The Separation of Christianity

[james1523]

The problem is that you are glossing over those words and using them very generally when they mean very different things to different people. For example, we might say we both like 'X', but learn what we think about X is very different. In which case to say we both like 'X' is meaningless because we are talking about different things.

Baptism? Which baptism? The one of water, the one of the holy spirit, or the one of both?
How do they know Jesus is Lord, that He is two distinct persons, both human and divine? Or one person?

Ephesians 4:5 says there is only one baptism. So the question of "which baptism" is pointless. There is only one, so how can you say "which one"?
Scripture says there is only one Lord. So the question about Jesus being two distinct persons is also pointless.

 

[Last Things]

Ephesians 4:5 says there is only one baptism. So the question of "which baptism" is pointless. There is only one, so how can you say "which one"?
Scripture says there is only one Lord. So the question about Jesus being two distinct persons is also pointless.

If there is only one baptism and two people have two different concepts for it, then one does not believe in baptism, only the other who has the correct view. So, despite them both professing baptism, by believe it in two different ways, only one of them can be correct. If both were correct, there would be two baptisms.

In terms of two distinct persons, therefore Jesus must be one, I think you will find people here who disagree. For example, if you mention "Mother of God" a translation of Theotokos, which means God-bearer, you will find Christians who argue that Mary only gave birth to Jesus the human being. That is, she did not give birth to Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, because they would mean she gave birth to God. If Jesus is God, then Mary is the bearer of God.

 

[james1523]

If there is only one baptism and two people have two different concepts for it, then one does not believe in baptism, only the other who has the correct view. So, despite them both professing baptism, by believe it in two different ways, only one of them can be correct. If both were correct, there would be two baptisms.

Two different views about baptism doesn't mean there are "two baptisms", just like having two different views about the Sun doesn't mean there are "two Suns". Two people can have different concepts of the one baptism, but it doesn't change the fact that there is only one baptism.

In terms of two distinct persons, therefore Jesus must be one, I think you will find people here who disagree. For example, if you mention "Mother of God" a translation of Theotokos, which means God-bearer, you will find Christians who argue that Mary only gave birth to Jesus the human being. That is, she did not give birth to Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, because they would mean she gave birth to God. If Jesus is God, then Mary is the bearer of God.

If someone believes you are a woman, and a different person believes you are a man, does that mean there are two of you? Of course not. A person's opinion about you, does not change the fact that there is only one of you.

 

[brakelite]

In terms of the groups you mentioned, I was speaking in the centuries just prior to the reformation.

I was pointing out that in Europe (and elsewhere) there were genuine Christian communities that were not connected in any way to Rome. The Celtic church in Britain was established several hundred years before Augustine set foot on the place. Even Patrick's father was a Christian, evidencing the existence of the church in the second century.

Not sure of what you mean by Roman authority - do you mean beyond the empire or beyond the necessity of being united with the bishop of Rome?

By Roman authority I mean the presumed authority that the church officially cherishes that claims that outside of her jurisdiction...outside of communion with the popes...there is no salvation.

This is obviously an Anglican view. Just prior to the Reformation there was a question of whether or not kings had the authority to appoint bishops or suggest them. This practice continues in the Catholic Church in that a curia suggests a bishop, but it is the Pope that decides if one ought to be a bishop and most certainly as practiced, if a bishop ought not to remain a bishop. The Pope removed bishops. I do not see how kings can be a final authority on the appointing of bishops, as kings are temporal or earthly authority whom by birth, were not considered authorities on matters of faith. It was the bishops that were the teaching authority and so it seems inappropriate that a king, whom were never regarded as spiritual authorities, ought to say who was to be a spiritual authority. Regarding the role of Rome, it was held sense the earliest centuries that the Catholic Church was defined by those bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome. Never did the bishops of Britain argue they were outside of communion until proclaimed by Henry VIII, who was a temporal, not a spiritual authority.

Anglican view? Its history. An extensive network of missionary schools and colleges existed throughout Britain in the early centuries, some surviving up to the 11th or 12 centuries. Iona was just one example. Held by independent (from Rome) Christians they were eventually ousted by force by Benedictine monks around the 12th century or so. Earlier, a college in Wales, I believe called Bangor, was destroyed by a army at the behest of papal emissaries. Over a thousand Christians were slaughtered, men women and children.

