One Church - One City - Biblical?

[DistantStar]

Here are some differences I've noticed between the LC denomination and other denominations (please add more).

The LC has no name.
The others have names.

The LC consider other churches as false and heretical.
The others generally believe other churches to be true churches.

The LC has a unique Bible.
The others do not have a unique Bible.

The LC will not cooperate with other denominations.
The others will generally cooperate with other denominations.

Some similarities:

The LC has a common faith.
Other denominations have a common faith.

The LC believes in Christ's divinity, death and resurrection.
Other denominations believe in Christ's divinity, death and resurrection.

The LC has an organization (whether officially or not).
Other denominations have organizations.

[Evangelical]

The LC has no name.
The others have names.

That is not correct. The LC has the name of Christ, others have names other than Christ.

"To deviate from the Lord's word is apostasy, and to denominate the church by taking any name other than the Lord's is spiritual fornication.""


The LC consider other churches as false and heretical.
The others generally believe other churches to be true churches.

Yes, because of the previous point, they are not real churches because they commit spiritual fornication. The other churches have no issue taking a name other than the Lord and approve of others who do likewise. In other words, the one who has the name of Christ is the genuine wife.

The LC has a unique Bible.
The others do not have a unique Bible.

It depends. A church will often tend to use one version over another. Others have unique prayer books and service books. During my 30 years in denominations, I have been in many situations where everyone chose to use a common bible version for convenience, or the pastor recommended one over another.

The LC will not cooperate with other denominations.
The others will generally cooperate with other denominations.

Cooperation but no genuine unity.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Consider what Wikipedia says about religious denominations

Because Wikipedia is a better source than Oxford and Merriam Webster?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A denomination (noun) is what results when a group of believers denominate (verb) by calling themselves by a common name other than Christ.

That definition isn't even in the Wikipedia article. Are you lying to us?

Edit: I see the definition above this one you took from Wikipedia. So I assume this one is once again your own definition? Also funny how there are no sources given for this statement in Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Please do not make yourself look more foolish than you have already

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes, because of the previous point, they are not real churches because they commit spiritual fornication.

You are beginning to reveal the LC's true colours. Keep it up.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

Because Wikipedia is a better source than Oxford and Merriam Webster?

That definition isn't even in the Wikipedia article. Are you lying to us?

Edit: I see the definition above this one you took from Wikipedia. So I assume this one is once again your own definition? Also funny how there are no sources given for this statement in Wikipedia.

You are beginning to reveal the LC's true colours. Keep it up.

Here's another one to educate yourself better with (emphasis mine, in bold)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=denomination

denomination (n.) Look up denomination at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "a naming, act of giving a name to," from Old French denominacion "nominating, naming," from Latin denominationem (nominative denominatio) "a calling by anything other than the proper name, metonymy," from denominare "to name," from de- "completely" (see de-) + nominare "to name" (see nominate). Meaning "a class" is from mid-15c. Monetary sense is 1650s; meaning "religious sect" is 1716.

So we see that a denomination is a group which calls itself by something other than the proper name.

To argue that denomination does not mean the same thing as denominate, is clutching at straws to say the least.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Here's another one to educate yourself better with (emphasis mine, in bold)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=denomination

denomination (n.) Look up denomination at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "a naming, act of giving a name to," from Old French denominacion "nominating, naming," from Latin denominationem (nominative denominatio) "a calling by anything other than the proper name, metonymy," from denominare "to name," from de- "completely" (see de-) + nominare "to name" (see nominate). Meaning "a class" is from mid-15c. Monetary sense is 1650s; meaning "religious sect" is 1716.

So we see that a denomination is a group which calls itself by something other than the proper name.

To argue that denomination does not mean the same thing as denominate, is clutching at straws to say the least.

Firstly, this source of yours is still on a lesser plane than Oxford and Merriam Webster. You keep failing in your definitions so you keep on seeking even more obscure ones. Secondly, I'll grant you that definition if you also grant me my definitions which I gave. According to my definitions, the LC is a denomination.

