So Many Denominations.

[Tone]

Oh boy.

Yeah, there's the real split...

*His Word or man's...

 

[Contenders Edge]

When the events of the book of Acts took place, there was no NT canon. "Go[ing] back to the source" wasn't possible for them. The Church's unity was not premised upon Sacred Scripture in the first century or at any other time.

Granted that the New Testament scriptures had not been canonized during the Apostolic generation (that process began shortly afterwards), but the Church still had the Old Testament scriptures which point to Christ and the epistles of the Apostles that were being circulated which established the doctrine of the Gospel, confronted false doctrines and heresies, admonished established congregations to hold their members accountable for their conduct, instructed how members of the faith should conduct themselves as representatives of Christ and in their worship services, and cleared up confusion on certain matter; both of which formed the basis of doctrine around which there could be unity and were looked to for doctrine.

Quite frequently, the Apostles would refer to the Old Testament scriptures to establish the doctrine of the New Testament and it would take a very in depth study of the New Testament to find out just how often the Old Testament scriptures were appealed to in order to make the case for the Gospel and to establish all the doctrine by which Christians are commanded of God to abide in.

It was from the Old Testament scriptures from which Jesus had made His case for His Messiahship and which He used to persuade as many as He could that He was the Savior of whom the scriptures foretold, and from which the Apostles made their case for the Gospel that they, as well as all Christians, were commanded of Christ to preach (Acts 17:11).

If they didn’t have a scripture and apostolic based doctrine around which that first generation of Christians could be unified, then how would the doctrines of the faith that we hold to today have been established? There had to be a divinely inspired doctrine somehow that could keep the Church unified.

 

[thecolorsblend]

but the Church still had the Old Testament scriptures

(A) That's not the point and (B) the above part of your post runs contrary to your original premise.

Sacred Scripture is a wonderful thing. But after all these centuries of Christians using Sacred Scripture as their sole authority, it should be clear and obvious how that method breeds more division and separation than anything else.

Sacred Scripture is not now and has never been the source of Christian unity.

 

[Not David]

Their word is not authoritative, his is. As well, some of them were "grievous wolves", just as he warned would come, departing from his sound doctrine (I will not embark on a thread within a thread to "prove" this, it is merely my opinion).

"What you bound on Earth, I will bind in heaven" - Jesus Christ

 

[dqhall]

As i study God's Word, i can't help but notice that the early church did everything together as one, and where told to be likeminded.

Philippians 2:2 KJV — Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

Acts 2:44,46
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.

Acts 15:25 KJV — It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

Romans 15:5 KJV — Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:

Acts 4:32
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of these things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things in common.

We are pretty much commanded to be of the same mind. Here is what Apostle Paul wrote on the matter.

1 Corithians 1:10-13
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Is Christ divided?

Mark 3:24-25
24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

The only purpose for these different denominations, to me, is confusion, and scriptures state:

1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV — For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

I personally long for the way the church operated in the Book of the Acts. The only way that is possible is for everyone to go back to the source, that is the Word of God. Remember:

2 Timothy 3:16 KJV — All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Isaiah 48:17 KJV — Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

With Love, In Christ

Congregations are divided into different language groups. In Papua New Guinea there are over 800 languages spoken. Congregations are divided by political borders. The Russian Orthodox Church is not popular as popular in Italy as it is in Russia. Some chose to divide over racial or ethnic differences. While an integrated church might be nice, some people do not want to be nice to people of other races, while they may take care of their own. There are also divisions over interpretation of scriptures, order of worship, funding, disbursements of funds, etc.

Christ taught about a good Samaritan (Luke 10). The Samaritans and Jews both used the Torah, but many among them did not like each other as their priests were of different doctrines. They lived in separate communities. The mixed race Samaritans did not pay tithes to the Jewish priests and chief priests of the Sanhedrin. Some Jews of Jesus' day may not have thought Samaritans were "good." Jesus challenged them to do good to their neighbors and to do good to those who were not friendly as well.

The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. 37 - c. 100) wrote about the Jews and Samaritans.

 

[Tone]

But after all these centuries of Christians using Sacred Scripture as their sole authority

Using ALL of Scripture...properly...or disregarding great swaths of it, ignorantly?

