Denominations?

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by jms.mills

I could not agree more.

Yet, I still believe there are many individuals out in the Christian world who still have a hard time believing that Christ's original intent was to have one church, united under one doctrine.

I think you’re mistaken here, JMS. Do you know many Christians? I’ve never heard anyone suggest the intent of Christ and the Apostles was for Christians to divide over matters of doctrine. If you happen to be in (or near) Seattle, I can introduce you to some and you can broaden your perspective, if you’d like.

Paul made it extremely clear that there was room for only one doctrine in the early church. If it was the case then, why is that not the case now?

Good question. The short answer is that we are corrupted by the Fall, sinful in thought, word and deed, and as the KJV put it so well—“we see through a glass, darkly.”

That would bring us to the question that Joseph Smith had: Which church is true?

The one that isn’t made up of corrupted, sinful people—of course! Was Joseph Smith able to start such a church?
;0)

At what point does a theology become heretical?

Another good question. A doctrine is heretical when it contradicts the revealed Word of God. For example, in the 4th century Christians faced dissention regarding the person of Jesus Christ. Some argued that since Jesus was the Son of God and that all sons necessarily have a beginning— Jesus was not Eternal God, but was instead a created being.

Despite the seeming logic of these dissenters, their belief was incompatible with Scripture (e.g., John 1). So Christian leaders called a council, reviewed the arguments, weighed them against the Bible, and issued a statement. The statement (creed) served to officially repudiate the heresy and clarify the doctrine that faithful Christians have held before and since.

Now that’s a pretty big and obvious example. All Christians (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) are united on the Trinity. The issues that divide denominations in the Protestant world are much less significant than that. For example, Baptists espouse believer baptism. Lutherans, Presbyterians, and others espouse infant baptism. Both make strong, Biblical arguments for their position. And yet at least one of them must be wrong. But does that make them heretics to one another? I think that’s much too strong a term for the disagreement. Despite the difference--they recognize each other’s baptisms. The Presbyterians don’t send missionaries out to convert the Baptists (and vice-versa). They don’t dispute each others membership in the broader Christian Church.

I’m a member at a non-denominational church in Seattle (Mars Hill Church) that is theologically Reformed Baptist. But we view questions like “The Five Points of Calvinism” in an open-handed manner. Prospective members need not subscribe to the Five Points, they only need to be aware of the position of our pastors and agree not to be divisive. Debate and discussion is encouraged. I think that’s a healthy way to look at many of the issues that divide Christians. Some issues are close-handed (e.g., the doctrine of the Trinity) and other issues are open for discussion and study.

Does this make sense?

--Erik

[AnthonyB]

Erik,

Do Baptist really recognize infant christianing in the US?

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

Erik,

Do Baptist really recognize infant christianing in the US?

Sorry, didn't mean to be ambiguous. I should have clarified that Baptists accept baptisms performed by Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. when those baptisms were performed on adults (or children old enough to articulate their beliefs) as happens in the case of converts. If someone was baptized as an infant and goes to a Baptist Church, they may still recognize the baptism if that person's parents were believers (and not just going through the motions out of some misguided sense of tradition) and the person feels that by being "re-baptized” they would be dishonoring their parents.

--Erik

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

. . . If someone was baptized as an infant and goes to a Baptist Church, they may still recognize the baptism if that person's parents were believers (and not just going through the motions out of some misguided sense of tradition) and the person feels that by being "re-baptized” they would be dishonoring their parents. . . .

In the Lutheran tradition, infants are baptized and the parents, sponsors (or godparents) and entire congregation pledge to support the child in their Christian education. We view infant baptism as the New Testament version of circumcision from the Old Testament. At the age of about 14, and after completing a course of study of Luther's Small Catechism, these young people reaffirm their baptism and become "adult" members of the church (also called confirmation). We clearly believe in "one baptism for the remission of sins."

Does the Baptist Church actually recognize an infant baptism via the criteria you described -- parents were sincere believers and not wanting to offend the convert's parents?

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by TheLutheran

In the Lutheran tradition, infants are baptized and the parents, sponsors (or godparents) and entire congregation pledge to support the child in their Christian education. We view infant baptism as the New Testament version of circumcision from the Old Testament. At the age of about 14, and after completing a course of study of Luther's Small Catechism, these young people reaffirm their baptism and become "adult" members of the church (also called confirmation). We clearly believe in "one baptism for the remission of sins."

