• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The Early Church is the Catholic Church

rakovsky

Newbie
Apr 8, 2004
2,552
558
Pennsylvania
✟82,685.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
To repeat what I posted earlier. The ONLY church is the Church that is founded by Christ Jesus and it is catholic and holy for:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

We should therefore:

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

This says nothing in favour of the church that came from Rome. This group is as guilty of the heresy (the Greek word means "a person who stirs up division") of denominilationism as anybody.

To think that the body should cast people out just because they disagree with you on some theological or philosophical issue, that has no direct bearing on Christ crucified and raised from the dead for the forgivness of sin, is just as bad as to think that one can set up a new religous denomination for the same disagreement.

We are urged to make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

We should be warned that the body of Christ cannot be split into pieces and that perhaps when we think that we can push our bretheren parts out for what ever reason we ourselves become part of the problem.
Not sure if you are Anglican, but since you talked about unity vs rejecting people, there is the weird case of Bp. Cheyney in England. He rejected transubstantiation, but he also rejected Article 29 of the Articles of Religion because he agreed with Lutherans, Catholics, and EOs, that since Jesus's body is in the Eucharist food, the unworthy also ate Jesus's body. Since he rejected article 29, he got excommunicated by the protestant Anglican church and then in his absence article 29 got approved.

Funny thing is, many Anglicans today agree with the Lutheran position, and yet they sincerely claim to accept the Articles Of Religion too.
 
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Site Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,768
New Zealand
✟148,435.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That church definitely isn't Protestantism as a whole because there are many faiths within Protestantism, many of which contradict each other.
According to the written record of the Apostles anybody who beleives in Christ Jesus crucified and ressurected from the dead for the forgivness of sins and proclaims Him as Lord is a part of the church.

Seems clear God wants you to remain united to the body of believers and not divide it into hundreds of denominations.
The meaning of the word Greek word translated "heretic" (in Titus) is a divisive one, one who divides the body. Of course the beginning of divisiveness is in a lack of humility, gentleness, patience and not bearing with one another in Love.

When a group from one location tries to tell another group from another location that they should submit to the leadership of the first group because the first group were supposedly founded by somebody who is pretty irrelevent anyway (One of you says, “I follow Paul.” Another says, “I follow Apollos.” Another says, “I follow Peter.” And still another says, “I follow Christ.” Does Christ take sides? Did Paul die on the cross for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?), this is a failure of humility, it is in itself divisive (heretical).

The Roman church thus became the first denomination of an otherwise truly catholic body of beleivers.

When the Roman church declares that all of those who disagree are not part of the body and attempt enforcement is neither humble, nor gentle, nor loving.

It also completely misses the point of Christs teaching and example in that:

Who, being in very nature God,

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing

by taking the very nature of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

by becoming obedient to death—

even death on a cross!

...and who taught:

An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.”

The early Christians had one faith (as scripture teaches) that was transmitted from Jesus though his apostles (both orally and in writing according to scripture). Those who refuse to believe that faith are not following Christ as Jesus said "he who hears you hears Me and he who rejects you rejects Me and the one who sent Me. (Lk 10:16)"
Amen to that.

Disagreeing with even one doctrine of the Christian faith is a rejection of all of it because it means the person has no faith in Christ who revealed it. Such a person does not have faith because he is merely choosing to believe whatever feels right to him instead of putting his trust in Christ.

I hope you live up to this extremely high standard yourself and daily lay down your life for your neighbour in imitation of Him.

Thomas (the Apostle) was not rejected because of his failure to beleive but was rather lovingly and patiently shown the evidence that would satisfy him.

As for me, my brother, I trust in the grace of Christ, don't throw stones in my glass house and humbly bear with those that I disagree in the cause of unity in the name of Christ Jesus.

Scripture says such people are to be rejected. "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject (Titus 3:10)."
The word heretic means a divisive one. A divisive person is the proud one who tries to enforce His opinion on others without regard for the unity of the church. He must be removed before the whole is divided.

Pretending that people who reject Christ are part of the body of Christ is not unity.
What is the rejection of Christ?

I seem to remember that a denomination from Rome practiced the paying of indulgences for salvation at one point. Is this not a rejection of the efficacy of the work of Christ on the cross for salvation?

Christ himself said this: Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

Those who reject what Jesus revealed to the apostles and passed on to their successors have severed themselves from the body of Christ. I wish Luther and Calvin had heeded your warning not to attempt to split the body of Christ. What they did was very wrong and a very serious sin.
Denominilisation was well entrenched by the time of Luther and Clavin and most notably happened at the point where the Bishop of Rome chose to follow the spirit of a proud and foolish man rather than follow the humble, loving and gentle Spirit of Christ Jesus our Lord.
 
