Denominations

[antiaging]

1 Corinthians 1:11 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.

1 Corinthians 1:12 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.

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1 Corinthians 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Comparison:
There seems to be contentions among the denominations.
Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Martin Luther (Lutheran); and I of John Calvin (Presbyterian); and I of John Wesley (Methodist); and I of Christ.

Is Christ devided? Was Martin Luther crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Luther?

I think you should be able to see what I am trying to say here. The scriptures seem to show that denominationalism is not correct.

 

[Chemnitz]

1 Corinthians 1:11 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.

1 Corinthians 1:12 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.

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1 Corinthians 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Comparison:
There seems to be contentions among the denominations.
Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Martin Luther (Lutheran); and I of John Calvin (Presbyterian); and I of John Wesley (Methodist); and I of Christ.

Is Christ devided? Was Martin Luther crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Luther?

I think you should be able to see what I am trying to say here. The scriptures seem to show that denominationalism is not correct.

Your right denominations isn't a good thing, but until everybody realizes Old Martin was right there will be denominations. Anyhow, Lutheran was a name that was foisted upon us. Originally, Luther himself pushed that if we called ourselves anything it was Evangelican Catholics, but then through the efforts of those who wish to desparage the teachings of Luther, the name Lutheran because associated with orthodox teaching so we kept it.

 

[Salty]

... Anyhow, Lutheran was a name that was foisted upon us. Originally, .

Likewise with the Baptist - then name given because we re-baptized - after conversion.

One of the greatest doctrines is individual soul liberty. We interpret the Scriptures differently. My basic belief is we need to agree basically on salvation. (the problem there is some think you must be baptized, others think you can loose salvation, others believe you must speak in tongues)

I believe doctrine is very important, but if a particular (non-salvation) doctrine is not exactly in line with mine, I can still have Christian fellowship and work with him. That doesn't mean that he could join our church, as we must be united in doctrine.

Salty

 

[Darron Steele]

1 Corinthians 1:11 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.

1 Corinthians 1:12 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.

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1 Corinthians 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Comparison:
There seems to be contentions among the denominations.
Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Martin Luther (Lutheran); and I of John Calvin (Presbyterian); and I of John Wesley (Methodist); and I of Christ.

Is Christ devided? Was Martin Luther crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Luther?

I think you should be able to see what I am trying to say here. The scriptures seem to show that denominationalism is not correct.

My replay will involve three points.

1) I am going to modify your hypothetical alteration with your profile's church affiliation:

Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Martin Luther (Lutheran); and I of John Calvin (Presbyterian); and I of John Wesley (Methodist); and I of Daniel Sommer and David Lipscomb (self-named Church of Christ).​

The Churches of Christ, when behaving factiously, are no different.

Methodists typically are not factious. Although I am not Methodist, the United Methodist Church is one of the most non-factious Christian groups in existence.

It is my experience that the Churches of Christ are among the most factious. The self-excusing rename of "factiousness" into "denominationalism" may be doing quite a lot to keep the Churches of Christ that way.

2) I am going to point out to that in the authentic passage, those who boasted "I of Christ" were chastised along with all the others.

3) It also points out that the act of creating an exclusive group did not exclude others from the church. 1 Corinthians 1:2 says the letter was "To the church of God which is at Corinth" (ASV), and all the exclusive groups were addressed with "you." The Lord adds all believers to one church: Acts 2:47, Acts 5:14. Mortals have no say in the boundaries of the church.

4) To charge people with a sin of "denominationalism" is without authorization from Scripture. "Denominationalism" does not appear in Scripture.

Scripture does oppose factiousness and divisiveness. A denomination is not necessarily a faction. A denomination is simply a group of congregations. Not all denominations are factious.

Christians were expected to not agree over all details, as shown by Romans 14:1-13. Christians are not to factionalize -- Romans 16:17, Galatians 5:19-21, and one of my favorites at Titus 3:8-11

Faithful is the saying, and concerning these things I desire that thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed God may be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men: but shun foolish questionings, and genealogies, and strifes, and fightings about law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse; knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned” (ASV)​

Disagreement is not division. The actions are two different things. The Greek words translated in these ways differ as well. Two people can differ in thought over details, but be wholly united in a task. Two people can think the same things, but dislike each other enough to refuse to do a task together.

It is the latter that is a sin. The church's task is to serve the Lord Jesus Christ. When anyone makes disagreements a hindrance to doing our task harmoniously, then s/he sins.

