Some say we have 20,000 denominations in the American church today. If 20,000 is good, why not double it and make it 40,000? If every Church split into 2 we will have a doubly good church…Right? Wrong! Show me a pastor who seeks to split his Church in 2 and I will show you a pastor to run from. But in essence this is what denominationalism is rooted upon.
To arrive at the right understanding on this subject, we need to go to the word of God. Jesus is the head of the Church (Eph 5:23), not the Pope, or any church court… session, even General Assembly. One truth that is often not considered is that there is a difference between God’s sovereign will and his perceptive will. God gave a perceptive command to Pharaoh to let his people go. God’s sovereign will though was that he not let the people go, because God was going to show his power in judging Pharaoh. The same goes for denominational divisions. The existence of 20,000 denominations is not a sign of God’s blessing, though he in mercy yet works in the midst of our divisions. 20,000 denominations is a sign of judgement; not something to be preserved by the king. Brethren are too easily separating into separate factions because of an erroneous man-made doctrine in the American Version of the Westminster Confession of Faith, ch 23, which defends the ‘right’ of denominations. https://reformed.org/historic-confessions/comparison-of-the-1646-edition-to-the-american-revision/ But the word of God says that divisions are not right. Read 1 Cor 1 and 3.
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? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1 Cor 1
12. I say then, etc. Some think there is here an instance of μιμησις, imitation, as if Paul were here repeating their expressions. Now, although the manuscripts differ as to the particle ὅτι, I am of opinion that it is the conjunction (because) rather than the relative (which), so that there is simply an explanation of the preceding statement in this sense. “My reason for saying that there are contentions among you is, because every one of you glories in the name of some individual.” It will, however, be objected, that in these words there is no appearance as yet of contention. My answer is, that where there are jarrings in religion, it cannot but be that men’s minds will soon afterwards burst forth in open strife. For as nothing is more effectual for uniting us, and there is nothing that tends more to draw our minds together, and keep them in a state of peace, than agreement in religion, so, on the other hand, if any disagreement has arisen as to matters of this nature, the effect necessarily is, that men’s minds are straightway stirred up for combat, and in no other department are there more fierce contendings. 62 Hence it is with good reason that Paul brings it forward as a sufficient evidence of contention, that the Corinthians were infested with sects and parties.
I am of Paul He makes mention here of Christ’s faithful servants — Apollos, who had been his successor at Corinth, and Peter himself too, and then adds himself to their number, that he may appear to plead not so much his own cause as that of Christ. In any other point of view it is not likely that there were any parties that espoused the separate interests of ministers joined together by a sacred agreement. 63 He has, however, as he afterwards mentions, transferred to himself and Apollos what was applicable to others; and this he has done, in order that they might more candidly consider the thing itself, viewing it apart from respect of persons. It will, however, be replied, that he makes mention here even of those who professed that they were of Christ Was this, too, worthy of blame? I answer, that in this way he shows more fully what unseemly consequences result from those depraved affections, when we give ourselves up to men, as in that case Christ must be acknowledged merely in part, and the pious have no alternative left them, but to separate themselves from others, if they would not renounce Christ.
As, however, this passage is wrested in various ways, we must endeavor to ascertain more minutely what Paul intends here. His object is, to maintain Christ’s exclusive authority in the Church, so that we may all exercise dependence upon him, that he alone may be recognized among us as Lord and Master, and that the name of no individual (or denomination, CES) be set in opposition to his. Those, therefore, that draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:30,) with the view of splitting the Church into parties, he condemns as most destructive enemies of our faith. Thus then he does not, suffer men to have such pre-eminence in the Church as to usurp Christ’s supremacy. He does not allow them to be held in such honor as to derogate even in the slightest degree from Christ’s dignity. There is, it is true, a certain degree of honor that is due to Christ’s ministers, and they are also themselves masters in their own place, but this exception must always be kept in view, that Christ must have without any infringement what belongs to him — that he shall nevertheless be the sole Master, and looked upon as such. Hence the aim of good ministers is this, that they may all in common serve Christ, and claim for him exclusively power, authority, and glory — fight under his banner — obey him alone, and bring others in subjection to his sway. If any one is influenced by ambition, that man gathers disciples, not to Christ, but to himself. This then is the fountain of all evils — this the most hurtful of all plagues — this the deadly poison of all Churches, when ministers seek their own interests rather than those of Christ. In short, the unity of the Church consists more especially in this one thing — that we all depend upon Christ alone, and that men thus occupy an inferior place, so as not to detract in any degree from his pre-eminence.
