Denomination Daze

[barryrob]

@ barryrob and perfeckt

You both fundamentaly misunderstood my point. I am not trying to say that homosexuality is not sinful. I am saying that two churches with mutally exclusive theology both claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, an impossibility.

How do YOU know your church, theology, etc. is the favored? you say, "let your heart guide you." but your brothers are being led to different conclusions. How, then, can you have any faith in your own convictions?

It is useless to debate. All that I can say is, believers should be constantly questioning what they believe, and if it makes sense. Whoever thinks they have arrived at conclusive knowledge is dangerously deluded. Corn does not decide when it is just shoots from the soil that its growth is sufficient. It continues to grow, until the day it is harvested.

You say "I am not trying to say that homosexuality is not sinful. I am saying that two churches with mutally exclusive theology both claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, an impossibility."


THAT IS MY POINT!

THEY ARE NOT "MUTUAL" THEY ARE POLES APART!!!

Only one can be lead by holy spirt, the one that follows the Bible closely!!

Ephesians 4:3-6
... earnestly endeavoring to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace. 4　One body there is, and one spirit, even as YOU were called in the one hope to which YOU were called; 5　one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6　one God .　.　.

There can only be "one" true "faith" all other must be untrue!​

 

[perrfekt]

@ barryrob and perfeckt

You both fundamentaly misunderstood my point. I am not trying to say that homosexuality is not sinful. I am saying that two churches with mutally exclusive theology both claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, an impossibility.

How do YOU know your church, theology, etc. is the favored? you say, "let your heart guide you." but your brothers are being led to different conclusions. How, then, can you have any faith in your own convictions?

It is useless to debate. All that I can say is, believers should be constantly questioning what they believe, and if it makes sense. Whoever thinks they have arrived at conclusive knowledge is dangerously deluded. Corn does not decide when it is just shoots from the soil that its growth is sufficient. It continues to grow, until the day it is harvested.

Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?"

I do understand what you are saying completely. I have no claim on theology. I believe that scripture when read in search of truth, will define theology on its own. I persanolly am part of no denomination, I am a believer in Jesus Christ. Having been an addict and at times still struggle with that, I am fully aware of how easily a person can justify anything they want to.

In terms of the debate on homosexuality, scripture is clear. We are saved by grace, not of works. So to set the tone here yes, a homosexual man or woman can be a christian. But, this is dependent upon spiritual transformation. Remember, not everyone who cries Lord Lord will be saved. Spiritual rebirth includes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who will lead you into truth.

1Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

This is the scripture commonly used to justify homosexuality. The entire context of this verse is in reference to food. In the previous verses Paul states a list of sins, speaking to the church in Corinth, that those believers were previously guilty of, but from which they were delivered. The scripture is clear in that though we may sin, and though we may stumble, we are to "run the race".

Hebrews 12:1-2 "Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. "

Repentance is an essential part of salvation. A Christian is called of God to lay aside the weight of sin, and to live a life of holiness. It is impossible, even for a person who has been spiritually reborn, to live a sinless life. But we are to lay down sin. Even though we may fall back into sin, we are to get up and move away from it, striving to be like Christ, even though we cannot actually meet that standard.

Any person who chooses to live a life of sin, and thereby attempt to justify that sin through scripture, have perverted Gods truth. For those who do this, the goal is not a sanctified life, but one in which they may feel comfortable in light of eternity while pursuing the things they themselves desire.

It takes humility to admit one is unholy, impure and wrong. Of this all mankind is guilty, not just a homosexual. All of these things here apply to heterosexual sex outside of marriage, alchoholics, liars, theives, backstabbers, workaholics, and yes, even people who live relatively decent lives.

No man is clean, and all are in need of salvation. Where one starts may be in a worse place than another, but Jesus died before you ever sinned, that you may be cleansed of all unrighteousness and be blameless before God. But that righteousness comes from rebirth, and rebirth WILL change a sinner. Not overnight, and it may take a decade, but rebirth will start a constant change that brings one ever closer to Him, and this is called sanctification.

