Is Christ the author of Denominationalism ?

[tomedward]

Denominationalism "The system of ideology founded on the division of the religious population into numerous ecclesiastical bodies, each stressing particular values or traditions and each competing with the other in the same community under substantial conditions of freedom. Thus Denominationalism has usually been associated with religious pluralism, voluntaryism, mutual respect and recognition, and neutrality on the part of the state" Westminster Dictionary of Church history (1971), pages 262-263.

The definition of denominationalism goes against the very heart of scripture. If you take the five words in bold above, for example, and compare these words with what scripture says about them, it is all negative: Division (1 Cor.1:10-17 ; 3:3). Tradition (Matthew 15:3,6, Mark 7:8-9,13, Colossians 2:8). Competing (2 Cor. 10:12) Religious pluralism (Galatians 1:8-9). Respect (James 2:9, Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 10:17, Chronicles 19:7)

But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. Matthew 13:25

[New_Wineskin]

I don't like it but I am glad that it exists . When there is one group with human "leaders" , somewhere down the line , it becomes corrupted and dictatorship and forced acceptance of handed-down rules come into the system . With the current setup , if one did think that they *must* "go to church" but find themselves in a group that is abusive , they can leave and go somewhere else . Not so if only one group existed .

[Lynn73]

I don't think Jesus has anything to do with denominationalism but it's only natural to happen when people disagree with each other. Like New Wineskin pointed out, if your church or group starts preaching and teaching unbiblical things, you can find another congregation of believers.

[Andyman_1970]

Matthew 16 when Jesus give the disciples the authority to "bind and loose" which means they have the authority to make a new interpretation of Scripture - notice is was done communially, not signularly.

Think about it, this is what a denomination is, it's a group of people who have said we argree with "X" but not with "Y" - they have made an interpretation of Scritpure, they have "bound" (prohibitied) somethings and "loosed" (permitted) others.

[julian the apostate]

andyman<<<which means they have the authority to make a new interpretation of Scripture

clarify please , i dont understand that one,, although i actually may not disagree with you when you are done

[Andyman_1970]

andyman<<<which means they have the authority to make a new interpretation of Scripture

clarify please , i dont understand that one,, although i actually may not disagree with you when you are done

Yes they do. Check out Acts 15, the Jerusalem council, they were in uncharted territory and they made a new interpretation of Scripture.

[Stinker]

"Receive ye the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any , they have been retained." (Jn.20:22,23) Jesus addresses the Apostles. [in response to post #4]


One of the reasons for all the denominations is Satanic pride. That being the kind of pride that exalts itself against the logic (Logos Jn.1:1) of the New Testament.

God wants us to do no more than what He requires. (Jn.14:15) (1Pet.4:11) Satanic pride wants to do everything that is not mentioned as prohibited in spiritual matters. (Lev.10:1-3)

God does not allow private interpretation of His word. (2Pet.1:20) Satanic pride bases the violation of this scripture on denominatioalism's existence.

[Jim Woodell]

Yes they do. Check out Acts 15, the Jerusalem council, they were in uncharted territory and they made a new interpretation of Scripture.

Was Acts 15 really a NEW interpretation of scripture, OR was it finding application for Isaiah 45:21; Jer. 12:15 and Amos 9:11-12? :confused: I think the latter. God calls Christians to apply the scriptures as He has revealed them to us, NOT bring out NEW INTERPRETAIONS. Jim Jones did that in Guyana and hundreds died doing what (I guess) they thought was of God. "If you continue in my word, you are turly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (John 8:31-32)

What do you do with 2 Peter 1:20, "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scriptrue is a matter of one's own interpretaion..."

It seems to me that our job is to understand the interpretation that the Holy Spirit has already given to the word.

Denominationalism is not of God (John 17:20-21). God has one body, the body of Christ (which is his church) (Eph. 1:21-22; 4:4). Because of our carnalilty we have divided the body of Christ into many denominations and sects. :blush:

[Andyman_1970]

God does not allow private interpretation of His word. (2Pet.1:20) Satanic pride bases the violation of this scripture on denominatioalism's existence.

No He does not you are correct. Notice in Matthew 16 it is given (authority) communially, not to individually do themselves. Notice also Acts 15 is done communally.

[Andyman_1970]

Was Acts 15 really a NEW interpretation of scripture, OR was it finding application for Isaiah 45:21

Isaiah 45:21 “Declare what is to be, present it – let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior, there is none but me.”

