Denomination

[UncleAbee]

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).

First of all the Catholic church is not "the church" as they claim. So the Catholics kicked them out of a false church. They were never in the church in the 1st place. What they should have done is searched for the church that Christ built. We find this church in the scriptures. If you study and obey the scriptures then you will find the Lord's church. What did Christ say? He said " I will build my church" in Matthew 16:18. What does the bible tell us to be members of? 1 Cor 12:27 - "Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it." The body = the church (Eph 1:22-23). Therefore you are "Christ's church." Who has authority in this church? Christ does (Matt 28:18). This means that Christ sets all the parameters for it. The bible only discusses "one body" or "one church" (Eph 4:4) that we are members of.

Their is only one fellowship. This is Christ's fellowship. There are no others that God recognizes because you can't find them in the bible. This is hard for many to understand. The hard thing about denominations is that they have been around for so long that people just accept them. It has become the norm. People do not understand Christianity outside of them. Most people found out about Christ through a denomination. Back in the early centuries most found out about Christ through the Catholic church because they dominated the scene but that didn't make them right. In the same way it does not make denominations right either.

See, if I have fellowship with Christ and you have fellowship with Christ then we have fellowship with each other automatically through Christ (1 Cor 1:9, 1 John 1:3). We are united in Christ. Christ brings people together. Denominations divide people into different faith groups and teach their traditions as church doctrine. This is how you end up with instrumental music, christenings of babies, the Pastoral system (one preacher over a church serving as the elder and the minister), calling preachers Reverend, denominational names, man made creeds, etc. Some churches (Pentecostal) started a whole new fellowship because they wanted to be free to emotionally express themselves. None of these things are found as church practice for the NT Christian in the bible.

[nebula]

Uncle Abee, I am not disagreeing with the principals you speak. What is rubbing against my grain is the attitude of judgment placed against these people.

When I spoke of the need to know church history, it is because we need to know how we got to where we are, and why we got to what we are.

And as it is said, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

None of the Reformers had the intention of starting a new denomination. They actually were trying to get back into Biblical Christianity. But the things of which you speak bypassed their radar. The next reformer that came along caught some things that the previous one had missed. The reformer after him caught things the two before had missed. And so on and so forth. I would venture to say that you are able to know so much about what the church should be only because those before you had cleared the paths for you to search and follow.

Becoming a denomination did not occur over night. Often it was not established until after the reformer/founder had died and those now in leadership chose to establish their own creeds rather than trust to hear the Holy Spirit directing their coarse.

If you pride yourself in knowing what the Church should be (OK, first we have to call it "Assembly" rather than "Church" if we want to get back to Biblical truth), beware lest you fall. Who is to say that your fellowship of believers won't fall into the same pattern as those who have gone before?

Consider the Methodists. If you research what the Wesleys were like, what their meetings were like, what their original gatherings were like (before they were congregated into the "Methodist" label), you would see an entirely different fellowship than what they are today. You should look into it.

[nebula]

Some churches (Pentecostal) started a whole new fellowship because they wanted to be free to emotionally express themselves. None of these things are found as church practice for the NT Christian in the bible.

BTW, I have to state that I disagree with this. If you think those of us who believe in the gifts of the Spirit, speak in tongues, raise our hands in worship, dance as David and Miriam danced before the Lord, etc. is all about an emotional experience - you are WRONG.

[Fez]

What are we to make then of the Lord's command,"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate"?

2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate

, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying,

Come out of her, my people,

that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Sorry sheya, I am being a bit "thick', as we say here - it's been a long day. Are you saying this is a reason to join a congregation of believers, or a reason not to? Not being confrontational sister, just trying to understand the question...

[xequedox]

I was born and baptized in Church of christ denomination; it strictly follows the word and Jesus's teachings.

[xequedox]

A denomination is just a name, a label, non-denominational is also a denomination, every group which does not have 100% fellowship with every other Christian group IS a denomination including if you worship at home. Thus we are ALL members of a denomination of we are Christian even if we don't go to Church even if we worship at home or don't worship at all.

We should not worry about this however. We should stick with faith and scripture and we will indeed disagree but we will not disagree about the important issues relating to salvation.

exactly total agreement there

Edited February 15, 2011 by xequedox

[sheya joie]

What are we to make then of the Lord's command,"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate"?

2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate

, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying,

Come out of her, my people,

that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Sorry sheya, I am being a bit "thick', as we say here - it's been a long day. Are you saying this is a reason to join a congregation of believers, or a reason not to? Not being confrontational sister, just trying to understand the question...

Hi, Fez. If you look at some of the posts just before mine (trying to look at them myself, but my dial-up is being sllllloooowwwwwww), there were people saying that various reformers were being unBiblical in leaving churches they saw as being wrong in teaching/practice. That reminded me of these verses, so I posted them.

Ok, I was thinking of this post in particular:

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.

[Fez]

What are we to make then of the Lord's command,"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate"?

2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate

, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying,

Come out of her, my people,

that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Sorry sheya, I am being a bit "thick', as we say here - it's been a long day. Are you saying this is a reason to join a congregation of believers, or a reason not to? Not being confrontational sister, just trying to understand the question...

Hi, Fez. If you look at some of the posts just before mine (trying to look at them myself, but my dial-up is being sllllloooowwwwwww), there were people saying that various reformers were being unBiblical in leaving churches they saw as being wrong in teaching/practice. That reminded me of these verses, so I posted them.

Ok, I was thinking of this post in particular:

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.

Thanks Sis, got it now

[UncleAbee]

What are we to make then of the Lord's command,"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate"?

2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate

, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying,

Come out of her, my people,

that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Sorry sheya, I am being a bit "thick', as we say here - it's been a long day. Are you saying this is a reason to join a congregation of believers, or a reason not to? Not being confrontational sister, just trying to understand the question...

Hi, Fez. If you look at some of the posts just before mine (trying to look at them myself, but my dial-up is being sllllloooowwwwwww), there were people saying that various reformers were being unBiblical in leaving churches they saw as being wrong in teaching/practice. That reminded me of these verses, so I posted them.

Ok, I was thinking of this post in particular:

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.

I never said it was wrong to leave an unbiblical church. It is wrong to start your own church. This is what the denominational fathers did.

[UncleAbee]

A denomination is just a name, a label, non-denominational is also a denomination, every group which does not have 100% fellowship with every other Christian group IS a denomination including if you worship at home. Thus we are ALL members of a denomination of we are Christian even if we don't go to Church even if we worship at home or don't worship at all.

We should not worry about this however. We should stick with faith and scripture and we will indeed disagree but we will not disagree about the important issues relating to salvation.

exactly total agreement there

I disagree. Worshipping at home does not put you in a denomination. A denomination is not just a name. It identifies the particular brand of your religion. Denominations give themselves a particular name and group themselves off from other Christians. Christianity should be identified by Christ alone. The bible clearly speaks against the division of Christians (1 Cor 1:10, Eph 4:1-6). Some denominations accept others but they all (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, etc) are clearly different churches with different doctrines. I copied this from Wikipedia.org. "A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity. Worldwide, Christians are divided, often along ethnic and linguistic lines, into separate churches and traditions. Technically, divisions between one group and another are defined by doctrine and church authority. Issues such as the nature of Jesus, the authority of apostolic succession, and papal primacy separate one denomination from another." That is what a denomination is and the bible clearly teaches against such division.