Christ" as opposed to "Methodist" or "Lutheran", etc.).[8]:27"

Stone-Campbel denominations:

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ):

"The name, Disciples of Christ, is shared by two groups, The Churches of Christ and the independent Christian churches and churches of Christ. They emerged from the same roots.[4] The Stone-Campbell movement began as two separate threads, each without knowledge of the other, during the Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century. The first of these two groups, led by Barton W. Stone began at Cane Ridge, Bourbon County, Kentucky. The group called themselves simply Christians. The second, began in western Pennsylvania and Virginia (now West Virginia), led by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell. Because the founders wanted to abandon all denominational labels, they used the biblical names for the followers of Jesus that they found in the Bible.[5]"

Churches of Christ:

"Churches of Christ are autonomous Christian congregations associated with one another through common beliefs and practices. They seek to base doctrine and practice on the Bible alone. They teach that they are the church written in scripture. They teach that any individual, from the time that the Church began until now, can become part of that church by hearing the truth, believing the truth, repenting from their ways to God's ways, confessing that Jesus in the Bible is Christ, and being baptized for the remission of their sins.

Historically, Churches of Christ in the United States have roots in the American Restoration Movement, and were recognized as a distinct religious group by the U.S. Religious Census of 1906. Prior to that all congregations associated with the Restoration Movement had been reported together by the Census Bureau. The Restoration Movement began on the American frontier during the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century under the leadership of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, and Barton W. Stone. Those leaders had declared their independence from their Presbyterian roots, seeking a fresh start to restore the New Testament church, and abandoning creeds. They did not see themselves as establishing a new church. Rather, the movement sought the restoration of the church and "the unification of all Christians in a single body patterned after the church of the New Testament."[2]:54 The names "Church of Christ," "Christian Church" and "Disciples of Christ" were adopted by the movement because they believed these terms to be biblical.

A division occurred between those who used musical instruments in worship (now usually known as the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ) and those who chose to sing a cappella because the use of instruments is not mentioned in the New Testament. The congregations in the a cappella tradition are the subject of this article. While the most visible distinction between the two groups was the rejection of musical instruments in the Churches of Christ, other issues also contributed to the separation. One was a disagreement over the appropriateness of organizational structures above the congregational level such as missionary societies.[3] Another was a difference in the underlying approach to Biblical interpretation. For the Churches of Christ, practices not present in accounts of New Testament worship were not permissible in the church, and they could find no New Testament documentation of the use of instrumental music in worship. For the Christian Churches, any practices not expressly forbidden could be considered.[4]:242–247 Though officially recognized as distinct movements from 1906, the actual separation of the Churches of Christ from the Christian Churches had already been taking place gradually for decades."

International Christian Church:

"The International Christian Church was formed in 2006 by Kip McKean[4] after his split with the International Churches of Christ. He sent out a mission team to begin a new congregation in Phoenix, Arizona, in 2006 and then led a team to Los Angeles in 2007 to start the City of Angels International Christian Church. Each member is expected to give 10% of their income to the church. Additionally there are two "Special Mission Contributions" during the year which each member is expected to financially support."

Here are a few more:

The Worldwide Church of God
Philadelphia Church of God
Restored Church of God
Assemblies of Yahweh
House of Yahweh
Two-by-Twos
Local Churches
Churches of Jesus Christ International

I'm of course barely scratching the surface.

Before anyone thinks my purpose here is to badmouth Christians who belong to any of these, no that's not what I'm doing.

General Theology, lately, has been bombarded by a host of "EVERYONE IS WRONG, HERE LET ME SHOW YOU HOW TO HAVE REAL CHRISTIANITY!" threads that basically say the same as we've all heard a thousand times before: denominations are bad, just use the Bible, the Holy Spirit will guide you to the fullness of the truth.

The thing that people who say these things continually ignore is that they aren't the first person to say this. Just take a glance at history over the last two hundred years. Everytime someone comes along and says these things, decides to go "Bible alone, the Holy Spirit will lead me" and start a church with these principles the result is a brand new denomination. Sometimes (oftentimes) the denomination will say it's not a denomination at all. And then people usually come along and go "Well Founder Bob certainly got it halfway right, but he didn't read the Bible quite right, so I really think it should be done this way instead" and--shockingly--a brand new denomination.