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Site Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,768
New Zealand
✟148,435.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Not sure if you are Anglican, but since you talked about unity vs rejecting people, there is the weird case of Bp. Cheyney in England. He rejected transubstantiation, but he also rejected Article 29 of the Articles of Religion because he agreed with Lutherans, Catholics, and EOs, that since Jesus's body is in the Eucharist food, the unworthy also ate Jesus's body. Since he rejected article 29, he got excommunicated by the protestant Anglican church and then in his absence article 29 got approved.

Funny thing is, many Anglicans today agree with the Lutheran position, and yet they sincerely claim to accept the Articles Of Religion too.
Sorry bro, I'm not religous, nor do I wish to recognise denomination.
I do however beleive that Christ died and was risen from the dead for our salvation. I call Him my Lord and I am learning to follow the leading of His Spirit in me. I Love my neighbour and the body of Christ in so far as I can at the moment and where the oppurtunity arises I will pass on the good news of salvation to others.
I don't know what label goes on all of that. Somebody recently pressed me so I called myself a "Jewish Bretheren" which had the desired effect (got me removed from the ship eventually).
 
Upvote 0

Lepanto

Newbie
Jun 16, 2008
519
143
Liverpool
✟34,831.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
With all these pagan practices, false beliefs, false dogmas, clerical scandals, for 2000 years, uhhhh, it's amazing that the Roman Catholic Church hasn't disappeared centuries ago. And why are all these martyrs dying for uhh false teachings and practices today, yesterday?

The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it, (the Church). Also I think Christ stated He would be with His Church till the end of time…..

Yes, mikpat, it's amazing the Catholic Church hasn't disappeared long ago !!! All corrupt human organizations must collapse in the long run !!!

The Catholic Church survives until today because She is really the true Church founded by Our Saviour, as "The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it". So the Catholic Church cannot collapse and never did in history, in spite of so many so many scary threats and challenges in the past.

(But you are wrong when you said pagan practices, false beliefs, false dogmas, that's your misunderstanding only)
 
Upvote 0

samir

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2015
2,274
580
us
✟18,067.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
According to the written record of the Apostles anybody who beleives in Christ Jesus crucified and ressurected from the dead for the forgivness of sins and proclaims Him as Lord is a part of the church.

Where can I find a copy of that record? I'd like to read it for myself.


The meaning of the word Greek word translated "heretic" (in Titus) is a divisive one, one who divides the body. Of course the beginning of divisiveness is in a lack of humility, gentleness, patience and not bearing with one another in Love.

When a group from one location tries to tell another group from another location that they should submit to the leadership of the first group because the first group were supposedly founded by somebody who is pretty irrelevent anyway (One of you says, “I follow Paul.” Another says, “I follow Apollos.” Another says, “I follow Peter.” And still another says, “I follow Christ.” Does Christ take sides? Did Paul die on the cross for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?), this is a failure of humility, it is in itself divisive (heretical).

Scripture describes a hierarchy in the church and says Christians are to submit to their leaders who are over them in the Lord so it's not divisive for a bishop to explain the Christian faith and what must be believed.

The Roman church thus became the first denomination of an otherwise truly catholic body of beleivers.

I'd like to see evidence of this. All the early Christians writings I read show they followed the bishops who were successors of the apostles and were united in one faith, rejecting those who didn't agree with that faith.

When the Roman church declares that all of those who disagree are not part of the body and attempt enforcement is neither humble, nor gentle, nor loving.

Let's change a few words. Do you agree with the following statement? "When a Protestant church declares that all of those who disagree with scripture are not part of the body and attempt enforcement is neither humble, nor gentle, nor loving." By "disagree with scripture" I don't mean interpret it differently. I mean people who say "I agree with most of what the bible teaches but I think some things are wrong. For example, I don't believe the flood of Noah, that Moses parted the Red Sea, the virgin birth, or that adultery is wrong."



It also completely misses the point of Christs teaching and example in that:

Who, being in very nature God,

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing

by taking the very nature of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

by becoming obedient to death—

even death on a cross!

...and who taught:

An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.”

I certainly agree with humility. The pope humbly calls himself "the servant of servants." A person can have great authority, proclaim it, and still be humble.

