Why do we need any one denomination?

[LoveofTruth]

Good works do save us...His Good Works and we are saved unto good works in Him.

God’s work does save yes. His work on the cross and his work in all believers. But it is not of works that we do or works of righteousness . We come by the righteousness of faith as we see in scripture.

And the gospel (1Cor 15:1-4) has no works of the flesh that we do for salvation, no water baptism or circumcision or Mosaic law etc.

Ephesians 2:8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

And yes, when we are in faith Christ then dwell in our heart and now God works in us spiritually to will and to do and to make us perfect unto every good work as scriptures say. And as all believers know in reality.

But we read

Galatians 3:2. This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?3. Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”

Notice the “hearing of faith”, not works of the flesh or the law or water baptism etc.

 

[Tone]

not works of the flesh or the law orcwater baptism etc.

Yes, we've established that. But, do you consider the Law and/or water baptism to be works of the flesh...if so, why?

Romans 3:31
" 31Do we, then, nullify the Law by this faith? Absolutely not! Instead, we uphold the Law."

It is spiritual to uphold the law and be baptized in Messiah.

 

[LoveofTruth]

In other words, he was the officiant, the administrator, the baptizer in those cases. This destroys your claim about some purely mental or spiritual events being actual "baptisms" alongside sacramental baptism.


There is nothing strange or contradictory about that.



Submitting oneself to being baptized is not a "work." So, no problem.

No it does not defeat what I said. Paul condescended to the weakness of others at times. To those under the law etc. But he pushed all of it aside and boldly says that Christ sent him not to baptize. He did not say that Christ sent him “primarily” not to baptize . So the question might be , why did he baptize if he was not sent to do it? The answer might be in Acts 16 when Paul circumcised Timothy. Why did he circumcise Timothy when he was not sent to circumcise either?

 

[LoveofTruth]

Yes, we've established that. But, do you consider the Law and/or water baptism to be works of the flesh...if so, why?

Romans 3:31
" 31Do we, then, nullify the Law by this faith? Absolutely not! Instead, we uphold the Law."

It is spiritual to uphold the law and be baptized in Messiah.

The law of the Spirit of life makes us free from the law of sin and death. The law is not of faith. The law made nothing perfect but God does and he does this in us in Spirit.

The law is a ministration of condemnation and by the law is the knowledge of sin and the law of Moses is done away in its ministration (2 Cor 3:6- to the end) All believers are in the law of Christ. Not outward mosaic law or in diverse washings (baptismos) and carnal ordinances.

Hebrews 9:9. Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.”

By faith Christ dwells in our heart and works in us not by the law of carnal ordinances.

The law is not made for a righteous man.

Galatians 3:24. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.25. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Notice baptized into Jesus Christ, not into water here.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Yes, we've established that. But, do you consider the Law and/or water baptism to be works of the flesh...if so, why?

Romans 3:31
" 31Do we, then, nullify the Law by this faith? Absolutely not! Instead, we uphold the Law."

It is spiritual to uphold the law and be baptized in Messiah.

Read a bit earlier

“ Romans 3:27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.”

 

[Tone]

The law of the Spirit of life makes us free from the law of sin and death

Okay.

*Do you see the word "law" in both of those sentences...study the difference.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, all you are saying there is that the ones you like--or your denomination likes--are deemed by you to have been guided by the Holy Spirit (and the ones that are not so admired by the same people are deemed not to have been so guided).

But they are still men, so that takes care of the claim that if "men" have shaped the beliefs of the church, they must be wrong.

There are lots of cardinals and bishops I absolutely abhor, but I still believe the Holy Spirit guides them, at least, to not change the faith in the wrong direction, regardless of the judgement of other men. I don't particularly like Pope Francis, for his liberal politics, but he is still guided in matters of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In other words, he was the officiant, the administrator, the baptizer in those cases. This destroys your claim about some purely mental or spiritual events being actual "baptisms" alongside sacramental baptism.


There is nothing strange or contradictory about that.



Submitting oneself to being baptized is not a "work." So, no problem.

Again, you're missing the work of the Holy Spirit, who baptizes. Sure a man pours water on you, but the Holy Spirit effects the baptism.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I can say this. If you study the history--and I doubt that you ever had the inclination to look into this particular matter further, being content to think of the British church and the CofE just as your own church tells you to think of it--you may be quite surprised. And yes, it is as I said.

You have never provided any resources to support this assertion, so no.

 

[Tone]

Okay.

*Do you see the word "law" in both of those sentences...study the difference.

And here, I believe, is the key to denomination...dominationalism..."law".

 

[W2L]

I don't particularly like Pope Francis, for his liberal politics, but he is still guided in matters of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit.

Yet you dislike that liberal faith and morals.. Tell me, did Peter have conflicting morals too?

 

[W2L]

I grow cynical..

 

[Albion]

Again, you're missing the work of the Holy Spirit, who baptizes. Sure a man pours water on you, but the Holy Spirit effects the baptism.

Theres no issue here.

 

[Albion]

You have never provided any resources to support this assertion, so no.

You can believe whatever you want, but the information is there for someone who might be interested in learning about the matter.

 

[prodromos]

You have never provided any resources to support this assertion, so no.

I believe he has made reference to at least a couple of books. If it isn't on the Internet, does that mean it doesn't exist in your mind? Rather silly argument, don't you think?

 

[LoveofTruth]

Okay.

*Do you see the word "law" in both of those sentences...study the difference.

I have studied it and it shows clearly the freedom in Christ in spirit that believers have.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Why do we need any one denomination? We have the apostle's teaching, and CF for discussion, also computers and bible software. As Paul said, all things are ours.

Our Lord founded one Church. Other ecclesial communities can and will wither away but the Church which He founded will always be here.

 

[W2L]

Our Lord founded one Church. Other ecclesial communities can and will wither away but the Church which He founded will always be here.

View attachment 259859

one church? the rest are fake?

 

[thecolorsblend]

one church? the rest are fake?

I didn't say that.

 

[fhansen]

I can say this. If you study the history--and I doubt that you ever had the inclination to look into this particular matter further, being content to think of the British church and the CofE just as your own church tells you to think of it--you may be quite surprised. And yes, it is as I said.

Well, I don't know if the CofE necessarily even says it as you've suggested, as to its origins. And the charge can always be brought up that any church's writers or historians may be biased towards their own church. And history books in general haven't disassociated the RCC from the original Church of Rome so...