Which denomination is the most correct?

fatboys said:

I agree that just because it is in the bible it does not make doctrine but wouldn't it be important that Jesus said them? Jesus said that if we were not born again of water and the spirit we could not enter into the kingdom of God. Jesus was baptized by someone who had been doing baptism before Jesus came to him. If it us not essential why even do it? Can you at least see my problem? Some here feel that belonging to a church or organized religion isn't for them and they still believe in Christ yet jesus called and ordained 12 men to help in preaching the gospel. It just doesn't make sense to me. Please explain again.

Click to expand...

But with that line of thinking you wouldn't need most of which is in the Book of Mormon. Do you only adhere to the direct quotes of Jesus in the BOM?

fatboys said:

14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

Click to expand...

Most translation of that verse read "He appointed twelve." I believe that is more literal.

fatboys said:

If it is spoken by a prophet of God as his his mouth piece then it is important. If it recorded from what Jesus said I would surely think it was important. If Jesus did something I would think it was important

Click to expand...

Oh now you expand your criteria.

fatboys said:

Doesnt it all go together, that is the essentials and what you consider nonessential. How can a person believe there are no wrong mainstream Christian churches when you don't all believe the what are the essential?

Click to expand...

I already answered this question and in another post provided an example. I'll say it yet again - "essential" and "important" have two different meanings. What is "essential" may be "important", but what's "important" is not necessarily "essential".

For example (again)... Certain things in a car are essential. Tires, engine, transmission, steering wheel, gas pedal, brake pedal. If a vehicle has those things it can be a "car". There are many more things that are important, even very important, but not essential, such as windshield, door, roof. A car can function without those and be a car (e.g. a Jeep Wrangler) but those things are so important it is the rare car that doesn't have those things (e.g. Jeep Wrangler).

Then there are things that are still important but not as important as roof or doors or windshield, such as radio, air conditioning, heat, etc.

These examples are certainly not perfectly analogous to Christian denominations but they point out the difference between what is essential and what is important - those two words have different meanings.

fatboys said:

I have been reading some of the different threads here and need to ask a question. When Christ was on the earth he taught many truths which some are found in the bible. Do you think that what Christ taught doctrinally could mean many different things and still be right? Example let's take baptism. We know that Christ went to the river Jordan where John the Bapist was baptizing believers of the gospel he taught. John the Baptist told him that he did not need to baptized and was unworthy to even unlatch his shoes. Yet Christ said that he was to fulfill all righteousness. He entered the waters and John baptized him by putting him completely under the water.
Some Mainstream Christian denominations do immersion. Others sprinkle and others don't think it is necessary at all. Since baptism took place before Christ was baptized and also after he was baptized and extended after his death, which is the correct doctrine? Can all be right?

Click to expand...

If it helps, the early church did immersion but if a stream was not available, they used other means. If warm water was not available, then hot or cold would suffice. This is found in the didache document, a 1st century AD document on early Christian doctrine.
"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before." - Ch 7
I think baptism is symbolic of washing away the old, becoming cleansed from sin by becoming a believer in Christ.
At the time of Christ, baptism was already a jewish custom. It was performed by brides to symbolize their transformation from a young girl to a woman betrothed to her groom.

fatboys said:

There are more but I think you are getting the idea. If there was a person searching for a church and wanted to follow the most correct belief which one would he choose?

Click to expand...

I am afraid it really depends.

If you want the most authentic to early practice, then the Orthodox church is the only one to go for, but that does mean rather pretending not to exist in the modern world. If you want one with a high following world-wide, and perhaps the loudest claim to contain the fullness of truth, then the Romans. But to me their claims to fullness are rather marred by the behaviour irt scandals. If you want a church with a broader social base, able to accommodate a broad range of beliefs within Nicene, then the Episcopalian/Anglican. (Which is why I stay Anglican; I prefer a communion open to all Christians, rather than the closed communions of the other Apostolics.) But what some regard as a virtue, others look on with sneering; they might say the Anglican communion tries to be all things to all people, and fails.

