The Separation of Christianity

[Last Things]

Thanks! Looking forward to discussing this with you.

 

[farout]

And you are making this judgment how?

No, Jesus did when He said mot travel on the wide road. That man say Lord, and He really is not their Lord. For instance Joe Osteen, Mormans, JW's LDS these are not genuine followers of Christ.Those who reject the Trinity, or those think there is any way to heaven other than by Jesus Christ.

 

[farout]

Here is what the catechism says about confession:
"Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God's mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors for their conversion." -1422

Catholics are required to do penance after being absolved. During confession the priest says the words of absolution. If the Catholic forgets to do the penance, they are to confess that in the next confession. If they are unable to do a penance, then they can ask for another.
Are you saying doing penance is wrong? I know in the OT God called entire peoples to penance.

I am curious as to your thoughts on this. I know that in the NT they practiced fasting.



I think we are misunderstanding each other here. Anti-biblical means against the bible. Non-biblical means not in the bible. I was trying to clarify this to reach an understanding. I am understanding you correctly to say that to do penance is to suggest that the sacrifice of Christ is not complete?



Okay, that is sensible. Where would you prefer the topic to be? If you do not want to post, then perhaps you can PM me? I am new here and I am not sure where such a topic should go.




I don't understand you here because Catholic do not believe they are divine. Catholicism teaches that saints can only pray for people.

I do not believe anything unless the Bible states it. Only Jesus can for forgive sins, no one else.

 

[Last Things]

I do not believe anything unless the Bible states it. Only Jesus can for forgive sins, no one else.

I totally understand. I am curious as to what is your standard for determining what is and isn't canon. That is, how you know which books are infallible and which books are fallible among all the books that circulated in early Christianity?

 

[Last Things]

No, Jesus did when He said mot travel on the wide road. That man say Lord, and He really is not their Lord. For instance Joe Osteen, Mormans, JW's LDS these are not genuine followers of Christ.Those who reject the Trinity, or those think there is any way to heaven other than by Jesus Christ.

Was Jesus referring to Christians or to all people?

 

[james1523]

I will not commune with those who claim to be of Christ and yet continue to promote non-biblical behavior. I am not worried about names as much as I am worried about content. Names for denominations denote beliefs. "Christian" has become a broad term encompassing anyone who believes in a semi-Messianic Christ based religion. Mormons believe that they are Christians as well as Catholics and many others that actually fall short in the critical doctrine area. If there is a church that is glorying in their open mindedness and acceptance of immoral behavior, then I will have no part.

The example of homosexuality is an extreme one, and actually there are not that many churches that promote such behavior. Of the ones that don't support homosexuality, what is their excuse for not meeting together? What about those who are of Christ and do not promote non-biblical behavior, yet believe contrary to yourself over some matter. They may or not believe in baptism by full immersion, they may keep the Sabbath Saturday holy, they may not believe in eating pork. Hopefully we can commune with these.

I believe division is a worse sin than homosexuality. Homosexuality may affect the salvation of a few, but division affects the whole Body of Christ and limits God's work from being carried out. Division is one of the things God hates in (Prov 6:16-19), and homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned there. Refusing to commune with brothers and sisters in Christ over largely nonessential matters is the very reason why different denominations exist. But we will have to commune with them in Heaven, whether we like it or not.

I disagree that names are less important. If we love someone we will love their name. And if a woman marries someone they will take their husband's name as their own and not someone else's name. So assuming a wife of a man calls herself by another mans name and not her own husbands, should the husband be okay with that , as long as she is a good wife? I don't think so... remember that the church is the Bride of Christ, and Christ is her Husband, so we should not provoke Christ to jealousy by giving churches a different name other than His. In Scripture, names matter a lot to God, so I think they should matter to us as well. 2 Chron 7:14 says "if my people, who are called by my name...". God's people are called by His name and not all the other names that characterize the denominations.
The true church of God has only Christ's identity and not the identity of a man's name (e.g. Luther, Wesley), place (e.g. England, China, Rome) , doctrine (e.g. 7th Day Sabbath observance, pentecostalism) , or practice (eg water baptism) or structure (episcopal, presbyters), or virtue (grace, faith, hope).
The moment we start identifying ourselves by anything and anyone other than Christ, we are like a wife who calls herself by another man's name.

