A different gospel

[canadiancatholic]

Which ones have it right?

You mean which one? In the end that is for you to decide with sincere prayer for the wisdom needed to see the church Christ talked about. He left several clues.

 

[vanshan]

The truth is not the orthodox church, catholicism, protestantism or any other ism... It's Christ!!!

Christ, rightly understood, is the Cornerstone and Head of the Church. The problems occur when people create personal christs, based on faulty reasoning, the false assumption that the Holy Spirit is revealing all things to them personally, or intellectual limitations. Any individual can be wrong, so what I personally think is not important--the real arrogance is when we put our take on scripture above all other witnesses to the truth.

Don't despair, but be ready for a bumpy ride.

Basil

 

[mesue]

... The problems occur when people create personal christs, based on faulty reasoning, the false assumption that the Holy Spirit is revealing all things to them personally, or intellectual limitations. ...

Because the Bible says it is the Holy Spirit that teaches us. And I don't think any one said any thing about ALL things. If we could understand All things we would have no need for God or a Savior. Because we would be God ... Yea, hath God said?

 

[mesue]

You mean which one? In the end that is for you to decide with sincere prayer for the wisdom needed to see the church Christ talked about. He left several clues.

How would I know? Where are these clues? Who holds the truth? Whom do I trust? How do I know I can trust him? Is there a Book Chapter and Verse you can lead me to that I may see the clues and perhaps even a definitive answer?

 

[JJB]

Well, I have a question. Maybe it's a rabbit trail....

Which church is the true church? Is it the one in the OP or another one? So many claimers, but only one true church....

I'd like to see the proof texts for the claimants. TY.

 

[racer]

Does this mean you travel from church to church every week to get the whole truth.

Why would I do that?

What is taught in your church that you feel isn't true regarding the bible.

It's not what it teaches that I don't believe is true, I think some things just aren't known for certain. For instance, I don't think that anyone can say definitively that the Rapture will be pre-Trib. My church teaches that it will be. However, even if "I" believed that my church taught the truth 100% correctly, doesn't mean that it is. I recognize the possibility that I or my church may not be right. Just because a person believes his Chruch is completely correct, doesn't mean it is, nor does it give him/her and guarantees above and over those who belong to other churches.

You and I can argue over what we believe the Truth to be--and that's all we can argue what we believe to be true--all day long. That will never change the truth, and some things we just won't know until we meet God in heaven.

Where do you go to get it, or do you just rely on a private interpretation even though many of your fellow parishoners probably think differently.

I get it from the same place you get yours. There's more than one source. And "private interpretation" basically plays the biggest part in what we believe. Sadly, some of us refuse to acknowledge this.

And yes the apostles did have it right on the salvation end of things. How could they not?

Then if they did, how can your church continue to teach "development of doctrine?" If the apostles understood it correctly, taught it and passed it on correctly, where is there room for development?

I can't see God hoping that we could discern true salvation from faulty words.

I agree there. God doesn't "hope," He knows that some will get it and others won't. If He wanted it any other way, He would not have allowed freewill.

someone has to be the pillar and foundation of truth,

Again, according to whom? Who says this?

not truthes and not some truthes or partial truthes, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.Just my opinion.

I understand that we desire this possibility, the possibility that someone has the absolute answers, but the truth is, we do not know for sure.

BTW, do you see the irony of that last statement. You insist that someone must possess the "truth, the whole truth, nothing but" and end it with "Just my opinion."

Well, what is it? Your opinion or the "truth and nothing but?"

 

[vanshan]

In your opinion, do you think that the Anglican Church got it right?

(BTW, thanks for this thread. I am a former Roman Catholic. Need I say more?)

I would not like to comment on any denomination specifically, but the Church was created to be one organic, mystical entity, just as God is one. The Apostles would not live forever, so successors were trained. Any successor who both had a valid ordination, in which Christ's authority was passed down, through the laying on of hands, and maintained the true apostolic faith remained a valid part of the Body of Christ. If any bishop strayed from the full body of truth preserved in the Church, to the point of being cut off from the Church, then his ordination was made void and his sacramental work invalid.

