Why Have Denominations?

Ed,

bmerr here. You are correct, IF denominationalism is God's method. If it's not, then we have a duty to "gripe against it".

One thing required of witnesses in order for them to establish a case is that they all agree with one another. I think you would agree that in the denominational world, there are many points of disagreement. To the world of the rank heathen, this is confusing.

As I mentioned at the start of this thread, I have a good friend who's dad is a Baptist preacher. Nonetheless, my friend is a member of the Nation of Islam. He has told me himself that the main reason he rejects Christ as the Savior is the existence of so many denominations, all teaching conflicting doctrines, and all claiming to be teaching the Bible.

Denominationalism is NOT an effective witness for Christ.

In fact, there is a Biblical example of the uselessness of having many conflicting witnesses. In Matt 26:59-61, we read,

"59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet they found none. At the last came two false witnesses,
61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

Now I realize that these were witnesses against Christ, and the issue at hand is witness for Christ, but the principle still applies.

So how do we explain the fact that though many false witnesses came, none were found? The reason is that no two gave the same testimony.

Remember that "...at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established" (Deut 19:15).

So all those people who came to bear false witness against Jesus, to a court that was already against Him, were of no use because of the difference in their testimony.

But, at the last, the council found two witnesses with the same testimony against Jesus, and the kangaroo court proceeded to condemn Christ.

Now, let's look at the denominational world with it's many differing doctrines and testimonies, and see how hopeless and confusing it must be for a lost person to find the truth.

Even among those of the same denomination there are often vast differences in beliefs, let alone between those of different denominations.

Finally, consider the prayer of Jesus in John 17. Beginning in verse 20, we read,

20 Neither pray I for these alone [the apostles], but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

What was the condition to be met that the world may believe that the Father had sent Jesus? That believers would be ONE. As in "...one body [church], and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Eph 4:4-6).

Jesus only built one church. Jesus only established one faith. How is it that today there are many churches and many faiths? Many bodies and many doctrines? This was not God's plan.

In order for the cause of Christ to be won, we MUST "...speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions [denominations are divisions] among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor 1:10).

Believe me, Ed, I want nothing more than to provide the world with a witness for Christianity, to the end that they may believe, but that can only be done by uniting on the solid foundation of truth, and abandoning our church manuals, creed-books, catechisms, etc.

There are no good references to divisions in the New Testament. No denominations.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

TexasSky,

bmerr here. I apologize if I seemed a bit hot under the collar. Please don't take it personally. In past experiences on other discussion boards I was misrepresented frequently and consistently, and I guess I'm stilla little raw from it. (Deep breaths, everyone.)

Okay, regarding the absence of the mention of water baptism in the passages you cited. Have you ever heard of a synecdoche (syn-ECK-do-kee)? Don't feel bad if you haven't. It wasn't very long ago that I heard of it myself.

Anyway, it's a figure of speech that places a part for the whole. Like if you drove up in a new car, and I said, "Hey, TexasSky, I like your new wheels!"

I wouldn't mean that I only liked the wheels, but you and I both would understand that I liked the whole car, even though there was no mention of the paint, chrome trim, or interior. See what I mean?

When talking about salvation (the most important subject, by far), we've got to be careful not to add "only" or "alone" to our understanding of the Bible. Let me show you how this could get one into trouble.

If I added "alone" to my understanding of 1 Pet 3:21, and understood it to mean "...baptism alone doth also now save us...", then I'd be justified (at least in my mind)in hiring a bunch of wrestlers or something, and traveling around with a portable dunk tank, having my hired thugs to grab people and throw them into the water, and thus proclaiming them all to be saved.

How crazy would THAT be?

Something else that would be required for me to go to the ludicrous extremes described above, is for me to explain away or disregard other verses that didn't seem to go along with my postion. I'd have to ignore the "whole council of God" on the matter of salvation.

Getting back to the verses you cited, repentance is likewise not mentioned, but would you say that one could be saved if he didn't repent of his sins (Luke 13:3, 5)? I don't think you would.

