Denominations are bad mmmmkay?

98cwitr said:

The irony is that the OP's faith is Lutheran, which last time I checked, is a denomination. Just stating the obvious!

Click to expand...

Truth be told, there is not a single person here at CF who is not affiliated with some branch (or denomination, if you will) of Christianity.

ViaCrucis said:

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

Click to expand...

Very nice thread Crypto.

ViaCrucis said:

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

Click to expand...

If I may add, I do think what you said was very much on point. However, what I've also noted is that people within the same vein as the camps you noted also have people either supporting them or joining against them who claim to be from Liturgical traditions - and yet those people will also hold positions which are actually radically opposed to both Christ and Christianity in ways that even Restoration groups would oppose.

I am reminded of how there were multiple times in the past where you'd have people in battles over the topic you noted and people would jump in who were Catholic or Anglican denouncing those groups as unbiblical and yet they would be supporting demonic systems such as Freemasonry - things which even the groups you mentioned would be against just as other Liturgical groups have called out within their ranks when others try to critique groups outside of their camp while also holding to demonic ideologies within the camp. This happens a lot without people even knowing it when critiquing the groups you listed and yet not even realizing that they are a part of a country built on ungodly principles or ideologies based on groups which had the same mindsets (more shared here and here)....

And yes, those things are massive problems all around. Much of the U.S was already founded on Restorationist principles, including the idea that the U.S itself was "the New Israel" and other ideas that justified all manner of mess in the name of "a City on a Hill" (As was the case with the Puritans when they came over with their "errand in the wilderness" and had to justify their existence in the New World by pitting themselves against all others). Mormons did the same thing based on Restorationist ideology - even when waging war with multiple other groups, as shared in Mormonism & War: Why do Christians claim Mormonism is Peaceful despite its history?

That said....

There are many wonderful things that have developed which we should keep in mind when it comes to the Restorationist groups....Restoration Movement in its History, Beliefs, and Practices (including those today considering themselves to be Neo-Restorationists or things like the Campbellite and Restorationist traditions in the South - and other places involving Restorationists )

With positive things coming out of the Restorationist camp, I'm reminded of the Welsh Revival of 1904-05, as most focus on Azuza Street (itself birthed out a view that it was the "END TIMES" and the last move of the Holy Spirit was to happen in their days.."latter rain") as if that was the sole revival/movement developing at the time when in fact there were various others that had impact...connecting with the Pentecostal Movement as well.

Some coming to mind are ones such as Evan Roberts, as he is acknowledged by many Christians as the first charismatic leader of the 20th century, and among his legacies is the Apostolic Church, whose founders were inspired by this great revival. ....and in many ways, the Azuza Street Revival and Pentecostalism did not arise in a vaccum. There were things precedding it---all of it connected with the Restorationist movement (even as it concerns the aspect of restoranist house churches) - and as it concerns variations of that today, its always amazing to see how they have developed in other parts of the world. Smith Wigglesworth is one who comes to mind----for he was a British by-product of the Pentecostal Revival in the States, by way of A.A. Boddy and his wife, Mary. Their centre in Sunderland was one early manifestation of the growing desire for power in ministry. ..and behind Sunderland lay the experiences of the Welsh revival (1903-5) and of course the Keswick meetings.

There are other works where Jenkins does some good investigative history on the development of groups that he discussed in his "The New Christendom" book. One of them is known as "Mystics and messiahs : cults and new religions in American history" . I was able to get at the library by Jenkins/review it--and it goes into good detail about the history of cults within the U.S...and seeing how they have evolved.

Within it, Jenkins profiles some of the more famous new American religions, such as Mormonism - but he also examines some lesser-known groups, such as the House of David. Its interesting to witness how religious tolerance is still challenging today...for where some contend that we are in a unprecedented era of new "cults" and "heterodoxy", it can be easily forgotten how the American religious landscape has always been filled with new faiths dismissed in their time as deviant. As Charles Ferguson observed in 1928, "America has always been the sanctuary of amazing cults." ..but America has also been the home of an often hysterical anti-cult backlash. Jenkins provided some insightful analysis of why cults arouse such fear and hatred both in the secular world and in mainstream churches, many of which--Baptists, Quakers, Pentecostals, and Methodists--were themselves originally regarded as cults. I enjoyed learning of the many instances where the very religious movements that were once denounced as new faiths produce the leaders who in turn denounce the faiths that come after them.

And with the Restorationist camp, they do exactly as their grandparent - the Reformation - did when it comes to demanding for freedom to believe as they wish....and yet wanting to say that their own existence is to be the END of development since it is often seen in many camps coming out of the Restorationist camp that they are the fulfillment of truth.

