Are Denominations/Affiliations a Good Thing?

[kevinmiller]

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.

Actually, there is such a thing as a non-denominational church. They occur in house-churches, for example. They aren't prevalent, but they do exist. I was just posting this to promote discussion about denominations and separation from other believers.

I have searched this site for discussions on the universal Church and so far I have found nowhere where anyone has addressed teh verses that I posted. There is a lot of saying, "well, God worked through the local church," which is nothing less than trying to get the Bible to line up with a predetermined belief, IMO. People with local church doctrine throw around circumstantial evidence with zero Biblical basis while completely ignoring the clear Word of God on the issue. Nobody has ever given an alternative meaning for those verses, if such an one exists.

[Anon]

The church is an assembly.

Unless you can get the universal church to assemble at one spot, then you can't have a "church". Which means "local".

[Jerry]

To clarify what Suzy said, the church is "a called out assembly", which is literally what the word church means. Therefore there cannot be a universal church because there is no place on earth where all believers are gathered together. In Heaven we will be, but not on earth. That is why there is the church in Ephesus, the church in Corinth, the churches in Galatia, etc.

[kevinmiller]

Your defining "church" rather narrowly, aren't you?
First, assembly is one definition of the church. That being the case, even as an international Body, we all possess the same Spirit of God. All believers do not have to be in one place to be an assembly.
Secondly, that defines one aspect of church while ignoring all other definitions. The word Ekklesia also means "a calling out." Therefore, church can be used to refer to a local gathering of believers or to believers in general who have been "called" according to His purpose.

And....what about those verses that I posted? Do you just ignore those verses when you read the Bible? If not, then please explain what they mean to you. Please, please, don't make me ask again. I'm beginning to feel like you are purposely ignoring them. If you continue to ignore them, I must come to the conclusion that you put word studies and your own reasoning before the clear passages of Scripture. :dunno:

[Psalms18_28]

denomination do make it easier to find churches that I agree with.

There are times I wished the Phelps would name their church differently from baptist

I think it is good to have different denomination. Inside each church, we are brothers and sisters in Christ. just like have more than one families in a town.. You have "The smith family" and everyone who is related to the Smith (cousins, neice, nephews, etc.) and "The Jones family" and everyone who is related to the Jones. They could join together as one big family because they all came from Adam and Eve, but they don't.

I think if the church was universal, it would confuse with the New World Order (Antichrist claiming to bring peace and unity).

[kevinmiller]

denomination do make it easier to find churches that I agree with.

There are times I wished the Phelps would name their church differently from baptist

I think it is good to have different denomination. Inside each church, we are brothers and sisters in Christ. just like have more than one families in a town.. You have "The smith family" and everyone who is related to the Smith (cousins, neice, nephews, etc.) and "The Jones family" and everyone who is related to the Jones. They could join together as one big family because they all came from Adam and Eve, but they don't.

I think if the church was universal, it would confuse with the New World Order (Antichrist claiming to bring peace and unity).

No, it really doesn't confuse it at all. But, more importantly than that is what the Bible says about it. People who support local church doctrine cannot produce a single verse to support their beliefs and cannot produce an answer to the many verses in favor of it. I really don't understand the reasoning behind it among IFB's who claim to get all of their doctrine from Scripture.

[Psalms18_28]

It is the people who disagree with their brothers and sisters in Christ, left and started their own church. Think of many people who left baptist churches because they disagreed with the baptist standards.

The catholic church thinks they are perfect church because there is no other denominations.. but what they don't know is that people leave the catholic churches because they disagree with it.. some of them become Lutherans (which is similiar to the Catholic traditions)

Someone once wrote "why so many christian churches" Another person wrote, " it is like a symphony.. once plays the flutes, one plays the violin, etc. but all together, if the tune is right, it is a beautiful music."

[Jerry]

No' date=' it really doesn't confuse it at all. But, more importantly than that is what the Bible says about it. People who support local church doctrine cannot produce a single verse to support their beliefs and cannot produce an answer to the many verses in favor of it. I really don't understand the reasoning behind it among IFB's who [i']claim to get all of their doctrine from Scripture.

Looks like you are buying the New Evangelical Ecumenical approach hook, line and sinker!

