Dropping "Baptist" Or Other Denoms From Church Names?

[Wormwood]

I don't think it is as easy as that Axehead. There are some very significant distinctions between Christian groups, and not all division is a bad thing. Obviously, many doctrines are things we can all agree on and be comfortable with. However, others are not comfortable with certain teachings or church structures and do not want to be under the leadership or teaching of such groups. Also, there are issues about inerrancy, homosexuality, the nature of the cross, the meaning of salvation, the nature of the Gospel, the nature of God, etc. that are all very significant issues that churches do not agree on. Personally, I would separate from and not want my children being taught in a church that affirms homosexuality or rejects the inerrancy of the Bible. So, while just having one great big group of believers that meet as an undefined church in each city would be wonderful, it is not that simple. Moreover, would it even be practical? If we were all the same church, would we all meet together? If not, when would we start turning people away to go somewhere else? What about those who only want to be in a house church? There are so many issues here that go beyond doctrine. I think the most important thing is that we learn to talk together, find ways to do joint ministry together, and love one another even if we meet in a different building with different worship and different doctrinal views.

 

[Born_Again]

Why is it so difficult to just follow the Word? Why would anyone think it's okay to bend it to meet their needs? Clearly you're not supposed to bend the Word. How does one justify changing the word of God? Who told them that was Okay? I have never understood that.

 

[pom2014]

To me all these schisms only served the enemy and not The Father.

Let them all fall. The less of man's hand in the matter the better.

Perhaps they will finally all leave the order of Levi and come to the correct one of Melchizedek.

I can only hope.

 

[Axehead]

I don't think it is as easy as that Axehead. There are some very significant distinctions between Christian groups, and not all division is a bad thing. Obviously, many doctrines are things we can all agree on and be comfortable with. However, others are not comfortable with certain teachings or church structures and do not want to be under the leadership or teaching of such groups. Also, there are issues about inerrancy, homosexuality, the nature of the cross, the meaning of salvation, the nature of the Gospel, the nature of God, etc. that are all very significant issues that churches do not agree on. Personally, I would separate from and not want my children being taught in a church that affirms homosexuality or rejects the inerrancy of the Bible. So, while just having one great big group of believers that meet as an undefined church in each city would be wonderful, it is not that simple. Moreover, would it even be practical? If we were all the same church, would we all meet together? If not, when would we start turning people away to go somewhere else? What about those who only want to be in a house church? There are so many issues here that go beyond doctrine. I think the most important thing is that we learn to talk together, find ways to do joint ministry together, and love one another even if we meet in a different building with different worship and different doctrinal views.

Absolutely!! Not realistic and will never happen. There is a reason that these organizations name themselves and that is precisely to differentiate themselves from others. Meaning: No agreement or unity with others of a different name.

There must be 10 house churches in our city, way too big for one house church, so you split up and meet with those within your proximity (neighborhood) and none of them have an extra name attached to them. Since the Church is people, the true building of God, we may refer to them as the church in the Oakwood neighborhood, or the church in the Spring Hollow neighborhood, or the Church at Joe's house, yet all of these make up the church in say, Kansas City. No self-imposed barriers (extra names) to fellowship. Now, if you want to know who you and your children should fellowship with, that comes through relationship not lables and believe me, word gets around the house churches whether there is a Diotrephes or Alexander the Coppersmith upsetting the Church or if there is Corinthian behavior or even worse. No, there is not one big church that meets together in a city. There are many, many, many and all the churches of Christ should be in relationship with one another.

Here are several other ways that Paul knew of churches:

Rom_16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
1Co_16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
Col_4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
Phm_1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:

Axehead

 

[Wormwood]

Yes, house churches are one way to go. However, I think we need to be cautious about how we use the NT as a model in these areas. Who is to say that Paul wouldn't have secured a large building for believers to gather if he had the resources and the freedom to do so? I think house churches were much more likely a model that worked for the early church because they were small, persecuted and generally very poor. So I don't know that house churches in the NT reflect a divine model for doing church as much as pragmatism. After all, the early church also met at the Temple, local synagogues and even catacombs. Its also difficult to assess because Paul was dealing with a church about 10-30 years old (and local churches very young ones that he planted), whereas we have 2 millennia of traditions and doctrines to sort through. Again, some of these divisions are justifiable, while others...not so much. Either way, saying we all just need to be "one" and follow the Bible is over simplistic. Just about every church that is distinct from another will say they ARE following the Bible, but no one else is!