With the Restorationist camp, we also have people that came out of it such as John Darby and his views on Dispensationalism (many of which were corrupt in addition to the fact that many things Darby did were indeed oppressive to others disagreeing ) - and from him came Plymoth Brethren (including all the splits in the groups of Brethern that followed) and others. And it may continue onward.

The Reformation had many beautiful things going for it and I do believe the Lord worked in it - but it also had a dark side which set the stage for a lot of mess (more shared here and here/ here)...and we have to be honest with that. For other places to investigate which may be beneficial:

• Restoration Movement History, Beliefs, and Practices
• "Modern Theology of Restorationism,"
• The Problem with Primitivism - Patheos
• What is Restorationism and the Restoration Movement?
• Primitivism, Radicalism, and the Lamb's War : The Baptist-Quaker ...
• “Ecclesiology In The Major ‘Apostolic’ Restorationist Churches In The United Kingdom,”
• The Problems with Primitivism | Catholic AnswersHughes-The history of Christian primitivism in America

Darth Bagel said:

That's the whole enchilada right there, in my opinion. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Click to expand...

And without dogma and doctrine, it is easier for people to go off on the wrong path. The fact is, I see positions being expressed on these boards that were declared to be heresies back in the 4th century (ex., Arian and Nestorian heresies). They are still alive and well. If we don't know the history of the Christian Church, we will keep making the same mistakes in belief. The New Testament was written within the Early Church. They rejected many writings that were floating around when they came up with the NT canon. The Church created on Pentecost still exists, and if you don't believe that Church, you can't trust the New Testament either. The New Testament was written within the Church, it did not fall out of the sky on Pentecost.

katherine2001 said:

And without dogma and doctrine, it is easier for people to go off on the wrong path. The fact is, I see positions being expressed on these boards that were declared to be heresies back in the 4th century (ex., Arian and Nestorian heresies). They are still alive and well. If we don't know the history of the Christian Church, we will keep making the same mistakes in belief. The New Testament was written within the Early Church. They rejected many writings that were floating around when they came up with the NT canon. The Church created on Pentecost still exists, and if you don't believe that Church, you can't trust the New Testament either. The New Testament was written within the Church, it did not fall out of the sky on Pentecost.

Click to expand...

Solomon was correct in his assertion that "what has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

ViaCrucis said:

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:

Click to expand...

here Jesus "just uses the Bible" to hammer tradition -


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Albion said:

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.

Click to expand...

PS--Church of God (Anderson) has nothing to do with WCG. CHoG emerged from the holiness movement in the 1860s as an attempt to bring Christians together, calling themselves a movement rather than a denomination (yeah, semantics, I know). It is still very strong in the midwest. Probably the best-known person associated with the Church of God (Anderson) is musician Bill Gaither.

Wordkeeper said:

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?

Click to expand...

LOL. That's actually how Arminianism came about in the first place; Arminius started questioning the idea of "limited atonement" and tried to see how far the conclusions took him.

Seems the problem is not following Christ as led by the Holy Spirit...but thinking that after doing so, one needs to start a following of those who believe precisely what you do. Fellowship is fine; but Jesus made it abundantly clear that His followers should be following Him, not other Christians.

ViaCrucis said:

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

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you; however, don't Liberal Christians do a similar thing? Don't they ignore thousands of years of church history on issues such as homosexuality and creation? Don't they think themselves smarter or better than 99% of the past 2,000 years of Christendom? Don't progressives think they have a new understanding that the simpleminded or "narrow" folks have missed?

Also, from what I've seen, Lutherans are among the least generous people when it comes to fellowship/acceptance with other Christians.

In other words, aren't you kinda calling the kettle black here?

Denominations just exist. I am not confident that their existence is bad nor am I convinced that it is good.

actionsub said:

PS--Church of God (Anderson) has nothing to do with WCG. CHoG emerged from the holiness movement in the 1860s as an attempt to bring Christians together, calling themselves a movement rather than a denomination (yeah, semantics, I know). It is still very strong in the midwest. Probably the best-known person associated with the Church of God (Anderson) is musician Bill Gaither.

Click to expand...

This is an example of what happens when someone picks up a comment made a long time before and then critiques it.

It took me awhile to figure out if I'd even written the words you are quoting, so unfamiliar did they seem to me when I read them. But by reconstructing things I was able to see what was going on.

