Denominations?

[Guest]

So I did a search online and found this..

My link

This is one I understand and agree with..now what is your take on this?

Very sorry again for where it seems to have been leading.

My take is this.

[Smalcald]

But Protestantism is not a Church.

It depends on your view of what the Church is in particular. There are many non-Catholic Churches that are apostate so yeah if you include them we have some real problems.

The core Truth of Christ has indeed been brought to us by the Apostles and is taught in truth in many Churches. Minor contradictions don't take away from that fact.

Jesus did build a Church. How do you determine if your Church is being led in the fullness of Truth?

What does the fullness of Truth mean? How do we determine if a Church body is true or not? Do we base it on actions, teachings or history, what would be the attributes of the one true Church that Christ built?

[OneLight]

Ah, this is the part of the circle where I say "The point, which you keep ignoring, is that the church Jesus started was not the Roman Catholic Church, but His body of believers that had not real name. It was not until later that congregations started having names. You want to step back in time, but refuse to step all the way back. Jesus came to the Jewish people, not the Gentiles. You seem to forget that. "

Did I get it right?

Why do you continue to dodge my questions?

He's good at not answering questions like this. This is why I quit communicating with him.

There comes a time when you need to shake off the dust.

Which question didn't I answer?

You have repeatedly stated that, in your opinion, the Catholic Church is not the Church Jesus built. However, you have yet to tell us which Church he did build. Which Church do you believe has authority to teach today? Which Church is being led in the fullness of Truth? Which Church has the authority to bind and loose and to forgive sins as the apostles did?

If two churches teach contradictory doctrines can both be led by the Holy Spirit?

We have answered your question many times, you just ignore our answer and try to get us to agree that the RCC is this church when we don't believe it is. Each person has the Holy Spirit in them, guiding them, teaching them and changing them. When one decides to ignore His guidance, teachings or changes, it is not the fault of the Holy Spirit, but the person. That goes for every saved person there ever was, is today and will be in the future. The Roman Catholic Church is just as full of sinners as any other Christian denomination ever developed.

To answer your last question, they both can be. The issue is not with the Holy Spirit, but the person leading them. I have met Pastors that should not have a church and have met some that are perfectly fit to lead. Just as your RCC has people in it who do not always do what they should, so do the rest of His Body. There is no perfect church as long as it is still in this world.

Your denomination is not Christ.

[nChrist]

But Protestantism is not a Church.

It depends on your view of what the Church is in particular. There are many non-Catholic Churches that are apostate so yeah if you include them we have some real problems.

The core Truth of Christ has indeed been brought to us by the Apostles and is taught in truth in many Churches. Minor contradictions don't take away from that fact.

Jesus did build a Church. How do you determine if your Church is being led in the fullness of Truth?

What does the fullness of Truth mean? How do we determine if a Church body is true or not? Do we base it on actions, teachings or history, what would be the attributes of the one true Church that Christ built?

A Church being led in the fullness of Truth means that all of it's doctrines are true and guided by the Holy Spirit.

If two churches teach contradictory doctrines then we know that one or both are not being led in the fullness of Truth.

That would rule out the RCC.

http://carm.org/roman-catholicism

[Dragoon]

Ah, this is the part of the circle where I say "The point, which you keep ignoring, is that the church Jesus started was not the Roman Catholic Church, but His body of believers that had not real name. It was not until later that congregations started having names. You want to step back in time, but refuse to step all the way back. Jesus came to the Jewish people, not the Gentiles. You seem to forget that. "

Did I get it right?

Why do you continue to dodge my questions?

He's good at not answering questions like this. This is why I quit communicating with him.

There comes a time when you need to shake off the dust.

I understand, but he is not an unbeliever who rejects the gospel of salvation, but one who comes in His name teaching falsely. If this were a church setting, then he would of already been removed, but as long as he remains and is allowed to continue, it is hard for me to allow him to teach falsely about those who are in the Lord. Basically, he is no different then any other church that teaches that they are the only ones who hold the truth, which automatically makes it a lie.

Did Jesus promise the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all Truth?

Did Jesus promise that he would be with them until the end of the world?

Did Jesus promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church?

What false information do you accuse me of teaching?

We could start with this:

1)

"How can we consult a body with no leader? Who speaks for the Church? How can we listen to a Church with no voice or a Church with a thousand voices?"

Or this:

2)

"The leaders of the Church Jesus built started in Jerusalem, but soon settled in Rome"

The leaders of the church in Jerusalem were James, Peter and John.

James the brother of Jesus continued at Jerusalem, and was the 1st Bishop there, suceeded by Simeon.