Oh, but perhaps you--person reading this getting mad because you have been saying these same things and don't like what I'm writing about here--are very different. Perhaps you, unlike all these other folks, really do have it right. You're not going to start a new denomination, no of course not. You're just going to start a Bible fellowship based solely on the what the Bible alone says. And if people at your Bible fellowship disagree with you, it's because they don't understand the Bible correctly because they aren't humbling themselves to the Holy Spirit and Christ's gentle voice. Certainly these members of this fellowship you have helped start would never--oh, never mind. Looks like they started a new Bible fellowship next door.

-CryptoLutheran

Wow! It has been over thirty years since I have had any reference to the Two-by-Twos. They are certainly a very tiny and obscure group.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Just ask these people who knew better that one should eschew all those bad churches that were teaching "traditions of men" and needed to just go by the Bible alone and that the Holy Spirit guide them completely:

Church of God (Anderson):

"The history of the Church of God (Anderson) begins in 1881 with Daniel Sidney Warner and several others.[2] Warner had been a member of John Winebrenner's General Eldership of the Church of God, whose members were called Winebrennerians. He differed with the Winebrennerians on the doctrine of sanctification,[3] which he held to be a second definite work of grace, and on the nature of the church. The desire of Warner and the others was to forsake denominationalism and creeds. To this end, they determined to trust in the Holy Spirit as their guide and the Bible as their creed. Warner's vision was that the Church of God would "extend our hand in fellowship to every blood-washed one", rather than align themselves with a movement."

Church of God (Restoration):

"The group believes that they are ordained by both prophecy and Divine command to restore the church of God as it was in the Book of Acts, and believes that it alone is the only true church.[3] Most of Daniel Layne's beliefs in Revelation originated from some ministers who had left the Church of God (Anderson) reformation movement thirty or so years earlier. This teaching is upheld by the official eschatology, which is a form of church historicism. This Church of God (Restoration)[4] teaches that the 7th Trumpet in the book of the Revelation began to sound around the year 1980 when Daniel Layne was saved, alleging that there was a general discontent among many of its current adherents that were in various Churches of God at that time."

Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement:

"The Restoration Movement has been characterized by several key principles:

• Christianity should not be divided, Christ intended the creation of one church.[7]:38[13]
• Creeds divide, but Christians should be able to find agreement by standing on the Bible itself (from which they believe all creeds are but human expansions or constrictions)[14]
• Ecclesiastical traditions divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by following the practice (as best as it can be determined) of the early church.[15]:104–6
• Names of human origin divide, but Christians should be able to find common ground by using biblical names for the church (i.e., "Christian Church", "Church of God" or "Church of Christ" as opposed to "Methodist" or "Lutheran", etc.).[8]:27"

Stone-Campbel denominations:

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ):

"The name, Disciples of Christ, is shared by two groups, The Churches of Christ and the independent Christian churches and churches of Christ. They emerged from the same roots.[4] The Stone-Campbell movement began as two separate threads, each without knowledge of the other, during the Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century. The first of these two groups, led by Barton W. Stone began at Cane Ridge, Bourbon County, Kentucky. The group called themselves simply Christians. The second, began in western Pennsylvania and Virginia (now West Virginia), led by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell. Because the founders wanted to abandon all denominational labels, they used the biblical names for the followers of Jesus that they found in the Bible.[5]"

Churches of Christ:

"Churches of Christ are autonomous Christian congregations associated with one another through common beliefs and practices. They seek to base doctrine and practice on the Bible alone. They teach that they are the church written in scripture. They teach that any individual, from the time that the Church began until now, can become part of that church by hearing the truth, believing the truth, repenting from their ways to God's ways, confessing that Jesus in the Bible is Christ, and being baptized for the remission of their sins.

