Which denomination....

[CelticRebel]

Hmmm.... aren't Christians to be following Christ? Shouldn't we be searching for principles in the Bible instead of in denominational polity? Note that when questions arose in the early church, it was not each local congregation on its own that decided. Instead the leadership traveled to and met in Jerusalem and considered the question(s) and decided on answers, then sent those answers to all the churches.

With regard to the Mennonites, I'm under the impression that they are organized in the same fashion as the Church of the Brethren with regard to property, at least in most conferences.

The dangers of leaving the property with the local congregation are pretty obvious, i.e., it leaves the door wide open for "poachers" to take over a local church for the property and buildings.

I think it important that the wishes of those who made the original donations that made possible the purchase of the lot and the building of the church be honored. Again, although it is clear that both the thinking of individual churches as well as entire denominations' thinking changes over time, it is much more likely that an individual congregation could change, and change more rapidly, than the entire denomination.

No council or any other body outside the local church imposed or had the power or authority to impose anything on the local churches. This Biblical principle is followed today by Baptist denominations which make decisions at the denominational level but leave it to the local churches whether to follow or accept these decisions or not.

It seems that the spiritual principle of voluntarism or liberty in spiritual matters is followed only by Baptists and some others, including some Anabaptists.

In the Mennonite Church USA, the congregation owns its property, not the denomination as in the Church of the Brethren.

If a denomination abandons the faith, no local church should lose its property if it withdraws from the denomination.

 

[Caretaker]

No council or any other body outside the local church imposed or had the power or authority to impose anything on the local churches. This Biblical principle is followed today by Baptist denominations which make decisions at the denominational level but leave it to the local churches whether to follow or accept these decisions or not.

It seems that the spiritual principle of voluntarism or liberty in spiritual matters is followed only by Baptists and some others, including some Anabaptists.

In the Mennonite Church USA, the congregation owns its property, not the denomination as in the Church of the Brethren.

If a denomination abandons the faith, no local church should lose its property if it withdraws from the denomination.

You call the idea of local church independence a "Biblical principle" but cite nothing to support that notion.

In the Church of the Brethren the local congregation owns the church property, but if the congregation leaves the Church of the Brethren the property reverts to the denomination, and I believe correctly so for the reasons I've already cited.

I'm not so sure you're correct about Mennonite USA policy. I'll check with some folks I know to see what they say.

 

[CelticRebel]

You call the idea of local church independence a "Biblical principle" but cite nothing to support that notion.

In the Church of the Brethren the local congregation owns the church property, but if the congregation leaves the Church of the Brethren the property reverts to the denomination, and I believe correctly so for the reasons I've already cited.

I'm not so sure you're correct about Mennonite USA policy. I'll check with some folks I know to see what they say.

I am correct about Mennonite Church USA policy. Several Choctaw churches in MS left the denomination this past year and kept their property.

What if the Church of the Brethren voted to accept homosexual marriage and ordination and a local church could not go along with that and decided to pull out? Do you think it's right for them to lose their property?

The Biblical principle I'm talking about is liberty in Christ and non-coercion. It's a shame so few denominations follow that, instead lording human, earthly authority and power over their member churches.

 

[Caretaker]

I am correct about Mennonite Church USA policy. Several Choctaw churches in MS left the denomination this past year and kept their property.

What if the Church of the Brethren voted to accept homosexual marriage and ordination and a local church could not go along with that and decided to pull out? Do you think it's right for them to lose their property?

The Biblical principle I'm talking about is liberty in Christ and non-coercion. It's a shame so few denominations follow that, instead lording human, earthly authority and power over their member churches.

I'm still researching how Mennonite USA handles it. One acquaintance has indicated you may be right - it may have changed when the Old Mennonites merged with the General Conference to form MCUSA.

However, Church of the Brethren is "congregational", not hierarchical in structure as you seem to imply. All major decisions are made at the congregational level, or at the denominational level by the vote of representatives of each congregation. There is no church hierarchy, which is what you seem to be railing about.

Non-coercion is about accepting Christ and following his Way and example. That is a choice individuals make. God does not force us to accept Christ. That, in point of fact, is the basis for the Anabaptist tradition and why they were persecuted. That is, Anabaptists believe in "believer's baptism" as opposed to the notion that baptizing a baby ensures the baby will go to heaven.

But the church has the responsibility to enforce discipline within the church (see 1 Corinthians 5 among others).

You keep to referring to church property as "theirs" with regard to the local congregation. You have not explained how you feel it appropriate for gifts given to God, often by members now long deceased, to be taken back for the use of the current members who choose to break from the larger denomination. Is that not theft? And theft from God at that?

Nor have you explained how you would thwart a group of greedy people from taking over a local congregation in order to gain the property. That, it seems to me, is a real threat.

