Christian: Denominations?

[James the Persian]

By ecumenical I mean a ones that seek to scrap there differences or say they don't matter for the sake of "unity".

That's the same issue we have, but then the difference is that we believe in a visible Body of Christ, whereas you clearly don't. I still find your view hard to comprehend, but I'm not going to make an issue of it.

I had no idea that the orthodox church was not ecumenical,

There's actually a pretty big movement to end our involvement in groups like the WCC, which many have only ever seen as misguided in the first place. Most of us would just love to see the back of that sorry episode

in my mind they are all but roman catholic now (no offense meant) as i thought it was decided that the split was just political. Thats what i've heard theologians say anyway.

Then I'm afraid you've only heard from rather ignorant theologians. The Schism is in no way only political. The two major issues are Papal Supremacy, which could be called political but is also ecclesiological, and the filioque, which is purely theological. We will certainly never compromise on these issues and there are a vast number of lesser issues between us also. In terms of phronema (mindset) mainstream Protestants and Roman Catholics are far closer to each other than we are to either, in fact. I would say that we are by far closer to the Oriental Orthodox than any western confession, there's just that sticky issue of Christology, which may just be a colossal and tragic mistake in any case.

Any way so I am one with any beliver who is saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone as revealed in the bible alone.

Sorry, but I'm afraid that I cannot accept either sola fide or sola scriptura. Neither of these doctrines are older than the 16th century and are utterly alien to my faith. In fact it was the utter absurdity of the latter and the contradiction by James of the former that was in no small part the reason I abandoned the Protestantism of my upbringing. Neither of the solas are part of the faith delivered once to the Apostles. I intend no offence by this, just stating my honest opinion.

James

 

[*Paul*]

Hi James, how's the kicking the habit going for you? I was miraculously delivered from this addiction 5 years ago this month, soli deo gloria, so I know what you arer going through after my many frustrating attempts to quit over the previous years.

There's actually a pretty big movement to end our involvement in groups like the WCC, which many have only ever seen as misguided in the first place. Most of us would just love to see the back of that sorry episode

I am really suprised about this, can you provide me any of your favourite website links so I can look further on this subject.

Then I'm afraid you've only heard from rather ignorant theologians. The Schism is in no way only political.

I think it was malachi martin, so it came from the catholic side. Do you celebrate the eucharist the same way?

The two major issues are Papal Supremacy, which could be called political but is also ecclesiological, and the filioque, which is purely theological. We will certainly never compromise on these issues and there are a vast number of lesser issues between us also.

But you do have a visible head don't you? We have a lot more than two issues that we cannot compromise with rome on so I still think you are much closer to rome than proper baptist/protestants.

Sorry, but I'm afraid that I cannot accept either sola fide or sola scriptura.

Lol, i gathered that.

Neither of these doctrines are older than the 16th century and are utterly alien to my faith.

They may not have been defined in written documents but that doesn't mean they weren't put in practice. When Paul went around preaching the gospel, the Jews checked the scriptures to see if what he was saying was true, it was to the scriptures they appealed, when Paul preached he did it from the scriptures and appealed to the scriptures opening and alleging that Jesus was the Christ. We simply follow this example. The church "fathers" such as Iranaeus constantly quote from and appeal to scripture as the authority for their position held.

 

[James the Persian]

Hi James, how's the kicking the habit going for you? I was miraculously delivered from this addiction 5 years ago this month, soli deo gloria, so I know what you arer going through after my many frustrating attempts to quit over the previous years.

It's hard off and on, but I'm getting there. Thanks.

I am really suprised about this, can you provide me any of your favourite website links so I can look further on this subject.

Don't really have any favourites on his issue, but if you want to find some, there's plenty. Just google Orthodox and ecumenism and you should find some.

I think it was malachi martin, so it came from the catholic side.

Doesn't surprise me. RCs tend to downplay the differences. They, for instance, consider our sacraments valid. We do not reciprocate, though.

