Spiritual Snobbery? Denomination Pride?

[HTacianas]

I've never been part of a church or denomination that claimed that. I've always regarded a wide variety of denominations as part of the Body Of Christ (as well as many who have no denomination). If any church claims that I am not part of their body of believers, then I agree. The Catholic/Orthodox religion says I have no part with them. I'm okay with that. I don't share their religion. The International Church of Christ says I'm going to Hell, and I'm okay with that. They're wrong, and I'm not worried.

The fact is that any body of individuals will have differences within it. If the people don't have differences, then it's because they don't care enough about the subject to have differences (let's talk about football sometime, and I'll go along with everything you say, because I really don't care about football).

We draw the primary dividing line at the level of religion. This includes the fundamentals. This is what makes a Muslim not one of us and a Wesleyan (bless his free-will-loving soul) one of us. Denominations define the specifics of their doctrine, but differences between their churches still exist regarding finer details, even within the denomination. Different individuals within a single congregation will have some differences. A person working out his faith will even have differences within himself. How, then, can a man who has so many conflicts within himself claim perfect uniformity with any body of believers? He can't, because he does not have uniformity. He does, however, have unity with them. In the same way that he does not divorce himself for his own internal conflict, he does not divorce the church for having the same sort of conflict.

Unity does not require uniformity.

There are, however, some differences so great that they ought not to be overlooked. When a man bows before an idol (excuse me...statue), and worships it (excuse me, again..venerates it), and prays to it (shall we say...asks it to intercede?), then you be the judge. Are we even talking about the same religion?

You make it sound like something that happened last Saturday, to be resolved at the end of the fiscal year.

It will be resolved. Just not this year.

 

[MMDave3]

Great post. How many Claiming Christ as their saviour hold completely unbiblical views? It seems like many put their church's view above that of the scriptures so much that they are willing to say the Bible doesn't mean what it so clearly reads.

For what it's worth, this is one of the main reasons I don't regularly attend any church.

 

[GingerBeer]

I think your pride and claims are exactly what the OP was speaking to. To claim that Constantine had no negative impact on the church is a historically-proven lie. The Way is not a synonym for the orthodox church or the roman catholic church though each would have you believe their line traces back to Peter and in the same sense one could track protestant denominations all the way back to Peter as well. But, then there is the uniqueness of Paul who was brought by Jesus from outside the church to challenge what the church had become. Jesus in Revelation 2 & 3 was correcting what some original churches had become--even that early--and each had separate local issues He was dealing with. Within those churches, Jesus made promises to "he who overcomes," not all in any church body. What if that same truth exists today and Jesus isn't going to wholly save any church body, but the true church body which has body parts found spread across many very different visible representations until He brings them all together? You will undoubtedly deny that. But, God's Truth transcends your indoctrination.

You claim that "interpreting the Scriptures" is somehow necessarily devious. Yet, Paul instructed Timothy to "rightly divide the Scriptures." (2 Tim 2:15) and if the Scriptures are plainly stated as you say, why does Peter say--with regard to Paul's writings which Peter recognizes as Scripture: "some things are hard to understand"? (2 Pet 3:16) Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead us into all Truth. He didn't announce the coming of a special Textbook that would make the Holy Spirit irrelevant. As wonderful as the Bible is, it was inspired by the Holy Spirit and needs to be interpreted with the help of the Holy Spirit.

But what if it is not pride and if the claims are true?

 

[GingerBeer]

I doubt he knows the meaning of chrismation or Eucharist. Most evangelicals do not.

Charismation = receiving grace (associated with the Holy Spirit)
Eucharist = Lord's supper.

 

[GingerBeer]

Who consecrated Paul's? Who performed Paul's chrismation? Did Paul even conform to your church's current traditions?

Ananias baptised Paul, that's recorded in The Acts of the Apostles.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

And I say again, The Orthodox Church has no need to "interpret" scripture. The Orthodox Church already knows what it means.

Then the Orthodox Church does not read Scripture, because it is impossible to read Scripture without an interpretation or without involving the process of interpretation. What I see is a group of individuals assuming a preconceived theological framework and calling it THE true Church, it is a sad presupposition in my honest opinion. It is like the Microsoft can do not wrong employee hiding and covering for the supposed one true operating system, in spite of continual patches and fixes. At least they have a corporate agreement under terms and conditions huh?

