Denominations are bad mmmmkay?

[bbbbbbb]

Nice story. Sounds like it was told from the point of view of "Nancy" without bothering to investigate the pastor's side of the story.

It would be interesting to know certain fundamental facts, though, such as what exactly was the doctrine in question, what were the basis for her objections, and exactly how the issue was addressed. It seems pretty obvious to me that she was not too interested in maintaining biblical doctrine since she was willing to assume that she was qualified for the office of pastor, and to fall even deeper into error by starting up a church built around her and her own interpretations. Did you mention arrogance?

This "Nancy" wasn't Joyce Meyer was it? She has a very similar story, and was raised LCMS Lutheran.

I was told this story by her husband and was also curious to hear the other side of the story. Knowing Nancy as I did I was appalled by her arrogance in all things, especially theology. I actually think Nancy is probably more arrogant than Joyce Meyer, although (fortunately) not nearly as popular or successful.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There seems to have been some confusion over exactly what I was being critical of in the OP.

I was not being critical of having a conviction and starting a church based on said conviction (that would be a separate discussion than the one I started here). I was being critical of a particular mindset that I see frequently: "All denominations are bad, there shouldn't be denominations, here let me show you how to have a pure, authentic Church without the corruption of human traditions." Which, 100% of the time, results in the creation of a brand new denomination.

There are those who have argued here in GT recently (and it's something I have seen consistently in discussions many places throughout the years) that they, by the profound and special insight granted to them by God the Holy Spirit through their private and individual reading of the Bible, have finally and effectively solved the problem of Christian factionalism and denominationalism--the answer is to follow them and acknowledge them as rightful teacher of the word and spokesman for God into their divinely guided (they say) vision for what the Church is supposed to be. They say that if we just do it their way, if we just follow them, if we just listen and believe what they say (or as they are wont to put it: "just go by what the Bible says") then we'll have this special version of Church that is identical to the New Testament Church and thus be abiding in the will of God. What they consistently fail to understand is that they weren't the first person to do this: they are just one more in a long line of one man do-it-yourself-ers with the perfect solution to the problem of denominationalism and factionalism within the Christian community. And their answer isn't to get rid of denominations and "human traditions" but is simply to create a new denomination of their own making and insert their own self-made human traditions into the matrix of faith, practice, and theology.

That's my criticism.

If you think you can do church better than what everyone else has, hey more power to you. But don't be disingenuous about it, acknowledge that you are abiding by your own personal and private understanding of Scripture, theology, and Christianity in order to start your own new group.

No, you didn't receive special magical insight from the Holy Spirit. No you are not any more free from the basic problems of human fallibility and hubris than everyone else. You're not God's super special snowflake chosen to fix all the problems that plague the Church.

That's my criticism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Open Heart]

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:

It's not just denominations that do this. Non-denominational churches do it as well. The trick is to find what you think is a church that teaches the TRUTH, including in its traditions. There is no such thing as Bible alone, so give up on that nonsense. The Holy Spirit does not lead INDIVIDUALS to all truth, so that's another bit of nonsense to give up. FIND THE ORIGINAL CHURCH.

 

[Tangible]

It's not just denominations that do this. Non-denominational churches do it as well. The trick is to find what you think is a church that teaches the TRUTH, including in its traditions. There is no such thing as Bible alone, so give up on that nonsense. The Holy Spirit does not lead INDIVIDUALS to all truth, so that's another bit of nonsense to give up. FIND THE ORIGINAL CHURCH.

 

[Standing Up]

"That's my criticism."

So your criticism is their (the new leader) failure of self awareness as to what they are really doing. It's not God, but self that starts a new denomination.

Luther was no different because he tried to work within the organization, but their failure to respond was when God told him to start a new denomination, however, it was really his self instructing himself "enough of this nonsense".

Every group, whether RC, EO, OO, A, P, JW, LDS, etc has a leader who thought I am doing God's will and they are leaving or have already left the truth to follow "men's traditions". All of them.

 

[Open Heart]

Luther was no different because he tried to work within the organization, but their failure to respond was when God told him to start a new denomination, however, it was really his self instructing himself "enough of this nonsense".

He should have repented when disfellowshiped.

 

[bbbbbbb]

He should have repented when disfellowshiped.

Why?

 

[D. A. Taylor]

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.

Greetings!

What you wrote sounds like a "logical" conclusion, but the apostle John seems to have a different perspective:

These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him [Christ] (I John 2:26-27).

According to John, with Christ (His teachings) and the Holy Spirit, a Christian can survive without additional human teaching. So how does what John wrote integrate into what you posted? Do you agree or disagree with John?

 

[Open Heart]

Why?

Because heresy is a sin.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Every Christian should regularly read and study scripture, and you should test what your pastor teaches for conformity to the scriptures and for conformity to the historical teaching of the church catholic.

But if your pastor is a man of character and integrity who has applied himself to the study of scripture, in a properly credentialed and supervised course of study, within the framework of the historical church catholic, who is capable of understanding and studying the scriptures in the original languages, and who has received a proper call to the ministry of word and sacrament - why shouldn't you "just believe what your pastor tells you to"?