We do not know where the Apostle John went, though some suggest Asia. In any regard, there is no evidence of him going to Rome.

As to Peter, we know that there were Christians there well before he went to Rome (Priscilla and Aquila), and he is not mentioned in connection with any of the Biblical references to the Roman congregation up to rough 62 AD. While we believe he was martyred in Rome, there is little evidence that he 'settled' there or was even Bishop there.

Or this:

3)

"Denominations came 1500 years later."

Which you then change by saying, "for several hundred years."

...and then adjust again by claiming, "Orthodox Churches are not considered to be denominations."

denomination- a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church (2011 Oxford University Press)

While the Roman Catholic church accepts the Eastern Orthodox church as a 'church', they are still autonomous and thus a denomination.

Are these 'falsehoods'? They certainly alter truth to suit your ends.

No, they are not falsehoods. I'll be glad to address them. I added numbers above which I will use for my responses:

1) Not sure what your getting at here. These are questions. Feel free to attempt to answer them.

2) The statement is true. James was killed in Jerusalem. Later, both Peter and Paul were killed in Rome. The successors of Peter also lived in Rome. Again, not sure what your point is.

3) The Orthodox Church is not considered a denomination. Denominations developed after the Reformation.

FYI:

For the first thousand years of Christian history, there were no "denominations" within the Christian church as there are today.

Various offshoot groups certainly existed, but they were considered "heresies" and not part of the Christian church. Most were small and, until the 16th century, were never very influential. From the beginnings of Christianity through the Middle Ages, there was only one the catholic ("universal") church. Basically, if you did not belong to the Church, you were not considered a Christian.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/history.htm

Read the post you cite.

"was only one the catholic ("universal") church"... catholic here does not mean Roman Catholic. It means 'of all believers'/'universal', as the author makes explicit.

There were autonomous branches of the Christian church (inc the Eastern Orthodox) that today would be termed denominations. The fact that the term was not used till later does not mean there were no autonomous branches of the Christian church. This is why the author uses quotation marks when saying 'there were no "denominations" within the Christian church .'

Even with this, you use facts very dubiously.

Note that you begin by saying, "Denominations came 1500 years" after Christ.

You then say, "several hundred years".

You now use a quote to say, "For the first thousand years."

Truth and facts don't change. What you say does... frequently.

Take point #2

"The leaders of the Church Jesus built started in Jerusalem, but soon settled in Rome"

They did not settle in Rome. That's the point. Paul never settled in Rome. James never settled in Rome. Even Peter does not settle in Rome that we know of... he merely was martyred there. A big difference.

So, your statement is not 'true' as you assert.

[nChrist]

But Protestantism is not a Church.

It depends on your view of what the Church is in particular. There are many non-Catholic Churches that are apostate so yeah if you include them we have some real problems.

The core Truth of Christ has indeed been brought to us by the Apostles and is taught in truth in many Churches. Minor contradictions don't take away from that fact.

Jesus did build a Church. How do you determine if your Church is being led in the fullness of Truth?

What does the fullness of Truth mean? How do we determine if a Church body is true or not? Do we base it on actions, teachings or history, what would be the attributes of the one true Church that Christ built?

A Church being led in the fullness of Truth means that all of it's doctrines are true and guided by the Holy Spirit.

If two churches teach contradictory doctrines then we know that one or both are not being led in the fullness of Truth.

That would rule out the RCC.

http://carm.org/roman-catholicism

According to you. Do you think that is a convincing argument?

Protestantism is full of contradictory doctrines.

Doesn't this concern you a tiny bit?

The FALSE RCC concerns me considerably because many are deceived and follow after that false church. I'll pray for you. The disagreements outside of the RCC don't concern me much at all.

http://carm.org/roman-catholicism

[Dragoon]

These are other commands that Jesus gives to his listeners in John:

Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. (John 13:14-15)

I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father (John 14:12)

In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. (John 14:2)

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. (John 15:12)

Which of these will you also say that "Jesus was speaking to the leaders of the Church, not to you and I?"

Of this Holy Spirit, which you claim is only for the 'leaders' of the church, scripture tells us;

He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come. (2 Cor 1:21-22)

This was not spoken to 'leaders', but;

To the church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia (2 Cor 1:1)

Which gospel are you seeking to proclaim CK? The gospel of the Roman Catholic church... or the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

That some of the passages may apply equally to all Christians is irrelevant. This doesn't change the FACT that Jesus was speaking only to the apostles. Any authority or promises made don't apply to all believers.

Of course its relevant. Incredibly relevant.

You claim the passage on the guiding of the Holy Spirit applies only to church leaders because it is addressed to Jesus' disciples.