 

[Dispy]

I'm afraid I don't understand the "concept of me". And the bible, by the way, can say whatever you want it to.

It's interesting that there is scriptural support for both sides of most theological debates. People form the Bible around whatever is most comfortable to them.

That is why its seems logical that God would establish a definitive hierarchy for spiritual leadership. I don't think He would just dump the Bible on the unsuspecting masses and say "alright, it means whatever you want it to, I don't care."

God gave His instructions in righteousness to the children of Israel through the Civil, Moral, and Ceremonial Laws of Moses.

God gave His instructions in righteousness to the Church, the Body of Christ, through the Pauline Epistles.

It was given to Paul to complete the Scriptures. He says: "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil (complete/make full) the word of God. The mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints" (Colossians 1:25:26).

Everything that God wants us to know is contained in the Bible. Christ is the head of the Church, not the leaders of denominations or the Pope. Their teachings are "the doctrine of men".

We must learn to study the Scriptures "rightly divided" (2 Tim. 2:15).

 

[xeegh]

I still stand by my previous comment. Yes, the Bible is complete - but how do you know that your intrepretation is correct? That is the function of the Church.

 

[perrfekt]

scripture is not intended for a singular group to determine what it teaches. The apostles were commisioned by Jesus himself to lay the foundation for the church. just so you are aware, the church is the entirety of the believers, not an individual organization.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

you are assuming that the catholic church was indeed led by the apostles. constantine formed the catholic church, and with it incorporated current manners of worship to a sun god, and this all happened after the apostles were long dead.

Blatant and absolute falsehood.

I would recommend reading a history book.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[perrfekt]

church heirarchy still only does one thing. gets in the way of man and God. Jesus said follow me, not follow the guys who say that they know where i'm going and you can only get there if you listen to me. time and again Jesus said one thing, Beleive in me. never once did he say believe in an institution. he actually condemned all of the current institutions of that day.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

church heirarchy still only does one thing. gets in the way of man and God. Jesus said follow me, not follow the guys who say that they know where i'm going and you can only get there if you listen to me. time and again Jesus said one thing, Beleive in me. never once did he say believe in an institution. he actually condemned all of the current institutions of that day.

I think it's really important to understand some basics of Church history here.

To understand the formation of Christian polity in antiquity it's important to understand how on the basis of apostolic authority the offices of bishop and presbyter developed as means to pastor the churches as the Christian faith spread across the ancient world.

This isn't to deny that abuses and errors have occurred due to the system of polity that developed out from the apostolic and post-apostolic eras; but it is helpful to understand how and why it developed if a critique of it is to be made that could be meaningful. In a time when everyone claimed to represent the true religion of Christ, having a tangible link to Christ through apostolic succession was invaluable. There was no Bible to speak of, as it was in the process of being put together; the principle authority upon which to stand upon to speak authoritatively on orthodox Christian doctrine against various Gnostic, Ebionite or other sectarian groups was that tangible, material apostolic link. That's important to understand.

I want to also add upon my earlier comment to a post of yours.

The term "Catholic Church" has been in use since no later than the turn of the 2nd century, the first recorded use is found in the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, often regarded as a student of the Apostle John, who wrote a series of epistles to several churches and individuals while being taken to Rome to face martyrdom sometime between 100 and 110 AD. The word "catholic" comes from the Greek, kathalikos, meaning "according to the whole"; in contradistinction to local churches ("Church in Ephesus", "Church in Corinth", "Church in Rome" etc) there is the Church catholic, the whole Church.

Constantine had nothing to do with it. Constantine, along with his co-emperor, Licinius, passed an edict in the year 313 granting Christianity legal status in the Roman Empire--this only about a decade after the worst persecution against the Church in the history of the Roman Empire, that under Diocletian.