Certainly it is possible for a denomination to go astray. I would point out that is what Martin Luther decided regarding the Catholic church, which led to the Protestant Reformation, which was followed by further splits, including the birth of the Anabaptists, including the Church of the Brethren.

When a local congregation decides to leave the denomination is left with fewer members to support the facilities they have, and they are sometimes forced to sell those facilities. In the case of a local UMC church that decided to leave the denomination, the denomination and the local congregation negotiated because the UMC denomination was not interested in assuming the large existing mortgage on the buildings and land. The denomination relinquished title to the property to the local congregation for a nominal sum that was immediately paid off even though the denomination had allowed payments to be made over a long period of time.

Again, what strikes me is there is entirely too much focus and concern being placed on material things as opposed to spiritual things. There's not much room for God in the room when people are fussing and fighting over material things.

Addendum: Page 22 at the below site seems to indicate that at least as of 2003 the Pacific Southwest Mennonite Conference does leave the disposition of the property up to the local congregation, at least if no debts are owed to the Pacific Southwest Mennonite Conference. As an acquaintance of mine pointed out, this seems to be something that was not always the case in all conferences.

http://www.pacificsouthwest.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Policies.pdf

 

[CelticRebel]

I'm still researching how Mennonite USA handles it. One acquaintance has indicated you may be right - it may have changed when the Old Mennonites merged with the General Conference to form MCUSA.

However, Church of the Brethren is "congregational", not hierarchical in structure as you seem to imply. All major decisions are made at the congregational level, or at the denominational level by the vote of representatives of each congregation. There is no church hierarchy, which is what you seem to be railing about.

Non-coercion is about accepting Christ and following his Way and example. That is a choice individuals make. God does not force us to accept Christ. That, in point of fact, is the basis for the Anabaptist tradition and why they were persecuted. That is, Anabaptists believe in "believer's baptism" as opposed to the notion that baptizing a baby ensures the baby will go to heaven.


Non-coercion and liberty extends, or should extend, to ALL areas of Christian life and practice, including property ownership. That's why Baptists put so much emphasis on soul liberty, voluntarism, and church autonomy. Freedom in religious matters is a deeply held and cherished religious belief and principle for Baptists, and many Anabaptists.


But the church has the responsibility to enforce discipline within the church (see 1 Corinthians 5 among others).

You keep to referring to church property as "theirs" with regard to the local congregation. You have not explained how you feel it appropriate for gifts given to God, often by members now long deceased, to be taken back for the use of the current members who choose to break from the larger denomination. Is that not theft? And theft from God at that?


It is not theft if the beliefs of those long-deceased members have been abandoned by the denomination.


Nor have you explained how you would thwart a group of greedy people from taking over a local congregation in order to gain the property. That, it seems to me, is a real threat.


A threat, maybe, but a greater threat is loss or restriction of liberty for the local church.


Certainly it is possible for a denomination to go astray. I would point out that is what Martin Luther decided regarding the Catholic church, which led to the Protestant Reformation, which was followed by further splits, including the birth of the Anabaptists, including the Church of the Brethren.

When a local congregation decides to leave the denomination is left with fewer members to support the facilities they have, and they are sometimes forced to sell those facilities. In the case of a local UMC church that decided to leave the denomination, the denomination and the local congregation negotiated because the UMC denomination was not interested in assuming the large existing mortgage on the buildings and land. The denomination relinquished title to the property to the local congregation for a nominal sum that was immediately paid off even though the denomination had allowed payments to be made over a long period of time.

Again, what strikes me is there is entirely too much focus and concern being placed on material things as opposed to spiritual things. There's not much room for God in the room when people are fussing and fighting over material things.

Addendum: Page 22 at the below site seems to indicate that at least as of 2003 the Pacific Southwest Mennonite Conference does leave the disposition of the property up to the local congregation, at least if no debts are owed to the Pacific Southwest Mennonite Conference. As an acquaintance of mine pointed out, this seems to be something that was not always the case in all conferences.

http://www.pacificsouthwest.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Policies.pdf

Railing about?? I wasn't railing, and I said nothing about hierarchy in the CotB. I was talking about polity with regard to property ownership.

See my responses, in red, within your post.

One additional comment, about a non-Anabaptist body: When the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) split from the Episcopal Church due to apostasy in the latter, the AMiA wrote into their constitution that the local church has "an indefeasible right to its own property". They learned the value of that religious principle by the actions of the Episcopal Church toward its local congregations.

 

[Caretaker]

Railing about?? I wasn't railing, and I said nothing about hierarchy in the CotB. I was talking about polity with regard to property ownership.

See my responses, in red, within your post.

One additional comment, about a non-Anabaptist body: When the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) split from the Episcopal Church due to apostasy in the latter, the AMiA wrote into their constitution that the local church has "an indefeasible right to its own property". They learned the value of that religious principle by the actions of the Episcopal Church toward its local congregations.

