nebula Posted February 9, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.96 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The church never had any "official" name such as Baptist, Methodist, etc. There were generic names for it as you suggested but the church never adopted any of those as its name. The only name that early Christians were concerned with was Christ and the name of "Christian." Any name that we call ourselves must be true to the scriptures. We see the church being mentioned as the Christ's body (1 Cor 12:27), Body of Christ (Eph 4:12), churches of Christ (Romans 16:16), church of God (1 Cor 1:2), etc. But, none of these names were the "official" name of the church but they are all "appropriate" names because they are true to the scriptures. 1 Peter 4:16 says - "but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name." There we are given specific authority to glorify God by the use of the name "Christian." This exemplifies lifestyle Christianity and there are no other names which scripture gives this authority to. The names we put on our buildings are of no consequence as long as they are scripturally driven. 1st century Christians were not concerned with names on buildings. They were concerned with lifestyle Christianity through conforming themselves to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29, Phil 3:10, Eph 4:11-13). We are concerned with names on buildings because of "branding." We have all these different brands of Christianity and want folks to know which brand they are coming to. The only brand the bible speaks of is that of Christ. The bible speaks towards unity and opposes the divisions that man made branding causes. I believe all Christians need to take a class on Church history. To understand the "labels" one needs to understand the context from which they came. The "One Body of Christ" was so institutionalized that when one man (Martin Luther) declared that the Church was removed from Scripture and needed to return, there was nothing he and his followers could do but to start their own "fellowship". But after a time, it too fell into the rut of organizing, doctinalizing, and of course they were branded with a label early on which became their identity to separate themselves from "the big institutionalized Church" . . . and so they became their own institution. This pattern was repeated over and over again, and individuals began receiving revelation that certain elements of "the Church" and even the previous "reformers" were removed from Scripture. And so their attempts to bring Christianity as a whole back to Scripture served to create a new congregation which grew and institutionalized and so on and so forth. Sadly several of these denomination have completely lost base with their roots even. So while it is easy to speak of unity, it isn't so easy to walk out in practice. Try having a predestination-believing person tag-team preaching with a salvation-by-free-choice believing person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizzdy Posted February 9, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 173 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 3,911 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 212 Days Won: 10 Joined: 03/21/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted February 9, 2011 Because of the historical time frame covered in Revelation chapter twelve there did not, at that time, exist a resurrected head beast, that is the fourth manifestation of the Church, the Church in Thyatira, or an image to that beast. Note: the image of the beast is the false prophet, a religious imposter. So, that being the case, there was only the Dragon, and those individuals whom he could entice, to cast out the foul water. Here we see, in this historical time frame, that the Dragon has brought into existence both the beast and the image of the beast. Therefore, these frogs, these unclean spirits, proceed out of the mouth of all three. And, "...The great dragon, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan..." (Rev 12:9) is the originator of this event. Are you talking about the beasts of Rev. 17? and where in the world do you see a 'fourth manifestation of the church'? The beast of Rev. is the kingdoms that have come against and persecuted Israel, who have conquered Jerusalem and or the Israelites. The last beast mirrors the one that before it so we have Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Mede/Persia, Greece, Rome, Ottoman, and the last one mirrors the ottoman but is fueled by fanatical religious zealots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The Church was being bombarded with Hellinistic philosophies, was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 9, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.96 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The Church was being bombarded with Hellinistic philosophies, was? Yes, it was back then. Now the Church has embraced them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The Church was being bombarded with Hellinistic philosophies, was? Yes, it was back then. Now the Church has embraced them. LOL...yep. The institution known as "church" is the one spreading hellenistic humanism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleAbee Posted February 11, 2011 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 109 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 1 Joined: 07/08/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2011 The church never had any "official" name such as Baptist, Methodist, etc. There were generic names for it as you suggested but the church never adopted any of those as its name. The only name that early Christians were concerned with was Christ and the name of "Christian." Any name that we call ourselves must be true to the scriptures. We see the church being mentioned as the Christ's body (1 Cor 12:27), Body of Christ (Eph 4:12), churches of Christ (Romans 16:16), church of God (1 Cor 1:2), etc. But, none of these names were the "official" name of the church but they are all "appropriate" names because they are true to the scriptures. 1 Peter 4:16 says - "but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name." There we are given specific authority to glorify God by the use of the name "Christian." This exemplifies lifestyle Christianity and there are no other names which scripture gives this authority to. The names we put on our buildings are of no consequence as long as they are scripturally driven. 