# Purpose of denominations



## sotzo (Jul 14, 2007)

Could a case be made that the existence of many Protestant denominations would be demonstration for, rather than against, of God's purpose to redeem his people? The RC church often points to the existence of many denominations as a necessary evil of the Reformation's solas. I've often wondered if the existence of multiple denominations (non-heretical of course), faithful to the essentials of the Gospel, is more in line than not with Paul's and the NT's ministry of grace to unbelievers in many different socio-economic contexts. In other words, that there is more unity in the denominational diversity than the RC church points out.


----------



## ADKing (Jul 14, 2007)

sotzo said:


> I've often wondered if the existence of multiple denominations (non-heretical of course), faithful to the essentials of the Gospel, is more in line than not with Paul's and the NT's ministry of grace to unbelievers in many different socio-economic contexts.



I tend to think that the real reason for different denominations is rarely socio-economic. Most of the time it is doctrinal/practical. If this is the case, than yes there is sin behind the many separations within Protestantism. Paul commands us to speak the same thing and be of the same mind so that there are not divisions among us (I Corinthians 1.10). We who are in fact one in Christ ought to desire a true unity that expresses itself in a uniformity of doctrine, worship, government and discipline. 

As lamentable as division and schism are, Rome cannot charge the true doctrine for being the cause of it.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jul 14, 2007)

There are much of Denominationalism that would be considered sin today but I do not believe Denominationalism is wrong or against scripture... In fact we are told to Come out and Seperate from those who fall away from the true faith.... Come out from among them.. We must stand fast in the Apostles Doctrines and of the breaking of bread with the due worship that God requires.... 

I also wonder in my own mind, it seems that God calls us his churches... i.e. Matthew 25:1-13.. All in All it shows our Mystical Union with Christ... It goes beyond our understanding as mere sinful humans who are finite....

Catholics by the way have their own divisions and denominations and are not unified like they claim.....

Michael



sotzo said:


> Could a case be made that the existence of many Protestant denominations would be demonstration for, rather than against, of God's purpose to redeem his people? The RC church often points to the existence of many denominations as a necessary evil of the Reformation's solas. I've often wondered if the existence of multiple denominations (non-heretical of course), faithful to the essentials of the Gospel, is more in line than not with Paul's and the NT's ministry of grace to unbelievers in many different socio-economic contexts. In other words, that there is more unity in the denominational diversity than the RC church points out.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 14, 2007)

ADKing said:


> I tend to think that the real reason for different denominations is rarely socio-economic. Most of the time it is doctrinal/practical. If this is the case, than yes there is sin behind the many separations within Protestantism. Paul commands us to speak the same thing and be of the same mind so that there are not divisions among us (I Corinthians 1.10). We who are in fact one in Christ ought to desire a true unity that expresses itself in a uniformity of doctrine, worship, government and discipline.
> 
> As lamentable as division and schism are, Rome cannot charge the true doctrine for being the cause of it.



 Sometimes denominational separation is needful due to sin on one part but that is to be lamented: "My brethren, these things ought not to be so." Christ prayed for the unity of his church (I wish all pastors, elders and laity might read George Newton, _An Exposition of John 17_). The visible unity of the church is something to strive for, although we know that heresies and divisions will come. 

A case study: in 1843 when the Free Church of Scotland seceded from the main church, they did so while yet affirming the establishment principle. Thomas Chalmers said, 'Though we quit the Establishment, we go out on the Establishment principle; we quit a vitiated Establishment but would rejoice in retuning to a pure one. We are advocates for a national recognition of religion — and we are not voluntaries.' Separation from evil is called for though painful; but the rejection of the establishment principle itself by the modern church has contributed immensely to the fragmentation of Protestantism. 

May the Lord be pleased to heal the breaches in Zion and may love for the brethren and love for the truth be reflected in our visible as well as spiritual unity.


----------



## KMK (Jul 14, 2007)

As a baptist, my paradigm might be a little different, but Paul gives us a clue as to how difficult unity is when he teaches in Eph 4...



> I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; *endeavoring* to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."



