Is it a sin to divide into denominations?

[hedrick]

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.

There’s a difference between the first-generation reformers and later church creation. Luther, Calvin (and other Swiss Reformers) and Henry VIII didn’t create new churches. People didn’t transfer their membership to some new body. Rather, existing churches started operating differently. In a different world, they could have continued to be in communion with Rome. Technically it was Rome’s decision not to allow that. I understand why. Christianity as conceptualized in the 16th Cent didn’t allow for significant variation. But it was that fact, rather than people deciding to split from it, that caused the splits.

It’s hard to get too worked up over this, though, since the Reformers had just as narrow concepts of what it means to be the Church. This means that the next set of reformers, who didn’t have enough support to change the church in an entire region, did actually create new churches. But it’s not quite true that the Luther, Calvin, etc. created new churches. They didn’t. They reformed the existing church within their region.

 

[Albion]

In 1054, one of the problems was that the Eastern Church wanted the Patriarch of Constantinople to be the equivalent of the Pope.

Well, that's not true, but you have to say something.

 

[Meowzltov]

Well, that's not true, but you have to say something.

It's quite true. What was untrue was for you to say that there was no concept of the Papacy in the early church. But I've become accustomed to expect that from you.

 

[Albion]

It's quite true. What was untrue was for you to say that there was no concept of the Papacy in the early church.

There wasn't...but you are free to try to present the usual RC argument in favor of that proposition. I will then show you how the facts of the matter are to the opposite.

 

[Meowzltov]

Luther, Calvin (and other Swiss Reformers) and Henry VIII didn’t create new churches.

If you are actually going to make these sorts of claims, I don't see how we can have a rational discussion. You realize, I'm sure, that when I say they created new churches that I'm not talking about new church buildings? Local people by and large followed the leader. I'm using church in a larger sense than that.

 

[Meowzltov]

There wasn't...but you are free to try to present the usual RC argument in favor of that proposition. I will then show you how the facts of the matter are to the opposite.

I have on many occasions, but you are beyond reason.

 

[Albion]

I'm waiting.

 

[Meowzltov]

I'm waiting.

You'll have to run a search for previous conversations. I don't intend on repeating myself yet again.

 

[ubicaritas]

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".

We can't all be "Christian"s because people understand the Bible differently. The Bible does not give clear answers to all possible questions we might bring to it, and people disagree even on the interpretation of the passages that are relatively clear. Some of those interpretations are so different some feel they cannot have fellowship with others in good conscience. That's just the way it is.

My Catholic friends might say we simply need better interpreters, and I would agree except I don't believe history lends much credence to the idea that there are actually better interpreters than what we can get through the best scholarship about the Bible, history, and science.

 

[ubicaritas]

New denominations have developed when new wine came into the picture and needed to be put in new wineskins. If the new wine be poured into the old denomination, or if a new patch be put on an old garment; the bottle would burst, or the garment would tear; but by putting the new wine into new wineskins or putting a new patch on a new set of clothing, both are preserved.

We should approach questions of truth with more gravity than simply saying "well, this is old fashioned, let's leave it and start another". Unless something is obviously broken or wrong, starting another church denomination just because you don't like it, well... that's certainly scandalous. Despite what I said previously, Christian dis-unity impacts Christian witness, or lack thereof, in the world.

 

[Albion]

You'll have to run a search for previous conversations. I don't intend on repeating myself yet again.

Just name the usual claims, then, so I will know which bit of fractured history you have in mind. You know--like Jesus said something to Peter, or the other Apostles considered him Pope, or Rome was always the apple of Christs eye, or Bishop Clement tried to throw his weight around, ergo he must have been recognized as the head of a universal church organization.

Which? There is no need for you to recount the entire storyline again.

 

[justbyfaith]

We should approach questions of truth with more gravity than simply saying "well, this is old fashioned, let's leave it and start another". Unless something is obviously broken or wrong, starting another church denomination just because you don't like it, well... that's certainly scandalous. Despite what I said previously, Christian dis-unity impacts Christian witness, or lack thereof, in the world.

If anyone has drunken of old wine, he will not immediately desire the new; for he says, "the old is better." But new wine is for new wineskins. If you are an old wineskin, you are better off with old wine: try to put new wine in an old wineskin and the old wineskin will burst and the wine will spill out. But if you put old wine in an old wineskin, or new wine in a new wineskin, both the wine and the wineskin are preserved.

For Jesus in giving this parable was referring to the fact that he was bringing in the new covenant, and how those steeped in the old covenant would not readily receive what He had to offer.

Also, there is no disunity among those who trust in what Jesus did for them on the cross to save them through the shedding of His blood. The blood of Jesus is what brings unity in the body: if we divide over non-essentials we are not in disunity because non-essentials matter but they do not define us as believers or nonbelievers. It is also important to know the truth concerning non-essentials so that we can convince the gainsayers concerning sound doctrine in all things and not just the essentials of the faith. If someone divides over a non-essential they may still be in the faith; if someone divides over an essential they are not true Christians. Truth matters and is more important than unity; we must not compromise truth for the sake of unity because 1% of a lie is like 1% ar*senic in a glass of water: seemingly insignificant but it will kill you if you drink it.