Either you accept all definitions, or you go by those with more authority - in which case Oxford and Merriam Webster will be more trustworthy. Your choice. You cannot just believe what you want.

You were looking for definitions to fit your presuppositions, hence why you keep on coming with new ones after I showed the flaws in your earlier ones. So I have to wonder, if not for this obscure website, how did you know that a denomination were simply those who denominated themselves? How did you know that? Who taught you that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

You were looking for definitions to fit your presuppositions, hence why you keep on coming with new ones after I showed the flaws in your earlier ones. So I have to wonder, if not for this obscure website, how did you know that a denomination were simply those who denominated themselves? How did you know that? Who taught you that?

I prefer "working" definitions rather than etymological exercises. Remember that linguistics is fluid, and it is the actual use of words by its people that determines meanings. The KJV is a prime example.

Denominations become such and remain such, not because of their name, but because their leaders maintain administrative connections. Cut all those ties, and we are left with individual churches free to call themselves whatever they desire. The denominations determine their names, more than their names determine their denomination, as Evangelical would have us believe.

What really determines a denomination is not a name, but a controlling headquarters. It's called LSM. Take away the Blendeds, and we are left with individual LC's, perhaps even "true" churches.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by DistantStar

Firstly, this source of yours is still on a lesser plane than Oxford and Merriam Webster. You keep failing in your definitions so you keep on seeking even more obscure ones. Secondly, I'll grant you that definition if you also grant me my definitions which I gave. According to my definitions, the LC is a denomination.

Either you accept all definitions, or you go by those with more authority - in which case Oxford and Merriam Webster will be more trustworthy. Your choice. You cannot just believe what you want.

You were looking for definitions to fit your presuppositions, hence why you keep on coming with new ones after I showed the flaws in your earlier ones. So I have to wonder, if not for this obscure website, how did you know that a denomination were simply those who denominated themselves? How did you know that? Who taught you that?

Denomination and denominate both share the same root latin denominare meaning "to name". That should be obvious to anyone.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Denomination and denominate both share the same root latin denominare meaning "to name". That should be obvious to anyone.

So? Are we living in the 15th century and speaking Latin? I gave you the modern definitions which you REFUSE to accept on no basis at all.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Denomination and denominate both share the same root latin denominare meaning "to name". That should be obvious to anyone.

This kind of argument presumes that the root of any word necessarily dictates any extended word as to what it can mean.

So by your thinking, the word "awesome" must mean that there is "some awe." Not necessarily a lot. Surely not worthy of a "wow!"

This is the kind of overly literal analysis that is at the heart of so much Jr High school humor. Take every word and distill it to other smaller words and see what kind of ridiculousness can be found in it.

And when someone does it to be serous, that is generally proof of either not playing with a full deck or seeking to fool whoever they can with nonsense.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Here's another one to educate yourself better with

Still keeping on with the condescension? Good.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Look up denomination at Dictionary.com

Why did you ignore the first definition they give?

a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/denomination?s=t

Edit: I just have to point out the irony in the words "many local churches".

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"To deviate from the Lord's word is apostasy, and to denominate the church by taking any name other than the Lord's is spiritual fornication.""

Very, very interesting. I googled this. Seems like this is a footnote from the Recovery Version. I advise others to look it up as well. Interesting. That's all I'm saying.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"to denominate the church by taking any name other than the Lord's is spiritual fornication.""

This is purely a fabrication of Lee's making, without any scriptural basis.

[DistantStar]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is purely a fabrication of Lee's making, without any scriptural basis.

It concerns me now as it concerned me then how LC members tend to view the footnotes and scripture as one and the same. It's disturbing. I remember how each week we would have a reading (one of those small groups). For it we were each handed a paper with the footnotes of that portion of scripture. I hated it. The others were always going "wow" and "shoo" when something deep was read in those notes. I always threw mine away at night.