"Non-coercion and liberty extends, or should extend, to ALL areas of Christian life and practice ...." -- CelticRebel

I don't think that notion is supported in the New Testament. Again I cite as an example 1 Corinthians 5.

"It is not theft if the beliefs of those long-deceased members have been abandoned by the denomination." --CelticRebel

In whose judgment?? Obviously that notion has not been thought through, or at least indicates complete disregard for those of dissenting opinions. How would such a notion be arbitrated?

"A threat, maybe, but a greater threat is loss or restriction of liberty for the local church." -- CelticRebel

This presupposes that the local congregation is ALWAYS aligned with the Holy Spirit in all disputes, which is obviously problematic. There is a role for church discipline that is strongly supported in the New Testament. Again I refer you to issues of circumcision, diet, and the notion of requiring gentiles to adhere to Jewish law that arose in the early church and was decided by the larger church, not on a local church level. See Acts 15.

With regard to AMIA, simply because a church does something doesn't make it right. Should all churches imitate the inquisitions?

 

[CelticRebel]

"Non-coercion and liberty extends, or should extend, to ALL areas of Christian life and practice ...." -- CelticRebel

I don't think that notion is supported in the New Testament. Again I cite as an example 1 Corinthians 5.

"It is not theft if the beliefs of those long-deceased members have been abandoned by the denomination." --CelticRebel

In whose judgment?? Obviously that notion has not been thought through, or at least indicates complete disregard for those of dissenting opinions. How would such a notion be arbitrated?

"A threat, maybe, but a greater threat is loss or restriction of liberty for the local church." -- CelticRebel

This presupposes that the local congregation is ALWAYS aligned with the Holy Spirit in all disputes, which is obviously problematic. There is a role for church discipline that is strongly supported in the New Testament. Again I refer you to issues of circumcision, diet, and the notion of requiring gentiles to adhere to Jewish law that arose in the early church and was decided by the larger church, not on a local church level. See Acts 15.

With regard to AMIA, simply because a church does something doesn't make it right. Should all churches imitate the inquisitions?

Show me where anything "decided" beyond the local church was forced on any local church. Further, the only visible church in the NT was a local church; there was no such thing as the "larger church". A denomination is not a church but an association of local churches.

Some may have no problem with allowing a denomination to control and own the grounds and building where they worship, but doing so violates a crucial spiritual principle.

And your last statement about the AMiA is ludicrous.

Let me ask you this: Suppose your local church was opposed to homosexual marriages and ordinations and had always been opposed to that, and suppose your denomination voted approval of these. Then again suppose your local church left the denomination because of that. Do you think the denomination should have the right to take the property? I don't mean the legal right, based on some denominational law; I mean the moral right.

 

[Caretaker]

Nothing is being "forced" on the local church here. People have the ability to leave the church, be it the local church or the denomination. Also, the entire local congregation can leave the denomination. It just is not allowed to take with it the gifts (i.e., the church property) that were given to the church as part of the larger denomination.

Your statement that a denomination is not a church but an association of local churches again does not mesh with the Bible. The Bible identifies the church as the universal body of believers, which is much closer to the church at the denomination level than the local congregation. Each congregation - indeed each individual - is part of the larger "body of believers".

Again, when you state that the denomination "owns and controls" the local church property that is not correct. Ownership is with the local congregation, along with all rights and responsibilities thereof, including maintenance, operational bills, etc. The only time the denomination comes into play is if the local church would want to leave the denomination, in which case the church property ownership would revert to the denomination. You state that this situation violates a "crucial spiritual principle" without stating that principle. Please do state it explicitly, including Biblical references.

The statement I made that because one church does something does not make it right is not "ludicrous" at all, but quite simply very true if you would take a moment to think about it. I included the example of the inquisition in order to provide an easy and well understood counter example. Your argument, on the other hand, supposes that because one church did it that makes it right. Sorry, but that just does not hold water.

When any local church joins the denomination they know the rules under which they joined. They are stated clearly and openly in the constitution that the local church agrees to. What would be immoral here would be for the local congregation to try to break its word.

With regard to the specific situation you mentioned, in the case of the Church of the Brethren even if the denomination would pass such an approval (which it has not), it would not be binding on local congregations. That is the way the Church of the Brethren is governed. So, any attempt to break from the larger denomination would be made strictly on the basis of abstract principle, not on the basis of being required by the denomination to go along with something that violates the local congregation's religious principles. So, which is more important: the original agreement that the property reverts to the denomination if the local church decides to leave the denomination, or the dislike of what the larger denomination approved even though the local church is not required to live by it? To me the original constitution agreed to by the local congregation is clearly the moral winner here.

 

[Light of the East]

I don't find " the Eucharist" in the Bible. I also don't find all the cultic beliefs about Mary there. There are no popes in the Bible, no indulgences, no papal infallibility, etc. I could go on and on. The RCC is the greatest innovator in Christendom. The RCC is not the church of the Bible or the apostles.

