Why Everyone Else is a Denomination

[Evangelical]

I thought this post by Terry in the other thread should be addressed:

Originally Posted by Terry

I have heard no sound argument to refute why everyone else is a denomination, but not the local churches. Exact as the local churches speak, there are many fellowship of churches that regard as everyone else as denominations but not themselves. You have Exclusive Brethren, Iglesia Ni Christo, International Church of Christ, etc.
Rebuttals please.

Let's go back to basics, the very word denomination itself. The word denomination comes from root word "to name", it really means de-name-iation. As soon as a group names itself, it becomes a de-name-iation. That's the difference.

Now someone might say, "it's just a name, sticks and stones", but consider, that to name something is to classify something according to that name.

For example, I have a bag of apples. 5 are green and 10 are red. I name them the bag of "green apples" and "red apples". When I look at the bag I no longer see them as apples, I see their color. The next thing I do is to separate them into separate bags, and label one bag "green apples", and the other "red apples". I divided the apples and it started with me naming them according to their color.

To classify means:

arrange (a group of people or things) in classes or categories according to shared qualities or characteristics.

To classify things means to divide them into groups or types so that things with similar characteristics are in the same group. (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...glish/classify).

Names by themselves, they are just names. But a name is a classification according to some characteristics. And a classification is a division.

See the problem with names now? And everyone knows that names matter for babies and marriages, but how come Christians think they don't matter for churches?

Clearly, a denomination has to do with names, or classifying believers, that invariably leads to their division.

What is the Biblical proof that naming or classifying the church is wrong?

Actually, it is okay to name or classify the church, otherwise how could we refer to anyone? But the only classification that the Bible gives a church is its locality eg Corinth and refers to the Christians in that place by their locality name e.g. "the Corinthians". So this is not a matter of right or wrong, but whether we want to use the biblical naming system or a man-made naming system?

Bible - no record of the apostles e.g. Paul ever addressing a church by a name other than locality. Could he have? Sure. Did he? No. Why? Because there's only one church, naming groups of believers by their nonessential characteristics didn't make much sense. Naming a church according to their particular heresy or failure didn't make much sense either.

History - all "denominations" in the early church were heretics. eg Judaizers, gnostics etc.
A good overview of denominations through the ages here:
http://www.astudyofdenominations.com/overview/

This idea of naming the church has resulted in other concepts which are not found in the Bible:

"Finding a (good, suitable, pentecostal, friendly, biblical (insert any other de-name-iating characteristics here) ) church"

Ecumenism - different denominations coming together to pretend they are not denominations. The next Sunday, go back to de-name-iating themselves.

[Koinonia]

Evangelical, if it is so important to you, then--okay, we will let you say that you are not a denomination. But you are a sect (the sect of Witness Lee). And that has nothing to do with your name (or no-name).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, if it is so important to you, then--okay, we will let you say that you are not a denomination. But you are a sect (the sect of Witness Lee). And that has nothing to do with your name (or no-name).

The way this works Koinonia is that whenever you call a group a sect, you by implication must believe in a true church that a sect is "cut" from. So when you say we are a sect, you are either saying your denomination or group is the true church, or some other group. Can you name a group that are not a sect then? Is it Catholics?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The way this works Koinonia is that whenever you call a group a sect, you by implication must believe in a true church that a sect is "cut" from. So when you say we are a sect, you are either saying your denomination or group is the true church, or some other group. Can you name a group that are not a sect then? Is it Catholics?

Bingo! The "true church" is not a group. The "true church" is the only church there is--the church that Jesus is building, the Body of Christ. I suppose that anything smaller would be a sect. So, your group, the Witness Lee group, would certainly qualify.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Bingo! The "true church" is not a group. The "true church" is the only church there is--the church that Jesus is building, the Body of Christ. I suppose that anything smaller would be a sect. So, your group, the Witness Lee group, would certainly qualify.

Well spiritually, everyone believes that about the true church, even Catholics, but I'm talking practically. Practically is much trickier, because it involves real people with problems.

And every other group? Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist etc. Are you consistent with this belief that the true church is not a group? Or your particular denomination or fellowship?

Just asking because each person on here has a different view. You could be baptist and telling me we're a sect because we are not baptist, or a sect because we are not Catholic. How can I know that?

Some see all denominations as genuine local expressions. If so, then we are not a sect either.

One fellow is Orthodox and we all know what they believe - they are the true church.

Some might see non-denom fellowships or house churches as genuine local expressions, if so, we may or may not be a sect.

If you think baptist is the only true church, well then we're a sect I guess.