 

[Fenn]

The example of homosexuality is an extreme one, and actually there are not that many churches that promote such behavior. Of the ones that don't support homosexuality, what is their excuse for not meeting together? What about those who are of Christ and do not promote non-biblical behavior, yet believe contrary to yourself over some matter. They may or not believe in baptism by full immersion, they may keep the Sabbath Saturday holy, they may not believe in eating pork. Hopefully we can commune with these.

The number of churches accepting this behavior will continue to grow until the final day. You say that homosexuality is an extreme example, however, in your post above you said that there should be a gathering and meeting between those churches that accept homosexuality and those that don't.
Non essential matters that do no deal with accepting of sin, anti-biblical teachings, and especially improper salvation doctrine do not bother me. I will try to say it as clear as possible. Those that follow the Bible and Christ as their source for behavior and doctrine, I will eat and have unity with. With those that will refuse pork, I will also turn it away for their sake.

I believe division is a worse sin than homosexuality. Homosexuality may affect the salvation of a few, but division affects the whole Body of Christ and limits God's work from being carried out. Division is one of the things God hates in

(Prov 6:16-19), and homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned there. Refusing to commune with brothers and sisters in Christ over largely nonessential matters is the very reason why different denominations exist. But we will have to commune with them in Heaven, whether we like it or not.

It is actually saying that God hates one who sows discord among brethren. This means that He is not saying that He hates disagreement merely the one who sows it. These are all actions with intent behind them. I am not saying that God likes disagreement, only that He is not saying what you are saying He is.

Proverbs 6:16-19
16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.


I already told you in earlier posts that I have no problem with denominations that follow the necessities. You speak as though I wish other denominations ill will, and yet you are the one who hates denominations.
We are not in a world with perfect people. Even among God's people there will be disagreements and arguments. There is no getting around this. I think it is important to know that we can just walk away and do God's work elsewhere.
Read Acts 15
Paul and Barnabas separate over a disagreement. If they had stayed together there would have been many more arguments and disagreements that stemmed from this. God's desire is for us to be unified. However, he does not want us bickering over little things constantly and it is something we humans are very good at. This does not mean we would not allow one from another denomination in a different denomination's church, or that I would keep myself from another denomination's church. It is just for the constant meetings and congregating it is better to keep the bickering down.

I disagree that names are less important. If we love someone we will love their name. And if a woman marries someone they will take their husband's name as their own and not someone else's name. So assuming a wife of a man calls herself by another mans name and not her own husbands, should the husband be okay with that , as long as she is a good wife? I don't think so... remember that the church is the Bride of Christ, and Christ is her Husband, so we should not provoke Christ to jealousy by giving churches a different name other than His. In Scripture, names matter a lot to God, so I think they should matter to us as well. 2 Chron 7:14 says "if my people, who are called by my name...". God's people are called by His name and not all the other names that characterize the denominations.
The true church of God has only Christ's identity and not the identity of a man's name (e.g. Luther, Wesley), place (e.g. England, China, Rome) , doctrine (e.g. 7th Day Sabbath observance, pentecostalism) , or practice (eg water baptism) or structure (episcopal, presbyters), or virtue (grace, faith, hope).
The moment we start identifying ourselves by anything and anyone other than Christ, we are like a wife who calls herself by another man's name.

Don't these denominations claim they are Christian? They are not denying Christ or the connection to Him. They are a subset of Christianity.