Where does this refer to Gentiles converting to a sect of Judaism (which Christianity was in Acts 15) and whether or not they should be Torah observant? If I’m missing something please fill me in.

; Jer. 12:15[QUOTE=Jim Woodell]

Jeremiah 12:15 "But after I uproot them, I will again have compassion and will being each of them back to his own inheritance and his own country?"

Jeremiah here is talking about the Jews returning from exile. How does this relate to the Jerusalem council?

[QUOTE=Jim Woodell] and Amos 9:11-12?

Amos 9:11-12 In that day I will restore David’s fallen tent. I will repair it’s broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my Name.

The reference to Edom is those of Esau’s decent. This is God restoring the earth when Jesus comes again.

So does this relate to the Jerusalem council?

:confused:

Yes I am very confused. You Scripture references have nothing (seemingly) to do with the problem the Apostles had – Gentile converts to a sect of Judaism and whether or not to make these Gentiles Torah observant.

I think the latter. God calls Christians to apply the scriptures as He has revealed them to us, NOT bring out NEW INTERPRETAIONS. Jim Jones did that in Guyana and hundreds died doing what (I guess) they thought was of God. "If you continue in my word, you are turly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (John 8:31-32)

I couldn’t agree with you more on your quote from John. Notice in my post I say the authority was given to them communally, not individually.

What do you do with 2 Peter 1:20, "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation..."

See above.

It seems to me that our job is to understand the interpretation that the Holy Spirit has already given to the word.

So the Scriptures can mean something other than what the author originally meant for his intended audience. The Bible did not float down out of heaven on a cloud in a bubble. It is a real book written by, real men, about real places, and real events (God inspired mind you) – to take the Text and separate it from it’s context of being written by real men, in a real time, about real things is to misuse the Text.

How can we know (if we leave out context) if someone’s interpretation of Scripture is correct? Anyone can pick and chose one verse here and two verses there out of context and make them mean anything they want.

When the Scripture is interpreted separate from it’s context, be it historical, cultural etc, it leaves the “door open” for man and his fallibility to create a Jesus and a Christianity to suit their own point of view.

Denominationalism is not of God (John 17:20-21). God has one body, the body of Christ (which is his church) (Eph. 1:21-22; 4:4). Because of our carnalilty we have divided the body of Christ into many denominations and sects. :blush:

You assumption is that because we have denominations we are not “one”. I would say it’s pride to think that any “one” denomination or “church” has got it “nailed” and is living out 100% without spot or blemish of what God intends the church to be – Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God”.

To assert otherwise is a) pride in our own fallible finite minds, “God’s ways are not our ways” and b) flirting with blaspheming the work of the Holy Spirit in places (and denominations) we might not consider.

[Andyman_1970]

One of the reasons for all the denominations is Satanic pride. That being the kind of pride that exalts itself against the logic (Logos Jn.1:1) of the New Testament.

Satanic pride bases the violation of this scripture on denominatioalism's existence.

So if denominations are of Satan as you say, then which organization or church is the real deal? If these denominations as you say are of Satan, then does that render those who are members of said denominations not genuine Christians?

[Andyman_1970]

Stinker, Jim, Wes, DRA

With the increasingly judgemental tone from some of your posts on various threads on this forum I thought I would post a little something for you guys (and interestingly enough goes along with the spirit of this thread as well):

From a restoration movement website:

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/issues/alex.html

Some Wonderful Examples of Freedom and Unity-in-Diversity

Thus far we have mentioned many examples of dreadful dogmatism and divisiveness, and only a few instances of loving unity-despite-differences. Now we gladly look at some more cases of the latter, heart-warming variety. When Armstrong, Boll and others studied at the Nashville Bible School during the 1890s, "it was well understood that E. G. Sewell and Dr. Brents differed on the appointment of elders, on the millennium, and on other questions. So it was understood of Lipscomb and Harding, Taylor and Lipscomb, and others. Each freely discussed his side of the controversial point. That any one would consider another 'unsound,' 'disloyal,' or unworthy of the most hearty fellowship never entered one's mind. Such an idea would not have been tolerated for a second." "The thing that is now causing trouble," wrote Armstrong in later, trying times, "is this divisive spirit, this self-righteous, dogmatic, intolerant spirit, that made a determined effort to divide an otherwise united brotherhood....As a result some have 'lined up'; some 'shut up' and others suffered martyrdom for their convictions." "It's not our differences that hurt, but our manner of differing." (Sears, 185 & 86)