And we have answered those verses in other threads on this site. You can't tell me there are no threads debating the issue of local versus universal church. Perhaps you need to do a bit more searching.

[grace2u]

I think labels are a necessary evil...I wouldn't want to have to visit 20 churches to find one that lines up with my doctrinal stand....a label helps narrow it down...just like a grocery store...the labels on cans help me buy exactly what I'm looking for...who needs 40 cans of unknown substances...every night would be a supper surprise.... :Green

[Madeline]

But in this I am talking about how we deal with Christians we know. The big issue really is where we are going to receive our Christian edification through Bible teaching. If truth is pouring forth from the pulpit, those who are not willing to accept the truth will eventually leave of their own accord and we will not even have to come to this decision on our own most of the time as concerning other members of our local group. However, if truth is not forthcoming in any quantity (because of some preaching in place of much teaching - the situation that obtains in most churches), or, worse, if false teaching is a large component of what comes from the pulpit (an ever growing problem in the church visible in this country today), then we will be swimming up stream in our spiritual lives, and will not have the help of the shepherd of the local flock in separating out those who are truly wolves in sheep's clothing. So the first issue here is for every Christian to find a good place (where the truth is substantively taught) which is also a safe place (where false doctrine is not tolerated). If a person does this, the question of "when to separate" will almost never come up, and when and if it does that person will have a very stable base from which to make a good decision.

One day...all true believers in Christ will be One.

John 17:22 - And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: :2cents

Love,
Madeline

[kevinmiller]

Looks like you are buying the New Evangelical Ecumenical approach hook, line and sinker!

And we have answered those verses in other threads on this site. You can't tell me there are no threads debating the issue of local versus universal church. Perhaps you need to do a bit more searching.

New Evangelical? Ecumenical? I've bought into the Bible approach, nothing more. I had searched it before on here and found nowhere where those verses were brought up and addressed. You have responded to every singe one of my posts where I haven't used Scripture and yet you act as though it were a waste of time to address the Scripture. Why is that?

[Guest Guest]

Are you kidding? Paul was constantly addressing differing beliefs that the churches had and he reproved them on a regular basis. From meat offered to idols to circumcision, to eating with gentiles, to tongues, etc. There are numerous verses where Paul rebuked or tried to set a church right on its doctrine. It's definitely in there. Surely you don't believe that they agreed on everything?

Ok, let me rephrase that to better express what I meant. No ACCEPTABLE doctrinal differences. Yes indeed there are many, many, cases of false doctrine being corrected in the NT, but no cases of Paul or anyone else saying I believe this, you believe that, but its all ok, it doesn't really matter. False doctrine is always corrected.

Show me where the church was separated amongst themselves.

Since you are using the word "church" for the greater body of believers in Christ I will respond to what you mean and not what you are saying.

"Revelation 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate."

These were an ungodly splinter group that denied the truth yet still considered themselves "Christians". From the context it is rather clear that they had been separated from and that Jesus approved of that separation. Also see the book of Jude, that is just about all it is about.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Members of what, the local church? NO! Members of the body of Christ, nothing more.

Yes, members of the local church. If you look at when Paul speaks of the body and refers to the different members of the body, how they need each other, how if on part hurts all hurts ect., it should be clear that it can't be speaking of a universal church because that supposed "body" doesn't have enough contact. For example, before I met you on this forum I didn't even know you existed, and the reverse is true as well I am sure. I don't know about you, but I know exactly how many toes and fingers my body has. Christ is the head of each real church but each church at the moment is local and does not consist of all believers. Once we all reach heaven the church will still be local, but of course at that point there will be only one and it will consist of all believers.

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Head of what? THE Church. What church? THE Church. Christ is the head of the church, not the churchES.

The only way that anyone can possibly believe local church doctrine is to ignore Scripture and go by circumstantial evidence of verses pulled out of context. The Bible clearly teaches that there is one Body and the only way to believe otherwise is to ignore those verses and rely on tradition.

So if your logic here is correct scripture should always refer to "church" as singular and never as plural right? After all you say there is really only one right? But.... it does use the plural form. :lol

BTW scripture specifically mentions the "churches of Christ" too.

"Romans 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you."


"Acts 9:31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied."

"Acts 15:41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches."

"Acts 16:5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily."

"Romans 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles."