After the great schsim in 1054 A.D. most bishops in the West remained in communion with the Roman Patriarch, who had been cut off from the Church due to corruption. I've read that England remained Orthodox until the Norman invasion in 1066. But those bishops who left communion with the still existing Body of Christ consisting of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria, along with all the bishops in communion with them, were cut off from the canonical Church. This may sound like a great deal of legal mumbo jumbo, but the Church was created to preserve truth, so those who depart from her, aligning themselves with Rome, were not part of the true Church. Any ordinations came through Rome, and those united with her, after 1054 are not valid ordinations. Please understand, it's not a matter of pedigree, it became a matter of preserving the truths of Christ against those who would distort them.

Basil

 

[vanshan]

It is God that preserved His word and not we ourselves.

Actually, the early Church did compile and save the epistles and gospels, which was later officially canonized as the Bible you hold and love today (except it used to have more books in it, before some men around the reformation took them out, in fact, even the original King James Version still had these books, which are called the "apocrapha" or deuterocanonical writings). Not only did the Church, to it's credit, preserve the scripture, it preserved the right interpretation of it also. That is something we can all glorify God for, because it is a miracle.

Basil

 

[vanshan]

The truth is though - both perspectives lead to the same outcome for a sincere mature christian. It's only our concerns about motivation that cause us to quibble about the details.

That's just how I'm seeing it lately. I'm prepared to be wrong.

The heart is the key, but faithfulness to Christ is important. I believe that most of us on this board honestly love Christ, even if we may see Him differently based on our interpretations of scripture, but we must obey His command. He did tell His apostles to go and baptize in water all who believed. It wasn't stated that they should go and persuade them to be baptized into the Church, unless they object and want to join the Church in their own way, etc. etc. God created the Church for us to be united to for the hope of our salvation, not to bully us into a bureaucratic organization which will brow beat us into submission. That was never what the Church had been. Other churches created by corruption and men had this characteristic occassionally, but the true Church is a hospital for sinners. It is the pillar and ground for the truth to rest safely upon.

Basil

 

[JJB]

You mean which one? In the end that is for you to decide with sincere prayer for the wisdom needed to see the church Christ talked about. He left several clues.

Does that mean you disagree with the OP? The Original Post statement, by Theophans the Recluse, seems to say that there is only one interpretation. Then one of the protestant posters, i'm sorry i've forgotten his name, posted a more complete article by Mr. Recluse.

Are those clues?

 

[JJB]

I would not like to comment on any denomination specifically, but the Church was created to be one organic, mystical entity, just as God is one. The Apostles would not live forever, so successors were trained. Any successor who both had a valid ordination, in which Christ's authority was passed down, through the laying on of hands, and maintained the true apostolic faith remained a valid part of the Body of Christ. If any bishop strayed from the full body of truth preserved in the Church, to the point of being cut off from the Church, then his ordination was made void and his sacramental work invalid.

After the great schsim in 1054 A.D. most bishops in the West remained in communion with the Roman Patriarch, who had been cut off from the Church due to corruption. I've read that England remained Orthodox until the Norman invasion in 1066. But those bishops who left communion with the still existing Body of Christ consisting of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria, along with all the bishops in communion with them, were cut off from the canonical Church. This may sound like a great deal of legal mumbo jumbo, but the Church was created to preserve truth, so those who depart from her, aligning themselves with Rome, were not part of the true Church. Any ordinations came through Rome, and those united with her, after 1054 are not valid ordinations. Please understand, it's not a matter of pedigree, it became a matter of preserving the truths of Christ against those who would distort them.

Basil

hmmm....

So, is the EO the one true church then?

 

[vanshan]

Well, I have a question. Maybe it's a rabbit trail....

Which church is the true church? Is it the one in the OP or another one? So many claimers, but only one true church....

I'd like to see the proof texts for the claimants. TY.

I think CF rules prevent any Church from openly claiming to be the one true Church, but the proof is in history, which cannot, in its unabridged form, be typed in this space.

There was One Church established amongst the Apostles at Pentecost, which contiued as one unified universal body by the successors of the Apostles.

