Is the Church of Christ a denomination?

[AJB4]

Here's the meaning of denomination, as Dictionary.com puts it:

1. A religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination.
2. One of the grades or degrees in a series of designations of quantity, value, measure, weight, etc.: He paid $500 in bills of small denomination.
3. A name or designation, esp. one for a class of things.
4. Class or kind of persons or things distinguished by a specific name.
5. The act of naming or designating a person or thing. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denomination)


(There is a mod hat (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31865234&postcount=39) post in this thread - kib)

[ConservativeChristian97]

From my experience, not really. Perhaps that's just because I grew up SBC and its not governed the same way. Which is why I chose to go to a RM church and leave the SBC. :)

[HeyHomie]

By your definition, then it most definitely is, since it is, in fact, "a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect."

HOWEVER, that definition doesn't include the concept of a governing heirarchy, which IMHO is inherent in any denomination.

[AJB4]

By your definition, then it most definitely is, since it is, in fact, "a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect."

HOWEVER, that definition doesn't include the concept of a governing heirarchy, which IMHO is inherent in any denomination.
I see. There are, however, many definitions chucked around about the word 'denomination', particularly from churches who claim to be non-denominational.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

The reason the CoC are not a denomination is the splits even within the CoC. There is not a defined set of doctrines that can be said to be CoC. They are not a group of churches as such except maybe to the outsider. They are not in contact with one another on a regular basis and not in concert on doctrine. Just a few of the splits within the CoC

1. Pacifism (not so much in modern times but it still exists)
2. One cuppers
3. Non-Sunday School
4. Non-Intrumental
5. Non-institutional
6. Premillennialists

That is just major issues and there are combinations of those issues at well that split those within those groups further. There is not an encompassing group that can defined as the CoC. There is no-one that can tell anyone they cannot use the name Church or Christ on their church. The CoC is not a definable group by any standard.

[AJB4]

The reason the CoC are not a denomination is the splits even within the CoC. There is not a defined set of doctrines that can be said to be CoC. They are not a group of churches as such except maybe to the outsider. They are not in contact with one another on a regular basis and not in concert on doctrine. Just a few of the splits within the CoC

1. Pacifism (not so much in modern times but it still exists)
2. One cuppers
3. Non-Sunday School
4. Non-Intrumental
5. Non-institutional
6. Premillennialists

That is just major issues and there are combinations of those issues at well that split those within those groups further. There is not an encompassing group that can defined as the CoC. There is no-one that can tell anyone they cannot use the name Church or Christ on their church. The CoC is not a definable group by any standard.

Good explaination. Thanks. :D


1. Pacifism (not so much in modern times but it still exists)
2. One cuppers
3. Non-Sunday School
4. Non-Intrumental
5. Non-institutional
6. Premillennialists
7. Instrumentalists

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

The main problem with defining a denomination is that the definition of group is too broad. In Christian circles it is generally accepted that a central authority is required for a denomination to exist as that authority can define doctrines for its churches as a whole. Defining the CoC as a denomination (outside of the ICoC or the UCoC) faces the same problems with defining the Christian Churches as a denomination or even the Charismatic movement as a denomination. There are central doctrines on which the majority of CoC can agree but that is only a majority. If we want to accept that all churches with the same name on the sign are a group then indeed the CoC is a denomination but if it requires more than a simple name then the issues simply start growing until you cannot define the CoC as a denomination any longer.

[mrconstance]

The main problem with defining a denomination is that the definition of group is too broad. In Christian circles it is generally accepted that a central authority is required for a denomination to exist as that authority can define doctrines for its churches as a whole. Defining the CoC as a denomination (outside of the ICoC or the UCoC) faces the same problems with defining the Christian Churches as a denomination or even the Charismatic movement as a denomination. There are central doctrines on which the majority of CoC can agree but that is only a majority. If we want to accept that all churches with the same name on the sign are a group then indeed the CoC is a denomination but if it requires more than a simple name then the issues simply start growing until you cannot define the CoC as a denomination any longer.
Edmund, your definition of a denomination is wrong. As long as the word has been used, Baptists and Congregationalists--who have never had any group with "authority can define doctrines for its churches as a whole," have been recognized as denominations.

[Splayd]

I'm just not sure how to answer this. It really has a lot to do with your persepective. Technically I'd argue that we're not, but I certainly appreciate that we may well be recognised as such. The simple fact that we're identifiable as a denomination suggests to me that to that extent we really are one.

[- DRA -]

Here's the meaning of denomination, as Dictionary.com puts it:

1. A religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination.
2. One of the grades or degrees in a series of designations of quantity, value, measure, weight, etc.: He paid $500 in bills of small denomination.
3. A name or designation, esp. one for a class of things.
4. Class or kind of persons or things distinguished by a specific name.
5. The act of naming or designating a person or thing. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denomination)

"Denomination" originated from the mathematical term "denominator" -- the bottom number in a fraction. In essence, it is used to suggest the one church (i.e. Matth. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23; Eph. 4:1-6) is made up of different churches (with each church being a denominator or fraction of the whole).

Do you find that the N.T. teaches this concept?

[AJB4]

"Denomination" originated from the mathematical term "denominator" -- the bottom number in a fraction. In essence, it is used to suggest the one church (i.e. Matth. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23; Eph. 4:1-6) is made up of different churches (with each church being a denominator or fraction of the whole).

Do you find that the N.T. teaches this concept?
It's apparent, if Dictionary.com is anything to go by, that it no longer means this. Let's no get into the 'one church' debate again, please. I'm so over it.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -
"Denomination" originated from the mathematical term "denominator" -- the bottom number in a fraction. In essence, it is used to suggest the one church (i.e. Matth. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23; Eph. 4:1-6) is made up of different churches (with each church being a denominator or fraction of the whole).

