Is God Denominational?

[prospectmom]

God is omnipotent, above all , over all, not subject to all this earthly banter.

[VisionOfLehi]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

You are taking upon your Church a burden that, imho, cannot be carried. Israel could not carry it, and sure 'nuf, neither could the Catholic Church. Even the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. The Apostles spent three years walking and talking with the Son of God. Yet, they could not maintain a perfect church, even according to your own theology.

I never said perfect, but rather having all the knowledge.

[Maureen]

Originally Posted by Traveler

I believe this is a most interesting question - that is how does G-d view all of the demonations. I am quite sure that the creation of many demonations is not the work of G-d. I do not think he is pleased that believers divide themselves.

This leads us to one of two possible conclusions.

First. That there is no true demonation authorized by G-d as the holder of his truth.

Second. That there is a true demonation created and authorized by G-d and that all the other demonations are creations of man and have some truth and some error.

If G-d has a true religion it would seem to me that he would also have a true demonation as well. Logic tells me that if there is no authorized demonation that it cannot be argued that there is a true authorized religion.

The Traveler

PC has already pointed this out, but I can't help myself.

I suspect you feel this way because you've always viewed a variety of church organizations in this very dark, disturbing way. Would it be easier if you changed your thinking to:

d-e-n-o-m-i-n-a-t-i-o-n?

M.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by VisionOfLehi

I never said perfect, but rather having all the knowledge.

"Having all knowledge" . . . Omniscience . . . is that not a form of perfection?

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

"Having all knowledge" . . . Omniscience . . . is that not a form of perfection?

It is on Jeopardy.

[Islander]

I tend to see denominations as the byproduct of biblical interpretation and the lack of prophetic guidance that began to be manifest since early in the church. Even at the time of the Apostles, unquestionable witnesses of words Christ and recipients of the doctrine in full, contention begins to creep into the church. There are several passages of the NT that evidenced this:
Matt. 24: 5, 11, 24
1 Tim. 1: 6, 19
2 Pet. 2: 1, 22
1 Cor. 1: 11
1 Cor. 11: 18
Gal. 1: 6

The above passages evidenced that there was, even in the 1st century, serious contention and divisions within the emerging church. As the number of disciples continued to decrease so did the defections and breaking away of the congregations. Some of the most blatant examples of this rebellion is evident on
3 Jn. 1: 9. Here a certain congregation is even refusing to receive the Apostle or his envoy. By this time it is likely that besides him only Peter and Paul remain alive of all the Apostles.

The first 100 or so years of church history, although convoluted, remains more or less a coherent organization. All historians agree today that the schism which eventually became a permanent form of separation between Eastern and Western Christians did not occur suddenly. It was the result of a progressive "estrangement" (the English term used by the French theologian Yves Congar), and cannot even be dated. The churches of Rome and Constantinople were often separated for long periods of time already between the fourth and the ninth centuries. Those early conflicts were sometimes caused by heresies, held in the capital of the Eastern empire (Arianism, 335-381; Monotheletism, 533-680; Iconoclasm, 723-787; 815-842) and rightfully rejected by Rome. Sometimes Rome and Constantinople differed in their attitude in the field of eccliastical oikonomia (the "Neo-Nicean" position, inherited from the Cappadocian Fathers, 381-ca. 400; the attitude to be adopted towards the Henotikon, also referred to as the "Acacian schism", 482-518), and communication was broken on those grounds. Whatever the issue and whoever was at fault, it is clear that, underneath the debate on a concrete theological or disciplinary problem, there was a developing difference on the respective authority of the "apostolic see" of Rome on the one side, and on the other, the idea of a conciliar consensus prevailing in the East.

By the end of the first 1000 years the conditions were met for an even greater schism. With the launching of the Reformation and Martin Luther's thesis, the Protestant church was born and 2600 new religious affiliation would see the light of day based on a myriad of interpretation of the same scriptures in the following 1000 years.

Again, without prophetic guidance, divisions and interpretations and novel approaches to text analysis and the like are bound to continue.

[VisionOfLehi]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

"Having all knowledge" . . . Omniscience . . . is that not a form of perfection?

Okay, okay. I'll rephrase for the picky.

Having all of the knowledge that the LORD has ever revealed unto mortal man.

Not all knowledge in existence.

[Misshalfway]

Originally Posted by VisionOfLehi

I never said perfect, but rather having all the knowledge.

I was gonna say the same thing. Who has a perfect church? LOL!

There will be no perfect church. Only perfect doctrines, or perfect truths and a perfect Savior who invites us to be gathered into one.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by Traveler
I believe this is a most interesting question - that is how does G-d view all of the demonations. I am quite sure that the creation of many demonations is not the work of G-d. I do not think he is pleased that believers divide themselves.

This leads us to one of two possible conclusions.

First. That there is no true demonation authorized by G-d as the holder of his truth.

Second. That there is a true demonation created and authorized by G-d and that all the other demonations are creations of man and have some truth and some error.

If G-d has a true religion it would seem to me that he would also have a true demonation as well. Logic tells me that if there is no authorized demonation that it cannot be argued that there is a true authorized religion.

The Traveler

Originally Posted by Maureen

PC has already pointed this out, but I can't help myself.

I suspect you feel this way because you've always viewed a variety of church organizations in this very dark, disturbing way. Would it be easier if you changed your thinking to:

d-e-n-o-m-i-n-a-t-i-o-n?

M.

Let me explain one simple thought through a question. What does it mean to be "one" with G-d?

My scientific mathematical mind works likes this. If person “A” is one with G-d and person “B” is one with G-d then by the LAW of transitivity person “A” is one with person “B”. But if person “A” and person “B” belong to different denominations the singularity or unity of oneness is a contradiction. The only reason for multiple denominations is because there is an absence of “oneness”.

Therefore if both claim “oneness” with G-d then the only two possible conclusion (under the law of transitive logic) exist in that either one is mistaken or they both are.

The reason for separate denominations is because the believers in each denomination have a slightly different understand of something to which they cannot agree. If I remember correctly Paul was very upset in his day that some Christians had divided themselves based on who had baptized them. So he asked the question “Is Christ divided?”

I think that some may be defining denominations as the LDS define congregations. But even at that I have attended two congregations of the same denominational church within a block of each other– yet they disagreed greatly on several different matters concerning how their congregations should operate and view certain doctrines.

There is nothing I have observed in history or in responses on this forum that indicates to me that G-d is responsible for the enmity that requires there be more than one Christian denomination.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

I was gonna say the same thing. Who has a perfect church? LOL!

There will be no perfect church. Only perfect doctrines, or perfect truths and a perfect Savior who invites us to be gathered into one.

Interesting question in light of Matt 5:48. The ancient understanding of perfect was complete or whole. There is a very real difference that is pointed out in the scriptures between being complete or whole and not having ever had a flaw.

Therefore the question should be – which is complete or whole?

The Traveler