Steve Ray has a list of more than 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (quotation marks his)(link to the whole list). I originally planned to respond to just 35 of them, but the series seems to have been of interest, so in this extension, I'm responding to three more numbered questions in his list, plus fourteen "bonus questions" that take the form "Where does the Bible say ... ." I'm trying to provide the answers in the same common format as the original series, for easy reference. This is number 15/17.
Where does the Bible . . .
. . . that the church should, or someday would be divided into competing and disagreeing denominations?
Simple Answer(s):
1) The Bible doesn't use the term "denominations."
2) The Bible does declare that Christ came to bring division.
Luke 12:51-53
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Important Qualification(s):
1) The existence of some divisions is natural. People who speak different languages must necessarily worship separately. Scripture teaches us that the prayers and singing should be in a language understood by the congregants.
1 Corinthians 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
2) The existence of some divisions is desirable from the standpoint of the spread of the gospel.
Acts 15:30-41
So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles. Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.
3) The existence of some divisions is necessary because of false teaching.
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
4) The existence of some divisions is undesirable, particularly within a local church:
1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1 Corinthians 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
Notice that these undesirable divisions are all within a local church. The people are coming together to worship in the same place, but there are divisions or cliques among the people.
- TurretinFan
Saturday, February 27, 2010
10 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
TF, I was going to write this in response to your answer to my last question about division, but opted not to. Since you've used the same passage again (Acts 15) to justify divisions, I suppose I'll write it now.
ReplyDeleteI fail to see how the disagreement between Paul and Barnabus is in any way related to ecclesiastical or denomination schisms. Two people deciding not to work together on a particular evangelistic mission is far different from somebody establishing their own church, denomination, etc. How are you making such a link? Surely you don't see the separation of Paul and Barnabus on par with the fractured, denominational state of the church do you?
Thanks,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
"Surely you don't see the separation of Paul and Barnabus on par with the fractured, denominational state of the church do you?"
ReplyDeleteI do. They refused to cooperate on a missions effort. That's a more significant division than the denominational divisions we see in many places. There are any number of interdenominational missions outreaches today.
There are, of course, some differences as well. Nevertheless, yes, I see it as analogous, which is why I keep using it.
Wow. I disagree with all of that entirely (except the part about differences). I'm truly at a loss on how to see your side on this.
ReplyDeleteBJ
Stupid Scholar
ok
ReplyDeleteYour web page mentions that you were a part of a PCA church for a while. Would you agree that it is easy to imagine that a PCA missionary could team up with say a URC or OPC missionary for a missions trip?
I can't imagine you'd think that their denominational divisions would prevent that.
-TurretinFan
That's not what I'm talking about at all. I've worked with interdenominational missions. The issue to me isn't the missions work but the denominational schisms. When Paul and Barnabus split up, they didn't start rival churches.
ReplyDeleteThe PCA by definition, however, is a rival to the PCUSA. It set up an authoritative structure in order to proclaim the Gospel, yes, but also to oppose another church.
These two situations seem completely unrelated to me. That is where I see the problem in the analogy. Does that make sense?
BJ
Stupid Scholar
"When Paul and Barnabus split up, they didn't start rival churches."
ReplyDeleteBut if rival churches can cooperate together on things like missions how "rival" are they really?
"The PCA by definition, however, is a rival to the PCUSA. It set up an authoritative structure in order to proclaim the Gospel, yes, but also to oppose another church."
There may be a sense in which it is to oppose the PCUSA ... but not to oppose the URC or OPC. Agreed? Obviously, any split has some sense of opposition to the split-from party (at least, at any rate, at the time).
"These two situations seem completely unrelated to me. That is where I see the problem in the analogy. Does that make sense?"
To some degree it does. The two situations are not precisely the same. You seem more focused on the differences than on the similarities.
TF,
ReplyDeleteHonestly, that's because I see pretty much no similarities with the 2 situations, and I haven't seen anything to persuade me otherwise.
BJ
Stupid Scholar
If you can't see any similarities ...
ReplyDeleteuh huh, but it's pretty clear that "oneness" of roman church is not the ONE Jesus speaks about, get a right context because latin theology got this quote completely different way.
ReplyDeleteThe abortion example is dumb, because Bible says murder is wrong, and they disagree only on when it is a murder, and when it is a surgery. I know you have to protect your faulty roman theology since you are a product of it, but take a look at history of the orthodox church and it's dogmas.
What is the "oneness" Jesus speaks about? If you are pointing to the orthodox churches then you have to tell me which one? The abortion example is a perfect example of the fracturing of the faith. You HAVE to say that because you are a product of an offshoot, of an offshoot, of an offshoot, of the Catholic Church. I know that is hard for you guys.
ReplyDelete