Do you find that the N.T. teaches this concept?

It's apparent, if Dictionary.com is anything to go by, that it no longer means this. Let's no get into the 'one church' debate again, please. I'm so over it.

Gotcha.

Dictionary.com is the final authority on spiritual matters, right? By its definition, Jesus established a denomination, right?

Agreed. There's no need to debate about the one church. Unless, of course, one wishes to challenge God's word. :eek:

[AJB4]

Gotcha.

Dictionary.com is the final authority on spiritual matters, right? By its definition, Jesus established a denomination, right?

Agreed. There's no need to debate about the one church. Unless, of course, one wishes to challenge God's word.

Where in the Bible is the 'correct' definition of denomination found? In fact, where in the Bible is the word 'denomination' found at all? Never will I ever try and contend with God's word. Man's erroneous interpretations, perhaps, but not God's actual word.

[Splayd]

Dictionary.com is the final authority on spiritual matters, right?Only the King James Version of dictionary.com is :P

[JDIBe]

If the definition of "denomination" is that broad, then there really shouldn't be a "Non-Denominational" folder on this forum, since no one really belongs there, so I would have to say, "No, we are not."

[- DRA -]

Where in the Bible is the 'correct' definition of denomination found? In fact, where in the Bible is the word 'denomination' found at all? Never will I ever try and contend with God's word. Man's erroneous interpretations, perhaps, but not God's actual word.

Since a denominator (the root word of denomination) means to divide, I suggest you consider 1 Corinthians 1:10-17. In essence, denominations promote division where the Spirit calls for unity (Ephesians 4:1-6).

Perhaps you can help us get past "erroneous interpretations" and understand the real "truth" about the church the Lord established ... assuming that you do believe He built one. You do, right?

There is an old saying ... "Never say never." You know, Peter was convinced he would never deny the Lord. But, he did. Three times. See Matthew 26:33-35, 69-75, and Proverbs 16:18.

[HeyHomie]

understand the real "truth" about the church the Lord established ... assuming that you do believe He built one. You do, right?

Is it necessary to call this guy's beliefs in Scripture into question simply because he disagrees with you on semantics? :scratch:

[- DRA -]

Is it necessary to call this guy's beliefs in Scripture into question simply because he disagrees with you on semantics? :scratch:

Let's see now ...

according to Dictionary.com, "semantics" is defined as:

–noun (used with a singular verb)
1. Linguistics.
a. the study of meaning.
b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
2. Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.
4. general semantics.

Assuming you are referring to 1a (the study of meaning), I think it is essential that we derive the correct understanding intended by Scripture. Take Matthew 4:5-7. The correct understanding of Psalm 91:11-12 and Deuteronomy 6:16 kept Jesus from jumping from the top of the temple and sinning.

Now, is there an doubt that the correct understanding makes a difference?

[AJB4]

Since a denominator (the root word of denomination) means to divide, I suggest you consider 1 Corinthians 1:10-17. In essence, denominations promote division where the Spirit calls for unity (Ephesians 4:1-6).

Perhaps you can help us get past "erroneous interpretations" and understand the real "truth" about the church the Lord established ... assuming that you do believe He built one. You do, right?

There is an old saying ... "Never say never." You know, Peter was convinced he would never deny the Lord. But, he did. Three times. See Matthew 26:33-35, 69-75, and Proverbs 16:18.
Since a denominator (the root word of denomination) means to divide, I suggest you consider 1 Corinthians 1:10-17. In essence, denominations promote division where the Spirit calls for unity (Ephesians 4:1-6).

Denominations, though they may differ in practise (and, I know, not all of them can be right), generally accept all other professing Christians as their brothers and sisters. That, to me, responds to the call for unity a lot better than, say, members of churches who think that their church is the only one, and choose to be divided from other professing Christians just because they don't accept other prefessing Christians as their brothers and sisters.

I suggest you consider 1 Corinthians 1:10-17.

Oh, please, dude, that verse is absolutely misapplied when stacked up next to the CoC's (thank God it's only 20% of them) claims that they're the only one.

Would you find any Christian church today in which the members would say that they belonged to anybody except Christ? Would you find a Christian church that baptised their members into the name of anybody except Christ? Of course there may be a rare exception or two, but if a Christian church professes to follow Christ, and baptises it's members into the name of Christ, then that verse is not applicable to them. Not to mention, it says 'beseech'. Obviously, Paul knew that it was wishful thinking that Christians would never disagree about anything. That, to me, is why he said beseech, rather than command. Beseech, by Dictionary.com (since you seem to like it so much), means:

1. to implore urgently: They besought him to go at once.
2. to beg eagerly for; solicit.
–verb (used without object)
3. to make urgent appeal: Earnestly did I beseech, but to no avail.

Of course 'divisions' are bad things, because they cause confusion for growing young Christians like me, but, Paul obviously knew that the day would come, perhaps inevitably, so he said 'beseech' obviously to plead with the church there to prolong this inevitable divison (due to the teachings of imperfect humans), in the crucial stage of the growth of Christianity at that point in time. That's my theory anyway. Seems like a plausible one.

It's like I said before: As far as I'm concerned, the true divisors in Christianity are the ones who think they're the only ones, and choose to be divided because of that. In that way, the hard-line CoC's are denominations, because they themselves choose to be divided from everyone else. They don't promote division, yet they practise it. Seems hypocritical to me.

There is an old saying ... "Never say never." You know, Peter was convinced he would never deny the Lord. But, he did. Three times. See Matthew 26:33-35, 69-75, and Proverbs 16:18.