If the apostolic succession does not mean much to you, then the choice is far broader; Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Evangelical etc. All of these can be home, for the right people; that is not a problem.

When the faith we have depends so much on the Holy Spirit working in our hearts it is no surprise if we will often choose our churches based on a combination of the Holy Spirit and the choices of our own heart. There is nothing wrong with that; we cannot go wrong as long as we remain Trinitarian and within Nicene. So the correct belief is for each of us and the Holy Spirit between to identify. This may change over time as we mature and grow. An advantage of Anglicanism for me was the ability to move from extreme left to extreme right and remain within the same communion. I don't think that would be possible anywhere else.

Tigger45 said:

This is why its important to rightly divide the word of God.

Sometimes scriputure expresses truths a layer at a time. This is expressed biblically as 'line upon line, precept upon precept.

Click to expand...

Layer on layer, certainly. Line on line, not so much.

If you look at the whole quote you will see that is a warning against getting the interpretation wrong, not about getting it right.

Line on line is not the way to go, in other words. It is rather like trying to work out the full jigsaw picture from one or two pieces, regardless of their position in the original. It is only when we put those pieces together in a coherent fashion that the whole can make proper sense.

http://biblehub.com/isaiah/28-10.htm

fatboys said:

If there is no doctrines and it does not matter what practices are done then why were they introduced in the first place. Why mention it

If doctrines or practices don't matter then when teach them? If we are to follow Christ dos it matter how we follow him?
I have had debates with many mainstream Christians and have expressed my understand of what they believe about the character of God and was corrected by them. And then another debate with a different denomination which understands it quite differently. When I point this out they say,"oh no you got it wrong still."
If you believe that sa person can pick and choose the path back to God then why is there needed a faith in Christ? If all that is needed is to believe that Jesus died for our sins and nothing else is necessary why even mention it let alone take actions. Oh by the way doesn't baptism mean immersion? Why would somebody think that pouring is the same as immersion? I honestly do not understand.

Click to expand...

Baptism is a ritual cleansing. Ideally one would use full immersion, but practically this is not always possible. So we either have to decide whether God will insist on full immersion even where it is not practically possible, or whether he will be reasonable and decide that sprinkling will do perfectly well, as long as the intention is there, and the Baptism is appropriately conducted.

It is your choice whether to have such a reasonable God or not. Some do; some don't. This is not the rather tautological 'picking and choosing'. It is using your God given mind for its right purpose. In a sense God is saying, 'I know who I am; but who do you say that I am?'

gordRedeemed said:

Understandable my good man! When I was a Christian I would agree with you. A Christian should fit into the church with proper Biblical teachings and not the other way around. Now I can see it from the outside a bit and find I can't agree, but that's just me.

Click to expand...

Funnily enough that is not what the Bible says is the mark of our faith. The Lord himself says, 'By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples; that ye love one another.'

Nothing whatever to do with proper teachings.

smaneck said:

So far as I know Jesus called 12 disciples but he didn't 'ordain' them. What does this have to do with belonging to a church or organized religion?

Click to expand...

Because Christians believe the whole of the Bible to be God's revealed word. Naturally, we do not believe there would have been any reason for Jesus to follow any prescribed formula (as if there were one at the time!) or ceremony when choosing the very first of the "ministers" of his new church, but elsewhere in the Bible, i.e. in the New Testament, there is more than a little bit about the needed qualifications, eligibility, process, and all of that, for the next generation of Christian leaders. Most Christian denominations adhere pretty closely to that.

"Mine is" -- Most people with a denomination.

You'll probably never get one right answer.

fatboys said:

Is there one right answer?

Click to expand...

I think most denominations have merits, but I don't see any head and shoulders above any other.

Albion said:

Because Christians believe the whole of the Bible to be God's revealed word. Naturally, we do not believe there would have been any reason for Jesus to follow any prescribed formula (as if there were one at the time!) or ceremony when choosing the very first of the "ministers" of his new church,

Click to expand...

But I think Fatboy has something entirely different in mind.