Various tribes and and peoples of Europe migrated. The Galatians reached their height around the time of the rise of the Roman empire as traders. Britons are primarily of Anglo origin, the tribe of Germans that were not Christianized until very late. Nevertheless I see how none of this describes some independent Church because it was never practiced as such until the time of Henry VIII. During the western schism in which another man proclaimed himself Pope, Britain took a side.

You ignore established history. You need to read a little more widely, go beyond the lies of your priests and open your mind to truth. Try Wylie's "The History of Potestantism", or Foxe's "Book of Martyrs".

What is your source on this? What wars did Rome engage in following Augustine to establish authority over Britain?

d’Aubigne, History of the Reformation, vol. 5, pp. 41, 42


When the pope had sent Augustine with his forty monks to convert the heathen Anglo-Saxons, Augustine, with the help of Bertha, the Catholic wife of King Ethelbert of Kent, immediately began war on the Celtic Church of Wales. He demanded submission of the Christian society of nearly three thousand members at Bangor in north Wales. It was not long after their refusal to recognize any authority other than the scriptures that over 1000 were killed by a pagan army. For more details on these early days of Christianity in Britain and Ireland many historians have written. Bede, Mosheim, Stokes, Bund, Gibbon, Ussher, Flick, Bower.

The Waldensians were a movement that began in the late 12th Century. They were not an independent historical group. They were a new type of Christianity that emerged as a result of a Manichaeism influence. They were of Gnostic origin and their view of the world as evil lead to the rejection of sacraments, which was picked up by Calvinist/Zwinglii/Anabaptist groups. That is to say, Gnostics believed that things of the world were evil, therefore nothing of the Earth could be used God to be of redemptive value.

No Lst Things, the Waldenses beagn in the 4th century. Men such as Vigilantius, Helvidius, Jovinian were early leaders in the true church who constantly protested the growing paganism appearing within the Roman church. In those early centuries Romes influence was zero outside of Rome. The church elsewhere was vibrant, independent, and growing, had the scriptures unadulterated from the gnostic influences unlike the Vulgate. of Jerome's.
The historian Mosheim said:

The ancient Britons and Scots could not be moved, for a long time,

either by the threats or the promises of the papal legates, to
subject themselves to the Roman decrees and laws; as is
abundantly testified by Beda. The Gauls and the Spaniards, as no

one can deny, attributed only so much authority to the pontiff, as
they supposed would be for their own advantage. Nor in Italy
itself, could he make the bishop of Ravenna and others bow
obsequiously to his will. And of private individuals, there were
many who expressed openly their detestation of his vices and his
greediness of power. Nor are those destitute of arguments who
assert, that the Waldenses, even in this age [seventh century], had
fixed their residence in the valleys of Piedmont, and inveighed
freely against Roman domination .

The same authors as cited above also deal extensively with the Waldensian history, beginning from the 3rd century. They were true heroes of the faith and many died a martyrs death at the hand of papal armies.

Yes, and those groups where Nestorian as far as Iran and Manichean (Gnostic) as far as China.

So the Vatican would have you believe,it is not however quite like that.

 

[Last Things]

Two different views about baptism doesn't mean there are "two baptisms", just like having two different views about the Sun doesn't mean there are "two Suns". Two people can have different concepts of the one baptism, but it doesn't change the fact that there is only one baptism.

Two difference concepts means two different things. How can there be one baptism when one person believes that baptism is done using water, but another person believe that baptism involves the Holy Spirit apart from water. They both believe their baptism is the right one and that it must be done to be saved.That's not one baptism. They cannot operate as a community, or even speak on the subject because there are two very different views.

If someone believes you are a woman, and a different person believes you are a man, does that mean there are two of you? Of course not. A person's opinion about you, does not change the fact that there is only one of you.

But we are not talking about a person or an object. We are talking about two different concepts that involve two distinct things that share the same name.

 

[Last Things]

I was pointing out that in Europe (and elsewhere) there were genuine Christian communities that were not connected in any way to Rome. The Celtic church in Britain was established several hundred years before Augustine set foot on the place. Even Patrick's father was a Christian, evidencing the existence of the church in the second century.

Augustine going to England has nothing to do with its connection with the rest of the Catholic Church. No one disputes that faith was there early on. Where is your evidence it was never part of it? The fact of the matter is that at the time of Henry VIII they were Catholic. They called themselves Catholic. Henry VIII had the title "Defender of the Faith". So at what point did they stop being independent and joined with Rome?
There were not independent churches - that is why they had ecumenical councils, because they were all together.