Another misapplication: Peter denied that he was a follower of Christ. Whether you're from a denomination or the Church of Christ, both can still do that. Do you find a professing Christian from a denomination often deny that they are followers of Christ? I think not. Do you see me denying that I'm a follower of Christ? I think not.

Also, Proverbs 16:18 applies little to this discussion, because this has absolutely nothing to do with pride. I don't know about you, but I can safely say that this has nothing to do with pride at my end.

[HeyHomie]

Let's see now ...

according to Dictionary.com, "semantics" is defined as:

–noun (used with a singular verb)
1. Linguistics.
a. the study of meaning.
b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
2. Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.
4. general semantics.

Assuming you are referring to 1a (the study of meaning), I think it is essential that we derive the correct understanding intended by Scripture. Take Matthew 4:5-7. The correct understanding of Psalm 91:11-12 and Deuteronomy 6:16 kept Jesus from jumping from the top of the temple and sinning.

Now, is there an doubt that the correct understanding makes a difference?

I'm not really clear on why you and I are arguing about this, since we both agree that the Church of Christ isn't a denomination in the first place. The only thing I can discern is that you are bent on making sure EVERYONE agrees with you, and doing so by needling about definitions and tossing out proof-texts, and by calling into question another poster's faith.

Congratulations, DRA. You have proven that you are wiser, smarter, clever-er, and more versed in Scripture than I am. And you are undoubtedly a MUCH better Christian because you are so dearly concerned with making sure that your congregation is not considered by anyone to be a denomination, whereas it doesn't mater to me in the slightest. I bow to your holiness on this matter. :bow:

[- DRA -]

I'm not really clear on why you and I are arguing about this, since we both agree that the Church of Christ isn't a denomination in the first place. The only thing I can discern is that you are bent on making sure EVERYONE agrees with you, and doing so by needling about definitions and tossing out proof-texts, and by calling into question another poster's faith.

Congratulations, DRA. You have proven that you are wiser, smarter, clever-er, and more versed in Scripture than I am. And you are undoubtedly a MUCH better Christian because you are so dearly concerned with making sure that your congregation is not considered by anyone to be a denomination, whereas it doesn't mater to me in the slightest. I bow to your holiness on this matter. :bow:

Dictionary.com defines a red herring as:

–noun
1. a smoked herring.
2. something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.
3. Also called red-herring prospectus. Finance. a tentative prospectus circulated by the underwriters of a new issue of stocks or bonds that is pending approval by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: so called because the front cover of such a prospectus must carry a special notice printed in red.
4. any similar tentative financial prospectus, as one concerning a pending or proposed sale of cooperative or condominium apartments.

Not sure why you're trying to make this personal. If we are in agreement that the church of Christ is not a denomination, then what is wrong with challenging AJB4's reasoning and understanding in light of the Scriptures?

What you may not understand is that I spent some time behind the scenes working with AJB4, addressing his concerns, and diligently trying to head things back in the right direction. AJB4 was also discussing these things with father -- and making progress. Now, within a matter of a weeks, he is back -- more defiant than ever -- opposing the most basic principles concerning the church.

Are you sure it's really about me, my holiness, and my church? First off, I didn't purchase the church with my blood. The Lord gets full credit for that i.e. Acts 20:28. And, as far as myself and my holiness is concerned, I am in need of God's grace, forgiveness, and mercy every single day of my life. I think that pretty well sums it up. Now, for the Lord and what He's done for us, that is a totally different matter. He warrants our utmost respect and reverence. He established the church. And, unless I'm mistaken in my understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, gives us everything in the Scriptures that we need to serve and please Him. That includes knowledge of the church -- what it was called, how it is structured, how it worships, its work, who it accepts in fellowship, etc. Now, let's assume that someone gets off-track and promotes things that contradict the Scriptures. Borrowing from the language of the NKJV in 2 Timothy 4:2, three words should be considered ... "convince, rebuke, exhort." Are you willing to study those words and their meanings in the context of preaching the word --and to share with us what you learn?

James 3:1 briefly mentions the stricter judgment of "teachers." In essence, I understand that to mean that a teacher has not only the responsibility for his/her own beliefs, but also the beliefs they've impressed upon their students. The sobering part of the application of this passage to these discussions on the Forums is that most everyone with a computer thinks they are a "teacher." Like it or not, the reasoning we (all of us) submit is going to be "tested." I am no different than others. You are no different. Combined, our comments are only beneficial when they are in harmony with God's word. And, unless I'm mistaken, the only way to ensure what is in harmony with the word is to study or give diligence to the word and compare/contrast things i.e. 2 Timothy 2:15.

As far as bowing to me is concerned, please see Acts 10:25-26.

In His service, :bow:

- DRA -

[JDIBe]

I think the DOC refers to itself as a denomination, but what about the Independent Christian Churches? They seem to be in the middle. Are they a denomination, too?

Maybe we need another poll.....

[Splayd]

THE Church of Christ (ie: that universal body of believers in Christ) is certainly NOT a denomination.

The "Church of Christ" (ie: those congregations that share mutual, yet distinct beliefs comprising a subset of Christianity) are also not a denomination if we consider a need for some heirarchal structure (or whatever) to be apparent... BUT I'd argue that we are a denomination to the extent that we are NOT the entirety of the church and are readily identified as a distinct group within Christianity.

[Splayd]

I think the DOC refers to itself as a denomination, but what about the Independent Christian Churches? They seem to be in the middle. Are they a denomination, too?

Maybe we need another poll.....I'm pretty sure the DOC are the only ones who are actually denominational. The CofC in Australia resembles a denomination in many ways, but we maintain autonomy.