It would seem to me that you are either A.) not looking very hard or B.) deliberately ignoring what is clearly written. And then there is C.) not paying attention to the Early Church and what they taught about it. You need to stop and think "who taught the very first Christians that there is such a thing as the Eucharist?" After all, they were only one generation away from the Apostles, which means that the Apostles taught them.

Conclusion therefore must be that either the Apostles had already left the truth and started preaching lies, almost before the vapor trail of Christ's ascension was gone, or that they were handing down what they learned at Christ's feet. There really isn't any other choice.

 

[CelticRebel]

It would seem to me that you are either A.) not looking very hard or B.) deliberately ignoring what is clearly written. And then there is C.) not paying attention to the Early Church and what they taught about it. You need to stop and think "who taught the very first Christians that there is such a thing as the Eucharist?" After all, they were only one generation away from the Apostles, which means that the Apostles taught them.

Conclusion therefore must be that either the Apostles had already left the truth and started preaching lies, almost before the vapor trail of Christ's ascension was gone, or that they were handing down what they learned at Christ's feet. There really isn't any other choice.

You are wrong, on all three counts. I have decades of intensive, in-depth, formal and informal study of the scriptures and the earliest churches, which has convinced me beyond all doubt of the positions I hold.

Perhaps you should read the scriptures more closely and see what Jesus actually said. And a knowledge of language might help, also.

The meal that Jesus shared with His followers was called simply "The Lord's Supper". It was a meal, not an institutionalized ritual which only hierarchical clergy could perform.

Not meaning to be disrespectful, but I felt that you were.

 

[CelticRebel]

Nothing is being "forced" on the local church here. People have the ability to leave the church, be it the local church or the denomination. Also, the entire local congregation can leave the denomination. It just is not allowed to take with it the gifts (i.e., the church property) that were given to the church as part of the larger denomination.

Your statement that a denomination is not a church but an association of local churches again does not mesh with the Bible. The Bible identifies the church as the universal body of believers, which is much closer to the church at the denomination level than the local congregation. Each congregation - indeed each individual - is part of the larger "body of believers".

Again, when you state that the denomination "owns and controls" the local church property that is not correct. Ownership is with the local congregation, along with all rights and responsibilities thereof, including maintenance, operational bills, etc. The only time the denomination comes into play is if the local church would want to leave the denomination, in which case the church property ownership would revert to the denomination. You state that this situation violates a "crucial spiritual principle" without stating that principle. Please do state it explicitly, including Biblical references.

The statement I made that because one church does something does not make it right is not "ludicrous" at all, but quite simply very true if you would take a moment to think about it. I included the example of the inquisition in order to provide an easy and well understood counter example. Your argument, on the other hand, supposes that because one church did it that makes it right. Sorry, but that just does not hold water.

When any local church joins the denomination they know the rules under which they joined. They are stated clearly and openly in the constitution that the local church agrees to. What would be immoral here would be for the local congregation to try to break its word.

With regard to the specific situation you mentioned, in the case of the Church of the Brethren even if the denomination would pass such an approval (which it has not), it would not be binding on local congregations. That is the way the Church of the Brethren is governed. So, any attempt to break from the larger denomination would be made strictly on the basis of abstract principle, not on the basis of being required by the denomination to go along with something that violates the local congregation's religious principles. So, which is more important: the original agreement that the property reverts to the denomination if the local church decides to leave the denomination, or the dislike of what the larger denomination approved even though the local church is not required to live by it? To me the original constitution agreed to by the local congregation is clearly the moral winner here.

Say what you will, if a local church is required to forfeit their property if they leave the denomination, then the local church has no autonomy. Clearly also "to require" is to force. "Force" is supposed to be something alien to pacifist denominations. Rather peculiar and even unethical then that such a denomination would engage in it. Jesus was opposed to force in any way -- spiritual or physical. Can't get more scriptural than that.

 

[Light of the East]

You are wrong, on all three counts. I have decades of intensive, in-depth, formal and informal study of the scriptures and the earliest churches, which has convinced me beyond all doubt of the positions I hold.

Perhaps you should read the scriptures more closely and see what Jesus actually said. And a knowledge of language might help, also.

The meal that Jesus shared with His followers was called simply "The Lord's Supper". It was a meal, not an institutionalized ritual which only hierarchical clergy could perform.

Not meaning to be disrespectful, but I felt that you were.

There are two ways to read the Scriptures. I have done them both. The first is with a closed mind, looking at a collection of verses put together in such a way as to support your presuppositions. This is the most common way that people approach the Bible and it is most certainly the way you are reading it right now. It is the way I did Bible study for 25 years as a Protestant of varying stripes.

