• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Confused which is the true church

Discussion in 'Requests for Christian Advice' started by ovis90, Jul 15, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,053
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    Yet "Bible Christians" (the class whom Catholics mostly attack) testify to greater and stronger unity in core beliefs than Catholics , and which is a more authentic testimony to what Catholicism really believes than paper or perfunctory professions.
    You mean the Roman Catholic "one true church" or the Eastern Orthodox, "one true church,"which have substantial and irreconcilable disagreements btwn themselves, including on what Tradition says and means? So much for singular and visible, while Catholicism abounds in disagreements and which would be more manifest if her members were more committed to doctrine, as her traditionalist sects are.

    In addition, do you really want to try argue that,

    That the RCC is the church of the NT, despite Catholic distinctives not being manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed?

    But that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

    And thus a faith which began in dissent from the historical magisterium cannot be the true faith?
    "What Christianity?" And "accurately?" Do you really want argue that the uninspired words of popes and councils are more trustworthy than the wholly inspired-of-God words of Scripture?

    Or that popes and councils can and do speaks as wholly inspired-of-God and also provide new public revelation thereby as could and did men such as the apostles?

    And that the veracity of popes and councils are not subject to testing by Scripture as being the supreme established authoritative standard, as even the preaching of apostles was, and who appealed to it as so? (Acts 17:2,11)
    No, that is not "regardless" is your assertions are going to have any real polemical weight.
    You mean its Catechism (which one?) is wholly inspired of God or at least wholly infallible, or that is may contain errors, or have teachings that are subject to later "clarification" (contradictions) as many past RC teachings have , and as your traditionalist brethren earnestly contend?
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2018
  2. mark46

    mark46 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,219
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Thank you have asked for clarification. I don't think that anyone is saying that Scripture is not authoritative. As an aside, Jesus is the mediator, not Scripture. Scripture is revelation about Jesus.
    ============
    In the first 5 centuries after the Resurrection, we had many scroll of scriptures used in churches. We also had many, many interpretations of the faith. I find it extremely misleading to say that my or your translation of a particular translation of a particular scroll of Scripture is authoritative. In Scripture, it the gathered Church that clarifies the meanings of Scripture. We are told that the apostles would hand down the Truth have the generations.

    I do NOT believe that each of us should or is equipped to look to a current translation and authoritatively interpret Scripture to such a degree that we can question the interpretations of the Church over the millennia.

    There was truly a mess when the first few councils met (evener though the 8th century). However, the councils did sort a lot out. The councils clarified and decided with regard to the many differences in doctrine (calling those who disagreed "heretics"). The councils decided which scrolls were to be considered Scripture, the very WORD of God. More importantly, many scrolls were rejected. The councils gave us the creeds of the Church.

    Obviously, the Roman church made errors over the centuries, with the Orthodox recognizing the break in about 1000. One should pray on the meaning of the word "reformation". Luther, Calvin and later Wesley had no intention of fragmenting the Church, or disavowing many of the central doctrines as many modern day fundamentalists have done (following the lead of Zwingli from Reformation times).

    We can point out the many differences between those who believe in Church and eucharist. One would expect that after a thousand years without an ecumenical council. However, there are many beliefs that the mainstream churches hold in common, many of which are not held by the fundamentalists.
    ==========
    So, sure, we argue about the details of our understanding some of the doctrines regarding scripture. We argue about the meanings of primacy and sufficiency. Roman and Orthodox have had their own councils and therefore believe that these councils are binding. However, the fundamentalist notion of solo scriptura is foreign to all of the mainline churches, all of whom follow the Tradition of the Early Church in treating Scripture and doctrine.

     
  3. Doulos 7

    Doulos 7 New Member

    74
    +21
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    My friend, consider this:
    1. The teaching of Peter as the pope contradicts the Greek grammatical structure of Matthew 16:18!
    Read this, they say it much better than I ever could!
    http://trustingodamerica.com/Petra.htm
    2. Clarify what you mean by the 'Eucharist' I find the word nowhere in my new testament!
     
  4. mark46

    mark46 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,219
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I would note that the word "trinity" isn't there either.

    I would suggest that shows that folks might benefit from the teachings and conclusions of the early Church, which gave us the canon of Scripture, and helped us in understanding, giving us the Creeds.
     
  5. Doulos 7

    Doulos 7 New Member

    74
    +21
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I agree! although I still have not found the catholic church in the bible! That is of course excluding the two prophecies of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 and 1 Timothy 4:1-4.
     
  6. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +30,981
    Anglican
    Married
    Actually there is nothing in Scripture that indicates that he did name Peter to be the head of the church OR that it was to be centralized.
     
  7. Doulos 7

    Doulos 7 New Member

    74
    +21
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Hmmm... Creeds huh? What I find funny is that every church has a creed (and they all contradict the bible) except for the church that Jesus built!
     
  8. mark46

    mark46 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,219
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Nonsense!

    We've had the Nicene Creed that the Church has agreed upon for over 1500 years.
     
  9. Afra

    Afra Well-Known Member Supporter

    864
    +213
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    Not true. The keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to Peter, and Peter alone.
     
  10. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +30,981
    Anglican
    Married
    The keys of the kingdom are not a promise that Peter was to be the ruler of a universal church.