Constantine had no authority in the Church, and during the course of Constantine's career as emperor his direct influence in Christian affairs largely had to do with calling bishops to gather to synods to hash out the theological controversy regarding Arius and his teachings (Arianism); Constantine himself, however, seemed to have little knowledge theologically as immediately after the Council of Nicea (325 AD) both Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea (friends of Arius, and of Constantine) convinced the emperor that Arius' teachings didn't really conflict with the decisions made at Nicea; the result was the deposition of several Nicene-confessing bishops and several Arian bishops put in their place. Constantine died in 337, his two sons became co-emperors of the Roman Empire, and for the rest of the Constantinian dynasty (until the reign of Julian the Apostate) emperors flip-flopped between support of Nicea and support of Arianism. It wouldn't be until the reign of Theodosius I, who had a council convened in Constantinople, that Christianity would become the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Constantine didn't introduce solar worship or any paganism into Christianity. Constantine simply didn't have that kind of pull or sway, when Constantine was alive many bishops were alive who had suffered incredible things during the persecutions under Diocletian. These were men who had missing arms and legs, gouged eyes and various scars on their bodies, having been tortured because of their faith; these are not men who risked their lives only to bow down to an emperor who would completely corrupt the very thing they risked life and limb to cling on to. Even if Constantine had
wanted to paganize the Christian faith, he couldn't have, no one would have allowed that.

The idea that Constantine "created" the Catholic Church in the 4th century is complete fabrication, it's an invention, it has no basis in historical fact.

Everything I've said here can easily be verified by examining the historical record.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[perrfekt]

crypto, i'm referring to the current roman catholic church, which was organized by constantine. not the actual meaning of the word catholic.

to scott: i believe in pastoralship, and the leadership within the church, but salvation is between the believer and God. if a leader begins to stray, and does not correct his err, then the believer should no longer remain under his headship. the purpose of leadership is to guide believers, not rule over them as the papacy does in the roman catholic church, which is similar, but not the same to the orthodox church.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

crypto, i'm referring to the current roman catholic church, which was organized by constantine. not the actual meaning of the word catholic.

That never happened. Constantine didn't organize any church, he was never the leader or head of any church.

It never happened.

Here is what did happen.

According to the writings of the New Testament and the ancient Fathers the Apostles went out and spread the message of Jesus, they founded communities across the ancient Roman world and possibly beyond. For the sake of posterity bishops and presbyters (episcopoi and presbyteroi) were elected to pastor these communities, to continue passing down the teachings they had received from the Apostles.

This catholic Church faced numerous trials and circumstances, persecution from the Roman government as well as numerous theological controversies, these circumstances continued to mold the Christian faith as Christians wrestled with living and believing their faith out into the world.

For example, in the post-apostolic period there was a man named Marcion from Sinope, Marcion took great issue with the Old Testament and was unable to reconcile God as presented in it with God as presented by Jesus, thus Marcion came to the conclusion that these were two entirely different Gods, one good (the Father of Jesus) and one evil (the God of the Jews). Marcion's beliefs were dismissed by early Church leaders as completely unacceptable, however Marcion began a rival church that would last for some time thereafter; additionally Marcion is perhaps one of the first persons in the history of Christianity to attempt a New Testament canon, by extensively editing the Gospel of Luke and the Pauline epistles. It is very likely that the idea for a need of a more strict New Testament Canon was in part in response to Marcion.

Other theological controversies such as the Valentinians, Sethites, Orphites (and other Gnostic groups), the Ebionites, the Alogoi, the Docetists, Sabellians, and early Adoptionists all forced many Christians to further articulate what was to be regarded as properly apostolic and properly catholic (i.e. what was to be the accepted and orthodox teaching of the whole Church, through faithful attention to the received teaching of the Apostles and those entrusted to safeguard the apostolic teaching, namely the bishops and presbyters of the churches).