Do you celebrate the eucharist the same way?

As RCs? No. Totally different. Everyone gets both kinds, only leavened bread is allowed, a single loaf is broken up, we still have an epiklesis at the consecration, we don't keep the Eucharist for adoration, we commune baptised infants, etc.

But you do have a visible head don't you?

Absolutely not. Papal Supremacy was one of the two major reasons for the Schism. We recognise no head but Christ. The various Patrirachs have honorary ranks, with the Ecumenical Patriarch being first among equals, but that just measn that he has the right to chair any council. He cannot interfere in any way in the workings of any church other than his own Patriarchate (and even an individual Patriarch is really only first among equals in his local Holy Synod).

We have a lot more than two issues that we cannot compromise with rome on so I still think you are much closer to rome than proper baptist/protestants.

As do we. Those were the two most major ones. There are many, many lesser ones, including Marian dogmas (we have none), unleavened bread in the Eucharist, statuary etc. I stand by my asessment that Protestants and Roman Catholics are closer to each other than we are to RCs. Protestants tend to follow Rome in many of the things that divide us (such as the filioque and scholastic theology) and the Protestant approach to the faith is heavily influenced by Latin medieval theology and, as a result is far more rationalist and less mystical. The mindset of being Orthodox is radically diferent, even if some externals make us look closer to Rome than Protestants are.

They may not have been defined in written documents but that doesn't mean they weren't put in practice. When Paul went around preaching the gospel, the Jews checked the scriptures to see if what he was saying was true, it was to the scriptures they appealed, when Paul preached he did it from the scriptures and appealed to the scriptures opening and alleging that Jesus was the Christ. We simply follow this example. The church "fathers" such as Iranaeus constantly quote from and appeal to scripture as the authority for their position held.

We still quote from Scripture and it's still the highest authority within Holy Tradition. Any Tradition that contradicts Scripture is, as a result, wrong. That's where the term canon comes from - it means a measuring rod. That's the way the Fathers and the Apostles likewise use Scripture, not in a sola scripturalist sense. You will not find eveidence in the New Testament of a sola scriptura approach held by the Apostles (if they had held one there would be no NT) and neither will you find such an approach in the Fathers. Nobody held these doctrines, written or otherwise, prior to the Reformation. And sorry if this sounds confrontational but it's the issue that caused me to abandon Lutheranism, how can any sola scripturalist read James and come away without the conviction that sola fide is wrong? The two seem always to go hand in hand and yet are contradictory. It makes absolutely no sense.

James

 

[*Paul*]

We still quote from Scripture and it's still the highest authority within Holy Tradition. Any Tradition that contradicts Scripture is, as a result, wrong.

But that is a protestant position, any thing is allowable so long as it does not contradict the scriptures, so tradition is fine so long as it does not contradict scripture. I am confused about what you think we mean by sola scriptura. As far as i know it means that scripture is the rule by which we decide all doctrine and practice of the faith. If a controversy arises we appeal to scripture, we follow the teachings contained in it and if any comes along with contrary doctrine they are to be refused.
If a dispute between you and i arises i will appeal to the bible and no where else because it is the word of God, that is what you have just said here...isn't it??

 

[James the Persian]

But that is a protestant position, any thing is allowable so long as it does not contradict the scriptures, so tradition is fine so long as it does not contradict scripture. I am confused about what you think we mean by sola scriptura. As far as i know it means that scripture is the rule by which we decide all doctrine and practice of the faith. If a controversy arises we appeal to scripture, we follow the teachings contained in it and if any comes along with contrary doctrine they are to be refused.
If a dispute between you and i arises i will appeal to the bible and no where else because it is the word of God, that is what you have just said here...isn't it??