So then, the fact that there is disunity in the body concerning non-essentials testifies to the fact that Christians hold the truth to be highly important. Consider 1 Corinthians 11:19. Its principle declares that those who are approved will minister truth while those who divide over non-essentials from the Bible's teaching, when they know that they are dissenting from the Bible's teaching, are not approved. Luke 16:10 also shows that it is important to minister the truth in small things, even in the non-essentials; because even a non-essential could make the difference between heaven and hell for someone in particular.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I could be wrong here (again) but wouldn't a group that gets it so wrong that you'd have
to disfellowship, be a non Christian group?
I mean, what would it take to fellowship with any group?
For me, it would be that they worship the Jesus of the Bible.
And how to know? The Jesus they worship would have the
Biblical attributes, but beyond that and maybe even more
important than that, I would "know".
Those who are led by the Spirit of God will be called
the sons of God.
We MUST be able to "hear" our Shepherd's voice.

IMO

Great post sunlover1!
Let's look at that.

Those who are led by the Spirit of God will be called the sons of God.

According to 2 Corin 6 and Reve 21, that is true.
[What I find rather fascinating, is that the word "Almighty" used in 2 Corin is used only this 1 time outside of Revelation in the NT]

2 Corinthians 6:18
'And I shall be to ye as Father
and ye shall be to Me as sons and daughters' is saying Lord Almighty.
[1 Chronicles 17:13 Revelation 21:7]

Gotta overcome:

Revelation 21:7
He who is overcoming shall inherit all things,
and I will be to him — a God, and he shall be to Me — son,
[1 Chronicles 17:13 2 Corinthians 6:18]

We MUST be able to "hear" our Shepherd's voice.

Gotta listen and follow the voice of our Chief Shepherd:

Matthew 2:6
And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, not being inferior-most are in the ones-leading of Judea.
For out of thee shall be going-forth One-leading,
Who shall be shepherding/poimanei <4165> (5692) the People of Me, the Israel.
[Revelation 7:17]

1 Peter 5:4
And of being made manifest the Chief-Shepherd/arci-poimenoV <750>,
ye shall be being requitted the unfading crown of the glory

Revelation 7:17
That the Lamb in midst of the throne shall be shepherding/poimanei <4165> (5692) them
and shall be leading/guiding them upon life springs of waters.
And God shall be rubbing out every tear out of the eyes of them.
[Matthew 2:6 Revelation 21:4]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Is it a sin to divide into denominations?

Bible as standard for this thread please.
Id like us to consider if this is "sin".
IF sin, how to remedy?

I am not sure if it is a sin or not, but it sure isn't very edifying to the body of the Church, nor does it look very good to the unbelievers outside the Church of God.

That aside, Jesus did say He came to cause division and to bring a sword:

Ezekiel 38:21
Then will I call against him every terror, declareth Adonay Yahweh.
The sword of every man against his brother shall be;

And then there is:

Matthew 10:
21 And brother will deliver up brother unto death, and father, child, and children will rise up against parents and will put them to death.
22 And ye will be hated by all because of My name,--but he that endureth throughout, the same shall be being saved.

34 Don’t assume that I came to bring peace upon the land.
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.†
[Ezekiel 38:21 Luke 12:49-53 Revelation 6:4]

Revelation 6:4
And came forth another horse, firey-red
and to the one sitting on him was given to him to be taking the Peace from the land
and that one another they should be slaying
And was given to him a great sword.
[Ezekiel 38:21 Matthew 10:12]

 

[W2L]

Bible as standard for this thread please.

Id like us to consider if this is "sin".

IF sin, how to remedy?

There is no remedy. We are in the end times, people seek teachers to tickle their ears.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Great post sunlover1!
Let's look at that.

According to 2 Corin 6 and Reve 21, that is true.
[What I find rather fascinating, is that the word "Almighty" used in 2 Corin is used only this 1 time outside of Revelation in the NT]

2 Corinthians 6:18
'And I shall be to ye as Father
and ye shall be to Me as sons and daughters' is saying Lord Almighty.
[1 Chronicles 17:13 Revelation 21:7]

Gotta overcome:

Revelation 21:7
He who is overcoming shall inherit all things,
and I will be to him — a God, and he shall be to Me — son,
[1 Chronicles 17:13 2 Corinthians 6:18]

Gotta listen and follow the voice of our Chief Shepherd:

Matthew 2:6
And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, not being inferior-most are in the ones-leading of Judea.
For out of thee shall be going-forth One-leading,
Who shall be shepherding/poimanei <4165> (5692) the People of Me, the Israel.
[Revelation 7:17]

1 Peter 5:4
And of being made manifest the Chief-Shepherd/arci-poimenoV <750>,
ye shall be being requitted the unfading crown of the glory

Revelation 7:17
That the Lamb in midst of the throne shall be shepherding/poimanei <4165> (5692) them
and shall be leading/guiding them upon life springs of waters.
And God shall be rubbing out every tear out of the eyes of them.
[Matthew 2:6 Revelation 21:4]

Is it a sin to divide into denominations?
I am not sure if it is a sin or not, but it sure isn't very edifying to the body of the Church, nor does it look very good to the unbelievers outside the Church of God.

That aside, Jesus did say He came to cause division and to bring a sword:

Ezekiel 38:21
Then will I call against him every terror, declareth Adonay Yahweh.
The sword of every man against his brother shall be;

And then there is:

Matthew 10:
21 And brother will deliver up brother unto death, and father, child, and children will rise up against parents and will put them to death.
22 And ye will be hated by all because of My name,--but he that endureth throughout, the same shall be being saved.

34 Don’t assume that I came to bring peace upon the land.
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.†
[Ezekiel 38:21 Luke 12:49-53 Revelation 6:4]

Revelation 6:4
And came forth another horse, firey-red
and to the one sitting on him was given to him to be taking the Peace from the land
and that one another they should be slaying
And was given to him a great sword.
[Ezekiel 38:21 Matthew 10:12]

I am still waiting for a response to my 2 posts...........