Divisions

I asked  a Mennonite recently which sect was he part. His answer was pure and humble: "I like to think of myself as just a Christian." That is admirable. However, our own ideas to what it takes to be a Christian is widely varied - hence denominations and lower divisions. Ironically, it is said that there are over one-thousand branches of Mennonites. Any minor disagreement divides them further. Although they are humble people, even they have pride. They can't worship together even over trivialities.

Have you ever heard of Black Bumper Mennonites? Some of the more liberal Mennonites drive cars. Some object because of bright bumpers. The solution to that was to withdraw fellowship from each other, and paint the bumpers black! Having to divide to remain humble is prideful, as oxymoronic as that sounds!

In the beginning there was one universal Church. The Latin for "universal" is catholicus. In English that with respect to the whole church is "catholic". Over time, with division, came the Roman Catholic Church. It may have been what we call the first 'denomination" although they certainly would not call themselves that.

Early on, division separated the Catholics: Roman and Orthodox. The latter was the eastern division of the extant Church. They endeavored to remain apostolic in worship , hence "orthodox". At the same time, there existed other unaffiliated churches which cooperated with the Roman church. For instance, Coptic Christians are the Egyptian church. They are not and never have been popish. They have existed since circa 68 A.D. They lack the many heresy's of the Roman church.

I point out the differences between Roman Catholicism and the others because there are many doctrinal differences. It is not being mean-spirited nor intolerant but face it, we believe differently, and each denomination clings to their own belief. However, within Catholicism are many fine Christians in spite of bad doctrine (in my humble view).

In Britannica, there is evidence of the early church totally outside the influence of Catholicism. Those early and now defunct churches could hardly be called "protestant". Indeed, the Anglican Church of Henry VIII was not protestant and not part of the Reformation. They merely disagreed with the Pope's decision on the sanctity of marriage, and rebelled. The ninety-five thesis of Luther was not their motivation, and as such they are not part of the reformed protestant movement.  Baptists, Quakers, Congregationalists and others were not part of the reformation, all derived from the Anglican Church.

As people disagreed, the Church kept dividing further. Some withdrew from the larger denominations because of heresy. It took only a short time before heresies of all types invaded the Church. Certainly, we must give Catholics credit because in the beginning they were defenders of the faith. The Creeds were written to take a stand on Christian doctrine. They were an attempt to keep heresy out of Christianity. There were many early heresies which are out of the scope of this commentary.

Creeds are not bad. They state an interpretation of Holy Scripture because mankind is prone to misunderstand. Philip explained salvation to the eunuch. He pronounced Christian doctrine. His teaching was a creed - his understanding of Holy Scripture because the eunuch admitted that he didn't understand! Creeds are to expound essential doctrine. They are not bad unless they are unscriptural. However, there is a mystery to God. He says so. God doesn't want us to understand Him entirely or we would be as gods. Our nature is to contain God. Denominations put God into their box, and like Simon Magus, denominations expect God to do it their way!

Individuals put God in their box which they design from their interpretation of scripture. God must feel imprisoned with the chaotic constraints we try to put on Him. We all fail, and as a matter of fact, dissension disappoints God. Paul elaborated on that as an inspired apostle:

1 Corinthians 1:10  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. 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12  Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas;  and I of Christ. 13  Is Christ divided?

Essentially, Paul was pointing out that there is one truth, and thus one gospel. Why? Because there is one Christ. He cannot divide Himself. Any contentions are merely because we fail to understand God. There is essential doctrine, and today Christians cannot even agree on those!

What is being "born-again"? According to Jesus, that is essential doctrine. He related that to Nicodemus. Catholicism asserts that is "born from above" and is the sacrament of baptism. (Catholic Bible 101). As such, the activity of being immersed in water is what saves. The new birth is not circumcision of the heart but getting washed.  There is a difference between Catholic doctrine and non-Catholic. For them, baptism is the act of being born again, and requires them to do something - "works",  to be "saved". Thus, it is not by the grace of God but the works of men!

They use scripture for their position too. They sincerely believe they are right, and others sincerely believe they are wrong! Someone is! Hence, there are "contentions" among the brethren, but being born-again for non-catholics is essential doctrine. We ask the questions: Are Catholics really saved, and as such is the Catholic Church a truly Christian Church?

Even non-Catholics have contentions. Calvinists will argue that people are either saved or damned at the creation. As such, our fate is decided before we were ever born. People, then, only fulfill God's plan for them, and are programmed. None of those pre-destined  know which group they are in, but seem to react by assuming every Calvinist is one of the elect. Then, merely existing is essential doctrine to them in becoming "born-again". Calvinists merely play the role which God assigned to them. Conviction, sorrow, repentance, and justification are merely rituals doing their pre-ordained duty. Hence, effectually, Calvinism is ritualistic - fulfilling our pre-assigned roles. If one is not the elect of God, his life is merely farcical! God played a bad joke on them. They lose out on all the pleasure, and still get damned!

Calvinism, in my view, is an impedance to Christianity. Even fulfilling The Great Commission is a farce because it has no value in changing God's pre-determined plan.