 

[Tone]

Congregations are divided into different language groups. In Papua New Guinea there are over 800 languages spoken. Congregations are divided by political borders. The Russian Orthodox Church is not popular as popular in Italy as it is in Russia. Some chose to divide over racial or ethnic differences. While an integrated church might be nice, some people do not want to be nice to people of other races, while they may take care of their own. There are also divisions over interpretation of scriptures, order of worship, funding, disbursements of funds, etc.

So basically you are pointing out that man divides over his traditions (science, schisms, schizo)?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Using ALL of Scripture...properly...or disregarding great swaths of it, ignorantly?

That's not a question. Or if it is, the intent of your question is beyond all comprehension. Would you care to rephrase it so that I can better respond?

 

[Tone]

That's not a question. Or if it is, the intent of your question is beyond all comprehension. Would you care to rephrase it so that I can better respond?

Are the divisions, as you say, the result of adhering to Scripture (the entire Bible) consistently, or are the schisms the result of partial adherence?

 

[Contenders Edge]

(A) That's not the point and (B) the above part of your post runs contrary to your original premise.

Sacred Scripture is a wonderful thing. But after all these centuries of Christians using Sacred Scripture as their sole authority, it should be clear and obvious how that method breeds more division and separation than anything else.

Sacred Scripture is not now and has never been the source of Christian unity.

First of all, how did I contradict my original premise which basically stated that you cannot have a unifying faith without doctrine to establish it? And relying on the sufficiency of scripture for doctrine is not what initially caused divisions within the body of Christ to begin with, nor is it the cause for division.

The scripture has been and always be the source of truth. It is God’s general revelation of Himself to mankind. What causes division are those among us who claim that scripture is not good enough for the establishing of doctrine. When the sufficiency of scripture is denied, heresy is embraced.

If you cannot trust the Bible in which the Gospel is contained, then how can you trust the Gospel itself?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Are the divisions, as you say, the result of adhering to Scripture (the entire Bible) consistently, or are the schisms the result of partial adherence?

They are divisions no matter their cause. I'll leave it to somebody with more free time to figure out the particulars. Though, frankly, I would imagine that everybody thinks they're adhering to the totality of Sacred Scripture.

Still, my point has been that choosing Sacred Scripture as one's sole authority has an observable pattern of creating division. That along with the fact that it is an absolutely ahistorical practice is good reason to consider that there may be a better approach.

 

[Albion]

Sacred Scripture is a wonderful thing. But after all these centuries of Christians using Sacred Scripture as their sole authority, it should be clear and obvious how that method breeds more division and separation than anything else.

If true, it is because more Christians and more churches value the word of God in preference to anything else. That's not so surprising when you think on it for a minute or two.

 

[Contenders Edge]

They are divisions no matter their cause. I'll leave it to somebody with more free time to figure out the particulars. Though, frankly, I would imagine that everybody thinks they're adhering to the totality of Sacred Scripture.

Still, my point has been that choosing Sacred Scripture as one's sole authority has an observable pattern of creating division. That along with the fact that it is an absolutely ahistorical practice is good reason to consider that there may be a better approach.

Standing on the sole authority of sacred scripture is not what creates division within the body of Christ. Sacred scripture, or at least the scriptures the early church had at the time, established the unifying doctrine upon which the faith was established and held everyone together.

Divisions came when there entered into the midst of the fellowship those with doctrines contrary to the scriptures and the things taught by the Apostles or when there arose within the fellowship those who strayed away from the established doctrine of the faith and in turn began leading others astray.

If anything at all, the scriptures which were designed to unify professors of the faith actually reveal and make manifests the divisions that were already there. Just because there may be an appearance of unity, does not necessarily mean that there is unity.

Preach the Bible as being equally authoritative in all that it comments on from the first chapter and verse in Genesis to the last chapter and verse of Revelation, and you will find out very quickly, even within the ranks of professing Christians where everyone stands and who is willing to abide in the truth of Christ as written down for us in the scriptures and who is not.

