Paul condemned divisions in 1 Corinthians.
Paul condemned divisions in 1 Corinthians.
Maybe renounce isn't the right word. What Im trying to say is many churches don't accept the sacraments of other churches as valid. For example I was baptized by a baptist minister shortly after I had my conversion experience. I tried to join a Church of Christ a few years later and was told I had to be re baptized. I was told that the baptism didn't count. As a Christian I felt that would be an insult to God since I was already baptized. In there eyes I wasn't really a Christian. Forme, being baptized again would have been renouncing my original baptism.Why would I ever renounce my baptism?
I'm very confused by this post.
Not having studied Church history as much as you -- it still seems to me that the Christian Church largely preserved a unity that I would say agreed with Paul for nearly 1,000 years. Yes, there were many cultural expressions; yes, there were some differences of opinion; but Christians still believed together in a core of orthodox doctrine such that churches in diverse places considered themselves in communion with each other. Bishops from throughout the world could come together in council to discuss doctrinal matters.Different cultural expressions of Christianity were and are seemingly inevitable. I know that from studying Christian history in some detail.
I would beg to differ. We humans made this division; why would you think it's God's work to fix it?In the end, I believe Christian unity is primarily God's work, not ours.
This is only true if you accept the Protestant view of "invisible" unity -- which is largely self-justification and a huge cop-out.I don't believe we have to have identical denominational structures to have actual unity, anyways, in light of what I said previously. Dealing with other Christians with a certain degree of respect and love is called for.
I would beg to differ. We humans made this division; why would you think it's God's work to fix it?
.
But "be on the same mind and judgment" about what? What is scripture actually specifying here? If the answer is "everything" then that's simply not going to happen no matter whether denominations exist or not. Paul wasn't a stupid man, so I am certain he would have been aware enough of human nature to not expect the impossible, so it must be something else, and the Holy Spirit has not chosen to convict all believers into joining the exact same religious group.
And if for some reason, everyone everywhere did join the same group, it wouldn't be two minutes before they would start forming their own groups within the group based on nationality, culture, language, dogs vs. cats, whatever.
I don't say he's condemning the people, but he's certainly condemning the practice of having divisions.Don't confuse Law and Gospel here. Just because there are divisions doesn't mean people are condemned because of it.
At our church we have separate services for our Hispanic members, even a separate pastor, though most of the baptisms seem to be done at our main service. The synod wanted us to try to merge the service, and it just didn't work out. When you consider there are alot of people in the congregation that are elderly and come from up north and haven't spoken a word of Spanish in their life, it's not hard to figure out why.
Not having studied Church history as much as you -- it still seems to me that the Christian Church largely preserved a unity that I would say agreed with Paul for nearly 1,000 years. Yes, there were many cultural expressions; yes, there were some differences of opinion; but Christians still believed together in a core of orthodox doctrine such that churches in diverse places considered themselves in communion with each other. Bishops from throughout the world could come together in council to discuss doctrinal matters.
I would beg to differ. We humans made this division; why would you think it's God's work to fix it?
This is only true if you accept the Protestant view of "invisible" unity -- which is largely self-justification and a huge cop-out.
Perhaps part of the Tower of Babel lesson from Genesis.
Paul tells us what's he's talking about. "Joining the exact same religious group" is exactly what he's talking about -- not having factions centered around particular apostolic leaders. "What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:12–13).But "be on the same mind and judgment" about what? What is scripture actually specifying here? If the answer is "everything" then that's simply not going to happen no matter whether denominations exist or not. Paul wasn't a stupid man, so I am certain he would have been aware enough of human nature to not expect the impossible, so it must be something else, and the Holy Spirit has not chosen to convict all believers into joining the exact same religious group.
Nobody divides because of nationality or culture or language -- see the Catholic and Orthodox churches for example. Or about dogs vs. cats (you are being flippant). Unity in matters of doctrine and faith is what is important. And sure, forming your own groups happens -- unless you are submitting yourselves to the same leaders.And if for some reason, everyone everywhere did join the same group, it wouldn't be two minutes before they would start forming their own groups within the group based on nationality, culture, language, dogs vs. cats, whatever.
So what do you suppose "true unity" looks like?If we are to have Christian unity before Christ's return, then it must be something outside of denominations. I believe that trying to put everyone under the same umbrella in hopes that everyone will believe every point of doctrine exactly the same is not a useful way of looking at what true unity might look like. We all only see through the mirror darkly, but nothing states that the mirror isn't also faceted.
Paul tells us what's he's talking about. "Joining the exact same religious group" is exactly what he's talking about -- not having factions centered around particular apostolic leaders. "What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:12–13).
In our modern world -- the Protestant world -- we have the idea that it's up to us as individuals to agree with every other individual -- and of course that's impossible. Paul is talking about adhering to leaders.
Nobody divides because of nationality or culture or language -- see the Catholic and Orthodox churches for example. Or about dogs vs. cats (you are being flippant). Unity in matters of doctrine and faith is what is important. And sure, forming your own groups happens -- unless you are submitting yourselves to the same leaders.
So what do you suppose "true unity" looks like?
The sin you keep referring to -- with regard to the Catholic "system" -- is that it would be a sin, if I did believe that, not to follow my conscience and become Catholic. That isn't the same thing you're talking about here. If I came to a conviction of the truth of the Reformed "system," would it be a sin not to follow my conscience and remain in a church where those doctrines are not taught?
I haven't referred to "Rome" at all, not even once. I've spoken specifically of the catholic unity that existed even before the ascendancy of the pope, the ideas of Ignatius and Irenaeus that the way we preserve unity is by every bishop agreeing with one another in the apostolic tradition. Don't try to make this a "Rome" thing.What makes you think Rome's view of itself isn't equally self-justifying? That was, in fact, one of Luther's arguments against its practices in the 95 Theses.
Why do you assume Rome has the right answers on how to be a Christian? Isn't that just sort of prejudicial, the fallacy of antiquity?
What's ironic? It's just as deplorable for them as it is for anybody else.Ironically as you mention this, right now the Orthodox church is in schism, mostly along ethnic lines, Greek and Ukrainian vs. Russian. Most observers see the schism, in fact, as down to nationalism.
I haven't referred to "Rome" at all, not even once. I've spoken specifically of the catholic unity that existed even before the ascendancy of the pope, the ideas of Ignatius and Irenaeus that the way we preserve unity is by every bishop agreeing with one another in the apostolic tradition. Don't try to make this a "Rome" thing.
No, I believe that early Christians were all in agreement about essentials.So, do you believe that early Christians, all striving to be in the same mind, means that some are baptists, and others are pentecostals?
That isn't the case, nor was it God's plan.Lastly, if there was one person on the earth, only one, and God saved them, then that person is both the "church", and "The body of Christ". This ONE person would also be the "bride of Christ".
No, not identical -- but in communion.The actual history of the time period is alot more complicated than everybody simply jsut being one big happy family with identical beliefs and minds about things.
No, I believe that early Christians were all in agreement about essentials.
Nope. Because the Catholic system includes the doctrine that the Catholic church is the only true church. The Reformed system does not include the doctrine that reformed churches are the only true churches.
So, in the end, which system is more divisive?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?