By Roman authority I mean the presumed authority that the church officially cherishes that claims that outside of her jurisdiction...outside of communion with the popes...there is no salvation.

The Catholic Church does not teach there is no salvation 'outside her jurisdiction'.

Anglican view? Its history. An extensive network of missionary schools and colleges existed throughout Britain in the early centuries, some surviving up to the 11th or 12 centuries. Iona was just one example. Held by independent (from Rome)

The fact they had schools, which would have called themselves Catholic, does not show any independence from Rome.

Christians they were eventually ousted by force by Benedictine monks around the 12th century or so. Earlier, a college in Wales, I believe called Bangor, was destroyed by a army at the behest of papal emissaries. Over a thousand Christians were slaughtered, men women and children.

You aren't referring to any specific historical events you are just being general in a way that cannot be referenced. So I cannot comment. What army? The Papal states raised an army out of Rome, went to Wales and invaded it and burned down a school? If they were 'Non-Catholic Christians' then why didn't England destroy the tiny Papal army?

Your history makes no sense. Bangor college in Wales is a newer school, by the way.

You ignore established history. You need to read a little more widely, go beyond the lies of your priests and open your mind to truth. Try Wylie's "The History of Potestantism", or Foxe's "Book of Martyrs".

Books written to establish that their institutions, which although they were new, they wanted to establish they were more authentically Christian. Protestants accepted the fact they were new, but their justification was that they were more authentic to original Christianity. It wasn't until recently with books like Trail of Blood that protestants began thinking that a 'pure Christianity' had been around.

d’Aubigne, History of the Reformation, vol. 5, pp. 41, 42

Which wars did Rome use to establish authority of Britain?

When the pope had sent Augustine with his forty monks to convert the heathen Anglo-Saxons, Augustine, with the help of Bertha, the Catholic wife of King Ethelbert of Kent, immediately began war on the Celtic Church of Wales.

Really, when was this? Day and year?

He demanded submission of the Christian society of nearly three thousand members at Bangor in north Wales. It was not long after their refusal to recognize any authority other than the scriptures that over 1000 were killed by a pagan army. For more details on these early days of Christianity in Britain and Ireland many historians have written. Bede, Mosheim, Stokes, Bund, Gibbon, Ussher, Flick, Bower.

I don't know to what event you are referring.

Among the Celtic people they did practice their faith in isolation from the rest of the Church due to the Anglos. They had monasteries, priests, confession, Mass, etc.They were anything but protestant. They did not have churches, they relied on monks and monasteries.
Now I see - Bede referred to a monastery at Bangor.

Bangor was attacked by pagan pirates. Whatever your source of information it seems really blurred and twisted. It turns a monastery into a school (monasteries served as schools among other things) and has it attacked by papal armies instead of pirates (Ireland was frequently attacked by pirates). It refers to Celtic Christians as a kind of 'pure Christian' which was incredibly Catholic. They were friendly with the Church - even gave something to the Church - private confession. Before then, you had to confess in public.

This is the problem with anti-Catholic material, they do not address history as it happened or what Catholics believe.

No Lst Things, the Waldenses beagn in the 4th century.

Waldo was a time travel?
"Waldensians, Waldenses, Vallenses or Vaudois are names for a Christian movement which started in Lyon and spread soon to the Cottian Alps in the late 1170s. The movement, named after founder Peter Waldo[...]" - wiki


Men such as Vigilantius[/quote]

An italian Catholic priest, known because Jerome made reference to him.

, Helvidius,

Someone known by a reference of Jerome because he argued against the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Jovinian

Seriously? Another guy known because of Jerome.

were early leaders in the true church who constantly protested the growing paganism appearing within the Roman church.

Where are you getting your history? These are three guys who are mentioned by Jerome and suddenly become 'early leaders in the true church'?
Someone has turned a reference of someone disagreeing with some particular belief or practice into leaders of some separate church.

In those early centuries Romes influence was zero outside of Rome. The church elsewhere was vibrant, independent, and growing, had the scriptures unadulterated from the gnostic influences unlike the Vulgate. of Jerome's.

The epistle of Clement? The removal of Bishops? Rome had a lot of influence. What years are you talking about?
How on Earth is the Vulgate a 'gnostic influence'? And what particular versions/manuscripts are you referring to?
If Jerome and the Vulgate and wrong, then the KJV is wrong. The KJV is partially based on the Latin Vulgate.