In those good earlier days under James Harding and David Lipscomb in Nashville, "a regular college activity was a meeting each Monday night in which young men discussed any questions of interest. Often on controversial questions leaders on both sides of the issue were brought in for a discussion or a series of discussions. At such times, though men spoke their convictions freely and vigorously, and emotions might run high, the meetings usually closed in a spirit of friendship and goodwill....In such free discussions [Armstrong] was learning to differ from others even heatedly and yet with humility, to respect and love his opponent--experiences which influenced profoundly his whole life." (32f.) It was only natural, then, that in the schools where he later taught and presided, he promoted similar attitudes and activities. If only such principles of loving unity-in-diversity had prevailed more widely, instead of the belligerent "We're gonna stomp out anybody that disagrees with us" attitude that became so widespread -- what a difference there would be throughout the Churches of Christ today.

A former student of Armstrong's at Harding College told how Brother Armstrong "spent a summer at Wheaton College [a wellknown evangelical, transdenominational school] and upon his return to Harding gave a glowing report of the spiritual lives he observed among the faculty and students at Wheaton." (Letter from W. L. Wilson to Restoration Review, 2/'88.) Which reminds us that the original goal of the Restoration Movement was not to unite various fragments of the Restoration Movement(!), but rather to unite "Christians among the sects." After 190 years we have not gained but lost ground, and are at minus-10 struggling to get back to square #1. To get to square #1 will be a gain, not a loss! But at least we're not still back at minus-40. Praise God, progress is being made.

With all due respect gentlemen I would encourage you to reflect on the founders of your movement. Implications and assertions that others on this Christian only board are not of God, despite our differences we are called to love each other unconditionally. Neither myself nor anyone else that has posted in opposition to your teachings and doctrines have implied or asserted that you were not in fact Christians. I would ask you do the same with those who might disagree with your point of view.

John 13:34-35 "A new command I give you: love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will knowthat you are my disciples, if you love one another." Notice Jesus says "must" not if you feel like it, or if they agree with you, He says "must".

Peace be with you gentlemen..................... :wave:

[Jim Woodell]

You assumption is that because we have denominations we are not “one”.

This is not an assumption, it is an observation. The reality is that there are serious divisions in the Christian community. YOu and I both are participates.

I would say it’s pride to think that any “one” denomination or “church” has got it “nailed” and is living out 100% without spot or blemish of what God intends the church to be – Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God”.

I agree with this statement, but it should make us individually more aware of our need to get it "nailed" in our personal life.

To assert otherwise is a) pride in our own fallible finite minds, “God’s ways are not our ways” and b) flirting with blaspheming the work of the Holy Spirit in places (and denominations) we might not consider.

Huh?

[Andyman_1970]

This is not an assumption, it is an observation. The reality is that there are serious divisions in the Christian community. YOu and I both are participates.

Yes there are, but it has little to do with denominations or labels and more to do with pride. Anytime a Christians asserts another is not a Christian this is a very sad example of these divisions.

I agree with this statement, but it should make us individually more aware of our need to get it "nailed" in our personal life.]

I couldn't agree with you more Jim.



Huh?

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Any time we assert that a group of people are not "of God" or "the true church" because the sign on the front of the building doesn't match ours we are as I said being prideful, and I beleive flirting with blaspheming the work of the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for this pleasant discussion Jim, I appreciate it.

Peace be with you my brother............... :wave:

[Jim Woodell]

With all due respect gentlemen I would encourage you to reflect on the founders of your movement. Implications and assertions that others on this Christian only board are not of God, despite our differences we are called to love each other unconditionally. Neither myself nor anyone else that has posted in opposition to your teachings and doctrines have implied or asserted that you were not in fact Christians. I would ask you do the same with those who might disagree with your point of view.

John 13:34-35 "A new command I give you: love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will knowthat you are my disciples, if you love one another." Notice Jesus says "must" not if you feel like it, or if they agree with you, He says "must".

Peace be with you gentlemen..................... :wave:

Good point, and I invite you to check anything that I have said or written that has passed judgement on you are anyone else by stating that you are not a Christian. Perhaps that has been said or implied but I haven't seen it.

I have quoted Romans 10:6-8 that tells us clearly to leave that in the hands of God (both up and down). However, I hasten to add, in the spirit of those who went before us (whether Armstrong, Lipscomb, Harding, Campbell, Stone, Smith, or whoever) they were willing to have honest, open discussions of the scripture without crying that their opponents were accusing them of going to hell or not being Christians.