[- DRA -]

THE Church of Christ (ie: that universal body of believers in Christ) is certainly NOT a denomination.

The "Church of Christ" (ie: those congregations that share mutual, yet distinct beliefs comprising a subset of Christianity) are also not a denomination if we consider a need for some heirarchal structure (or whatever) to be apparent... BUT I'd argue that we are a denomination to the extent that we are NOT the entirety of the church and are readily identified as a distinct group within Christianity.

Let me propose a different perspective ...
Jesus promised to build His church (Matthew 16:18). That church was established in Jerusalem in Acts 2, but then spread to Judea and Samaria (Acts 8) and to other parts of the world beginning in Acts 13. Concisely stated, we are given two perspectives of the church. It is used in a universal sense, referring to Christians all over the world. Or, it is used in a local sense, referring to Christians which meet in a specific location i.e. Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Philippi, etc.

A problem arises sometimes when folks portray the universal church of being made up of churches -- which is denominationalism. I don't find this to be true. I find the church, in either the universal or local sense, to be made up of individual Christians i.e. 1 Corinthians 12.

Make sense from a scriptural perspective?

[- DRA -]

Denominations, though they may differ in practise (and, I know, not all of them can be right), generally accept all other professing Christians as their brothers and sisters. That, to me, responds to the call for unity a lot better than, say, members of churches who think that their church is the only one, and choose to be divided from other professing Christians just because they don't accept other prefessing Christians as their brothers and sisters.

Okay, if not all denominations can be right, what criteria do you use to discern right from wrong?

Let's see now ... you suggest that acceptance of those who profess to be Christians while believing and practicing differing faiths in differing bodies (churches) is the unity God had in mind in Ephesians 4:1-6. I guess I missed something. Could you explain the context of the passage? You see, I understand the context to being back in the few verses of chapter 1. In essence, God united Jews and Gentiles into one body (church). Thus, if there was ever a sound basis for division, this would seem to be the strongest case for it. However, instead of division, they are to be united ... one Lord ... one faith ... one body ... etc. I miss seeing what you see in the context. Can you help me out?

Oh, please, dude, that verse is absolutely misapplied when stacked up next to the CoC's (thank God it's only 20% of them) claims that they're the only one.

I have been to numerous churches of Christ over the years. I have never heard anyone say that the church of Christ is the only church. However, on many occasions, I have heard teaching about the one church that Jesus promised to build, and the one He built, the one He shed His blood to purchase, the one He gave His life for, the one He loves as a husband should love his wife, etc. Actually, the only ones I've heard say that the church of Christ is the only one are the critics. I believe the truth of the matter is the church that Jesus established in Acts 2 -- the one that spreads when you take the word of God to other places (see Acts 8) -- is the one church. In short, the one church is the church you read about in the New Testament. It is the church that we should be members of today.

I'll save my comments on 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 for the next response.

Would you find any Christian church today in which the members would say that they belonged to anybody except Christ? Would you find a Christian church that baptised their members into the name of anybody except Christ? Of course there may be a rare exception or two, but if a Christian church professes to follow Christ, and baptises it's members into the name of Christ, then that verse is not applicable to them.

I suspect you are missing the point of 1 Cor. 1:10-17. Apollos, Cephas (Peter), and Paul hadn't baptized the Corinthians in their own names, but only in the name of Christ. Therefore, even though the Corinthians were baptized by different preachers, they were united in baptism in the name of the Lord. In essence, they were unified by their obedience to the gospel of Christ. However, instead of being unified, the Corinthians were divided on the basis of who baptized them. God does not approve of such division. In principle, this type of division is exactly what denominationalism is all about.

Not to mention, it says 'beseech'. Obviously, Paul knew that it was wishful thinking that Christians would never disagree about anything. That, to me, is why he said beseech, rather than command. Beseech, by Dictionary.com (since you seem to like it so much), means:

1. to implore urgently: They besought him to go at once.
2. to beg eagerly for; solicit.
–verb (used without object)
3. to make urgent appeal: Earnestly did I beseech, but to no avail.

Once again, I think I'm missing something. Paul here (in 1 Cor. 1) beseeches (beg, pleads) with the Corinthians to not be divided. Your implication is that it wasn't a command, therefore it was optional (something they really didn't have to do). I challenge you to harmonize this reasoning with other passages.

Acts 2:40. The word "exhort" is from the same Greek word for beseech in 1 Cor. 1:10 (parakaleo). Assuming that one wanted to please God, was being saved optional?

Of course 'divisions' are bad things, because they cause confusion for growing young Christians like me, but, Paul obviously knew that the day would come, perhaps inevitably, so he said 'beseech' obviously to plead with the church there to prolong this inevitable divison (due to the teachings of imperfect humans), in the crucial stage of the growth of Christianity at that point in time. That's my theory anyway. Seems like a plausible one.

Note 1 Cor. 1:11. Division was already in Corinth. Chloe's household told sent word to Paul. Therefore, Paul wrote to address the issue (and others). See also 1 Cor. 11:18.

It's like I said before: As far as I'm concerned, the true divisors in Christianity are the ones who think they're the only ones, and choose to be divided because of that. In that way, the hard-line CoC's are denominations, because they themselves choose to be divided from everyone else. They don't promote division, yet they practise it. Seems hypocritical to me.

2 John 9-11 doesn't allow those faithful to God to be in fellowship with those who teach and practice things contrary to God's will. If they are in fellowship with them, they are consenting to the error being taught or practiced. Is this what you want Christians to do? Is it God's will that everyone be lost?