The historian Mosheim said:

The ancient Britons and Scots could not be moved, for a long time,

either by the threats or the promises of the papal legates, to
subject themselves to the Roman decrees and laws; as is
abundantly testified by Beda. The Gauls and the Spaniards, as no

one can deny, attributed only so much authority to the pontiff, as
they supposed would be for their own advantage. Nor in Italy
itself, could he make the bishop of Ravenna and others bow
obsequiously to his will. And of private individuals, there were
many who expressed openly their detestation of his vices and his
greediness of power. Nor are those destitute of arguments who
assert, that the Waldenses, even in this age [seventh century], had
fixed their residence in the valleys of Piedmont, and inveighed
freely against Roman domination .

Your information is not accurate. Mosheim was an 18th Century Lutheran.

The same authors as cited above also deal extensively with the Waldensian history, beginning from the 3rd century. They were true heroes of the faith and many died a martyrs death at the hand of papal armies.

So the Vatican would have you believe,it is not however quite like that.

I am just citing history. What you are referring to is a variant of Landmarkism which was developed by a few American baptists just before the Civil War to assert that baptists were actually always around. This is opposed to the actual history in which Baptists came from Anabaptists who developed from Luther's idea but went further and wanted an anti-sacramental, anti-liturgical Church. Baptists developed about a century later.

This view is most known from the 1930s work Trail of Blood in which a Baptist minister tried to connect any disagreement or movement, no matter in what part of the world to argue that a 'true (Baptist) Christianity' always existed. This was later adapted outside of Baptists to a kind of 'generalized true Christianity' that always existed. This view later developed that thousands, tens of thousands, last I heard it was tens of millions, of 'true Christians' were martyred by the Catholic Church.

The arguments, as I have pointed out, rely on twisting and misleading people on Christian history. Taking a reference, for example, of Jerome to a Catholic priest criticizing a particular practice and making them out to be some leader of a separate 'true Christian' church. I noticed that some of your material comes from a new spin on it - that now it was Waldensians who were always around.

 

[james1523]

Two difference concepts means two different things. How can there be one baptism when one person believes that baptism is done using water, but another person believe that baptism involves the Holy Spirit apart from water. They both believe their baptism is the right one and that it must be done to be saved.That's not one baptism.

How baptism is done does not change the fact that there is only one baptism. Scripture says there is "one baptism" (Eph 4:5), so clearly, having many baptisms is not scriptural. Will we believe what scripture says or will we believe concepts and opinions of man?

Given that there is one Lord, there can be 100 different concepts about the Lord, but it doesn't change the fact there is only one Lord.

They cannot operate as a community, or even speak on the subject because there are two very different views..

The difference of views is not the problem, it is the lack of love and lack of self denial. They divide over opinions and concepts rather than maintaining unity in the Spirit.

But we are not talking about a person or an object. We are talking about two different concepts that involve two distinct things that share the same name.

So the Lord is not a person? When scripture says there is one Lord, it doesn't mean there is one concept about the Lord, it means that there is one person called the Lord Jesus Christ. If we both have the same Lord, there is no reason for us to remain divided, even if you believe he had black skin and I believe he had yellow skin. Having different opinions about the Lord, does not change the fact there is only one Lord. If people divide themselves based on their opinions, it shows they are "mere men", not spiritual. The basis of our Christian unity is that we have the same Lord, the same Spirit, and if the Lord has accepted a person, then we should accept them also, regardless of their differences in opinion. Often human beings are much more judgemental and narrower than God who does not play favourites. We can consider that a Christian denomination or sect is nothing more than a product of "divorce", disharmony, and argument between brothers and sisters in Christ. We can say that a denomination is here, because someone ,somewhere, at some time ,decided to take it upon themselves to cut the Body of Christ into pieces.

 

[Last Things]

How baptism is done does not change the fact that there is only one baptism. Scripture says there is "one baptism" (Eph 4:5), so clearly, having many baptisms is not scriptural. Will we believe what scripture says or will we believe concepts and opinions of man?

Given that there is one Lord, there can be 100 different concepts about the Lord, but it doesn't change the fact there is only one Lord.

You are doing two completely different things and calling it the same thing. If I called dogs and cats one name that does not mean they are the same thing.

The difference of views is not the problem, it is the lack of love and lack of self denial. They divide over opinions and concepts rather than maintaining unity in the Spirit.

There is no unity unless they share a common faith. Having people believing 10,000 different things and saying they are of one faith seems to be a mockery of the Holy Spirit - showing Him as an author of confusion.

