Denominations?

[Fez]

Opus dei.....

Is a denomination. Of which church?

Opus Dei is not a denomination.

Opus Dei is a Catholic institution founded by Saint Josemaría Escrivá. Its mission is to help people turn their work and daily activities into occasions for growing closer to God, for serving others, and for improving society.

http://www.opusdei.us/sec.php?s=8

By self inflicted pain to "focus" prayer? By giving 100% of your income in many instances to the "institution"?

[OneLight]

Sounds so nice when I read this ... 1 Corinthians 2:2 "For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified."

The message of salvation is really the only important message. God will do the rest as He moves His body.

[OneLight]

dup ...

[Guest shiloh357]

"I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that you sent Me. And the glory which You gave I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one."

What does it mean to be "one?" It means to be united, to be of one mind, to have the same purpose or goal or motivation.

But that does not mean they have to have the same theological viewpoints no all matters. There are many issues, mostly the finer points of theology that have been and always will be vigorously debated. That denominations differ is not an indication of a lack of unity. Many Christians who disagree vigorously do not believe that their differences should result in a loss of fellowship. I disagree greatly with those who believe that baptism is necesssary for salvation, but I can do so without breaking fellowship.

This desire for Jesus' disciples to be of the same mind is expressed elsewhere, in 1 Corinthians 1:10.

"Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no dicisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Paul wanted them to speak the same thing (referring to the doctrine the believed in), and to be PERFECTLY joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. How could this be said of us is we are disected into denominations, speaking doctrines which are contrary to one another?

Yes but Paul was dealing with division within a single congregation. The Corinthian church was becoming inwardly splintered among themselves and THAT is the context of I Cor. 1:10. If the issue was disunity between the Corinthians and another congregation, then you could easier apply that verse to denominations.

Denominations, by definition, are against unity and oneness of mind. They are not condoned by God, who encourages us to "endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Ephesians 4:3)

That is simply not true. Denominations are the exact representation of openness of mind and unity. Here is the problem people like you need to face up to. In order to be absolutely unified on every point of doctrine, someone has to control what everyone else believes. Everyone believes that their views the product of the leading of the Holy Spirit. John and Suzie have different theological convictions but both John and Suzie believe that they are each led by the Holy Spirit to believe as they believe. This is true on a denominational level as well. The Baptists and the Presbyterians disagree over certain issues, but both believe that they are representing the leading of the Holy Spirit and truth of Scripture.

So, who decides which view(s) (of the plethora of views avaiable on any given theological topic) gets to be king of the hill? Who decides what you and I will believe? Who gets to enforce that "unified" theology. Someone has to lose. Someone has to surrender their beliefs for the good of the collective. In order to have perfect unity, you might have to give up certain tenets that you hold to dearly. Which of your beliefs are you prepared to surrender?

The unity YOU are talking about isn't unity at all. It is conformity of thought. Everyone has to believe the same thing. But who among us finite humans has the authority to decide what the absolute correct theology is? Who among us stands with perfect infallible knowledge sufficient for that task? No one does.

So in order to have perfect unity, we have to close our minds to anything outside what one person or group tells is true. Sorry, but you have it wrong. The diversity we have in demoninations is the exact expression of unity and openness of mind.

Quote

Denominations differ mostlly over tradition and nonessential teachings, not essential doctrine. Denominations are not equivalent to "division."

Unfortunately, that is not true. Denominations debate subjects such as baptism and salvation, which are quite essential.

I said they MOSTLY disagree over tradition and nonessential teachings. I did not say that there were no essential teachings that are debated. But even then, they are dealing with the finer points of salvation and baptism. Most of what we mostlly debate are things like immersion vs. sprinkling, baptismal regnerations, soul sleep, enire sanctification, calvinism vs. arminianism, speaking in tongues, the rapture question, eternal security, dispensationalism vs. amillenialism, etc. One does not have to be correct on those issues to be saved. Those are issues we can vigorously debate without breaking fellowship or unity.

Unity is a state of mind. Churches can be unified in many ways despite differing on theology. They can come together and help the community. They can team up to provide disaster relief and provide help for a number of suffering people in greater society.

The argument that unity exists in have the same exact theological worldview is just not true.

[Smalcald]

Opus Dei does not bother me in the least. For me the problem I have with the Catholic Church is not fervent Catholics who truly have faith.

