The Separation of Christianity

[james1523]

Some groups do not believe that are a division or subset, they believe they are the original group that others left.

These groups are wrong. Strictly speaking, there's only one true group and this is believers in Christ. This group cannot be left unless we leave Christ. There is no such thing as an "original group" in God's eyes, all Christians are the same to Him, in space and time. This is why when we partake of bread and wine, we are doing so with all the saints, not limited by space or time.

 

[james1523]

I am not arguing that there should be many salvation doctrines. I am merely stating that there are many. Agreed, you need to have Jesus Christ to be saved. ( Some salvation doctrines don't base their doctrine on Jesus and yet still claim to be Christian).

We should not fellowship with other Christians just because they have the same view as us, we should fellowship with other Christians because we have the same Lord, the same Father, the same Spirit. It is "unity in Spirit", not "unity in doctrine". Unity in doctrine may result later. I think most salvation doctrines about Christ will lead to salvation, and on that basis, everyone can meet together because they are all saved, and part of the same family. Denominations, are like a family refusing to eat dinner together because they have different views about some matter.

Okay, God did not want denominations. God also did not want sin. He allowed it.
Did you happen to read 1 Corinthians 1:10?
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.

Let us say that we remove the labels from different churches and that we join in hands, and yet still have a different belief. Is this following all that is advised by Paul? How then can we speak the same and be perfectly joined in the same mind? We cannot until Christ brings this about.

Christ did not choose the 12 disciples because they all had the same mind and same beliefs. Rather, He chose men of different backgrounds, personalities and opinions, and called them his own. They were different, yet they were all one. Christ cannot bring this about as long as believers meet in separation. We cannot speak the same and have the same mind if denominations continue to reinforce the separation and boundaries, and believers of different persuasions never meet together. The same mind and same judgement will be the eventual result as we continue to meet together. So removing the labels and meeting together, is definitely the first step. Eventually our beliefs will be tested and tried, we will learn the lesson of the cross, and denial of self. I believe that largely, denominations exist because people don't want to be challenged about their beliefs. The existence of a denomination, in essence is saying "we are right, and everyone else is wrong". If division is not God's will, just like sin, we should not have much to do with it.

The answer is simple. You have many McDonald's. They are all very similar. Now let us say that I want to start a burger joint and I want it to be successful. I don't want to be McDonald's, I don't want to be tied to all of the rules and regulations they have. A little freedom is good. So, I open up a store with similar colors and call it McDonold's. Many people will come because they wont notice the difference in letters. Many will say it is better than McDonald's and many will say it existed before McDonald's. Does this sound familiar? McDonold's can never join McDonald's, and McDonald's cannot allow McDonold's to join or claim they are one. They are not the same and never will be. They don't belong to the same company.
McDonald's are one company.
Not all denominations are part of the body of Christ. Which ones are and which ones aren't? Well, you have to look at the fruit they bear and measure them against the word of God. If they do not stand up to the word of God, then they are not of God.

No denominations are part of the body of Christ, because denominations are not of God. Denominations are those members which say to other members of the Body "I do not need you", or "I do not want you". To meet together as "the Body of Christ", we need to drop all our denominationalism completely. A sectarian, party spirit is not fitting in the Body of Christ.

 

[Last Things]

These groups are wrong. Strictly speaking, there's only one true group and this is believers in Christ. This group cannot be left unless we leave Christ. There is no such thing as an "original group" in God's eyes, all Christians are the same to Him, in space and time. This is why when we partake of bread and wine, we are doing so with all the saints, not limited by space or time.

Except just about every group has a different view of what is means to partake of 'bread and wine'. Which groups are part of the believers? Gnostics? Mormons? Who has the authority to say this?

 

[james1523]

Except just about every group has a different view of what is means to partake of 'bread and wine'. Which groups are part of the believers? Gnostics? Mormons? Who has the authority to say this?

Obviously, believers in Christ are "part of the believers". I cannot see how each group having a different view is relevant. If they partake of bread and wine, they are observing Christ's command of remembrance are they not?

 

[Fenn]

Obviously, believers in Christ are "part of the believers". I cannot see how each group having a different view is relevant. If they partake of bread and wine, they are observing Christ's command of remembrance are they not?

Do you believe that we should try to be unified with those that believe in Christ but teach that homosexuality is okay?
Are you believing that there is nothing that should separate us, other than the core doctrine?
I just want these specific questions answered before I continue.

 

[farout]

There are so many false teachers and preachers of christianity. Very few are genuine Christ followers.

 

[Last Things]

There are so many false teachers and preachers of christianity. Very few are genuine Christ followers.

You are judging the vast majority of Christians?