    And even if it were...it would apply to Peter alone (as you said), not to anyone else such as the next several hundred bishops of Rome.
     
  11. fhansen

    fhansen Oldbie

    +2,328
    Catholic
    Married
    Bible Christians, or those who identify as such anyway, disagree on many core beliefs, some involving basic soteriological matters such as infant baptism and baptismal regeneration: involving whether or not baptism even regenerates. Other bible Christians disagree on the deity of Jesus, Sabbath vs the Lord’s Day for rest/worship, and there's much controversy over John chap 6 and the real presence. These are all things that the EO and RCC agree on, btw, and have agreed on before the NT was even written. So Tradition plays its role regardless of how one describes and defines the term, and that's a major point; while the RCC for its part formally recognizes the many agreements between the two churches, amazingly considering the centuries in isolation, certain commentators form the EO side seem to glory in emphasizing the differences, which often amount to differences in semantics only or to the lengths to which one (usually the RCC) may go in describing and defining some doctrines. A rose is a rose…
    The NT was never intended to be some sort of catechism. One’s private interpretations can easily conflict with both RCC doctrine and the intended meaning of Scripture. Additionally, scripture even tells us that there are many things unrecorded that Jesus said and did, and instructs to carry on both written and oral traditions/teachings. The Church simply held the things given to her from the beginning.
    Infallibility is nothing different from someone picking up the bible, reading and interpreting it, and then believing and telling others how to live their lives accordingly. These are primarily supernatural truths to begin with that our faith deals with, and one generally won’t bother living according to such truths unless they’re firmly held to be true. Infallibility is simply an honest statement regarding the fact that God established a Church for the purpose of receiving, preserving, and proclaiming the truths, the “deposit of faith”, that He’s given us. It’s simply the place where the buck finally stops regarding Christian truths and any controversies that might surround them.
    The odds increase that, as we stray from the Church God established, we stray from the truth. Lutherans strayed less but JWs, being good Bereans/ Bible Christians as they believe, have as much right to claim correct understanding as anyone else going by those monikers.
    I’m arguing that the Church has a purpose, a necessary one. And Philip was already a member of that Church, with proper understanding in place due to his exposure to the gospel through the disciples, without the benefit of the New Testament incidentally, when he laid out the truth for the Eunuch who couldn’t understand the meaning of Scripture on his own.
    Tradition must weigh in, or else you have the situation we have today, expert exegetes disagreeing with each other on significant beliefs. Christian truths are thus rendered a matter of best-guess theology in the end when Scripture, alone, is the baseline, with little or no reference to the Churches lived experience/ history/tradition.
    My assertion is that such a Church must necessarily exist, because Sola Scriptura simply doesn’t fill the wishful thinking bill its proponents desire it to fill. The SS emperor has no clothes-hate to be the one to convey this uncomfortable truth.
    It’s the closest thing we’ll have to knowing God’s nature and will, in conjunction with the Scripture and Tradition it relies on.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2018
  12. W2L

    W2L Well-Known Member

    +10,883
    Christian
    Private
    I dont follow any denomination. I am free from all that conflict. Praise the Lord.
     
  13. Afra

    Afra Well-Known Member Supporter

    864
    +213
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    Not true. In the immediately preceding verse our Lord tells us that he will build his Church on Peter, and we know from Isaiah 22, for example, that the person who holds the keys has authority.

    I note that you have not offered any plausible alternative as to the meaning of our Lord giving St. Peter the keys.

    I agree. That Scripture does not indicate that it would apply to anyone after Peter. But I never disputed this.
     
  14. Afra

    Afra Well-Known Member Supporter

    864
    +213
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    You created your own denomination, did you not?
     
  15. W2L

    W2L Well-Known Member

    +10,883
    Christian
    Private
    No, i dont have any followers. I just follow the Lord myself.
     
  16. Afra

    Afra Well-Known Member Supporter

    864
    +213
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    You follow your own personal interpretations of the Bible, do you not? It seems to me that you are the pastor and flock of your own personal denomination.
     
  17. W2L

    W2L Well-Known Member

    +10,883
    Christian
    Private
    Actually i base much of my understanding on what i have learned debating scripture on CF.
     
  18. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +9,276
    Presbyterian
    Single
    This is dangerous. You rarely see exegesis here that takes into account everything we know about the author and context.
     
  19. W2L

    W2L Well-Known Member

    +10,883
    Christian
    Private
    As far as being my own pastor goes, yes thats true i guess. Doesnt scripture say the Word is able to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart? What pastor can do that? I have the Word. :) I have the Spirit who leads me. I believe God promised us His Spirit. Only Children need a pastor to teach them. I do however believe in reaching out to other Christians if its needed for support in some way.
     
  20. W2L

    W2L Well-Known Member

    +10,883
    Christian
    Private
    Thats good because i rarely agree with denominational theology anyway. As far as following Christ goes, i believe anyone who seeks will find, and everyone who knocks it will be opened to them.

    Matthew 7 “[c]Ask, and it will be given to you; [d]seek, and you will find; [e]knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man is there among you [f]who, when his son asks for a loaf, [g]will give him a stone? 10 Or [h]if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...