That's why I prefer absolute definitions. What is the absolute definition of the church, and then what is the absolute definition of a sect?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well spiritually, everyone believes that about the true church, even Catholics, but I'm talking practically.

And every other group? Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist etc. Are you consistent with this belief? Or your particular denomination or fellowship?

Just asking because each person on here has a different view. You could be baptist and telling me we're a sect because we are not baptist, or not a sect because we are not Catholic.

Some see all denominations as genuine local expressions.

One fellow is Orthodox and we all know what they believe.

Some might see non-denom fellowships or house churches as genuine local expressions.

I personally do not belong to any denomination. I also no longer subscribe to "one true church"-ism. For any group to claim to be the "true church" is at best myopic, at worst blasphemous.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The way this works Koinonia is that whenever you call a group a sect, you by implication must believe in a true church that a sect is "cut" from.

And you are correct. The true church is the totality of the body of believers. It is your group that cuts from it by declaring only yours to be "true church." Therefore the designation "sect' fits quite well.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"Finding a (good, suitable, pentecostal, friendly, biblical (insert any other de-name-iating characteristics here) ) church"

Ecumenism - different denominations coming together to pretend they are not denominations. The next Sunday, go back to de-name-iating themselves.

So you're trying to sell us on the fact that The Lord's Recovery, AKA, the Local Church, AKA The Church in XYZ, AKA Living Stream Ministry is not a naming characteristic both in practice and in theory?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

So you're trying to sell us on the fact that The Lord's Recovery, AKA, the Local Church, AKA The Church in XYZ, AKA Living Stream Ministry is not a naming characteristic both in practice and in theory?

It's not a problem to name the church if it is the locality. That is the only truly scriptural approved naming convention, there is no other.

In referring to the church they are descriptions, not names. It is what it is, not what it is called. There is no denomination called "the Local Churches", it is "the local churches". I would call my wife, "wife", not "Wife".

Ministries can have a name just like people and objects can have names. No issue with Living Stream Ministries.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's not a problem to name the church if it is the locality. That is the only truly scriptural approved naming convention, there is no other.

In referring to the church they are descriptions, not names. It is what it is, not what it is called. There is no denomination called "the Local Churches", it is "the local churches". I would call my wife, "wife", not "Wife".

Ministries can have a name just like people and objects can have names. No issue with Living Stream Ministries.

For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate with your self imposed "biblical naming convention", but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate with your self imposed "biblical naming convention", but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

The biblical naming convention is biblical nonetheless, I have seen no arguments ever in support of naming the church and I haven't even seen anyone try to use the bible to argue for naming the church which is well and good because I don't think such an argument can be sensibly made. Most Christians I think agree denominations are a less than ideal situation, or a temporary way to keep the peace until Christ returns. But it doesn't explain why they have to have different names. Because to name is to classify, and to classify is to divide. Naming seems to make the problem worse, not better. For example if I had a family of children and I named one big ears Freddy and big nose Tommy, I think it would divide those brothers based upon their physical features and they would probably argue and fight and call each other names.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The biblical naming convention is biblical nonetheless, I have seen no arguments ever in support of naming the church and I haven't even seen anyone try to use the bible to argue for naming the church which is well and good because I don't think such an argument can be sensibly made. Most Christians I think agree denominations are a less than ideal situation, or a temporary way to keep the peace until Christ returns. But it doesn't explain why they have to have different names. Because to name is to classify, and to classify is to divide. Naming seems to make the problem worse, not better. For example if I had a family of children and I named one big ears Freddy and big nose Tommy, I think it would divide those brothers based upon their physical features and they would probably argue and fight and call each other names.

I agree with you for the most part. But, yet, I fear you don't understand.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's not a problem to name the church if it is the locality. That is the only truly scriptural approved naming convention, there is no other.

In referring to the church they are descriptions, not names. It is what it is, not what it is called. There is no denomination called "the Local Churches", it is "the local churches". I would call my wife, "wife", not "Wife".

Ministries can have a name just like people and objects can have names. No issue with Living Stream Ministries.

But the description "the church in X" refers to all the believers in X, not to your group.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

But the description "the church in X" refers to all the believers in X, not to your group.

I agree and that's what we try for to include all believers in the city.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree and that's what we try for to include all believers in the city.

And how do you go about doing that?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now it's you I don't understand. It was a simple honest request. But I guess you are right, I can pretty much guess at what he's driving at.

So if he doesn't want to explain himself fully, I guess this thread is pointless.

Hey brother Blended Brother (no ad hom intended, and you know that - Untohim isn't informed), bring it down to AltVs, and finish your OP there. Then we can really have at it.

The OP is finished.

You might have missed the point, but if a group names itself it is technically a denomination by its true and absolute definition.

