denominationlism is a sin

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dustin: the point is the bible says DIVISION IS A SIN.

HP: Division is the effect of the sin, not sin in itself. Sin lies in the will, not in the effect of the wills choices. Sin is not predicated of anything outside of the will and it’s intents. Division does not transgress the law. Division does not know what to do but fails to do it. Division has no will and makes no choices. It cannot be blamed or praised. Again, division is only is an effect of sin. Not sin itself.

 

[mman]

HP: Possibly we need to slow down a bit and not move along quite yet. What standard have I set for myself that I would not pass?

Since when is having enough common sense to know and understand the evils of smoking upon ones health and the health of others, to say nothing about the damage to ones witness, or the wasteful spending of the finances God has entrusted us with, equitable to ‘perfection?’

Obviously, you found fault with his actions so you dismissed his message.

I'm certain that someone could find fault with some of your own actions. Would that be just cause to dismiss your message?

My point is, just because you can find fault, doesn't mean the message is not true.

If it took a faultless person to proclaim the truth today, there would be no proclaimers of truth.

OK, I said the standard that you set, you cannot pass yourself.

Are you doing everything within your power to be the healthiest person you can be? Have you never eaten anything unhealthy? Suppose God gave you a list of every unheathly thing that you've done, would there be anything on the list?

Have you never wasted any money? Couldn't that wasted money have been used for the Lord? I shudder to think how much money I have wasted in my lifetime, though not 1 penny of it has been toward the purchase of cigarettes. May God be merciful to me, a sinner.

Have you never performed some action that would negatively affect your influence?

The standards you are using to judge the smoker (health, influence, stewardship) can be applied to you and I am certain that neither you nor I, nor anyone, can always pass that test.

While I do not smoke and do not condone smoking, I do not judge those who choose to smoke or dismiss what they have to say.

 

[mman]

HP: Division is the effect of the sin, not sin in itself. Sin lies in the will, not in the effect of the wills choices. Sin is not predicated of anything outside of the will and it’s intents. Division does not transgress the law. Division does not know what to do but fails to do it. Division has no will and makes no choices. It cannot be blamed or praised. Again, division is only is an effect of sin. Not sin itself.

Interesting. I guess I've never thought of it in that manner.

It is wrong to cause division (Rom 16:17-18), but is the division itself wrong?

Paul said, "I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." - I Cor 1:10

Having a divison would be a violation of this passage. Sin is missing the mark. The target is unity, therefore would not division be sin?

Paul said in Gal 5:19-21, "Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

From this passage it certainly sounds like division is the sin. While sin will lead to division, division itself sounds just as sinful as the other things on the list such as immorality, sorcery, and drunkenness.

I'm going to think and study on this some more.

 

[Lagardo]

Paul said in Gal 5:19-21, "Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

From this passage it certainly sounds like division is the sin. While sin will lead to division, division itself sounds just as sinful as the other things on the list such as immorality, sorcery, and drunkenness.

I'm going to think and study on this some more.

I am curious as to what version you are quoting. the NKJV reads "heresies" rather than "divisions". However, Strongs provides these definitions:

139 airesiv hairesis {hah'-ee-res-is}

from 138; TDNT - 1:180,27; n f

AV - sect 5, heresy 4; 9

1) act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city
2) choosing, choice
3) that which is chosen
4) a body of men following their own tenets (sect or party)
4a) of the Sadducees
4b) of the Pharisees
4c) of the Christians
5) dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims


It seems the last is most appropriate. However, here is the problem. Myself and Dustin both follow Christ and both believe in the Bible. (I do not know Dustin, but I am gathering this from his posts...it is not my intention to put words in his mouth here). However, we both have different interpretations on areas of scripture ranging from baptism/salvation to what is appropriate in worship. Now, is out difference of opinon automatically a sin? Are we both in sin until we can come together in agreement? I don't think so. After all, Paul and Barnabas went their seperate ways.

It is possible that our diversity of opinion can exist without causing dissention?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Mman: It is wrong to cause division (Rom 16:17-18), but is the division itself wrong?

Paul said, "I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." - I Cor 1:10

Having a divison would be a violation of this passage. Sin is missing the mark. The target is unity, therefore would not division be sin?

HP: Shall we test the idea?

Here I was, minding my own business believing as I felt God would have me to and you came along causing division by refuting what I believe. According to your possible suggestion, are you not sinning by doing so? If not, why not. Why don’t you just stop causing division, admit you are wrong, and believe the truth as I present it?

