toldailytopic: Why are there so many Christian denominations? And is that necessarily

[Krsto]

Please tell your chef to stop buying those mushrooms he's putting in your omelette.

I had a friend who got saved during a trip . . . on LSD . . . so who knows what God can use in Nick's case. :chuckle:

 

[IXOYE]

If we thought Jesus wanted us to, we would.

That's the way the Church was founded, Krsto, It amazes me how people just ignore the flat out statements in the Bible and early history to make excuses for things.

 

[Nick M]

No, he didn't say anything of the sort. :nono:

Sure he did. Very much so.

 

[zippy2006]

John 17:21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

There is one truth, not many. Claiming that the doctrinal differences are a good thing is modern nonsense.

Only if you accept the premise that God entrusted one particular denomination to be the repository of all the truth. It is this type of thinking which leads to division in the body of Christ more than anything.

In other words Zip, you are not a part of the solution, but a part of the problem.

Maybe you ought to read the post you quoted, it answers you better than anything else I could write. :idunno:

 

[Krsto]

That's the way the Church was founded, Krsto, It amazes me how people just ignore the flat out statements in the Bible and early history to make excuses for things.

Right, but your church of today, or even your church of the 4th century, is not the church Jesus founded.

 

[griffinsavard]

"No room for growth of the understanding"? Can you understand it any better than "completely as Christ intended"? Can you grow past that?

Wow! you are a Catholic with a Metallica Avatar? Would the Pope support your action? See, you too enjoy your individuallity hypocrite :jawdrop:

 

[griffinsavard]

Maybe you ought to read the post you quoted, it answers you better than anything else I could write. :idunno:

If your church were the church Christ founded it would have fulfilled all the prophecies concerning it; but, of course it didn't and was decimated by the publication of the Scriptures and its overthrow by the people. Now, you are just another voice among the many. So, history proves and reality proves you are not the 'stone cut out of the mountain without hands.'

The spiritual actions that pervade your church and its history show you are not of God in its ultimate sense. Sure there are catholics who are true to God but ignorant to the truth and God will deal with these people according to his wise counsel.

After watching 'the fall of the third Reich' on the history channel this morning you guys remind me of the 'Master race mindset of the Germans.' Humble yourself or be humbled by the Mighty God.....:chuckle:

 

[Krsto]

If your church were the church Christ founded it would have fulfilled all the prophecies concerning it; but, of course it didn't and was decimated by the publication of the Scriptures and its overthrow by the people. Now, you are just another voice among the many. So, history proves and reality proves you are not the 'stone cut out of the mountain without hands.'

The spiritual actions that pervade your church and its history show you are not of God in its ultimate sense. Sure there are catholics who are true to God but ignorant to the truth and God will deal with these people according to his wise counsel.

After watching 'the fall of the third Reich' on the history channel this morning you guys remind me of the 'Master race mindset of the Germans.' Humble yourself or be humbled by the Mighty God.....:chuckle:

Humility implies giving up control. Control is an idol not easily parted with so as you've implied God has done an end run around the "established" church to partially restore the faith "once and for all delivered to the saints." If it weren't for their doctrine of not using birth control their church would have withered away and ceased to have much impact in the world, either for good or for bad (and I do believe we need to recognize the good God and/or men have been able to accomplish through her).

 

[Krsto]

Maybe you ought to read the post you quoted, it answers you better than anything else I could write. :idunno:

Jn. 17:21 has little to do with doctrinal unity and much to do with our spiritual experience of being many grapes connected to the same vine. If we remain in him, we will bear much fruit, just as he said, yet in spite of doctrinal differences.

 

[zippy2006]

The spiritual actions that pervade your church and its history show you are not of God in its ultimate sense.

Ever heard of the Jews? :chuckle:

 

[IXOYE]

Only if you accept the premise that God entrusted one particular denomination to be the repository of all the truth. It is this type of thinking which leads to division in the body of Christ more than anything.

In other words Zip, you are not a part of the solution, but a part of the problem.

Other than the fact that is EXACTLY HOW THE BIBLE DESCRIBES IT and the early witnesses, you are correct, except the parts you are wrong on, which is all of it.

The RCC can make a stronger case that they are "the Church" than any protestant denom can. I think E.O. has a better argument, and I don't know enough about the other sections, ethiopea, etc to say.

If you want to see the apostolic authority, I'll waste a night and break it down for you from the Bible.