The second is to approach the Bible with an open mind and to read commentaries with which you do not agree, including Catholic and Orthodox materials. Use of a concordance and Greek interlinear is a valuable tool for bringing to light certain dishonesty in which all of us are wont to engage. This sort of study will expose lies such as "the Rapture of the Church" and "forensic (imputed) justification" by showing how the Reformers played fast and loose with the Greek to maintain their doctrines. It will also show such doctrines as indulgences and penance to have a very questionable basis.

Your "in-depth" study is nothing more than the very same thing I did when I was a Protestant, i.e., ignore what the Early Church taught and how the first preachers of Christianity understood the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the Apostles, read everything that supported me in my utter misunderstanding of Christianity and what it is about, and memorize yards of misinterpreted Scriptures which appeared to support my Anabaptist and then Presbyterian doctrines.

As for your last sentence, while the very first Christians did indeed share a common meal called "The Lord's Supper" in private houses, and used elements nothing like what is used today, the fact is that Jesus taught us that the Kingdom of God (Church) would be like a mustard seed which would grow in to a magnificent tree. As the seed looks nothing like the finished tree, neither does today's Liturgy, after centuries of growth, look like the seed of the very first Lord's Supper.

Apparently you missed that analogy in the Bible, or haven't thought through as to how it actually applies in real time and space. And my point (which you consider disrespectful) stands - you are studying the Bible through a presuppositional set of lenses which are designed not to find the truth, but to defend and reinforce your chosen beliefs, which are not what the Apostles taught at all. You are ignoring what is being shown you and you are insulting the Early Fathers by superimposing your beliefs on them, which they would reject if they could speak.

I know this because, as I said before, I have "been there and done that." And was very vocal about it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

....

 

[Light of the East]

....

I notice you erased your original response, which I do appreciate because there wasn't a smattering of truth in the whole thing.

Look, dude, for 25 years I was every bit as anti-Catholic as I believe you are (based on your post to me). I hated the Catholic Church and did everything I could to get people out of Her, including writing my own tracts and leaving them on the windshields of cars belonging to people at Mass. I understand your thinking, I know what you believe, and I found it to be wrong on several counts:

1. It is historically inaccurate. Despite what I believed (i.e. that the Church practiced my chosen form of the Christian religion) when I actually took the time to do some studying, I found no evidence that Fundamentalists or Calvinists ever existed in the first 15 centuries of the Church. No Trail of Blood, no "underground church," no KJV Bible only believers. Just one Church, East and West, which practiced the same things and believed the same things that I opposed. That was unsettling, to say the least.

2. I was lied to. Big time. From lying books such as Lorraine Boettner's ROMAN CATHOLICISM, to the horrid little Chick tracts I used to devour every time a new one came out, to the various lurid tales (Maria Monk, for instance) which proved to be false under scrutiny, the history of Protestantism is one of a series of hateful lies told about the Church. Inaccuracies, lies, and outright slander. I discovered it all once I looked underneath the cover.

3. Bad theology. Real bad. As in believing in the "Rapture of the Church" bad when a good, solid study of the verses used to "prove" that false teaching shows us that it is talking about the Resurrection. Misuse of the Greek is common also. Such as the Calvinist idea of "forensic justification" (imputed righteousness) which goes totally against the meaning of the Greek in the passages in Romans. And inconsistency. The same people who insist upon a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and say that allegory and metaphors are not to be used in understanding Scripture properly, suddenly love spiritualization and hate literal interpretation when it comes to John 6 and Jesus' insistence that you must receive the Eucharist to have eternal life. In my neighborhood, we call this hypocrisy.

4. Utter lack of proof for Protestant doctrines. There is simply no proof that any Protestant doctrine existed prior to the Reformation, yet Protestants act as if the Apostles preached like Baptists or Evangelicals. And I trusted the men (I really am way too trusting of people) under whose preaching I sat, believing that they were telling me the truth.

The Christian faith is the completion of Judaism. It is Judaism's fulfillment. It is the continuation of the Covenant of God in fulfillment. When you understand that, you will run to the Catholic Church and ask to be let in. Judaism is continued in the Christian faith. Passover is changed to the Eucharist. Circumcision, the rite of covenant initiation, is changed to baptism. The high priesthood continues in Christ. The Levitical priesthood continues in the Apostles and their successors, the bishops. In Christ, Adam is replaced and in Mary, Eve is replaced, thus undoing the damage done in the Garden and restoring mankind to headship over Creation.

I hope some day you can open your mind to reading good Catholic and/or Holy Orthodox literature and see the beauty of the Early Church and what it means for us today.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There's not much change nor chance for most people on earth, anywhere, according to SCRIPTURE..
and the current state of the world is proceeding rapidly towards complete assimilation with / by the beast.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Be careful you don't let the tail wag the dog with regard to who gets church property on a split. It's not too difficult in some Anabaptist circles to run afoul of the church leadership/bishop and get kicked out for simply and carefully following the commandments of Jesus.

Same anywhere. Yes.