[TheNewMan]

But that does not mean they have to have the same theological viewpoints no all matters. There are many issues, mostly the finer points of theology that have been and always will be vigorously debated. That denominations differ is not an indication of a lack of unity. Many Christians who disagree vigorously do not believe that their differences should result in a loss of fellowship. I disagree greatly with those who believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, but I can do so without breaking fellowship.

This will get more into the theological problems with denominations. It is my strong belief (and I have presented evidence for this in the topic "Is baptism necessary for salvation?", and will provide it again if you need me to), that denominations which preach things that are contrary to God's will, such as that you do not need to be baptized to be saved, those people do not have fellowship in Christ with other Christians. If you are teaching something that is against God's will, you are walking in darkness, and we know that those who walk in darkness do not have fellowship with God according to 1 John 1:6. We also know that Paul warned the Galatians in chapter 1 verse 7 that there were those who were trying to pervert the gospel, and in verse 8 he says that those who teach any other gospel, who pervert the gospel of Christ, should be accursed. If you are teaching doctrine that is contrary to God's will (Calvinism, no baptism for salvation, etc.), you are perverting God's will and presenting a gospel that is not from God, and you have no fellowship with God, or with His children.

That is why denominations destroy unity, and Christians cannot have fellowship in Christ with those who are part of a church that was not ordained by God, a church which preaches doctrine that is not in harmony with God's teachings in the Bible. We can be kind to them, and we are commanded to be loving to all men, but kindness and love is not the same as being united in Christ, having fellowship with one another in the body of Christ, the fellowship talked about in 1 Corinthians 1:9.

Yes but Paul was dealing with division within a single congregation. The Corinthian church was becoming inwardly splintered among themselves and THAT is the context of I Cor. 1:10. If the issue was disunity between the Corinthians and another congregation, then you could easier apply that verse to denominations.

I find it illogical that, if it is not tolerable for Christians in a single congregation to be disunited, that it is somehow tolerable for Christians worldwide to be disunited, and it is illogical to think that disunity is ever acceptable among Christians simply because Paul in this verse does not specifically say that all Christians must be unified. The problem within the church was that Christians were not unified (because they did not possess the same theological views, concerning things that pertain to life and godliness). The problem now is that Christians are not united in their gospel, preaching completely different doctrines. There is the same problem. And yet the more widespread problem is, somehow, tolerable in comparison to the localized problem? Doesn't make sense to me. Nevertheless, Christ prayed that His disciples, and those whom His disciples taught, would be unified. That includes all Christians. And to think that we can have fellowship in Christ when we are preaching doctrines that are contrary to what the Bible teaches doesn't seem to be logical either.

That is simply not true. Denominations are the exact representation of openness of mind and unity.

If I am not mistaken (and I am not), denominations arose because of differing beliefs of opinion.

Here is the problem people like you need to face up to. In order to be absolutely unified on every point of doctrine, someone has to control what everyone else believes. Everyone believes that their views the product of the leading of the Holy Spirit. John and Suzie have different theological convictions but both John and Suzie believe that they are each led by the Holy Spirit to believe as they believe. This is true on a denominational level as well. The Baptists and the Presbyterians disagree over certain issues, but both believe that they are representing the leading of the Holy Spirit and truth of Scripture.

So, who decides which view(s) (of the plethora of views avaiable on any given theological topic) gets to be king of the hill? Who decides what you and I will believe? Who gets to enforce that "unified" theology. Someone has to lose. Someone has to surrender their beliefs for the good of the collective. In order to have perfect unity, you might have to give up certain tenets that you hold to dearly. Which of your beliefs are you prepared to surrender?

The unity YOU are talking about isn't unity at all. It is conformity of thought. Everyone has to believe the same thing. But who among us finite humans has the authority to decide what the absolute correct theology is? Who among us stands with perfect infallible knowledge sufficient for that task? No one does.

So in order to have perfect unity, we have to close our minds to anything outside what one person or group tells is true. Sorry, but you have it wrong. The diversity we have in demoninations is the exact expression of unity and openness of mind.

I didn't mean to give the impression that we have to have to same opinion on every detail concerned in the Bible, such as prophecies in Revelation about when such and such a judgment will occur. Those things have nothing to do with life or godliness. But we have been given everything that pertains to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3) and how can we be united, or even remotely pleasing to God, if we are preaching things that are directly contrary to God's will? Those perverted gospels must be done away with, and men must only teach that which is taught in the Bible. If that is done, then we will all, in essence, believe the same things concerning life and godliness. It is most definitely not an impossible task.