So the Lord is not a person? When scripture says there is one Lord, it doesn't mean there is one concept about the Lord, it means that there is one person called the Lord Jesus Christ. If we both have the same Lord, there is no reason for us to remain divided, even if you believe he had black skin and I believe he had yellow skin. Having different opinions about the Lord, does not change the fact there is only one Lord. If people divide themselves based on their opinions, it shows they are "mere men", not spiritual. The basis of our Christian unity is that we have the same Lord, the same Spirit, and if the Lord has accepted a person, then we should accept them also, regardless of their differences in opinion. Often human beings are much more judgemental and narrower than God who does not play favourites. We can consider that a Christian denomination or sect is nothing more than a product of "divorce", disharmony, and argument between brothers and sisters in Christ. We can say that a denomination is here, because someone ,somewhere, at some time ,decided to take it upon themselves to cut the Body of Christ into pieces.

You are arguing what we can all believe and do a million different things and as long as we all agree to call it the same thing, then we are in unity. That unity is just in name, not what is believed or done. To me that's false unity.

 

[james1523]

You are doing two completely different things and calling it the same thing. If I called dogs and cats one name that does not mean they are the same thing.

The Bible says "there is ....one baptism" Ephesians 4:5, and yet you insist there is more than one baptism. Believing in more than one baptism is almost as bad as believing in more than one God. Do you believe there is only one baptism, or do you go against Scripture by saying there are more than one? And how many Gods do you believe there are?

There is no unity unless they share a common faith. Having people believing 10,000 different things and saying they are of one faith seems to be a mockery of the Holy Spirit - showing Him as an author of confusion.

If every believer has faith in the same one Lord, and they should , otherwise they are not believers...and there is only one Lord, then they share a common faith. That is why Christians in different countries, different backgrounds and cultures, different opinions, can come together and worship God. That is unity, it's not meant to be complicated.

You are arguing what we can all believe and do a million different things and as long as we all agree to call it the same thing, then we are in unity. That unity is just in name, not what is believed or done. To me that's false unity.

What it's called does not matter if it is indeed the same thing. Consider churches in different countries, maybe they call Jesus by a different name according to their own language, but it is the same one Lord.

 

[Last Things]

The Bible says "there is ....one baptism" Ephesians 4:5, and yet you insist there is more than one baptism. Believing in more than one baptism is almost as bad as believing in more than one God. Do you believe there is only one baptism, or do you go against Scripture by saying there are more than one? And how many Gods do you believe there are?

I believe there is only one baptism, but that some Christians have a practice they call baptism which has nothing to do with actual baptism. What you are advocating is that we accept false and true baptisms because they are both called baptism. There cannot be two baptisms that are both baptism because we use the same word. This is for the sake of saying there is 'one baptism'.

If every believer has faith in the same one Lord, and they should , otherwise they are not believers...and there is only one Lord, then they share a common faith. That is why Christians in different countries, different backgrounds and cultures, different opinions, can come together and worship God. That is unity, it's not meant to be complicated.

But completely different concepts of the Lord are a problem. If we don't believe in the same concept of the Lord, then we do not believe in one Lord.

What it's called does not matter if it is indeed the same thing. Consider churches in different countries, maybe they call Jesus by a different name according to their own language, but it is the same one Lord.

It's not the same thing. We can have different names for one thing, but also the same name for different things. A Church cannot be united if we go around doing different things and calling them the same name and saying this is from the Holy Spirit. It makes the Holy Spirit out to be the author of confusion.

 

[james1523]

I believe there is only one baptism, but that some Christians have a practice they call baptism which has nothing to do with actual baptism. What you are advocating is that we accept false and true baptisms because they are both called baptism. There cannot be two baptisms that are both baptism because we use the same word. This is for the sake of saying there is 'one baptism'.

What about Ephesians 4 leads you to believe that it is talking about concepts, and not real practices, objects or persons. When it says there is one Lord, it doesn't mean one concept about the Lord, it means there is one person called the Lord. Even the 12 disciples had different concepts about the Lord, but they were all His disciples. Church is like one big family. Imagine if everyone in a family believed the same thing and had the same concepts, it would be more like a cult than a family. But they still the same family because they have the same Father and Mother, with God our Father and Jerusalem our Mother.

