Are denominations evil?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Are denominations, in this world, undesirable and evil?

  • Yes, denominations are evil.

    Votes: 6 33.3%
  • No, denominations are not evil.

    Votes: 12 66.7%
  • I don't know.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    18

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,551
2,230
113
www.christiancourier.com
#61
Too many people forget that long before Luther John Wycliffe and others (the Lollards) were already Protestants, and rejected many of the false teachings of Catholicism.
John Wycliffe and The Lollards

John Wyclif (c.1330-1384), an Oxford professor, developed a number of doctrines -- that the Bible is the supreme authority, that the clergy should hold no property, that there is no basis for the doctrine of transubstantiation -- which were later condemned as heretical. Among his greatest contributions to English literature was his inspiration of the translation of the Bible into Middle English, the first complete translation in the language, and a notable influence on the language itself.
Wyclif's ideas, usually in their more extreme forms, were adopted by the Lollards (see below), a movement that spread rapidly after his death. In his own lifetime, he was strongly supported by his colleagues at Oxford and by powerful laymen, such as John Of Gaunt. His ideas were current among intellectual circles, at least among the so-called "Lollard knights," several of whom were among Chaucer's acquaintances (see The Riverside Chaucer, p. 863, n. 1173, for further explanation and bibliography).
Wyclif was brought to trial in 1377 (though nothing much came of it, since Wyclif was so strongly backed by powerful supporters in the courts of both John of Gaunt and the King), and he and his doctrines were formally condemned in 1382 by Pope Gregory XI, who ordered that he be arrested. But his order was never carried out. Finally in 1382 the Archbishop of Canterbury condemned him and his writings, but Wycliffe himself was undisturbed and continued to write until his death in 1384.
There was little public interest in rooting out heresy and King Richard regularly resisted clerical demands that he establish burning as the punishment for heresy (common on the Continent). Henry IV issued the first order for burnings -- De haretico comburendo in 1401, and the hunt for heresy began in earnest a few years later. Wyclif was finally condemned 41 years after his death: his books were burned and his body was exhumed and burned, with the ashes scattered.


The Lollards

The Lollards were followers of Wycliffe, at first composed of Wycliffe's supporters at Oxford and the royal court, but soon the movement spread and became a strong popular movement. It was blamed (perhaps unfairly) for some of the anticlerical aspects of the Peasant's Revolt. But Lollard beliefs remained among members of Richard's court -- some of whom were among Chaucer's friends (see K.B. McFarlane, Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights, Oxford, 1972 [WIDENER Br 1525.127.5]).
For a statement of the Lollards' beliefs see
The examination of William Thorpe.
The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards, which were composed for presentation to Parliament (which included some supporters of the Lollards) in 1395.​
For further information on the Lollards see The Lollard Society Home Page, with links to bibliographies, and the extensive entry in The Catholic Encyclopedia.


For a bibliography of scholarly and critical works on Wycilffe and the Lollards, click here.
 
L

LordsHandmaiden

Guest
#62
Wow!
Has much learning made people mad that they dissect the word of God into their own doctrinal interpretations to have followers?
When did " so saith the Lord" become not enough?
I know little of any denominations ,but just at a glance the word alone is scary.

Is this not the same as Paul said,one saith I am of Paul ,I am of Appolos ect....?

IS CHRIST DIVIDED?
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,770
3,679
113
#63
Spurgeon's view on this topic was not clear from his writings. I need to research this more, though.

He definitely was not dispensational, though. He considered it to be ridiculous.
Right, he was a Historical Premil. Even in the 1800's he believed one day the Jews would once again come together as a people...a far cry from the bankrupt eschatological position of many of the Reformed, who hold to Amill or the Preterist position.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,770
3,679
113
#64
No, but His Holy Spirit says to rightly divide His Word.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2Ti 2:15)
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#65
Right, he was a Historical Premil. Even in the 1800's he believed one day the Jews would once again come together as a people...a far cry from the bankrupt eschatological position of many of the Reformed, who hold to Amill or the Preterist position.
Reformed hold to the amillennial or postmillennial position.