Calvinism is deterministic - without hope, and makes people mere automatons in God's graceful plan for some, and cruel plan for others. Choice is not available in their doctrine. People merely react to God's expectations. Being born-again is merely an ordinance and not a sacrament.  On the one hand, Catholics believe the work of being baptized is saving, and Calvinists believe that Christians are just fulfilling their assignment. One is as wrong as the other!  Calvinism is the basis for one branch of the "reformed church". The other is Lutherism which believe similarly.

In the early 1800s, a Christian "restoration" came about. Campbellites and Bartonians wanted to worship as did the early church. That is a noble idea but even the apostolic church had contentions! Campbellites shunned creeds and doctrines, and the New Testament became their methods and doctrines. As such, even petty things like music in the church became of issue, and yet they attack others for being denominational. Many fundamental Churches of Christ believe that only they are the true church. Others are more generous. Of the Christian Church denomination, they have similar beliefs but are less dogmatic.

The doctrine of the "restoration movement" is that salvation is a process -  starting with conviction and culminating in baptism. They are similar to Catholics. However, the difference being that with Catholics, it is one saving act to be born-again, but with Churches of Christ, it is a process. Usually their "process" is done in one step - baptism. In practice, Churches of Christ and the Christian Church denominations believe much the same as Catholics?

I call restored churches "denominations". They don't.  They consider themselves non-denominational - at least the Churches of Christ do. A rose is still a rose by any other name. In fact, their dogmatism has made them supra-denominational!

You can see that all churches and denominations are Christians in contention with each other. Paul explains the wrong in that!  Paul taught the pure inspired doctrine of Jesus Christ. The ironic part of that is there is contention on what even Paul says. Calvinism comes from Paul. So does Arminian doctrine. What are we to believe?

My own background - in order with approximate ages:

1. Christian Church: birth to about ten years old.
2. Pentecostal: off and as a pre-teen.
3. Methodist: ten to fourteen.
4. Nazarene: fifteen through mid-thirties.
5. Bible Church (non-denominational): mid-thirties to mid-forties.
6. Southern Baptist: 45-47years old.
7. Nazarene:  48-53 or so.
8. Christian Church: 54 for one year.
9. Independent Baptist: 55-60 years old.
10. Freewill Baptist: 61-62 years old.
11. General Baptist: 63 to present.

You can see the range of denominational thinking which has influenced my belief system. However, for the most part, my beliefs changed little because of these denominations. What did change me was Holy Scripture. Over the years my faith went from one of fear to one of love. I went from obeying God because it was required to obedience out of respect, empathy for God, and love for Him. I went from being a Christian for my sake to being one for Christ's sake!

I often wondered why God led me from church to church. I learned something from each, and coincidentally, learned to worship without being contentious. I believe that true Christians are in each of those churches, even the Catholic Church, in spite of doctrinal differences. Each one of those churches are about Jesus and His Way. The differences are in what Jesus's Way is!

From the Bible Church I learned to study the Word more thoroughly. From the Nazarenes, I learned to love God. From the Pentecostals I learned about the Holy Ghost, and that Christ still is with us in Spirit. From the Southern Baptists I learned about grace. From the Independent Baptists, great faith and the Old Testament stories as "pictures" of Christ.

From the Freewill Baptists, I reinforced my non-Calvinistic doctrines. From the Methodists, I learned friendship. I remain at the General Baptist because of doctrine, hymns, and style of worship. 

Of all these, none are my entire doctrine, although all of them fit some of it. That's because my belief system comes from scripture, not from church covenants and doctrines. I believe God sent me out into the wilderness to build a firm foundation, not built by men but by God.

With my experience, I have built my own "denomination". You can't go there. It is mine! It is the Independent Herrinite Church because it is what God inspired me to believe from the Word. In my "Daily Thoughts" I teach it but sometimes I deny my own doctrine as God leads me. Truth is constant in my church but my church is alive. God reveals things to me each day. I don't depend on preachers because Jesus is my only Priest. I am a deacon in my church but only God ordained me.

My advise to you, is to get your own personal church. Read the word and let God teach you. Don't be influenced with the biasness of denominations. Get God out of the box in which denominations have sought to imprison Him.  God has free will too! He can do whatever he wants, and for different folks, different things. I believe that Paul was predestined. He was part of God's plan from the beginning. Subsequently, God had irresistible grace for him  a very Calvinistic idea!

On the other hand, the rich young ruler denied God by his own volition. Nicodemus was surely born again because he finally understood, and made a decision. The Jews became Christians because of miracles. God's Holy Language convinced them. The Gentiles needed logic. God has many tools and he uses them all! Many of these tools cause contention. Christians believe that their own pet event is God's Way. God has one Way, but his methods are different! The lady with a blood disorder touched the hem of Jesus' garment and was made safe. On the other hand, Paul was struck blind. Although the "how" was different, the outcome was the same. Let God out of your box!

Pauls' message in the passages above, are his admonishment to let God out of your box, and allow Jesus do things His way. Simon Magus tried the formulae and became lost. Rather than living as if we have no will, live for God's will. What God wants for Christians is that our will match His. He pulls that way, and our part is not to resist. Each sin is a choice. Each decision not to sin is a wise choice. Making right choices is aligning our will with God's. That's what the new person is to do!