I am encouraged that you, and I hope others, are giving consideration to Restoration links. I believe that we can be Christians only without claiming to be the only Christians. That is the plea of Churches of Christ and Christian Churches worldwide. I am convinced that it is a lofty goal and I will strive to be just a Christian as long as I live. Christ is my guide, not any man, whether in the restoration movement or out of it.

Thanks for your post.

[Andyman_1970]

Good point, and I invite you to check anything that I have said or written that has passed judgement on you are anyone else by stating that you are not a Christian. Perhaps that has been said or implied but I haven't seen it.

Forgive me if I painted you with broad strokes with the actions of your restoration breatheren. Jim your posts and PM's have been nothing but respectful.

I have quoted Romans 10:6-8 that tells us clearly to leave that in the hands of God (both up and down). However, I hasten to add, in the spirit of those who went before us (whether Armstrong, Lipscomb, Harding, Campbell, Stone, Smith, or whoever) they were willing to have honest, open discussions of the scripture without crying that their opponents were accusing them of going to hell or not being Christians.

The article I quoted mentioned that Armstrong: "In such free discussions [Armstrong] was learning to differ from others even heatedly and yet with humility, to respect and love his opponent--experiences which influenced profoundly his whole life."

Can a Christian claim/asset/imply that another Christian is not a Christian and truly respect that person, love that person and be humble?

The distinction between Armstrong and today here on CF, is that the rules of the forum that we participate on prohibit such claims/assertions/implications. If we participate on CF we agree to a set of rules, our discussions are then under the authority of these rules and the moderators on this board - I humbly ask what did Jesus say about submitting to our earthly authorities?

I am encouraged that you, and I hope others, are giving consideration to Restoration links. I believe that we can be Christians only without claiming to be the only Christians. That is the plea of Churches of Christ and Christian Churches worldwide. I am convinced that it is a lofty goal and I will strive to be just a Christian as long as I live. Christ is my guide, not any man, whether in the restoration movement or out of it.

Although there are a several doctrines of the restoration movement/Churches of Christ I disagree with, however I find the spirit in which the restoration movement/Churches of Christ were founded inspiring and a worthy goal none the less.

Thanks for your post.

Thank you Jim, I hope this post and this thread make some head way in repairing some bridges and bringing about healings between our various "sects" here on CF.

[tomedward]

"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. 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. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for
you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God
that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest
any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I
baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know
not whether I baptized any other." 1 Corinthians 1:11-16.

"For it was shown to me concerning you, my brethren, by
those of the house of Chloe, that strifes among you there
are. But I say this, that each of you says, I am of Paul,
and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Has the
Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or to the
name of Paul were ye baptized? I thank God that no one of
you I baptized, except Crispus and Gaius, that not any one
should say that unto my name I baptized. And I baptized
also the house of Stephanas; as to the rest I know not if
any other I baptized." 1 Corinthians 1:11-16 (Berry).

[tomedward]

Denominationalism is something Jesus prayed would not happen. The Bible predicted that it will happen and warns against it. In the first century, there was only One church. Over the years, Satan has divided religions into the numerous sects we have today.

John 17:11[Jesus prayed] Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.

John 17:20,21[Jesus prayed] 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.

1 Corinthians 1:10Now 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 divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Acts 20:29-31For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch , and remember, that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

2 Timothy 4:3,4For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

1 Timothy 4:1,2Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,

Matthew 15:9And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

Ephesians 4:4-6There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were 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.

Romans 16:17Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.

[tomedward]

[QUOTE=New_Wineskin]I don't like it but I am glad that it exists . QUOTE]

Why are you glad that something that the Father did not plant exists Wineskin ? Were not we taught to pray by the Master, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven........?

The Bible in no way envisages the organization of the church into denominations. Instead it assumes the opposite, that all believers except those being disciplined, will be in full fellowship with all others. Any tendencies to the contrary was roundly denounced. (1 Cor.1:10-13)
Paul could write a letter to believers meeting in various places in Rome or Galatian with every assurance that they would receive its message. Today, for any city or country, he would have to place the letter as an advertisement in the secular media and hope ! Elwell

We do not use any non scriptural words or expressions. These are the things that divide the members of the One Body, instead of uniting them. These introduce the seeds of strife and contention. These have been the cause of controversies and martyrdoms. E.W. Bullinger The Knowledge of God (1920) p

[ydouxist]

The definition of denominationalism goes against the very heart of scripture.




I'm glad I'm nondenominational. :D

[muffler dragon]

I don't think that Y'shua came to start a new religion. Therefore, I don't see him as the author of denominations in Christendom.

