Are denominations even valid?

[DanK]

Okay, so I know that most Christians say that all the bickering between denominations and whatnot is bad, because it turns people away from the church, but most of them (at least in my experience) still insist that denominations themselves are perfectly fine. I was just wondering what you think of this issue? Is the idea of denominations Biblically valid at all, regardless of how they interact with each other?

I believe the answer is no, for various reasons I will explain soon. I just want to see some of your opinions first.

Also, just so no one gets unintentionally offended, I don't think it's sinful to attend a church that belongs to a certain denomination, or anything like that. I am friends with many awesome Christians who have rather strong denominational sentiments. My problem is with the idea of any kind of denomination within Christianity at all; no more, no less.

[shadowmaster]

Non-Denominational churches are the way to go in the Shadowmaster's opinion.

Cuts down on bickering.

[JonLanceBarker]

Okay, so I know that most Christians say that all the bickering between denominations and whatnot is bad, because it turns people away from the church, but most of them (at least in my experience) still insist that denominations themselves are perfectly fine. I was just wondering what you think of this issue? Is the idea of denominations Biblically valid at all, regardless of how they interact with each other?

I believe the answer is no, for various reasons I will explain soon. I just want to see some of your opinions first.

Also, just so no one gets unintentionally offended, I don't think it's sinful to attend a church that belongs to a certain denomination, or anything like that. I am friends with many awesome Christians who have rather strong denominational sentiments. My problem is with the idea of any kind of denomination within Christianity at all; no more, no less.

The Church was not founded to be divided into denominations.

In the apostolic age, there was only one Church.

According to the Early Church Fathers, there could only be one Church.

This was believed so strongly that it was enshrined in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed:

"I believe in one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

There were no such thing as denominations...there were jurisdictions in communion with the Church, and there were heretical gatherings outside of it.

In the post-Nicene age up to the 11th century, there was only one Church.

"Outside the Church, there is no salvation" was a self-evident axiom.

That is why, even when the Roman patriarch split from the eastern patriarchs, both sides continued to claim that their side was the undivided Catholic Church.

They claim this to this day.

It is only with the advent of Protestantism that we get the idea of One Wholly Invisible Church Universal, with all these bickering denominations within it.

As you can see, I've rejected that idea wholly.

I believe there has been, is, and will ever only be One undivided Church.

I believe that Church is known as the Eastern Orthodox Church. (Or, more correctly, the Orthodox Catholic Church.)

[Alucard]

Denominations are the result of schism and deviation from the apostolic Church.

So no, I wouldn't say that the concept of denominationalism is valid.

[auggybendoggy]

Seems a bit hard to tell what should and should not be from the origitnal church.

Perhaps in time we might have seen splits which is exactly what happened (reformation).

Paul does write that it is good there be divisions so we can see who has God's approval. If this is at a personal level then perhaps it's also on a larger scale?

Just some thoughts.

Aug

[Abelard]

I don't see any indication that the ecclesia was supposed to be anything more than a gathering of people. Romans 12 tells us we are to expect differences but I don't see any support for bureaucratization of the church.

[JonLanceBarker]

I don't see any indication that the ecclesia was supposed to be anything more than a gathering of people. Romans 12 tells us we are to expect differences but I don't see any support for bureaucratization of the church.

Sola Scriptura will do that to a fellow.

And even if I were a sola fellow, one should not base one's ecclesiology on a single chapter. (Especially not this one...Romans 12:4-8, which I assume you're referring to, seems to be more about differences between individual members' gifts than anything else...this certainly does not endorse accepting "denominational" divisions on such a scale as they are today. Contradictory foundational doctrines are hardly "gifts," they're more like poison.)

As for your comment on "bureaucratization," where on earth did I endorse that? I'm not endorsing the RCC, now, am I? I simply want order and unity---and more than on the structural level.

[JonLanceBarker]

Seems a bit hard to tell what should and should not be from the origitnal church.

It's not that hard if you look in the right places.

Perhaps in time we might have seen splits which is exactly what happened (reformation).

Splits cut off groups from each other. There is no unity between split groups.

A split would cut a dissenting group off from the Apostolic Church.

Question is: which is which?

Paul does write that it is good there be divisions so we can see who has God's approval. If this is at a personal level then perhaps it's also on a larger scale?

Sounds like an unwarranted leap to me.

[undead]

Is the idea of denominations Biblically valid at all, regardless of how they interact with each other?

You are asking the wrong question, reason being is that dominations will always exist.

The right question is about how dominations interact, or to what extent should they interact.

Everyone knows there is only one church. The most relevant question is, is your denomination part of that church?

[themuzicman]

The seeds of protestantism were planted when the Church decided to set up an authority structure and hierarchy above the level of the local church. Men, seeking power, began to seek it in the upper reaches of this man-made authority, and the slow corruption of the church began.

We can see evidence of this at around the turn of the millennium, when the first protestant church, the RCC broke from the EOC.

However, both power structures, seeking to keep power, continued on their separate paths, until the RCC reaches the point that its truest members could not stand the stench, and as a result of Luther's 95 theses, broke away and formed the Lutheran church.

However, even these churches sought power, and created their own little RCC's.

The true human authority in the church ends with the local church board, which is accountable to Christ.

And, yes, that's how my church works.

Michael

[JonLanceBarker]

The seeds of protestantism were planted when the Church decided to set up an authority structure and hierarchy above the level of the local church. Men, seeking power, began to seek it in the upper reaches of this man-made authority, and the slow corruption of the church began.

We can see evidence of this at around the turn of the millennium, when the first protestant church, the RCC broke from the EOC.

However, both power structures, seeking to keep power, continued on their separate paths, until the RCC reaches the point that its truest members could not stand the stench, and as a result of Luther's 95 theses, broke away and formed the Lutheran church.

However, even these churches sought power, and created their own little RCC's.

The true human authority in the church ends with the local church board, which is accountable to Christ.

And, yes, that's how my church works.

Michael

I see you're a subscriber to the "Faithful Remnant" theory.

So, if the local church board is accountable to Christ, what does Christ tell them when they wax heretical?

[themuzicman]

Not at all. God can work within a church that isn't consistent with His Word regarding church authority or other non-essential doctrines.

Michael

[JonLanceBarker]

So, my question?

[themuzicman]

So, if the local church board is accountable to Christ, what does Christ tell them when they wax heretical?

You'll have to ask them.

This isn't to say that local churches are completely independent of each other. There is still one body, of which we all take part.

My impression is this is how the early church started, and to some extent how the EO describes itself, although it does have hierarchy above the local church level, now.

If there were councils of local churches that got together to discuss what they felt was essential to being Christian (such as the apostle's creed or Constantinoplean creeed, etc.), that would tend to keep churches from going heretical.

But adherence would ultimately be up to the local board.

Michael

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yes they are valid.