Are Denominations Wrong?

Opposed to ecumenism , YHWH'S WORD says repentance is necessary, and Y'SHUA is the ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER. There are specifically NOT many roads, NOT many ways, NO OTHER WAY IN FACT.

masmpg said:

I believe that if all Christians would follow the teachings of Jesus

Click to expand...

Yes,
as in the "Secret of the Anabaptist" (the SAME secret of believers all through history since ACTS, the SAME secret of all believers in ANY denomination),
"follow Y'SHUA" .
IN HIM, (see all thru the NT, all the ecclesia lived "IN UNION" (NOT fighting each other),
"in union" seen often in the NT,
"in union" every day with Y'SHUA
not in unity - much deeper and alive -
echad,
"in union" with Y'SHUA and in YHWH,
AS ONE. NOT AS MANY.

Radagast said:

A denomination is a bunch of Christians (often an international bunch) in fellowship with each other and agreeing on a lot of stuff.
Do you disapprove of fellowship and agreeing on stuff?

Click to expand...

Denominational boundaries restrict the moving of the Holy Spirit. It happened in the Reformation, the Wesleyan movement, and the Pentecostal movement. People were forced to go outside the organised denominations to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Sometimes, many years down the road, these organised churches will begin to absorb some of the ideas they previously rejected.

Large denominations become bureaucracies with all the inherent problems of hierarchical administration which crushes the autonomy of the local assembly.

FaithfulPilgrim said:

Are denominations contrary to the will of God and the Scriptures?

Instead of Baptists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Presbyterians, etc, why can't we be known just as "Christians" and eschew any name that isn't biblical (the Church is referred to as the churches of Christ, church of God, the Way, etc.)

I'm using "denomination" loosely here to refer to any body of churches with an organized structure, set of beliefs, and identified by a name other than just "Christian."

Paul taught that we should not follow any man other than Jesus, as He is the one who died for us.

Martin Luther himself didn't want people who agreed with his theological perspectives to be called "Lutherans" and said he was not the one who was crucified.

I'm not saying it is wrong or sinful to attend a church affiliating with a denomination, just denominational loyalty and saying "I'm a Baptist/Methodist/Catholic/etc."instead of just a Christian.

Is it wrong to declare loyalty to a particular denomination?

Click to expand...

Can God be pleased with two individuals even if they differ in their understanding of who God is and what he is like as they have understood him from the Bible?

Can those two individuals love the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love their neighbor as themselves?

Denominational conflict exists because God made each of us different than one another and none are omniscient—meaning that they cannot know and understand anything like God does (e.g., Scripture). As a result we are each different and think differently, and this pleases God. It's how he made us.

However, how do people handle their individuality and differences? Denomination members [1] are fallen, [2] typically have not made seeking Jesus and behaving like him (i.e., following Him) their #1 priority (e.g., spend more hours with Jesus in a week than anything else?), [3] frequently are infants in their faith (1 Corinthians 3:1-3+), or [4] a multitude of other reasons that exist because we live in a fallen world. In particular people fail to obey the command:

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. (bold mine, Philippians 2:3, 1984 NIV)

The verses that follow describe one of the things every Christian should be focused on daily, other than the Lord himself.

Be fore I reply, let me say this first and foremost. Although I disagree with Catholicism, I respect their right to worship God in their own way.

I do, however, have problems with some of the teachings of the Catholic church.

I don't see denominations being a bad thing. There is evidence in scriptures that "denominations" came into existence around AD 47-50.

We see this, rather, we can gleen this from what came out of the first Apostolic Counsel as recorded in Acts 15.

From the "theological Dictionary of the New Testament, we read:

"The question of the Law first became an issue when the Apostles began their missionary journeys. When they moved out to the Gentile world, more specifically the Gentile nations, there was so much conflict that the first Apostolic Council is recorded. With regards to this meeting, and the decision they came to, we can work best work out what the fundamental understanding of the Law was in the primitive community.