John Calvin, https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39/calcom39.viii.iii.html
3 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1 Cor 3
3. For ye are as yet carnal So long as the flesh, that is to say, natural corruption, prevails in a man, it has so completely possession of the man’s mind, that the wisdom of God finds no admittance. Hence, if we would make proficiency in the Lord’s school, we must first of all renounce our own judgment and our own will. Now, although among the Corinthians some sparks of piety were emitted, they were kept under by being choked. 151
For since there are among you. The proof is derived from the effects; for as envying, and strifes, and divisions, are the fruits of the flesh, wherever they are seen, it is certain that the root is there in its rigor. Those evils prevailed among the Corinthians; and accordingly he proves from this that they are carnal He makes use of the same argument, too, in Galatians 5:25 If ye live in the Spirit, walk also in the Spirit For while they were desirous to be regarded as spiritual, he calls them to look at their works, by which they denied what with their mouth they professed (Titus 1:16.) Observe, however, the elegant arrangement that Paul here pursues: for from envying spring up contentions, and these, when they have once been enkindled, break out into deadly sects (Here isDenominationalism, CES): but the mother of all these evils is ambition.
Walk as men From this it is manifest that the term flesh is not restricted to the lower appetites merely, as the Sophists pretend, the seat of which they call sensuality, but is employed to describe man’s whole nature. For those that follow the guidance of nature, are not governed by the Spirit of God. These, according to the Apostle’s definition, are carnal, so that the flesh and man’s natural disposition are quite synonymous, and hence it is not without good reason that he elsewhere requires that we be new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17.)
John Calvin, https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39/calcom39.x.i.html
4. For while one saith He now specifies the particular kind of contentions, 152 and he does this by personating the Corinthians, that his description may have more force — that each one gloried in his particular master (Or denomination, CES), as though Christ were not the one Master of all (Matthew 23:8.) Now, where such ambition still prevails, the gospel has little or no success. You are not, however, to understand that they declared this openly in express words, but the Apostle reproves those depraved dispositions to which they were given up. At the same time it is likely, that, as a predilection arising from ambition is usually accompanied with an empty talkativeness, 153 they openly discovered by their words the absurd bias of their mind, by extolling their teachers to the skies in magnificent terms, accompanying this at the same time with contempt of Paul and those like him.
John Calvin, https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39/calcom39.x.i.html
Apparently, there are those who do not think these passages in 1 Cor 1 and 3 apply to the modern denominational separation of the Church. I differ with them. Why do they not think these passages speak against the division of the church into denominations? Would it have to do with words like…CARNAL…ENVYING…STRIFE…DIVISIONS…BABES…MILK…CONTENTIONS??? I think so. I believe God is reproving the denominational walls we see in the American church today. We are like couples who get a divorce over irreconcilable differences. We split up over things Rutherford Against Seperatism would reprove. https://www.naphtali.com/articles/samuel-rutherfurd/against-separatism-part-one/
Christ loves local bodies of his who are MORE OR LESS PURE. How about us? Do we love his bride, though she is less pure (Is 65:5)?
Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.
Isaiah 65:5 KJV
Christ counted Laodecia to be his bride. He counted Corinth as his bride. Rev David Silversides said that of all Churches, Corinth could be considered as deserving to be excluded. But no! It was blessed by the Apostle. God never had ANTHING to do with any of us because we earned his favor! All of us come from the same pile of dung.
14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
2 Cor 13
Calvin said there can just as well be 2 or 3 churches as there can be 2 or 3 Christs. That’s in his Institutes, if I recollect.
