Why do we need any one denomination?

[Radagast]

The point being that your question wasn't about the faith, but theologians arguing over a minor point.

I'm not at all sure that Thomism vs Molinism was a "minor point."

 

[W2L]

I didn't say that.

you said he only made 1 church. Yours.

 

[thecolorsblend]

you said he only made 1 church. Yours.

Nonsense, I said nothing of the sort.

 

[Albion]

duplicate

 

[Albion]

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.

You seem to be working as hard as possible to not be confronted with any information you were not previously aware of. That seems a shame, but oh well.

 

[fhansen]

You seem to be working as hard as possible to not be confronted with any information you were not previously aware of. That seems a shame, but oh well.

As a matter of fact I'll keep looking-that's always been my MO. But what I've found so far doesn't indicate what you say in some kind of seamless incontrovertible manner. It doesn't matter to me otherwise. I don't care who possesses the truth-only that it exists and can be found.

 

[Albion]

As a matter of fact I'll keep looking-that's always been my MO.

That's good, but it doesn't change anything about your previous comments.

It doesn't matter to me otherwise.

Well, if so, perhaps you can nevertheless appreciate that it may matter to people who are being misrepresented online. I know for sure that if anything that is not flattering to your church gets posted by anyone, the next thing we are going to read will be about "Catholic bashing."

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

I don’t believe we need to be a part of any particular denomination to receive salvation. Our understanding of doctrine is not what saves us. Whether we believe in salvation by faith alone or that works and obedience are also necessary to receive salvation, whether or not we believe in eternal security or predestination, none of this really matters when it comes to our salvation. Our salvation is contingent on believing in Our Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior and abiding in His love. We can be on different spectrums of these doctrines and still have within us what is necessary for salvation. I can believe that works and obedience are necessary for salvation and someone else may not believe that. Just because they don’t believe they are necessary for salvation doesn’t mean they don’t do them. Our salvation is not contingent upon whether we fully understand how or if these play a role in our salvation, what really matters is the state of our heart towards God and towards others. The same applies to eternal security and predestination. Fully understanding whether or not we have been predestined for salvation or whether or not our salvation is secure is irrelevant to whether or not we believe in Christ and abide in Him.

 

[Albion]

That may work for members of independent congregations but not unaffiliated, non-churchgoing people. The term non-denominational gets used by both (unfortunately).

 

[fhansen]

That's good, but it doesn't change anything about your previous comments.


Well, if so, perhaps you can nevertheless appreciate that it may matter to people who are being misrepresented online. I know for sure that if anything that is not flattering to your church gets posted by anyone, the next thing we are going to read will be about "Catholic bashing."

Everyone here defends whatever they believe to be the truth-because they believe it to be relevant. And my point should've been easy enough to understand; that a Christian, if anyone, should be open to the truth wherever it might come from. And I've stated that I'm open to what you say, and willing to look into it, even if I haven't found it all to be necessarily well-supported so far. Either way, I don't recall misrepresenting you, while misquoting once in error-which wouldn't have altered my position in any case had I read it right.

 

[Albion]

Everyone here defends whatever they believe to be the truth-because they believe it to be relevant. And my point should've been easy enough to understand; that a Christian, if anyone, should be open to the truth wherever it might come from.

Of course, THAT particular "point" is easily agreed to by just about everyone. That wasn't the issue.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

I haven't heard Pope Francis declare anything definitively in matters of faith and morals. What's more, I believe the Holy Spirit will not let him do such a thing.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

Where?

 

[Root of Jesse]

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?

I don't recall him ever referencing any books that might be readily available. I think he referenced Encyclopedia Brittanica once, but that would be a biased source.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm not at all sure that Thomism vs Molinism was a "minor point."

As related to the Trinity, the Eucharist, Sin, and so on, yes, I believe it's a minor point. And nothing to do with what the faith is, like the Catechism.

 

[W2L]

I haven't heard Pope Francis declare anything definitively in matters of faith and morals. What's more, I believe the Holy Spirit will not let him do such a thing.

lol