Another misapplication: Peter denied that he was a follower of Christ. Whether you're from a denomination or the Church of Christ, both can still do that. Do you find a professing Christian from a denomination often deny that they are followers of Christ? I think not. Do you see me denying that I'm a follower of Christ? I think not.

Also, Proverbs 16:18 applies little to this discussion, because this has absolutely nothing to do with pride. I don't know about you, but I can safely say that this has nothing to do with pride at my end.

Please consider the basic facts. Peter said he would "never" deny the Lord. But, he did. Likewise, you said, "Never will I ever try and contend with God's word. Man's erroneous interpretations, perhaps, but not God's actual word" (Post #13 p. 2). Like it or not, I see you doing that very thing in the comments you are posting. What hinders you from seeing what you are doing? I'll let you make the application to Proverbs 16:18.

Consider the Corinthians and Paul's admonition in 1 Cor. 10:1-12. Note verse 12. There's your link to Prov. 16:18. Consider also 1 Cor. 5:2,6. "Puffed up" and "glorying" are synonyms for pride. See the point? ... pride ... in danger of falling ... won't happen to me ... oopps, it did ... not a good ending!

[Splayd]

Let me propose a different perspective ...
Jesus promised to build His church (Matthew 16:18). That church was established in Jerusalem in Acts 2, but then spread to Judea and Samaria (Acts 8) and to other parts of the world beginning in Acts 13. Concisely stated, we are given two perspectives of the church. It is used in a universal sense, referring to Christians all over the world. Or, it is used in a local sense, referring to Christians which meet in a specific location i.e. Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Jerusalem, Philippi, etc.

A problem arises sometimes when folks portray the universal church of being made up of churches -- which is denominationalism. I don't find this to be true. I find the church, in either the universal or local sense, to be made up of individual Christians i.e. 1 Corinthians 12.

Make sense from a scriptural perspective?
I agree 100% with that... except for the part I've italicised. It may be true as a literal interpretation of the term (I don't know) but it's certainly not true on a practical level.

[- DRA -]

I agree 100% with that... except for the part I've italicised. It may be true as a literal interpretation of the term (I don't know) but it's certainly not true on a practical level.

The whole quote is italicised automatically by the system. Can you explain which part of the post you don't agree with, or bold it so I can distinguish what we don't see eye-to-eye on?

Thanks. :)

[HeyHomie]

DRA, my question to you is this: why is this so unbelievably important to you that you split hairs over definitions, which you did in posts #10, #12, #16, and many others; and that you call into question someone's belief in Scripture, which you did in post #16?

Perhaps you can help us get past "erroneous interpretations" and understand the real "truth" about the church the Lord established ... assuming that you do believe He built one. You do, right?


You seem to be trying to lead to a point, but I'm unclear on what that point is. I don't want to put words into your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the hint that you're saying that any congregation that considers itself a "denomination" is out of line with Scripture (which would also mean that your congregation IS in line with Scripture, since it isn't a denomination).

I'm making it personal because of two reasons: 1) Rather than state your point outright (whatever it is), you try to lead people to it, which I find unbelievably patronizing; and 2) I find your tone in general to be unbelievably condescending.

[Splayd]

The whole quote is italicised automatically by the system.^_^ That's really inconvenient. It was just this part: "which is denominationalism"

[- DRA -]

^_^ That's really inconvenient. It was just this part: "which is denominationalism"

Thanks for the clarification.

It took awhile to come to grips with the denominational concept, but over time I came to realize that denominationalism is built on the church being made up of churches. The reasoning is that each church -- although different in faith and practice -- is a branch of the one vine, or a part of the one body i.e. John 15:1-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. The problem is, these passages are discussing individuals -- not churches. Individuals are a part of the vine. And, the church is made up of individuals that function like different parts of the human body. Individual Christians that meet in a specific location make up a local church, and individual Christians from all over the world make up the universal church. Frankly, my goal is not to destroy denominationalism, but to be fair with Scripture and understand it using sound biblical reasoning. Once a person does that, I think the denominational concept is exposed for what it is.

Anyway, that's my two-cents worth.

[AJB4]

What you may not understand is that I spent some time behind the scenes working with AJB4, addressing his concerns, and diligently trying to head things back in the right direction. AJB4 was also discussing these things with father -- and making progress. Now, within a matter of a weeks, he is back -- more defiant than ever -- opposing the most basic principles concerning the church

I'm not opposing. I'm questioning. I don't really think I'm being defiant either. I did appreciate your concern. My intention is not to be defiant. I'm sorry you feel that I am being so.

Okay, if not all denominations can be right, what criteria do you use to discern right from wrong?

Let's see now ... you suggest that acceptance of those who profess to be Christians while believing and practicing differing faiths in differing bodies (churches) is the unity God had in mind in Ephesians 4:1-6. I guess I missed something. Could you explain the context of the passage? You see, I understand the context to being back in the few verses of chapter 1. In essence, God united Jews and Gentiles into one body (church). Thus, if there was ever a sound basis for division, this would seem to be the strongest case for it. However, instead of division, they are to be united ... one Lord ... one faith ... one body ... etc. I miss seeing what you see in the context. Can you help me out?

I don't believe that all denominations are right, nor do I believe that their erroneous practises should be condoned. I don't really even know why I'm debating this with you. I don't actually disbelieve that there is a 'one true church' on this earth. I, however, doubt that it is the conservative Church of Christ, for reasons I will not get into with you right now.

I think it's also plain to see God working in the lives of many denominationals. It's plain to see he gives a stuff about them.