 

[Eliyahu]

1 Corinthians 1:11 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.

1 Corinthians 1:12 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.

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1 Corinthians 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Comparison:
There seems to be contentions among the denominations.
Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Martin Luther (Lutheran); and I of John Calvin (Presbyterian); and I of John Wesley (Methodist); and I of Christ.

Is Christ devided? Was Martin Luther crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Luther?

I think you should be able to see what I am trying to say here. The scriptures seem to show that denominationalism is not correct.

You are very much right on this issue as you were in many other issues as well.
We so-called Plymouth Brethren do not call us PB, but others call us like that. We know that we should not use any term like that.

There was Neither Roman Presbyterian Church, nor Ephesian Methodist church, nor Philippian Baptist Church, nor Corinthian united church, etc.

We should note that such names of denominations are connected with Synod, Clergy system as well which are unbiblical too.

 

[antiaging]

My replay will involve three points.

1) I am going to modify your hypothetical alteration with your profile's church affiliation:

Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Martin Luther (Lutheran); and I of John Calvin (Presbyterian); and I of John Wesley (Methodist); and I of Daniel Sommer and David Lipscomb (self-named Church of Christ).​

The Churches of Christ, when behaving factiously, are no different.

Methodists typically are not factious. Although I am not Methodist, the United Methodist Church is one of the most non-factious Christian groups in existence.

It is my experience that the Churches of Christ are among the most factious. The self-excusing rename of "factiousness" into "denominationalism" may be doing quite a lot to keep the Churches of Christ that way.

2) I am going to point out to that in the authentic passage, those who boasted "I of Christ" were chastised along with all the others.

3) It also points out that the act of creating an exclusive group did not exclude others from the church. 1 Corinthians 1:2 says the letter was "To the church of God which is at Corinth" (ASV), and all the exclusive groups were addressed with "you." The Lord adds all believers to one church: Acts 2:47, Acts 5:14. Mortals have no say in the boundaries of the church.

4) To charge people with a sin of "denominationalism" is without authorization from Scripture. "Denominationalism" does not appear in Scripture.

Scripture does oppose factiousness and divisiveness. A denomination is not necessarily a faction. A denomination is simply a group of congregations. Not all denominations are factious.

Christians were expected to not agree over all details, as shown by Romans 14:1-13. Christians are not to factionalize -- Romans 16:17, Galatians 5:19-21, and one of my favorites at Titus 3:8-11

Faithful is the saying, and concerning these things I desire that thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed God may be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men: but shun foolish questionings, and genealogies, and strifes, and fightings about law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse; knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned” (ASV)​

Disagreement is not division. The actions are two different things. The Greek words translated in these ways differ as well. Two people can differ in thought over details, but be wholly united in a task. Two people can think the same things, but dislike each other enough to refuse to do a task together.

It is the latter that is a sin. The church's task is to serve the Lord Jesus Christ. When anyone makes disagreements a hindrance to doing our task harmoniously, then s/he sins.

I am non-denominational. I was asked to put a home church when I signed up. I go to that church of Christ church because it is the closest church to my house that teaches real salvation. I don't agree with them about there insistence that baptism in water is necessary for salvation. [The thief on the cross was not baptized.] I just think it will cause them to not try to lead someone dying on his deathbed to salvation, because he can't get baptized.
I believe a Christian believer should get baptized if he has the ability to do so.
To him that knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin. There is a scripture saying something like that. So, based on that you might consider it sinful to not get baptized if you have the ability to do so.
My affiliation is to the authorized version King James Bible. - that is it, as far as Christian teachings is conscerned, and any Christian teachings that don't contradict the KJV bible, but go along with it.
I did not call denominationalism a sin. I say the scriptures show it to be incorrect.
Former Jesuit priest, Alberto Rivera, who became a protestant minister said that all denominations are infiltrated with roman catholics that pretend to be members of other religions. They are trying to pull all churches under the control of the vatican through the ecumenical movement.
I do not agree with joining any church that does not teach real salvation. That is not a real Christian church, though it may call itself that.
Rivera or Chick, pointed out that the churches that have the word "united" before their name, [like united methodist, united presbyterian, etc.] are already brought into subjection to vatican control, and the leadership is probably catholic spies pretending to be protestant.
Sure United methodist won't be factious. The less factious the easier for vatican control.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Martin Luther (Lutheran); and I of John Calvin (Presbyterian); and I of John Wesley (Methodist); and I of Christ.

If Lutherans are of Martin Luther in this manner then CoC is of Alexander Campbell and non-denominational churches are of the historical leader who first started that non-denominational church.