There can just as well be 2 or 3 churches as there can be 2 or 3 Christs.
John Calvin
I offered brethren to sit at a Westminster Assembly-style table so we can dialogue about the truth, and I suggested we do so on video. Why? When a party is presented with questions and logic that reveal errors in their view, they cannot look the other way and ignore points while on video. If they do, it will be seen. I perceived many times in my discussions with brothers holding contrary views on things like how God is to be worshipped, simply walking away, or not acknowledging the truth I have presented to them. They ignore the truth. Politics have no place in the Church. Jesus is the head of the Church! Overseers can be wrong and have often been wrong. The sudden plethora of evils fallen upon our nation make it such that it is vital God’s people come together and seek the mind of God… to discover our sins so that we might put them away. I often cite Neh 9:36-38.
In the documentary film recently put out, called DIED SUDDENLY (at the 39m 36s minute mark) Steve Kirsch…
….offered a million dollars (This offer was not if they would win the discussion. It was just if they come to the table.) to anyone in any government agency or any major academic medical center if they would simply come to the table, where we can go through the evidence in the VARS system and other pieces of evidence so we can have an open discussion and have a fair discussion on vaccine safety and efficacy. When they refused the million dollars he said name your price…$5 million…$10 million…$100 million? Steve Kirsch asked what will it take to have a civil discussion on the record…recorded on video…like Congress often does. I learned of this offer made by Steve Kirsch, AFTER I proposed the same to those Christians who rejected me. Rutherford said in one of his letters the presbytery was cruel to him.
Is Steve Kirsch a bad guy? Is he wrong to question the government and medical ‘authorities?’ Was Rutherford a bad man too for being a Protestor? Am I a bad guy for questioning a denomination on the grounds of its rejection of me? Where is the due process America is so well noted for? Does anyone recognize I have been denied due process? I’m willing to stand with Steve Kirsch and Samuel Rutherford as nonconformists in the respective issue they were ostracized or ignored over…BECAUSE THEY STOOD FOR THE TRUTH! Jesus is the truth! He said I am the way the TRUTH and the life. Jesus IS THE MAJORITY! If men claim a majority opinion over him, they lose. German generals knew American soldiers were known for questioning orders in WWII, and they could not understand that. THINK on that for a moment! To question orders is a good and moral virtue. The Germans apparently did not understand that, and so the whole German army, by and large, followed Hitler. The United States Founding Fathers knew of the danger power has in government, and so they set up a system of checks and balances for this very reason. Why then do we go on as if there was no such system set up? Why is tyranny prevailing in America? Why is the Communist grip tightening upon America? Perhaps you do not recognize the tightening of the Communist grip and need to hear the evidence for that.
God has shown me a way out of Separatism, which not only kept me from local bodies that were less pure (except for ‘perfect’ local bodies…which in essence is the mindset of denominations that refuse to discuss the differences, not allowing any cross-examination of the differences) but also fosters the separation of local bodies into multiple denominations…which is in ways, a Medusa…a monster…that his tyranizing over people’s souls. Think of all the ways divorce affects children. Think of the contradictions that ruin the children’s minds in the many scenarios of divorce…like suppose the couple decided to divorce but be best friends. That is a contradiction that boggles right-thinking minds. It’s a war that says we are at peace. I think satan does not like the truth I have come to see about separatism, and that is the cause of all the opposition. We live in a day in which the people cheer ‘vive la différence’ … ‘vive la denominationalism’…this is what the American Revision of the Westminster Confession ch 23 says when it promotes denominations. I have no doubt the Jesusits love all the divisions among Protestants, and do all they can to promote such. Meanwhile they boast they are all united on one head of thier Church…the Pope.