Or how about confession (Rom 10:9, 10)? We're not going to throw that out, are we? But it is not mentioned, either.

So why do away with baptism (Mark 16:16)?

Back to the point, unless we see "faith only", or "only believe", or something along those lines, we should probably understand that a synecdoche is being used, a part for the whole.

You also mentioned baptism as a work of obedience. I could go along with that. But the Biblical pattern has always been obedience by faith, and then the promised blessing.

For example, would Noah have been saved if he had believed that God wanted to build an ark, but didn't build it? No, he had to obey God by doing what He commanded him to do in order to receive the promise of salvation from the flood.

Or how about Naaman (2 Kings 5)? He would have died a leper if he had not obeyed the command of God and dipped himself in Jordan 7 times.

"But water can't wash away leprosy!" one might say. No, it can't. But God can. It didn't make any sense to Naaman. But it worked when he obeyed. Go figure.

Likewise with baptism in the NT, nobody in the church of Christ teaches that water washes away sin. What we do teach, and what the Bible teaches, is that God has commanded mankind to be baptized in order to have their sins washed away. It's the operation of God (Col 2:12). It doesn't make any sense. But it works when we obey by faith.

Quickly now, for it's far past my bedtime.

The deal with the Old Testament, briefly, is that Christ took the Mosaic Law, the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, out of the way, nailing it to His cross (Col 2:14).

There are precepts that have been true from creation, through the Mosaic Law, and even unto today for the rest of time. Things such as murder is sin, don't eat blood, etc.

However, the Law of Moses, which was only given to the nation of Israel, has been fulfilled, and is thus done away (Matt 5:17, 18). The Levitical preisthood, the sacrificial system, the Temple, all of it.

So, while there are many lessons to be learned from the OT, and there are many examples for our learning (1 Cor 10:11), we are not to look to the OT for authority in worship and doctrine concerening Christianity.

NT references to the OT are often for the purpose of showing the connection between the OT types, and the NT antetypes.

During the earthly ministry of Christ, the OT was still in effect. That's why He spent so much time trying to straighten out the Pharisees and friends.

But do you remember in Matt 17, where Jesus takes Peter, James, and John up on a mountain and is transfigured before them? Who shows up with Him? Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (representing the prophets).

Peter starts talking about a building program, when a cloud overshadows them, and a Voice speaks out of the cloud. Remember what the Voice said?

"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."

Now who had they "heard" up 'till now? Moses and Elijah, the Law and the prophets. Now they were to listen to Christ. Jesus supercedes the Law and is the fulfillment of the prophets.

That's why, under the NT, we look only to it for authority, while the OT is still referred to for it's lasting precepts and lessons. We believe it all, we're just under the authority of the NT, which is by Christ.

I've GOT to get to bed. 5 AM comes awful early, and it's already past midnight. I'll finish up later.

In Christ,
bmerr

 

bmerr here. You make a good point, sir. The issue you mention, and countless others are the result of men not being content to be governed by the New Testament.

I have often heard people say things like, "the Holy Spirit led me to do/say such and such", or "God gave me a message this morning. I was going to preach on topic A, but God said, 'No, I want you to speak on topic B.'"

I don't think people realize what they're saying when they say things like this. What is being made is a claim of inspiration, like the writers of Scripture had.

Think about it: If the Holy Spirit really was to speak through someone, then it would be a sin to reject their message, for one would be rejecting the word of God.

So, to take billwald's example, either one side or the other is rejecting the council of God. There's no way out of it. Two opposite views of an issue cannot both be correct. One of them must be wrong. So either those in favor of infant baptism are correct, or those opposed to it are.

I think it's called the "Law of Non-contradiction", or something like that. Everything is either "A" or "not A". Nothing can be "A" and "not A" at the same time.

We need to understand that in the Bible, God has provided us "all things pertaining to life and godliness" (2 Pet 1:3). 2 Tim 3:16, 17 tells us that God's word is sufficient to prepare us for "all good works".

If there's a good work out there to do, the Bible has already instructed us to do it. Perhaps not in the details, but in precept. "Love thy neighbor as thyself", for example, covers a multitude of things one might do for others. The "golden rule" is another example.

