Denominations

Nope!  Theology is not official until you have a good few rounds of chasing rabbits.  If you are against rabbit chasing, you must hold your case and hush!  If you don't, are you not chasing a rabbit yourself? 

I think I could start my own denomination right here

FRC

First Rabbit Chasers

ahhhhhh, I feel the call. 

Denominationalists (if such a term may be used) tend to be of the opinion that if their denomination happens to be part of a foot, anything that doesn't look like a foot can't be part of the body, and of course, those who happen to be part of an eye will deem anything not an eye to be not part of the body.

Some non-denominationalists look at denominations as clumps of the bits of foot, eyes, hands, etc all gathered together. This may be a good thing - having feet at the end of one's arms isn't going to do a whole lot of good, for example.

Dear Aggie03;

Spiritually "Denominational" labelism is biblically defined as being "CARNAL". (1 Corinthians 3:3) How often has someone asked which church you belonged to when their is only "ONE" (Ephesians 4:4) "NON LABELED" (1 Corinthians 1:12) "NON DISAGREEING" (1 Corinthians 1:10) "NON BUILDING" (1 Corinthians 3:9) body of Christ church.

 

 

I think I said this before but...

No denomination I know thinks that they are the only true church. Some cults do. I am a Southern Baptist. WE believe that there is one universal church. I went to a Lutheran (missouri synod) college and that is what they believe also. Methodist, Presbyterians, Assemblies of God, Church of the Nazarene, and the list goes on and on. Catholics do not believe that they are the only true church either because they accept protestants as fellow Christians.

All denominations agree on certain essential doctrines. On the nonessential they do not. So denominational names make it easy to know how a church is different (in the nonessentials) than some other churches.

There is nothing wrong with this as long as we do not look at other denominations as not in the universal church or that we do not fellowship with these other denominations because they worship slightly different than we do.

blackhawk

Originally posted by aforchrist33
Dear Aggie03;

Spiritually "Denominational" labelism is biblically defined as being "CARNAL". (1 Corinthians 3:3)

Click to expand...

1 Cor 3:3
3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?
(NAU)

I do not see where this verse calls "'Denominational' labelism 'Carnal'".

It seems to say that when Jealousy and strife are in the midst of a person or churches life then they are babes and "fleshy"  Thsi could be said about most if not all of our churches today unfortunately whether they are in a denomination or not.  And it can be said about most Christians also. 

How often has someone asked which church you belonged to when their is only

Click to expand...

"ONE" (Ephesians 4:4) "NON LABELED" (1 Corinthians 1:12) [/B]

Click to expand...

They were labeled to show different places. 


1Thes 1:1
1 Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.
(NAU)

 

Click to expand...

"NON DISAGREEING" (1 Corinthians 1:10) [/B]

Click to expand...

Huh?  Peter and Paul disagreed.  Paul and Barnabas disagreed.  Paul and many of the churches he wrote to disagreed.  There were definitely disagreements and differences in theology in different churches of that time.  The Bible is very clear about that and so is early church history. 

 

QUOTE] "NON BUILDING" (1 Corinthians 3:9) body of Christ church. [/B][/QUOTE]

  
No denomination I know of disagrees with this. 

 

So in conclusion I see no disagreement that ther eis one universal church and it is not a building but all who have put their faith in Christ.  The early church definitely disagreed and had labels for different churches within the universal church. 

blackhawk

True about your having "Said this before" so I will not try to impose on your imbracement of denominationalism. Strong meat is for mature christians.

aforchrist, he seemed to put forth a great reason and biblical example of people not agreeing on the nonessentials.

Was there "only one church" in the Biblical record.

It seems that the apostles built churches independently of each other (that is, going by the BIBLICAL record) - with Paul declaring that part of the reason for his delay in going to Rome being that he should not build on foundations already laid by another, but that he should lay new foundations where Christ was not already named.

Again, there were seven churches in Asia, according to Revelation. While there is much evidence to suggest that the churches of the first century were co-operating with each other, and assisting each other, the evidence pre-dominantly shows that, outside of having one faith and one God, they operated independently.

Originally posted by aforchrist33
True about your having "Said this before" so I will not try to impose on your imbracement of denominationalism. Strong meat is for mature christians.

Click to expand...

please if you have a problem with my argument please respond to the argument and not post a personal attack against me.  That is uncalled for and not very good debate tatics.  not to mention that it goes against our rules.  So to everyone that has a problem with me or anyone else please either disagree with their argument or PM a staff member or a higher staff member in my case.  Just do not get personal in your post against each other.  That is a logical fallacy. 

blackhawk

Ah yes. It does take a mature Christian to be able to disagree about non-essentials without resorting to such tactics as personal insult.

Dear Blackhawk;

1. What did I say that is against which forum rule?

2. Why do you chose to believe quoting God's word is a personal attack by the messenger?

3. Do you think Paul shouldn't have called the Galatians foolish and was immature in telling saved christians they were being given milk because of immature labeled seperations?

It was never my intention to attack you personally. My reason for declining was because I believed we had gone down that road before and you were deteremined to keep your doctrine?

Originally posted by aforchrist33
Dear Blackhawk;

1. What did I say that is against which forum rule?

Click to expand...

"Strong meat is for mature christians. <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" border=0>"&nbsp; goes against rule # 1.

2. Why&nbsp;do you chose to believe&nbsp;quoting God's word is a personal attack by the messenger?


"Strong meat is for mature christians. <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" border=0>"

That was a personal attack.&nbsp; Not an argument from scripture.&nbsp; An argument from scripture is fine but that is not what you did.&nbsp; [/B]

Click to expand...

