Is division and denomination bad?

[Hazelelponi]

There are only two reasons for a creed book.
1. Subtract from the Bible.
2. Add to the Bible.

Both are wrong according to (Deut.4:2) (1Cor.4:6) (Rev. 22:18,19).

Creeds are merely summarized statement of beliefs, based in scripture.

If I say Jesus is Lord its a statement of belief, otherwise known as a creed, one that is both based in the Bible as well as used by the Apostles. It's neither extra Biblical nor outside of Scripture.

If creeds aren't Biblically based those saying them couldn't call themselves Christian.

Christian churches use them because it shares with people more succinctly what that particular church believes, and preaches.

When people ask you what you believe you don't tell them to go read the Bible if they want to know do you?

As a beside, the early Christians didn't have any Bible...

 

[Nova2216]

Creeds are merely summarized statement of beliefs, based in scripture.

If I say Jesus is Lord its a statement of belief, otherwise known as a creed, one that is both based in the Bible as well as used by the Apostles. It's neither extra Biblical nor outside of Scripture.

If creeds aren't Biblically based those saying them couldn't call themselves Christian.

Christian churches use them because it shares with people more succinctly what that particular church believes, and preaches.

When people ask you what you believe you don't tell them to go read the Bible if they want to know do you?

As a beside, the early Christians didn't have any Bible...

If a creed book (or church manual) is biblically based there is no need for the creed book (or church manual).

Why not use only the Bible.

If the creed book (or church manual) says what the Bible says it would be the Bible. In such a case there would be no need for a creed book (separate and apart from the Bible). (Deut. 4:2) (1Cor.4:6)

Would you agree?


You said - "If creeds aren't Biblically based those saying them couldn't call themselves Christian."

I could not agree with you more on this point.

What does that say about the contradictory statements between creed books (church manuals) and the Bible? (the word of God).

I do point people to the scriptures alone when they ask what I believe and that is what Jesus done in (Mt. 4). note also (Mt. 28:18-20) (1Peter 4:11).

YES, we open up the Bible.

Read more here.
Why Baptism?

 

[Hazelelponi]

If a creed book (or church manual) is biblically based there is no need for the creed book (or church manual).

Why not use only the Bible.

If the creed book (or church manual) says what the Bible says it would be the Bible. In such a case there would be no need for a creed book (separate and apart from the Bible). (Deut. 4:2) (1Cor.4:6)

Would you agree?


You said - "If creeds aren't Biblically based those saying them couldn't call themselves Christian."

I could not agree with you more on this point.

What does that say about the contradictory statements between creed books (church manuals) and the Bible? (the word of God).

I do point people to the scriptures alone when they ask what I believe and that is what Jesus done in (Mt. 4). note also (Mt. 28:18-20) (1Peter 4:11).

YES, we open up the Bible.

Read more here.
Why Baptism?

It's not practical to tell people to "just read the Bible if you want to know what I believe", it's also not biblical:

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15

To always be prepared to give an answer entails more than generalities like read the Bible if you want to know.....

When someone asks questions such as: "what is the Trinity?", "Do you believe in it?" What does your church teach concerning the humanity of Christ?"

If your answer is to say "read the Bible if you want to know what I believe about such things", instead of being succinct about your beliefs and giving people your testimony in Christ then I feel terribly sorry for those who cross your path... for real.

And, if for some reason you are succinct (even though your testimony here indicates your not) and are happy to answer people direct questions as to what your beliefs are, then what makes a church somehow faulty for doing the same?

People who are sketchy about what their beliefs are far more likely to be in some kind of a cult than an upfront and open house of worship.

 

[Nova2216]

It's not practical to tell people to "just read the Bible if you want to know what I believe", it's also not biblical:

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15

To always be prepared to give an answer entails more than generalities like read the Bible if you want to know.....

When someone asks questions such as: "what is the Trinity?", "Do you believe in it?" What does your church teach concerning the humanity of Christ?"

If your answer is to say "read the Bible if you want to know what I believe about such things", instead of being succinct about your beliefs and giving people your testimony in Christ then I feel terribly sorry for those who cross your path... for real.

And, if for some reason you are succinct (even though your testimony here indicates your not) and are happy to answer people direct questions as to what your beliefs are, then what makes a church somehow faulty for doing the same?

People who are sketchy about what their beliefs are far more likely to be in some kind of a cult than an upfront and open house of worship.

Thanks for posting.

I did not say just read the bible. I said, We open the bible. (study the topic)

You can read about the Godhead (Trinity) in (Jn 1) (Mt.3).

You can read about the humanity of Christ in the gospels (Mt / Mk/ Lk / Jn)

One thing I am not is shy about what I believe.

Read more here.
Mission Printing Home Page

 

[Pipiripi]

we have thousand of denominations due to division. Leaders have their 'own' understanding and opinions after they read the bible. It's sad I think it's how the Lord want it to be done. If you read the church history all the way up to now, you'll see godly servants of the Lord broke from their origin church and start their own denomination, some turned out to be good and some became really bad, in short no perfect church. Well it's sad and hard to swallow to see so much division for someone who's new to the faith but it's the reality.