 

[HTacianas]

Then the Orthodox Church does not read Scripture, because it is impossible to read Scripture without an interpretation or without involving the process of interpretation. What I see is a group of individuals assuming a preconceived theological framework and calling it THE true Church, it is a sad presupposition in my honest opinion. It is like the Microsoft can do not wrong employee hiding and covering for the supposed one true operating system, in spite of continual patches and fixes. At least they have a corporate agreement under terms and conditions huh?

The Orthodox Church reads scripture at evey liturgy and has for two thousand years now. We don't need someone to "interpret" what Jesus meant when he said "this my body" and "this is my blood" because the Church has known since was founded by the apostles precisely what he did mean. We don't need someone to "interpret" for us that faith alone is enough for salvation when we know the bare statement in the bible that tells us it isn't.

The "preconceived theological framework" was given to the Church by the apostles before the new testament was written. It's one of the standards the Orthodox Church used to determine which books were scripture and which ones weren't when She created the bible.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The Orthodox Church reads scripture at evey liturgy and has for two thousand years now. We don't need someone to "interpret" what Jesus meant when he said "this my body" and "this is my blood" because the Church has known since was founded by the apostles precisely what he did mean. We don't need someone to "interpret" for us that faith alone is enough for salvation when we know the bare statement in the bible that tells us it isn't.

The "preconceived theological framework" was given to the Church by the apostles before the new testament was written. It's one of the standards the Orthodox Church used to determine which books were scripture and which ones weren't when She created the bible.

Yeah, well, all professing Christians can lay claim to the Church© and theology after the apostles©, but assertions and reality do not always agree.

 

[rockytopva]

I find myself reminding people that the unction of the Holy Spirit is not human ego more and more these days.

 

[Bruce Leiter]

Having been recently baptized, and diving into faith...I've done alot of searching. Not only did I search broad religion (Buddhism, Hinduism) I dove into the Abrahamic religions heavily. Naturally there is alot of division among the 3 religions (Christianity/Judiasm/Islam) but it became apparent to me there's schisms and quarrels even among themselves. An example is all the bloodshed between Sunni vs Shiite muslims

To me, people often wear these badges almost like their college logo or local sports team. "I'm a Catholic - the only original church" or "Sunni Islam is the way, Shiites are the misinformed minorities". It quickly became apparent to me (talking with followers/leaders of Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/JW/SDA/LDS) that each sect often claims to be the proper or true one. For example, Roman Catholics often believe they are the only original church and Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no salvation"). The nice Jehova Witness ladies who come by say that salvation is limited to only JW's. Protestants say the Catholic Church became powerful/corrupt and swayed from 1st century doctrine (Indulgence, Saints, Purgatory, Papacy). Seventh Day Adventists say the original sabbath was on Saturday, and Constantine changed worship day to Sunday to for 'Sun' worship (sol invictus).

Having no dog in this fight, I felt instead of to look objectively at what's in the Bible; many often want to side with their specific denomination (even if traditions/practices may not be anywhere in the bible). Did Constantine blend 4th century mythicism with Christianity to eventually result in Saints/Mary/Sunday/Purgatory? Did Luther remove some books in the bible that were in the Septuagint? (He may have attempted to even remove Hebrews/James/Jude/Revalation). And where/how did the Book of Mormon or The Watcher Society claim any canon or exclusivity? How could Jesus have died for only Jehova's Witnesses (a religion founded ~1,800 years later)?

The central point of Christianity, to me, is this: Jesus dying for our sins.
2,000 years later, and some potential questionable doctrines that seem to be nowhere in the bible, we've divided and claim exclusivity to our specific denomination. And why?
We've all read John 3:16. Was the thief on the cross a Mormon, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Orthodox? We seemed more focused on who was first, more people on our team, or simply what we were raised with and the traditions that go along with it. My personal conclusion is that organized religion simply doesn't save, but Jesus does! I could be wrong in my assessment, but I hope us Christians can to come together and agree on this: Jesus is our savior.