I know, of course, you'll just rewrite the Bible to save face, you do that everytime you are corrected, but it might help the poor people that listen to you get a clue.

 

[Krsto]

Other than the fact that is EXACTLY HOW THE BIBLE DESCRIBES IT and the early witnesses, you are correct, except the parts you are wrong on, which is all of it.

The RCC can make a stronger case that they are "the Church" than any protestant denom can. I think E.O. has a better argument, and I don't know enough about the other sections, ethiopea, etc to say.

If you want to see the apostolic authority, I'll waste a night and break it down for you from the Bible.

I know, of course, you'll just rewrite the Bible to save face, you do that everytime you are corrected, but it might help the poor people that listen to you get a clue.

Funny I make the point that God did not entrust his truth to any particular denomination and you counter by asserting which particular denomination God might have entrusted with his truth.

You want to back up and take another run at that?

 

[Sherman]

Ok...that's a given.

It just seemed like Inzl had something from every denomination to shoot down, and I was curious if the list extended to the Nazarenes as well.

I don't know enough about the Nazarenes to point out their warts. Based on my research they seem to pretty much have it together. There emphasis on schools and works could turn into yapping dogma if it drowns out the salvation message. Dogma is destructive when it is placed in a position where it becomes a requirement for salvation.

Most of the churches I listed I have attended at least a few times, so I am aware of their flaws. Being stuck on a military base, I pretty much had to attend the church that was available at the time. Others I attended because I was invited by friends.

My point is that no church corners the market on truth. Only God does and none of us are God. I am not one to say you are lost if you attend church X. You are only lost if you do not hear message of the Gospel and act on it. Churches that have dogma that redefine who Jesus is are not Christian--eg Mormon, JW. That is why they are not on my list.

 

[IXOYE]

If the dogma is truth we wouldn't be calling it a "pet doctrine" if the whole church simply accepted it as truth.

Who's truth?

 

[IXOYE]

Right, but your church of today, or even your church of the 4th century, is not the church Jesus founded.

Well, I'm not prepared to say that as absolutely as you are. But I tend to lean that way. I'm protestant non denom now. I would go catholic if I thought they were the one. I nearly go E.O. But, protestant's churches aren't even in the ball park of what the scripture and early witnesses describe. So when I see them getting all cocky and mouthy, and sometimes bigotty, I really get annoyed and feel like Paul talking to Peter. For the fifty first time.

 

[IXOYE]

I don't know enough about the Nazarenes to point out their warts. Based on my research they seem to pretty much have it together. There emphasis on schools and works could turn into yapping dogma if it drowns out the salvation message. Dogma is destructive when it is placed in a position where it becomes a requirement for salvation.

Most of the churches I listed I have attended at least a few times, so I am aware of their flaws. Being stuck on a military base, I pretty much had to attend the church that was available at the time. Others I attended because I was invited by friends.

There isn't a church that teaches works saves. Well, I hear the LDS does, but I don't know that, and I can't call that one. Leave them out, I don't think there is one that teaches works saves.

I know if you don't have works you probably aren't saved. But it's not that the works save you. The salvation principle will produce works, if you have no works you probably missed the principle.

 

[Krsto]

Well, I'm not prepared to say that as absolutely as you are. But I tend to lean that way. I'm protestant non denom now. I would go catholic if I thought they were the one. I nearly go E.O. But, protestant's churches aren't even in the ball park of what the scripture and early witnesses describe. So when I see them getting all cocky and mouthy, and sometimes bigotty, I really get annoyed and feel like Paul talking to Peter. For the fifty first time.

Yeah but you tend to put too much emphasis on post-apostolic sources such as Clement and Ignatius to give you the "earliest, most authentic, and most likely to be accurate" portrayal of genuine apostolic church polity (government), when in fact these two gentlemen, if what we have now even approximates what they actually believed and wrote, took their respective churches (read that spheres of influence) off in directions that Jesus and the apostles never had intended they go, just as some even in the bible did, such as Diotrephes in 3 John and the Nicolaitans (laity conqurors) in Revelation.

Furthermore, the Didache, another compilation of writings from the same generation that was considered equally influential and in the running for scripture status, paints quite a different picture when an apostle or prophet is not allowed to spend more than 3 days at a church unless he intends to move there permanently and is not supposed to ask for money for his own needs.