A problem that had existed from the Day of Pentecost was how to integrate Gentile believers into the church. Apparently, Paul taught his Gentile converts that they did not need to submit to the Law in order to be members in good standing, a point which not all agreed on. Pauls first missionary journey took him from Jerusalem to Antioch to Galatia and back to Jerusalem which led to the first Apostolic Council meeting. As in Pauls day, there were a group of people who are commonly called legalists. Of whom believed that not only was a belief in God required, but also a strict observance to the Law of Moses was required.

According to Gal. 2, the data relevant to the council are as follows: first, agreement between Pauls gospel and that preached by the primitive community is confirmed and not just established. Gal. 2:2: aneqemhn autoiV to euaggelion o khrussw en toiV eqnesin (I put before them the gospel which I proclaim in the nations) Vs.6: emoi oi dokounteV ouden prosaneqento (to me, for those conferred nothing) Note in the KJV, the translators added the word important thus the italics, to emphasize Paul was referring to the Apostolic council.

The second point is equally certain, namely, that practical questions over and above the unanimity of principle was not so fully cleared up as to make impossible the dispute at Antioch as Paul describes it in Galatians 2. To understand this passage it should be noted that neither directly nor indirectly does Paul have any word of censure from James. The concrete question is whether and how far those born Jew may live together in fellowship with Gentile Christians who do not keep the Law. In particular, can they have fellowship with them at table and in the Lords Supper? For if they do, they necessarily surrender essential parts of the strict observance of the Law. The measure of clarity reached thus far was simply that purely Gentile Christian churches were free from the Law with the consent of the primitive community, and purely Jewish Christian churches should keep the Law with the consent of Paul.

The findings of the Apostolic Council, then, are that the Law is not to be kept as though one could be righteous by its observance, that faith in Jesus brings salvation to both Jew and Gentile alike, and that the Law is still binding on Jews. On this basis, it seems that the separation of Gentile and Jewish evangelization (Gal. 2:7) had to be accepted by both Paul and the primitive as necessary and appropriate.

c. But this raises the question of why Jewish Christians were obliged to keep the Law. The main reason is concern for the possibility of the Jewish mission. The preaching of Jesus as the Christ of scripture could not be believed by Jews if His followers left the Law of God. That Paul could agree with this view is shown beyond any question in 1 Cor. 9:20. He neither demands nor makes any demonstration of his freedom from the Law which might consist in transgression of the Law.

d. From the basic and practical decision of the primitive community in these matters we may work out its understanding of the Law during the preceding period. The actual commitment to the Law was not monism in the sense that fulfillment of the Law w regarded as a presupposition of belonging to the Messianic kingdom. On the contrary, it regarded observance of the Law as the obedience concretely required of it as this people - an obedience which it had also to render for loves sake in the service of the Gospel. What constituted the community and separated it from others, however, was not a specific understanding of the Law but faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ. Historically speaking, it is probable that the Synoptic accounts of Jesus attitude to the Law are correct and that fundamentally the primitive community took its attitude to the Law from Jesus Himself.

e. Further developments in the primitive community is also to be understood in light of the conflicts, motives, and decisions brought to light in the first Apostolic Council and the events relating to it. The radical party, traditionally called the Judaizers, insisted that in spite of the councils decision, circumcision and the Law must be laid on Gentile Christians, since otherwise they could not enjoy salvation or belong to the community of Christ. They evidently propagated this view with zeal, especially in the Pauline churches, though it is open to question whether the situation presupposed in Rome can be explained by Judaising propaganda.

f. Distinct from the position of the Judaizers is that of James, Peter, and the community controlled by them, who seem to have kept essentially to the lines laid down by the Apostolic Council. This certainly corresponds to the depiction of James in Acts 21:148, and it is confirmed by the account of his death in Josephus. In regards to Peter, it is best to assume that he returned to the position of the Apostolic Council and James after accepting the view of Paul for a period in Antioch. Certainly the attempt to make Peter a champion of the Judaizers lacks enough exegetical support in the available sources and it suffers from intrinsic improbability.

As concerning the understanding of the Law in normative circles of primitive Christianity, it may thus be said that they regarded the Law as the obedience to be rendered by Jewish Christians. They were also conscious of being under this obligation for the sake of winning the Jewish world for the Gospel. They did not believe that by achieving this obedience man could attain to righteousness before God. They were prepared to extend brotherly fellowship to Gentile Christians even though the latter did not keep the Law. In mixed congregations, Gentile Christians were obliged to observe such points as would make fellowship of Jewish Christians with them defensible in the eyes of the Jewish world."