There are a few heterodox teachings that lead to a few small groups splitting off, such are the Arians.

The Coptic Church splits off the Church due to a rejection of the orthodox definition of the natures of Christ codified within the Church at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.).

The Roman Catholic Church is split from the Church in 1054 A.D. The other four patriarchs in Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, as well of the bishops in communion with them in that region, all declare the Roman Patriach anathema due to corruption.

The Reformation occurs in the 1500s, in which many reject the corruption present in the Roman Catholic Church.

Meanwhile, although with some political turmoil, the eastern Church still remains in tact, preserving the teachings of the Church unchanged.

This is a very bare skeleton, and much more must be said to clarify the issues involved, but in short, this is what has happened.

Basil

 

[holdon]

The truth is not the orthodox church, catholicism, protestantism or any other ism... It's Christ!!!

It is the most serious dishonor to Christ when the Church replaces Him in reverence and worship.

Scripture never says that the Church is to arrogate His rights. The Church shouldn't teach, but obey.....

 

[ContraMundum]

I don't know if this thread even has a point, but the hope is to dispel ignorance. I alone cannot say anything, except what I have heard, not being an eloquent theologian, but I have read many things and truly believe many of us have been led astray, first by the corruption of the Roman Catholic faith and then by the subsequent reformers, who went in totally new directions getting some things right, but many things wrong. They created a whole smorgasboard of strange new teachings never believed before, therefore definitely establishing traditions of men, not God.

Basil

You've just openly confirmed my suspicion that this thread had an agenda- a predictable, anti-Western church agenda.

Frankly, if you want to proselytise, then just be open about the thread from the start. You should have titled the thread "Find out about my church...indirectly..and then let me defend it".

And FYI- I stand by what I said before, the quote in the OP was really just just a cloaked way of someone calling another someone a heretic, all the while the thought never crossing his mind that the heretic might be himself. Let me put it in simple terms- everyone thinks they are right, and everyone is someone else's heretic.

 

[racer]

Any individual can be wrong, so what I personally think is not important--the real arrogance is when we put our take on scripture above all other witnesses to the truth.

And guess what? You are an individual, sir, and just as subject to being wrong as the rest of us. The fact that you claim to submit to a different authority than we, doesn't not make the likelihood of you being wrong and smaller than ours.

 

[JJB]

I think CF rules prevent any Church from openly claiming to be the one true Church, but the proof is in history, which cannot, in its unabridged form, be typed in this space.

There was One Church established amongst the Apostles at Pentecost, which contiued as one unified universal body by the successors of the Apostles.

There are a few heterodox teachings that lead to a few small groups splitting off, such are the Arians.

The Coptic Church splits off the Church due to a rejection of the orthodox definition of the natures of Christ codified within the Church at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.).

The Roman Catholic Church is split from the Church in 1054 A.D. The other four patriarchs in Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, as well of the bishops in communion with them in that region, all declare the Roman Patriach anathema due to corruption.

The Reformation occurs in the 1500s, in which many reject the corruption present in the Roman Catholic Church.

Meanwhile, although with some political turmoil, the eastern Church still remains in tact, preserving the teachings of the Church unchanged.

This is a very bare skeleton, and much more must be said to clarify the issues involved, but in short, this is what has happened.

Basil

So, then, the RCC was a split of EO? I always thought it was the other way around...

Guess I need to read up more on church history. Then that's always a conundrum as well.....which version of history? I am encouraged by the faith of those in Foxx's Book of Martyrs.....

 

[vanshan]

You've just openly confirmed my suspicion that this thread had an agenda- a predictable, anti-Western church agenda.

Frankly, if you want to proselytise, then just be open about the thread from the start. You should have titled the thread "Find out about my church...indirectly..and then let me defend it".

I introduced my topic and opened the thread to discusion in whatever direction it went. This is a theology debate section of CF, so we are all representing our view of whatever issues we discuss, but this doesn't constitute prosleytism. For the unity of the Church, would I like for all of us to be united under one communion? Of course, and more importantly we are commanded to exist in one body, not many.

Basil

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

This thread has been closed for Staff review.

Peace to u,

Bill