I don't know too many full Preterists.

I do believe that much of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in AD70. If you call that preterism, I agree with it. I call it partial preterism.

And, I don't think the Reformed position is corrupt. I've studied all the positions, and I find three out of four to be credible.

Dispensationalism is NOT credible. It displays an abysmal ignorance of union with Christ and its implications. And, it proposes that death will continue past the resurrection of the just (I believe historic premillennialism does the same thing, so I wouldn't hold that view either).
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,770
3,679
113
#66
Reformed hold to the amillennial or postmillennial position.

I don't know too many full Preterists.

I do believe that much of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in AD70. If you call that preterism, I agree with it. I call it partial preterism.

And, I don't think the Reformed position is corrupt. I've studied all the positions, and I find three out of four to be credible.

Dispensationalism is NOT credible. It displays an abysmal ignorance of union with Christ and its implications. And, it proposes that death will continue past the resurrection of the just (I believe historic premillennialism does the same thing, so I wouldn't hold that view either).
My problem with the three positions you mentioned is, eschatologically speaking, they don't take seriously the Old Testament Prophets... relegating them to another dispensation', making their interpretation just as 'dispensational' as the ones they accuse. This is usually because they confuse an unconditional covenant (Abrahamic) with a conditional one (Mosaic).
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#67
My problem with the three positions you mentioned is, eschatologically speaking, they don't take seriously the Old Testament Prophets... relegating them to another dispensation', making their interpretation just as 'dispensational' as the ones they accuse. This is usually because they confuse an unconditional covenant (Abrahamic) with a conditional one (Mosaic).
The OT prophets are prophecying based on their worldview, and their worldview is the lense of the Mosaic Covenant.

Therefore, they are experiencing New Covenant truths in terms of the Old Covenant.

So, the interpretation must take this into consideration.

I think their prophecies can be fitted to the current "Church age", and the New Heavens and New Earth.

Of course, the dispensationalist will call this "spiritualizing" or "allegorizing" but I don't care.

He has to explain sin offerings occurring during the alleged Millennium. And, of course, he explains it by saying that they are memorials, but there's no proof of this. He violates his "literalizing" hermeneutic by claiming this, because the prophets call them sin offerings.

But, I don't really care what someone else believes on these topics. God can deal with them as he sees fit. If they are wrong, he is perfectly able to correct them on any point. I just don't hold their theology.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#68
Wow!
Has much learning made people mad that they dissect the word of God into their own doctrinal interpretations to have followers?
When did " so saith the Lord" become not enough?
I know little of any denominations ,but just at a glance the word alone is scary.

Is this not the same as Paul said,one saith I am of Paul ,I am of Appolos ect....?

IS CHRIST DIVIDED?
Christ is not divided .We are.

Its imperative (must commandment) .It is God who makes us different from one another. What does any one have that they have nor received. We work it out as he works with us.

Heresy = sect denomination

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

And like Paul said if they have received it why boast if one did not. His yoke is easy . Why murmur if we have received it?

Philippians 2:12-14 King James Version (KJV) Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,770
3,679
113
#69
The OT prophets are prophecying based on their worldview, and their worldview is the lense of the Mosaic Covenant.

Therefore, they are experiencing New Covenant truths in terms of the Old Covenant.

So, the interpretation must take this into consideration.

I think their prophecies can be fitted to the current "Church age", and the New Heavens and New Earth.

Of course, the dispensationalist will call this "spiritualizing" or "allegorizing" but I don't care.

He has to explain sin offerings occurring during the alleged Millennium. And, of course, he explains it by saying that they are memorials, but there's no proof of this. He violates his "literalizing" hermeneutic by claiming this, because the prophets call them sin offerings.

But, I don't really care what someone else believes on these topics. God can deal with them as he sees fit. If they are wrong, he is perfectly able to correct them on any point. I just don't hold their theology.
Sorry, but the Mosaic Covenant, a temporary covenant never surpassed the Abrahamic Covenant with it's everlasting promises. You may not care what someone believes on that topic but you should at least realize the antisemitic baggage that the Amill view contains, from Augustine down through the Roman Church and onto many of the Reformed and Lutheran bodies...