 

[Krsto]

Well, I'm not prepared to say that as absolutely as you are. But I tend to lean that way. I'm protestant non denom now. I would go catholic if I thought they were the one. I nearly go E.O. But, protestant's churches aren't even in the ball park of what the scripture and early witnesses describe. So when I see them getting all cocky and mouthy, and sometimes bigotty, I really get annoyed and feel like Paul talking to Peter. For the fifty first time.

I think if we could amalgamate the best of what the various Protestant churches have to offer then we would be pretty close to the original church and it wouldn't look anything like an EO or RCC church. I just can't see Paul, James, Peter or John walking into an EO or RCC church today and even recognizing it as anything close to his experience. If he were to walk into a home church in which people love each other, minister to one another as God gives them ability, they care for and pray for each other, the people are being equipped and encouraged to serve the Lord and witness for him in this lost world, people are experiencing the presense of God and filled with so much joy they can't help but burst out in heartfelt and passionate praise and worship to Jesus and God then I think Paul, James, John, and Peter would not only recognize it as a Christian church but feel more at home.

 

[IXOYE]

:jump:

Yeah but you tend to put too much emphasis on post-apostolic sources such as Clement and Ignatius


So, you think it wiser to ignore Clement, who lived with the Apostles, during their time, and discredit what he thought he was taught, in favor of your ideas 2000 years later? I hope you can see my hesitancy there.

So here's what I did. I read 1 clement. When I got the point describing the Church, I recognized the verses they were references too. So I took those ten or twelve chapters of 1 clement and verified it with Scripture. NOTHING WAS NOT IN SCRIPTURE. So, you would need to argue that what was in scripture AND clement's letter was wrong.

I will say this, Clement made me look at things differently, AND I had to read the scripture different than before, but it fit much better after I matched it with Clement's letter.

Now, as this section of his letter is flush with scripture, and is soundly flush at that, I'm pretty comfortable accepting his description as what he authentically believe he was taught. And his time frame, beating you and the guys by 1900 years, does seem to me that he would with the authority debate on the topic.

So, if we are afraid of changing OUR views on the Bible's words to even test another view, IF you were wrong, how would you ever know. :| You'd die wrong.


to give you the "earliest, most authentic, and most likely to be accurate" portrayal of genuine apostolic church polity (government), when in fact these two gentlemen, if what we have now even approximates what they actually believed and wrote, took their respective churches (read that spheres of influence) off in directions that Jesus and the apostles never had intended they go, just as some even in the bible did, such as Diotrephes in 3 John and the Nicolaitans (laity conqurors) in Revelation.

I believe you are confusing Clements.

Furthermore, the Didache, another compilation of writings from the same generation that was considered equally influential and in the running for scripture status, paints quite a different picture when an apostle or prophet is not allowed to spend more than 3 days at a church unless he intends to move there permanently and is not supposed to ask for money for his own needs.

It doesn't paint a different picture. That's bunk. By your own words, "UNLESS HE INTENDS TO MOVE THERE PERMANENTLY", like Timothy did, as Clement had done. Clement had done the traveling part, we know that, and at some point took up residence in Rome. PLUS the role of a Bishop requires Him to reside there, except for his travels at least. No conflict at all.

I think your stubborness outweights my confidence in Clement. But, that's what makes the world go round.:jump:

 

[IXOYE]

I think if we could amalgamate the best of what the various Protestant churches have to offer then we would be pretty close to the original church and it wouldn't look anything like an EO or RCC church. I just can't see Paul, James, Peter or John walking into an EO or RCC church today and even recognizing it as anything close to his experience. If he were to walk into a home church in which people love each other, minister to one another as God gives them ability, they care for and pray for each other, the people are being equipped and encouraged to serve the Lord and witness for him in this lost world, people are experiencing the presense of God and filled with so much joy they can't help but burst out in heartfelt and passionate praise and worship to Jesus and God then I think Paul, James, John, and Peter would not only recognize it as a Christian church but feel more at home.

And as I read the pastoral letters, and things Paul wrote in other books, I can very easily see that the Apostles intended it to be much like it is today. The growth of the Church today has necessitated some changes that weren't there in their times, to be sure. But I'd wager from an administrative scale they wouldn't argue.

They taught liturgically, they had elders, teachers, bishops, managers, etc...

They had authoritative structure. They influenced doing works after you were saved. They blah blah blah. All of which is straight out of scripture, and congruent with RCC, and consistent historically.