I was christened as a Methodist, grew up in a theologically-liberal church, became a Christian in a Baptist church, and joined a church in the Reformed tradition because of its biblical beliefs. That variety made me open to other churches. The best of Reformed doctrine interprets the Bible according to its own assumptions, not any person's or the culture's ideas. Since the Bible assumes that God is three Persons--the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit--in one God; that Jesus is fully God and fully human; that Jesus died and rose from real death to life; and that he will return some day to create a new universe and give believers resurrection bodies. Cults like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses can't deal with the mystery of God's three-in-one nature. Thus, they made up their ideas about God, as other cults have. The other religions either think that the universe is the same as God (New Agers, traditional Native Americans, Hindus, and Buddhists) or one, separate Creator (Jews and Muslims).

However, while we Christians must respect the believers in other religions as God's human creatures, we must also disagree with their beliefs on the basis of the Bible. On the other hand, we need to show full unconditional love to all people to befriend them. Perhaps, God can then use us to testify to them about what God has done in our lives.

As to your questions, I'm a Protestant. Roman Catholics and Protestants all have the same 3-in-1 (Triune) God. But beginning with the early Popes, I'm afraid they added their tradition to the Bible alongside of it like all of the ideas about Mary and purgatory. They replaced the pagan queen of heaven with Mary and the pagan gods with the saints. In addition, the Protestants took away the Apocrypha (the books between Malachi and Matthew) because they are not really spiritual history the way the gospels and the Old Testament historical books are. To me, they're interesting but not really spiritually beneficial.

Martin Luther was so struck with Paul's teachings about God's grace that he mistakenly thought that James and Revelation were not inspired but promoted good works. Instead, the result of God's grace is good works (Ephesians 2:8-10).

One further thought: The deciding factor that God used to convince me to believe in Jesus was the eyewitnesses to his death and resurrection. They testified to his real death (denied by Muslims) and his genuine resurrection. They maintained their stories all the way to their deaths against the persecution from the Jews, Greeks, and Romans. You can't get better witnesses than people who hold on to their testimonies while facing suffering and death. Therefore, Jesus' death and resurrections must be historical events.

 

[The Barbarian]

The central point of Christianity, to me, is this: Jesus dying for our sins.
2,000 years later, and some potential questionable doctrines that seem to be nowhere in the bible, we've divided and claim exclusivity to our specific denomination. And why?
We've all read John 3:16. Was the thief on the cross a Mormon, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Orthodox? We seemed more focused on who was first, more people on our team, or simply what we were raised with and the traditions that go along with it. My personal conclusion is that organized religion simply doesn't save, but Jesus does! I could be wrong in my assessment, but I hope us Christians can to come together and agree on this: Jesus is our savior.

Not bad. Theology won't save you, but loving God and loving your fellow man will save.

15. The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.[14] For there are many who hold sacred scripture in honor as a rule of faith and of life, who have a sincere religious zeal, who lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and the Saviour,[15] who are sealed by baptism which unites them to Christ, and who indeed recognize and receive other sacraments in their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them possess the episcopate, celebrate the holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion of the Virgin Mother of God.[16] There is furthermore a sharing in prayer and spiritual benefits; these Christians are indeed in some real way joined to us in the Holy Spirit for, by his gifts and graces, his sanctifying power is also active in them and he has strengthened some of them even to the shedding of their blood. And so the Spirit stirs up desires and actions in all of Christ's disciples in order that all may be peaceably united, as Christ ordained, in one flock under one shepherd.[17] Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may be achieved, and she exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the Church.


16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.[18] There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom. 9 :4-5): in view of the divine choice, they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom. 11:29-29). But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Savior wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too many achieve eternal salvation.[19] Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is considered by the Church to be a preparation for the Gospel[20] and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life. But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's command, "preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mk. 16:16) takes zealous care to foster the missions.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[PaulCyp1]

The Catholic Church was not the "first Church". There were all kinds of religions and churches before Jesus Christ was born, before He founded His ONE Church, said it was to remain ONE, and promised that ONE Church the fullness of God's truth. But there is no doubt that the Catholic Church is that oONE Church, since it was the only Christian Church on Earth for 1,000 years after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.

 

[MMDave3]

I look at the different denominations the same way I look at cooking chicken. There are a variety of different ways to cook chicken, but at the end of the day, it's still about eating chicken.

Catholicism - baked chicken
Orthodox Christianity - smoked chicken
Lutheran Protestantism - fried chicken
Calvinist Protestantism - supermarket rotisserie chicken
Arminian Protestantism - barbecued chicken
Mormonism - chicken and waffles
Unitarianism - chicken flavored rice

You get my point. Just having a little fun, please no one be offended.