I personally believed God is in charge of this, until Jesus's 2nd coming it will stay what is it, what do you think?

(different groups or churches is challenging to a new believer, he might ask 'so which church/community should I go to?')

This one is the true new religion: Revelation 12:17 and Revelation 14:12.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There are only two reasons for a creed book.
1. Subtract from the Bible.
2. Add to the Bible.

Both are wrong according to (Deut.4:2) (1Cor.4:6) (Rev. 22:18,19).

As per your rationale here, that any statement of belief (creed) is either an addition or substraction to the Bible, and that this is wrong; can you then answer the following question?

How many books should the Bible contain?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nova2216]

As per your rationale here, that any statement of belief (creed) is either an addition or substraction to the Bible, and that this is wrong; can you then answer the following question?

How many books should the Bible contain?

-CryptoLutheran

Let me clarify my statement about creed books. The Bible is a creed book. It teaches truth (Jn 17:17). It contains 66 books. It is the complete (or perfect) word of God (2Tim. 3:16,17) (2Peter 1:3). (nothing lacking)

Any other creed book (authored by a man) is either an addition to or a subtraction from the word of God (the Bible). If this man-made creed book had the same information in it as the word of God it would be the Bible. Why not just throw away all creed books and use the Bible alone?

De 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

1Co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written,

Re 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let me clarify my statement about creed books. The Bible is a creed book. It teaches truth (Jn 17:17). It contains 66 books. It is the complete (or perfect) word of God (2Tim. 3:16,17) (2Peter 1:3). (nothing lacking)

Why 66 books? Where in the Bible does it tell you how many books should be in the Bible? If you believe that the Bible consists of 66 books, and that belief isn't mentioned in the Bible, then that's a belief you hold that isn't in the Bible; and as per your own rationale, that makes it an addition to the Bible--yes?

Any other creed book (authored by a man) is either and addition to or a subtraction from the word of God (the Bible). If this man-made creed book had the same information in it as the word of God it would be the Bible. Why not just throw away all creed books and use the Bible alone?

De 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

1Co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written,

Re 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Alright, all you have to do is demonstrate that your beliefs on this matter are found in the Bible itself, and that you don't subscribe to any beliefs (creed) that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Bible itself.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nova2216]

Why 66 books? Where in the Bible does it tell you how many books should be in the Bible? If you believe that the Bible consists of 66 books, and that belief isn't mentioned in the Bible, then that's a belief you hold that isn't in the Bible; and as per your own rationale, that makes it an addition to the Bible--yes?



Alright, all you have to do is demonstrate that your beliefs on this matter are found in the Bible itself, and that you don't subscribe to any beliefs (creed) that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Bible itself.

-CryptoLutheran

All I have to do is count the books of the Bible.

39 OT
27 NT
66 Total

I have not added anything or subtracted from the word of God.

Can you do the same?

Thanks for responding.

Read more here.
Mission Printing Home Page

 

[ViaCrucis]

All I have to do is count the books of the Bible.

39 OT
27 NT
66 Total

I have not added anything or subtracted from the word of God.

Can you do the same?

Thanks for responding.

Read more here.
Mission Printing Home Page

I have several Bibles, some of them have 73 books. So if I go by counting the books of the Bible, I get 46 OT books and 27 NT books.

How many books are supposed to be in the Bible, and how can I know this by using only the Bible?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SubjectObject]

Luke 12 :51 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:"
"division" translated from Strongs G1267 διαμερισμός diamerismós, dee-am-er-is-mos'; from G1266; disunion (of opinion and conduct)
2Cor. 13: 11 "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you." bold=mine
if we all followed the word of God there would be no division we would be of one mind, the mind of Christ

 

[Nova2216]

I have several Bibles, some of them have 73 books. So if I go by counting the books of the Bible, I get 46 OT books and 27 NT books.

How many books are supposed to be in the Bible, and how can I know this by using only the Bible?

-CryptoLutheran

Does any text in those extra books you speak about contradict any other text in the Bible?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Does any text in those extra books you speak about contradict any other text in the Bible?

Nope, no contradictions. Also why do you call them extra books? Who said they were extra?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tz620q]

Luke 12 :51 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:"
"division" translated from Strongs G1267 διαμερισμός diamerismós, dee-am-er-is-mos'; from G1266; disunion (of opinion and conduct)
2Cor. 13: 11 "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you." bold=mine
if we all followed the word of God there would be no division we would be of one mind, the mind of Christ

I hadn't thought about this before; but Jesus came into a Jewish faith that was shattered into many factions, Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees, Zealots. The common image of the Messiah was like the Maccabees of a couple of centuries before that, someone who would unite the Jews and throw off their oppressors. Perhaps Jesus was referring to the fact that he had not come to unite the Jews but to show them the true way to God, which would lead to division with historical Judaism. I cannot reconcile this verse with an attitude that Jesus wanted a divided Christian faith. There are too many verses that call for unity in Christianity.

 

[pescador]

Creeds are merely summarized statement of beliefs, based in scripture.

If I say Jesus is Lord its a statement of belief, otherwise known as a creed, one that is both based in the Bible as well as used by the Apostles. It's neither extra Biblical nor outside of Scripture.