Paul knew that unity takes effort and obviously sometimes that is the reason behind denominational barriers but I don't think the church as a whole can be held responsible. As a pastor I have come to realize that it takes all my energy to keep *my* sheep dwelling together in the unity of the Spirit, let alone someone *else's* sheep. I would like to formally associate with other churches someday but the unity of my own church requires so much attention that unity with other churches is an afterthought. That is just the reality, of course, not the ideal.


----------



## Ivan (Jul 14, 2007)

KMK said:


> As a pastor I have come to realize that it takes all my energy to keep *my* sheep dwelling together in the unity of the Spirit, let alone someone *else's* sheep. I would like to formally associate with other churches someday but the unity of my own church requires so much attention that unity with other churches is an afterthought. That is just the reality, of course, not the ideal.



Ken, your church's website says that you are an American Baptist church. Don't you associate with other American Baptist churches?


----------



## KMK (Jul 14, 2007)

Ivan said:


> Ken, your church's website says that you are an American Baptist church. Don't you associate with other American Baptist churches?



WHAT?????????? ARE YOU SERIOUS?????

Let me check that out...


----------



## KMK (Jul 14, 2007)

Ivan said:


> Ken, your church's website says that you are an American Baptist church. Don't you associate with other American Baptist churches?



I'm on it!

Let me announce publicly that Village Community Church is in no way affiliated with the ABC. (long story) Our statement of faith (which needs a lot of work) was penned by the ABC and I guess we just cut and pasted it on the website without proofing it. (I think Ivan is the only one who hhas ever looked at the website.)

And by the way, those sermons need updating too. Now if only this church had a full time pastor.

Thanks Ivan!


----------



## Ivan (Jul 14, 2007)

KMK said:


> Let me announce publicly that Village Community Church is in no way affiliated with the ABC.



That's good. Glad to hear it.



> (I think Ivan is the only one who has ever looked at the website.)



It's the former reference librarian in me!



> Now if only this church had a full time pastor.



If God wills, I pray that you will be that pastor (full-time).


----------



## KMK (Jul 14, 2007)

Ivan said:


> That's good. Glad to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just checked out your website as well! Funny, you don't look like a reference librarian at all!  (Psst. As a Baptist, aren't you supposed to have a beard?)

Please see my IM


----------



## Ivan (Jul 14, 2007)

KMK said:


> I just checked out your website as well! Funny, you don't look like a reference librarian at all!  (Psst. As a Baptist, aren't you supposed to have a beard?)
> 
> Please see my IM



IM received and read. I'll see what I can find.

So what is a reference librarian is suppose to look like? 

I would grow a beard but it's awfully hot up here in southeastern Wisconsin/northern Illinois. Maybe this winter. BTW, that was my "summer" hair-cut. I let it grow about an inch longer for winter!


----------



## KMK (Jul 14, 2007)

Ivan said:


> BTW, that was my "summer" hair-cut. I let it grow about an inch longer for winter!



Careful... You might start looking more like the Political Science professor instead of a librarian.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 14, 2007)

Part of our struggle with "denominationalism" is where WE have come on the scene in history, as well as the shortness of our life-spans. We are born into a world with a multitude of denominations in every country, so it seems. And our own lives are much shorter than many organizational lives.

Rome's answer to denominationalism is to proclaim herself the onetruechurch, and enfold in her bosom every conceivable heresy--provided the participants maintain the one critical postulate: popery. Hence Romanists present visible unity while tolerating almost every known cancer. Interesting how her "purges" seldom expel any errorists or moral wastrels, but have been know to violently regurgitae all forms of Augustinian reform--even those (unlike Luther and Calvin) Jansenists who remained resolutely Roman.

So Roman unity is a sham, plain and simple. The one article of faith required is blind alleigance to the Vatican. Interesting that she should admit the EO church(es) as legitimate. Since she has excommunicated them (and they her), how can she now affirm their apostolic succession? She denies the same to her own lineal offspring (the Reformation churches), many of which do not blush to trace their heritage straight back through her to the apostolic church.

And furthermore, one really needs to group certain denominations, taking in mind their "branched" nature or geographic origin. One should also consider which church organizations are identifiably apostate, and therefore not part of the church at all. Many "independent" churches don't deserve the name "church", because they are merely sectarian outposts, lone-ranger types without any accountability. They are as much sectaries to Protestantism in general as to Rome.