This flies in the face of American individualism, that's why. We want to be the ones in control of what we believe, and we do not trust even legitimate authority. And that's our problem, not the pastor's or scripture's problem.

It's not that simple. Churches send candidates for seminary training. There even with controlled indoctrination, because of the objective techniques they acquire, they find views that are contrary to their denominational affiliation, maybe even Christian affiliation. Some become doubtful, others switch to opposing views, Calvinism or Arminianism, others become apostates. It doesn't occur to them that just because Christendom or their denomination may not be holding to the view of the original church, who devoted their entire lives to teaching a view that enriched its hearers (living waters flowed out of their inner beings, they became sources of regeneration!), indeed were willing to die for it, they give up in their effort to seek the kingdom, and die in their sin.


We should listen to compromised sources?

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Because heresy is a sin.

It is not a sin to dissent from man made doctrine.

Do you really think that any denomination has 100% perfect understanding of the Bible and has developed completely perfect doctrine based on it?

Does any denomination have doctrine that has stayed the same through time?

If No is the answer for any of these questions than people have the right to challenge any church's doctrine.

Mostly, please remember that most doctrines are superfluous to salvation.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

If you think you can do church better than what everyone else has, hey more power to you. But don't be disingenuous about it, acknowledge that you are abiding by your own personal and private understanding of Scripture, theology, and Christianity in order to start your own new group.

No, you didn't receive special magical insight from the Holy Spirit. No you are not any more free from the basic problems of human fallibility and hubris than everyone else. You're not God's super special snowflake chosen to fix all the problems that plague the Church.

Can you acknowledge that the RCC thought the same of Martin Luther?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can you acknowledge that the RCC thought the same of Martin Luther?

I can't acknowledge that because it's categorically false. From the vantage point of Rome Luther was a heretical renegade monk challenging the authority of the Church--which simply isn't analogous to what I've been saying.

I thought I was being clear before, but here let me attempt to clarify things further:

In this thread I am not criticizing the following:

- Disagreement with established ecclesiastical structures and doctrine.
- Using Scripture to establish norms of practice for a ecclesiastical community, which by necessity involves Scripture and interpretation/tradition.

In this thread I am criticizing:

- Claiming to be avoiding denominationalism by creating a new denomination.
- Claiming to not be interpreting Scripture but simply believing "What the Bible says."
- Claiming to not rely on tradition when, of course, tradition is being relied on--e.g. the tradition of the Biblical Canon.

My critique is against hubris and ignorance, not the existence of or creation of new denominations.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

According to John, with Christ (His teachings) and the Holy Spirit, a Christian can survive without additional human teaching. So how does what John wrote integrate into what you posted? Do you agree or disagree with John?

Question: How did you learn about St. John or what he wrote?

If you read it in a Bible then your post here becomes self-defeating.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tangible]

It's not that simple. Churches send candidates for seminary training. There even with controlled indoctrination, because of the objective techniques they acquire, they find views that are contrary to their denominational affiliation, maybe even Christian affiliation. Some become doubtful, others switch to opposing views, Calvinism or Arminianism, others become apostates. It doesn't occur to them that just because Christendom or their denomination may not be holding to the view of the original church, who devoted their entire lives to teaching a view that enriched its hearers (living waters flowed out of their inner beings, they became sources of regeneration!), indeed were willing to die for it, they give up in their effort to seek the kingdom, and die in their sin.

The answer lies within your post. How do we recognize false teachers? Because they deviate from the norm.

Can false teachers be found in seminaries? Sadly, yes, and in some seminaries more than others. That's where denominational oversight comes into play.

In my own denomination, the LCMS, there was recently an ordained professor in one of the colleges that does preparatory degrees for our seminarians who was teaching against the established doctrines of our denomination. It was a scandal and an outrage. Through a fair and rather lengthy process (almost a year in length) this professor was identified, called to repent, and when repentance was rejected, expelled from the synod (denomination).

Are there other false teachers in our system that are not as vocal about their false teachings, who fly under the radar and continue to lead young minds astray? Almost certainly. And that is why having not only a formal denomination comes in handy, but also a historical confessional statement, such as our Book of Concord, where basic theological positions are painstakingly enumerated, so that when disputes do arise we have an authoritative document to refer to.

We should listen to compromised sources?

We have no other choice. There is no such thing as an uncompromised source. Even Holy Scripture becomes compromised as soon as it is interpreted by a fallible human.

We do the best with what we have to work with, and within a denominational structure there is accountability.

When there is no oversight false teaching can grow unchecked, compounding in error, leading many astray. And do not think that anyone is immune. The very worst false teachers out there today began with the notion that they could interpret scripture better than someone else, that they had hidden knowledge and were granted special insight. Newsflash: They are just as much influenced by their sinful nature as anyone else, and just as prone to mistaking their own ideas for the leading of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Greetings!

What you wrote sounds like a "logical" conclusion, but the apostle John seems to have a different perspective:

These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him [Christ] (I John 2:26-27).

According to John, with Christ (His teachings) and the Holy Spirit, a Christian can survive without additional human teaching. So how does what John wrote integrate into what you posted? Do you agree or disagree with John?

