Why do we need any one denomination?

[LoveofTruth]

Hello and thank you...

It's not what I mean, but rather what Jesus means when He teaches Nicodemus about the "New Birth." Jesus encounters Nicodemus, and Jesus knows what is on Nicodemus' mind. Jesus knows Nicodemus is familiar with Jesus and his teachings, miraculous works, etc. Nicodemus wants to know how to get to heaven. The the encounter is told primarily in John chapter 3.

John 3:1-21 Jesus Teaches Nicodemus; You Must Be Born Again

John 3:5 "Verily, Verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Hello again,

Yes I am familiar with John 3 but still what do you mean or understand by the words “born of water”?
Do you think that is talking about water baptism? Which I do not relieve he is.

If you do read vs 6 it shows two births mentioned in the chapter

John 3:6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

There is natural birth of the flesh born of water from when the woman’s water breaks and there is born of the Spirit from above

 

[LoveofTruth]

There is quite a large difference between me saying I'm better than you because Paul baptized me, and tolerating false doctrines..

Matthew 16:11-12
2 Timothy 4:3-4
Acts 20:28-30

You act like because the Bible tells us not to bicker or boast in meaningless things that means we should tolerate false doctrine, and the Bible is quite clear we should not

and that, my friend, is where very real divisions arise - and should arise.

When I was first saved, coming from an outside looking in standpoint, I thought the divisions were mainly superficial and didn't matter..

but then, in looking deeper this last year or two I realize the extent of those doctrinal differences, and in some cases these differences would truly mean the difference between being saved or not..

certainly, we aren't perfect, but absolutely nothing in the Bible says we should tolerate and entertain false doctrine, false teachers and false prophets simply because they make some claim to follow Christ..

I agree wth you we should not tolerate false doctrines. Some are damnable others are not as serious. We can forbear with some but all false doctrine affects people somehow.

Romans 16:17. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”

2 Thessalonians 3:6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

 

[Aabbie James]

Hello again,

Yes I am familiar with John 3 but still what do you mean or understand by the words “born of water”?
Do you think that is talking about water baptism? Which I do not relieve he is.

If you do read vs 6 it shows two births mentioned in the chapter

John 3:6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

There is natural birth of the flesh born of water from when the woman’s water breaks and there is born of the Spirit from above

Exactly what's written. He is not speaking about water baptism... You've answered your own question in the verses you quoted.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Exactly what's written. You've answered your own question in the verses you've provided.

I guess I can ask again

What does Jesus mean to you when he says “born of water”?

And another question

Do you believe water baptism is part of the gospel for salvation?

 

[Aabbie James]

I guess I can ask again

What does Jesus mean to you when he says “born of water”?

Exactly what's written. He is not speaking about water baptism... You've answered your own question in the verses you quoted.

And another question

Do you believe water baptism is part of the gospel for salvation?

No. Do you?

Acts 15 and Romans 4 are clear that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Exactly what's written. He is not speaking about water baptism... You've answered your own question in the verses you quoted.


No. Do you?

Acts 15 and Romans 4 are clear that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone.

No, I don’t believe water baptism is part of the gospel or for salvation or even needed today for believers.

And the saving gospel is 1 Cor 15:1-4 KJV

 

[Not David]

No, I don’t believe water baptism is part of the gospel or for salvation or even needed today for believers.

And the saving gospel is 1 Cor 15:1-4 KJV

Except Christ and the Apostles said it is.

 

[fhansen]

Yes. I have an advanced degree in history. What does your bio look like?

I'm a farmer, but won't lord that over you. But show me what you know, point me to the documentation. I'm fairly well read on certain aspects of the western church and have read some on the eastern church as well, viewing it as related to the western church from birth while you seem bent on distancing the two from that relationship. The best approach would be to point to a secular, non-religion based history, with no dog in the fight.

But just to make a point. I would venture that few Protestant denomination members would have a clue what the terms Anaphora or Anamnesis or Epliclesis mean, or, more importantly, why the concepts and meanings are so important within the eastern and western churches. Why, IOW, the Eucharist is the absolute central and most solemn part of the Mass. Or dig deeply into the eastern concept of justification, critical as it is to the Christian faith, and see how well it lines up with the Reformed position.

And, as I've said before, I don't even care so much which Church might be the original, only that there must be one, and that it must necessarily be visible and trace its roots back to the very beginnings of the faith. EO is fine with me to that extent, not so with Anglican or Lutheran churches even though they, themselves, "have retained more of the original way", more or less clearly, compared to many others.

And you misquoted me in addition. I did not write "clearly have retained the original way." I wrote "clearly have retained more of the original way"

That was unintentional-should've copied and pasted. My apologies.

 

[Radagast]

No, I don’t believe water baptism is part of the gospel or for salvation or even needed today for believers.

You can argue about the theology of baptism.

But Jesus makes quite clear that we should be baptised.

 

[Albion]

I'm a farmer, but won't lord that over you.