One of the ways Christians did this was by having a rule or symbol of faith, a creed. The evolution of Christian creedal statements was often tied to Baptism, in the works of St. Hippolytus (a late 2nd century/early 3rd century churcman) he offers a rule of faith which was to be confessed by the candidate for Baptism, "Do you believe in God the Father, Maker of heaven and earth?" "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord?" etc. Such rules of faith were shaped by the numerous circumstances facing the Christian Church. So, e.g., when Irenaeus in the late 2nd century offers his rule of faith, it is distinctively shaped by his struggle against various Gnostic theologies; and for that reason emphasizes God as Creator of the material world, and Christ as truly human, having truly died and truly risen from the dead bodily, and strongly emphasizes the Christian hope in future resurrection of the body.

These processes continued up until the 4th century. Following the Diocletian persecution, and Constantine's victories in the West, Christianity was legalized by the Edict of Milan. This created a new set of unique circumstances, theological issues could be, in a sense, dealt with on a larger scale, which is why the first ecumenical (that is, world-encompassing) council was held at Nicea in 325. Constantine's role was simply as summoner (he invited the bishops to come) and he presided. However the outcome of the council was entirely the work of the bishops who attended.

Constantine, however, had exceedingly little influence over matters of Church. He died in 337, not as a confessor of the Nicene faith, but on the side of the Arians, and on his death bed was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia--an Arian. The theological controversy which arose from the disputes between Alexander and Arius were not settled within Constantine's lifetime, and would continue to rage through the rest of the century.

Constantine organized no church. Led no church. Held no position of authority in any church.

He was an emperor, not a bishop.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[perrfekt]

you guys are so full of yourselves. so you are saying that the roman catholic church has existed in the same for with the same mode of worship since the time of Christ or near to? you should read history my friends.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

you guys are so full of yourselves. so you are saying that the roman catholic church has existed in the same for with the same mode of worship since the time of Christ or near to? you should read history my friends.

I've been studying Church history for over a decade, it's a passion of mine. What I've written can easily be verified.

The issue is also convoluted to a certain degree.

- The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church founded by Christ, and that in 1054 the Eastern churches broke away.

- The Eastern Orthodox Church claims to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church founded by Christ, and that in 1054 the Western churches broke away.

I'm neither Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. I don't view either as the having an exclusive claim as being the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church.

However, prior to 1054 both were united as one church, and while disagreement over many factors had been brooding for generations prior to the Great Schism, the fact remains is that they were a single church.

And unless one subscribes to ahistorical conspiracy theories, then yes, both East and West were one, catholic and apostolic Church, the Church.

As a distinct, ecclesiastical entity on its own right, the Roman Catholic Church did not exist until the Great Schism. That is until East and West split apart, there was the Church, neither Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (and on this point the Catholics and Orthodox will disagree given their specific ecclesiastical claims).

My point in all of this hasn't been to say that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church and that, therefore, we should all join in communion with Rome. I'm a Protestant. My point has been to demonstrate that the claim that Constantine "founded" or "organized" the Catholic Church is patently false in every way. It's historically unfounded, based upon no facts, and is a theory that is utterly unaware of actual Church history.

The truth is far more complex, nuances and has far more depth than silly conspiracy tales which anti-Catholic polemicists made up in the 19th century.

Yes, the Roman Catholic Church has inherited the vast wealth of tradition from the ancient, catholic and apostolic Church. Same with the Eastern Orthodox. Both represent, equally, common descent from the ancient catholic faith. Protestants are distinctively part of the Western theological tradition, same as Roman Catholicism; but through the complex circumstances of the Protestant Reformation and further complications in the five hundred years since has rendered Protestantism--in all its varied denominational manifestations--an unique animal within global Christianity. What began as a reform movement within the Roman Catholic Church has spawned hundreds to thousands of denominations, which makes Protestantism, though mileage varies considerably, an heir to that same Western theological tradition.

Cutting oneself off from the tree makes little sense, as a Christian I am indebted to the entire history of the Christian faith, the entire story of the Church from Pentecost until now. I cannot exist as a Christian in isolation, I did not receive faith in a vacuum. I am a Christian within a two thousand year narrative of faith. I may not be Catholic because I believe there is still much that hinders reunion with Rome, but the goal should be Christian unity, the goal should be healing the wounds in the Body of Christ, not casting salt in those wounds.