I hope you live up to this extremely high standard yourself and daily lay down your life for your neighbour in imitation of Him.

I do live up to it but it's not a high standard and has nothing to do with sin or being perfect. I'll replace "the Christian faith" with scripture since that's what Protestants say is the source of the Christian faith and see whether you agree:

Disagreeing with even one doctrine of the Christian faith scripture is a rejection of all of it because it means the person has no faith in Christ who revealed it. Such a person does not have faith because he is merely choosing to believe whatever feels right to him instead of putting his trust in Christ.

If a person truly believes scripture to be the word of God then he will believe all of it because God can't be wrong. If a person says he believes most of the bible but not all of it then it means he doesn't believe scripture to be God's word. Therefore, the parts he accepts is not due to faith in what God revealed but due to it agreeing with his own opinions. That's why a person who rejects even one verse in scripture does not have faith because he doesn't believe the bible, the source of the Christian faith, to be from God.

If the source of the Christian faith is the Catholic Church instead of the bible (which BTW didn't exist until the 4th century) then rejecting one Catholic teaching is equivalent to rejecting all of it.


The word heretic means a divisive one. A divisive person is the proud one who tries to enforce His opinion on others without regard for the unity of the church. He must be removed before the whole is divided.

The early church defined heretic as one who taught false doctrines in opposition to the Christian faith. I never heard a pastor called a heretic because he told someone he needed to accept the divinity of Jesus if he wanted to be part of the church.


I seem to remember that a denomination from Rome practiced the paying of indulgences for salvation at one point. Is this not a rejection of the efficacy of the work of Christ on the cross for salvation?

Although it would definitely be a rejection of the efficacy of the work of Christ if it were true, your statement about indulgences is completely false. An indulgence is the reduction of the temporal punishment of a sin that has already been forgiven. Indulgences can be given to those who do good deeds such as donating money to the church. The CC no longer grants indulgences for donations because of the potential for abuse and appearing like the person paid for the indulgence.
 
Upvote 0

keltoi

Member
Jan 12, 2007
887
152
57
✟24,317.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
If the source of the Christian faith is the Catholic Church instead of the bible (which BTW didn't exist until the 4th century) then rejecting one Catholic teaching is equivalent to rejecting all of it.
The source of the Christian faith is Christ that is why it is called Christianity not Catholicanity.
 
Upvote 0

samir

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2015
2,274
580
us
✟18,067.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
The source of the Christian faith is Christ that is why it is called Christianity not Catholicanity.

A person living today can't go to Christ to learn what he taught. He must refer to the bible or the Church founded by Christ.
 
Upvote 0

keltoi

Member
Jan 12, 2007
887
152
57
✟24,317.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
That church definitely isn't Protestantism as a whole because there are many faiths within Protestantism, many of which contradict each other.
And regardless of what you believe the Church isn't Roman Catholicism either. The Church is however a unified body of people who believe in and have faith in Christ as Saviour and Lord. Any church that adds or takes away from the Bible was warned in Revelation that there are very serious outcomes for doing so. That is why some protestants like to stick to what is written in the word of God instead of trusting the heresay and circumstantial evidence provided by people who were not even born for hundreds of years after the Bible was written and who had/have vested political interests in claiming superiority over everyone else.
 
Upvote 0

keltoi

Member
Jan 12, 2007
887
152
57
✟24,317.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
A person living today can't go to Christ to learn what he taught. He must refer to the bible or the Church founded by Christ.
I will go to the Bible thanks, God provided it for me to read so I will use my God given gift of literacy to read his word for myself. As already mentioned numerous times by numerous people Christ did not start the Roman Catholic Church, he started the church but not the Roman Catholic Church. Christ himself said "when 1 or 2 are gathered together in my name I am with them." I am here, you are here, we are both here is Christ's name so Christ is with us and WE are the church.
 
Upvote 0

samir

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2015
2,274
580
us
✟18,067.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Any church that adds or takes away from the Bible was warned in Revelation that there are very serious outcomes for doing so.

Where does Revelation say not to add to scripture? All I could find was a warning not to add or subtract from the book of Revelation.

Even if it said what you claimed, why should I believe what the book of Revelation says? It was disputed by early Christians and not accepted as scripture until a catholic council included it as one of the 73 books of scripture toward the end of the 4th century. If the catholic church had no authority, then on what basis should I accept it as scripture?
 
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Site Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,768
New Zealand
✟148,435.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
A person living today can't go to Christ to learn what he taught. He must refer to the bible or the Church founded by Christ.
Much scripture to demolish this statement here are 2 examples:
“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel

after that time,” declares the Lord.