"2 Corinthians 11:8 I robbed other churches , taking wages of them, to do you service."

"2 Corinthians 11:28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily , the care of all the churches. "

"2 Corinthians 12:13 For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong."

There are more verses along those lines, but this post is getting to long and those right there establish that Christ has MULTIPLE churches, not just one. :Green

Grace and peace....

[Anon]

Great posting, Seth.

Yes, members of the local church. If you look at when Paul speaks of the body and refers to the different members of the body, how they need each other, how if on part hurts all hurts ect., it should be clear that it can't be speaking of a universal church because that supposed "body" doesn't have enough contact.

I tried this one earlier...

[kevinmiller]

Ok, let me rephrase that to better express what I meant. No ACCEPTABLE doctrinal differences. Yes indeed there are many, many, cases of false doctrine being corrected in the NT, but no cases of Paul or anyone else saying I believe this, you believe that, but its all ok, it doesn't really matter. False doctrine is always corrected.

What exactly is an ACCEPTABLE doctrinal difference?

Yes, Paul corrected it. Those in authority are those who are required to correct the doctrinal errors of those under them. Obviously, it's not a philosophy of "believe whatever you want" but if those people are under the authority of a church that teaches a doctrine that I disagree with, it isn't my responsibility to correct them unless the Lord opens the door for it.

Since you are using the word "church" for the greater body of believers in Christ I will respond to what you mean and not what you are saying.

"Revelation 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate."

These were an ungodly splinter group that denied the truth yet still considered themselves "Christians". From the context it is rather clear that they had been separated from and that Jesus approved of that separation. Also see the book of Jude, that is just about all it is about.

They weren't Christians, though, which is the whole point. They were criticized because they weren't true believers at all.

Yes, members of the local church. If you look at when Paul speaks of the body and refers to the different members of the body, how they need each other, how if on part hurts all hurts ect., it should be clear that it can't be speaking of a universal church because that supposed "body" doesn't have enough contact. For example, before I met you on this forum I didn't even know you existed, and the reverse is true as well I am sure. I don't know about you, but I know exactly how many toes and fingers my body has. Christ is the head of each real church but each church at the moment is local and does not consist of all believers. Once we all reach heaven the church will still be local, but of course at that point there will be only one and it will consist of all believers.

Then how do you explain the verse that is also in that passage that states: For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit?

By one Spirit, WE are ALL baptized into ONE body, whoever we may be. How is it that Paul could use the collective pronoun "we" to refer to the church if he was obviously not a part of their local church. But, rather, he referred to we ALL being a part of ONE body. God has a place for each of us in the body both locally and universally and when we don't accept that role, the whole body can and will suffer.

So if your logic here is correct scripture should always refer to "church" as singular and never as plural right? After all you say there is really only one right? But.... it does use the plural form. :lol

BTW scripture specifically mentions the "churches of Christ" too.

Actually, not. I never denied the existence of a local church. I just put forth the clear Scriptural evidence of a universal Body. "Churches" is used to refer to the Church where it is located locally. The church AT Jerusalem, the church AT Thessalonica, the church AT Ephesus. There are definitely local branches of the Church, that is the local church. Just like the example I used where we have state government that govern their local districts whereas all those who are under the government of the state are, at the same time, a part of the United States. The states are just a division used for governing the greater "body," so to speak.

A few more verses in conclusion:
Romans 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Here he uses the pronoun "we" again to refer to the collective body of believers. WE are ONE body in Christ. We are all members of each other. He said WE, not YE. That would have been impossible with local church doctrine.

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Christ is the Saviour of who? The Saviour of the body. What body? The body of believers. It didn't say that Christ was the Saviour of the bodies. No, the Saviour of the body, singular.

[Guest Guest]

They weren't Christians, though, which is the whole point. They were criticized because they weren't true believers at all.

And there lies the rub, we don't know that. Certainly some of the churches in revelation contained some believers, yet Christ threatend to remove their candlestick.

Actually, not. I never denied the existence of a local church.

Sounded like it. You said: "Head of what? THE Church. What church? THE Church. Christ is the head of the church, not the churchES." If Christ isn't the head of the local church what is? Anyway, not to nitpick, if you misspoke fine.

I will get to the verses you posted later, just not right now... Maybe tomorrow.