This falls under the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant...

Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD from the tower of Hananeel (see Zech 14:10) unto the gate of the corner. And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron (2Chr 29:16), unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever. (Jer 31:35-40)

Sin Offerings in the future? Not sure about that but can you explain Ezek 40-48? A future Temple with all the 'trappings' of a temple.
I'll admit, even Dispys seem to fall short on this one.

Anyways, we are probably talking past each other.
 
Feb 28, 2016
11,311
2,974
113
#70
to answer the Post's question,
it is written:
'You shall know them by their fruits'...
 
Oct 12, 2012
1,563
929
113
68
#71
Reformed hold to the amillennial or postmillennial position.

I don't know too many full Preterists.

I do believe that much of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in AD70. If you call that preterism, I agree with it. I call it partial preterism.

And, I don't think the Reformed position is corrupt. I've studied all the positions, and I find three out of four to be credible.

Dispensationalism is NOT credible. It displays an abysmal ignorance of union with Christ and its implications. And, it proposes that death will continue past the resurrection of the just (I believe historic premillennialism does the same thing, so I wouldn't hold that view either).
Hey UwC! Just wanted to say my Howdy's, i am a full preterest so now you've met one. Have a nice day!
 
Feb 20, 2019
121
38
28
#73
not needed at all, only meant 4 the levitical priests in the OT!! been done away with!!
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#74
Sorry, but the Mosaic Covenant, a temporary covenant never surpassed the Abrahamic Covenant with it's everlasting promises. You may not care what someone believes on that topic but you should at least realize the antisemitic baggage that the Amill view contains, from Augustine down through the Roman Church and onto many of the Reformed and Lutheran bodies...

This falls under the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant...

Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD from the tower of Hananeel (see Zech 14:10) unto the gate of the corner. And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron (2Chr 29:16), unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever. (Jer 31:35-40)

Sin Offerings in the future? Not sure about that but can you explain Ezek 40-48? A future Temple with all the 'trappings' of a temple.
I'll admit, even Dispys seem to fall short on this one.

Anyways, we are probably talking past each other.
Firstly, I am not sure where you get the idea that I think the Mosaic Covenant is greater than the Abrahamic Covenant. I am a 1689 Federalist, and this is a prominent view within Reformed Baptist circles. If you want to disprove my position concerning covenant theology, you will need to work hard to understand the position.

Secondly, Abraham's descendants will not cease to be a nation before God. All believers are descendants of Abraham. They are joined to Christ in a legal and vital sense, and share in his inheritance, which is the whole world, by the way, according to Romans 4. And, some of these are Jewish individuals.

Physical Israel gets you nothing. If a person is a physical Israelite, and doesn't become a spiritual Israelite, he will be torched.

Ezekiel 40-48 is not a topic I have researched in depth, but my guess is that it is related to either 1) Jesus 2) the Church or 3) the New Jerusalem/New Heavens/New Earth.

My position is that it is false to claim that the sacrificial system will continue, along with a Temple. Yet, if you read the Prophets in the dispensationalist mode, that is what you derive. I am not a dispensationalist. I would read the Prophets, knowing their worldview, which is through the lenses of the Mosaic Covenant, and then translate this into New Covenant concepts.

But, that is something the dispensationalist cannot do. He calls it "spiritualizing" or "allegorizing". Instead, he ends up claiming that sin offerings will continue to be offered during the Millennium, because that is what the text says. He cannot fathom any other way of viewing things, unless it conflicts with dispensationalism, then he will switch his interpretative technique.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,770
3,679
113
#75
Firstly, I am not sure where you get the idea that I think the Mosaic Covenant is greater than the Abrahamic Covenant. I am a 1689 Federalist, and this is a prominent view within Reformed Baptist circles. If you want to disprove my position concerning covenant theology, you will need to work hard to understand the position.