This was in response to What are "exclusive Brethren, Iglesia Ni Christo, International Church of Christ"

The absolute meanings of denomination, sect, church, bishop etc have been lost. Many think a group is a denomination because it has a number of definable characteristics, none of which relate to the meaning of the word itself -de-name-iate.

You see, Koinonia called us a sect, and they used the term in a relative way, without reference to a "true church". So it has little meaning other than to indicate Koionia's opinion. If they were Catholic however, and said we are a sect, then it would be more meaningful because I know it means we are not part of Catholicism. I would then consider whether Catholicism is something I would want to be part of, or not.

Koinonia could answer my question by saying what denomination (if any) they meet with. Then I might consider whether their denomination is the true church, and if it is, then they might be correct that we are a sect.

This is why I asked them to name a group that are not a sect, so we can make that assessment in an absolute way. A sect by definition must be in relation to something else.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

and they used the term in a relative way, without reference to a "true church". So it has little meaning other than to indicate Koionia's opinion.

Thanks for more information on your OP.

It could be that none of the many sects, including yours, is the true church. Besides, no one knows what the truth church is. But everybody thinks theirs is the true church.

And even in my area there's many nondenominational churches, that take no name. But even tho they are nondenominational they are still a Christian sect.

Bro EvanG, I think it's a matter of from where you are looking. If you are looking from the inside it's easy not to see all the sects, especially your own. But looking from the outside it's easy to see all the sects, including the sect of Lee's local church.

And yes, local churcher's think theirs is the one and only true church ... just like all the other Christian sects.

[TLFisher]

Before I'm able to reply to any posts on this thread, I'll just say there are examples of localities that have divided over the issue of ministry. Whether it was not taking Witness Lee's ministry or over the issue of not going along with Titus Chu's quarantine.
Local assemblies can agree on the doctrine of locality, but whether to take this brother's ministry or that brother's ministry, or just to take no ministry at all and just be a Bible teaching assembly divides brothers and sisters.
I've seen it in different places. You can live in central Washington where there is no local church. Options are either 1. Meet at home by yourselves. 2. Drive to the nearest locality 45-60 minutes away. 3 Find a non-LSM affiliated church in the town you live in to fellowship with.
If you live somewhere more remote such as the island of Maui. The nearest LSM-affiliated church would be in Honolulu which would require a flight. Sure there is a non-LSM affiliated church in Kihei, but that's not an option for ones who will only restrict Christian fellowship according to LSM publications. Thus the only recourse is to meet in the home. True story.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by awareness

And yes, local churcher's think theirs is the one and only true church ... just like all the other Christian sects.

The local church is a cult, not a sect, right?

Either way, you say that all other Christian sects think they are the one and only true church... I haven't found that to be true. I have never attended a church/fellowship that believed they were the only true church/fellowship until the LSM churches. As I've stated before, I've moved around quite a bit and spent much time overseas and travelled throughout the US... but that is just my experience.


I'm glad that Evangelical started this thread, Koinonia is right, he has embarrassed himself. Hopefully this moves us to pray for Evangelical, that he may find strength and rest in Christ.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I have never attended a church/fellowship that believed they were the only true church/fellowship until the LSM churches.

I was raised Catholic and as a child I was told over and over, the Catholic church was the one true church. My parents initially 'freaked out' when I got saved in 1975. They did not want me to join a different denomination. I was a Catholic they kept telling me. Eventually they came to terms and were ok I was a born again Christian.

Many denominations are slowly returning to the RCC btw.

Is the RCC a Christian church? Depends who you ask and how they respond I suppose.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I was raised Catholic and as a child I was told over and over, the Catholic church was the one true church. My parents initially 'freaked out' when I got saved in 1975. They did not want me to join a different denomination. I was a Catholic they kept telling me. Eventually they came to terms and were ok I was a born again Christian.

Many denominations are slowly returning to the RCC btw.

Is the RCC a Christian church? Depends who you ask and how they respond I suppose.

Yes, the Mormons also believe they are the true and living church.

Which denominations are returning to the RCC?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

The local church is a cult, not a sect, right?

Either way, you say that all other Christian sects think they are the one and only true church... I haven't found that to be true. I have never attended a church/fellowship that believed they were the only true church/fellowship until the LSM churches. As I've stated before, I've moved around quite a bit and spent much time overseas and travelled throughout the US... but that is just my experience.


I'm glad that Evangelical started this thread, Koinonia is right, he has embarrassed himself. Hopefully this moves us to pray for Evangelical, that he may find strength and rest in Christ.

What about Catholic, Orthodox? The biggest churches around think they are the only true church and have so for some time now (hundreds of years).