Nearly, but not quite. Firstly, by throwing out Holy Tradition you lose the way to properly interpret Scripture. It should be perfectly obvious to you that relying on Scripture alone has lead to an incredible fragmentation within Protestantism. It's Holy Tradition that prevents that. No text can be approached outside of some tradition (even if that's just the tradition of your local Bible study group or vicar). I'd rather have the Tradition handed down from the Apostles, some of which you adhere to whether you realise it or not. The other problem is one of approach. Sola scripturalists tend to understand that anything not found in Scripture is not of the faith (strange given that the canon is not found in Scripture). We would start by saying that unless it contradicts Scripture it is of the faith. All that the Apostles taught is not found in the Bible. All that is found in the Bible is not clear. Tradition fills in the gaps, clears up the hazy details and, more importantly, prevents the sort of doctrinal disputes, heresies and schisms that have afflicted the Protestant world so badly since 16th century.

By the way, I am still witing for an answer with regards to the contradiction between James and sola fide. Of course, you could always go down the root the supposed sola scripturalist Luther proposed and expunge it, but then that would contradict sola scriptura wouldn't it?

James

 

[*Paul*]

By the way, I am still witing for an answer with regards to the contradiction between James and sola fide. Of course, you could always go down the root the supposed sola scripturalist Luther proposed and expunge it, but then that would contradict sola scriptura wouldn't it?

When did you ask for an answer? I'll do my best soon, the problem is that I had to answer this one about 3 or 4 times on the last site I was on and i'm tired of it, but I will soon. This is the biggy really isn't it, they don't come much more controversial than this passage, I know Luther called it an epistle of straw, he sure had some faults but he was the right man at the right time and I thank God for his heroic courage and faith.

 

[gurucam]

If I asked you what your denomination is, what would you say? (For those of you who haven't caught on, I'm asking. )

There can be and are, no denominations in Christianity.

Matthews: 22 KJV N.T.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Matthews: 7 KJV N.T.
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

There can be no variation. The gate is strait and the way narrow. There is simply one correct message. Only by knowing and living according to, this one absolutely correct message that one can be Christian.

The fact that denominations have, even slight variation in their beliefs system means that they are seriously jeopardized. This means that most of them do not have it right (especially if they are big in numbers and size). That is they do not know scriptures. Therefore they err and are not chosen. They do not make it.

It is clearly stated that few will find it. This means that only a few will know the absolutely correct message so as not to err and be 'chosen'. This means that those big denomination are gravely jeopardized. They are simply too big to be the 'chosen few' who have it right.

Please stay very far from them.

 

[sojourner]

There can be and are, no denominations in Christianity.


There can be no variation. The gate is strait and the way narrow. There is simply one correct message. Only by knowing and living according to, this one absolutely correct message that one can be Christian.

The fact that denominations have, even slight variation in their beliefs system means that they are seriously jeopardized. This means that most of them do not have it right (especially if they are big in numbers and size). That is they do not know scriptures. Therefore they err and are not chosen. They do not make it.

It is clearly stated that few will find it. This means that only a few will know the absolutely correct message so as not to err and be 'chosen'. This means that those big denomination are gravely jeopardized. They are simply too big to be the 'chosen few' who have it right.

Please stay very far from them.

What theological rock did you crawl out from under? Jesus was part of a Judaism that was similarly splintered into sects, yet he never speaks against any of them. What makes you think that God's so picky about picayune gatekeeping activity?

 

[gurucam]

What theological rock did you crawl out from under? Jesus was part of a Judaism that was similarly splintered into sects, yet he never speaks against any of them. What makes you think that God's so picky about picayune gatekeeping activity?

You asked: What makes you think that God's so picky about picayune gatekeeping activity? The KJV N.T. is very clear that God is very picky about His very important gatekeeping activity. You seem to disagree.

First of all God's gatekeeping activity is not in the least picayune. However, no doubt, Satan will promote that it is picayune. He would like every one to go to hell.

Clearly you are making up your own belief system. That is most unfortunate . . . for you and those who take you seriously.

I do not 'think'. Here I simply quote the KJV N.T.

