The Narrow Path Ministries

Hi,

When i read the passage that talks about how believers shouldn't claim to follow Paul or Apollos(i think it's in Corinthians, but i can't remember right now) to me that can be directly applied to denominations of today.

I don't think we as believers have to agree on every little thing, but i do think that we as the body of Christ are to be one body..not all meeting together necessarily, but not cutting each other down and saying that our way is the best and only right way. there seems to be so much denominational pride that causes disunity among the congregations. The church basketball leagues won't even play inter-denominationally...

i find myself not wanting to attend the denominational church my husband has chosen for this reason and reasons connected to it. Am i off my rocker? does anyone else see a problem with this?

jess wrote:When i read the passage that talks about how believers shouldn't claim to follow Paul or Apollos(i think it's in Corinthians, but i can't remember right now) to me that can be directly applied to denominations of today.

Hi Jess. When Paul asked in 1 Cor. 1:12, "Who do you follow?," the fact that he mentioned other names besides Christ doesn't justify denominations at all.

Any thoughts??

Hi Jess,

I am in agreement with you in your application of 1 Corinthians 1. In a situation where various believers were saying, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas" or "I am of Christ," Paul exhorts that we all "say the same thing" (1 Cor.1:10).

This doesn't mean that we have to say the same thing about every theological controversy, but it does mean we must say the same thing when we are identifying who we are "of." The last group, those saying "I am of Christ," is sometimes accused, by popular (usually denominational) preachers, of having as much of a divisive spirit as the other three groups. I think this commentary comes from irritation (conviction?) denominations feel from those who rejact denominationalism and who claim, "I am simply a Christian. I am of Christ."

On the contrary, by asking "Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (v.13), Paul is making a case against those who were saying "I am of Paul." He could have made the same point against those who said "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas." However, he could not make such a point against those who said, "I am of Christ." That is his whole point. They, and they alone, are correct, because it is Christ who was crucified for us and in whose name we are all baptized.

I believe that some denominational churches have managed to surrender most of the "denominational spirit" that inspired their founders to form new groups, so I would not be critical of every denominational church or pastor. Some of them are more receptive to Christians who are of other denominations than are some of, say, the Church of Christ—who say the right thing: "I am of Christ," but who often are more exclusive than other denominations of those who do not share their views.

There is only one body of Christ ---- only one faith!

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:1-6

Concerning the discerning of the Body of Christ, we need to be neither too narrow, nor too broad.

1. Membership in the Body of Christ, is not contingent of philosophical or theological beliefs. We should not refuse to recognize our brethren on the basis that they are pre-millenialists, or post-millenialists, or a-millenialists, or dispensationalists, or trinitarians, or binitarians, or modalists, or universalists, or annihilists, or believers in eternal torment, or believers in going to heaven at death, or believers in remaining truly dead until the resurrection, or Calvinists, or Arminians, or denominationalists, or non-denominationalists, or believers that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, or believers that Christ is diffused throughout the bread and wine, or believers that it is only bread and wine, but when we take it, we are feeding on Christ spiritually, or believers that the bread and wine are no more than symbols, etc., etc., etc. Let's recognize true brethren in spite of theological differences in belief.

2. On the other hand, let's not consider every one professing to be a Christian as a true brother or sister. Let's understand what it means to be a Christian or a disciple of Christ. Only those who have repented and submitted to the authority of Christ (and all that that entails) are our brothers and sisters.

Justin Martyr gave criteria for determining who should be permitted to partake of the bread and wine of communion, that is a test for who is a disciple. It's not an infallible test, but yet it's an effective screen. It went something like this (I'm going by memory ---- not an exact quote):

1. He or she believes that what Christ and His apostles taught is true.
2. He or she has repented and was baptized.
3. He or she is living as Christ enjoined.

or binitarians, or modalists, or universalists

Paidion, aren't we getting into "cult" staus with these???

The question of what a cult is, or who is a cultist, is fairly vague, since the Bible nowhere speaks of cults. The church sometimes uses a criterion of doctrine and sometimes the criterion of authoritarian structure to identify or define a cult.

What Paidion is suggesting is that original, primitive discipleship did not require a signing-on to a complex theological statement. If a man left his nets to follow Christ permanently and to continue in His words, he was regarded as a disciple of Jesus (later called "Christians" in Antioch), regardless how unsophisticated or wrongheaded some of that man's theological concepts may have been.

One who becomes a follower of Christ becomes one who thereafter is a learner under Christ's teachings, and so his/her theological views will begin to take shape according to his/her ability to grasp what Jesus taught (and teaches). However, much of what Jesus taught is deep and mysterious, so that a true disciple might find some things difficult to understand (as, for example, Philip did not understand that Jesus and the Father are one, and Peter found some of Paul's doctrine to be difficult), and may, therefore, have less-correct theology than another disciple has.

When it comes to these mysterious matters, it seems, the church has historically tried to institutionalize one or another viewpoint, and then to excommunicate those holding all other opinions. This is ironic, because it is the very difficulty of these doctrines that requires us to extend greater grace to those who may not grasp them fully or correctly.

Yet all who follow and love Christ, continuing in His words, are His disciples indeed (John 8:31). The church has historically drifted to a credal-based definition to decide who can really be a Christian, rather than a life-based definition. In my opinion, this has led the church to create unnecessary divisions that would have been condemned by Jesus and Paul.

Hi Jess,

I agree with you about denominations being divisive and unbiblical.

Just be wise about when and if you get into it with your husband about this issue.

Michelle

I understand now. I was thinking of the teachings, which are obviously wrong in some of these cases. That is why I was a little alarmed with what Paidion said. I was not thinking of the individual.

Thank you for the clairity Steve.

No problem here, Dolphin. You can think of me as one a believer in some of those teachings which "are obviously wrong".

I am a "binitarian" in the sense that I believe that there are exactly TWO divine Persons which comprise the Deity, and that the the Holy Spirit is the very Persons of the Father and the Son --- extended anywhere in the Universe, and especially in the hearts of the faithful.

I would also be called a "universalist" by some, because I believe, as Paul taught, in the ultimate reconciliation to God of "all things" (including all rational beings).

Paidion wrote:No problem here, Dolphin. You can think of me as one a believer in some of those teachings which "are obviously wrong".

A "cult" is very different from the "occult." I sorta define "cult" as a thought that is outside the "norm," which can actually be a good thing. The early Anabaptists were labeled as "heretics" but some Anabaptists thought that was a good sign because all "heretic" means is that you hold unorthodox opinions contrary to what the majority believes. In context, it was a good thing that the Anabaptists were going against the norm (i.e. – they were heretics or a “cult”) because the norm was the dogma of Roman Catholicism.

And so, in the purest sense of the word, Loaves is a heretic.