Luther, Calvin, Wesley and Campbell's influence on their respective communities and Christianity at large do not hold the same place as Christ in those communities.

 

[Darron Steele]

If Lutherans are of Martin Luther in this manner then CoC is of Alexander Campbell and non-denominational churches are of the historical leader who first started that non-denominational church.

Luther, Calvin, Wesley and Campbell's influence on their respective communities and Christianity at large do not hold the same place as Christ in those communities.

Factious Churches of Christ have no legitimate claim to be in Alexander Campbell's legacy.

I have read a lot of A. Campbell's work. He was very non-factious.

The Churches of Christ are the legacy of the likes of Daniel Sommer and David Lipscomb. They split a group of Churches of Christ away from the main Restoration body. A. Campbell was long dead when these men did their work.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Factious Churches of Christ have no legitimate claim to be in Alexander Campbell's legacy.

I have read a lot of A. Campbell's work. He was very non-factious.

The Churches of Christ are the legacy of the likes of Daniel Sommer and David Lipscomb. They split a group of Churches of Christ away from the main Restoration body. A. Campbell was long dead when these men did their work.

I don't disagree with you. Campbell had a much more unifying vision of Restorationism than what it ended up becoming. But I believe his influence on the Church of Christ is still a major one that is in many ways equivalent to the way antiaging was using Luther, Calvin and Wesley.

 

[Darron Steele]

I don't disagree with you. Campbell had a much more unifying vision of Restorationism than what it ended up becoming. But I believe his influence on the Church of Christ is still a major one that is in many ways equivalent to the way antiaging was using Luther, Calvin and Wesley.

Again, I think the Churches of Christ are more the work of factious men after A. Campbell.

I think the typical Disciples of Christ `layperson' has more in common with Alexander Campbell than does someone with the common views of the Churches of Christ.

 

[Darron Steele]

I am non-denominational. I was asked to put a home church when I signed up. I go to that church of Christ church because it is the closest church to my house that teaches real salvation.

I am sorry for pressing you, but the Churches of Christ like to redefine "non-denominational" and brag that is what they are. What they usually mean is `We are not in a denomination because churches that agree with us are the only churches of Christians, and we have nothing to do with congregations we do not agree with.'

So, to verify that you mean "non-denominational" in the way most understand "non-denominational," I am going to ask you this question. If a leader from a congregation outside the Churches of Christ asked you to join them in a community service activity would you:
1) ask for more information hoping that it could work out, or
2) look for excuses to avoid doing anything with that outside congregation?

I don't agree with them about there insistence that baptism in water is necessary for salvation. ...I just think it will cause them to not try to lead someone dying on his deathbed to salvation, because he can't get baptized.
I believe a Christian believer should get baptized if he has the ability to do so.
To him that knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin. There is a scripture saying something like that. ....

Agreed. I do not believe that the Bible teaches that a believer can be condemned -- even if s/he is unbaptized. I do believe that a Christian who knows rightly of baptism will be willing to be baptized. However, not every believer is baptized, and no believer will be condemned.

Rivera or Chick, pointed out that the churches that have the word "united" before their name, [like united methodist, united presbyterian, etc.] are already brought into subjection to vatican control, and the leadership is probably catholic spies pretending to be protestant.
Sure United methodist won't be factious. The less factious the easier for vatican control.

You have to remember that such men as Jack Chick are divisive individuals. They do not like the idea of unity without agreement.

The United Methodists simply believe in unity with/without agreement, as the Scriptures teach. Outrageous claims aside, it is that simple.

 

[antiaging]

I am sorry for pressing you, but the Churches of Christ like to redefine "non-denominational" and brag that is what they are. What they usually mean is `We are not in a denomination because churches that agree with us are the only churches of Christians, and we have nothing to do with congregations we do not agree with.'

So, to verify that you mean "non-denominational" in the way most understand "non-denominational," I am going to ask you this question. If a leader from a congregation outside the Churches of Christ asked you to join them in a community service activity would you:
1) ask for more information hoping that it could work out, or
2) look for excuses to avoid doing anything with that outside congregation?Agreed. I do not believe that the Bible teaches that a believer can be condemned -- even if s/he is unbaptized. I do believe that a Christian who knows rightly of baptism will be willing to be baptized. However, not every believer is baptized, and no believer will be condemned.
You have to remember that such men as Jack Chick are divisive individuals. They do not like the idea of unity without agreement.

The United Methodists simply believe in unity with/without agreement, as the Scriptures teach. Outrageous claims aside, it is that simple.