 

[james1523]

The number of churches accepting this behavior will continue to grow until the final day. You say that homosexuality is an extreme example, however, in your post above you said that there should be a gathering and meeting between those churches that accept homosexuality and those that don't.
Non essential matters that do no deal with accepting of sin, anti-biblical teachings, and especially improper salvation doctrine do not bother me. I will try to say it as clear as possible. Those that follow the Bible and Christ as their source for behavior and doctrine, I will eat and have unity with. With those that will refuse pork, I will also turn it away for their sake.

I'm not saying that "there should be a gathering and meeting between those churches that accept homosexuality and those that don't.". I'm saying that both churches should not exist at all. God's church should never be divided between those who believe homosexuality is OK and those that don't. Everyone should meet together in the one same church, and the view that "homosexuality is OK" should never be allowed to be taught by the overseeing pastors. But that doesn't mean those Christians who believe homosexuality is OK cannot fellowship with those who say it is not. If they never fellowship, how can they be convinced that their view is wrong? Jesus was a friend of sinners and even accepted a thief into his inner circle of fellowship (Judas Iscariot).

It is actually saying that God hates one who sows discord among brethren. This means that He is not saying that He hates disagreement merely the one who sows it. These are all actions with intent behind them. I am not saying that God likes disagreement, only that He is not saying what you are saying He is.

Proverbs 6:16-19
16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.


I already told you in earlier posts that I have no problem with denominations that follow the necessities. You speak as though I wish other denominations ill will, and yet you are the one who hates denominations.
We are not in a world with perfect people. Even among God's people there will be disagreements and arguments. There is no getting around this. I think it is important to know that we can just walk away and do God's work elsewhere.
Read Acts 15
Paul and Barnabas separate over a disagreement. If they had stayed together there would have been many more arguments and disagreements that stemmed from this. God's desire is for us to be unified. However, he does not want us bickering over little things constantly and it is something we humans are very good at. This does not mean we would not allow one from another denomination in a different denomination's church, or that I would keep myself from another denomination's church. It is just for the constant meetings and congregating it is better to keep the bickering down.

Denominations that "follow the necessities" are forgetting the one key necessity - unity. So in fact they are not "following the necessities" at all and they should probably should read 1 Corinthians chapter 3 and Ephesians 4:3 (the fact is you can not find any scripture to support a view that God likes or supports denominations, you can only present logical arguments such as "disagreements happen and therefore to keep bickering down we should remain separate". Therefore your view is not based on Scripture which reveals God's will, but upon necessity and convenience).

Paul and Barnabas separated over their work, but neither of them started the "Pauline Church", or "Barbabus Church". This was not an argument leading to a split in a whole church, this was an argument between two men engaged in the work of the apostles. They both firmly held to the unity in the Body of Christ and saw themselves as belonging to the one and same church (which denomination did Paul and Barnabus attend?). Disagreements and arguments do not have to lead to a denomination - I can have disagreements and arguments with my family but that doesn't mean I go and start another family or a sub-family (sub-group). I am aware that arguments and disagreements concerning the nature of the communion bread and wine have persisted between certain denominations for as long as 30 years or more. But in the Bible, apparently such matters did not concern the 12 disciples when they broke bread and drank from the same cup. It was actually the Lord's presence which united them together, not their theology concerning the nature of the bread and wine.

1 Corinthians chapter 3 reveals the apostle Paul's view on the matter, and he is writing to all the believers within the city of Corinth and telling them to stop naming and distinguishing themselves by which servant of Christ they follow. He says that divisions are carnal. Now a denomination is more than that, because it is not only individuals within a single church naming themselves after what particular teaching they follow, but they are human organizations patterning themselves after secular corporate organizations. As Paul says in 1 Cor 3:1, they are Christians who do not live by the Spirit. Ephesians 4:<wbr style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: 8.0600004196167px;">3, "Being diligent to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace,

Discord among brethren leads to division and denominations are institutionalized divisions in the body of Christ. Such divisions are not found in Scripture nor are they supported by it. Rather, God commands love which covers a multitude of offences, forgiveness of offences, turning the other cheek, and keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Don't these denominations claim they are Christian? They are not denying Christ or the connection to Him. They are a subset of Christianity.