I agree with John, but I don't think you understand the context of those verses. Go read the rest of that chapter. That verse is at the tail end of a warning against the anti-christ and false teachers.

 

[Albion]

In this thread I am criticizing:

- Claiming to be avoiding denominationalism by creating a new denomination.
- Claiming to not be interpreting Scripture but simply believing "What the Bible says."
- Claiming to not rely on tradition when, of course, tradition is being relied on--e.g. the tradition of the Biblical Canon.

My critique is against hubris and ignorance, not the existence of or creation of new denominations.

-CryptoLutheran

With respect, this otherwise reasonable observation about "non-denominational" movements is damaged by including as part of the point, 1) the characterization of those involved as ignorant, etc., and 2) the idea that accepting the Bible as one's ultimate guide to doctrine is to use "tradition" when, really, it's not that at all. I mean, you're a Lutheran and I assume you would not say that Lutherans use "tradition" just like the Catholics who revile all Protestants for Sola Scriptura.

Couldn't we just say that non-denominational movements in history seem always to produce new denominations?

I think that's defensible as a proposition, although some adherents of the Churches of Christ or the Church of God (Anderson), for example, might respond by saying that the number of doctrines in those churches are so few by comparison to almost any (other) denomination, that their movement has indeed taken an important step in the direction of real non-denominationalism.

 

[Wordkeeper]

The answer lies within your post. How do we recognize false teachers? Because they deviate from the norm.Can false teachers be found in seminaries? Sadly, yes, and in some seminaries more than others. That's where denominational oversight comes into play.In my own denomination, the LCMS, there was recently an ordained professor in one of the colleges that does preparatory degrees for our seminarians who was teaching against the established doctrines of our denomination. It was a scandal and an outrage. Through a fair and rather lengthy process (almost a year in length) this professor was identified, called to repent, and when repentance was rejected, expelled from the synod (denomination).Are there other false teachers in our system that are not as vocal about their false teachings, who fly under the radar and continue to lead young minds astray? Almost certainly. And that is why having not only a formal denomination comes in handy, but also a historical confessional statement, such as our Book of Concord, where basic theological positions are painstakingly enumerated, so that when disputes do arise we have an authoritative document to refer to.We have no other choice. There is no such thing as an uncompromised source. Even Holy Scripture becomes compromised as soon as it is interpreted by a fallible human.We do the best with what we have to work with, and within a denominational structure there is accountability.When there is no oversight false teaching can grow unchecked, compounding in error, leading many astray. And do not think that anyone is immune. The very worst false teachers out there today began with the notion that they could interpret scripture better than someone else, that they had hidden knowledge and were granted special insight. Newsflash: They are just as much influenced by their sinful nature as anyone else, and just as prone to mistaking their own ideas for the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I wasn't clear. There was a case of a Calvinist church which sent a candidate to a Calvinist seminary. He was taught the original languages and hermeneutics and shown how Calvinist doctrine was arrived at, formed. Unfortunately, he found more support for Arminian conclusions than Calvinist (go figure!) and landed in a not uncommon quandary. What was he to do? More often than not, most seminarians in the situation remain in the denomination because it was the Christian(!) thing to do, if you get my meaning.


And as I mentioned, some even found evidence for not continuing in Christianity.


Unlike Ehrman, they continued to work as pastors.


So do we obey compromised teaching?



The point is that mainline denominations are structured such that there is no room for reformation, semper reformanda notwithstanding, a fact noted and bemoaned by Wright.



It's easier for a more flexible format, like a non pastor led church, to reach the views that the first century church held, without fear of rebuke from the leadership than with the present model.

 

[Albion]

I wasn't clear. There was a case of a Calvinist church which sent a candidate to a Calvinist seminary. He was taught the original languages and hermeneutics and shown how Calvinist doctrine was arrived at, formed. Unfortunately, he found more support for Arminian conclusions than Calvinist (go figure!) and landed in a not uncommon quandary. What was he to do? More often than not, most seminarians in the situation remain in the denomination because it was the Christian(!) thing to do, if you get my meaning.


And as I mentioned, some even found evidence for not continuing in Christianity.


Unlike Ehrman, they continued to work as pastors.


So do we obey compromised teaching?



The point is that mainline denominations are structured such that there is no room for reformation, semper reformanda notwithstanding, a fact noted and bemoaned by Wright.



It's easier for a more flexible format, like a non pastor led church, to reach the views that the first century church held, without fear of rebuke from the leadership than with the present model.

From a strictly organizational standpoint, that might be so. But what is the opposite side of that coin? It's to have congregations in which the leaders are untrained, untested, and unqualified. Often, the kind of church that's described is a "family church," which is to say a small congregation with no outside supervision in which a few members, usually related by blood or marriage, are allowed to run everything as though they own it. Often, they did found the congregation, so that's not surprising.

To me, that's worse than jumping from the frying pan into the fire. It's an argument for substituting a glorified Bible study group for the historic church.

 

[Rick Otto]

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

-CryptoLutheran

Not a problem like do it yourself salvation became 'inside the camp'.