tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5292334583493779011..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: What's so bad about denominations, anyway?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83024120864020688942009-04-07T06:38:00.000-04:002009-04-07T06:38:00.000-04:00New Testament Christianity knows nothing of either...New Testament Christianity knows nothing of either Roman Catholicism - which is but a conglomeration of early biblical principles and lust for political power - or Protestantism - which was initially forged to reduce the abuses of Catholicism. But which of the two represents Christianity as revealed on the pages of the NT? Neither. Catholicism is nothing if not the fulfillment of the New Testament writers' repeated warnings of apostasy, and Protestantism (denominationalism) is but the failed attempt to put a band aid on it. <BR/>But, reforming something (protestantism) back into its originally deformed state (catholicism) brings about a perfectly deformed body. <BR/>Restorationism is the only true principle by which individuals can come to the primitive faith of Christianity, and live in the unity demanded by Christ. And that's what's so bad about denominations, anyway. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30619676201964605242009-04-06T18:46:00.000-04:002009-04-06T18:46:00.000-04:00I always thought if denominations come up, why not...I always thought if denominations come up, why not respond with:<BR/><BR/>Jesuit. Augustinian. Benedictine.<BR/><BR/>I mean, one person's "order" is another persons denomination, isn't it? :-PPeter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34678990740346606402009-04-06T18:34:00.000-04:002009-04-06T18:34:00.000-04:00"To begin with, there’s a striking parallel betwee..."To begin with, there’s a striking parallel between the Catholic view of church history and the Protestant view of church history.<BR/>... <BR/>Both sides think that things went from better to worse. Both sides also think that, throughout the ups and downs of church history, there always was a true church. They simply define it differently: centralized v. decentralized. <BR/><BR/>So, <I>at one level</I>, both sides see a common, downhill trajectory to church history. They just have different ways of defining what’s good and what’s bad."<BR/><BR/>I'd like to know if Ben Douglass would agree with the general thrust of this argument?<BR/><BR/>P.S. Word Verification: "unprot".<BR/><BR/>;-)Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com