“I will put my law in their minds

and write it on their hearts.

I will be their God,

and they will be my people.

34No longer will they teach their neighbor,

or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’

because they will all know me,

from the least of them to the greatest,”

declares the Lord.

“For I will forgive their wickedness

and will remember their sins no more.

and this from Our Lord:

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
 
Upvote 0

samir

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2015
2,274
580
us
✟18,067.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I will go to the Bible thanks, God provided it for me to read so I will use my God given gift of literacy to read his word for myself. As already mentioned numerous times by numerous people Christ did not start the Roman Catholic Church, he started the church but not the Roman Catholic Church. Christ himself said "when 1 or 2 are gathered together in my name I am with them." I am here, you are here, we are both here is Christ's name so Christ is with us and WE are the church.

How do you know which books are in the Bible? My Bible contains the 73 books that a catholic council considered scripture in the 4th century but since you don't believe the catholic church was Christ's church, how do you know which books to follow?
 
Upvote 0

keltoi

Member
Jan 12, 2007
887
152
57
✟24,317.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Where does Revelation say not to add to scripture? All I could find was a warning not to add or subtract from the book of Revelation.

Even if it said what you claimed, why should I believe what the book of Revelation says? It was disputed by early Christians and not accepted as scripture until a catholic council included it as one of the 73 books of scripture toward the end of the 4th century. If the catholic church had no authority, then on what basis should I accept it as scripture?
What early Christians disputed Revelation? And if you don;t trust it even though the RCC has it as part of their Bible then by your own reckoning you are not a true Christian because you are ignoring 1 part of Catholic beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

keltoi

Member
Jan 12, 2007
887
152
57
✟24,317.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
How do you know which books are in the Bible? My Bible contains the 73 books that a catholic council considered scripture in the 4th century but since you don't believe the catholic church was Christ's church, how do you know which books to follow?
In one post you say you don't trust the RCC because it included Revelation after it had been disputed. So until you work out what you believe I think you asking questions of me is a waste of your time.
 
Upvote 0

keltoi

Member
Jan 12, 2007
887
152
57
✟24,317.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Where does Revelation say not to add to scripture? All I could find was a warning not to add or subtract from the book of Revelation.

Even if it said what you claimed, why should I believe what the book of Revelation says? It was disputed by early Christians and not accepted as scripture until a catholic council included it as one of the 73 books of scripture toward the end of the 4th century. If the catholic church had no authority, then on what basis should I accept it as scripture?
It actually says not to add to the prophecy if this book, which book? the Bible. The Bible is full of prophecies.
 
Upvote 0

samir

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2015
2,274
580
us
✟18,067.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Much scripture to demolish this statement here are 2 examples:
“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel

after that time,” declares the Lord.

“I will put my law in their minds

and write it on their hearts.

I will be their God,

and they will be my people.

34No longer will they teach their neighbor,

or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’

because they will all know me,

from the least of them to the greatest,”

declares the Lord.

“For I will forgive their wickedness

and will remember their sins no more.

and this from Our Lord:

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

If that how you learned of the Trinity, the incarnation of Jesus, and all teachings of Jesus? Am I correct to assume you don't own a bible because you don't need it as the Holy Spirit has revealed everything to you?

Those verses say a person can learn God's will by following their conscience and that the Holy Spirit revealed the faith to the apostles but none of them say you can go to Jesus directly to learn what he taught.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

samir

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2015
2,274
580
us
✟18,067.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
What early Christians disputed Revelation?

There were many. Revelation was probably the most disputed. I recommend studying the history of the bible. It didn't fall from heaven on King James's lap. During the first three centuries there were 20 New Testament books accepted as scripture early on and 14 other books that were considered scripture by some and not by others. In the 4th century, a catholic council determined that 7 of those books should be included and the other 7 they recommend be read but not considered scripture. Others were considered apocrypha and rejected. The 43 books in the Old Testament were undisputed though Luther questioned 7 of them and Protestants ended up rejecting those books because they didn't agree with the new Protestant teachings.

And if you don;t trust it even though the RCC has it as part of their Bible then by your own reckoning you are not a true Christian because you are ignoring 1 part of Catholic beliefs.

I didn't say I didn't trust it. I simply asked on what basis you accept it.

If I decide to become a Catholic, I will accept it based on the authority of the Catholic church. Before I can consider Protestantism, I have to know how Protestants determine which books are scripture.
 
Upvote 0