Nothing good comes from being ignorant of Christian history and believing in conspiracy tales that demonizes our fellow Christians.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[E.C.]

Is God a fool?

There are 33,000 different denominations of Christianity, and 33,000 different interpretations of scripture. And every one of them thinks they have the keys to heaven.

Can a house divided against itself stand? And, if the "church" is the body of Christ, what is to be said for 33,000 different factions that mercilessly tear it apart?

These inconsistencies not only impede the Church's mission on earth, but leaves all walks of faithful - and by extension, God - vulnerable to derision and mockery.

Unification may be the most important tasks facing Christians. How can people be converted if they don't even know what to believe?

What can be done?

Have the 32,999 groups in error join the one group that is the one which started on Pentecost.

 

[perrfekt]

i would agree with everything you just said. i am not a church history scholar, and do not know the history of the entire church. i am aware of some of church history, and only will speak on things that i know.

as far as constantine, it is true that he ushered in a new era for rome, and though he was not the leader of the roman church, was instrumental in the start of it.

my beef is the roman catholics who run around saying that peter was the pope and that the roman catholic church existed prior to constantine etc ad nauseum. i understand that catholic in its root means universal as you guys pointed out. but i have a similar view of church history as you crypto, but nowhere near as knowledgeable.

my point this whole time? papacy didn't exist until constantine.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

i would agree with everything you just said. i am not a church history scholar, and do not know the history of the entire church. i am aware of some of church history, and only will speak on things that i know.

as far as constantine, it is true that he ushered in a new era for rome, and though he was not the leader of the roman church, was instrumental in the start of it.

my beef is the roman catholics who run around saying that peter was the pope and that the roman catholic church existed prior to constantine etc ad nauseum. i understand that catholic in its root means universal as you guys pointed out. but i have a similar view of church history as you crypto, but nowhere near as knowledgeable.

my point this whole time? papacy didn't exist until constantine.

Most historians--who aren't Catholics at least--usually trace the papacy to Leo I, who was bishop of Rome over a century after Constantine's death. Leo was one of the first to argue for Petrine supremacy and, therefore, a larger role in the affairs of the Church for the Roman bishop. The increasingly larger claims of the Western Patriarch was one of the leading reasons for the Great Schism, particularly within the context of the Filioque Controversy.

There is some popular fiction involving Sylvester I and supposedly Constantine granting him primacy, this however originated in the Donation of Constantine, a fiction written no earlier than the 8th century which was used to bolster some of the claims of the papacy, particularly as justification for the formation of the Papal States. In reality most of what occurred during Sylvester's time as bishop involved several important churches being built in Rome, including the basilicas of St. Peter and St. John Lateran. Sylvester didn't even attend Nicea personally, but sent two representatives in his stead.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[E.C.]

i would agree with everything you just said. i am not a church history scholar, and do not know the history of the entire church. i am aware of some of church history, and only will speak on things that i know.

as far as constantine, it is true that he ushered in a new era for rome, and though he was not the leader of the roman church, was instrumental in the start of it.

my beef is the roman catholics who run around saying that peter was the pope and that the roman catholic church existed prior to constantine etc ad nauseum. i understand that catholic in its root means universal as you guys pointed out. but i have a similar view of church history as you crypto, but nowhere near as knowledgeable.

my point this whole time? papacy didn't exist until constantine.

There has been a "bishop of Rome" since the time of Sts. Peter and Paul. For centuries the bishop worked with the other bishops in the world for the good of their faithful.

