Different Christian Denominations May Have Different Beliefs

[james2ko]

James,I said that I would comment on the remainder of this post. Sorry for the delay in doing so. I'm really not quite sure that I have all that much to add to what I have already said, though. It appears as if we disagree as to what Christ said when He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. I'm not particularly hopeful that either of us is going to change the other's mind, are you?

I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind. Only God can do that. Our primary mission as Christians is to preach the Gospel as a witness (Matt 24:14). If I recall, you were the one who accused me of misintrepreting Mat 16:18. As a Christian, I have an obligation to defend the truth (2 Tim 2:25).

[/INDENT]You say that scholars disagree with my interpretation. You quote two who do. That's nice, but they are obviously not the only scholars who have spoken on the subject. Many other scholars point to the writings of the earliest Christians which plainly teach that the spirits of all men go to a spirit realm to await the resurrection and that this is a place where than can continue to learn important truths they didn't have the opportunity to hear during their lifetimes.

I'm sorry to say but 1 Pet 3:19-20 and 2 Pet 2:4-5 renders this interpretation inaccurate.

I'll get to the rest of your post later today, since I have to quit posting now. Sorry, James. I actually forgot, but I will get to it later today, I promise..[/U][/B] I wouldn't even know where to start, there are so many such evidences. If you really want me to, though, I'll give it a shot

Why not start by keeping your promise and answering the rest of post #38 on pg 4. Referring to 1 Pet 3:19 and 2 Pet 2:4-5?

 

[Muffled]

Most people more than likely know this already, but there seems to be a few who don't realize that Christians have really very different sets of belief.
1. Not all Christians believe in the Trinity. Some don't believe that Jesus is God. Some believe that Jesus was an angel, others believe that Jesus was the son of God, other Christians believe that Jesus was just a normal human being chosen by God to give a message.
2. Not all Christians believe in free will. I have had many discussions with Christians about whether there is free will or not.

I am one of those who believes that they are all Christians, even if they disagree with some of my own beliefs about Jesus. There are other people who only believe that their own denomination are true Christians. Those above are some major disagreements, there are also a lot of minor ones, such as in baptism and such.

As I remember reading about Smith, he was distressed that the church was so divided and believed that he could find the one correct way to believe. IMO he did not find it but only set up another denomination of false beliefs.

I would grant that you could call any group viewing Jesus in a positive way as Christian but I don't see that as putting a stamp of approval on the person's beliefs.

There is no doubt that you can show a person text proofs until you are blue in the face and your tongue is dry and they will still refuse to believe what is evident. Often I find that people will duck the issue by changing the subject or just become silent. Some people just go on spouting their beliefs as though saying it makes it true.

 

[smokydot]

I agree. Although, the visible church could also be the "false" church of which Jesus prophesied, before Paul came into the picture (Mat 24:5; Mat 24:11; Mar 13:6). There may be a few scattered individuals with God's Spirit who exist outside an organizational structure. But there exists one organization whom Jesus is primarily involved.

And how do you know this?

I disagree. The true church should be in total doctrinal agreement. (Eph 4:5; 1 Cor 12:13)

That is the ideal, but nothing on earth is ever the ideal because of sin--even in the church.
We'll have to wait until we are resurrected in perfection for the ideal to exist in the Body of Christ, his church.
In the meantime, God did not promise us a 100% pure church before the resurrection.

 

[smokydot]

My thoughts on the matter is this: How do we know who has the right interpretation? Can anyone be so arrogant to believe that their interpretation is the only one that could be right? I am not going to judge anyone that their interpretation is wrong, because mine could be wrong, too.

The Bible is the best commentary on itself. If our "interpretation" is in agreement with all the Scriptures, it will be true.

 

[james2ko]

And how do you know this?

Are you referring to all points or one in particular?