What better approach could there possibly be taken other than firm reliance upon the Word of God by which we receive the Gospel in the first place? Any other approach will only remove us from the faith because the integrity of the Gospel of Christ is dependent upon the integrity of the scriptures through which it is delivered.

 

[thecolorsblend]

What better approach could there possibly be taken other than firm reliance upon the Word of God by which we receive the Gospel in the first place?

But that isn't how the gospel was received. It was received orally, first, from Our Lord and then from the apostles and then from their successors.

In your zeal to affirm every last line of Sacred Scripture (which is a good thing), you're essentially ignoring history (which is a bad thing).

Again, everybody believes they're following the totality of Sacred Scripture. With respect, you're simply one brick in the wall on that.

 

[Contenders Edge]

But that isn't how the gospel was received. It was received orally, first, from Our Lord and then from the apostles and then from their successors.

In your zeal to affirm every last line of Sacred Scripture (which is a good thing), you're essentially ignoring history (which is a bad thing).

Again, everybody believes they're following the totality of Sacred Scripture. With respect, you're simply one brick in the wall on that.

I fear you may be in error in your history. Granted that the Gospel may have been spread orally at first, but there is undeniable manuscript evidence indicating that the Gospel message was being written down shortly afterwards is was first delivered orally and within the lifetime of the Apostles and others who knew our Lord personally when He walked among us. The earliest copies of the Apostolic epistles and the four Gospels are traced back to when the Apostles were still alive, or at least very close to that time.

I don’t expect you take my word for it, but if you wish to verify what I’ve just said for yourself, a great starting point would be Lee Strobel’s “A Case For Christ” which challenges the notion that centuries had passed before the first copies of the Gospels and Epistles were written.

Furthermore, according to history, the canonization process of the New Testament scriptures began as early as the second century A.D., in which the generation succeeding the Apostles had lived, and was not concluded until sometime during the fourth century which suggests that the Gospels and Apostolic Epistles in their written form had been in circulation for quite some time and roughly within the generation that met Christ face to face.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I fear you may be in error in your history.

Oh?

Granted that the Gospel may have been spread orally at first,

Thank you for agreeing with me.

but there is undeniable manuscript evidence indicating that the Gospel message was being written down shortly afterwards is was first delivered orally and within the lifetime of the Apostles and others who knew our Lord personally when He walked among us.

I, at least have not claimed otherwise.

The earliest copies of the Apostolic epistles and the four Gospels are traced back to when the Apostles were still alive, or at least very close to that time.

There is strong reason to believe that St. Mark's gospel was in circulation by the mid-50's AD.

I don’t expect you take my word for it,

Believe me, I don't. Luckily though, I've done my own research.

Lee Strobel’s “A Case For Christ” which challenges the notion that centuries had passed before the first copies of the Gospels and Epistles were written.

I, at least, have not claimed that centuries passed before the NT canon was written. You're responding to an argument that I haven't made.

Furthermore, according to history, the canonization process of the New Testament scriptures began as early as the second century A.D., in which the generation succeeding the Apostles had lived, and was not concluded until sometime during the fourth century which suggests that the Gospels and Apostolic Epistles in their written form had been in circulation for quite some time and roughly within the generation that met Christ face to face.

That's an awful lot of words to say that you agree with me when I said that it took centuries to compile a universally recognized NT canon.

 

[Tone]

I would imagine that everybody thinks they're adhering to the totality of Sacred Scripture.

Do you?

choosing Sacred Scripture as one's sole authority has an observable pattern of creating division.

The fault was never with Torah or Scripture, but with the hearts of men.

Hebrews 8:8
"8But God found fault with the people and said: “Behold,the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah."

 

[Tone]

But that isn't how the gospel was received. It was received orally, first, from Our Lord and then from the apostles and then from their successors.

Are you familiar with the term "protoevangelium"?

 

[Tone]

What better approach could there possibly be taken other than firm reliance upon the Word of God by which we receive the Gospel in the first place?

(emphasis mine)

But that isn't how the gospel was received. It was received orally, first

Was that oral reception the Word of God?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Do you?

Is there a significant group or movement who will openly and knowingly reject some sections of Sacred Scripture? If so, who?