3. Do you think Paul shouldn't have called the Galatians foolish and was immature in telling saved christians they were being given milk because of immature labeled seperations?[/B]

Click to expand...

&nbsp;

First that was a totally different relationship than what we have here.&nbsp; Second we disagree as to what Paul meant by seperations.&nbsp;Also I think that&nbsp;Paul was saying it in a different&nbsp;way.&nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

It was never my intention to attack you personally. My reason for declining was because I believed we had gone down that road before and you were deteremined to keep your doctrine? [/B]

Click to expand...

I am determined to keep it.&nbsp; That is right. but you went farther than declining it you threw in the punch that I was not mature.&nbsp; But again maybe it is my pride that is hurt and that is why I have reacted so strongly to it.&nbsp; If i would of reacted humbly I would of been better off. One of my biggest mistakes was doing this in the forum and not through PM.&nbsp; Sorry about that.&nbsp;

Now I am willing to let this drop.&nbsp;&nbsp;For now on we can just know where eachother&nbsp;believes on this position.&nbsp; Since I can guess that neither of us will change our positions.&nbsp;

blackhawk

Dear Blackhawk;

You said ..... "Strong meat is for mature christians goes against rule #1.

1. Do you call refering to scripture examples such as (2 Corinthians 3:1-4) FLAMING?

2. "That was a totally different relationship" is a good example of our difficulty in reasoning together. I used scripture and you came back with a personal assumption of my being rong.

3. Saying "I am determined to keep it that is right" and then acusing me of quoting scripture as being a punchline is hardly a good reason for "droping it for now"

However I do respect your humble attitude in admitting your possibility of having pride and pray God will bless our motive in trying to arive at truth. If I have offended you in any way please forgive me.

I think it is cool that there are many denominations. How would it be with just one way to pray, preach and sing? It would be boring, wouldn't it? I like to see many ways of worshiping Christ and I think that it is great that everybody, no matter what preferences he or she maybe have, can participate in the body of Christ. There is room for everybody.

Be blessed!

"1. Do you call refering to scripture examples such as (2 Corinthians 3:1-4) FLAMING?"

*mod hat on*

If is said in response to someone about a nonessential where there can be different opinions...Yes. Those verses are about being christians, not debating nonessentials.

*mod hat off*

aforchrist33,

I PMmed you. We will finish speaking about the forum stuff through that medium.

To everyone,

Let's get back on the subject. I am not going to participate in it any longer since everyone knows how I feel about it by now. May the Lord bless the new beggining of this thread and may we all learn from our differences in the nonessentials.

blackhawk

Well, I personally believe that denominations are ungodly in their nature (in what they have become), although I think that they were started with the best of intentions. People saw something wrong in the church group they were in, so they set out to do it right. Hence, another denomination. Although, these "good intentions" are exactly what Paul urged us not to embrace. By labeling ourselves, we inadvertently promote division and schisms usually arive from no intention of our own.

Do I think that people who belong to a denomination are not saved or that the church is illigitimate? NO NO NO. I just think that ideally, we would all just be Christians. BTW, I'm interdenominational... meaning that as long as you except the basics: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, salvation by grace through faith alone, and other basics, you're okay with me.

We fellowship with denominations and everything. To us, they're Christians. We just disbelieve some of their denomational distinctions... But, those are usually generalities anyway. Surely, you'll find a baptist who believes in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues. And you're sure to find a Pentecostal who has heard of grace. No offense intended... It's just that sometimes, these denominational distinctions arise. But, those are just names... As long as we love the Lord and strive to be like Him, Christian should be the only name we need. But, in the meantime, to each his own. I love everybody and think that the Lord does too.

I don't want to get too deep on my first day so I just wanted to say that I believe that there is only one truth that does not change.

The 38,000 different denominations stem from a "Sola Scriptura" theology which says that we go by the "Bible alone." What that title forgets to say is that it's the "Bible Alone according to my own interpretation." So, what happens when there are so many different interpretations is division. The biggest problem is that it's a theology that causes divisions with no way to ever heal the divisions.

Some churches say that you need baptism to be saved, some say you need confession, some say this and some say that. Some say infants can't be baptised, others say they should. For ex. 75% of Christianity practices infant baptism. Who's right and who's wrong. There has to be an answer because the Holy Spirit does not lie.

Jn 10:16 - 'there will be one fold, one shepherd'
Eph 4:3-6 - 'do your best to preserve the unity which the Spirit gives by means of the peace that binds you together. There is one body and one Spirit, just as there is one hope to which God has called you.
Rom 16:17 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
1 Cor 1:10 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
Phil 2:2 - be of same mind, united in heart thinking one thing
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony with one another
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may be one, as we are one
Jn 17:23- that they may be brought to perfection as one
1 Cor 12:13 - in one spirit we are baptized into one body
Rom 12:5 - we, though many, are one body in Christ
Eph 4:4 - one body, one Spirit, called to be one hope
Col 3:15 - the peace into which you were called in one body

Thanx
Theresa

Denominations as we know them did not exist until approximately 500 years ago.

If division in the Body of Christ is ungodly, why do they exist?

I don't think I am knowledgeable enough to answer that question but I'll give you my opinion.

Pride, ignorence and sin.

The devil's best weapon against Christians seems to be divide and conquer.

Thanx, Luv
Theresa