denominationlism is a sin

[God's Word is TRUTH]

we can see in 1 Cor 1:10-13 that the christians we dividing themselves during the first century and paul condems them. and a denomination is a division of something.

10: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11: For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12: Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13: Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

 

[BobRyan]

Wouldn't it be great if we all accepted the same truths from the Bible?

I would be all for it!

 

[Darron Steele]

I have seen this passage and message used among the Churches of Christ. Typically, the boast is that the "Churches of Christ" are the only ones who do not identify with any man's teachings but only of Christ. However, in the passage, those who boasted that they are "of Christ" in divisiveness against the others were upbraided with the others.

Divisiveness is a sin. No doubt there -- but divisiveness is an attitude of desiring to be and remain divided. Most Christians I am familiar with want the whole church to unite on belief.

 

[LeBuick]

Wouldn't it be great if we all accepted the same truths from the Bible?

I would be all for it!

Question, why did GOD allow the bible to be written so cryptic? Why couldn't it be more specific so there would be no seperation and confusion in the Church?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

we can see in 1 Cor 1:10-13 that the christians we dividing themselves during the first century and paul condems them. and a denomination is a division of something.

10: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11: For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12: Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13: Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Ah yes, your profile shows that you belong to a "Church of Christ."

Divisiveness is sin - whether perpetrated by a Baptist or a member of the "Church of Christ."

 

[Hope of Glory]

Question, why did GOD allow the bible to be written so cryptic? Why couldn't it be more specific so there would be no seperation and confusion in the Church?

It is very specific in the languages in which the Bible was originally written. I think if more people preached from the original languages that denominationalism wouldn't disappear, but it would certainly recede into near non-existence.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

Today there is a significant trend toward churches hiding their denominational identities or becoming non-denominational. The problem here is, however, that they still operate within some sort of theological tradition. The idea that one can have just a Biblical theology without some kind of philosophical underpinnings or without paying attention to the theological developments of two millennia of Christian history is just an illusion.

 

[Revmitchell]

GWIT,

We all give. You are absolutely right. We repent and will now join the one true church the Church of Christ. What time are services this morning?

 

[BobRyan]

Question, why did GOD allow the bible to be written so cryptic? Why couldn't it be more specific so there would be no seperation and confusion in the Church?

Let's list all the things that various groups deny --

Some say "Christ is not God" even thought "With God and WAS GOD" is CLEARLY stated in John 1:1.

OT and NT Gospels must be ignored EVEN though Christs says CLEARLY in the Gospels "Scripture can not be broken" and in Matt 28 "Go teach them WHAT I TAUGHT YOU".

Man-made tradition TRUMPS the Bible so that when the Bible says one thing and man-made church tradition says another - go with MAN. EVEN though in Mark 7 God says clearly "In vain do they worship me teaching for doctrine the commandments of MEN... invalidating the Word of God with your TRADITION".

AND YET they will teach Purgatory AND an EDIT of the 10 commandments WHILE admitting "God's Word says THIS but WE EDIT to THIS with NO SUPPORT at all in scripture for the EDIT". (An RCC claim in this case).

Now let me ask you this -- is the Bible REALLY so unclear?!!

Isn't it MUCH more apparent that mankind is "SO self decieved" and so easily manipulated by Satan to DISBELIEVE the Bible!

Look at the large number OF compromised CHRISTIANS that take "FOR In SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them" and turn it into "NO HE did NOT! - Don't believe IT!" choosing instead the blind gods of atheist darwinism!!

Clearly the problem is NOT that the "BIBLE was toooo unclear" .

So far I have given you "easy ones" because they do not likely challenge your views --

But what about an EASY one that DOES challenge your views?

In Rev 20 we see the FIRST resurrection is the resurrection of the "blessed and holy" ones over whom the 2nd death has no power. The one that happens at the Rev 19-20 event of the "coming again" of Christ.

What of MORE resurrections? Well the NEXT one - the SECOND one is clearly identified "The REST of the dead are raised after the 1000 years".

Note: Many (in the early 1800's) DENIED the 1000 years as well!!

Now for the hard part for many today.

In 1Thess 4 Paul ALSO describes the resurrection of the righteous. So is it the FIRST or the SECOND -- which one is it?

Obviously it is the FIRST - the resurrection of the "holy and blessed" the resurrection of the "Dead in Christ".

Matt 24 clearly SHOWS that SAME sequence! ( Post to follow)

Yet a GREAT MANY today MUST deny that as well -- they must say "IT was NEITHER ONE or else the FIRST resurrection must be followed by MORE first resurrections because we just can't allow the FIRST resurrection to START the 1000 years because it does not fit our view of the timing for the rapture".

How sad that we humans are so easily convinced that we must wrench and bend scriptures that so obviously confront our man-made traditions!!

