Are Denominations/Affiliations a Good Thing?

[kevinmiller]

Okay, four people voted "no." Where are you guys?? :frog

[kevinmiller]

First, it depends on the doctrine. Certain things are simply vain traditions of men and, therefore, meaningless. In order to be a sin, something must violate a Scriptural command. For example, what command does sprinkling baptism violate? None, it's just a vain tradition. So, false doctrine is not always sin.

I came back to post some verses that I found during my devotions this morning but I had also realized that I didn't respond to that post, so I'm posting them together.

Here are a few passages that show that the church had false doctrine or was in error and yet Paul still associated with them as members of the Body:

1 Corinthinas 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

And here Paul discourages labels(denominations, in a sense):
4 For while one saith, I

[Anon]

Okay so you are "universal church"...

Anyway regardless, you are considering people who believe in false doctrine to still be part of the "church" when God clearly tells us that is not true.

[Jerry]

It's impossible to hold to the Baptist view of separation because you would end up separating over every issue if you took it literally.

All we have shown you are New Testament verses - so there is no way it is a Baptist view of separation, but a Biblical view.

[Jerry]

Those were examples of rejecting the doctrine of those who teach that which is against the doctrine with which they were received, the doctrine of salvation. They didn't reject believers based on doctrine. If that is the case, why didn't Paul separate from the Corinthians or Ephesians, etc., etc.?

First, Paul attemted to correct their bad theology, then he separated. That is the exact same thing we see here:

Titus 3:10-11 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

This is dealing with individuals - an organization or denomination has already chosen their course and you are not going to be able to correct them as a whole - though you can approach an individual within that denomination and present the truth to them. If they continually reject the truth, then it is time to separate.

[Jerry]

Actually, a heretic in Titus 3 means someone who causes division within the Body. Look at the verse preceding it:
9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;

It is a man that causes divisions and schisms within the local church Body.

Yes, divisions based on DOCTRINE. Please stop writing your own definitions and look up the meaning of these words. The context will show HOW a word is used, but the definition is what defines it.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

HER'ESY, n. Gr. to take, to hold; L. haeresis.

1. A fundamental error in religion, or an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion. But in countries where there is an established church, an opinion is deemed heresy, when it differs from that of the church. The Scriptures being the standard of faith, any opinion that is repugnant to its doctrines, is heresy; but as men differ in the interpretation of Scripture, an opinion deemed heretical by one body of christians,may be deemed orthodox by another. In Scripture and primitive usage,heresy meant merely sect, party, or the doctrines of a sect, as we now use denomination or persuasion, implying no reproach.

2. Heresy, in law, is an offense against christianity, consisting in a denial of some of its essential doctrines, publicly avowed and obstinately maintained.

3. An untenable or unsound opinion or doctrine in politics.

HER'ETIC, n.

1. A person under any religion, but particularly the christian, who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy. In strictness, among christians, a person who holds and avows religious opinions contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice.

2. Any one who maintains erroneous opinions.

[Jerry]

In order to be a sin, something must violate a Scriptural command. For example, what command does sprinkling baptism violate? None, it's just a vain tradition. So, false doctrine is not always sin.

Believe what you want - but when God teaches us clearly in His Word that baptism is for believers only and it is by immersion - then sprinkling a baby IS SIN and contradicts God's Word. Is Acts 8:37 in your Bible?

[Anon]

Whoa. :peek:

[Jerry]

Did I go overboard in my response?

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Faith is believing (and applying) God's Word - it is sin to do something that you do not not have faith in regards to it. Immersing believers is done by faith - sprinkling babies is not - therefore it is sin according to the above passage.

[kevinmiller]

Nobody responded to the verses that I posted. If they don't mean what they appear to mean, then please, tell me what you believe they mean. The evidence from the Bible is overwhelmingly in favor of a single universal Church headed by Christ. If those verses don't all point that direction, please explain them then.

First, Paul attemted to correct their bad theology, then he separated. That is the exact same thing we see here:

Titus 3:10-11 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

This is dealing with individuals - an organization or denomination has already chosen their course and you are not going to be able to correct them as a whole - though you can approach an individual within that denomination and present the truth to them. If they continually reject the truth, then it is time to separate.

Where in the Bible does it talk about Paul separating from them after rebuking them? In the END of the second letter to the Corinthians, he tells them that all the saints salute them. Doesn't sound like he was getting ready to break away to me. Your view just doesn't make sense. If there were denominations who had doctrinal errors in the NT, why weren't they mentioned? Where were they? The only way to reconcile it is to say that they weren't saved which would be grounds for separation anyway. But it still doesn't make sense in light of the fact that he did communicate and fellowship with believers who erred in doctrine.

If they did, in fact, separate based on doctrine, where do they draw the line about when to separate? How much do they have to differ in order for separation to occur. Everyone on this forum disagrees about some form of doctrine, what about those people?

Believe what you want - but when God teaches us clearly in His Word that baptism is for believers only and it is by immersion - then sprinkling a baby IS SIN and contradicts God's Word. Is Acts 8:37 in your Bible?

Of course it's in my Bible. I think sometimes it depends on the motive behind it and what the doctrine is. If sprinkling a baby is used as a means to "save" the baby, that is sin. If it's used as a means of dedication, it's a vain tradition, but I don't know that I would call it a sin. It may be considered a sin, I'm just not ready to say either way.

[Jerry]

Paul was teaching to correct someone then separate if they did not accept the truth. He did not separate from the Corinthians because they changed what they had wrong - as the second letter shows.

[kevinmiller]

It doesn't sound like they had completely changed to me. Just looking at the end of the book in chapter 12, verse 20 or 13:10.
I think you're really grasping at straws here.

Am I to assume that you have no answer for the verses that I posted on the Church?

[Jerry]

It doesn't sound like they had completely changed to me. Just looking at the end of the book in chapter 12, verse 20 or 13:10.
I think you're really grasping at straws here.

I didn't say that they had everything sorted out by that point in time - but they were taking and applying what Paul wrote in his first letter.

2 Corinthians 7:7-11 And not by his coming only, but by the consolation wherewith he was comforted in you, when he told us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward me; so that I rejoiced the more. For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

No, I am not saying this was specifically in regards to their doctrinal errors - but showing that they were attempting to get those areas right that were wrong.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

[kevinmiller]

I guess I must assume that you are conceding the point on the Church?

[Jerry]

Not at all - I was dealing with the primary issues of this thread. We (you and I) have somewhat debated this issue before. Feel free to do a search on this site as to whether the church is local or universal. Various others have given an adequate doctrinal defense on this issue.

By the way, I am curious: what is the point of this thread? Denominations are here to stay - you are certainly not going to do away with them because you don't like them. They are an identifier of what people generally believe (I say generally because there are many that join or attend a church these days without specifically believing what that church teaches - they may go there because that is where they went growing up or where their relatives go, or they like a particular program of that church, or it is the nearest one to them).

There is no such thing as a non-denominational church. The ones that I have seen that like to use that phrase are still a denomination. When all the brethren churches across North America hold to the same basic doctrine and practices - they are a denomination. Same with the Bible Chapels, and Christian Centers, etc.

Even an Independant Fundamental Baptist church is a denomination in that sense - generally speaking, they hold to the same beliefs (though now even many of them are loosing their moorings from the Bible today). We are not a denomination in the sense that some central headquarters tells us what to believe or what to do - but we are in the sense that our name identifies us as to our general doctrinal positions.