Your problem can be only with the KJV N.T.

Many with similar problems (i.e. like you) go ahead and rewrite the KJV N.T. to suit themselves.

Then falsely present themselves to be Christian.

Matthews: 22 KJV N.T.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Matthews: 7 KJV N.T.
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

You must be foolish, misguided and/or deliberately corrupt if you deny the fact that 'few' means that "God is very picky about His gatekeeping activity".

It is one thing to misled yourself. It is quite another very serous thing to misled innocent and unsuspecting others into your false antichristian belief that "God is not picky about picayune gatekeeping activity".

You seem to believe that simply because some priest or other persons call you 'Christian' that you are Christian. Fact is the billion or so who are called Christians are simply 'called' to be Christians. They are simply aspiring to be Christians. Of these only a few are chosen. Only a few become or are Christians. Fact is the very great majority (i.e. all but a few) are misled by false prophets who came in Jesus' name, they err and they fall by the wayside. They are not chosen. This is the literal revelation in the KJV N.T.

Only Satan would deny the above and so mislead the great masses and so cause them to err and not be chosen. It is absolutely critical that every aspiring Christian know that "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Every aspiring Christian must know that discerning and knowing the mysteries of God's kingdom of heaven, from the KJV N.T., is the first absolutely important thing that they must each do and then be led by same. They must know that this is the only path to being saved, chosen and to be Christian. Their entire success is hinged on getting scriptures right. For if they do not have it right, they err and God, who is very picky about His very important gatekeeping activity, will not chose them.

To claim otherwise is to be a Satan operative who is seeking to mislead great masses aspiring Christians and so have them err and not be chosen for God's kingdom of heaven.

 

[sojourner]

You asked: What makes you think that God's so picky about picayune gatekeeping activity? The KJV N.T. is very clear that God is very picky about His very important gatekeeping activity. You seem to disagree.

Yes I do. The bible is full of concepts of openness and hospitality -- in fact, welcome and hospitality are central themes in the religion.
"Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you that have no money, come, buyandeat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." -- Isaiah 55:1
"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest." -- Matt. 11:28
"Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there." -- Psalm 139:7-8
"Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." -- John 3:17
Do you need more?

First of all God's gatekeeping activity is not in the least picayune.

It is the way you present it:

There can be no variation. The gate is strait and the way narrow. There is simply one correct message. Only by knowing and living according to, this one absolutely correct message that one can be Christian.

That's picayune.

However, no doubt, Satan will promote that it is picayune. He would like every one to go to hell.

Apparently, so would you. Just sayin'...

Clearly you are making up your own belief system.

"Clearly?" Alright, Skeezix, lay it out: What about what I've said thus far is "made up on my own?"

I do not 'think'.

No, you sure don't, judging by your posts here.

Here I simply quote the KJV N.T.

Why not some other translation? Why must the gospel be so intractably connected with the "KJV N.T.?"

Your problem can be only with the KJV N.T.

It's an outdated translation. there are some better ones.

Many with similar problems (i.e. like you) go ahead and rewrite the KJV N.T. to suit themselves.

1) What "problems" might those be? Can you enumerate what's "wrong" with me?
2) I didn't "rewrite" the KJV. In fact, no one "rewrote" the KJV. The KJV isn't the "original," you know. The fact is that other translations are completely new -- and taken from older and different manuscripts than the KJV.
3) Translations are produced without the impetus to "suit oneself."

Then falsely present themselves to be Christian.

Nothing "false" about my Christianity. I'm just as Christian as is required by the body of Christ.

You must be foolish, misguided and/or deliberately corrupt if you deny the fact that 'few' means that "God is very picky about picayune gatekeeping activity".

I don't deny the fact that, the way you treat it here, "few" means that God is very picky about picayune gatekeeping activity. But I also claim that the passage doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Few do see the narrow path that loving others more than self presents. But that doesn't mean that the many aren't Christian, or saved, or loved by God to the same extent that the "few" are loved.