 

[bmerr]

...However, we both have different interpretations on areas of scripture ranging from baptism/salvation to what is appropriate in worship.

Lagardo,

bmerr here. Pardon me for butting in. I've been away for a few days.

I'm glad you brought up the matter of interpretation. It seems to me that men do not divide over what the Bible actually says. Men divide over what they think the Bible means.

The Bible actually gives us an example of proper Bible interpretation. In Luke 10:25-28, a lawyer asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus asks him, "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" Can we agree that Jesus is asking the lawyer, "What's the Bible say, and how do you interpret it?" (I'm hoping we can agree on this.)

Notice the lawyer's answer: He simply quotes Deut 6:5 and a portion of Lev 19:18. He gives no comment on either Scripture.

Now notice Jesus' response to the lawyer's answer: "Thou hast answered right..." The implication is that the lawyer could have answered wrong.

It might be prudent for us all to ask ourselves, "Am I letting the Scriptures speak, or am I interpreting so loudly that I fail to hear what is written?"

Now, is our difference of opinon automatically a sin? Are we both in sin until we can come together in agreement? I don't think so. After all, Paul and Barnabas went their seperate ways.

A difference of opinion is not sinful in matters of opinion. Paul and Barnabas went their separate ways disagreeing on whether or not to take John Mark with them again. They did not disagree on what the word of God said.

If we can't agree on two or three songs before the sermon, that's fine. No division should result from such a matter. But if we can't agree on what is written, then division is the only option. Can two walk together except they be agreed (Amos 3:3)?

To wrap up, let me say that if we're going to talk about Bible subjects, let's all just say what the Bible says about them, and we'll all be agreed.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

HP: Shall we test the idea?

Here I was, minding my own business believing as I felt God would have me to and you came along causing division by refuting what I believe. According to your possible suggestion, are you not sinning by doing so? If not, why not. Why don’t you just stop causing division, admit you are wrong, and believe the truth as I present it?

HP,

bmerr here. I think you were kidding a bit, but I'd like to bring out something you said, as I think it's a major cause of the religious division in the world. You said, "Here I was, minding my own business believing as I felt God would have me to..."

Ofttimes, people tend to place greater value on what the feel than on what God said. We will be judged by the word (John 12:48), so we'd better make sure our feelings are based on it.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[mman]

HP: Shall we test the idea?

Here I was, minding my own business believing as I felt God would have me to and you came along causing division by refuting what I believe. According to your possible suggestion, are you not sinning by doing so? If not, why not. Why don’t you just stop causing division, admit you are wrong, and believe the truth as I present it?

I think this was written somewhat with tongue in cheek, anyway that is the way I am taking it.

Even though that may be the case you bring up an excellent point. How does unity come about?

If for example, I believe a lie and you believe the truth, what are our options?

1) We can remain divided, you believing the truth and me believing a lie
2) We can both believe the truth
3) We can both believe the lie

In options 2 and 3, we would be united, however in case 3, we would both be wrong.

First of all, when we believe different things, we are not united, even if I remain silent and there is an appearance of unity.

We are to earnestly contend for the faith (Jude 3), reprove, rebuke, and exhort (II Tim 4:2), and we must "hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9).

The only way for us to be truly united is to go to the scriptures and have a scriptural basis for everything we do. God MUST be worshipped in truth.

 

[mman]

I am curious as to what version you are quoting. the NKJV reads "heresies" rather than "divisions". However, Strongs provides these definitions:

139 airesiv hairesis {hah'-ee-res-is}

from 138; TDNT - 1:180,27; n f

AV - sect 5, heresy 4; 9

1) act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city
2) choosing, choice
3) that which is chosen
4) a body of men following their own tenets (sect or party)
4a) of the Sadducees
4b) of the Pharisees
4c) of the Christians
5) dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims


It seems the last is most appropriate. However, here is the problem. Myself and Dustin both follow Christ and both believe in the Bible. (I do not know Dustin, but I am gathering this from his posts...it is not my intention to put words in his mouth here). However, we both have different interpretations on areas of scripture ranging from baptism/salvation to what is appropriate in worship. Now, is out difference of opinon automatically a sin? Are we both in sin until we can come together in agreement? I don't think so. After all, Paul and Barnabas went their seperate ways.