 

[Last Things]

What about Ephesians 4 leads you to believe that it is talking about concepts, and not real practices, objects or persons. When it says there is one Lord, it doesn't mean one concept about the Lord, it means there is one person called the Lord. Even the 12 disciples had different concepts about the Lord, but they were all His disciples. Church is like one big family. Imagine if everyone in a family believed the same thing and had the same concepts, it would be more like a cult than a family. But they still the same family because they have the same Father and Mother, with God our Father and Jerusalem our Mother.

Let me put this simply, if I say "dogs" in reference to cats and you say "dog" in reference to dogs, are we talking about the same thing?

 

[james1523]

Let me put this simply, if I say "dogs" in reference to cats and you say "dog" in reference to dogs, are we talking about the same thing?

No they are different things. But this example is of having the same two concepts ("dogs") , in reference to two different things.
This is not the situation I am talking about here.
The situation is if I say "cats" in reference to dogs, and you say "dog" in reference to dogs, then we are both talking about the same thing. This is the situation in Christianity today - different concepts about the same Jesus. Not the same concept about different Jesus's (as your dog and cat example portrays). Christians can be united in having different concepts about the same Jesus - this is the situation in denominationalism. But they cannot be united in having the same concept about different Jesus's -this is the situation between Christian Jesus and new age Jesus.

The point Paul is making in Ephesians 4, is that all Christians can and should be united because they have one Lord. He never says they can be united because they have the same "concept about the Lord". In fact it is nearly impossible to find another Christian who has the same concepts as ourselves, and those who try to base Christian unity on having the same concepts, invariably end up in sectarianism ("my church is the best") or individualism ("no church is good enough for me"). But those who base Christian unity on having the same Lord, can fellowship and meet with any Christian.

 

[Last Things]

No they are different things. But this example is of having the same two concepts ("dogs") , in reference to two different things.
This is not the situation I am talking about here.
The situation is if I say "cats" in reference to dogs, and you say "dog" in reference to dogs, then we are both talking about the same thing. This is the situation in Christianity today - different concepts about the same Jesus. Not the same concept about different Jesus's (as your dog and cat example portrays).

A dog is a dog and looks like a dog. A cat is a cat and looks like a cat.

Baptism by the holy spirit through water and baptism by the holy spirit with a later symbolic dunking in water as a profession of faith are two completely different things.

If it exists in the mind or in action differently, then it is a different thing. We are obviously not talking about calling dogs cat while the other calls dog a dog. Why? Because Cat is dog and dog is dog uses a different word.

Baptism uses the SAME word, therefore you are calling two different things the same word, not the same thing different words. We are not talking about baptism and '___________', we are talking about baptism and baptism when they refer to different things.

 

[james1523]

Baptism by the holy spirit through water and baptism by the holy spirit with a later symbolic dunking in water as a profession of faith are two completely different things.

If both are baptisms "by the Holy Spirit" then they are the same baptism and not "completely different" as you claim. There is only one baptism and this baptism is "into Christ" or into the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Christ: Gal 3:27 "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.".

 

[Fenn]

Christian unity is not based upon doctrine or opinions about whether we can lose our salvation or not, or what day should we worship, or should we eat pork, or listen to rock music, but upon these one things:
One body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God, and one Father. Every Christian can agree on these 8 simple matters. It is by these 8 "one" things that the early Christians lived and had unity, and there were no divisions. Some came from Jew, some were Gentile background, some ate pork, some didn't, some worshiped in Saturday, others on Sunday, but they all lived in relative harmony with a single purpose to advance the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 4:4 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called;5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

All of the things which have happened in history are in the past, and there's nothing can be changed about that, but Christians should be looking forward to the future in which there is only one faith and one body and doing what they can to make this happen. Those who seek oneness between brothers and sisters in Christ have received the Father's heart and have their will aligned with the desires and prayers of Christ and the apostles.

doctrine : a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

Christian unity can only be based upon doctrine. One must have a set of beliefs in order to be a group. If there is no group, then there is no unity.

On the 8 simple matters that you list, how many do all denominations agree on?

These 8 simple matters indeed make up a doctrine.

I believe there can be unity as long as the core doctrine, salvation doctrine, remains the same between two sets of people.

If you have group A who believes that speaking in tongues is required for salvation, group B who requires baptism in water, and group C who requires works for salvation, then how can there ever be unity? Would you call any or all of these groups Christian?
How then, looking for a church, would you find someone with similar salvation doctrine without a name for that doctrine? I believe there can be unity between multiple denominations and multiple non-denominations as long as the salvation doctrine remains the same.