I do not consider my arm or leg or foot a "subset" of my body, it is part of my body. If it is a subset, it can move, live and work even if it remains detached from my body. But if it is part of my body, it cannot do anything apart from my body. As a religion, Christianity can have subsets, but as a person, Christ, it cannot have subsets. So the question is, do we have the religion of Christianity or do we have the person of Christianity?

Denial of Christ can be as simple as refusing fellowship or persecuting a person who belongs to Him:

Matt 10:40 "“Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me."
Acts 26:14 "We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'"

Please refer to 1 Cor 12:20-25 which says that God does not want division in the body of Christ. Denominations are essentially groups of Christians who are declaring (by default) that they have "no need" of other members of the Body of Christ. If everything we need is in a particular denomination, then we have no need for all the rest. But 1 Corinthians reveals that we have need of every Christian within a particular city, and not just those who belong to our respective "sub-group". There is no one denomination that has everything required.

20 As it is, there are many parts,[a] yet one body.


21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”

22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable,

23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty,

24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it,

25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.

 

[Shutterbug]

A family exist because of something common amongst its members. Divisions exist because of differences within a family which separates it into groups. While some divisions are unavoidable, particularly by distance, differences in attitude can be destructive to the group rendering it ineffective and worse. Differences of policies and practices of smaller groups within the overall group can lead to confusion, frustration, and anger. So, which religion of the world is the right one? Each religion has its own divisions whether it be Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Christianity has Protestant and Catholic, each with its own divisions. And, then there are the fringe groups of Jehovah Witness, Mormon, Oneness Pentecostal, and whatever else.

The Council of Nicaea was convened in part to settle a dispute of whether Arianism was valid. From that dispute, the Nicene Creed was formulated and adopted. I have had discussions with some who insist that meeting at Nicaea was the birth of the Roman Catholic church and its three headed idol, the Trinity.

It's the latter kind of division which only serves the Devil, not God. Paul very much wanted the disciples of Christ to be of one voice and one body, not divided over policy and dogma. I agree that dogma and policy must exist to provide direction, but it should be implemented in such a way that it unites followers, not creates room for division. I'm sure that there will always be minor differences because of perceptions and understandings. But, those minor differences should not become impediments in someone's walk or relationship with Jesus. If they do, then something is very wrong. Cheers, John

 

[Fenn]

I'm not saying that "there should be a gathering and meeting between those churches that accept homosexuality and those that don't.". I'm saying that both churches should not exist at all. God's church should never be divided between those who believe homosexuality is OK and those that don't. Everyone should meet together in the one same church, and the view that "homosexuality is OK" should never be allowed to be taught by the overseeing pastors. But that doesn't mean those Christians who believe homosexuality is OK cannot fellowship with those who say it is not. If they never fellowship, how can they be convinced that their view is wrong? Jesus was a friend of sinners and even accepted a thief into his inner circle of fellowship (Judas Iscariot).

I think you misunderstand how the world works and the freedom God gave us to choose. I can not prevent someone from starting a church for Satan worship, Tree worship, or worship of any gods. If I can not prevent churches so extreme from starting up, then how can I prevent those that look like Christianity, but are not?
You are correct there should never have been a division and it would be nice if there wasn't one, however there is free will and division will abound.
Do you think He considered Judas His friend? Or do you believe He allowed Him there for the role He would play? Do you think Judas was saved?

Jesus the friend of Sinners. Look through the Bible and tell me how many of the Pharisees were His friend? How many did He accept in His company?
The truth is the sinners Jesus befriended were those who did not think highly of themselves, they were not believers. He loves everyone but that does not mean everyone will be saved or tolerated.

Again I post this passage. If we are one Church and we should accept everyone, then what do you do with this passage?