If creeds aren't Biblically based those saying them couldn't call themselves Christian.

Christian churches use them because it shares with people more succinctly what that particular church believes, and preaches.

When people ask you what you believe you don't tell them to go read the Bible if they want to know do you?

As a beside, the early Christians didn't have any Bible...

Your last statement is totally wrong. Believers have had a Bible for thousands of years. The earliest Scripture was the Old Testament, written in both ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. when Jesus was on Earth, the Old Testament was a translation of the earlier texts, written in Koine Greek. The Hebrew version was written on scrolls and read aloud in the synagogues. Later believers used the Septuagint throughout the greater Mediterranean world.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Your last statement is totally wrong. Believers have had a Bible for thousands of years. The earliest Scripture was the Old Testament, written in both ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. when Jesus was on Earth, the Old Testament was a translation of the earlier texts, written in Koine Greek. The Hebrew version was written on scrolls and read aloud in the synagogues. Later believers used the Septuagint throughout the greater Mediterranean world.

Ahh... my point was that most of the early churches shared letters from the Apostles, (no new testament compilation yet) and old testament scrolls, while available, were not common mainly being housed in Jewish Temples. Once Christians started copying books, in the beginning were likely more difficult to come by.

Prior to the printing press and paper industry, scripture wasn't in everyone's hand... and scripture was a far more precious commodity as a result.

 

[Nova2216]

Nope, no contradictions. Also why do you call them extra books? Who said they were extra?

-CryptoLutheran

Praying for the dead (purgatory) and (Luke 16) do not oppose?

Lu 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Praying for the dead (purgatory) and (Luke 16) do not oppose?

Lu 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Explain how any of this opposes prayers for the dead. Because it very obviously doesn't.

Likewise, the Apostle prays for the departed Onesiphorus here,

"May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me earnestly and found me--may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day!--and you well know the service he rendered at Ephesus." - 1 Timothy 1:16-18

Praying for the dead has always been normative Christian practice, in fact it predates Christianity as it has always been common in Jewish prayer.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Also, just so there's no confusion, I'm not claiming the Deuterocanonical books are properly canonical and inspired--I don't have a dogmatic position one way or the other.

My sole point is to get people to think about what they believe critically. The matter of the Biblical Canon is simply an obvious example of how there are aspects of Christianity which are, very obviously, extra-biblical. What we say about the Bible in this way cannot itself be found in Scripture; but is instead extra-biblical. This isn't a problem for most Christians, but if one is making the argument that anything not in the Bible is wrong or bad then the very existence of the Bible itself conflicts with such a view.

Bible-onlyism is a false and nonsense idea. And, of course Bible-onlyism is not the same thing as Sola Scriptura, two entirely different animals. Sola Scripture states that Scripture is the final court of appeal, the Norma Normans of Christian faith and practice. This phrase Norma Normans is Latin meaning "The ruling rule", "the unruled rule", or "the norm that norms": Scripture establishes the rule of faith (regula fidei). That does not mean that there are not other rules or other standards, such as the Creeds and so forth, which are the Norma Normata, "the ruled rule" or "the normed norm"; i.e. the norms which are informed and ruled by the un-ruled rule of Scripture. The Creeds are not in the place of Scripture, but are guided by Scripture. The Church as a living body of believers practicing and believing their faith are grounded in the word of Scripture, and therefore confess the faith--that confession, that faith are the Creeds of the Church. And, likewise, through our historic and received faith and practice as Christians there has arisen a senses fidie, a consensus of faith, on which books are received as divinely inspired and authoritative as Scripture--this is the Bible. The Bible, as the Canon of Sacred Scripture, the divinely inspired written word of God, is the result of the unfolding history and general consensus of faith of the Christian Church down through the centuries. Though this consensus has not, and still remains, not strictly uniform: Which is why there continues to be debate over the Canon, specifically, over the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.

To reach a dogmatic position on whether these books should or should not be in the Canon of Scripture should require, at the very least, a good reason. I simply do not accept that fiat pronouncements by this or that group of Christians suffices as a good reason for such a dogmatic position.

Simply saying "The Bible has 66 books because God made it that way" is a non-reason. When did God make it that way? How? On what basis do we know this? Just because you or your church only accepts this smaller Canon does not mean this was God's decision. I do not accept the infallibility of any man, not the vicar of St. Peter in Rome, nor of some pastor of a small non-denominational church in Smalltown, USA.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nova2216]

Explain how any of this opposes prayers for the dead. Because it very obviously doesn't.

Likewise, the Apostle prays for the departed Onesiphorus here,

"May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me earnestly and found me--may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day!--and you well know the service he rendered at Ephesus." - 1 Timothy 1:16-18

Praying for the dead has always been normative Christian practice, in fact it predates Christianity as it has always been common in Jewish prayer.

-CryptoLutheran

It is my understanding that prayers for those who have died are to enable them to move from torment to paradise.

(Luke 16:19-31) clearly teaches two points.

1. The dead cannot move from torment to paradise (Luke 16:26).

2. The dead cannot go back to earth (Luke 16:27-31).