I suspect you are missing the point of 1 Cor. 1:10-17. Apollos, Cephas (Peter), and Paul hadn't baptized the Corinthians in their own names, but only in the name of Christ. Therefore, even though the Corinthians were baptized by different preachers, they were united in baptism in the name of the Lord. In essence, they were unified by their obedience to the gospel of Christ. However, instead of being unified, the Corinthians were divided on the basis of who baptized them. God does not approve of such division. In principle, this type of division is exactly what denominationalism is all about.

Um...it says in verse 12 that the members of that church were saying that they were of, in particular, different Apostles. If there's one thing that denominationals do not do, it's that. They don't say that they are of certain Apostles. They all say that they are of Christ.

Once again, I think I'm missing something. Paul here (in 1 Cor. 1) beseeches (beg, pleads) with the Corinthians to not be divided. Your implication is that it wasn't a command, therefore it was optional (something they really didn't have to do). I challenge you to harmonize this reasoning with other passages.

Acts 2:40. The word "exhort" is from the same Greek word for beseech in 1 Cor. 1:10 (parakaleo). Assuming that one wanted to please God, was being saved optional?

Of course it's something that they SHOULD have done, but eventually the church was going to be divided anyway. It was a matter of prophecy, predestination, if you will.

"Save yourself from this untoward generation". What would that mean to you if someone said it to you? Be good even when the world is being bad, probably. It seems to indicate having good moral behaviour more than anything else.

Exhortation, beseech, same thing. Neither are used to command anything. Of course we SHOULD follow the exhortations, but hey, obviously 'command' and 'exhort' are not on the same level, based on the fact that they mean two absolutely different things. Of course, personally, I'd try and follow the exhortations as best I could.

believe the truth of the matter is the church that Jesus established in Acts 2 -- the one that spreads when you take the word of God to other places (see Acts 8) -- is the one church.

Well, let's keep in mind that back in the NT times when Jesus and Apostles were alive, they didn't have the Bible. Naturally, Acts 8 was referring to the word-of-mouth from Jesus and the Apostles. The Bible was not needed when they were alive, as they were divinely inspired to carry the word along with them, without need for it. The Bible also was barely available coming out of the first century as well, due to the poor literacy rate and lack of mass-production. At most, individual congregations worldwide would have had to scrape together little bits and pieces of scripture from all over the place, far from having the full set. That's one reason that I don't think that the original church was not based only on the Bible. That's also another reason why I think the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines of Apostolic Succession make a lot of sense. The Bible was not available to most: Cue the early church fathers, directly taught by the Apostles, obviously educated men, as they managed to write many letters to churches around the place (which have been certified authentic by many historians and scholars over the centuries), and who would have been largely to thank for the survival of the original teachings and traditions of Christianity in its crucial years of early growth. Of course, with the Protestant Movement, the wisdom of these men has been rejected, which is a shame. The Bible says itself, many times, that not everything that the Apostles, Jesus, and the early church did was written in it:

2 John 1:12 Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

3 John 1:13 I had many things to write, but I do not wish to write to you with pen and ink;
1:14 but I hope to see you shortly, and we shall speak face to face. Peace to you. Our friends greet you. Greet the friends by name.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

*Among Others*

The Bible also says many a time to hold to certain traditions that the Apostles taught. Since the Bible does not say everything that Jesus and the Apostles did, one can only draw the conclusion that not all of those traditions that the Apostles taught can be found written in the Bible. Hence, the early church fathers would have 'filled' in the blanks that the Bible itself 'admitted' were left.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Bible makes it pretty clear what it's good for, and that is to equip man for every good work. It, however, doesn't say anywhere in that verse that the Bible was all we needed to be made perfect.

I have been to numerous churches of Christ over the years. I have never heard anyone say that the church of Christ is the only church. However, on many occasions, I have heard teaching about the one church that Jesus promised to build, and the one He built, the one He shed His blood to purchase, the one He gave His life for, the one He loves as a husband should love his wife, etc. Actually, the only ones I've heard say that the church of Christ is the only one are the critics. I believe the truth of the matter is the church that Jesus established in Acts 2 -- the one that spreads when you take the word of God to other places (see Acts 8) -- is the one church. In short, the one church is the church you read about in the New Testament. It is the church that we should be members of today.

So, those churches that you've been to believed: "They are Christians only, but not the only Christians?"

Please consider the basic facts. Peter said he would "never" deny the Lord. But, he did. Likewise, you said, "Never will I ever try and contend with God's word. Man's erroneous interpretations, perhaps, but not God's actual word" (Post #13 p. 2). Like it or not, I see you doing that very thing in the comments you are posting. What hinders you from seeing what you are doing? I'll let you make the application to Proverbs 16:18.

Consider the Corinthians and Paul's admonition in 1 Cor. 10:1-12. Note verse 12. There's your link to Prov. 16:18. Consider also 1 Cor. 5:2,6. "Puffed up" and "glorying" are synonyms for pride. See the point? ... pride ... in danger of falling ... won't happen to me ... oopps, it did ... not a good ending!

I know exactly what I'm doing. That is questioning.

You seem to be trying to lead to a point, but I'm unclear on what that point is. I don't want to put words into your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the hint that you're saying that any congregation that considers itself a "denomination" is out of line with Scripture (which would also mean that your congregation IS in line with Scripture, since it isn't a denomination).

I'm making it personal because of two reasons: 1) Rather than state your point outright (whatever it is), you try to lead people to it, which I find unbelievably patronizing; and 2) I find your tone in general to be unbelievably condescending.

I have to politely agree with him.

[Splayd]

I absolutely agree with your understanding that the church is made up of individuals... but that's exactly why I can meet with, work for and worship alongside the Christians in the denominations.

Peace

[- DRA -]

I absolutely agree with your understanding that the church is made up of individuals... but that's exactly why I can meet with, work for and worship alongside the Christians in the denominations.