Historically, Churches of Christ in the United States have roots in the American Restoration Movement, and were recognized as a distinct religious group by the U.S. Religious Census of 1906. Prior to that all congregations associated with the Restoration Movement had been reported together by the Census Bureau. The Restoration Movement began on the American frontier during the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century under the leadership of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, and Barton W. Stone. Those leaders had declared their independence from their Presbyterian roots, seeking a fresh start to restore the New Testament church, and abandoning creeds. They did not see themselves as establishing a new church. Rather, the movement sought the restoration of the church and "the unification of all Christians in a single body patterned after the church of the New Testament."[2]:54 The names "Church of Christ," "Christian Church" and "Disciples of Christ" were adopted by the movement because they believed these terms to be biblical.

A division occurred between those who used musical instruments in worship (now usually known as the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ) and those who chose to sing a cappella because the use of instruments is not mentioned in the New Testament. The congregations in the a cappella tradition are the subject of this article. While the most visible distinction between the two groups was the rejection of musical instruments in the Churches of Christ, other issues also contributed to the separation. One was a disagreement over the appropriateness of organizational structures above the congregational level such as missionary societies.[3] Another was a difference in the underlying approach to Biblical interpretation. For the Churches of Christ, practices not present in accounts of New Testament worship were not permissible in the church, and they could find no New Testament documentation of the use of instrumental music in worship. For the Christian Churches, any practices not expressly forbidden could be considered.[4]:242–247 Though officially recognized as distinct movements from 1906, the actual separation of the Churches of Christ from the Christian Churches had already been taking place gradually for decades."

International Christian Church:

"The International Christian Church was formed in 2006 by Kip McKean[4] after his split with the International Churches of Christ. He sent out a mission team to begin a new congregation in Phoenix, Arizona, in 2006 and then led a team to Los Angeles in 2007 to start the City of Angels International Christian Church. Each member is expected to give 10% of their income to the church. Additionally there are two "Special Mission Contributions" during the year which each member is expected to financially support."

Here are a few more:

The Worldwide Church of God
Philadelphia Church of God
Restored Church of God
Assemblies of Yahweh
House of Yahweh
Two-by-Twos
Local Churches
Churches of Jesus Christ International

I'm of course barely scratching the surface.

Before anyone thinks my purpose here is to badmouth Christians who belong to any of these, no that's not what I'm doing.

General Theology, lately, has been bombarded by a host of "EVERYONE IS WRONG, HERE LET ME SHOW YOU HOW TO HAVE REAL CHRISTIANITY!" threads that basically say the same as we've all heard a thousand times before: denominations are bad, just use the Bible, the Holy Spirit will guide you to the fullness of the truth.

The thing that people who say these things continually ignore is that they aren't the first person to say this. Just take a glance at history over the last two hundred years. Everytime someone comes along and says these things, decides to go "Bible alone, the Holy Spirit will lead me" and start a church with these principles the result is a brand new denomination. Sometimes (oftentimes) the denomination will say it's not a denomination at all. And then people usually come along and go "Well Founder Bob certainly got it halfway right, but he didn't read the Bible quite right, so I really think it should be done this way instead" and--shockingly--a brand new denomination.

Oh, but perhaps you--person reading this getting mad because you have been saying these same things and don't like what I'm writing about here--are very different. Perhaps you, unlike all these other folks, really do have it right. You're not going to start a new denomination, no of course not. You're just going to start a Bible fellowship based solely on the what the Bible alone says. And if people at your Bible fellowship disagree with you, it's because they don't understand the Bible correctly because they aren't humbling themselves to the Holy Spirit and Christ's gentle voice. Certainly these members of this fellowship you have helped start would never--oh, never mind. Looks like they started a new Bible fellowship next door.

-CryptoLutheran

read 1 John 2;26,27 over and over again and ask God what it means

and read 1 Cor about Pauls rebuke to man gathering in sects and carnal name making religious denominations. Consider the word "denomination", means to make a name, and go back in Genesis and see the babel builders wanted to make a name for themselves.