Now, how it went from a mere "bishop of Rome" to its present form as the Vatican I personally point to four main factors:

1) Pope Leo pushing for papal supremacy over primacy. At the time the pope was also "Patriarch of the West" and one of five patriarchs in the Christian world. The other four, in order of seniority after Rome, were in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem all of whom are still there today. They had their own territory to care for and since the four were in geographic close proximity to each other they had a fairly good informal system of checks and balances of power. Rome, on the other hand, was isolated by itself in terms of geography and therefore did not have a patriarch nearby who could keep her in check. The four patriarchs had no problems with primacy (which basically means that the Patriarch of the West i.e. the pope of Rome, gets to sit at the head of the table whenever they meet) but did have problems with supremacy. Primacy vs. Supremacy was the chief cause of the Great Schism in 1054.

2) Charlemagne and the Carolingian Reforms as well as other influence Charlemagne had in the west (such as enforcing use of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed which was the second main cause of the great schism).

3) various popes since the Fall of the Western Roman Empire who pushed for the Roman Church to fill the power vacuum created by the Fall.

4) the First Vatican Council of 1870 when the pope was declared infallible.

If the "blame" of who "created" the papacy it is more deserving of Charlemagne to be blamed than Constantine. For every one thing that Constantine gets blamed for by Protestants, Charlemagne deserved ten.

 

[perrfekt]

So we are all in agreement here? Peter wasn't a pope? he was one of the 12 first church leaders, and maybe was the "head" of the apostles. but in terms of the instruction and leading of the church? general logic would say that paul was the better for the position. i don't know, being as he wrote the majority of the NT and all.

but yes, i think we all agree here. i think.

P.S.- E.C. i don't blame constantine for papacy or whatnot. i simply refer to constantine as a timeline marker. tis all.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

So we are all in agreement here? Peter wasn't a pope? he was one of the 12 first church leaders, and maybe was the "head" of the apostles. but in terms of the instruction and leading of the church? general logic would say that paul was the better for the position. i don't know, being as he wrote the majority of the NT and all.

Yes, I agree that Peter was never above the other apostles in terms of authority, and in that capacity was never pope. Though, at least for the sake of information, the term Pope historically is a term of endearment (or that's how it originated). For example, the bishop of Alexandria in the Coptic Church today is still called "Pope" (currently Pope Shenouda III) but this isn't a position of primacy such as that enjoyed by the Pope in Rome has in the Roman Catholic Church. I regard the [Roman] Pope as successor to St. Peter, as bishop of Rome; in the same way as Pope Shenouda III is successor to St. Mark, the bishop of Jerusalem is successor to St. James, and so on and so forth.

Petrine primacy, however, I regard as a late innovation in the West, and is part of the cause (though not the central cause by any means) for the Protestant Reformation. It is also one of the reasons why I have a tendency to view the East as maintaining closer conformity to the practices of the ancient Church than Rome. The equality of all bishops seems--at least to me--to be far more representative of the polity of the Church in the Patristic era.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dispy]

I still stand by my previous comment. Yes, the Bible is complete - but how do you know that your intrepretation is correct? That is the function of the Church.

Eph. 3:9 and 2 Cor. 5:18-20.

 

[papaJP]

Is God a fool?

There are 33,000 different denominations of Christianity, and 33,000 different interpretations of scripture. And every one of them thinks they have the keys to heaven.

Can a house divided against itself stand? And, if the "church" is the body of Christ, what is to be said for 33,000 different factions that mercilessly tear it apart?

These inconsistencies not only impede the Church's mission on earth, but leaves all walks of faithful - and by extension, God - vulnerable to derision and mockery.

Unification may be the most important tasks facing Christians. How can people be converted if they don't even know what to believe?

What can be done?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I do not question that there are some differences in belief and understanding. However I will state that the majority that are truly Chrisitan agree on many of the most important points of faith.

None have all the truth and all have some of the truth. We need to continue to seek, study, pray and dialog so that the truth we have received from God is placed in the discussion so those who need to be awakened to the truth we have can see, ask and receive what God wants them to believe.

I do not teach that what I have been given is the total truth and I always say your responsibility is to pray, study, and seek the revelations of the truth that God wants you to have through the Holy Spirit.

We are each called and each were given the ability to ask and that is all we have to do to get from God the truth He wants us to have.