TDNT, pp 1068-69

In the first century, there were in most respects, two "denominations". One comprised of Jewish Christians who kept at least part of the OT law, and Gentile Christians who kept very very little of the OT law.

Some 300 years later, the question of denominations came to the forefront again in the issue of the Donatists and "baptism".

John Calvin later on gives us a testimony that one of our "denominations" today can trace their roots back to the Donatists.

John Calvin called the Anabaptists the "neo-donatists".

"In the time of the Reformation 1,200 years later, the Anabaptists would have nothing to do with a state church. This was one of the main reasons for their separation from Calvin, Luther and the other Reformers. The Reformers often referred to the Anabaptists as Donatists or Neo-Donatists because the Donatists had opposed this marriage of church and state 1200 years before the Reformation."

Are Baptists Reformed? Because of what Baptists Believe about Church and State, Lawrence Justice

We can safely say that "denominations" have been around since at least the time of the First Apostolic Counsel.

God Bless

Till all are one.

FaithfulPilgrim said:

Are denominations contrary to the will of God and the Scriptures?

Instead of Baptists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Presbyterians, etc, why can't we be known just as "Christians" and eschew any name that isn't biblical (the Church is referred to as the churches of Christ, church of God, the Way, etc.)

I'm using "denomination" loosely here to refer to any body of churches with an organized structure, set of beliefs, and identified by a name other than just "Christian."

Paul taught that we should not follow any man other than Jesus, as He is the one who died for us.

Martin Luther himself didn't want people who agreed with his theological perspectives to be called "Lutherans" and said he was not the one who was crucified.

I'm not saying it is wrong or sinful to attend a church affiliating with a denomination, just denominational loyalty and saying "I'm a Baptist/Methodist/Catholic/etc."instead of just a Christian.

Is it wrong to declare loyalty to a particular denomination?

Click to expand...

I feel the same way when others tell me their label I have to hold my tongue from asking them why. I just call myself a disciple/follower/believer I don't mind if others call me 'Christian' I'm on the fence whether we should claim that and be proud as it used to be a derogatory slur for us or not. I just have an anti-thing for 'pride' whenever anyone identifies as proud of anything be it an achievement or with an identity I cringe.

Hello

It's more important to focus on walking worthy of the Lord Christ Jesus and to learn to have one mind with all believers and grow and learn to reckon that we can grow in maturity to have the mind of Christ, which simply are the Scriptures, eg., His mind. I can help you with this from the Scriptures.

I preach & share & write about God's grace for saints (Christians) to walk worthy to run the race to obtain the reward in heaven. More details are available at my web / twitter: @GodChristSpirit (Twitter) and www.abbafather.co/ (website). I hope we can share God's grace today to learn more on how to share the gospel as I am very experienced to share the gospel to the lost and dying world.

We said DeaconDean

I preach & share & write about God's grace for saints (Christians) to walk worthy to run the race to obtain the reward in heaven. More details are available at my web / twitter: @GodChristSpirit (Twitter) and www.abbafather.co/ (website). I hope we can share God's grace today to learn more on how to share the gospel as I am very experienced to share the gospel to the lost and dying world.

bibledoctrine said:

Hello

It's more important to focus on walking worthy of the Lord Christ Jesus and to learn to have one mind with all believers and grow and learn to reckon that we can grow in maturity to have the mind of Christ, which simply are the Scriptures, eg., His mind. I can help you with this from the Scriptures.

I preach & share & write about God's grace for saints (Christians) to walk worthy to run the race to obtain the reward in heaven. More details are available at my web / twitter: @GodChristSpirit (Twitter) and www.abbafather.co/ (website). I hope we can share God's grace today to learn more on how to share the gospel as I am very experienced to share the gospel to the lost and dying world.

Click to expand...

You had me up to a certain point.

Each denomination is correct in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But once you have done that, they have accepted, then what?

However, that is where we part.

One group say you have to do one thing to be saved.

Another says no that isn't right, you must do this.

One says that unless you do this, you wont be saved.