 

[ViaCrucis]

read 1 John 2;26,27 over and over again and ask God what it means

and read 1 Cor about Pauls rebuke to man gathering in sects and carnal name making religious denominations. Consider the word "denomination", means to make a name, and go back in Genesis and see the babel builders wanted to make a name for themselves.

I suggest reading the OP as i have a feeling you didn't bother to do that.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tz620q]

They are winning people over to Christ, but not following up with instructions or guidance on how this Christian thing works to the new believer.

You know, I always wondered about the tent meetings of the Great Awakening. I am not inferring that these were not great events; but I wondered what happened after the tent folded up and moved on. How did these new Christians continue to learn and grow or was there a mentality that all they needed had been given them?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Here's the thing, though. While I agree in general with the idea here, most of those examples are of only two anti-denominational movements: the Campbellite/Restorationist movement and the Worldwide Church of God (no longer extant) along with its schisms.

There are all sorts of examples that could have been given, many of the examples are Restorationaist or WCG because they provide a pretty good set of examples. But I did list plenty of other examples that were not related to either.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

You know, I always wondered about the tent meetings of the Great Awakening. I am not inferring that these were not great events; but I wondered what happened after the tent folded up and moved on. How did these new Christians continue to learn and grow or was there a mentality that all they needed had been given them?

During the First Great Awakening of the Eighteenth Century George Whitefield and the Wesley brothers, who were ordained Anglican priests, sent their converts to the prevailing churches of the area - congregational in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and Anglican in the southern colonies. It was later that the Anglican Church formally distanced itself from the methodist movement and the Methodist denomination was formed.

 

[Albion]

There are all sorts of examples that could have been given, many of the examples are Restorationaist or WCG because they provide a pretty good set of examples. But I did list plenty of other examples that were not related to either.

-CryptoLutheran

Other than for the Church of God (Anderson) and its offshoot, that would be the Two by Twos and the Church of Jesus Christ International, neither of which has ever been heard of by more than one person in a hundred.

I guess I was just surprised that a post calling attention to a proliferation of church bodies would offer so few real examples of a supposedly wide variety of denominational differences.

It was just a passing thought.

 

[Tangible]

I think it could be successfully argued that the churches of today's Non-denomiational movement are the doctrinal, if not organic, offspring of these earlier movements, with Charismatic and other elements also included.

 

[FireDragon76]

Considering the Methodist, Holiness, and Pentecostal movements are some of the largest Protestant movements in the world, I'd say that the open-air preaching of Wesley was widely successful.

The Anglican Church in the US at the time of Wesley was anemic, and got little support from the mother country, to the point of serious neglect. No bishops, no real missions. That's why Baptists and Methodists/Wesleyans are some of the largest denominations in the US. Nobody else was ministering to the masses.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think it could be successfully argued that the churches of today's Non-denomiational movement are the doctrinal, if not organic, offspring of these earlier movements, with Charismatic and other elements also included.

There was at least a lot of groundwork laid for a DIY approach to religion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Wordkeeper]

<snip>

General Theology, lately, has been bombarded by a host of "EVERYONE IS WRONG, HERE LET ME SHOW YOU HOW TO HAVE REAL CHRISTIANITY!" threads that basically say the same as we've all heard a thousand times before: denominations are bad, just use the Bible, the Holy Spirit will guide you to the fullness of the truth.

<snip>

The person who started the threads about the deviation introduced by Constantine is different in the sense that he points out that in addition to not depending on the Holy Spirit for preaching sermons, modern churches prohibit all members except the pastor from preaching.


What he described is already in existence in the church world, in the form of organic churches:


https://www.cmaresources.org/article/organic-church_n-cole_f-viola


Quote

We have a little poem (not the height of poetry by any means) that is usually said by anyone in the group to start the share time. We do this so that even young kids can lead in the church and when people start a new church they know what can get the interaction started.

"Does anyone have praises or prayer requests, a word from the Lord or a sin to confess?"