Does the Baptist Church actually recognize an infant baptism via the criteria you described -- parents were sincere believers and not wanting to offend the convert's parents?

I can't speak for all Baptists, obviously, but I think that view is pretty common. And we wouldn't use the word "convert" to describe a believing Christian who was raised Lutheran and subsequently became a member at Mars Hill Church. You convert to the Christian faith, not to Mars Hill. Where you choose to gather and collectively worship as a Christian is, I think, largely a matter of individual conscience.

Keep in mind there's no disagreement in the validity of the baptism when the Lutheran Church baptizes an adult (which was my original point, although I didn't qualify it). Afraid I've knocked the thread a bit off track by not being clear on this originally.

[Hemidakota]

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

Some LDS posters seem perturbed by denominations; here are some thoughts I’ve had on the topic. It is still a work in progress and I apologize for its length….

I see the redemptive work of God as central to God’s plan. Creation, Fall, Redemption is a recurring theme in the Bible.

God sets up a perfect situation

People mar God’s perfection by allowing sin or its effects to ravage/corrupt the situation.

God redeems. Redemption does not restore or reform but rather transforms the brokenness/failedness into something wonderfully new. (God does not merely remake the broken pot but rather create an exquisite mosaic from it which is far more precious and beautiful then the original.)

God’s plan was for the church to be one, Jesus specifically prayed for it.

Due to brokenness and failings of his people the church failed to remain one.
I think we can all agree the church (the followers of Jesus) is now not one as Christ intended it.

The question then becomes how does God redeem his church? LDS (and other restorationist groups) see this redemption as coming through their church, that they are the redemptive work of God in His Church. IMHO a presupposition of this view is that the redemption will bring a restoration of the “one church” of the NT times. (Through new revelation to restore the original doctrines and practices in LDS case, or a return to NT teachings in church of Christ)

However an alternate view is that the redemption will not just bring a restoration of NT unity but somehow a transformation of our sin of disunity into a blessing to God’s people. That through the redemptive work of God He is transforming our disunity into a diverse unity. That recognizes that we are one church with various expressions.

The biblical/historical example that comes to mind is Babel. People were one nation and through sinfulness God divided people into nations. God in his redeeming nature developed various cultures through which we can glimpse the creative nature of God expressed through these diverse nations. We still sometimes see the negative outworking of this sin in the strife between nations. IMHO God’s answer to this is not that people should become one nation (with a single culture, language and custom). Rather that we should recognize our unity as humans (the beings made in his image) whilst rejoicing in the diversity of our expressions of that humanness.

The parallel to the church is that we were once a single church. We sinned and failed to stay unified. This often led to strife to between Christians. Rather than seeking to return to one church, we should see the redemptive work of Christ in all our churches. We should recognize our unity as disciples of Christ whilst rejoicing in the diversity of our expressions of that faith.

It will come to a single church, single culture, and one GOD, no matter what is currently be seen. Have faith in that GOD, it can be done.

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

It will come to a single church, single culture, and one GOD, no matter what is currently be seen. Have faith in that GOD, it can be done.

I submit that two of your three (one Church, one God) already exist, and your remaining desire (one culture) is un-Biblical. That last one makes me cringe a bit, suspecting that your cultural reference point may be LDS Utah (white shirts, white faces, organ music, caffeine-free Coca-cola).

Again, I’d encourage you to take a broader, Biblical view of the Church as being the body of Christ to which all Bible-believing Christians belong. See Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:24, and 1 Corinthians 12:27. Is there disunity, disagreement, and division in the Christian Church? Certainly. When you read some of Paul's letters--you'll see it's been that way since the beginning. But don’t let the trees block your view of the forest God has created.
;0)

--Erik

[jms.mills]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

I think you’re mistaken here, JMS. Do you know many Christians? I’ve never heard anyone suggest the intent of Christ and the Apostles was for Christians to divide over matters of doctrine. If you happen to be in (or near) Seattle, I can introduce you to some and you can broaden your perspective, if you’d like.

Eric,

Yes, I know many people from different denominations who profess to be Christian (LDS profess to be Christians too). I grew up in various Pentecostal churches; and, I have attended several Baptist churches as well. In addition, virtually all of my extended family, as well as many of my closest friends, profess to be Christians. I am sorry, but did you think that all LDS live in isolated religious islands (I am sorry if this sounds sarcastic, but I really do wonder what you think)?

I ask my questions from personal experience (not to attack any individual person). I sat through countless Pentecostal Sunday School classes and sermons as a child hearing Sunday School teachers and ministers teach lessons regarding why "we are right" and "the other churches are wrong" (I am not saying this was in every class and sermon, but was a not-so-rare subject). Specifically, why speaking in tongues is a sign of a "true" believer (there were other doctrinal differences discussed too). Then, when I decided to attend a Baptist church as a young adult, I met with the pastor of the church to discuss the doctrinal differences between general Baptist beliefs and general Pentecostal beliefs (I wanted to hear for myself what a Baptist believed, not simply taking someone else's word about what a Baptist believed). I was disheartened to hear once again this minister more or less say, "we are right and they are wrong." Both Pentecostal and Baptist churches use the same Bible, yet they have different doctrines, based on the Bible.

Some, including yourself, may say these differences in doctrine may be insignificant. There can only be one "correct interpretation" of the Bible. To say that there can be many different interpretations of biblical passages effectively removes the authoritativeness that you (and others) declare is found in the Bible. Are you willing to say that Christ or the Apostles had multiple meanings built into their messages? I stand firm in my conviction that the true church must be centered around a unified doctrine.

I came to this conclusion long before I became LDS (I have been a member for almost two years now). After seeing the divisiveness for myself, I simply could not and cannot believe that God could be the author of divisiveness. The only way to settle the differences between the denominations is to go to the source, God. Joseph Smith (I know you will sneer) prayed and received the answer to these differences. I too prayed and found resolution to my question. Justification by the scriptures alone is simply not enough.

So, we could argue back and forth until we are blue in the face. Arguing about this subject will not change the mind of someone who already has their mind made up. In my opinion, the simple fact remains: if you want to know the truth regarding which church is true, you must go to the source. You must pray. Only Heavenly Father, the originator of all pure doctrine, can give you your answer if you ask with sincere intent and are willing to listen to His reply. Studying the scriptures (including the Bible) is important. However, the scriptures are only words -- which can, have, and will be twisted by men to suit their selfish purposes.

I will agree to disagree with you on this issue. I wish you the best in your spiritual journey through this life.

Respectfully,
JMS

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by jms.mills

Joseph Smith (I know you will sneer) prayed and received the answer to these differences. I too prayed and found resolution to my question. Justification by the scriptures alone is simply not enough.

My advice is the same to you, JMS, as it was to Hemidakota. I think you’ve gotten so hung up on the trees and their individual differences and imperfections—that you missed seeing the forest altogether.

There’s a lot of people out there, Christians, who are in full agreement that Jesus is the Eternal God, and they worship Him accordingly. And they take the Bible for what it is—the infallible Word of God. That’s an amazing fact, when you stop and think about it. And it demonstrates the Holy Spirit is at work in our world.

But the question, “Which church is true?” is a non-starter. All Christian churches are made up of fallen corrupted sinners who, “See through a glass darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12). That is the root cause of the differences and arguments we see. You didn’t escape this fact by joining the LDS Church. And ironically, for someone so troubled by inconsistencies, you picked an organization whose theology and doctrines are so conflicted as to be nearly incoherent. (Just try reconciling the Trinitarian statements in the Book of Mormon with what Joseph Smith taught about God(s) in his later years—the Book of Abraham and the King Follett Discourse, for example.)

And regarding your last sentence, JMS, I would submit that Scripture is sufficient for you. Scripture is the revealed Word of God. Scripture is sufficient for you because God is sufficient for you. Suggesting that you need God + Joseph Smith & latter-day prophets diminishes God. If you prayed and got the answer that Joseph Smith’s “restoration” was the solution to denominational differences, a man who taught “Gods” and not God… Please forgive my bluntness, but you dialed the wrong number.

And please accept my apology, as I realize my previous post came across as condescending, especially in light of your history. I often word things poorly and cause needless offense.

In Christ,

--Erik

[jms.mills]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

And please accept my apology, as I realize my previous post came across as condescending

I too have the ability to word posts poorly. I did not feel as though you were beating up on me individually. I realize you do not agree with we LDS, and I do not agree with the premise that the Bible is infallible. I take no personal offense from your comments, I just have a different opinion.

I look forward to future discussions. Hopefully we can keep future posts on the positive side(I know I have been guilty of being somewhat negative too).

God Bless!

JMS