 

[james1523]

Do you believe that we should try to be unified with those that believe in Christ but teach that homosexuality is okay?
Are you believing that there is nothing that should separate us, other than the core doctrine?
I just want these specific questions answered before I continue.

The basis for inclusion into Christian fellowship is God's ownership of a person. If God has saved and thereby owns a person, to refuse fellowship with them because of their opinions is to say to God that we do not accept them as a saved person, and we may be held accountable to God for passing such a judgement. Unification is certainly the way forward, keeping in mind, that Christian fellowship is the main mechanism by which we grow unto maturity. Without Christian fellowship, people will remain individuals with erroneous opinions such as that homosexuality is OK. And worse, if such a person attends a "pro-homosexual church", they may never be challenged or change in their belief, because they are like the blind leading the blind. So I suggest that unification between anti-homosexual and pro homosexual believers should be sought, in the hope that the Spirit will prevail in convincing the pro-homosexual believers that their opinion is wrong. And at the same time, the Spirit may temper the attitude of the anti-homosexual believers, to make them more accommodating of those with different views and show the love of Christ a bit more. As the number of denominations has grown over the past hundreds of years, also the number of false doctrines and heresies has grown also. Division, provides a certain environment for false doctrines to emerge - because such doctrines are made in relative isolation, without fellowship with the larger body of Christ.

Jesus was a "friend of sinners", so I'm wondering why two saved people shouldn't be able to fellowship even if they hold a different view regarding a certain matter. A true follower of Christ would be able to fellowship with anyone who bears the name of Christ. If they have received Christ then the fact is they are brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of their erroneous opinions. If God has owned them, dare we disown them? And it is a function of the church to help correct their erroneous opinions, rather than exclude fellowship or divide into sectarianism. Regarding opinions - the church should not discriminate or exclude those who are "weak in faith". Romans 14:1 says "Welcome the person who is weak in faith—but not in order to argue about differences of opinion."

 

[farout]

You are judging the vast majority of Christians?

The vast majority of people who say they are christians, are not genuine followers of jesus Christ. Many say Lord lord, but Jesus is not really their Lord.

 

[james1523]

The church is the Body of Christ regardless of denomination. It is not different denominations that grieves God. It is sin and man's choice to reject Jesus.;

Discord between brethren is one of the things that God hates: Proverbs 6:19. Division is basically a sin and therefore grieves God. So much so that He prayed for unity in John 17:20-21.

 

[james1523]

The bible names churches - Church of Corinth, Church of Jerusalem, etc.
By 100 they had a concept for who they were collectively, which they call 'universal' or 'catholic'.

I agree there is a universal or catholic church, but it is not Roman. Take the name "Roman" out of "The Holy Roman Catholic Church" and you may have a point. In the Bible it is the Church at (or in) Corinth, the Church at (or in) Jerusalem. The churches identity is not the place it dwells in, but the person to whom it belongs i.e. Christ.
The concept of having the "Roman Catholic Church" in a place outside of Rome is unscriptural.
This is how we can know that the Roman Catholic Church is an invented organization of man and not the true Catholic church. We don't have to even start to examine its doctrines and practices to see that, just look at its identity and its structure.

 

[Last Things]

The vast majority of people who say they are christians, are not genuine followers of jesus Christ. Many say Lord lord, but Jesus is not really their Lord.

And you are making this judgment how?

 

[Last Things]

I agree there is a universal or catholic church, but it is not Roman. Take the name "Roman" out of "The Holy Roman Catholic Church" and you may have a point. In the Bible it is the Church at (or in) Corinth, the Church at (or in) Jerusalem. The churches identity is not the place it dwells in, but the person to whom it belongs i.e. Christ.
The concept of having the "Roman Catholic Church" in a place outside of Rome is unscriptural.
This is how we can know that the Roman Catholic Church is an invented organization of man and not the true Catholic church. We don't have to even start to examine its doctrines and practices to see that, just look at its identity and its structure.

The official name of the group is "(the) Catholic Church" in Latin. Sometimes the "Roman" is used within the Catholic Church or by outside groups. "Roman" does not mean that the Church/Ekklesia/assembly of Rome extends beyond its regional boundaries. The term "Roman" is used to refer to those groups that are in communion (what protestants called fellowship) with Rome.

Within the early Church, as exists today among Catholics, every region was considered its own Church. Many of the early Christians (outside of Rome) writers spoke of the need for a local community to be in communion/fellowship with the bishop of Rome. Catholics believe that in order to be considered Catholic, one needs to be in union with the Pope.