Another group says that plays no part.

One group say this tells me what to do.

Another group say our instructions come from a higher source.

Here again, I just wanted to show that as far as we can learn from scriptures, no matter what anybody says in this thread, there were at least two groups (denominations; One comprised of Jewish Christians, and one comprised of Gentle Christians) in the first century!

God Bless

Till all are one.

I do not believe any denomination has the correct interpretation of all Scripture and I believe every denomination has doctrine contrived by man.

Grafted In said:

I do not believe any denomination has the correct interpretation of all Scripture and I believe every denomination has doctrine contrived by man.

Click to expand...

You know, that is funny to a certain extent.

The first two "groups" of Christians recorded in the scriptures followed "doctrines" written /spoken by men. (cf. Acts 15)

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean said:

You know, that is funny to a certain extent.

The first two "groups" of Christians recorded in the scriptures followed "doctrines" written /spoken by men. (cf. Acts 15)

God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

I fail to see the humor and I do not understand the rest of your post.

I thought it was quite clear.

God Bless

Till all are one.

FaithfulPilgrim said:

Instead of Baptists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Presbyterians, etc, why can't we be known just as "Christians" and eschew any name that isn't biblical (the Church is referred to as the churches of Christ, church of God, the Way, etc.)

Click to expand...

The Orthodox Christians call THEMSELVES The Church of Christ

I'm a devoted Baptist. Whenever I move or travel, I always look for a Baptist Church to attend. I want to make sure I'm going to a church with excellent potluck suppers.

Stillicidia said:

The Gospel of Jesus is different from the Gospel of the Kingdom.

The Gospel of the Kingdom has the Gospel of Jesus in part, and the rest is of Heaven made manifest, even as there will be the Manifest Sons and Daughters.

Click to expand...

WHAT??? The Gospel is the Gospel. "gospel" means "Good News" and it doesn't need a referent as far as whether the good news came from the Father, or from Jesus, or from the Holy Spirit. The Good News is that Jesus Christ (Messiah) was born of a virgin, lived, preached a new, simpler way to love God without all of the 663 rules (or whatever the number is in the Jewish Law), and then took all of our sin--Jews, Gentiles, Hindu, Jain, etc. ALL, and nailed them to the Cross. He suffered, died, and was buried. He rose from the dead, trampling down death by death, and to those in the tombs bestowing life.

That is the Good News! If it isn't as simple as that, then your copy of the good news is skewed.

Eastern Christians, am I right?

DeaconDean said:

You know, that is funny to a certain extent.

The first two "groups" of Christians recorded in the scriptures followed "doctrines" written /spoken by men. (cf. Acts 15)

God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges.

Monk Brendan said:

WHAT??? The Gospel is the Gospel. "gospel" means "Good News" and it doesn't need a referent as far as whether the good news came from the Father, or from Jesus, or from the Holy Spirit. The Good News is that Jesus Christ (Messiah) was born of a virgin, lived, preached a new, simpler way to love God without all of the 663 rules (or whatever the number is in the Jewish Law), and then took all of our sin--Jews, Gentiles, Hindu, Jain, etc. ALL, and nailed them to the Cross. He suffered, died, and was buried. He rose from the dead, trampling down death by death, and to those in the tombs bestowing life.

That is the Good News! If it isn't as simple as that, then your copy of the good news is skewed.

Eastern Christians, am I right?

Click to expand...

What you shared there is only a small part of God's great redemption story though. It began in God's plans before the Creation, and will only be complete when God's Kingdom (which Jesus came to inaugurate on earth) is here in its fullness.

FaithfulPilgrim said:

Are denominations contrary to the will of God and the Scriptures?

Click to expand...

Some are, and I agree with the poster that said they don't think denominations are Gods will.

I wish we were all just Christians.

Kiterius said:

What you shared there is only a small part of God's great redemption story though. It began in God's plans before the Creation, and will only be complete when God's Kingdom (which Jesus Caesar to inaugurate on earth) is here in its fulness.

Click to expand...

Granted! However, the short synopsis I gave is enough to open a conversation, to begin a dialog. It is not a full Biblical description of all that God did from the beginning of Time, nor did I intend it to be.