Why do we need any one denomination?

Your lucky your able to go to a physical Church.

Al Masihi said:

Your lucky your able to go to a physical Church.

Click to expand...

I really like your perseverance, it is not easy to be a Christian in Saudi Arabia.

fhansen said:

And at some point, regardless of who split from the original, there was an original.

Click to expand...

But who most resembles that original?

fhansen said:

The RCC still exists and dates from the beginning.

Click to expand...

But it has gone through changes in theology, liturgy, and governance since the early days.

The early church met in homes. Our bible study is church. We pray, sing, study the bible.. and then fellowship. We are not any denomination. I stated "baptist" simply because I believe in believer's baptism.

All wisdom comes from the Lord and we do not forsake meeting with each other. So 100% of tithes can go to further God's kingdom. In most all churches, much of the money goes into keeping up a building and paying a staff and pastor. If you want more info look up Frances Chan Multiply movement.
The world has managed to distract itself with the business and huge $$$ it takes to run a church building and also distracted with all the differences in the denominations

Servant of Yeshua said:

The early church met in homes. Our bible study is church. We pray, sing, study the bible.. and then fellowship. We are not any denomination. I stated "baptist" simply because I believe in believer's baptism.

All wisdom comes from the Lord and we do not forsake meeting with each other. So 100% of tithes can go to further God's kingdom. In most all churches, much of the money goes into keeping up a building and paying a staff and pastor. If you want more info look up Frances Chan Multiply movement.
The world has managed to distract itself with the business and huge $$$ it takes to run a church building and also distracted with all the differences in the denominations

Click to expand...

They met at home because they were persecuted and I believe @ViaCrucis mentioned something about reserving the home for service.

David Cabrera said:

They met at home because they were persecuted and I believe @ViaCrucis mentioned something about reserving the home for service.

Click to expand...

Yes, they were persecuted as we will also be. It is much easier to invite people into homes and actually get to know them and their specific needs. With social media ( if you choose) you can have your friends invite friends or neighbors. Church as we are accustomed to is at an expensive building is often about as engaging as a group of people at a movie theater. You go and watch "the show" and then afterward go home and never actually have to interact with anyone else there. You might wave hi or exchange a word with someone you see that you know. But it is not conducive to meeting new people. That is just sad to me.

LoveofTruth said:

Denomination means to make a name. This is carnal as we read in 1 Cor 1 and other places. We also see some making a name in the story of the Tower of Babel. Mystery Babylon may have some connection to this. Babel is confusion and a house divided against itself won’t stand.

1 Corinthians 1:10. Now 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.11. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”

1 Corinthians 3:3. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?”

Click to expand...

There is quite a large difference between me saying I'm better than you because Paul baptized me, and tolerating false doctrines..

Matthew 16:11-12
2 Timothy 4:3-4
Acts 20:28-30

You act like because the Bible tells us not to bicker or boast in meaningless things that means we should tolerate false doctrine, and the Bible is quite clear we should not

and that, my friend, is where very real divisions arise - and should arise.

When I was first saved, coming from an outside looking in standpoint, I thought the divisions were mainly superficial and didn't matter..

but then, in looking deeper this last year or two I realize the extent of those doctrinal differences, and in some cases these differences would truly mean the difference between being saved or not..

certainly, we aren't perfect, but absolutely nothing in the Bible says we should tolerate and entertain false doctrine, false teachers and false prophets simply because they make some claim to follow Christ..

fhansen said:

I don't know why you insist on looking at it this way. We're discussing how, by what means, Christianity should arrive at and possess a unified body of beliefs, arrive at one faith.

Click to expand...

It is as simple as this. You take that verse and assume that Christ is saying he wants only one denomination, yet the meaning of the verse is that he wants his followers to be all of one mind. Its no more complicated than that, except of course, that the reason you are bending the passage is because you are looking for something on which to hang a claim that Christ founded your denomination and verbally rejected all others.

Do you believe there's more than one faith?

Click to expand...

No. And if a person agrees with me on that point, he should be able to see the verse in question as I have explained it. One faith, not one religious club or institution.

And at some point, regardless of who split from the original, there was an original.

The RCC still exists and dates from the beginning.

Click to expand...

No, there was no Pope figure until about 300 years after Christ founded his church.

The Reformers, such as disgruntled priests and later on Anglicans did the splitting from one branch of the original Church.

Click to expand...