I understand, and you make a valid point. But what I am concerned with here involves a basic principle, and what I consider a spiritual principle -- the autonomy of the local church. That is one principle, from my Baptist background, that I consider vitally important. ....

... from SCRIPTURE? Yes. Other sources IF they comply with and are in Harmony with SCRIPTURE, Yes.

How can the "autonomy of the local church" trump the body of believers? I don't recall the "autonomy of the local church" as a principle I've read of in the Bible. Quite the opposite, in fact - see Acts 15.

Maybe not the opposite.
The realization of TRUTH is more simple, as YHWH Created everything simple. man disrupted it.

QUOTE="CelticRebel, It has to do with freedom, and freedom is a spiritual principle. It is an inherent part of God's character, and He endows man with it. Thus, it is found all through scripture. The freedom of the individual under God is an inviolate principle. As an extension, the local church, made up of free individuals, is and should be free from all external control or compulsion. No outside body has a right to impose anything on a local church. The local church is characterized by freedom and voluntarism. No association or annual conference is the church; such does not worship together weekly, etc. Such a larger group is only a representative of the churches and should have no right to make laws that every church must follow. It can draft statements of faith, pass resolutions, issue opinions on various issues, but it has no right to compel any local church. The relation between the local church and any larger group should be strictly voluntary. There is no place for compulsion in the Body of Christ.
Those are Baptist principles, but also Anabaptist principles, particularly the Mennonite tradition." END QUOTE
this ^^ can be seen as both good and bad, or used rightly and wrongly, in most places.
Simpler is this: Y'SHUA MESSIAH IS the head of every man(WHO IS IN UNION WITH HIM).
thus, all things are solved/ resolved simply. (once all the carnal/ worldly/ extras are scraped away)

I can only repeat that I don't see anywhere that a local church was compelled to do anything.

Certainly ^^ and likewise no individual in Y'SHUA MESSIAH was 'compelled' even to keep following Y'SHUA. Many of HIS disciples walked away from HIM, and HE did NOTHING to get them back.

QUOTE="CelticRebel, post: 68126181, member: 376945"]Let me ask a question: Suppose a local church is opposed to homosexual ordination and marriage, and suppose that local church does not own its property, that it is owned by the denomination. Suppose that the denomination votes to start ordaining homosexuals and performing homosexual unions and marriages. Then that local church that opposes this decides it cannot be a part of the denomination anymore and decides to withdraw. The denomination then comes in, kicks the members out, locks the doors, and takes control of the property -- the building and land that this congregation has worhiped in and on for a hundred years or more. That is simply wrong and an abuse of power that the denomination should never have had in the first place.QUOTE
Just give up all rights to the property. No worries.
ONE congregation faithful to Y'SHUA did this ; they wanted no profit nor benefit at all from the property nor from the larger corporation that owned it.

QUOTE="Caretaker, post: 69097063, member: 332360"]Do current members have the right to take back and confiscate what was already given to God, and often given by members now deceased?

Property purchased with money given to God should remain under the control of the highest level of the organization that is represented, i.e., the denomination. It is much more difficult to move an entire denomination away from its original purpose than it is to move a single congregation.

When a squabble devolves to dividing the spoils it's pretty clear that physical desires have replaced spiritual quests.QUOTE
Renounce, crucify the flesh and the affections and desires thereof.
"Purify oneself because HE IS PURE" in Y'SHUA MESSIAH.

No entity beyond the local church should have authority over that church. The local church should have an indefeasible right to own and control its own property. This is a Baptist principle that I hold to. Many Mennonites also hold to it.

HOLD FAST TO THE HEAD, WHICH IS Y'SHUA MESSIAH.
The property no matter how much nor how big is anything to lose ones soul over, nor to tempt anyone else or make them stumble.

That's what I have been trying to do for 41 years. I don't believe there is any "one true church". I believe there are those which are closer to the apostles' teachings than others.

When you find those who are abiding in Y'SHUA MESSIAH, you will know. This has happened all over the earth, and is no secret to Y'SHUA.

If I had to say there is one church that is definitely not "the one true church", it would be the < ecumenical corporation of worldly carnal organizations opposed to Y'SHUA MESSIAH'S HEADSHIP/LORDSHIP/ KING-SHIP? > Too many innovations that are not to be found in either the NT or earliest Christianity.

YHWH said this would be so. All through the TORAH, OT, PROPHETS, PSALMS, and NT.

I am not mistaken. Yes, I have read their writings. I have devoted four decades to studying this. I have absolutely no doubt that the <worldly carnal counterfeit ecumenical groups > is not the "one true church."

Perhaps you are mistaken.
Not in your observation, but how you arrived there.
Y'SHUA told PETER, "BLESSED ART THOU....."
And so it is TODAY.
Peter did not learn by study.
as noted by the next quote in line with ALL SCRIPTURE >>

Hmmm.... aren't Christians to be following Christ?