It is one thing to misled yourself. It is quite another very serous thing to misled innocent and unsuspecting others into your false antichristian belief that "God is not picky about picayune gatekeeping activity".

Read my post again. You're misquoting me. I don't believe God is picky -- but you obviously think so.

You seem to believe that simply because some priest or other persons call you 'Christian' that you are Christian.

It's Christ who calls me that. Want to refute Christ? "Only Satan would do that."

Fact is the billion or so who are called Christians are simply 'called' to be Christians.

That's not a "fact" -- it's "your belief." Your beliefs =/= "fact."

Of these only a few are chosen.

God has reconciled the world to God's Self.

Only a few become or are Christians.

Anyone is a Christian who wishes to be so.

Fact is the very great majority (i.e. all but a few) are misled by false prophets who came in Jesus' name, they err and they fall by the wayside.

I'd say that, in that case, you're in good company with the majority who are being "misled."

Every aspiring Christian must know that discerning and knowing the mysteries of God's kingdom of heaven, from the KJV N.T.,

What about from other, more accurate translations?

They must know that this is the only path to being saved, chosen and to be Christian.

The path is the path of love. Those who love know that they are saved, embrace the belief that humanity has been chosen, and follow the Christian Way.

Their entire success is hinged on getting scriptures right.

God isn't found, primarily, in a book. God dwells in the spaces between us. Loving relationships and interconnectedness are the keys.

For if they do not have it right, they err and God, who is very picky about His very important gatekeeping activity, will not chose them.

"come to me all..." doesn't sound very picky to me.

To claim otherwise is to be a Satan operative who is seeking to mislead great masses aspiring Christians and so have them err and not be chosen for God's kingdom of heaven.

Those who would actively turn others from God's love, based upon an idolatry of sola scriptura is working against God's purposes for humanity.

You are in dire need of a serious reality check, my friend. This is exclusionary cult-talk, and not the welcoming, inclusive attitude of one who espouses and champions love.

Either that, or you're simply trolling here.

 

[ChristineES]

If I asked you what your denomination is, what would you say? (For those of you who haven't caught on, I'm asking. )

I am a follower of Yeshua/Jesus, that's what I call myself, though I attend a Baptist Church and was baptized in one.

 

[ether-ore]

Catholic. Every Christian church is a splinter from the Roman Catholic Church - the only church that was around during the time of Christ.

That's not quite accurate. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not a protestant spin off. It is a restoration of that which was lost. At least one thing is true... on the issue of authority, it has to be either that that authority continued from Peter as Catholics claim or it was lost and had to be restored as LDS (Mormons) claim, (History should indicate whether or not it was lost.) Protestants really have no leg to stand on in terms of authority. Since they did break off from Catholicism and were excommunicated from the Catholic church, they have no claim to authority unless they claim a restoration; which they explicitly deny. Reading the bible or going to a theological seminary does not convey any more authority than it did for Jewish "doctors of the law" in OT or NT times. Rabbis are not priests. According to the OT, only those of the tribe of Levi and having been ordained (as was Aaron) could officiate in required ordinances. Any individual could become well versed in doctrine, but that alone does not convey authority. The same goes for protestant theologians. So, like I said it is either Catholicism or the latter day restoration is true.

 

[David1967]

If I asked you what your denomination is, what would you say? (For those of you who haven't caught on, I'm asking. )

I attend a Baptist church...Am I a Baptist? Not 100%

 

[leibowde84]

If I asked you what your denomination is, what would you say? (For those of you who haven't caught on, I'm asking. )

Non-denominational Christian.

 

[Sundance]

I was a Unitarian, now I'm a member of the Anglican Church.

 

[rusra02]

If I asked you what your denomination is, what would you say? (For those of you who haven't caught on, I'm asking. )

One of Jehovahs witnesses.

 

[12jtartar]

I'm an LDS Christian.