The church in Britain is possibly older than the church at Rome, and the churches at Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and other locales certainly are older.

So talk about splitting from the original can make sense only if we want to talk about Rome splitting as she did in 1054, and of course these others all "still exist."

Radagast said:

But who most resembles that original?

Click to expand...

Well that's a good question. And the truth is that we don't really know so much about what the early church looked liked, even though many try to sort of reconstruct what they think it was like in their own churches and services. But just as a child doesn't stay the same as it grows, we can't expect an entity to look the same after years of existence in this world. We cannot predict the way such a thing would evolve; we shouldn't presume to know how things should've or would've necessary transpired and how it should look today. If the core and most basic values and beliefs are the same than the rest is peripheral anyway. And, again, it's primarily guess-work to try to know how looked- and "should" look.

Radagast said:

But it has gone through changes in theology, liturgy, and governance since the early days.

Click to expand...

Governance has more to do with practice while liturgy has to do with both practice and the faith. The east and west have very similar liturgies even after centuries of isolation and either way while more structured, formalized, and standardized perhaps are still based on the ancient ways of understanding and celebrating the service, and chiefly centered around the Eucharist. Theology, of course, is more controversial but, again, the beliefs and practices of the ancient churches are very similar in terms of the role of baptism, on justification, the Real Presence, divinization/theosis, the possibility of losing salvation, the need for repentance and confession, the sacraments, etc.

fhansen said:

Well that's a good question. And the truth is that we don't really know so much about what the early church looked liked, even though many try to sort of reconstruct what they think it was like in their own churches and services.

Click to expand...

Looks like a lot of dancing going on there. Whenever this question arises, various posters admit that the answer is: Eastern Orthodox, and I am referring to members who are not themselves Orthodox. Its the only credible answer.

But just as a child doesn't stay the same as it grows, we can't expect an entity to look the same after years of existence in this world. We cannot predict the way such a thing would evolve; we shouldn't presume to know how things should've or would've necessary transpired and how it should look today.

Click to expand...

I just got through reading posts in which the exact opposite argument was used to support the notion that only the Roman Catholic Church can be the original (and true) church.

W2L said:

Why do we need any one denomination? We have the apostle's teaching, and CF for discussion, also computers and bible software. As Paul said, all things are ours.

Click to expand...

"Why do we need any one."

Because all that claim to represent the Apostles Teachings do not; like mormons, Jehovah's Witnessess, Roman Catholic, the various orthodox, etc.

Albion said:

Looks like a lot of dancing going on there. Whenever this question arises, various posters admit that the answer is: Eastern Orthodox, and I am referring to members who are not themselves Orthodox. Its the only credible answer.



I just got through reading posts in which the exact opposite argument was used to support the notion that only the Roman Catholic Church can be the original (and true) church.

Click to expand...

You see, non-members are the ones who say that.

Words1234 said:

"Why do we need any one."

Because all that claim to represent the Apostles Teachings do not; like mormons, Jehovah's Witnessess, Roman Catholic, the various orthodox, etc.

Click to expand...

Says the one who came down 1500 years after Christ.

Words1234 said:

"Why do we need any one."

Click to expand...

I suppose that you could move around between several of them, but the church--in order to BE the church--must engage in activities that require some organization (just like the New Testament describes for us).

They include administering the sacraments, instruction in the faith, engaging in corporate worship, resolving disputes between fellow believers/members and so on. Much of that is liable to involve differences of belief, some of them important and some not so important, therefore we have different denominations.

David Cabrera said:

You see, non-members are the ones who say that.

Click to expand...

You mean people who approach the problem without any bias or personal favorite?

Because the differences between the church bodies are simply a matter of history; personal preference should have nothing to do with the answer. The differences between the EO and RC, for instance, are glaring and clearly provable from history, meaning that which of these is the older and least changed isn't really in question.

Albion said:

Looks like a lot of dancing going on there. Whenever this question arises, various posters admit that the answer is: Eastern Orthodox, and I am referring to members who are not themselves Orthodox. Its the only credible answer.

Click to expand...

That's more of a self-serving answer methinks. I mean, how would they even know? We don't even know well what the original churches looked liked in many parts of their history, especially early on-and even today the liturgies are much more common between east and west than with most any of the Protestant churches. Just more speculation from those who weren't there to begin with.

Albion said:

I just got through reading posts in which the exact opposite argument was used to support the notion that only the Roman Catholic Church can be the original (and true) church.

Click to expand...