1 Corinthians 5
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

 

[james1523]

I think you misunderstand how the world works and the freedom God gave us to choose. I can not prevent someone from starting a church for Satan worship, Tree worship, or worship of any gods. If I can not prevent churches so extreme from starting up, then how can I prevent those that look like Christianity, but are not?
You are correct there should never have been a division and it would be nice if there wasn't one, however there is free will and division will abound.
Do you think He considered Judas His friend? Or do you believe He allowed Him there for the role He would play? Do you think Judas was saved?

Jesus the friend of Sinners. Look through the Bible and tell me how many of the Pharisees were His friend? How many did He accept in His company?
The truth is the sinners Jesus befriended were those who did not think highly of themselves, they were not believers. He loves everyone but that does not mean everyone will be saved or tolerated.

Again I post this passage. If we are one Church and we should accept everyone, then what do you do with this passage?

1 Corinthians 5
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

There is free will and division will abound but we should not support the divisions if we care for the Father's will. The freedom of choice in the Bible is between God's way or man's and satan's way. Jesus gave up His will and took the Father's will and so should we, in all respects including the matter of fellowship. And the Father's will is that we maintain unity. Yes there are certain conditions for fellowship, and the verses you posted are concerned with committing the sin of fornication etc. There is no sense in these passages, that denominationalism is acceptable, or that people can be put away from the church for having a different opinion to the leadership or majority, where it concerns a non-essential matter. The vast majority of believers today in denominations are neither fornicators nor idol worshippers, and so there is really no justification for them remaining separated in various divisions - it is normally due to preference or necessity, rather than actually following the Father's will.

Paul's essential message to the Corinthians was simple: we are one church and therefore for this reason, we should not care to divide over which particular servant of God we follow, or any other matter.

I draw your attention to Christ's words which say there shall be one fold and one shepherd.. not many folds and one shepherd, which is the situation of denominationalism:

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

 

[Fenn]

There is free will and division will abound but we should not support the divisions if we care for the Father's will. The freedom of choice in the Bible is between God's way or man's and satan's way. Jesus gave up His will and took the Father's will and so should we, in all respects including the matter of fellowship. And the Father's will is that we maintain unity. Yes there are certain conditions for fellowship, and the verses you posted are concerned with committing the sin of fornication etc. There is no sense in these passages, that denominationalism is acceptable, or that people can be put away from the church for having a different opinion to the leadership or majority, where it concerns a non-essential matter. The vast majority of believers today in denominations are neither fornicators nor idol worshippers, and so there is really no justification for them remaining separated in various divisions - it is normally due to preference or necessity, rather than actually following the Father's will.

Paul's essential message to the Corinthians was simple: we are one church and therefore for this reason, we should not care to divide over which particular servant of God we follow, or any other matter.

I draw your attention to Christ's words which say there shall be one fold and one shepherd.. not many folds and one shepherd, which is the situation of denominationalism:

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Please clearly answer:
If we are one church, then what should we do about 1 Corinthians 5?

Then I will discuss more.

 

[lawrenceb]

Paul's essential message to the Corinthians was simple: we are one church and therefore for this reason, we should not care to divide over which particular servant of God we follow, or any other matter.

I draw your attention to Christ's words which say there shall be one fold and one shepherd.. not many folds and one shepherd, which is the situation of denominationalism:

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Denominationalism is in the pit.

It is not reasonable to maintain that God continues to speak "through the Church" or through prophets or angels or in any way other than his Holy Scriptures. Why not? Consider what the scripture itself says in this matter:

Galatians 1:8–9 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Now if the apostles wrote down what they taught, and these writings were collected and preserved in what we now call the scripture, and then if someone else (even an angel) adds something to what the apostles wrote, aren't they teaching something "other than" what the apostles taught? You see, anyone can claim to speak for God. Anyone can say that God speaks through the Church, or through the priests or through a board of elders or even through a preacher or individual members of a congregation. But in reality, one person's claims are as good as another’s, and one congregation's opinions are as good as another's. If, however, the scripture is God's unerring word, then the one who teaches from it does not teach his opinions, but teaches the truth of God. The entire context of Galatians 1:1-16 shows how denominations are of men, and are a different gospel, and how Paul stayed away from such.