What it gets down to is this: The Holy Spirit does not speak to anyone today, except through the Word of God, which is His sword (Eph 6:17).

The days of inspiration have long since passed, and God's revelation to man is complete. The Holy Spirit is not the origin of the multitude of conflicting doctrines out there. Man is.

Which brings me right back to the beginning of this thread. If religious people would lay aside their church manuals, creed-books, catechisms, confessions of faith, etc., and simply and carefully base their doctrine and worship on what the New Testament authorizes, denominationalism would cease to exist. There would only be "one faith", and "one body", which is the church Jesus built.

However, most people can't even fathom the idea of Christianity without denominations, or divisions. Jesus said that a kingdom divided against itself would be brought to desolation (Luke 11:17). That is the state of "Christendom" in the world today.

billwald, if someone says to you, "the Holy Spirit said ________", you, and all of us need to be ready to say, "No, the Holy Spirit didn't say _______, because the Bible says this about it. The Holy Spirit has already spoken about that."

Many today have the Holy Spirit contradicting Himself with their claims of divne revelations!

In closing, let me add that those in favor of infant baptism are in error, since an infant cannot believe or repent, which are both prerequisites to baptism. The Holy Spirit said so (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38)!

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Actually, I do. Think about it. To whom has the task of qreaching the gospel been given to? Man. Who ends up lost if men don't preach the gospel? Everyone. God has given Man a huge responsibility to act under the authority of Christ and spread the gospel. The salvation of men IS dependant upon men, and God planned it that way.

Acts 9:6, and 10:4, 5 give examples of Jesus Himself, and an angel from heaven (respectively) NOT telling men how to be saved. Both Saul and Cornelius were put in touch with men who would tell them the way of salvation.

Also, no one who understands the importance of baptism would ever tell someone to "come back later". There was an urgency, an immediacy in the Bible, because they knew that it was essential.

God is not cruel. I know it was a rhetorical question, but God has in mercy and love for mankind, provided His only begotten Son as a sacrifice for sins. The cruelty is on the part of man, by rejecting God's plan of salvation, and teaching others to reject it.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

dianetavegia,

bmerr here. I don't mean to give the impression that the Holy Spirit NEVER spoke through men, just that He hasn't since the close of the revelation of the NT.

The verses you cited (except the first and last), were spoken to the apostles for their comfort concerning the trials they would face. These verses were not meant for people of all time.

In the book of Acts, we find accounts where apostles were before synagogues, magistrates, and authorities, where they spoke, being filled with the Holy Ghost (4:7-12; 5:27-32; 6:10-7:56; 13:9-11; etc).

The Scriptures tell us that they are sufficient to equip us for "all good works" (2 Tim 3:16, 17), and that we have been given "all things pertaining to life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3).

They also warn us several times against adding or subtracting from God's word.

Now consider this: If someone today claims the Holy Spirit told them to say something, and what they say is not contained in Scripture, what does he imply, whether he knows it or not?

He says by implication, that his words are equal in authority to the Bible, since it was the Holy Spirit that inspired men to speak and write the words contained in the Bible.

We today, as uninspired men, are capable of giving voice to some insightful and meaningful truths, but no man today speaks by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.


Regarding the historical info on churches of Christ, I am not enough of a student of restoration history to affirm or deny much of it.

It doesn't matter though, since men, however well-intentioned they may be, or have been, are not the standard by which I determine right and wrong.

John Calvin made lots of true statements, and I can agree with him on several points. On others, however, he is in error, and I have an obligation to try and bring correction when I encounter such matters.

Anyone is capable of speaking truth. I don't disagree with anyone based on where they come from, or what church they are a member of.

There were truths spoken in the Baptist church I used to be a member of, that helped to bring me out of a life of adultery. Nonetheless, the error that was taught there was the reason I sought out the church of Christ.

Again, let me encourage us all to resist the temptation to stereotype each other. While there is usually some truth behind stereotypes, the broad brush-strokes we tend to make with them are seldom profitable.

In Christ,

bmerr