It is possible that our diversity of opinion can exist without causing dissention?

That is from the English Standard Version (ESV). The NASB is very similar.

bmerr has already addressed the remainder so I won't re-hash what he has already stated.

 

[Darron Steele]

I am curious as to what version you are quoting. the NKJV reads "heresies" rather than "divisions". However, Strongs provides these definitions:

139 airesiv hairesis {hah'-ee-res-is}

from 138; TDNT - 1:180,27; n f

AV - sect 5, heresy 4; 9

1) act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city
2) choosing, choice
3) that which is chosen
4) a body of men following their own tenets (sect or party)
4a) of the Sadducees
4b) of the Pharisees
4c) of the Christians
5) dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims


It seems the last is most appropriate. However, here is the problem. Myself and Dustin both follow Christ and both believe in the Bible. (I do not know Dustin, but I am gathering this from his posts...it is not my intention to put words in his mouth here). However, we both have different interpretations on areas of scripture ranging from baptism/salvation to what is appropriate in worship. Now, is out difference of opinon automatically a sin? Are we both in sin until we can come together in agreement? I don't think so. After all, Paul and Barnabas went their seperate ways.

It is possible that our diversity of opinion can exist without causing dissention?

Are diversity of opinion and diversity of aims always the same? Can two people disagree on how to do a task they are both trying to do? It happens at my place of employment often, but I only see all of us working in one store.

I think this was written somewhat with tongue in cheek, anyway that is the way I am taking it.

Even though that may be the case you bring up an excellent point. How does unity come about?
...
First of all, when we believe different things, we are not united, even if I remain silent and there is an appearance of unity.
...
The only way for us to be truly united is to go to the scriptures and have a scriptural basis for everything we do. God MUST be worshipped in truth.

I like the last part. It is absolutely correct.

Therefore, let us go to the Scriptures about this matter of what churches actually exist for. From Hebrews 10:24-5

"let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh" (ASV).

We gather as Christians to encourage each other to love and to do good works. At Acts 11:26 we see that Christians used to be called "disciples." Disciples were followers. As followers of Christ, we would follow His teachings. Most of His teachings on good works were deeds that are supposed to be done in and out of church seven days a week.

The existence of churches, according to the Word of God, is to encourage believers to love and to do the good works Jesus taught us. The New Testament teaches that while assembled for this purpose, certain doctrines should be taught and there is disagreement on what the Bible says that some of them are. However, it is "beyond what is written" to make doctrine the purpose of the church. In Scripture, encouragement to love and do good works is the purpose of churches.

As churches, our aim must be to do the good works Jesus wants to do. That must be the unity that we have.

Nowhere does Scripture state that we have the option to separate from others with this aim because they do not agree with us on doctrine. Causing Greek "standing apart" is against Romans 16:17. When one congregation or another insists that the other share their opinion or be divided from, this passage is violated, because the offending party no longer shares the same purpose: rather than simply serving the Lord, they want to both serve the Lord and be antagonistic to the other congregation that is serving the Lord -- hmmm.....

 

[bmerr]

Are diversity of opinion and diversity of aims always the same? Can two people disagree on how to do a task they are both trying to do? It happens at my place of employment often, but I only see all of us working in one store.

Darron,

bmerr here. So long as the same task is done to the same standard, the method of completing the task would be of little importance. However, if people are to work together on a task, the same method might be important.

For example, if you and I were to go visiting together, and I said, "Let's drive", but you said, "Let's walk", we would need to agree on the method before we could go together. Otherwise, you might be getting there around the time I'm leaving.

Therefore, let us go to the Scriptures about this matter of what churches actually exist for. From Hebrews 10:24-5

"let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh" (ASV).

We gather as Christians to encourage each other to love and to do good works. At Acts 11:26 we see that Christians used to be called "disciples." Disciples were followers. As followers of Christ, we would follow His teachings. Most of His teachings on good works were deeds that are supposed to be done in and out of church seven days a week.

Question: Is it a good work to teach false doctrine? For instance, if some preacher were teaching that "love thy neighbor" included sexual intimacy, as well as taking care of physical needs and treating him right, would that be okay? Could you be in fellowship with such a preacher, or with the congregation he worked with?

However, it is "beyond what is written" to make doctrine the purpose of the church. In Scripture, encouragement to love and do good works is the purpose of churches.