Yes.

You call the idea of local church independence a "Biblical principle" but cite nothing to support that notion.

As above, what does Y'SHUA say ? to HIS SHEEP. not to the crowds.
And/or likewise, what does YHWH say ? to HIS PEOPLE. not to the rest of the world not seeking HIM.

Again, what strikes me is there is entirely too much focus and concern being placed on material things as opposed to spiritual things. There's not much room for God in the room when people are fussing and fighting over material things.

Right.

Show me where anything "decided" beyond the local church was forced on any local church. Further, the only visible church in the NT was a local church; there was no such thing as the "larger church"

Right.
Yet everywhere, the true ekklesia, the believers immersed in Y'SHUA, no matter where they lived on earth, were living IN UNION WITH Y'SHUA. Y'SHUA being their leader, the HEAD/ the CONTROL of their lives (not just a plague(sic) on the wall).
NOT human develpment, not worldly design, and not opposed to SCRIPTURE ....

Let me ask you this: Suppose your local church was opposed to homosexual marriages and ordinations and had always been opposed to that, and suppose your denomination voted approval of these. Then again suppose your local church left the denomination because of that. Do you think the denomination should have the right to take the property? I don't mean the legal right, based on some denominational law; I mean the moral right.

No worries at all. Give up the property at once. (subject to YHWH'S orchestrating , to Y'SHUA'S SOVEREIGN decision /control).
i.e. give it all up to YHWH. Then leave it in HIS HANDS, let HIM DECIDE, and then do as HE LEADS AND GUIDES.

 

[CelticRebel]

I notice you erased your original response, which I do appreciate because there wasn't a smattering of truth in the whole thing.

Look, dude, for 25 years I was every bit as anti-Catholic as I believe you are (based on your post to me). I hated the Catholic Church and did everything I could to get people out of Her, including writing my own tracts and leaving them on the windshields of cars belonging to people at Mass. I understand your thinking, I know what you believe, and I found it to be wrong on several counts:

1. It is historically inaccurate. Despite what I believed (i.e. that the Church practiced my chosen form of the Christian religion) when I actually took the time to do some studying, I found no evidence that Fundamentalists or Calvinists ever existed in the first 15 centuries of the Church. No Trail of Blood, no "underground church," no KJV Bible only believers. Just one Church, East and West, which practiced the same things and believed the same things that I opposed. That was unsettling, to say the least.

2. I was lied to. Big time. From lying books such as Lorraine Boettner's ROMAN CATHOLICISM, to the horrid little Chick tracts I used to devour every time a new one came out, to the various lurid tales (Maria Monk, for instance) which proved to be false under scrutiny, the history of Protestantism is one of a series of hateful lies told about the Church. Inaccuracies, lies, and outright slander. I discovered it all once I looked underneath the cover.

3. Bad theology. Real bad. As in believing in the "Rapture of the Church" bad when a good, solid study of the verses used to "prove" that false teaching shows us that it is talking about the Resurrection. Misuse of the Greek is common also. Such as the Calvinist idea of "forensic justification" (imputed righteousness) which goes totally against the meaning of the Greek in the passages in Romans. And inconsistency. The same people who insist upon a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and say that allegory and metaphors are not to be used in understanding Scripture properly, suddenly love spiritualization and hate literal interpretation when it comes to John 6 and Jesus' insistence that you must receive the Eucharist to have eternal life. In my neighborhood, we call this hypocrisy.

4. Utter lack of proof for Protestant doctrines. There is simply no proof that any Protestant doctrine existed prior to the Reformation, yet Protestants act as if the Apostles preached like Baptists or Evangelicals. And I trusted the men (I really am way too trusting of people) under whose preaching I sat, believing that they were telling me the truth.

The Christian faith is the completion of Judaism. It is Judaism's fulfillment. It is the continuation of the Covenant of God in fulfillment. When you understand that, you will run to the Catholic Church and ask to be let in. Judaism is continued in the Christian faith. Passover is changed to the Eucharist. Circumcision, the rite of covenant initiation, is changed to baptism. The high priesthood continues in Christ. The Levitical priesthood continues in the Apostles and their successors, the bishops. In Christ, Adam is replaced and in Mary, Eve is replaced, thus undoing the damage done in the Garden and restoring mankind to headship over Creation.

I hope some day you can open your mind to reading good Catholic and/or Holy Orthodox literature and see the beauty of the Early Church and what it means for us today.

At this point, I don't remember erasing anything, but what I write is the truth, or I wouldn't write it. I have been devoted to finding truth for over 40 years, wherever the search led me. It did NOT lead me to the RCC but instead away from it because I know without a doubt in my mind, based on biblical and scholarly evidence and Christian history, that the RCC is not the church founded by Jesus and the apostles. Outside of made-up religions like Mormonism and cults, the RCC is the greatest innovator in the history of Christendom, and the greatest persecutor.