[New_Wineskin]

I don't like it but I am glad that it exists .

Why are you glad that something that the Father did not plant exists Wineskin ?


Why did you cut out my answer to that question and then ask the question ?

Without denominationalism , there would be no nondenominations . I am nondenominational because I do not like denominations .

[S Walch]

Christ most certainly is not the author of denominationalism - Humans are.

[Telrunya]

Personally I find that denominations fall under what Paul spoke of when he said the body has many parts. Most denominations agree on many things, a triune God, Grace, ect. It is what they choose to focus on that makes them an eye or an ear. Just because someone believes that you must be fully immersed to be baptised and others believe that a sprinkle will do doesn't change the fact that both have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and have the Holy Spirit living with in them. You'll always have zelots in every group that will call anyone who doesn't adhere to their veiws , heratics. It doesn't mean they are right. Jesus said that many would come near him with their lips but their hearts were far from him. What is in your heart is what matters. I also disagree that scripture is a matter of interpretation. God is eternal and is unchanging.

[tomedward]

Why did you cut out my answer to that question and then ask the question ?

Without denominationalism , there would be no nondenominations . I am nondenominational because I do not like denominations .

I am sorry New_Wineskin, please forgive me. You are correct and I will quote people in their entirity from now on. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.


There is no scriptural authority given to divide the body of Christ as the clear evidence of this post demonstrates so continue to take your stand on the Holy Scriptures Brother, I'm with ya !

God bless you

[tomedward]

Personally I find that denominations fall under what Paul spoke of when he said the body has many parts. Most denominations agree on many things, a triune God, Grace, ect. It is what they choose to focus on that makes them an eye or an ear. Just because someone believes that you must be fully immersed to be baptised and others believe that a sprinkle will do doesn't change the fact that both have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and have the Holy Spirit living with in them. You'll always have zelots in every group that will call anyone who doesn't adhere to their veiws , heratics. It doesn't mean they are right. Jesus said that many would come near him with their lips but their hearts were far from him. What is in your heart is what matters. I also disagree that scripture is a matter of interpretation. God is eternal and is unchanging.

Hi Telrunya, I enjoy your posts on the social security issue.

"Personally I find that denominations fall under what Paul spoke of when he said the body has many parts."

My dear Brother in the Lord when you use the word "personally" you enter into the realm of opinion and out of the realm of truth. Given all the scriptural eveidence presented on this post regarding the issue of denominationalism how can you make such a statement and follow it with, "I also disagree that scripture is a matter of interpretation." God is eternal and is unchanging ???

Do I mistake your meaning here ?

God bless

[New_Wineskin]

I am sorry New_Wineskin, please forgive me. You are correct and I will quote people in their entirity from now on. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.


There is no scriptural authority given to divide the body of Christ as the clear evidence of this post demonstrates so continue to take your stand on the Holy Scriptures Brother, I'm with ya !

God bless you

I apologize for my previous bluntness . The question is whether the organized groups are actually divisions in the Body . People call them "churches" but they are really only clubs . With respect to that , I like denominationalism because of the dictatorial nature of humans . It provides options for those that think that they need to join one of these clubs -"go to church" as it were . Though , I don't like the fighting that is a result of it .

[Telrunya]

Hi Telrunya, I enjoy your posts on the social security issue.

"Personally I find that denominations fall under what Paul spoke of when he said the body has many parts."

My dear Brother in the Lord when you use the word "personally" you enter into the realm of opinion and out of the realm of truth. Given all the scriptural eveidence presented on this post regarding the issue of denominationalism how can you make such a statement and follow it with, "I also disagree that scripture is a matter of interpretation." God is eternal and is unchanging ???

Do I mistake your meaning here ?

God bless

Iron sharpen Iron, eh?

My use of the word personnaly was incorrect. Thanks for pointing that out.

[tomedward]

I apologize for my previous bluntness . The question is whether the organized groups are actually divisions in the Body . People call them "churches" but they are really only clubs . With respect to that , I like denominationalism because of the dictatorial nature of humans . It provides options for those that think that they need to join one of these clubs -"go to church" as it were . Though , I don't like the fighting that is a result of it .

"What church do I attend ?" was recently asked of me, I suppose because of the "less than mainstream" truth that I Post at the "Christianforum".

I don't go to 'church'. I am a member of the Christ's ekklesia and fellowship therein. Jesus used this word only three times, all in the Glad Tidings according to Matthew.
Jesus said, "On this rock I will build My assembly."