 

[RaymondG]

Having been recently baptized, and diving into faith...I've done alot of searching. Not only did I search broad religion (Buddhism, Hinduism) I dove into the Abrahamic religions heavily. Naturally there is alot of division among the 3 religions (Christianity/Judiasm/Islam) but it became apparent to me there's schisms and quarrels even among themselves. An example is all the bloodshed between Sunni vs Shiite muslims

To me, people often wear these badges almost like their college logo or local sports team. "I'm a Catholic - the only original church" or "Sunni Islam is the way, Shiites are the misinformed minorities". It quickly became apparent to me (talking with followers/leaders of Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/JW/SDA/LDS) that each sect often claims to be the proper or true one. For example, Roman Catholics often believe they are the only original church and Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no salvation"). The nice Jehova Witness ladies who come by say that salvation is limited to only JW's. Protestants say the Catholic Church became powerful/corrupt and swayed from 1st century doctrine (Indulgence, Saints, Purgatory, Papacy). Seventh Day Adventists say the original sabbath was on Saturday, and Constantine changed worship day to Sunday to for 'Sun' worship (sol invictus).

Having no dog in this fight, I felt instead of to look objectively at what's in the Bible; many often want to side with their specific denomination (even if traditions/practices may not be anywhere in the bible). Did Constantine blend 4th century mythicism with Christianity to eventually result in Saints/Mary/Sunday/Purgatory? Did Luther remove some books in the bible that were in the Septuagint? (He may have attempted to even remove Hebrews/James/Jude/Revalation). And where/how did the Book of Mormon or The Watcher Society claim any canon or exclusivity? How could Jesus have died for only Jehova's Witnesses (a religion founded ~1,800 years later)?

The central point of Christianity, to me, is this: Jesus dying for our sins.
2,000 years later, and some potential questionable doctrines that seem to be nowhere in the bible, we've divided and claim exclusivity to our specific denomination. And why?
We've all read John 3:16. Was the thief on the cross a Mormon, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Orthodox? We seemed more focused on who was first, more people on our team, or simply what we were raised with and the traditions that go along with it. My personal conclusion is that organized religion simply doesn't save, but Jesus does! I could be wrong in my assessment, but I hope us Christians can to come together and agree on this: Jesus is our savior.

There was an organized religion of the day 2000+ years ago as well. Jesus didnt seem to like it.... He told us the His yoke is easy and burdens light.

We were shown that religion did not work and that them that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth... Now we have gotten entangled again in yokes of bondage.....Touch nots and taste nots. How can we that began in the spirit, now go back to the works of the flesh? Were we saved by faith, or by our sacraments and temple sacrifices.....Were we saved by giving our possessions, and a tenth of monies earns? If not, why do we believe it saves us now? And why push these yokes on others......

 

[TuxAme]

That thinking may feel good, but we can't allow ourselves to settle for anything less than what God commanded. He either made Peter the prince of the apostles (Pope) or He didn't. He either commanded us to eat His flesh and drink His blood or He didn't. He either established baptism as a sacrament or He didn't. These things matter, and you shouldn't be willing to let someone believe erroneous things without offering them correction. We are talking about our eternal resting places, after all. These are conversations that need to happen.

 

[Alithis]

That's not proving some point about denominations. Denomination is a protestant term used to described their thousands of splinter groups, each at odds with the other, with each group only being guilty of the same thing they themselves are guilty of. Yourself included.

Now you've written in another post your "pathway to salvation", I suppose, but you give nothing other than your own opinion as evidence of it.

If I can ask you only a couple of questions, who performed your chrismation? Who consecrates your Eucharist?

see ,you instantly bring up points that exist only in your denomination .not scripture .
jesus said this is my body ..later on its written "we are his body " .. also he says as he suffered we must suffer as he was broken so we must be broken ..true "Communion" with him is about being one with him in every aspect ,not about putting bread in your mouth . its about knowing hi in the power of his Resurrection AND the fellowship of his suffering .your denomination came along over 200 years AFTER the book of acts was penned .. it is man made man led man .it is not "his body " -no denomination is HIS body - only those in whom his holy Spirit dwells in power and whom are living obedience to HIM .and as he said you cant serve two masters any one serving and defending their denomination is serving the master of their denomination (idolatry) and not Jesus the lord himself . they are not hearing his voice they are not known of him and they are not following him .

