Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
It is interesting that the definition you presented uses the word "sect". The word sect means to cut, to divide. Therefore denominations are cuts, divisions, in the Body. Regardless of the good intentions, that is the result of name-calling and denominations.
|
First, the fact that the dictionary uses the word sect does not prove that it applies. It is generally said that sects are, like cults, the fringes. Therefore, many groups that have been given various names over the years are not referred to as sects.
In any case, the fact of the giving of a name was not generally that of the group that was named, therefore the presumption of being a sect was not of their own doing. It was of those who determined to set them aside as somehow deficient.
You are caught squarely in an error of forcing your preferred definition onto things without any consideration for whether it actually has any real meaning to the discussion. It merely is useful for you in making your points without reference to whether it has any true merit. Baptists, Bible churches, community churches, Matt 29 churches, Presbyterian churches and so many others are not "sects" with respect to each other. Sects are generally groups like the Seventh Day Adventists and others who openly separate from others and even declare themselves as the one true church and others to not be.
Sounds a lot like the LRC. You have to force names to be serious offences (and ignore your own names) so that you can exist that the one true expression of the church. It is a gross mishandling of the Word to do what you do and it demonstrates the lack of qualification for your founder(s), teachers, elders, etc. They are not qualified to hold their positions leaving you are sheep without a shepherd wandering in a quagmire of false teachings.