At least I acknowledged that it's pretty much speculation either way. And that means that no one can presume to know how the church should've been-or should be now in appearance and practice. In any case people often believe what they prefer to believe; and listen to who they want to listen to.

fhansen said:

That's more of a self-serving answer methinks. I mean, how would they even know? We don't even know well what the original churches looked liked in many parts of their history...

Click to expand...

Oh yes we do. We do know history. And it is not just how they "looked", but how they were governed, what their beliefs were, and so on. The EO clearly have retained more of the original way while the RCC is the product of a steady stream of innovations.

Albion said:

Oh yes we do. We do know history. And it is not just how they "looked", but how they were governed, what their beliefs were, and so on. The EO clearly have retained more of the original way while the RCC is the product of a steady stream of innovations.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

Oh yes we do. We do know history. And it is not just how they "looked", but how they were governed, what their beliefs were, and so on. The EO clearly have retained more of the original way while the RCC is the product of a steady stream of innovations.

Click to expand...

"clearly have retained the original way" LOL, as if you really know. And the church of God would certainly have the authority and freedom to innovate anyway within limits not set by us, rather than remain static. SDAs still can't figure how the church had the authority to basically make the Lord's Day the most important day of the week for Christians. And BTW, there's not some sort of universal consistency between the churches of the east themselves to begin with.

fhansen said:

"clearly have retained the original way" LOL, as if you really know.

Click to expand...

Yes. I have an advanced degree in history. What does your bio look like?

And you misquoted me in addition. I did not write "clearly have retained the original way." I wrote "clearly have retained more of the original way"

Albion said:

Oh yes we do. We do know history. And it is not just how they "looked", but how they were governed, what their beliefs were, and so on. The EO clearly have retained more of the original way while the RCC is the product of a steady stream of innovations.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

Looks like a lot of dancing going on there. Whenever this question arises, various posters admit that the answer is: Eastern Orthodox, and I am referring to members who are not themselves Orthodox. Its the only credible answer.

Click to expand...

Afwan, habibi, la...

(Excuse me, my beloved, but no...)

I don't recall admitting that.

I guess Chalcedonians gotta Chalcedon, but my goodness..."it's the only credible answer", if you a priori eliminate all the other possible answers!

But in truth, even though we know you don't care (you didn't care at Chalcedon, so why would you care now?), we have never stopped referring to ourselves by the same, and having the same strength of conviction and all of this, as Orthodoxy is indeed the only game in town.

From the Coptic Liturgy of St. Cyrill (5th century), the "Litany of Peace":

Priest: We ask and entreat Your goodness, O Lover of mankind. Remember, O Lord, the peace of Your one, only, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Deacon: Pray for the peace of the one, only, holy, catholic, and apostolic Orthodox Church [by which we obviously don't mean the Chalcedonianian Church, since Chalcedon hadn't happened yet, so there was no such thing -- dzh.], for God's salvation among the people, for stability in all places, that He may forgive us our sins.

People: Lord have mercy.

Priest: That which exists from one end of the world to the other. All peoples and all flocks, bless. The heavenly peace, send down into all our hearts. Even the peace of this life, graciously grant to us. The leader (king), the armies, the chiefs, the counselors, the multitudes, our neighbors, our coming in and our going out, adorn them with all peace. O King of peace, grant us Your peace; for You have given us all things. Acquire us to Yourself, O God our Savior, for we know none other but You. Your holy name we utter. May our souls live by Your Holy Spirit. And let not the death of sin have dominion over us, we Your servants, nor over all Your people.

People: Lord have mercy.

I just got through reading posts in which the exact opposite argument was used to support the notion that only the Roman Catholic Church can be the original (and true) church.

Click to expand...

But of course. Again, Chalcedonians gotta Chalcedon.

The Eastern Orthodox are apparently somewhat fond of saying that Protestants and Roman Catholics are but two sides of the same coin, but for centuries and even today in many ways (and this is one of them), they and the Roman Catholics are two sides of the same coin. They use very similar argumentation, come to essentially the same conclusion (albeit for different reasons, with Rome placing her trust in the Papal doctrines, and Eastern Orthodox in their faith in the seven -- or eight, or nine...well, in any case, certainly not three -- ecumenical councils), and believe it in all ways to be self-evident by an honest look at history. And that is not to say they are not being honest (I believe that all the Chalcedonians are honest), but that this is the strength of their conviction that history will support their conclusions.