Katzpur,
It is not possible for a Mormon to be Christian. The reason is: their very beginning is based on something anathema, CURSED, to God. This is any other teachings or books other than The Bible, Galatians 1:6-9. Besides that, the beginning of that religion was based on a lie, that Joseph Smith Got a message from God, that were written on several golden plates. Of course no one has ever seen these plates, because they never existed. Mormons also believe in polygamy, which is contrary to Bible truth, Genesis 2:21-24, Matthew 19:4-6. Marriage can only be between a woman and a man, because the Bible tells us that if a man lies with a man, the same as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, and both must be put to death, without fail, Leviticus 20:13. The exact principle is stated in The Christian Greek Scriptures, 1Cor 6:9, 1Timothy 1:10, Rom 1:26-32.

 

[David1967]

Actually, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints isn't a splinter of the Catholic religion or any other for that matter. We restored the Church that was around during the time of Christ.

I thought the JW's did that. Or was it the Church of Christ? Or didn't Martin Luther set things straight when he stood up to the Catholic church of his time about the subject of faith in Christ only for salvation? And the Baptists say that they were around before the Catholics and they represent the Church as Christ intended. Not trying to belittle your statement, just saying that many make such a claim. Why do you believe your particular group holds that truth or position over others? I'm not questioning your personal faith, just seeking an explanation.

 

[Katzpur]

Katzpur,
It is not possible for a Mormon to be Christian. The reason is: their very beginning is based on something anathema, CURSED, to God. This is any other teachings or books other than The Bible, Galatians 1:6-9. Besides that, the beginning of that religion was based on a lie, that Joseph Smith Got a message from God, that were written on several golden plates. Of course no one has ever seen these plates, because they never existed. Mormons also believe in polygamy, which is contrary to Bible truth, Genesis 2:21-24, Matthew 19:4-6. Marriage can only be between a woman and a man, because the Bible tells us that if a man lies with a man, the same as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, and both must be put to death, without fail, Leviticus 20:13. The exact principle is stated in The Christian Greek Scriptures, 1Cor 6:9, 1Timothy 1:10, Rom 1:26-32.

Thanks for your input. The tone of your post was so... "Christian." Oh, and be sure to pass that information on to God, since He is still under the impression that Mormons are most assuredly Christian.

 

[Katzpur]

I thought the JW's did that. Or was it the Church of Christ? Or didn't Martin Luther set things straight when he stood up to the Catholic church of his time about the subject of faith in Christ only for salvation? And the Baptists say that they were around before the Catholics and they represent the Church as Christ intended. Not trying to belittle your statement, just saying that many make such a claim. Why do you believe your particular group holds that truth or position over others? I'm not questioning your personal faith, just seeking an explanation.

There is a difference between a reformation and a restoration. Luther, Calvin, Wycliffe, Zwingli and many others attempted to reform the Catholic Church. They could see how the Church had changed over time into something quite different from the Church Jesus Christ had established. With respect to Martin Luther, in particular, it never really was his intention to start a new church, but to reform the existing one. Thus, the Protestant Reformation began to take place.

Mormons don't believe that a reformation was sufficient, for the simple reason that we see God-given authority to direct Christ's Church on earth as being an essential component of any church that claims to be "His" Church. Since He was the one who established it in the first place, calling apostles to stand at its head and to be able to receive guidance and direction from Him, He was the only one who could re-establish it in its original form, teaching its original doctrines, and being governed by twelve apostles of His choosing. We believe (other Christians will disagree, of course), that this restoration (or re-establishment) of Christ's original church took place when the Father and the Son chose Joseph Smith as what we refer to as "the Prophet of the Restoration." Mormonism was established through communication between God and man. It continues to exist today through that same communication. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led today by a prophet (Thomas S. Monson) whom we believe to have exactly the same authority as did Peter, and by a quorum of Twelve Apostles who hold the same authority as did Jesus' original twelve.