Here is a factor that takes some thought. I will write as I try to grapple with it. The recognition of local bodies being more or less pure lends to the thinking of denominationalists. But, is it not true that we are to recognize that in God’s providence, there are degrees of purity among his people, while at the same time we must not seek to breed differences or denominations? Our duty is to strive for unity. I think this is the principal problem with the denominational thinking of our day. We are unwilling to work for unity. We get set in our ways. We like ease. We don’t like to be questioned because we are proud. But Paul the APOSTLE encouraged the Bereans when they questioned him. I know overseers are mere men and they can grow weary and that there are cases where the party questioning becomes contentious. Though it also is no doubt true that our love of ease is quick to classify Berean examinations as being contentious as Paul writes of in 1 Cor 11:16. If it takes WORK to achieve unity, we need to be prepared for resistance. Let me give a personal example. I vowed never to touch alcohol as a youth and into manhood. When I met Presbyterians who knew the truth that the Lord’s table is alcoholic wine, I dug my heels in. MANY in the church today use grape juice. So I wasn’t on my own in this matter. I cited various abstentionist to back my erroneous position. That does not justify my error, but over time I did come to see the truth. But I was sort of pushed into accepting this view, and should not have been. Love and patients, over time, would have enabled me to see the light. I think the oversight I was being instructed by lost patience. I understand that. I am not better. But we need to be more patient in instructing the weak. Paul said he would not eat meat WHILE THE WORLD STANDS if it caused a weak brother to stumble. When a Christian is coerced to accept a doctrine they don’t really believe, they are led off course. It makes them bow to men, rather than to the word of God. God’s people need to own God’s truth for themselves. The Holy Spirit has to illumine their own hearts and minds, and sometimes that does not happen for a long time…actually I think it’s more often than not. Consider Luther. He held onto his ubiquity even when his eyes were opened to his error. So I am told by a credible scholar.
That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
2 Cor 12:25
Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.
2 Cor 13:1
stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
Phil 1:27
Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
Phil 2:2
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Eph 4
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Eph 4
Another challenging question comes to mind. How is the civil magistrate to respect the truth that God’s Church is more or less pure, yet be faithful in its duty to act as a nursing father and mother to the church, in light of the ORIGIANL WCF Ch 23? Is the AR of WCF ch 23 correct then to instruct the king to NOT interfere with any conscientiously held denominational conviction. (BTW…Rutherford refutes this in his paper PRETENDED LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE. In essence, it says, no man or group of men have any liberty to differ with ANY of the 10 commandments). Actually, though the consideration of this first puzzled me, the answer is quite simple…as I perceive things. Obviously, the civil magistrate needs to accommodate that the church is more or less pure…but is that the same thing as the American Revision teaches in Ch 23 of the WCF? A just and godly civil magistrate would not exclude any of the NT Churches, like Corinth, or Laodecia. Yet, that godly civil magistrate would agree with the word of God, with regard to each of these Church’s errors. A godly civil magistrate would act like Paul and address false doctrines that said there was no resurrection. As far as the duty of the king goes in his task to nurse the church, he certainly needs to be well-grounded in the essentials of the Christian faith. Augustine said it well when he said…IN ESSENTIALS UNITY…IN NONESSENTIALS LIBERTY…AND IN ALL THINGS CHARITY.
Servetus was a heretic who wrote the Restitutes, which is like the satanic bible in its being the exact opposite of the word of God. Servetus’ Restitutes was the opposite of Calvin’s Institutes. Calvin tried to save Servetus right up to his execution. Idolatry is a worse sin than murder. A violation of the 1st 4 commandments is worse than a violation of the last 6. Servetus was publicly violating the 1st 4 commandments. Our generation (which upholds liberty for actual satanic Churches) cannot seem to fathom Servetus’ execution as being just, though they can see that murder should be punished, either by lengthy imprisonment, or execution. But to help us see the light of God’s word on the justice of censuring idolatry, consider ISIS. Show me the patriotic American that will defend the ‘right’ for ISIS to set up shop here on American soil? Or Sharia law on American soil? This PROVES there is just cause to censure on the basis of religion. Some try to explain this away by saying ISIS is not a religion and say it is a geopolitical ideology. Sophistry is characteristic of deceivers.