1st century Christians were not concerned with names on buildings. They were concerned with lifestyle Christianity through conforming themselves to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29, Phil 3:10, Eph 4:11-13). We are concerned with names on buildings because of "branding." We have all these different brands of Christianity and want folks to know which brand they are coming to. The only brand the bible speaks of is that of Christ. The bible speaks towards unity and opposes the divisions that man made branding causes. I believe all Christians need to take a class on Church history. To understand the "labels" one needs to understand the context from which they came. The "One Body of Christ" was so institutionalized that when one man (Martin Luther) declared that the Church was removed from Scripture and needed to return, there was nothing he and his followers could do but to start their own "fellowship". But after a time, it too fell into the rut of organizing, doctinalizing, and of course they were branded with a label early on which became their identity to separate themselves from "the big institutionalized Church" . . . and so they became their own institution. This pattern was repeated over and over again, and individuals began receiving revelation that certain elements of "the Church" and even the previous "reformers" were removed from Scripture. And so their attempts to bring Christianity as a whole back to Scripture served to create a new congregation which grew and institutionalized and so on and so forth. Sadly several of these denomination have completely lost base with their roots even. So while it is easy to speak of unity, it isn't so easy to walk out in practice. Try having a predestination-believing person tag-team preaching with a salvation-by-free-choice believing person. I think folks ought to study the bible. Martin Luther's followers had no authority to start their "own fellowship of believers." Jesus calls the church into unity (John 17)and only built one church (Matt 16:18) for these unified believers to exist in. No one has this authority. The church does not belong to us. It is subject to Christ who paid foir it with His blood (Acts 20:28). Christ sets all the parameters for the church. If you are in a fellowship that is not adhering to the faith then your duty is to "return" to the correct faith and not start your own faith group. The denominational founders were not wrong for being dissatisfied with the faith practices they grew up with. Those practices (many belonging to the RC church) were not scriptural. They were wrong in starting their own denominations. The A.M.E.Z. church sprang from the white Methodist church. Blacks were being discriminated against in the Methodist church by white members. Blacks could hold no positions of leadership in the Methodist church. The black memebers went off and started their own fellowship (African Methodist Episcopal Zion church). The white Methodist church was clearly not following Christian principles but the black members had no biblical authority to branch off and start another faith group. They should have left but they should have restored their fellowship in the practices of the bible and returned to Christ's church. If they had done this "Christian" and the "name of Christ" would be the only names they would be concerned with. They would have followed biblical practice and rejected all man made religous inventions including the idea of denominationalism. Many think "what is wrong with a denomination?" It is where many learned about Christ. The problem though is Christ clearly states that things not planted by God will be uprooted (Matt 15:13). Denominations were not planted by God. People are attempting to obey God in a "place" not designated by God. Many are working hard but working in vain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 11, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.96 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I think folks ought to study the bible. Martin Luther's followers had no authority to start their "own fellowship of believers." What should they have done? The "Church" kicked them out of fellowship with them (aka excommunication). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt712 Posted February 11, 2011 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 88 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/08/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/06/1981 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I agree with the general tone of this thread, that denominations can be, and often are, divisive. Jeremiah 17:10 "But I, the Lord, search all hearts and examine secret motives. I give all people their due rewards, according to what their actions deserve." 1 Corinthians 4:9-10 Instead, I sometimes think that God has put us apostles on display, like prisoners of war at the end of a victor's parade, condemned to die. We have become a spectacle to the entire world - to people and angels alike. Our dedication to Christ makes us look like fools, but you claim to be so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are so powerful! You are honored, but we are ridiculed. Let us not be so wise in Christ that we miss his coming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdktlk Posted February 11, 2011 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 282 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/30/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) I think folks ought to study the bible. Martin Luther's followers had no authority to start their "own fellowship of believers." What should they have done? The "Church" kicked them out of fellowship with them (aka excommunication). Uncle Abnee answered your question in his post ... ...The black members had no biblical authority to branch off and start another faith group. They should have left but they should have restored their fellowship in the practices of the bible and returned to Christ's church. If they had done this "Christian" and the "name of Christ" would be the only names they would be concerned with. They would have followed biblical practice and rejected all man made religous inventions including the idea of denominationalism. The Apostle Paul said, "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." (Eph 3:14-15) Edited February 11, 2011 by sdktlk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 11, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.96 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted February 11, 2011 ...The black members had no biblical authority to branch off and start another faith group. "Black" members? They should have left but they should have restored their fellowship in the practices of the bible and returned to Christ's church. In principle that sounds great, but in practice did they know of this? Did they know any other way to gather and worship than what was passed down to them? They made some huge steps towards getting back to the working of redemption as it should. We can argue about how they didn't go far enough, and we can argue about the theological mistakes they themselves created and the damage that caused - true. But if you research, ever "Reformer" actually did intend to bring "the Church" back to Biblical Christianity. Separating mercy out of judgment is a dangerous practice. Until you can find the mercy in the life, times, and heritage they had to overcome, plus the general failings of human nature, you shouldn't be taking a superior stand over them like this. That is not how righteous judgment is done. If they had done this "Christian" and the "name of Christ" would be the only names they would be concerned with. They would have followed biblical practice and rejected all man made religous inventions including the idea of denominationalism. But it was a different world back then, and they likely had not the means to organize themselves in any other way than the only way they knew. I do not believe from what I have learned that they were trying to start a separate denomination as we now call them. But human nature does as it does. Even the name "Lutheran" was a label not of their choosing (it was the Roman Catholic Church that called them this, and the label invariably stuck). The Roman Catholic Church throughout the Medieval times has a history of wiping out all followers of Christ trying to worship separate from the papacy's establishment. It was a miracle this group and those following managed to survive - this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts