Which denomination?

[Fish Catcher Jim]

I joined 2008, You joined 2013............... you have 5,000 post, I have 2,0000.............. Ummm. Have to do the math on this one, but it looks to be in my favor. I have to take into account most of my membership time has been waiting to get un-banned over and over.

Ahhhhhhhh better be careful for numbers only mean you runneth thy keyboard a lot but doeth not show thy words are pureth and right..... Brother you made this way to easy....Did you really thnk no one would jump on this...
Blessings Brother just haven some funneth......

 

[sojourner4Christ]

So do we settle for intolerance to sin and disobedience, despite some doctrinal differences?

As scripture warns us, the wages of denominationalism are far more consequential than mere "doctrinal differences."

It's never too late to do the right thing.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Ecclesiastes 5
...And a fool’s voice is known by his many words.
.

Can you expound on that please?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

People's Temple???

Are those the folks with the fabulous kool-aid....you know, the one to die for?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

As scripture warns us, the wages of denominationalism are far more consequential than mere "doctrinal differences."

It's never too late to do the right thing.

In one way I agree with this, but in another I'm glad that certain sects are separated and easily identifiable because they are divided away unto themselves.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Protestant

Too broad.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So do we settle for intolerance to sin and disobedience, despite some doctrinal differences?

Yes.

Obedience is what the Christian life is all about, not how correct your non-essential doctrine is. But you would not know that by looking at the modern church.

 

[reba]

Dont be calling me names

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I smell trouble brewing.
:shades

Honestly, no.

At least not until up to this post where it seems you all think we don't, and can't, know the truth. I did not expect those kinds of answers. You're practically loading the double barrel shot gun and pointing it at your own face for every unbeliever and atheist to pull the trigger.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Dont be calling me names

 

[Abigail123]

Which denomination do you think nails it the closest in regard to being a Biblically correct meeting of the body of Christ? Why do you think that? Give examples. Connect them to scripture if possible.

There are closed handed beliefs that to change or disregard would be considered salvation beliefs, for instance Jesus is the Savior, He came in the flesh, etc. These are non negotiables. Then there are open handed beliefs that if person was unsure about or believed one way or another, would not be considered salvation issues, for instance end time beliefs.

These open handed beliefs is what I see most churches not line up with one another. Due to this, we know all can not be correct and we can argue all day about who is right and who js wrong, even using God's Holy Book to "prove" our points. While we're doing that we are widening the chasm, arguing with brethren, and in no way edifying the Lord. Not saying a good healthy discussion should be avoided, after all iron sharpens iron, but do divide further doesn't seem wise, imo.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't know the answer.

At this point in my life I'm inclined to think that the Orthodox and Catholics most closely resemble the early church, per the writings of saints such as Justin Martyr (100-165 AD, acknowledged by the Anglicans, Orthodox and Roman Catholics), Tertullian (160-225 AD) and Iranaeus (Early 2C-202 AD) and considering there were no denominations in Christianity until 1054 AD in the Great Schism, in which Luther's Reformation followed, it could be said that the Orthodox and Catholics most closely resemble Apostolic Christianity. Protestantism was unheard of from the time of the Resurrection until 1054 when the Ortho's and Cath's split... at least this is my understanding.

Even so, they're not perfect, and even they have changed throughout history.

I don't like liturgy. I'm not convinced that the liturgical procedures of, both, the Catholic and Protestant churches is what God had in mind.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There are closed handed beliefs that to change or disregard would be considered salvation beliefs, for instance Jesus is the Savior, He came in the flesh, etc. These are non negotiables. Then there are open handed beliefs that if person was unsure about or believed one way or another, would not be considered salvation issues, for instance end time beliefs.

These open handed beliefs is what I see most churches not line up with one another. Due to this, we know all can not be correct and we can argue all day about who is right and who js wrong, even using God's Holy Book to "prove" our points. While we're doing that we are widening the chasm, arguing with brethren, and in no way edifying the Lord. Not saying a good healthy discussion should be avoided, after all iron sharpens iron, but do divide further doesn't seem wise, imo.

Sure, I can understand that.

Can you think of a specific church whose creed is very solid, and who conduct their meetings very closely to God's will for the meeting of the saints?

I attended an Evangelical Free Church for a while in the nineties. I thought their creed of beliefs was pretty solid. I would have to visit it again to see if I still think that.

It does seem, though, that a church can have a solid creed of foundational beliefs, but be terribly lacking in the practical side of things, you know, how they do things.

 

[Gary]

Can you expound on that please?

Jude 1
16 These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage.
17 But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ:
18 how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts.
19 These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.

.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

God considers "naming the name of Christ" to be iniquity (2 Timothy 2:19).

Huh?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The entire context of Galatians 1:1-16 shows how denominations are of men, and are a different gospel, and how Paul stayed away from such.

Don't you agree, though, that when spirit-less men start denominating themselves that the true church must somehow denominate itself in order to distinguish itself from the others?

What if I started a church and named it 'The True Church of God'? Am I creating a man-made denomination?
(Actually, I like 'Fruits of the Spirit' as a church name.)

With so much false teaching today it seems we have to by default create an official creed in order to denominate us away from that falseness.

 

[twinc]

Sure, I can understand that.

Can you think of a specific church whose creed is very solid, and who conduct their meetings very closely to God's will for the meeting of the saints?

I attended an Evangelical Free Church for a while in the nineties. I thought their creed of beliefs was pretty solid. I would have to visit it again to see if I still think that.

It does seem, though, that a church can have a solid creed of foundational beliefs, but be terribly lacking in the practical side of things, you know, how they do things.

 

[Gary]

it seems you all think we don't, and can't, know the truth.

That's what I don't understand. People treat the truth as if it's unattainable or because there's no perfect church, there's no perfect Christians.

The church isn't perfect, but they go anyway. That just blows me away. People putting their Spiritual well being in the hands of someone who could very well be in error. They acknowledge this and do it anyway.

I don't get it.

.

 

[reba]

Speaking about the one i know best AofG
that organization is messed up big time... yet the little AofG church around the corner may be fine...
I am not against denominations .. I think they serve a purpose... they often match up to our personalities..
some more structured then others..
The fact there are differences in the 4 Gospels does not make any one of them invalid.

See Abigail123's post number 31

 

[Abigail123]

Sure, I can understand that.

Can you think of a specific church whose creed is very solid, and who conduct their meetings very closely to God's will for the meeting of the saints?

I attended an Evangelical Free Church for a while in the nineties. I thought their creed of beliefs was pretty solid. I would have to visit it again to see if I still think that.

It does seem, though, that a church can have a solid creed of foundational beliefs, but be terribly lacking in the practical side of things, you know, how they do things.

Imo, many churches are as you have described. They are only practical in the performances on a Sunday morning and many lack the depth of teaching discipleship.

Anyone can state a spot on creed but actions speak louder than words.

I attended a Baptist church, besides their end time beliefs and their OSAS position, I agreed with everything else. AOG seems true too except for the end time beliefs, their position on OSAS, and their dispensations views, so you see this could go on and on.