These sensible qualifications would significantly reduce identifiable denominations to a handful. Consider then: EO churches are admittedly concilliar (In other words,, they are a "family" of denominations); Western Rome's "unity" under an imperial form of government is for appearances sake (they reduce the deonminations to ONE, whilst attempting to contain irreconcilable differences); and faithful Protestant churches were born out of national churches (like most EO identities), which effectively group them into a macro-family, related to but distinct from the Western.

The main Protestant bodies are (broadly) Lutherans, Presbyterian/Reformed, Anglicans/Methodists, Baptists, and Ananbaptists (if I've left any off, I apologize). Sub-groupings and apostate groups abound, claiming to be part of the church--the difference is we recognize them as such, we don't attempt to gloss over these blemishes or unite to hide them under our skirts. If the ancient church could cast out the Arians, we certainly can cast out the heretics as well.

So let Rome and EO and the apostate Protestants bless the undisciplined in their midst. Let them teach contrary doctrines under a single rubric and polity. Grant them their elaborate and timeworn liturgical rites--the EO's may be Scripture-laden, but it is still a cold formality--they have a "unity" of formalism, a form of godliness that denies the power therof.

We will maintain a different sort of unity. We will unite around the Bible, and the teaching of the Bible--the prophets and the apostles. We do end up with differences of interpretation, but our entire frame of unity is built on an utterly distinct model from governmental or liturgical unity. The faithful churches, whatever their distinctives, cluster around the Bible at the apex. As the churches defect, they slide down the cone until they break free entirely and hurtle into ruin.

So it happens, as we the faithful labor in our lesser groupings, we see one another for what we are--churches clustered around the tip, where the Word acts as our link to the Living Word, and his Spirit he is the vital connection to him making our union. For all our failure to agree in detail, we are drawn toward an essential unity in Christ, by the Spirit and the Word.

And when we are individually drawn upward (instead of downward to destruction) we are purified in the truth, by degrees in life and finally at death, in the ecstasy of Peniel.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jul 14, 2007)

I would never presume or proclaim Presbyterians as the lone practicioners of Biblical Christianity in the world today but i would argue they maintain the most sound church government.


----------



## Scott (Jul 16, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Interesting how her "purges" seldom expel any errorists or moral wastrels, but have been know to violently regurgitae all forms of Augustinian reform--even those (unlike Luther and Calvin) Jansenists who remained resolutely Roman.


Yes, it is really amazing. For all the claimed (and actual) authority, it is rarely used in any meaningful way. Its follows the relativist model that everything will be tolerated except intoleration. So, the traditionalists are out b/c they are intolerant but virtually nobody else (Neuhaus made this point that virtually the only ones kicked out of the church under recent papacies were the traditionalists, like Lefebvre). I don't think predestination today would get anyone tossed out.



> She denies the same to her own lineal offspring (the Reformation churches), many of which do not blush to trace their heritage straight back through her to the apostolic church.


Do you have any good sources on those who try to do this? It seems most today just brush this issue aside and focus purely on a small set of core doctrines. 

Thanks


----------



## shackleton (Jul 17, 2007)

From a practical approach. 
My wife and I have been looking for a church for the past year and a half since we became Reformed. I have found, first, that each church seems to reflect the personality of the pastor. Secondly, the people that attend whatever church, have the exact kind of church they want, both in style of worship and teaching. Different personlity types are attracted to different types and styles of churches. Even within the same denomination it is hard to find two churches that are alike in both teaching and worship. Recently a pastor told me that people nowadays seem to shop around for a church the same way they would a house or car, comparing features, like personlity of the people and pastor, teaching style, expository vs. topical, and number and types of programs. I guess denominations are just macrocosims of what I have noticed. Different personality types are attracted to different denominations.


----------



## Herald (Jul 17, 2007)

Bruce - amen, amen and amen!


----------



## jsup (Jul 17, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> I would never presume or proclaim Presbyterians as the lone practicioners of Biblical Christianity in the world today but i would argue they maintain the most sound church government.




 Scott. I have always been impressed with the church government of Presbyterians.


----------