All those points you listed have no relevance to me because I am not Protestant, either. I am especially opposed to Calvinism, Fundamentalism, forensic justification, Western views of the atonement -- including the RC Satisfaction Theory, Dispensationalism, and on and on.

Look up "Piedmont Massacre" -- what the RCC did to the Waldensians -- and tell me if you think a claimed "one true church" could have done such a thing.

 

[Thursday]

At this point, I don't remember erasing anything, but what I write is the truth, or I wouldn't write it. I have been devoted to finding truth for over 40 years, wherever the search led me. It did NOT lead me to the RCC but instead away from it because I know without a doubt in my mind, based on biblical and scholarly evidence and Christian history, .

You know no such thing. As a person born again as a Baptist, I have reached the opposite conclusion.

Do you think you are more informed or more honest than I am?

 

[CelticRebel]

You know no such thing. As a person born again as a Baptist, I have reached the opposite conclusion.

Do you think you are more informed or more honest than I am?

Where did I call your honesty into question? As for being informed, I obviously am "more informed" than you. With two diametrically opposite views, one must be correct and the other incorrect. Since many RCC doctrines are innovations which occurred many centuries after the apostolic teachings of the New Testament and first century church, and since the RCC was the worst persecutor in Christian history, there is absolutely no doubt that it was and is not "the one true church".

You should have settled on Eastern Orthodoxy if you wanted early and original "catholicism".

But I have no wish to argue with you, and I hold no personal animosity against you. I wish you the best.

 

[CelticRebel]

To anyone interested: Are these the actions of "the one true church"? A classic Romanist response is that it was the state not the church that did this, but that doesn't wash -- the state and church were united.

Piedmont Easter
In January 1655, the Duke of Savoy commanded the Waldensians to attend Mass or remove to the upper valleys of their homeland, giving them twenty days in which to sell their lands. Being in the midst of winter, the order, of course, was intended to persuade the Vaudois to choose the former; however, the bulk of the populace instead chose the latter, abandoning their homes and lands in the lower valleys and removing to the upper valleys. It was written that these targets of persecution, including old men, women, little children and the sick "waded through the icy waters, climbed the frozen peaks, and at length reached the homes of their impoverished brethren of the upper Valleys, where they were warmly received."

By mid-April, when it became clear that the Duke's efforts to force the Vaudois to conform to Catholicism had failed, he tried another approach. Under the guise of false reports of Vaudois uprisings, the Duke sent troops into the upper valleys to quell the local populace. He required that the local populace quarter the troops in their homes, which the local populace complied with. But the quartering order was a ruse to allow the troops easy access to the populace. On 24 April 1655, at 4 a.m., the signal was given for a general massacre.



Print illustrating the 1655 massacre in La Torre, from Samuel Moreland's "History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piemont" published in London in 1658.
The Duke's forces did not simply slaughter the inhabitants. They are reported to have unleashed an unprovoked campaign of looting, rape, torture, and murder. According to one report by a Peter Liegé:

Little children were torn from the arms of their mothers, clasped by their tiny feet, and their heads dashed against the rocks; or were held between two soldiers and their quivering limbs torn up by main force. Their mangled bodies were then thrown on the highways or fields, to be devoured by beasts. The sick and the aged were burned alive in their dwellings. Some had their hands and arms and legs lopped off, and fire applied to the severed parts to staunch the bleeding and prolong their suffering. Some were flayed alive, some were roasted alive, some disemboweled; or tied to trees in their own orchards, and their hearts cut out. Some were horribly mutilated, and of others the brains were boiled and eaten by these cannibals. Some were fastened down into the furrows of their own fields, and ploughed into the soil as men plough manure into it. Others were buried alive. Fathers were marched to death with the heads of their sons suspended round their necks. Parents were compelled to look on while their children were first outraged [raped], then massacred, before being themselves permitted to die.[32]

This massacre became known as the Piedmont Easter. An estimate of some 1,700 Waldensians were slaughtered; the massacre was so brutal it aroused indignation throughout Europe. Protestant rulers in northern Europe offered sanctuary to the remaining Waldensians. Oliver Cromwell, then ruler in England, began petitioning on behalf of the Waldensians; writing letters, raising contributions, calling a general fast in England and threatening to send military forces to the rescue. The massacre prompted John Milton's famous poem on the Waldenses, "On the Late Massacre in Piedmont".[33] Swiss and Dutch Calvinists set up an "underground railroad" to bring many of the survivors north to Switzerland and even as far as the Dutch Republic, where the councillors of the city of Amsterdam chartered three ships to take some 167 Waldensians to their City Colony in the New World (Delaware) on Christmas Day 1656.[34] Those that stayed behind in France and the Piedmont formed a guerilla resistance movement led by a farmer, Joshua Janavel, which lasted into the 1660s.[35]