Peace

Two issues come to mind:

1.) What does it take for the sinner to be saved from their sins? Is it faith alone (with grace implied)? Is it faith and repentance? Faith, repentance, and confession? Or, faith, repentance, confession, and baptism? After initial obedience to the gospel (assuming that one believes he/she has to obey God), must one remain faithful to Him? Or, are we predestinated -- which means our eternal destiny is already predetermined, so we can live like we want and do whatever we want to do?

2.) In light of the previous questions, which are just a small portion of the ones that come to mind, I believe 2 John 9-11 and Ephesians 5:11 are factors that should also be considered.

Or, perhaps we can just bury our head in the sand like the ostrich is sometimes portrayed and not worry about discerning right from wrong.

[JDIBe]

Denominations, though they may differ in practise (and, I know, not all of them can be right), generally accept all other professing Christians as their brothers and sisters. That, to me, responds to the call for unity a lot better than, say, members of churches who think that their church is the only one, and choose to be divided from other professing Christians just because they don't accept other prefessing Christians as their brothers and sisters.


Oh, please, dude, that verse is absolutely misapplied when stacked up next to the CoC's (thank God it's only 20% of them) claims that they're the only one.

It's like I said before: As far as I'm concerned, the true divisors in Christianity are the ones who think they're the only ones, and choose to be divided because of that. In that way, the hard-line CoC's are denominations, because they themselves choose to be divided from everyone else. They don't promote division, yet they practise it. Seems hypocritical to me.

Another misapplication: Peter denied that he was a follower of Christ. Whether you're from a denomination or the Church of Christ, both can still do that. Do you find a professing Christian from a denomination often deny that they are followers of Christ? I think not. Do you see me denying that I'm a follower of Christ? I think not.

source: http://www.allsaintsbloomington.org/about.htm

___________________
What is the Orthodox Church?

The Orthodox Church is the oldest Christian Church and is the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, founded upon the teachings of the Holy Apostles. It is the Church that received the promised Holy Spirit at Pentecost in A.D. 33/34. It is also the Church out of which came the writings of the New Testament. All other mainstream Christian churches can trace their origins historically back to the Orthodox Church. It is the second largest Christian body in the world with approximately 225 million members worldwide, of which nearly six million live in the United States and Canada.

In regards to all other Orthodox beliefs, the New Testament and the Creed are thoroughly consistent with the life and practice of the Holy Church. Unlike many churches of today that have embraced liberal theology and deny the authority of Holy Scripture, Orthodoxy reveres the Bible as the Holy Word of God. But we do not hold the Bible in a vacuum — it is God’s Word that was given to the world through the Church, and it is within the Church (which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit) that we must interpret Scripture. This does not mean, of course, that the Church can manipulate Scripture to make it say whatever it wants; but it does mean that we believe the only way to interpret Scripture properly is through the eyes and understanding of the Holy Church and the Apostles, Saints, and martyrs who have lived it throughout the ages. In light of that, the Orthodox Church does not see a need to choose between Scripture and Tradition, for we accept both Scripture and Tradition since Scripture itself teaches us to “hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:15). Our Holy Traditions are as much a part of our Christian walk as are the Holy Scriptures, for they do not contradict but rather complement each other.

What is the Orthodox view of the Protestant churches?

Orthodoxy looks kindly on all who seek the way of God, and it does not deny that many great men and women of faith have contributed notable and beneficial things to a dark and sinful world in search of the light of God’s truth. And while the Orthodox Church believes that it is the One, True Church, this does not mean that it believes all other churches are utterly without Grace. What it does mean is that it believes no other church can claim the fullness of Christ’s Church. This fullness can be found only in Orthodoxy. After all, the Orthodox Church is the original Church instituted by Christ Himself and has maintained the teachings of the Apostles since the earliest days. Where else can one go to find a similar claim? Truth may indeed be found in many Christian denominations, but the whole truth rests in Holy Orthodoxy.
_____________________________

AJ,

Every 2 weeks I read the same "only ones going to heaven" thing. First it was all, then just the ones in America, now only 20%, regardless of poll numbers here showing just the opposite and no one coming forward to espouse the view....
All this time you keep talking about converting to Orthodoxy. Now you are free to do what you want, but read the above. Don't you find it a bit ironic that the very thing you claim is so "hypocritical" and "divisive" is found in the basic doctrine of the church you regard so highly? Believe it if you want, but give the "only ones going to heaven" thing a rest for a while. Please?

[- DRA -]

DRA, my question to you is this: why is this so unbelievably important to you that you split hairs over definitions, which you did in posts #10, #12, #16, and many others; and that you call into question someone's belief in Scripture, which you did in post #16?

The church that Jesus established is important to me because the Lord established it, purchased it with His blood, and unified those who accepted Him and followed Him in that church.

I don't believe I'm "splitting hairs" over definitions. I honestly and sincerely don't think the definition posted in the OP begins to touch upon the significance of denominationalism. For instance, one previously stated point is that the root word for denomination is denominator -- the bottom number in a fraction. Therefore, the whole premise of denominationalism is built upon division. Which, I understand to be wrong based upon passages such as 1 Cor. 1:10-17 and Eph. 1:22 through 4:6.

Frankly, as a Christian, I believe that the Lord has empowered me (and all Christians) to question the belief's of others i.e. Jude 3, Acts 15:1-2, 1 John 4:1.

You seem to be trying to lead to a point, but I'm unclear on what that point is. I don't want to put words into your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the hint that you're saying that any congregation that considers itself a "denomination" is out of line with Scripture (which would also mean that your congregation IS in line with Scripture, since it isn't a denomination).