1 Tim 4:16 - Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt bothsave thyself, and them that hear thee.

2 Thes 3:6, 14-15 - Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us...And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish himas a brother.

2 John 9-11 - Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Nowhere does Scripture state that we have the option to separate from others with this aim because they do not agree with us on doctrine. Causing Greek "standing apart" is against Romans 16:17. When one congregation or another insists that the other share their opinion or be divided from, this passage is violated, because the offending party no longer shares the same purpose: rather than simply serving the Lord, they want to both serve the Lord and be antagonistic to the other congregation that is serving the Lord -- hmmm.....

If an individual, or a congregation ceases from teaching the truth, who moved? Who is guilty of separation? Would you blame the one who merely points the separation out? That'd be like blaming my speeding ticket on the officer who gave it to me, when he only responded to my departure from obeying the law.

When I preach, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", or "Repent, and be baptized...for the remission of sins", and someone objects, who has the problem with the Scriptures? Me or the one who objects? Who divided themselves from the truth?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bmerr,

When I preach, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", or "Repent, and be baptized...for the remission of sins", and someone objects, who has the problem with the Scriptures? Me or the one who objects? Who divided themselves from the truth?

Quoting scripture does not mean that you interpret it rightly. You inveigh against denominationalism and its "separation". But in practical terms (although perhaps not in original intent) the CoC most exemplifies many of those very problems.

 

[Darron Steele]

Darron,

bmerr here. So long as the same task is done to the same standard, the method of completing the task would be of little importance. However, if people are to work together on a task, the same method might be important.

For example, if you and I were to go visiting together, and I said, "Let's drive", but you said, "Let's walk", we would need to agree on the method before we could go together. Otherwise, you might be getting there around the time I'm leaving.

Correct: obey the Lord by doing the things He teaches in the Word of God and avoiding the sins He pronounces against.

In the Churches of Christ, this is typically proactive division.

Myself, my non-hardline Church of Christ compatriot, my Baptist compatriot, and I may all disagree on how to follow the Scriptures on some Sunday matters, but we are all following that one standard: the Scriptures. With those Scriptures, we all agree that people should be baptized, we all agree that we should treat our neighbor with love, we all know that we should not steal, should not fornicate, be generous, be kind with our words, etc..

Question: Is it a good work to teach false doctrine? For instance, if some preacher were teaching that "love thy neighbor" included sexual intimacy, as well as taking care of physical needs and treating him right, would that be okay? Could you be in fellowship with such a preacher, or with the congregation he worked with?

Oh wow: you equate honest error of interpreting Scripture on a Sunday matter as the same thing as preaching sin of action in direct violation of the unmistakable commands against fornication.

I would submit that to most people, this defies reason.

1 Tim 4:16 - Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt bothsave thyself, and them that hear thee.

2 Thes 3:6, 14-15 - Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us...And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish himas a brother.

2 John 9-11 - Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

As I have pointed out before and elsewhere, the issue of 2 John 2:7-11 is an explicit denial that the Christ was incarnated in flesh as Jesus Christ.

As for the others, you have chosen not to address what Scripture indicates is the PRIMARY reason for churches to exist at Hebrews 10:24-5. Doctrine is important, but churches do not exist for doctrine: they exist to encourage us to do good works and to love.

If an individual, or a congregation ceases from teaching the truth, who moved? Who is guilty of separation? Would you blame the one who merely points the separation out? That'd be like blaming my speeding ticket on the officer who gave it to me, when he only responded to my departure from obeying the law.

The issue of this thread is divisiveness. Churches have an obligation to teach the truth. If one church shows another church's doctrine to be wrong, it does not necessarily mean that they must disassociate entirely with each other and encourage others to do likewise.

When I preach, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", or "Repent, and be baptized...for the remission of sins", and someone objects, who has the problem with the Scriptures? Me or the one who objects? Who divided themselves from the truth?

In Christ,

bmerr

You have the problem. The Scriptures as written did not have the first passage you quoted an English translation of -- the ancient evidence shows it to be a scribal forgery. For the second passage, the Scriptures as written in Greek in the first century did not mean what you are saying with them.

You quoted a passage to me "take heed unto thyself, and unto doctrine." When a Bible expositor says that the original language does not say what you are saying with it, or that the passage does not mean how you are taking it, do you "take heed" and double check to be sure you are understanding the Word right?

You add to the problem if you take your error and then use it to justify active violation of Romans 16:17. The issue here is division from people from other people.