 

[Alithis]

He either made Peter the prince of the apostles (Pope) or He didn't.

he didnt .

 

[Alithis]

I often wonder why so many believe that Christ is returning to gather them as individuals. I read He is returning for His (not ours) Church. So what is His Church? Is it a bunch of groups who do not even consider each other as brethren? Is it people who have changed what the Eucharist actually is? Is it those saying we don't even need to be a part of Christ's Church? Is it those preaching division between the countless denominations when Christ clearly said we are one? Just wondering how we see this division ending.

the word church ..from "ekklesia " basicly means - those called out of the world to gather unto Christ .. NOT to gather unto man made organisations .

 

[Kaon]

Having been recently baptized, and diving into faith...I've done alot of searching. Not only did I search broad religion (Buddhism, Hinduism) I dove into the Abrahamic religions heavily. Naturally there is alot of division among the 3 religions (Christianity/Judiasm/Islam) but it became apparent to me there's schisms and quarrels even among themselves. An example is all the bloodshed between Sunni vs Shiite muslims

To me, people often wear these badges almost like their college logo or local sports team. "I'm a Catholic - the only original church" or "Sunni Islam is the way, Shiites are the misinformed minorities". It quickly became apparent to me (talking with followers/leaders of Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/JW/SDA/LDS) that each sect often claims to be the proper or true one. For example, Roman Catholics often believe they are the only original church and Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no salvation"). The nice Jehova Witness ladies who come by say that salvation is limited to only JW's. Protestants say the Catholic Church became powerful/corrupt and swayed from 1st century doctrine (Indulgence, Saints, Purgatory, Papacy). Seventh Day Adventists say the original sabbath was on Saturday, and Constantine changed worship day to Sunday to for 'Sun' worship (sol invictus).

Having no dog in this fight, I felt instead of to look objectively at what's in the Bible; many often want to side with their specific denomination (even if traditions/practices may not be anywhere in the bible). Did Constantine blend 4th century mythicism with Christianity to eventually result in Saints/Mary/Sunday/Purgatory? Did Luther remove some books in the bible that were in the Septuagint? (He may have attempted to even remove Hebrews/James/Jude/Revalation). And where/how did the Book of Mormon or The Watcher Society claim any canon or exclusivity? How could Jesus have died for only Jehova's Witnesses (a religion founded ~1,800 years later)?

The central point of Christianity, to me, is this: Jesus dying for our sins.
2,000 years later, and some potential questionable doctrines that seem to be nowhere in the bible, we've divided and claim exclusivity to our specific denomination. And why?
We've all read John 3:16. Was the thief on the cross a Mormon, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Orthodox? We seemed more focused on who was first, more people on our team, or simply what we were raised with and the traditions that go along with it. My personal conclusion is that organized religion simply doesn't save, but Jesus does! I could be wrong in my assessment, but I hope us Christians can to come together and agree on this: Jesus is our savior.

Every human is responsible for the trajectory of their spiritual life. Denomination is the definition of division; the Word of God told us to fellowship with each other in one mind according to the Most High God - the Father.

Remember there will be "Christians" who think they are Christian, and will be told otherwise by the Word of God Himself. It has been written.

Ultimately, if you love the Most High God with all of your might and spirit, he will make it so that you find Him and know Him.

 

[Alithis]

You've made quite the lengthy post containing only your opinion. While i am certain that your opinions are strongly held, you are wrong.

Now, for example, you say that the bible must be interpreted with the help of the Holy Spirit. How many denominations out there have that help? Is the Holy Spirit telling the baptists women can't be preachers then turning around and telling the methodists they can be?

Which of those groups did the Holy Spirit tell that the eucharist is not the body and blood of Christ when the bible so plainly states, again and again, that it is?

When did the Holy Spirit decide baptism isn't necessary when the bible states plainly that it is? When was it determined that a layman can give the gift of the Holy Spirit to another when the bible plainly states that he cannot?

Or a really big one: When did "faith alone" become sufficient for salvation when the only time faith alone is mentioned in the bible is when it tells us that faith alone cannot save us?

very typical topic change and redirection-