Is it a sin to divide into denominations?

[Meowzltov]

It is actually confusing to watch all denominations disagree on one should follow the Scriptures fully, partially or by some has considered it obsolete. Its sad that all our beliefs should come from one God only, yet in some way our divisions have been creating our own scriptures, our own religions (aka denominations), our own forefathers/church fathers. But I guess in all religions, as this is human nature, have other denominations. Not just Christians.

I don't know of any denomination that doesn't accept the whole canon.

 

[Thomas Schular]

Not belonging to any denomination isn't evil lol.
Or "self proclaimed"
it's just a fact.

Everyone belongs to a denomination if they belong to a church... unless it is a cult.

 

[sunlover1]

Everyone belongs to a denomination if they belong to a church... unless it is a cult.

I belong to a church, and it's not a part of any denomination.
it's a group of Christians who love God and meet to worship Him.
Easy peasy.
No need to divide.
We can all be "Christians".

 

[torahpointstoHim]

I don't know of any denomination that doesn't accept the whole canon.

What I meant was "follow" the whole Hebrew scriptures. Not as a canon document. Even just following the 10 commandments, everyone is in disarray.

 

[Meowzltov]

What I meant was "follow" the whole Hebrew scriptures. Not as a canon document. Even just following the 10 commandments, everyone is in disarray.

Yes. Of course different denominations have different interpretations of scripture. It doesn't mean they don't follow it. They simply follow it to the best they can interpret it.

The only way to have unity is to return to having "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" as the Creed says. In this regard, those denominational and non-denominational churches that have gone off and formed new churches have put the Body of Christ into a state of sin. We should every one of us be working towards the day when we can obey the words of Jesus and be one even as he is one with the Father.

 

[Noxot]

I think that sometimes as the bible said sects are something the flesh creates. other times sects might be more kin to the different parts of the body of Christ.

the mind of Christ is key to ruling over the natural process that the flesh has, which it has for the sake of survival because that is what flesh creatures do in this world.

1Pet 2:11 (YLT)
Beloved, I call upon you , as strangers and sojourners, to keep from the fleshly desires, that war against the soul,

1Pet 3:18 (YLT)
because also Christ once for sin did suffer--righteous for unrighteous--that he might lead us to God, having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, and having been made alive in the spirit,

1Pet 4:1 (YLT)
Christ, then, having suffered for us in the flesh, ye also with the same mind arm yourselves, because he who did suffer in the flesh hath done with sin,

1 John 4:2 (YLT)
in this know ye the Spirit of God; every spirit that doth confess Jesus Christ in the flesh having come, of God it is,

1Tim 3:16 (YLT)
and, confessedly, great is the secret of piety--God was manifested in flesh, declared righteous in spirit, seen by messengers, preached among nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory!

Col 2:13 (YLT)
And you--being dead in the trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh--He made alive together with him, having forgiven you all the trespasses,

Eph 5:29-33 (YLT)
for no one ever his own flesh did hate, but doth nourish and cherish it, as also the Lord--the assembly, because members we are of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones;

`for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they shall be--the two--for one flesh;' this secret is great, and I speak in regard to Christ and to the assembly;

but ye also, every one in particular--let each his own wife so love as himself, and the wife--that she may reverence the husband.

ect.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What I meant was "follow" the whole Hebrew scriptures. Not as a canon document. Even just following the 10 commandments, everyone is in disarray.

As Yahweh Says, Seek, and Keep Seeking.....
see those who are living continually, daily, full of peace and joy and righteousness,
as written in the New Testament (perhaps OT also?) ,
and more amazing grace - living daily "in union" (as one) with Jesus, not on and off nor sometimes nor 2 hours a week, but continually, daily, in union with Jesus and the Father, and with one another.

Rare? Yes. True ? See full description(s) of the Ekklesia in the NT, then as Yahweh permits in Ekklesia TODAY, wherever "everyone" follows Jesus and keeps the TORAH humbly and honorably in Him, as written throughout the New Testament Epistles and Revelation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No perfect denomination sadly. But I think there will always be room for learning with one another.

Did Jesus say there would be any perfect denomination ? (no, I don't think so)
Did Jesus say to Ekklesia (the disciples): "You must be perfect" ? Yes, totally ! And it is so, as it is written. (footnote: "perfect" in the western/english ways of thinking is not the same as Jesus spoke; we Ekklesia are to be and can be "perfect" His Way, following Him every day, but not as defined in English or America; also, obviously, not as lived in most places - being set apart is accomplished by Yahweh, as Yahweh sets apart people for Himself out of every nation)

 

[Albion]

Yes. Of course different denominations have different interpretations of scripture. It doesn't mean they don't follow it. They simply follow it to the best they can interpret it.
The only way to have unity is to return to having "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" as the Creed says. In this regard, those denominational and non-denominational churches that have gone off and formed new churches have put the Body of Christ into a state of sin.