For instance, I belong to a non-denominational movement that sees believer's baptism as crucial for becoming a Christian. We would argue that its commanded by Jesus, clearly defined as a moment in which someone is cleansed, dies with Christ, is raised with Christ, receives the Holy Spirit and assurance of salvation (Id post the Scripture references, but that is not the point of this comment). Yet many churches out there see baptism as completely insignificant, apply it to infants, do not teach on it or do not practice it. So what should we do? Should we abandon what we feel to be an explicit command of God that has enormous implications for discipleship and salvation for the sake of "unity?" There are many such issues out there...and its just difficult. I think the best option is just to follow a movement that reflects your biblical convictions, while also recognizing that there are godly people who love Jesus who differ with you and love them as brothers and sisters.

 

[Axehead]

Yes, house churches are one way to go. However, I think we need to be cautious about how we use the NT as a model in these areas. Who is to say that Paul wouldn't have secured a large building for believers to gather if he had the resources and the freedom to do so? I think house churches were much more likely a model that worked for the early church because they were small, persecuted and generally very poor. So I don't know that house churches in the NT reflect a divine model for doing church as much as pragmatism. After all, the early church also met at the Temple, local synagogues and even catacombs. Its also difficult to assess because Paul was dealing with a church about 10-30 years old (and local churches very young ones that he planted), whereas we have 2 millennia of traditions and doctrines to sort through. Again, some of these divisions are justifiable, while others...not so much. Either way, saying we all just need to be "one" and follow the Bible is over simplistic. Just about every church that is distinct from another will say they ARE following the Bible, but no one else is!

For instance, I belong to a non-denominational movement that sees believer's baptism as crucial for becoming a Christian. We would argue that its commanded by Jesus, clearly defined as a moment in which someone is cleansed, dies with Christ, is raised with Christ, receives the Holy Spirit and assurance of salvation (Id post the Scripture references, but that is not the point of this comment). Yet many churches out there see baptism as completely insignificant, apply it to infants, do not teach on it or do not practice it. So what should we do? Should we abandon what we feel to be an explicit command of God that has enormous implications for discipleship and salvation for the sake of "unity?" There are many such issues out there...and its just difficult. I think the best option is just to follow a movement that reflects your biblical convictions, while also recognizing that there are godly people who love Jesus who differ with you and love them as brothers and sisters.

Well, since you put it that way, you are right, who is to say that Paul would not have deviated from the NT model that is laid out for us? By the way, I'm sorry that you have 2 millennium of traditions and doctrines to sort through. If you pray and follow the Holy Ghost and come to the Word with all your heart, the Lord will make things a lot more simpler for you. It nice not having the burden of 2 millennium on you.

No, the true Body of Christ is actually One. The implications of that are pretty scary, huh? I never said that there are not godly people all over and also, the best option is not to follow a movement but to follow Christ. Then, there wouldn't be any "movements". But if we keep feeding the movements then we have to keep justifying why they are around and should stay.

All the best,
Axehead
Here is one of the House Churches in our area that we have relationships with:

We don't have a website, but theirs is pretty good. Like they say in "Will You Fit In", we don't all believe the same thing, but do agree on essentials. Articles, Blogs, Notes and Thoughts is an interesting tab.

http://homechurchhouston.com/will-you-fit-in

 

[Wormwood]

Well, since you put it that way, you are right, who is to say that Paul would not have deviated from the NT model that is laid out for us? By the way, I'm sorry that you have 2 millennium of traditions and doctrines to sort through. If you pray and follow the Holy Ghost and come to the Word with all your heart, the Lord will make things a lot more simpler for you. It nice not having the burden of 2 millennium on you.

No, the true Body of Christ is actually One. The implications of that are pretty scary, huh? I never said that there are not godly people all over and also, the best option is not to follow a movement but to follow Christ. Then, there wouldn't be any "movements". But if we keep feeding the movements then we have to keep justifying why they are around and should stay.

All the best,
Axehead

Sigh. Nevermind.

 

[cristianprince67]

Are they doing it to draw in more people? Like they're trying not to be so specific?

 

[JimParker]

It is the denial of the scripture's absolute authority, and not its difficulty of interpretation, that has resulted in the various divisions of Christ's congregation. The Gospel is simple, it’s just that men make it complicated.

That's backwards.

It is the insistence on the doctrine of "sola scriptura" which has done the most extensive damage to the unity of the Church.

And that is because there is no such thing as "sola scriptura." What it works out to be is: each individual's PERSONAL OPINION as to what the Scripture says which becomes the "absolute authority." There is only one Bible but there are tens of thousands of personal opinions as to what the Bible says and those opinions are reflected in the teachings of the tens of thousands of denominations, sects, independent churches, cults, and heresies that all base their doctrine and teaching on the "sola scriptura."

If that were not the case, there would only be one church and no denominations.