 

[james1523]

doctrine : a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

Christian unity can only be based upon doctrine. One must have a set of beliefs in order to be a group. If there is no group, then there is no unity.

On the 8 simple matters that you list, how many do all denominations agree on?

These 8 simple matters indeed make up a doctrine.

I believe there can be unity as long as the core doctrine, salvation doctrine, remains the same between two sets of people.

If you have group A who believes that speaking in tongues is required for salvation, group B who requires baptism in water, and group C who requires works for salvation, then how can there ever be unity? Would you call any or all of these groups Christian?
How then, looking for a church, would you find someone with similar salvation doctrine without a name for that doctrine? I believe there can be unity between multiple denominations and multiple non-denominations as long as the salvation doctrine remains the same.

Doesn't matter how many salvation doctrines you have, if you don't actually have the person of Jesus Christ. Right? So the unity is not based upon these 'salvation doctrines', but upon having the person of Christ.

There can not be unity between denominations because denominations themselves are subgroups within Christianity. The very existence of denominations implies disunity. The word denominate means to call, to label, to term. In 1 Cor 1:11-12 Paul did not want believers to name themselves, after servants of God, or even to name themselves "of Christ".

Regarding doctrine, the doctrine is about the 8 simple matters mentioned in Ephesians 4:1-6. If two Christians, sects or denominations, cannot agree on basic doctrine, e.g. that Jesus is Son of God, and has come in the flesh, then they are NOT Christian.

Paul lists the basis of Christian unity in Ephesians 4:1-6. Please read it, and re-read again. Nothing there about the role of tongues, methods of baptism, works for salvation, these are not important. It is only carnal (unspiritual) persons who have made these matters important, and then to divide themselves into sects and denominations (can the eye say to the hand "I don't need you"?..is Christ divided? ).

There is one simple question to ask anyone supporting denominations or sect, and it's the same question Paul asked the Corinthians: "Is Christ divided?" (1 Cor 1:13)? Obviously the answer is NO, and the very question is meant for us to ask ourselves "if Christ is not divided, then why are we divided?". Why is unity important to God? Firstly and mainly because He is a Unity, a Tri-Unity, secondly because we are His children, and we're supposed to look like our Father (in unity, not disunity), and thirdly because we are Christ's body, bearing His testimony to the world, and disunity ruins the testimony of Christ. Companies like MacDonalds or KFC, have many stores around the world, and yet all look the same, taste the same, and can display great unity - all their stores around the world project the same image, the same colours, the same message. I've been to many countries, but I know that whatever KFC store I go into in any country, I know what to expect, it's pretty much the same (some minor differences of course). This is why these companies are so successful. If the worldly companies can do it, why can't the Christian?

 

[Last Things]

If both are baptisms "by the Holy Spirit" then they are the same baptism and not "completely different" as you claim. There is only one baptism and this baptism is "into Christ" or into the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Christ: Gal 3:27 "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.".

Those are two different things involving two completely different actions with two completely different theologies. If churches were to ignore this and some group did this and some group did that, one says this and the other says that, how is it not showing a sign of division?

 

[Last Things]

Doesn't matter how many salvation doctrines you have, if you don't actually have the person of Jesus Christ. Right? So the unity is not based upon these 'salvation doctrines', but upon having the person of Christ.

There can not be unity between denominations because denominations themselves are subgroups within Christianity. The very existence of denominations implies disunity. The word denominate means to call, to label, to term. In 1 Cor 1:11-12 Paul did not want believers to name themselves, after servants of God, or even to name themselves "of Christ".

Regarding doctrine, the doctrine is about the 8 simple matters mentioned in Ephesians 4:1-6. If two Christians, sects or denominations, cannot agree on basic doctrine, e.g. that Jesus is Son of God, and has come in the flesh, then they are NOT Christian.

Paul lists the basis of Christian unity in Ephesians 4:1-6. Please read it, and re-read again. Nothing there about the role of tongues, methods of baptism, works for salvation, these are not important. It is only carnal (unspiritual) persons who have made these matters important, and then to divide themselves into sects and denominations (can the eye say to the hand "I don't need you"?..is Christ divided? ).