First off, let me begin by clarifying something. What difference does it make what I say? Or, for that matter, what you say? Shouldn't our focus be upon what God's word says per 1 Peter 4:11a?

Now, considering things from a scriptural perspective, what evidence is there that denominations are "in line with Scripture?" As pointed out, the premise that denominationalism is built upon is division. I understand that to be wrong. Therefore, I stand opposed to denominationalism. Unless, of course, someone (perhaps, yourself) can show how they are in agreement with the Scriptures.

And, for the record, I don't have a congregation or church. I believe my place is to give the Lord full credit for the church that He established ... the one you read about in the New Testament.

Leave no doubt in your mind, the Lord's church is NOT a denomination. It wasn't a part of the whole -- rather, it was the whole.

Now, is the church that I am a member of "in line with Scripture?" Yes, I believe it is. If you think it isn't, then please share with us the passages that you think we are violating or overlooking.

Oh, by the way, thanks for allowing me the opportunity to speak for myself. I appreciate it.

I'm making it personal because of two reasons: 1) Rather than state your point outright (whatever it is), you try to lead people to it, which I find unbelievably patronizing; and 2) I find your tone in general to be unbelievably condescending.

Sorry, but I've going to have to disagree with you when it comes to strategy. Where is it written in the rules that I have to state my point outright? Consider Acts 2:39. Note the phrase: "And to all who are afar off" (NKJV). According to Ephesians 2:17, the Gentiles (determined by the context) are those who were afar off. So, why didn't the apostle Peter, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, just state his point outright, assuming that there is some kind of rule like this? Was he (Peter) wrong to be non-specific? How about the Holy Spirit's role ... was He wrong to influence Peter to be subtle and not say "Gentiles" outright?

What I have been trying to do is to help people see the denominational concept from a scriptural point of view. If I am wrong, then I would appreciate someone pointing out which Scripture(s) is being overlooked or misunderstood, along with the correct meaning and applications of the passage(s).

Speaking of condescending, check out Mark 7:24-30. Who did Jesus refer to as "the little dogs" in that text? Give the text some thought. Oh, and you probably should also read Matthew 23. The whole chapter. Even that part at the end about Jesus alluding to himself as a mother hen. And, I also suggest backing up to chapter 22 (of Matthew). Note verse 29.

Time for a heart-to-heart. I have provided Scriptures that are being overlooked by the proposed definition for a denonimation. On the other hand, I ask what you have contributed to the discussion from a scriptural perspective? You're not hesitant or shy about sharing your personal feelings about me. Why not put some of that energy into the discussion by sharing your understanding of the Scriptures with us?

[HeyHomie]

Time for a heart-to-heart. I have provided Scriptures that are being overlooked by the proposed definition for a denonimation. On the other hand, I ask what you have contributed to the discussion from a scriptural perspective? You're not hesitant or shy about sharing your personal feelings about me. Why not put some of that energy into the discussion by sharing your understanding of the Scriptures with us?

I'm done with this thread. You win, DRA. I still believe that you're condescending and patronizing, but you seem to believe that it's perfectly justified, so there's no point discussing it further.

[- DRA -]

I'm done with this thread. You win, DRA. I still believe that you're condescending and patronizing, but you seem to believe that it's perfectly justified, so there's no point discussing it further.

Gotcha ... it's all my fault you can't provide a scriptural basis for whatever it is that you believe and/or have a problem with.

Once again ... these discussions aren't supposed to be about winning or losing, but studying the word of God.

One of my favorite books is by Al Henderson, the 1976 U.S.A. Olympic archery coach. I bought it right after beginning to shoot the bow and arrow. I was terribly disappointed the first time I read the book. In short, I was looking for a "quick fix" to improve my accuracy: like put your fingers so-so on the string or hold the riser this way in your hand. Instead, Henderson began by discussing the necessity of being honest with yourself. His point? Those seeking to improve will be honest with themselves by not blaming others for their own missed shots. In essence, without this honesty, the archer will never progress past the frustration of missing shots. I initially rejected Henderson's advice, but finally accepted that he knew more about archery than I did. Then, when I stopped excusing myself for the misses, I started concentrating on how to do things the right way. It made a big difference for me.

What degree of accuracy can a really good archer expect? Take the old Robin Hood movie. The 1938 classic. Remember when ole Robin split the competitor's arrow in the target? Most people don't know that an archer filling in for Errol Flynn actually made that shot. His name was Howard Hill.

The word "sin" in the N.T. is from a Koine Greek word that means "to miss the mark." Hopefully, in some way, Henderson can also help you increase your accuracy.

God bless.

[hopperace]

Closing thread for review. I appreciate the discussion thus far, and the poll results have been quite interesting, but Staff have received a request that the thread be closed. Thanks for all respectful dialog. The OP question is a worthy topic.

[hopperace]

Upon review, I’m going to leave the thread closed per the request that Staff received.

There are some CF Rules issues within the thread that may be applicable if it were pressed, but since no one has been reported, and I don’t find a need to report anyone myself, I’m going to take this opportunity to advise continued civility and respect for all members; and to say that, as a No Creed But Christ (Restoration Movement) moderator, where and when it’s personally up to me, I’ll try to take a balanced and cautious hand when it comes to warnings and such. This thread has not been closed for CF Rule violation, but for another applicable reason.

I realize the poll has been popular and with many respondents. I’ve actually benefited from reading and re-reading it. There is no objection here concerning the poll itself, nor technically any actionable posts within the thread as far as I’m concerned, but respect is cautioned. I may not be the last word on these matters, but as it stands the thread is closed.

Thank you for your respectful participation.

- kib