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

You can go too far with the desire to unite in disagreement. If someone is teaching real heresy, then the scripture says to reject him, which I think means to throw him out the church.
Roman catholic murderers, in the inquisition, murdered people that disagreed with them that they called heretics. Killing heretics is old testament. It is not to be done in the New Testament. Titus 3:10 says to reject them.
The scriptures conscerned with the requirements for salvation must be agreed upon, and they must match what the New Testament says about salvation. Real heresy would involve teaching the wrong thing about what is required for salvation, which could cause some people to be lost in hell.
Conscerning salvation, it is better to be devided by the truth of the New Testament, then to be united in error that could lead someone to hell.
[The antichrist system is rising up and gaining more power, in these last days, using mostly their undercover network. I don't think Chick's claims or Riveras claims are outrageous. I was raised catholic. I have a knowledge of that church as once being on the inside of it. It looks like most them are atheists. There have been atheist popes, like Leo X, who called Christianity a profitable fable. You baptize little babies that don't believe anything, and you get an organization full of atheists. Atheists have no real sense of right and wrong and can be dangerous under certain circumstances.]
I am not bound to the church of Christ organization. I was saved in an Assemblies of God church. I have attended Assemblies of God, church of God, baptist, and church of God churches. I am non-denominational.
But I live in the most catholic city in the US, New Orleans. I have personally seen catholic undercover activity in the protestant churches in this area. There are catholic spy pastors, not saved, teaching in protestant churches in this mostly catholic area. I have personally seen evidence of what Rivera and Chick say. Being a former catholic I can can pick out catholic spies in protestant churches. As time goes by, they say or do something that gives them away and exposes them.
I would like to go up north somewhere and live in a mostly protestant city and get away from these Dangerous catholics.
In answer to your question: I ask God to lead me to do His will and then believe that He will do that. If I end up going to the church activity that must be His will, and if I end up not going, that must be His will.

1 John 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
1 John 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

And that is the confidence that I have in Him. I walk by faith and not by sight.

[The year I got saved, 1975, Jesus appeared to me in a night vision and paraphrased some scripture to me, as it applied to me at that time. I know for sure with 100% certainty, that Christianity as defined in the New Testament is the only true religion on Earth. That is why I listen to the KJV bible on a tape player much of the time. I am very afraid of hell. That place is real! I could feel His power as God, like I knew that anything that He says is going to happen, while I was in His presence. I heard one word after another like normal speech, but when it was over, it seemed like it all happened in one moment of time, like time didn't make any sense. Believe me when I tell you, Christianity is for real; and so is heaven and hell.]
You know that white throne. It looks like this. The back and arm rests are squared off. It is a wide throne, strongly built; it looks like smooth white stone. It is in a place where the floor is white and the background is white.

 

[Matt Black]

You are very much right on this issue as you were in many other issues as well.
We so-called Plymouth Brethren do not call us PB, but others call us like that. We know that we should not use any term like that.

There was Neither Roman Presbyterian Church, nor Ephesian Methodist church, nor Philippian Baptist Church, nor Corinthian united church, etc.

We should note that such names of denominations are connected with Synod, Clergy system as well which are unbiblical too.

So, to go back to the OP: was John Nelson Darby crucified for you? Why then do you follow his teachings and methods?

 

[Matt Black]

1 Corinthians 1:11 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.

1 Corinthians 1:12 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.

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1 Corinthians 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Comparison:
There seems to be contentions among the denominations.
Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Martin Luther (Lutheran); and I of John Calvin (Presbyterian); and I of John Wesley (Methodist); and I of Christ.

Is Christ devided? Was Martin Luther crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Luther?

I think you should be able to see what I am trying to say here. The scriptures seem to show that denominationalism is not correct.

You're right: we should all join the Catholic Church (joke).

More seriously, you seem to be going for the old bogus strap-line of "we're not a denomination, we're just a bunch of Christians who love the Lord Jesus who meet together."...which usually means in reality, "we are a denomination, in fact we're the One True Denomination and all the rest of you are Hell-bound spawn of the Devil." I'm sorry, but unless you're saying "we're not a denomination, we're just a bunch of Christians who love the Lord and will happily meet with all other Christians who love the Lord", then you're a denomination.

 

[BobRyan]

1. If the Church of God or the Catholic Church or the Church of Christ are supposed to be examples of "not denominations" then so is every denomination known to mankind -- "a not-denomination"!

2. The issue still boils down to set of doctrines that defines the teaching and beliefs of a given group - if you don't like the term denomination then fine - find a synonym.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Exactly. (But the rest of us will know that that's what you really mean!)