The "rub" is that there is no agreement on who it was that went off, etc.

 

[Meowzltov]

The "rub" is that there is no agreement on who it was that went off, etc.

Lutheran church, started by Martin Luther.
Church of England, started by Henry the VIII
Baptist Church, started by John Smyth
Church of Scotland (from which comes the Prebyterian Church) John Knox
Methodist Church, started by Wesley
and on and on.

Every Protestant denomination has its date and founder after the Reformation. That says everything you need to know.

 

[hedrick]

There's no real alternative. People aren't always going to agree. There were serious disagreements from NT times. Either we have to be willing to accept these within one church, or we have multiple churches. Through most of Christian history, churches haven't been willing to accept significant disagreements. They ejected those who disagreed, which created a second church.

You could say the people who disagreed should have accepted the judgement of the church, but few have been willing to compromise the Gospel because a majority disagreed with them. Should Athanasius have accepted Arianism when the church went that way?

There's just no solution other than accepting differences, and few are willing to do that.

 

[Albion]

Lutheran church, started by Martin Luther.

True

Church of England, started by Henry the VIII

False

Baptist Church, started by John Smyth

True

Church of Scotland (from which comes the Prebyterian Church) John Knox

True

Methodist Church, started by Wesley

False

So much for that version of church history.

But you also omitted:
Roman Catholic Church, founded by Leo the Great. Later to split from the Orthodox Eastern churches in the Great Schism of 1054.

If there is ANY denomination that can make a claim to be the original and that everyone has split from it (and that this matters)...

...it would be the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Meowzltov]

But you also omitted:
Roman Catholic Church, founded by Leo the Great.

Oh that's a pretty funny assertion. Where do you get that idea from? And what changed about the church from the pope before Leo to Leo's tenure that you think did away with the Christian church and replaced it with the Catholic Church (at least in the west, I'm assuming).

 

[hedrick]

True

False

True

True

False

I would argue that the Pope created the Lutheran church by ejecting people from the Catholic church. That guaranteed a second church. In many other cases, people intentionally departed from a church, but in this case Luther didn't do that.

The Scottish church seems to have been independent initially, and reasserted its independence.

One of the problems is that in the NT there doesn't seem to have been a single international church organization. There were apostles going between the churches, trying to maintain some consistency. But they seem to have been independent. I admit that my position isn't entirely consistent with my own denomination, but I think Scripturally the primary church is the local church, and larger bodies are organizational conveniences to allow them to collaborate, and to provide accountability for pastors. I have no problem with multiple larger bodies.

My problem comes when the local churches or larger bodies start to deny that others are parts of the one church, the body of Christ.

 

[Traveling teacher]

the Kingdom of God comes out of the church in the resurection.....

so I am at peace with diferent denominations....
they had them in 1st century....
some were of Paul
some were of Peter
some were of Apolos
some followed James

not a problem in following leaders so long as they point you to Christ

these men did the best they could but we should all have a personal relation
with Jesus Christ through God the Father

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

True

False

True

True

False

So much for that version of church history.

But you also omitted:
Roman Catholic Church, founded by Leo the Great. Later to split from the Orthodox Eastern churches in the Great Schism of 1054.

If there is ANY denomination that can make a claim to be the original and that everyone has split from it (and that this matters)...

...it would be the Eastern Orthodox.

Why make the RCC begin with Leo?

 

[Albion]

And what changed about the church from the pope before Leo to Leo's tenure that you think did away with the Christian church and replaced it with the Catholic Church (at least in the west, I'm assuming).

Quite obviously, the Papacy is the most distinctive and essential element in Roman Catholicism, but it was not part of Christianity until several centuries after Pentecost. The Eastern Churches never acknowledged the pretensions of the bishop of Rome, as I am sure you know.

 

[Albion]

I would argue that the Pope created the Lutheran church by ejecting people from the Catholic church....The Scottish church seems to have been independent initially, and reasserted its independence.

Good points, Hedrick, and not points I didn't give some thought to, but when the assertion is phrased as "started by," and each case is somewhat different from the last, we are left to do some interpreting, so....

 

[Meowzltov]

Quite obviously, the Papacy is the most distinctive and essential element in Roman Catholicism, but it was not part of Christianity until several centuries after Pentecost. The Eastern Churches never acknowledged the pretensions of the bishop of Rome, as I am sure you know.

In 1054, one of the problems was that the Eastern Church wanted the Patriarch of Constantinople to be the equivalent of the Pope. So it's not like they didn't have the idea. It's that they had a competing Pope. In many respects (i'm not trying to reduce the breakup to this) the schism was a "Quien es mas macho" contest.

 

[Meowzltov]

I would argue that the Pope created the Lutheran church by ejecting people from the Catholic church.

Do you think the Catholic Church hands out excommunications left and right? Luther was excommunicated. The original Lutherans simply joined him of their own free will. The anathemas of Trent came much later. Your argument fails.