You asked who had the authority to decide what correct theology is? God does. His Word preaches truth, and we are commanded to understand the "mystery of Christ" (Ephesians 3:4), so it is very possible, even commanded, to know what the truth is, to know and to preach the true gospel. How do we do this? Well, we discuss God's word and, as you said, we must be humble enough to surrender our beliefs if they do not conform to God's will. Unfortunately, most of the people who have discussions on Biblical things, things necessary for salvation, ignore all that the Bible says in contradiction to their beliefs, and stubbornly hold to their beliefs because they want to believe what they believe, and nothing, not even God, will change that.

And no, we should not close our minds to what anyone outside our group tells us, we must listen to what they have to say and test it according to the Scriptures to see if it's so, as the Bereans did, and were praised for doing, according to Acts 17:11. Also, we study the Bible daily, not holding to any doctrine that we may have been introduced to, unless we can see from the Scriptures that it is Biblically sound.

I said they MOSTLY disagree over tradition and nonessential teachings. I did not say that there were no essential teachings that are debated. But even then, they are dealing with the finer points of salvation and baptism. Most of what we mostlly debate are things like immersion vs. sprinkling, baptismal regnerations, soul sleep, enire sanctification, calvinism vs. arminianism, speaking in tongues, the rapture question, eternal security, dispensationalism vs. amillenialism, etc. One does not have to be correct on those issues to be saved. Those are issues we can vigorously debate without breaking fellowship or unity.

Unity is a state of mind. Churches can be unified in many ways despite differing on theology. They can come together and help the community. They can team up to provide disaster relief and provide help for a number of suffering people in greater society.

The argument that unity exists in have the same exact theological worldview is just not true.

As I have already said, on the subject of baptism, if one is teaching something other than what the Bible says (for instance, if someone says that sprinkling is equivalent to immersion in the case of baptism, which is clearly wrong according to the Bible), they are perverting the gospel, and have no fellowship in Christ, and are not unified in their beliefs. Also, the doctrine of Calvinism teaches things that are completely untrue according to the Scriptures, such as their view on salvation itself, saying that there is nothing one can do, once they have been saved, to fall away from God's grace. Saying that is endorsing sin, and very directly contradicting God's teachings. It is very essential to your salvation to realize that you must live faithfully to God, or else we will retract your salvation (Ephesians 5:4, 1 Timothy 4:1-3, 2 Peter 2:20-22). Saying that such debates are not important to salvation is quite false. Some denominations teach you that you can be a homosexual and still go to heaven, and people that believe this teaching and practice or support homosexuality will not be saved. Such things are very important to salvation.

Unity in Christ is not compromise. Unity in Christ is not having a "live and let live" attitude. We know that God only accepts those who obey Him (Hebrews 5:9) and curses those who pervert the gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:8).

[TheNewMan]

As I have already said, on the subject of baptism, if one is teaching something other than what the Bible says (for instance, if someone says that sprinkling is equivalent to immersion in the case of baptism, which is clearly wrong according to the Bible), they are perverting the gospel, and have no fellowship in Christ, and are not unified in their beliefs.

Here's a very early Christian writing regarding baptism:

The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

Not inspired. I don't care to listen to anything that's not inspired. For all we know, HE established that custom. Everything we need to know pertaining to life and godliness is in the Bible (2 Peter 1:3).

[Waiting2BwithHim]

First i didn't mean for this to start to look like it's going to be a debate..

I was trying to not just find out about denominations but also to find out how it is that their are different Bibles..

For example..

Catholics have their bible..

Muslims have the Koran..

Mormons Book of Mormons etc etc...

But as I saw the replies IMO it seems like it was getting all over the place and not really helping for

readers and myself that is going over our heads.

So I did a search online and found this..

My link

This is one I understand and agree with..now what is your take on this?

Very sorry again for where it seems to have been leading.

[nebula]

Very sorry again for where it seems to have been leading.

Not your fault.

[TheNewMan]

I disagree. We gain a better understanding of what he practiced, or thought should be practiced. The word baptizo, from which we get our word baptized, means "to make fully wet." Pouring water on someone will not make them fully wet. Didache is preaching something contrary to what God tells us in the Bible. Let us then disregard what he says.