There is one simple question to ask anyone supporting denominations or sect, and it's the same question Paul asked the Corinthians: "Is Christ divided?" (1 Cor 1:13)? Obviously the answer is NO, and the very question is meant for us to ask ourselves "if Christ is not divided, then why are we divided?". Why is unity important to God? Firstly and mainly because He is a Unity, a Tri-Unity, secondly because we are His children, and we're supposed to look like our Father (in unity, not disunity), and thirdly because we are Christ's body, bearing His testimony to the world, and disunity ruins the testimony of Christ. Companies like MacDonalds or KFC, have many stores around the world, and yet all look the same, taste the same, and can display great unity - all their stores around the world project the same image, the same colours, the same message. I've been to many countries, but I know that whatever KFC store I go into in any country, I know what to expect, it's pretty much the same (some minor differences of course). This is why these companies are so successful. If the worldly companies can do it, why can't the Christian?

Some groups do not believe that are a division or subset, they believe they are the original group that others left.

 

[Fenn]

Doesn't matter how many salvation doctrines you have, if you don't actually have the person of Jesus Christ. Right? So the unity is not based upon these 'salvation doctrines', but upon having the person of Christ.

I am not arguing that there should be many salvation doctrines. I am merely stating that there are many. Agreed, you need to have Jesus Christ to be saved. ( Some salvation doctrines don't base their doctrine on Jesus and yet still claim to be Christian).

There can not be unity between denominations because denominations themselves are subgroups within Christianity. The very existence of denominations implies disunity. The word denominate means to call, to label, to term. In 1 Cor 1:11-12 Paul did not want believers to name themselves, after servants of God, or even to name themselves "of Christ".

Okay, God did not want denominations. God also did not want sin. He allowed it.
Did you happen to read 1 Corinthians 1:10?
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.

Let us say that we remove the labels from different churches and that we join in hands, and yet still have a different belief. Is this following all that is advised by Paul? How then can we speak the same and be perfectly joined in the same mind? We cannot until Christ brings this about.

Regarding doctrine, the doctrine is about the 8 simple matters mentioned in Ephesians 4:1-6. If two Christians, sects or denominations, cannot agree on basic doctrine, e.g. that Jesus is Son of God, and has come in the flesh, then they are NOT Christian.

Paul lists the basis of Christian unity in Ephesians 4:1-6. Please read it, and re-read again. Nothing there about the role of tongues, methods of baptism, works for salvation, these are not important. It is only carnal (unspiritual) persons who have made these matters important, and then to divide themselves into sects and denominations (can the eye say to the hand "I don't need you"?..is Christ divided? ).

I read Ephesians 4:1-6 and I re-read it. I also read further.
Ephesians 4
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.


This shows as I say above that we will be separate until Christ makes us full in Him. It also says that many will be carried about with many doctrines and that many doctrines have begun just to deceive. This means that they are wrong and should not be joined, but that those with incorrect doctrines should give them up and join with the main body. This does not say that the main body should ignore the fact that some base doctrine, not on God's word, but on their own wisdom.

There is one simple question to ask anyone supporting denominations or sect, and it's the same question Paul asked the Corinthians: "Is Christ divided?" (1 Cor 1:13)? Obviously the answer is NO, and the very question is meant for us to ask ourselves "if Christ is not divided, then why are we divided?". Why is unity important to God? Firstly and mainly because He is a Unity, a Tri-Unity, secondly because we are His children, and we're supposed to look like our Father (in unity, not disunity), and thirdly because we are Christ's body, bearing His testimony to the world, and disunity ruins the testimony of Christ. Companies like MacDonalds or KFC, have many stores around the world, and yet all look the same, taste the same, and can display great unity - all their stores around the world project the same image, the same colours, the same message. I've been to many countries, but I know that whatever KFC store I go into in any country, I know what to expect, it's pretty much the same (some minor differences of course). This is why these companies are so successful. If the worldly companies can do it, why can't the Christian?

The answer is simple. You have many McDonald's. They are all very similar. Now let us say that I want to start a burger joint and I want it to be successful. I don't want to be McDonald's, I don't want to be tied to all of the rules and regulations they have. A little freedom is good. So, I open up a store with similar colors and call it McDonold's. Many people will come because they wont notice the difference in letters. Many will say it is better than McDonald's and many will say it existed before McDonald's. Does this sound familiar? McDonold's can never join McDonald's, and McDonald's cannot allow McDonold's to join or claim they are one. They are not the same and never will be. They don't belong to the same company.
McDonald's are one company.
Not all denominations are part of the body of Christ. Which ones are and which ones aren't? Well, you have to look at the fruit they bear and measure them against the word of God. If they do not stand up to the word of God, then they are not of God.