Despite what people often think, the Catholic Church is not one big organization. For example, some people actually believe all the collection money goes to the Vatican and then the Vatican distributes it back. The Catholic Church is divided into many different regions. A single US state may have 1 to a dozen regions depending on its size and cities. The region is named for the local city. The region is governed by a bishop/overseer who ordains priests (an English derivative of presbyters) and deacons. Priests are assigned to various ministries, usually parishes/churches/buildings.

 

[Fenn]

The basis for inclusion into Christian fellowship is God's ownership of a person. If God has saved and thereby owns a person, to refuse fellowship with them because of their opinions is to say to God that we do not accept them as a saved person, and we may be held accountable to God for passing such a judgement. Unification is certainly the way forward, keeping in mind, that Christian fellowship is the main mechanism by which we grow unto maturity. Without Christian fellowship, people will remain individuals with erroneous opinions such as that homosexuality is OK. And worse, if such a person attends a "pro-homosexual church", they may never be challenged or change in their belief, because they are like the blind leading the blind. So I suggest that unification between anti-homosexual and pro homosexual believers should be sought, in the hope that the Spirit will prevail in convincing the pro-homosexual believers that their opinion is wrong. And at the same time, the Spirit may temper the attitude of the anti-homosexual believers, to make them more accommodating of those with different views and show the love of Christ a bit more. As the number of denominations has grown over the past hundreds of years, also the number of false doctrines and heresies has grown also. Division, provides a certain environment for false doctrines to emerge - because such doctrines are made in relative isolation, without fellowship with the larger body of Christ.

Jesus was a "friend of sinners", so I'm wondering why two saved people shouldn't be able to fellowship even if they hold a different view regarding a certain matter. A true follower of Christ would be able to fellowship with anyone who bears the name of Christ. If they have received Christ then the fact is they are brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of their erroneous opinions. If God has owned them, dare we disown them? And it is a function of the church to help correct their erroneous opinions, rather than exclude fellowship or divide into sectarianism. Regarding opinions - the church should not discriminate or exclude those who are "weak in faith". Romans 14:1 says "Welcome the person who is weak in faith—but not in order to argue about differences of opinion."

I will not commune with those who claim to be of Christ and yet continue to promote non-biblical behavior. I am not worried about names as much as I am worried about content. Names for denominations denote beliefs. "Christian" has become a broad term encompassing anyone who believes in a semi-Messianic Christ based religion. Mormons believe that they are Christians as well as Catholics and many others that actually fall short in the critical doctrine area. If there is a church that is glorying in their open mindedness and acceptance of immoral behavior, then I will have no part.


1 Corinthians 5
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

 

[Last Things]

I will not commune with those who claim to be of Christ and yet continue to promote non-biblical behavior

Non-biblical or anti-biblical? Non-biblical is what we are doing right now, using the internet, computers, and electricity. None of these things are mentioned in scripture. Anti-biblical would be something that contradicts scripture.

I am not worried about names as much as I am worried about content. Names for denominations denote beliefs. "Christian" has become a broad term encompassing anyone who believes in a semi-Messianic Christ based religion. Mormons believe that they are Christians as well as Catholics and many others that actually fall short in the critical doctrine area.

I understand how Mormons are not Christians. They believe things that never existed within Christianity before. Why do you consider Catholics are fallign short of critical doctrine?

If there is a church that is glorying in their open mindedness and acceptance of immoral behavior, then I will have no part.

Absolutely.

 

[Fenn]

Non-biblical or anti-biblical? Non-biblical is what we are doing right now, using the internet, computers, and electricity. None of these things are mentioned in scripture. Anti-biblical would be something that contradicts scripture.

I thought it was obvious that I meant anti-biblical in meaning, I just haven't used that term before.

I understand how Mormons are not Christians. They believe things that never existed within Christianity before. Why do you consider Catholics are fallign short of critical doctrine?

This can be a very long topic and I wont go into it too much.
Let us start with the key part. They have a false view on salvation.
They believe that one must be absolved by a Priest/Father and assigned penance, by said Father. According to their beliefs it is a grave obligation to complete penance to complete the absolving.

In this practice they are putting a man in between them and Christ and the true Father, God. Christ is our connection to the Father, not man. Second, by claiming that one needs to do penance to complete the forgiveness process, they are saying that Christ dying on the cross was not enough. Lastly, by making it a grave offense not to complete these man made penances they are saying that you can loose your salvation. This is not sound salvation doctrine. Thus, I put them in the category along with Mormons.

-needless to say they also put Mary and other saints in a position of deity by praying to them and bowing down to their images and kissing them.

 

[Last Things]

This can be a very long topic and I wont go into it too much.
Let us start with the key part. They have a false view on salvation.
They believe that one must be absolved by a Priest/Father and assigned penance, by said Father. According to their beliefs it is a grave obligation to complete penance to complete the absolving.