Secondly, Abraham's descendants will not cease to be a nation before God. All believers are descendants of Abraham. They are joined to Christ in a legal and vital sense, and share in his inheritance, which is the whole world, by the way, according to Romans 4. And, some of these are Jewish individuals.

Physical Israel gets you nothing. If a person is a physical Israelite, and doesn't become a spiritual Israelite, he will be torched.

Ezekiel 40-48 is not a topic I have researched in depth, but my guess is that it is related to either 1) Jesus 2) the Church or 3) the New Jerusalem/New Heavens/New Earth.

My position is that it is false to claim that the sacrificial system will continue, along with a Temple. Yet, if you read the Prophets in the dispensationalist mode, that is what you derive. I am not a dispensationalist. I would read the Prophets, knowing their worldview, which is through the lenses of the Mosaic Covenant, and then translate this into New Covenant concepts.

But, that is something the dispensationalist cannot do. He calls it "spiritualizing" or "allegorizing". Instead, he ends up claiming that sin offerings will continue to be offered during the Millennium, because that is what the text says. He cannot fathom any other way of viewing things, unless it conflicts with dispensationalism, then he will switch his interpretative technique.
The 1689 is simply a plagiarism of the Westminster except it conveniently turns the Sacraments into ordinances (laws) and drops infant baptism, thus denuding the original intent of 'covenant'. Oh well, so much for 'denominations' lol.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#76
The 1689 is simply a plagiarism of the Westminster except it conveniently turns the Sacraments into ordinances (laws) and drops infant baptism, thus denuding the original intent of 'covenant'. Oh well, so much for 'denominations' lol.
The bible gives us the faith to believe otherwise. It would seem you are turning it upside down as if it came after men seen .Catholicism. and not the unseen work of the Spirit that works in us. . . not of us.

There must be denominations/sects/heresies among us . How else could we seek the approval of God when following His loving commandment to study rightly dividing if we would rather seek the approval of each other?

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Why do you think there must be denominations/sects/heresies amongst us?
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,770
3,679
113
#77
The bible gives us the faith to believe otherwise. It would seem you are turning it upside down as if it came after men seen .Catholicism. and not the unseen work of the Spirit that works in us. . . not of us.

There must be denominations/sects/heresies among us . How else could we seek the approval of God when following His loving commandment to study rightly dividing if we would rather seek the approval of each other?

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Why do you think there must be denominations/sects/heresies amongst us?
I was only explaining a few differences between the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith and the Westminster Confession of Faith. I never said I agreed or disagreed with them. For you to jump in with such comments reveals a desperate desire to be heard.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#78
I was only explaining a few differences between the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith and the Westminster Confession of Faith. I never said I agreed or disagreed with them. For you to jump in with such comments reveals a desperate desire to be heard.
Sorry it seemed you were trying to take away the need for the word, denomination, sect, heresy .

Why do you think there must be denominations/sects/heresies amongst us?
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,770
3,679
113
#79
Sorry it seemed you were trying to take away the need for the word, denomination, sect, heresy .

Why do you think there must be denominations/sects/heresies amongst us?
Easy. First, not all have God's Spirit, they approach God's Word devoid of the Author, and for those of us who have His Spirit, this is true...

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
(1Co 13:12)
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
#80
The 1689 is simply a plagiarism of the Westminster except it conveniently turns the Sacraments into ordinances (laws) and drops infant baptism, thus denuding the original intent of 'covenant'. Oh well, so much for 'denominations' lol.
The duplication was intentional because Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists disagree only on some things. I think you really didn't do a good comparison if you think those are the only things.

By the way, I don't think the Presbyterians minded, and it wasn't plagiarism.

And, I don't think you understand that there are three different forms of covenant theology: paedobaptist covenant theology, 1689 Federalism, and a Baptist covenant theology which is more like paedobaptist covenant theology.

I am relatively late to this discussion, though, as I've only focused on it for a few years. In my opinion, dispensationalism lacks any serious credibility. Yet, the dispensationalists view themselves as the Einsteins of evangelical Christianity which is a source of amusement for me :)