 

[BobRyan]

The time line according to Matthew 24

1. church age continues <== you are here! Matthew 24:4-15

2. Tribulation time Matthew 24:21-28

3. Second Advent of Jesus event Matthew 24:29-30)

4. rapture/resurrection event Matthew 24:31-44, Rev 20:4-5

5. Millennium - Rev 20:5-end

Not wanting to turn this into a debate of why Matt 24 is not true (for some here inclined to do that ) -- Just wanting to follow up on the previous promise to show this point.

 

[God's Word is TRUTH]

Ah yes, your profile shows that you belong to a "Church of Christ."

Divisiveness is sin - whether perpetrated by a Baptist or a member of the "Church of Christ."

no, i don't belong to a "church of Christ", I belong to the church of Christ, there is only one church. an undivided church, who all speak and believe the same thing.
And why do you wear a name that was created by a man, when we should wear the name that is above all names.

In Christian Love,

Dustin

 

[Charles Meadows]

The problem is that CoC is also a denomination - and a very legalistic denomination at that. I realize that the intent was to get rid of denominationalism - but look at some of the actual effects. Some CoC members believe that one is not saved unless he/she is baptized in the name of Jesus and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - or unless one joins the "church of Christ".

You may claim to be above denominationalism - but many (albeit not all) CoC churches exemplify the worst aspects of denominationalism, while still denying the label.

 

[God's Word is TRUTH]

just because the sign above the door says church of christ it doesn't mean that they are a member of the church of Christ, and they are not members of Christ's church if they are only baptized in the name of Jesus, the bible tells us to be baptized in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. As long as you follow God's word and obey it then you become a member of the Church of Christ (rom.16:16), the only church that the bible talks about.

In Christian Love,

Dustin

 

[Charles Meadows]

Dustin,

I have no problem with seeking authentic biblical worship. And I do credit many in the CoC with such intentions.

As such I have no problem with one asserting that he/she prefers worship music without instruments since that is likely how is was in NT times. But what I think is wrong - and where some in the CoC err - is the assertion that instrumental music in worship is wrong or sinful. There is no command against it - and it receives so little attention in the NT that it is not evidently an issue of great weightiness.

What IS CLEAR in the NT is that no flesh will be justified by works of the law. The OT law prescribed certain specific and ritualistic things. Jesus made it clear that this would not justify men. If a person trusts Christ and submits to Him then he/she is saved. The words used in his confession or at his baptism are irrelevant. Whether he worships loudly or quietly is irrelevant. Whether his building says "Baptist, Catholic, "Church of Christ" etc is irrelevant. Either Jesus' death and Resurrection are sufficient or they are not. To add extra qualifications for being a Christian (other than truly trusting Jesus as savior) is asserting that Jesus' work was not quite enough.

 

[billwald]

Yes, Bible obviously not clear

Yes, Bible is obviously not clear else you would all agree with me. <G>

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

just because the sign above the door says church of christ it doesn't mean that they are a member of the church of Christ, and they are not members of Christ's church if they are only baptized in the name of Jesus, the bible tells us to be baptized in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. As long as you follow God's word and obey it then you become a member of the Church of Christ (rom.16:16), the only church that the bible talks about.

In Christian Love,

Dustin

Claiming a title does not make one a part of the "one true church."

I also belong to the church of Christ, I am a part of His body, He is the Head - the church I attend has nothing to do with it.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

no, i don't belong to a "church of Christ", I belong to the church of Christ, there is only one church. an undivided church, who all speak and believe the same thing.
And why do you wear a name that was created by a man, when we should wear the name that is above all names.

In Christian Love,

Dustin

I wear one name - a child of God.

 

[genesis12]

What is cryptic about the Gospel? I find nothing cryptic there. And yes, we would all agree if we used spiritual discernment (1 Corinthians 2:9-16) instead of our own efforts, ranging from intellectual pursuits to mental meanderings.

 

[Tom Bryant]

People disagree over what the bible teaches in some cases because the Bible is not clear about certain things. The Bible is the Word of god but it is not everything about God. The Bible tells us everything God wanted us to know about.

I for one am glad that there are different Bible believing denominations. I may disagree with them but each denomination brings an aspect of God's truth to the fore front.

For example, I'm not a Calvinist but I am thankful there are some 5 pointers who lift high the absolute sovereignty of God.

Many deifferences are bad, but some are good because they remind us that we can't fit God into an box of our own making.

 

[Tom Butler]

Today there is a significant trend toward churches hiding their denominational identities or becoming non-denominational. The problem here is, however, that they still operate within some sort of theological tradition. The idea that one can have just a Biblical theology without some kind of philosophical underpinnings or without paying attention to the theological developments of two millennia of Christian history is just an illusion.

Very perceptive, brother.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I get the impression that sometimes an attitude of self-righteousness on the part of some who are "non-denominational." First, they declare denominationalism a sin, then call themselves non-denom, as in "we're not like you."

This is also reflected in the CGM movement, as in, "we've hidden our denom roots in order not to run people off."

But the philosophical underpinnings are still there. If you peek under the skin, you'll find they're Baptist, Methodist, Presbyhterian, etc. They're just hiding it.