Denominationalism: "The system and ideology founded on the division of the religious population into numerous ecclesiastical bodies, each stressing particular values or traditions and each competing with the other in the same community under substantial conditions of freedom. Thus denominationalism has usually been associated with religious pluralism, voluntaryism, mutual respect and recognition, and neutrality on the part of the state." Westminster Dictionary of Church History (1971), pages 262-263.

As you can see, the very definition of ‘denominationalism’ goes against the very heart of scripture. If you take the five words in bold above, for example, and compare these words with what scripture says about them, it is all negative: Division (1 Corinthians 1:10-17; 3:3). Traditions (Matthew 15:3,6, Mark 7:8,9,13. Colossians 2: 8) . Competing (2 Corinthians 10:12). Religious pluralism (Galatians 1:8,9). Respect (James 2:9, Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 10:17, 2 Chronicles 19:7).

"The Bible in no way envisages the organization of the church into denominations. It instead assumes the opposite, that all Christians, except those being disciplined, will be in full fellowship with all others. Any tendencies to the contrary were roundly denounced (1 Cor.1:10-13). Paul could write a letter to the Christians meeting in various places in Rome or Galatian with every assurance that all would receive its message. Today, for any city or country, he would have to place the letter as an advertisement in the secular media and hope." Elwell’s Evangelistic Dictionary of Theology, (1984), page 310.

Few of us realize how difficult it is to be, for example, a pastor in today's Christian world. I don't know of any pastors who have studied the hundreds of different belief systems in Christianity, compared them with Scripture, and then decided upon the denomination they wanted to be affiliated with. Most pastors enter into the denomination they were raised in, or one with similar beliefs. Others may have received the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" in some Pentecostal or Charismatic church which caused them to attend a "Spirit-filled" Bible college. A pastor's exposure of the teachings of other denominations would generally consists of very basic histories and perhaps enough knowledge of their teachings to refute them should any of their future congregation ask questions. The studies would be from a negative point of view, not from a view to see if there is possibly teaching there which is correct which may not be in the pastor's denomination. In other words, there is little room for really studying other denomination's teachings with an open mind.

After graduation, the pastor will be placed in a church which holds to the basic views he was taught in Bible college or seminary. His or her exposure to the beliefs of other sects of Christianity would be minimal.

At this point, the pastor has a job, friends, and associates who all have similar beliefs. He has signed a contract which states he will teach the tenants of the organization. Should he at any time change his beliefs in such a way as to no longer represent the consensus of the denomination's or movement's teachings, he must step down from his position. In many denominations, even if the majority of the congregation agrees with the pastor in his new-found beliefs, the church building will stay with the denomination. The church membership will have to find a new building and name.

This kind of arrangement makes it extremely difficult for a sincere pastor to really study other denomination's teachings objectively. The odds are pretty good (as I have found out) that no denomination has a monopoly on the truth. To truly study, which I believe is one of a pastor's primary responsibilities, will probably cost him his job, his congregation, his title, and often his reputation.

In discussing with church leaders the modern church concept of "hell," I am amazed how quickly the discussion ends if I disagree with their concept. If I am incorrect in my views and need to be corrected in love, as the scriptures say, then the pastor should spend much time with me to lovingly correct me. But that is rarely the case. If my error will ultimately lead me to hell-if my sharing with others will lead them there also, surely a pastor with the love of God in his heart would use his years of study to correct my error. This rarely happens. After one or two discussions, he quickly becomes aware that I have come to my conclusions because of extensive study, study which went far beyond any denomination's boundaries. He begins to sense that if he listens to me with an open mind, his own beliefs might be affected. Due to his sworn allegiance to his sect's teachings, he cannot allow himself to really hear me. It might change his views. Therefore, when the discussion enters into the realm of really allowing for interchange, the pastor has to stop. He will justify his actions by telling himself there was no hope to "save this poor soul, anyway. He was too far gone." But underneath the self-justification was the fact that if he engaged in the conversation with an open mind, there was a good chance it might cost him his livelihood. My soul was not worth his income and position. And there is the problem. Should they decide to cross that line, they know what they discover may cost them their job, their reputation, friends, and associates.