If that's true, then the other passages addressed to the Disciples must similarly be only applicable to them.

But they aren't.

Of course all believers have the Holy Spiirt. That doesn't make us leaders in the Church. We all have different roles in the body of Christ.

And what then does this Holy Spirit do in all believers?

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:13)

You claim this verse "was speaking to the leaders of the Church, not to you and I." Yet the rest of what Jesus says to the Disciples in these passages of John ARE to you and I as well. This passage also speaks to all believers, including the disciples.

The Church at Corinth was part of the Catholic Church, not a separate Church. That's why they consulted Pope Clement in 90 AD to settle an internal dispute.

Your error is that you seek to separate the gospel of Jesus from his Church.

I have quoted you scripture.

You have quoted me words of men.

Which of these two is the gospel of Jesus Christ?

If your church has left the gospel of Jesus Christ, then it is no longer Christ's body.

You speak constantly of the 'church'.

Yet you forget that the church is not a human orgnization led by a man, but the body of Christ.

Why do you speak constantly about following the 'body'... but ignore the head?

If you want to impress me with the righteousness of your 'church', then stop speaking to me about men.

Start speaking to me about Jesus of Nazareth.

[Dragoon]

According to you. Do you think that is a convincing argument?

Protestantism is full of contradictory doctrines.

Doesn't this concern you a tiny bit?

I am not a 'protestant'.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

---

I would be curious what these 'contradictory doctrines' are that you speak of.

[OneLight]

Ah, this is the part of the circle where I say "The point, which you keep ignoring, is that the church Jesus started was not the Roman Catholic Church, but His body of believers that had not real name. It was not until later that congregations started having names. You want to step back in time, but refuse to step all the way back. Jesus came to the Jewish people, not the Gentiles. You seem to forget that. "

Did I get it right?

Why do you continue to dodge my questions?

He's good at not answering questions like this. This is why I quit communicating with him.

There comes a time when you need to shake off the dust.

I understand, but he is not an unbeliever who rejects the gospel of salvation, but one who comes in His name teaching falsely. If this were a church setting, then he would of already been removed, but as long as he remains and is allowed to continue, it is hard for me to allow him to teach falsely about those who are in the Lord. Basically, he is no different then any other church that teaches that they are the only ones who hold the truth, which automatically makes it a lie.

Did Jesus promise the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all Truth?

Did Jesus promise that he would be with them until the end of the world?

Did Jesus promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church?

What false information do you accuse me of teaching?

My first thought was to go through each of your posts and once again point out the false teachings you bring here, but after reading through the first couple hundred posts, I realized that I would have to post about a third of what you have written.

Fact is, in a nutshell, you use blanket statements about everyone outside the RCC, you have claimed that only those who are in the RCC are in the only church Christ started, and that everything the RCC teaches is the only truth there is being taught. You'll need to read through your own threads to wee how many questions you dodge.

[OneLight]

Ah, this is the part of the circle where I say "The point, which you keep ignoring, is that the church Jesus started was not the Roman Catholic Church, but His body of believers that had not real name. It was not until later that congregations started having names. You want to step back in time, but refuse to step all the way back. Jesus came to the Jewish people, not the Gentiles. You seem to forget that. "

Did I get it right?

Why do you continue to dodge my questions?

He's good at not answering questions like this. This is why I quit communicating with him.

There comes a time when you need to shake off the dust.

Which question didn't I answer?

You have repeatedly stated that, in your opinion, the Catholic Church is not the Church Jesus built. However, you have yet to tell us which Church he did build. Which Church do you believe has authority to teach today? Which Church is being led in the fullness of Truth? Which Church has the authority to bind and loose and to forgive sins as the apostles did?

If two churches teach contradictory doctrines can both be led by the Holy Spirit?

We have answered your question many times, you just ignore our answer and try to get us to agree that the RCC is this church when we don't believe it is. Each person has the Holy Spirit in them, guiding them, teaching them and changing them. When one decides to ignore His guidance, teachings or changes, it is not the fault of the Holy Spirit, but the person. That goes for every saved person there ever was, is today and will be in the future. The Roman Catholic Church is just as full of sinners as any other Christian denomination ever developed.

To answer your last question, they both can be. The issue is not with the Holy Spirit, but the person leading them. I have met Pastors that should not have a church and have met some that are perfectly fit to lead. Just as your RCC has people in it who do not always do what they should, so do the rest of His Body. There is no perfect church as long as it is still in this world.

Your denomination is not Christ.

According to you, apparently, a legitimate Church can be led by the Holy Spirit but teach false doctrines.

I don't believe this is consistent with scripture.

Yes, it can. Your RCC is proof of that.