Not actually a specialist in ancient history, then. Well, thanks for responding. Anyway, I wouldn't tell you that no one knows where V-8 juice comes from, so maybe you should hold back on saying that no one knows what happened in the past; there is very little, in fact, that isn't known about our history, right own to very small matters. Certainly how the church developed in the first century is not in that category.

But show me what you know, point me to the documentation.

There are innumerable works available to you in any library and I have recommended a number of them to other posters in the past. But this wasn't about some very specific event; you said that no one knows what the early church did. That suggests a more basic need.

But just to make a point. I would venture that few Protestant denomination members would have a clue what the terms Anaphora or Anamnesis or Epliclesis mean, or, more importantly, why the concepts and meanings are so important within the eastern and western churches. Why, IOW, the Eucharist is the absolute central and most solemn part of the Mass. Or dig deeply into the eastern concept of justification, critical as it is to the Christian faith, and see how well it lines up with the Reformed position.

I would say that it depends on which churches you have in mind, although you are right that those particular terms are not normally used (and, frankly, it doesn't matter much whether they are or are not).

And, as I've said before, I don't even care so much which Church might be the original, only that there must be one, and that it must necessarily be visible and trace its roots back to the very beginnings of the faith.

Lets think about exploring that particular slant on the subject, shall we? Why, I am wondering, should that matter--as opposed, for example, to the survival of the truth, to the orders of ministry, to the administration of the sacraments, and to the continuing expansion of Christianity to all nations, etc?

Why a single institution, whether it is right or wrong? We know from the New Testament itself that there were many separate churches in the early days, and the writers of the Epistles criticized the performance of some of them but not that they were operating independently from other churches in other cities.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Except Christ and the Apostles said it is.

No, they didn’t

And Paul said ,

1 Corinthians 1:17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”

Showing that baptism and the gospel are not connected and baptism is not needed for salvation.

Paul also to the same Corinthians reminded them of what the saving gospel is as he said here

1 Corinthians 15:1. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”

Notice that he did not add water baptism or circumcision or the Mosaic Law or sabbaths etc

Also Paul told the same Corinthians what the baptism is for all and it was a spiritual one

1 Corinthians 12:13. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

 

[Words1234]

Why do we need any one denomination? We have the apostle's teaching, and CF for discussion, also computers and bible softwarBecause many that cliam to follow Apostolic Teaching do not like Roman Catholics, mormons, etc.e. As Paul said, all things are ours.

 

[Radagast]

1 Corinthians 1:17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”

But that chapter makes clear that other people baptised the Corinthians, and that Paul baptised some himself.

And teaching against baptism is against CF rules. Baptism is in the Creed.

 

[Not David]

No, they didn’t

And Paul said ,

1 Corinthians 1:17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”

Showing that baptism and the gospel are not connected and baptism is not needed for salvation.

Paul also to the same Corinthians reminded them of what the saving gospel is as he said here

1 Corinthians 15:1. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”

Notice that he did not add water baptism or circumcision or the Mosaic Law or sabbaths etc

Also Paul told the same Corinthians what the baptism is for all and it was a spiritual one

1 Corinthians 12:13. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

Yeah, Paul's role was evangelizing not baptizing. That does not neglect the role of baptism. Also your last verse is talking about water baptism and it shows that it has a spiritual role too.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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 think there's a need for any one denomination, and neither did Jesus. That's why I'm Catholic.

 

[Root of Jesse]

All Christians (i.e., sinners saved, believers, those born of water and the Spirit) are "in Christ"; therefore they are all one with the Father, and one with each other as well. Notice carefully what Christ says in John 17:22-23: "[I pray] that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity."

The basis of that unity is not a denominational affiliation; it is our position in Christ.

You're right, in that it's we who are divided, not the Church. The call of Jesus is universal, catholic. How we follow him and apply His teaching is Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, non-denom, etc.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Because it relates to learning. At Sunday service you only get your denominations doctrine, but at CF you have all denominations to learn from.

If you're Catholic, and attend Mass, you get every denominations' doctrine.

 

[Albion]

1 Corinthians 1:17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”

Showing that baptism and the gospel are not connected and baptism is not needed for salvation.

What it shows is that Paul, who was called personally by God, was assigned to another role, that's all.

1 Corinthians 15:1. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

That is because he was speaking there about the gospel and salvation rather than baptism. Nothing there negates baptism.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't believe in the catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.

What is that doctrine?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I feel similarly sometimes...only, not the "churchy" thing, but assembling at the Appointed Times. I believe that there are three High Holy days where assembling is really required...it's not like the Sunday religion thing where you have to "go to church on Sunday". So,for me,fellowship here on CF is acceptable and it really helped me, and I have had some good fellowship here and mutual edification. Remember in Acts, the believers met with eachother daily and exercised their gifts to build up the Body.

They met for worship, to receive Eucharist, and to strengthen each other.