"If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation." (John 11:48)

One would be amazed how little the average Bible college or seminary student really learns apart from their particular doctrines and history.

I long for the day when those called to leadership can study unrestrained by sectarian boundaries. When the qualification for entering a place of learning is centered around the individual's calling and desire to serve our Father rather than whether he or she will serve the established hierarchy.

To those of you reading this article who are in church leadership, you know what I am saying is true. You also know the cost of changing. Should you decide to break the boundaries, it will probably cost you a great deal. That is why you have hesitated, isn't it?

You see, what you are wrestling with is your very life. You are discovering, you have not laid down your life after all. Oh, we all so quickly boast of the things we have given up to be servants of Christ. Something deep inside knows they are vain boasts. Isn't that true?

Only when one truly rejects the glory of man-made positions of honor and seeks only the praise which comes from above, can we truly be set free from the chains of denominations. Then and only then will we be free indeed.

The title, the salary and pension, the honor from the community, all these things actually keep one from truly being free. These very things which we are afraid to let go of, are the very instruments of imprisonment. These very things keep a leader from exploring beyond denominational boundaries and thus actually become a prison of darkness, a place which lacks the fullness which the Bible speaks of. These crumbs could be replaced with a banquet table if only one could truly see the worthlessness of the false security of a salary and the honor of men.

The average church leader is a mere slave, and not a slave to Christ. I suppose nothing short of our Father revealing the worthlessness of that which these leaders so adamantly cling to, will get them onto that road of faith which we must all walk if we are ever to come to the knowledge of the Truth.

Those who have come to understand the fatherhood of Abraham and long for the city he saw from afar whose builder is the Creator of All himself, will have to leave behind a great deal. From man's point of view, the cost is too high. But looking from the throne of grace, the cost in nothing. Rise up and be seated in the throne of your Elder Brother, and it will be easy to unshackle yourself from the traditions of Babylon, or in modern terminology, from the prison house of denominationalism.

Each step out of the darkness created by the church in the "dark ages," has cost that generation a great deal. Very often they lost their homes, family members, their country, and even their very lives. Each previous move always persecuted the next move.

One of the greatest treasures I have received walking on the road to the city above is the deliverance from the fears which sectarianism uses to keep its prisoners. One really cannot truly appreciate this gift until set free from the traditions of men. There is a cost to freedom: the cost is the rags of religion we so proudly display, the ignorance we parade as truth, our badges of honor from men, the false security of a paycheck, our false concepts of family, and our prejudices and hatred we disguise under the title of sound doctrine and being separated from the "unclean." We must acknowledge our shortcomings before we can see his fullness. We must acknowledge our nakedness before we can be properly clothed. We must become honest with ourselves, our neighbors, and with our Father.

Whether a church leader, or follower, I encourage you to count the cost, and then make the only decision which will bring fullness ...go follow Abraham and learn of the one sided covenant which gives us the city from above. The church is still preaching and teaching a form of the Mosaic Covenant. Moses is dead! This is My Beloved Son, hear him! Moses will bring you death. Abraham's covenant will bring you to the True Promised Land.

 

[james1523]

Please clearly answer:
If we are one church, then what should we do about 1 Corinthians 5?

Then I will discuss more.

1 Corinthians 5 still stands. It is talking about individual members of the church who do not fit the requirements for fellowship. Anyone in fornication or idolatry is not fit for fellowship in church.
I do not see how this verse is relevant to the issue of sectarianism, Paul is not encouraging sectarianism or denominationalism. Remember that the purpose of Paul's letter to the Corinthians was to encourage them to remain in unity and not divided (1 Cor 1:10).
So in summary ,1 Corinthians 5 is about individual members who do not fit the requirements for fellowship. Not individual members who fit the requirements for fellowship (i.e. are not fornicators etc) but do not fellowship together due to personal preferences or opinions.
Fundamentally, if we support denominations, we support divisions in the church, if we are against denominations, we are against divisions in the church. The existence of many denominations within a city is clearly against Scripture.