I think it was Rutherford who said, we were so focused on crossing our T’s and dotting our I’s that we forgot about love…and the comment was made in the context of that great split in the Scottish Church between the Protestors and the Resolutioners. Rutherford was Protestor, and David Dickson was a Resolutioner. Both were GREAT and godly men. So the irony of them being separated is mind-boggling. Interestingly, Rutherford, though in the minority party of Protestors, never left the Church. Rather he was put out of the church. I don’t believe he was excommunicated. He was simply excluded by the Presbytery. The Protestors had the truth, by the way. When a Christian is put out for the truth he espouses, the party that puts him out is really the branch being cut off or excommunicated…if you will.
But getting back to the concept of being too exact (Ecc 7:16)…too focused on crossing our T’s and dotting our I’s that we forget about love…it seems entirely appropriate that the king also make use of the wisdom taught in this lesson. The king could and should recognize Corinth as a true church, though she was divided into sects or denominations (1 Cor 1 and 3)…and Laodecia as a true church. So the king should not use his sword on Corinth or Laodecia, to cut them off like Servetus was cut off. This is not the same though as denominationalism would argue for. Denominationalists argue for a right to maintain doctrine (that is varied and necessarily erroneous…there are not 20,000 truths without any redress or challenge. Essentially an Apollos is not welcome to come to a denomination and explain to them a more excellent way. Nor is a Berean allowed to examine the scriptures to see if what the denomination says is so. It is too rare to find a Psalm singer among Reformed Churches who add human compositions to the Public worship of God. Were there is such a congregation, to me, that is evidence of forbearing love…and love is the greatest of the 3 (1 Cor 13). The king would be right to address all the things Paul did with Corinth’s errors…or Laodecia’s errors …or any of the Church’s errors in the NT. What I like about that, is that a denomination would be much less able to ignore the king, like I was ignored on various truths. The king has the power to call synods and address the topics I was refused to address with the respective sessions. As such, I was basically given the boot. A godly king with the ORIGINAL WCF ch 23 would have prevented that…either by direct intervention…or more likely by having cultivated a healthy Church which does not exclude Christians who believe the minority truth, or weak Christians who hold an erroneous view on a nonessential…and even in some cases holds an erroneous view on an essential…like baptism. If a Baptist can hold to his error on a sacrament (and be recieved by Presbyterian Churches as a member and to the Lord’s table), baptism being an essential (it’s a mark of a true Church), but a psalm singer cannot hold his TRUE belief (and even be willing to defend it on video…furthermore the difference was kept primarily with the overseers and not the congregation so as to keep peace. Whereas the baptist view was well known by most parties, as I perceived things.)…then something is seriously wrong.
If you read this and it’s not all making sense, I will gladly answer any questions you may have. I try to write so as all sorts of readers can follow along, but I’m not perfect and sometimes background knowledge can be assumed the reader knows, but doesn’t…and then I lose the reader (unintended…and it’s not becuase I’m any better than the reader). This is not necessarily an easy subject ( it depends on how it is taught/conveyed)… but it is a necessary subject to address. If the Church NEGLECTS to tell the king his duty (in this case with respect to the Church), satan will take over and rule the nation, which will usher in all sorts of evil influences upon the Church…like the COVID-19 shutdowns (a crafty Erastian medical tyranny). The king’s nurturing of the Church is a duty he has to God. His kingdom will be blessed when he does his duty to nurture the church (Ps 33:12). Chapter 23 of the WCF is tied inseparably to the preaching of the gospel. What Christian would not choose king David over Hitler? Consider Hitler’s influence on the German Church in WWII.
Question. If you were John Mark and had a sharp contention (Acts 15:39) with a Paul (or a local Church body of overseers) who was perhaps pastor at the Church of Ephesus …would you worship with the Laodicean Church, if that was providentially accessible? Remember the Church…the TRUE Church… is more or less pure.
United we stand. Divided we fall. Do we believe that anymore?
RAIN MAKER (1Kings 8:35, 36) 
One thought on “The ‘right’ of denominationalism”