We all share what God is saying and doing in our lives and we all pray for what is happening. This could be all we do for the entire evening as well.We usually open the Bible, read a passage and discuss it. Right now we are going chapter-by-chapter through Acts but this is not routine and we often turn to something else at the leading of the Spirit. We do not have any preparation for this time, as we are not the ones in charge, Jesus is. Our time in the word, however, is not simply pooling ignorance because of the following reasons:1. We are all listening to the Head of the church and He is not ignorant, and2. Because of Life Transformation Groups, most of us are all reading large volumes of scripture throughout the week repetitively and in context, so our observations in the scriptures are actually quite insightful.The Spirit of the Lord working in each of us is the teacher, and we are all learners.When a good question arises or even some false teaching, a leader of the group does not usually step forward and decide the issue for everyone. Rather, we pray and ask the Lord to help us out. Then we ask what insight the Spirit may have given to each of us. The body responds, not the pastor. This empowers everyone to react to false teaching or to find solutions to difficult questions, not just then but anytime. We are also quite comfortable with three little words: I don't know.

 

[Albion]

There was at least a lot of groundwork laid for a DIY approach to religion.

-CryptoLutheran

The Worldwide Church of God and its offshoots are known for being very strictly doctrinaire and they weren't founded to be non-denominational bodies anyway. The Churches of Christ were founded to be non-denominational, but they also are known for following an inflexible standard of belief and practice on certain matters, even though they are unspecific on some others such as the Trinity.

It's common to have both of these called cults because, in part, of their doctrinal demands.

This is not to say that "non-denominationalism" isn't an opening to fragmentation and a lack of accountability. I'm just not convinced that the examples used bore out the point.

 

[FireDragon76]

Restorationism is "android ecclesiology".

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

You know, I always wondered about the tent meetings of the Great Awakening. I am not inferring that these were not great events; but I wondered what happened after the tent folded up and moved on. How did these new Christians continue to learn and grow or was there a mentality that all they needed had been given them?

I don't know. Mentorship is important for fledgling Christians in my opinion. Jesus said make disciples of all nations, not Christians of all nations. Discipleship implies mentorship. It is probably why large successful churches also have small groups. You need that guidance and mentorship. There is a level of discipline in Christianity that some charismatics tend to over look for their feel-good message. Mentoring a young seed of the faith helps it become a mighty oak to weather the storm of persecution. This "led by the spirit" thing is quite true, but misguided. The Holy Spirit isn't the matrix where He just downloads all things Christian into the head of a new believer at conversion. Church elders and mentors help guide a new Christian to understand their new place in the universe.

 

[Tangible]

You know, I always wondered about the tent meetings of the Great Awakening. I am not inferring that these were not great events; but I wondered what happened after the tent folded up and moved on. How did these new Christians continue to learn and grow or was there a mentality that all they needed had been given them?

Ultimately - or at least 150 years down the line - these same areas are now the least christianized parts of the US. "Burned-over country" it has been called. The 19th Century was an especially bad time in the development (or devolution) of the Church, in the US especially.

 

[tz620q]

I don't know. Mentorship is important for fledgling Christians in my opinion. Jesus said make disciples of all nations, not Christians of all nations. Discipleship implies mentorship. It is probably why large successful churches also have small groups. You need that guidance and mentorship. There is a level of discipline in Christianity that some charismatics tend to over look for their feel-good message. Mentoring a young seed of the faith helps it become a mighty oak to weather the storm of persecution. This "led by the spirit" thing is quite true, but misguided. The Holy Spirit isn't the matrix where He just downloads all things Christian into the head of a new believer at conversion. Church elders and mentors help guide a new Christian to understand their new place in the universe.

I think Paul had it right when he called it a "new birth". A parent wouldn't give birth to a child and then just leave them to fend for themselves.

I think 7b's gave me a good answer though. The Anglican/Methodist churches tried to set up circuit rider preachers to fill that gap. I know Baptist churches also saw a swell in membership at this time. So maybe my fears were not justified. I completely agree with your post about discipleship. I realized that Jesus could have walked to the cross by himself without forming disciples and his sacrifice would have been just as efficacious. But God knows how we are like sheep and must be led, so Jesus spent time forming his disciples.