Are Denominations/Affiliations a Good Thing?

[Jerry]

Jerry' date=' you denied that the church and the body was the same thing.[/quote']

No, I did not deny they were the same thing (in light of eternity, they are) - I said the terms were not used interchangeably. When all believers in heaven are referred to, it says church. When the church is spoken of collectively (as an institution), like in the verse you used or where it says Christ died for the church, it does say church - but it is not speaking of a universal church. Even in the passage you are referring to, what was the church Paul was persecuting? All believers worldwide? No, specifically the church in Jerusalem, so it was certainly applicable for him to use church singular.

Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

[kevinmiller]

Umm....they are used interchangeably. You said that when Christ died for the church, it's not referring to the universal church. Well, what is it referring to?

I really really don't see how it gets much clearer than saying "the church, which is His body."

He didn't say anything about Jerusalem, just that he persecuted the church of God. Even if it was just at Jerusalem, Jerusalem is a big city, is it not? Surely you don't think that there was only one local church in all of Jerusalem? Besides, he still said that he persecuted God's church, not a specific local church, that's the issue.

In reply to Suzy, that was just another example of the duties of the local church. He was speaking in a local context, that's the key. If you have a brother who will not repent, you take it to the leadership of the local church government. Context is very important.

[Psalms18_28]

--

[Psalms18_28]

In reply to Suzy, that was just another example of the duties of the local church. He was speaking in a local context, that's the key. If you have a brother who will not repent, you take it to the leadership of the local church government. Context is very important.

and he disagrees? and leaves, and start a church to suit his own flesh...? If it keeps up, then you will have multiple denominations. Because of that, the "One Church" church would be just another denomination who believes that "if you have a brother who will not repent, take it to the leadership." Then you are stuck with which church is more biblical.

[Anon]

VERY good point.

[kevinmiller]

Soo....what? I don't get the point.
I mean, yeah, that's a possibility. He could leave and start his own church if he wants to. What does it matter which one is more Biblical? There is still one universal church and many local churches. He would have a local church even if we don't agree with what he teaches like there is today. Only those who are legitimately a part of the church(saved believers) would be a part of the universal church. So I'm not sure what your point is.

[Anon]

So you are saying that just any old guy can get up and deem himself a "pastor" and start a "church"?

[Psalms18_28]

so basically, you are saying that it doesn't matter which church you go or what it teach?

I do understand that we are not perfect, and that in the end, Jesus will straighten this mess, but we need to make sure the church is teaching the right kind of salvation.

[kevinmiller]

So you are saying that just any old guy can get up and deem himself a "pastor" and start a "church"?

Of course not, I didn't say I agreed with him being able to do that. The fact of the matter is, if he chooses to do that, nobody can stop him. It doesn't mean that it is a Biblical local church, but that's not what this discussion is. This discussion relates to the existence of the universal Church.

so basically, you are saying that it doesn't matter which church you go or what it teach?

You're reading into my post what isn't there. It does matter, I asked how it mattered in relation to this discussion. You brought up something that seems irrelevant to what we're discussing. People start Catholic churches and Buddhist temples, it doesn't mean it's right but it's still their freedom to make that choice.

[Anon]

Of course not, I didn't say I agreed with him being able to do that. The fact of the matter is, if he chooses to do that, nobody can stop him. It doesn't mean that it is a Biblical local church, but that's not what this discussion is. This discussion relates to the existence of the universal Church.

Well you said:

He would have a local church even if we don't agree with what he teaches like there is today. Only those who are legitimately a part of the church(saved believers) would be a part of the universal church.

So yes, you are saying if a saved (rebellious) guy starts his own church, calls himself "pastor", that it is Biblical?

[Psalms18_28]

no you are saying it doesn't matter what the person teach, it still should not have a denomination... It should be consider as a "local" church. I know you mean that all believers is the church no matter what their background is.

it is the sinners who labeled their church to separate their church from churches they don't like. If you don't believe in denominations, then be sure to tell to the person who rebelled against his local church not to use denomination if he is going to start a new church. Chances are he is going to do it anyway, because it is the only reason why he is starting a new church in the first place and he is inviting everyone who agrees with him to come to his church.

Baptist churches do have different ways of teaching from each other anyway. You have one baptist who is strict on clothing, Another who wear headcovering, and other who believes in alter, etc. But they all still independent baptist churches and still believers.

One thing they do have in common though, All of them is label as "church" (baptist CHURCH, christian CHURCH, Presbyterian CHURCH, Lutheran CHURCH, etc.... well churches like Calvary Chapel don't use the "CHURCH" label but it's still a church)

[speerjp1]

I really really don't see how it gets much clearer than saying "the church' date=' which is His body."[/quote']

That is indeed clear, but you obiously view the universal church and the local church as having unequal importance. You keep giving references to the church as the body of Christ, which we all agree on. Not one single person here has denied that the body of Christ is made up of all believers and is called the church in the Bible. What we are denying is your assertion that this somehow trumps or negates the importance local assemblies, also called churches in the Bible.

You are addressing IFB's, a group of believers that is one of the most diverse groups in all of Christianity in the world, and trying to get us to leave our scriptural stands that bind us together for the sake of some kind of idealized unity with folks who deny the scriptures on serious doctrinal issues. Are you trying this hard to get your Charismatic and Methodist friends to leave behind their denominationalism? :puzzled:

If a person, regardless of affiliation, is a Christian, I have a Biblical duty to treat that individual as a fellow member of the body of Christ. However, I have no constraining scripture that says I must accept or condone his error or to meet with him in one accord until he is in agreement with God's Word.

[Anon]

:amen:

[kevinmiller]

I don't view them as having unequal importance because, in a sense, they are one and the same. The local church is a division of the universal Church, that means that neither is more important than the other. I don't think you're following the debate. The issue hasn't been trumping the importance of the local church but about whether or not the universal Church actually exists. Jerry did indeed deny that the church and the Body of Christ was the same thing.

So I'm not at all saying that the local church in unimportant. I don't think I even insinuated that. Naturally, without the local church, it would be difficult for the Church of God, made up of all believers, to edify one another on a daily basis. I'm not trying to get you to break what binds you together. What binds us together is the faith that we have in Christ, not some doctrinal issue of the local vs. universal church. That's the whole point. We aren't bound together by doctrine, but by the regeneration and indwelling of the Holy Ghost within each of us. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body." That's what unites us, the Spirit by which we are baptized into Christ.

I'm not trying to get them to leave behind their denominationalism because, for one, they are not separated along denominational lines. For another, I'm not at liberty to speak to them about it unless it come up. This forum is designed for discussion so it is totally appropriate here. It's not about trying to get you to change, I'm just trying to get you to understand what is clearly taught in Scripture. And understanding the Biblical idea of what the Church is does not mean that we unite in doctrine with other churches. No, it just means that we view our brothers and sisters in Christ differently. We view them as being a part of the same family, though they may believe something different. You don't condone error when you fellowship with a fellow believer. I can fellowship with Presbyterians who know that I disagree with infant baptism and yet, knowing that I disagree, we can experience the joy of one another's fellowship and have a ministry together to reach others for Christ. I'm not condoning the error, I'm just not allowing it to separate us from fellowship, and they know that.

[Psalms18_28]

Amo 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

You can be friends with those goes to a different kind of church. I do all the time, but we not get along with certain issues. My sister is a Lutheran, and we argue all the time about religion. She says one thing, but I say another. You really can't fellowship and have a bible study with someone who disagrees with you all the time. They are pretty much strongheaded.