Cap'n_Sparrow

Ohio,

But you did choose a side!

You chose your own side...I AM (of Christ)...

Let me explain. I think perhaps that we have traditionally gone about the interpretation of this verse all wrong. It appears to me that Paul was inferring to the Corinthian believers that in their saying that "I am of (whoever it may be...Christ, Paul, Lee, or whoever else), they were also INVERSELY saying "I am (NOT) of (you other brothers and sisters and whoever you lot are "of"). This is the real point! i.e. the Corinthians dividing themselves not necessarily on the basis of who they were "of", but on the basis of who they were "not of". This way of looking at Paul's discourse on this subject travels a long way in adequately explaining his seeming condemnation of even those that claimed that they were "of Christ"! They were inadvertently saying "we are not of you other believers" Yet, Paul admonishes them by saying that those other believers who follow Apollos, and Cephas, etc, ..Christ was also CRUCIFIED FOR! ..They were also baptized into His name! (there is no claim here that anybody was baptized into the names of any of the apostles).

And so, Ohio, when you state that you chose not to choose a side, but left, because you were "of Christ", what is it that you REALLY mean? Really?

Furthermore, Paul, to the Romans, writes that "..and so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another" [Romans 12:5]. And Paul's rhetorical cry "is Christ divided?" bears direct relation with this view. There is no room in this view for "I am of so-and-so and therefore NOT of you". There is no poor, poor Christianity here! No degraded Christendom! The person who thinks otherwise has Paul pointing the finger of condemnation at him as one having his sentiments rooted in the flesh; sentiments that reflect an attitude vainly puffed up by the flesh. "For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?" [1 Cor 3:4]. (Oh, by the way; Cephas -as well as Christ- was not mentioned here EITHER; nevertheless, the point and the principle remains intact).

Which brings me on to my final point. Paul's admonition of the Corinthians in these verses honestly, in my humble opinion, has next to nothing to do with 'nomenclature' or 'denomination'. And it is truly interesting to see how the word 'Denomination', in the LSM culture, was and has been absolutely demonized into a "boogeyman" meant to keep the saints in line. Is Paul really warning the Corinthians never to use 'names'? Such an interpretation is both superficial and preposterous: superficial, as I've shown by my argument above that Paul's polemic implied much deeper issues; and preposterous, as seen in the farce and the fallacy it has exposed in spawning churches whose names are the churches with no names. The doctrine reflects an ignorance of the origins of nomenclature in general. For example, historically, many people's names indicate either the areas they originally came from, or what their professions were, or whose children they were e.g. MacDonald was the son of Donald; Richardson was the son of Richard; Jamie O'Brien was the son of Brian; Daniel the blacksmith in medieval times became Daniel Smith; John the butcher became John Butcher; And Henry from Sutton gradually became known as Henry Sutton (yes that's right, many people were named after the geographical centers i.e. towns, cities, and districts they hailed from that they might be identified more easily, which is the main function of naming). So, how is it that someone wakes up one day and says because we shall call ourselves just "the church in town A" we, therefore, have no name??? I beg to disagree, sir. That is...your name!!!

And how is it that the same person can traipse over to the local government offices to have themselves registered in order to be identified (which is the main function of being named), then swivel around on the pulpit and boldface say, "you know that's just for legal purposes (like that doesn't matter!!!), but we actually don't have a name"...? As a matter of fact the legal registration of the local churches was something I was not aware of for a long time, and I suspect, was deliberately kept in the dark about by the powers-that-be. In fact, such a thing was something that my mind had completely ruled out because I had so wholeheartedly bought into the farce and fallacy of the doctrine of denomination. Am I in support of 'denomination'? No, I'm not. I'm merely declaring it a non-issue and a red herring almost cunningly intended to distract the saints from the real issue at heart. At worst, it has been a powerful political tool that has proved effective in keeping the saints isolated, herded, and mooing together in the theological and ideological cattle-kraal of the so-called "Recovery" (like that's not a name...a duck is a duck).

Brother Ohio, I may have seemed to come off too abrasive with you and I apologize for that, because actually I really do understand where you are coming from and what you must have had to bear with. I do empathize. I, however, felt that I had to adopt a confrontational tone with you in order not just to make my point and stand more lucidly but also so that I might jerk you out of your reverie and invite you to take a more incisive look at things.

...And that's just my two pieces-of-eight on the matter...

...harr, harr, harrr...

God's grace be with you all

Jack.