First, I would like to clarify some terms to ensure that we are talking about the same things. I find that too many discussions go off the rails because the people involved are using the same terms but understand them to mean different things. I'd like to nip that in the bud.

The first term that I would like to define is "Church". There are two ways in which this term is commonly used, one way is to describe the body of Christ (body of believers) and the other is to describe a church organization or denomination.

The difference is important because scripture is clear that the body of Christ is a body of those who are believers and thus indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Since there is no denomination or church organization that can make such a claim (organized churches are a mix of saved and unsaved), we know that the body of Christ is not a denomination. The body of Christ exists in many denominations and churches, but none can claim to be THE body of Christ.

We also know that Christ was building a body of believers, therefore we can also safely say that Jesus was not building a denomination, therefore the Church that Christ is building is the body of Christ.

Second term that I would like to deal with is "denomination". I see this as a grouping of churches under a common banner or name. In fact the root of the word "nom" means name. Denominations thus exist for a variety of reasons which can be historical, geographic, mission focus, none of which would divide them doctrinally. They may also be name denominationally due to doctrinal focus or doctrinal distinctive. The difference being that a doctrinal focus may not be a point of division between that denomination and others, but a point that their denomination emphasizes (Baptist comes to mind); whereas doctrinal distinctive refers to a doctrine held by that church which is not held by others, which is often a matter of division or even an indication of doctrinal error. An example of this would be Seventh Day Adventists. Now they are an interesting example because an active debate exists as to whether they are considered an orthodox church denomination or a cult. Churches which are part of a denomination may be Catholic, or Protestant or neither.

Non-denominational therefore is a church organization which is not part of a grouping of churches. Nondenominational churches may be Protestant, or may be non-Catholic and non-Protestant. They could indeed also hold in part to Catholic doctrine as some independent church today do (Ancient Future churches, or Emerging churches).

There are many churches which do not hold to either Catholic or Protestant doctrine which may part of a denomination or non-denominational. For example, Anabaptist churches and by extension, may Baptist denominations fall into this category, along with others (a quick gander into the history of the Anabaptists which quickly show that they opposed both the Catholic and protestant movements and many died at the hands of both). There have always been churches which have not been in either sphere of influence, even during the period of history when the Roman Catholic church dominated and suppressed any churches which opposed them.

I personally have been, at times in a denomination, but most of my life outside of a denomination. However, my theology is definitely neither Catholic nor Protestant and is based upon scripture, and I find problems with both Protestantism and Catholicism when we look at what scripture says.

That is probably enough for now. I am sure that you will have some questions, comments and/or disagreements and thus it is best to sort out the basics before we move forward.

Tom

What word should you use describe my faith? I only use Christian.

First, I have to disagree with you that Christianity meant one and one and only thing to everyone for the first 1300 years. This is refuted by reading the NT where we find that some deviations started even within the first few years of the church. You can also read early Christian writings and see how many variants started to take root, some mere variations on the non-essentials, others completely heretical.

Secondly, I hear these claims about divisions, but often what is described as divisions are references to denominations. I have attended many different churches and many different denominations over the years, and the reality is that I find a great harmony/unity in the spirit amongst those churches that hold to sound Biblical Christian teachings. The shingle out front seems to make little difference.

I do not believe that the problem is the existence of denominations, but the problem comes when the focus changes from Jesus and His word, to a specific church or denomination, especially if  one believes that only their denomination is the true church, or that salvation can only come through their church.

If I meet a person on the street and tell him that I am a Christian and he asks which type, I tell him that I am a Bible believing Christian and share the gospel with him.

If you notice, the cults and erroneous teachings of the Bible result from a manmade interpretation each time. Yet scripture speaks against this:

2 Peter 1:19-21
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

This means no man, not you, not me, not Charles Russel, not Joseph Smith, not the Pope, not your priest and not my pastor. Scripture is all inspire by the Holy Spirit and scripture must speak for itself and interpret itself. The same applies to errors that result from man adding to or subtracting from scripture.

Before we move on to your article, let's address a couple of points that you made:


I agree that many people have many different ways to interpret scripture, and that was addressed in my last message by the fact that scripture itself, the Holy Spirit inspired scripture says that the Bible is of no private interpretation so while men CAN interpret scripture, we are not to do so.

Then you make a flat out statement with no validation for your claim. You said:


Please validate that claim. What is your basis for making such a claim?

I think that we need to deal with these points as they arise because if we have not validated premises such as this, it will only come back and bite us later.

Then we can deal with the other claims that you made 

What this says to me is that because two or more people may or may not have use Biblical principles in reading scripture, that it is impossible to do so. This would be like saying that if I gave an engineering textbook to each of 2 or 3 people at random and they did not understand it, that it is impossible to understand. Or if I look around and grab 2 or 3 people at random and find that they do not understand the gospel, that it is impossible to understand.

My point is that we cannot establish truth based upon this type of experience. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that you have two many people, churches and denominations who try to force scripture to bend to agree with their manmade theological system, rather than allowing their own beliefs to bend to conform to scripture.


The Bible is an unique book in that the Holy Spirit inspired all of it, and yet spoke through many different people over thousands of years to create a consistent, harmonious book. So often people say that we cannot allow scripture to speak for itself, and yet they do exactly that for many other topics and for their education - but for some reason, the same standard approach used elsewhere is impossible with scripture.

If one was asked to find out accurately what an historic figure, let’s say Winston
Churchill, believed or taught about certain events in history, how would you go about it?

Well, there are a few options:

- Talk to the person, but in the case of Churchill, he is dead, so that is not an option.
- Talk to people who may have interviewed or known him very well. Again, few if any people who fall into that category would still be available, so we need to discount that also.
- Read what people who have done similar studies say about what he thought. This is a real option, but it is important to realize that any writings like this will have biases, but their thoughts may provide some pointers.
- Read what he actually wrote. Even if you read what others have to say about the topic, to verify the accuracy of what they say, you will want to go back and verify this from the source.

This is the typical approach that any student would take to determine that they have an accurate understand for any area of study, yet so many people will say that this just isn’t possible with the Bible. Why not? I would suggest that not only is it possible, for the sake of accuracy, it is essential.


Where are we told that their authority go beyond that of the Holy Spirit inspired scripture?

Which thread?

"Variant teachings" simply means that a number of people are teaching wrongly. That in no way means that the Bible cannot speak for itself.

First of all, I did not use the word "perpescuity", so please let's not use straw man arguments.

Second, I would deny that sola scriptura is the problem with what you refer to as bodies of doctrine, but again, I would suggest that it is a logic fallacy to suggest that because there are those who teach contrary to the Bible that the Bible cannot speak for itself. You see, I could say that your denomination is part of the problem in that regard because, contrary to sola scriptura, your denomination claims that men can interpret the Bible contrary to what the book of Peter says.


That is why God gave us His written word so that we can verify which is right. The problem arises when men claim the right to interpret the Bible, not when the Bible speaks for itself. The problem is that too few people actually read the Bible for themselves, so that they can be swayed by churches and pastor and snmooth talking men who claim that they alone have the right interpretation, and that god delegated the right to interpret to them.


Well, let me ask you - what authority did Jesus go to when matters of doctrine were being discussed?


I disagree. When I have gotten into discussions like this before I have found that often the person is arguing against something which their church has told them sola scriptura is. In fact the claim that men can interpret the Bible, or indeed any denomination has that sole right is entirely contrary to scripture.