Why do we need any one denomination?

[Archivist]

Not surprisingly, when people say that there should only be one denomination, they believe that one denomination should believe exactly what they believe.

 

[W2L]

Yes, but started by men, rather than the Holy Spirit.

Absurd..

 

[W2L]

So you're with those who walked away and went back to their former lives. Got it.

More absurd

 

[W2L]

Well the doctrine of the Trinity is Tradition...it's not really simple, either.

like I care

 

[~Zao~]

well you might as well get along neighbour

 

[Root of Jesse]

What do you call 200 plus bishops of Rome, over twenty ecumenical councils, and the magisterium, if not men? You even make legend and custom into doctrine. Those come from men rather than God, too. That's who made your belief system.

Men guided by the Holy Spirit. As Jesus said in the gospel.

As for Christ instating of his church, all of us who believe are the objects of that authorization. We are all, as has been note many times here, the branches of the same tree, the "undivided church" of antiquity. That is true of the RCC, EO, Anglicans, Copts, Armenians, etc. etc.

Right. Under one authority-the pope. Whether you adhere to him or not.

 

[Root of Jesse]

like I care

It is what you stated, though.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If we only need agreement on questions essential to salvation, then us Protestants are doing OK,

The point being that your question wasn't about the faith, but theologians arguing over a minor point. But if you think so, ok. That's not for me or you to determine.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's very, very disturbing, if true.

However, when I look at the most recent Catholic Bible (the NABRE), that doesn't seem to be the case.

Again, you miss the point. I'm not talking about NABRE or NJV or KJV. I'm talking about our understanding of it, as the Church has taught us through her authority.

 

[Root of Jesse]

They met because they loved one another.

They met because they loved Christ.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not surprisingly, when people say that there should only be one denomination, they believe that one denomination should believe exactly what they believe.

I voted no denomination, but one Church, as Christ proclaimed.

 

[Archivist]

I voted no denomination, but one Church, as Christ proclaimed.

But that church is going to disagree on various issues. I believe that there is only one church, but various denominations within that church.

 

[Albion]

Men guided by the Holy Spirit.

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.

 

[Tone]

They met because they loved Christ.

They loved each other in Yahshua ha Mashiach.

 

[fhansen]

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.

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.

I've probably studied more church history, early fathers, conciliar documents, etc, than your average farmer, and possibly more than some historians depending on their specific field of studies but I’ll concede that you should know more about the topic than myself. My response to you was a sort of knee-jerk reaction as many posters, and at least one on this thread, in fact, like to assert that they know what the early church, as distinct from the RCC, was like and that their own church therefore follows and reflects that correct path. This is generally based on the sketchy information that the bible provides. But we all at least do know from the bible as well as from popular history that the early church was poor, simple, and persecuted. We also know that Constantine sanctioned Christianity at one point. But as often as not few Christians have looked much deeper than that.

And this farm boy knows at least enough to question the historical accuracy of the notion that the Church of England was a sort of resurrection of the original, pre-Roman, British church or that the RCC is distinct from the Church of Rome. And that such assertions should be supported- with some responsible unbiased history to the extent possible.

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).

I think it should've been obvious that the actual usage of the terms wasn't the point, but rather what they are about, why their existence and meanings are important at all regardless of what names are used to identify those concepts. IOW, it doesn't matter if one has never heard the term "Anaphora", but it's significant if we don't understand what that word is used to signify.

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.

But isn’t that also like saying, let's not take issue with the JW's? After all, they consider themselves to be Church. Does the Church have the right and duty to maintain a unity of faith, to distinguish and address false teachings? And if so, what Church? And what, except a single institution, has any hope or possibility of even doing so? Who or what could even call an ecumenical council where all denominations could be expected to attend and participate?

As an example, getting back to the Eucharistic terms I brought up above, does it matter a whit that the Eucharist is the CENTER of the “services” of the ancient eastern and western churches, "the source and summit of the Christian life" as the RCC puts it? While many Protestant denominations, with more yet in modern times, treat the Eucharist as a sort of side-show, done strictly for memorial purposes, and often only on occasion? I mean this practice, a chief identifier of the Christian faith, carried on from the earliest of times by the EO and RCC to name two, is practically off the radar for many post Reformation denominations.

 

[W2L]

It is what you stated, though.

What?

 

[Albion]

And this farm boy knows at least enough to question the historical accuracy of the notion that the Church of England was a sort of resurrection of the original, pre-Roman, British church or that the RCC is distinct from the Church of Rome. And that such assertions should be supported- with some responsible unbiased history to the extent possible.

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.

 

[LoveofTruth]

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


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

No, Paul did mention baptizing a few but he pushes all this talk of baptism aside and says christ sent me not to baptize. Then he says lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. Connecting water baptism as a work that men do which would add to the work of Christ on the cross and make men justified by works which is not true. If we could be saved by works of righteousness that we do this would make Christ work on the cross of no effect.

 

[Albion]

No, Paul did mention baptizing a few

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.

but he pushes all this talk of baptism aside and says christ sent me not to baptize.

There is nothing strange or contradictory about that.

Then he says lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. Connecting water baptism as a work that men do which would add to the wirk if Christ on the cross and make men justified by works which is not true. If we could be saved by works of righteousness that we do this would make Christ work on the cross of no effect.

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

 

[Tone]

No, Paul did mention baptizing a few but he pushes all this talk of baptism aside and says christ sent me not to baptize. Then he says lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. Connecting water baptism as a work that men do which would add to the wirk if Christ on the cross and make men justified by works which is not true. If we could be saved by works of righteousness that we do this would make Christ work on the cross of no effect.

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