In this practice they are putting a man in between them and Christ and the true Father, God. Christ is our connection to the Father, not man.

I believe that Catholics believe the absolution is completed at confession. It is not that the priest absolves the person, but does so on behalf of Christ.

Second, by claiming that one needs to do penance to complete the forgiveness process, they are saying that Christ dying on the cross was not enough.

Are you saying that to ask for forgiveness means what Christ did was incomplete?

Lastly, by making it a grave offense not to complete these man made penances they are saying that you can loose your salvation. This is not sound salvation doctrine. Thus, I put them in the category along with Mormons.

Is Once Saved Always Saved a doctrine of talkjesus?

-needless to say they also put Mary and other saints in a position of deity by praying to them and bowing down to their images and kissing them.

Catholics believe that the saints are not divine. People kiss images or statues out of reverence for the work that God has done in them.

 

[Fenn]

I believe that Catholics believe the absolution is completed at confession. It is not that the priest absolves the person, but does so on behalf of Christ.

Based on what I have read in their Canon Law and in their Catechism, this is not true. Among Catholics themselves there is disagreements, but either they believe it is a mortal sin to refuse to do penance or they believe that it invalidates the absolution. Either way, it is saying that there is a process for forgiveness and by not submitting yourself to punishment you are not truly sorry and are sinning. This is teaching that Christ's forgiveness is not enough and that we must suffer for our sins or we are sinning.

Are you saying that to ask for forgiveness means what Christ did was incomplete?

No, I believe that you may be either purposefully misinterpreting my words, just as in post #75 with anti-biblical vs non-biblical, playing semantics, or are genuinely trying to get clarification on my stance. Currently, it feels as though you are being purposeful.

Is Once Saved Always Saved a doctrine of talkjesus?

I did not claim once saved always saved. I claimed that not completely man made punishments is not biblical grounds for loss of salvation. Once saved always saved is another topic, just as Catholicism. This is the last post in this thread that I will continue discussing it. If you want further clarification or to justify Catholic practices and beliefs, then begin a new thread and I will join.

Catholics believe that the saints are not divine. People kiss images or statues out of reverence for the work that God has done in them.

They say with their words that saints are not divine. I notice you did not mention Mary. People kneel before and kiss images and statues of things that aren't God. This is idolatry. Worshiping man made deities. Again, we can discuss this in another topic.

Suffice it to say that even if they did not have these salvation doctrinal issues, I would not consider communing with them because they are anti-biblical.

 

[Last Things]

Based on what I have read in their Canon Law and in their Catechism, this is not true. Among Catholics themselves there is disagreements, but either they believe it is a mortal sin to refuse to do penance or they believe that it invalidates the absolution. Either way, it is saying that there is a process for forgiveness and by not submitting yourself to punishment you are not truly sorry and are sinning. This is teaching that Christ's forgiveness is not enough and that we must suffer for our sins or we are sinning.

Here is what the catechism says about confession:
"Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God's mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors for their conversion." -1422

Catholics are required to do penance after being absolved. During confession the priest says the words of absolution. If the Catholic forgets to do the penance, they are to confess that in the next confession. If they are unable to do a penance, then they can ask for another.
Are you saying doing penance is wrong? I know in the OT God called entire peoples to penance.

I am curious as to your thoughts on this. I know that in the NT they practiced fasting.

No, I believe that you may be either purposefully misinterpreting my words, just as in post #75 with anti-biblical vs non-biblical, playing semantics, or are genuinely trying to get clarification on my stance. Currently, it feels as though you are being purposeful.

I think we are misunderstanding each other here. Anti-biblical means against the bible. Non-biblical means not in the bible. I was trying to clarify this to reach an understanding. I am understanding you correctly to say that to do penance is to suggest that the sacrifice of Christ is not complete?

I did not claim once saved always saved. I claimed that not completely man made punishments is not biblical grounds for loss of salvation. Once saved always saved is another topic, just as Catholicism. This is the last post in this thread that I will continue discussing it. If you want further clarification or to justify Catholic practices and beliefs, then begin a new thread and I will join.

Okay, that is sensible. Where would you prefer the topic to be? If you do not want to post, then perhaps you can PM me? I am new here and I am not sure where such a topic should go.

They say with their words that saints are not divine. I notice you did not mention Mary. People kneel before and kiss images and statues of things that aren't God. This is idolatry. Worshiping man made deities. Again, we can discuss this in another topic..

I don't understand you here because Catholic do not believe they are divine. Catholicism teaches that saints can only pray for people.

 

[Fenn]

I wont be able to post until later, but I will post a new topic to discuss this and quote this last post.