Contrary to what you apparently thought, I was not saying anything about the history of those two church bodies EXCEPT to say that the post made by another person that categorized eight such "restorationist" churches included only two that amounted to anything. I was saying that his list wasn't very good, not that I was favorable or unfavorable towards them, or anything else about them.

Yes, I know very well the difference between the WWCoG and the CofG (Anderson).

BobRyan said:

here Jesus "just uses the Bible" to hammer tradition -


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Click to expand...

You ignore the Bible when it commands you to follow Tradition:

Hold Fast to the Traditions which we have taught you, whether by our word, or by our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15

Here just the Bible hammers on Sola Scriptura, the manmade tradition of the Protestant Reformation.

D. A. Taylor said:

Seems the problem is not following Christ as led by the Holy Spirit...but thinking that after doing so, one needs to start a following of those who believe precisely what you do. Fellowship is fine; but Jesus made it abundantly clear that His followers should be following Him, not other Christians.

Click to expand...

The Apostles taught the importance of the Church and following good leaders. In Philippians, Paul named many people who were worthy of following, including Clement, whose writing we have. We need leaders in front of us as much as we need Christ. And we need those leaders to be firmly planted in the Apostolic truth, and not the systematic theologies that replace Scripture and Tradition.

In this example Christ demonstrates how to hammer tradition and doctrine "sola scriptura" when they don't measure up



Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

sculleywr said:

You ignore the Bible when it commands you to follow Tradition:

Click to expand...

Is that merely a factless false accusation you are "trying out" or did you have some actual fact to back it up?

Hold Fast to the Traditions which we have taught you, whether by our word, or by our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15)

A great example of the Bible NOT speaking out against the Mark 7:6-13 and Act 17:11 model of "sola scriptura" testing of all tradition and doctrine.

Galatians 1 only works if one applies "sola scriptura testing" to even Apostles and angels.

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

That Gal 1 testing - via the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method of testing - is how the danger mentioned in 2 Cor 11 is avoided.

2 Cor 11
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.


in Christ,

Bob

Is this thread still on topic or has it diverged onto SS or something?

Albion said:

Yes, I know very well the difference between the WWCoG and the CofG (Anderson).

Click to expand...

I remember nearly having my head handed to me by an Anderson CofG guy when I asked him to compare his group to the Cleveland CofG. Whoa Nellie!

actionsub said:

I remember nearly having my head handed to me by an Anderson CofG guy when I asked him to compare his group to the Cleveland CofG. Whoa Nellie!

Click to expand...

What's an Anderson CoG?

BobRyan said:

In this example Christ demonstrates how to hammer tradition and doctrine "sola scriptura" when they don't measure up



Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.




Is that merely a factless false accusation you are "trying out" or did you have some actual fact to back it up?

Hold Fast to the Traditions which we have taught you, whether by our word, or by our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15)

A great example of the Bible NOT speaking out against the Mark 7:6-13 and Act 17:11 model of "sola scriptura" testing of all tradition and doctrine.

Galatians 1 only works if one applies "sola scriptura testing" to even Apostles and angels.

Gal 1
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we (apostles), or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

That Gal 1 testing - via the Acts 17:11 "sola scriptura" method of testing - is how the danger mentioned in 2 Cor 11 is avoided.

2 Cor 11
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.


in Christ,

Bob

Click to expand...

It isn't speaking out against Mark. It is speaking out against your personal interpretation of Mark to exclude Apostolic Tradition and replace it with the manmade tradition of Sola Scriptura. It is speaking of two types of Tradition given to the Church, written Tradition in Scripture, and oral Tradition in Word. People who teach other than that are "false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.

Sola Scriptura is the cause of denominations. You don't believe in Scripture alone. You believe in your interpretation of Scripture alone. If you truly took the Scripture at its word, you wouldn't believe it to be alone because it never claims to be the highest authority or only authority. That is additional tradition.

MoreCoffee said:

What's an Anderson CoG?

Click to expand...

There are two or three denominations that use the name "Church of God". To distinguish, the city of that particular group's headquarters is sometimes added for clarity.
The Wesleyan holiness group known as the "Church of God" is headquartered in Anderson, Indiana; hence Church of God (Anderson) or Anderson CoG. The Pentecostal group that emerged in the late 1800's is centered around Cleveland, Tennessee, so they are known as Church of God (Cleveland). The latter CoG has split about three or four different ways, with a branch with its home office somewhere in Alabama, and another group who claims THEY are the real deal who call themselves "Church of God of Prophecy", also with HQ in Cleveland, TN. There are a couple of Mormon offshoots that also use the name, as well as the various splinter groups from Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God.