 

[james1523]

Christians think that denominations are all that there are. If they can't attend one they will look for another.
They don't realize there is another option - which is to have no denomination at all. This is the way that Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, and all the founders of Christianity took. They did not consider themselves "non-denominational" and they did not consider themselves part of any denomination. Because to be "non-denominational" is also a denomination in itself. The concept of denominationalism did not entire their minds - simply stated: Jesus Christ was their Head and they were His Body, and His servants. This is God's standard, and denominationalism is missing the mark in this respect, therefore denominations should be called "non-Christ's Body", and Christians who are not in the realm of denominationalism should not have to call themselves "non-denominational", rather, the name "Christians" or "Christ's Body" should suffice.

 

[Fenn]

1 Corinthians 5 still stands. It is talking about individual members of the church who do not fit the requirements for fellowship. Anyone in fornication or idolatry is not fit for fellowship in church.
I do not see how this verse is relevant to the issue of sectarianism, Paul is not encouraging sectarianism or denominationalism. Remember that the purpose of Paul's letter to the Corinthians was to encourage them to remain in unity and not divided (1 Cor 1:10).
So in summary ,1 Corinthians 5 is about individual members who do not fit the requirements for fellowship. Not individual members who fit the requirements for fellowship (i.e. are not fornicators etc) but do not fellowship together due to personal preferences or opinions.
Fundamentally, if we support denominations, we support divisions in the church, if we are against denominations, we are against divisions in the church. The existence of many denominations within a city is clearly against Scripture.

I agree with you.
I merely want to point out what happens when those individuals who remain fornicators, idolaters, extortioners, drunkards, etc. They may begin their own church/denomination that is accepting of these behaviors. I agree with your belief, but I don't believe denominations will be done away with.

 

[Fenn]

Christians think that denominations are all that there are. If they can't attend one they will look for another.
They don't realize there is another option - which is to have no denomination at all. This is the way that Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, and all the founders of Christianity took. They did not consider themselves "non-denominational" and they did not consider themselves part of any denomination. Because to be "non-denominational" is also a denomination in itself. The concept of denominationalism did not entire their minds - simply stated: Jesus Christ was their Head and they were His Body, and His servants. This is God's standard, and denominationalism is missing the mark in this respect, therefore denominations should be called "non-Christ's Body", and Christians who are not in the realm of denominationalism should not have to call themselves "non-denominational", rather, the name "Christians" or "Christ's Body" should suffice.

Let us say we try to find a non-denominational church and cannot find one that teaches according to the Bible, then what do you suggest doing?
I currently attend a Baptist church, but I don't consider myself a Baptist but a Christian who attends a Baptist church. I find that the church I go to teaches the Bible the most of those I have attended.

 

[james1523]

Let us say we try to find a non-denominational church and cannot find one that teaches according to the Bible, then what do you suggest doing?
I currently attend a Baptist church, but I don't consider myself a Baptist but a Christian who attends a Baptist church. I find that the church I go to teaches the Bible the most of those I have attended.

We need to follow God's leading individually and He may lead us to fellowship at a particular denominational church.

 

[james1523]

I agree with you.
I merely want to point out what happens when those individuals who remain fornicators, idolaters, extortioners, drunkards, etc. They may begin their own church/denomination that is accepting of these behaviors. I agree with your belief, but I don't believe denominations will be done away with.

Obviously these are not real churches. God's church will be characterized by the degree of holiness expected of God's people, because it is led and administrated by the Holy Spirit through godly eldership. Therefore, a non-denominational church which does not exhibit or teach holiness is not God's church.