The word in the Greek for assembly is ekklesia, from ek, "out of" and klesis, "a calling" (kaleo, "to call") Vines Expository Dictionary of the New Testament p. 42.

You might say I have been "called out of" the world, the "church" (all 501(c)(3) incorporated, state not for profit / prophets ;) religious organizations as the IRS refers to them), and "churchianity" in general but most importantly called out of myself (self-will) by God's grace to be His bond-servant.

as opposed to "church"

Church "The English word 'church' derives from the late Greek word kyriakon, 'the lord's house', a church building. In the [*King James] NT the word translates the Greek word ekklesia. Thoughout most of history the nature of the church has been defined by divided Christians trying to establish the validity of their own existence. Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary, p. 231

Church. 1. The derivation of the word is generally said to be from the Greek kyriakon, 'the lord's house'. But the derivation has been too hastily assumed. It is probably connected with (Scottish) kirk, the Latin circus, circulus, the Greek kuklos, because the congregations were gathered in circles [*pagan ritualism] Smiths Bible Dictionary(1884). page 117

Church. 1. A house concecrated to the worship of God, among christains; the lord's house. 2. The collective body of christians, or those who profess to believe in Christ and acknowledge him to be Saviour of mankind. Websters Dictionary (1928)

I have been called out of the 'chuch' for about five years now and I am grateful for the Holy Spirits teaching since I left behind the 'church' and it's confusion.

May I ask what "church" Jesus the Christ belonged to and is it not true that He was rejected by the institutional "church" of His day ?

My words are not to be construed as an offense but rather exposing by definition the difference between the words, "church" and "ekklesia". Certainly it is one of the duties of the bondman in Christ to diligently look at the words used to describe Christ's Body. Nor do I judge those attending 'church' as unsaved or that they don't love Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ ! At the same time of course just because you are found in 'chuch' on the weekends or profess to be part of the Christ's ekklesia doesn't make you any more saved than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger. A tip of the hat to Brother Keith Green !

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:14

Which definition in truth do you consider the Christ's intention for His children ?

May YHWH bless you, Tom

[New_Wineskin]

I agree much with what you are saying . I consider that I *am* the church as well . And , that the church is not defined as an organized set of rules and regulations with set times and set places .

[Jim Woodell]

Isaiah 45:21 “Declare what is to be, present it – let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior, there is none but me.”

Where does this refer to Gentiles converting to a sect of Judaism (which Christianity was in Acts 15) and whether or not they should be Torah observant? If I’m missing something please fill me in.

[QUOTE=Jim Woodell]; Jer. 12:15[QUOTE=Jim Woodell]

Jeremiah 12:15 "But after I uproot them, I will again have compassion and will being each of them back to his own inheritance and his own country?"

Jeremiah here is talking about the Jews returning from exile. How does this relate to the Jerusalem council?



Amos 9:11-12 In that day I will restore David’s fallen tent. I will repair it’s broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my Name.

The reference to Edom is those of Esau’s decent. This is God restoring the earth when Jesus comes again.

So does this relate to the Jerusalem council?



Yes I am very confused. You Scripture references have nothing (seemingly) to do with the problem the Apostles had – Gentile converts to a sect of Judaism and whether or not to make these Gentiles Torah observant.



I couldn’t agree with you more on your quote from John. Notice in my post I say the authority was given to them communally, not individually.



See above.



So the Scriptures can mean something other than what the author originally meant for his intended audience. The Bible did not float down out of heaven on a cloud in a bubble. It is a real book written by, real men, about real places, and real events (God inspired mind you) – to take the Text and separate it from it’s context of being written by real men, in a real time, about real things is to misuse the Text.

How can we know (if we leave out context) if someone’s interpretation of Scripture is correct? Anyone can pick and chose one verse here and two verses there out of context and make them mean anything they want.

When the Scripture is interpreted separate from it’s context, be it historical, cultural etc, it leaves the “door open” for man and his fallibility to create a Jesus and a Christianity to suit their own point of view.



You assumption is that because we have denominations we are not “one”. I would say it’s pride to think that any “one” denomination or “church” has got it “nailed” and is living out 100% without spot or blemish of what God intends the church to be – Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God”.

To assert otherwise is a) pride in our own fallible finite minds, “God’s ways are not our ways” and b) flirting with blaspheming the work of the Holy Spirit in places (and denominations) we might not consider.

Please excuse the scriptural references I made to Acts 15:16-18. I referred to the marginal notes in the RSV and now that I have gone back and looked at them I fail to see a clear connection either.

Sorry about that.

jw