 

[cowboymatt]

antiaging,

The texts that you brought to bear on this issue were written to a specific church in Corinth and the factions within that particular church. Thus, to make the application to the universal Church without thinking first how these verse may be given wider application is not entirely valid.

I think that instead of attacking denominationalism, which is a negative endeavor, we should be doing something positive, namely, promoting unity despite our diversity. Jesus prayed for it (John 17.23) so I think that we should try to find ways to be answers to his prayer...and attacking one another is certainly not a way to do that.

 

[BobRyan]

1 Corinthians 1:11 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.

1 Corinthians 1:12 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.

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1 Corinthians 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Comparison:
There seems to be contentions among the denominations.
Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Martin Luther (Lutheran); and I of John Calvin (Presbyterian); and I of John Wesley (Methodist); and I of Christ.

Is Christ devided? Was Martin Luther crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Luther?

I think you should be able to see what I am trying to say here. The scriptures seem to show that denominationalism is not correct.

Paul and Apollos were not contradicting each other in doctrine the way that Presbyterian - Lutheran - Methodist etc denominational divisions represent actual doctrinal changes.

To get to THAT level of difference you would have to be comparing NT Jews with NT Christian Jews.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

You can go too far with the desire to unite in disagreement. If someone is teaching real heresy, then the scripture says to reject him, which I think means to throw him out the church.

This "heretick" is the result of early English translators transliterating a word instead of translating it.

αιρετικον is related to a Greek word pluralized αιρεσεις at 2 Peter 2:1. This is plural for a Greek word meaning “party” /clique,* and "choosing."** The New Testament-era church's New Testament was in Greek.

Now, let us put this in context of the whole passage translated:

Tit 3:8 Faithful is the saying, and concerning these things I desire that thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed God may be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men:
Tit 3:9 but shun foolish questionings, and genealogies, and strifes, and fightings about law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
Tit 3:10 A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse;
Tit 3:11 knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned.​

This passage is about an individual
1) so `wrapped up' in a dispute over intellectual pursuits
2) unconnected to "good works"
3) that s/he seeks to create a faction over a chosen side of a dispute over it.

The English word "heretic" means `someone who hold religious views so unacceptable to us we will not consider that person a Christian.' This passage, however, does not have anything to do with `holding unacceptable views.'

Now, there is a point at which someone who claims to be a Christian is not. This passage, however, does not address this -- it simply addresses factious behavior. This is shown when the passage is actually translated.

We are not united into Christ's one church with non-Christians. We are, however, united in Christ's one church with all Christians = followers of Jesus Christ. We are not permitted to create factions within that one church of Jesus Christ -- even if we do not like others' religious views.

Roman catholic murderers, in the inquisition, murdered people that disagreed with them that they called heretics....I would like to go up north somewhere and live in a mostly protestant city and get away from these Dangerous catholics.

Wow! I take it you really like to say bad things about Catholics. The Catholic organization has severe problems, and a brutal past. Nonethless, I am all for leaving things that happened in the past in the past, and not letting the actions of unbelievers affect how I perceive and deal with Catholics as a whole.

My local area in the present time has plenty of Catholics, including those who follow the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am most interested in following the teachings of Scripture in regard to them.

In answer to your question: I ask God to lead me to do His will and then believe that He will do that. If I end up going to the church activity that must be His will, and if I end up not going, that must be His will.

If this was a genuine attempt to answer my question, it did not do so successfully. When you refer to being saved in the Assemblies of God, that tells me that you probably mean "non-denominational" in the way most people do.

... Believe me when I tell you, Christianity is for real; and so is heaven and hell.....

I agree. Amen.

_____
*A. Campbell, The Christian System, page 76-7.
**Vine et al, Expository Dictionary, page 303 NT.

 

[Darron Steele]

Paul and Apollos were not contradicting each other in doctrine the way that Presbyterian - Lutheran - Methodist etc denominational divisions represent actual doctrinal changes.

To get to THAT level of difference you would have to be comparing NT Jews with NT Christian Jews.

in Christ,

Bob

Our various Christian groups do not vary in "doctrine" substantially. We do vary in distinctive religious tenets. Here is what "sound doctrine" meant in Scripture:

1 Timothy 1:3-10 “As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, | for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers| and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (NASB|TNIV|ESV).​

Approved "doctrine" in Scripture referred to overall living. All Christian groups' teachings over overall life are substantially the same; we even take it for granted.