That is the ideal, but nothing on earth is ever the ideal because of sin--even in the church. We'll have to wait until we are resurrected in perfection for the ideal to exist in the Body of Christ, his church. In the meantime, God did not promise us a 100% pure church before the resurrection.

I guess this is where we'll have to agree to disagree

 

[james2ko]

I would grant that you could call any group viewing Jesus in a positive way as Christian but I don't see that as putting a stamp of approval on the person's beliefs.

There is no doubt that you can show a person text proofs until you are blue in the face and your tongue is dry and they will still refuse to believe what is evident. Often I find that people will duck the issue by changing the subject or just become silent. Some people just go on spouting their beliefs as though saying it makes it true.

I agree Muffled. It seems, as Christians, we do not bother to ask why we believe what we believe or why we do the things we do. We live in a society filled with popular customs and traditions, few of us try to determine the real origin of things. We generally accept common religious practices without question, choosing to do what everyone else does because it is easy, natural, and comfortable--because there is a certain "safety in numbers." The power of peer pressure alone makes us avoid hard questions, so we practice what is acceptable and fashionable.

To illustrate, A third grade teacher asked her class, "Can anyone tell me who discovered America". A student raised his hand an answered, "The Indians." Somewhat befuddled, the teacher sheepishly mentioned this was not the correct answer.

Like the teacher, we follow along as we have been taught, assuming what we believe and do is right. We take our beliefs for granted, almost never taking time to really PROVE them.

 

[smokydot]

Are you referring to all points or one in particular?

I'm referring to your one point that "there exists one organization that Jesus is primarily involved."
How do you know this?

I guess this is where we'll have to agree to disagree

Where is this promise of a 100% pure church made up of sinful mankind.

 

[james2ko]

I'm referring to your one point that "there exists one organization that Jesus is primarily involved." How do you know this?

Jesus promised His true church will never cease to exist (Mat 16:18) which He promised to be with until the end of the age (Mat 24:14;Matt 28:20). It is a very small organization (Luk 12:32) filled with faith and love for Jesus Christ and fellow man while keeping God's commandments, including the seventh-day Sabbath (1 John 2:3-4; Rev 14:12). They will preach the full gospel to all the world. This certainly implicates His one true church--of one faith and one baptism not thousands.

Why do I think it's one group or denomination versus a few people scattered in competing groups or denominations?

If there is one character trait God has made plain is one of organizational consistency (1 Cor 14:40). Although Israel ultimately rejected God's calling to be a model nation for the world, they were the only group of people in the OT whom God chose to work with as His church or congregation. They were also of one body; one faith; one baptism-- Not a wide variety of schisms and factions with contrary beliefs and doctrines while all claiming to worship the same true God, like we see today.

If God chose one single denomination or group in the OT in which He was present and active, why would He do it any different for the New Testament church?

Where is this promise of a 100% pure church made up of sinful mankind.

All true Christians are purified in God's sight (Mat 5:8;1 Jn 3:3; 1 Pet 1:22; 2 Pet 3:1)

 

[james2ko]

Tartarus was the term used by the Greeks to designate the place where the most wicked spirits were sent to be punished.

I agree, Smoky. That's why God inspired Peter to use this particular word for hell. Tartarus is a place only for the most wicked spirits which 1 Pet 3:19-20 and 2 Pet 2:4-5 collectively indicate are of the demon and not human kind.

 

[jumpingjoy]

All true Christians are purified in God's sight

A totally meaningless cliche, imo!

 

[smokydot]

Jesus promised His true church will never cease to exist (Mat 16:18) which He promised to be with until the end of the age (Mat 24:14;Matt 28:20). It is a very small organization (Luk 12:32) filled with faith and love for Jesus Christ and fellow man while keeping God's commandments, including the seventh-day Sabbath (1 John 2:3-4; Rev 14:12). They will preach the full gospel to all the world. This certainly implicates His one true church--of one faith and one baptism not thousands.
Why do I think it's one group or denomination versus a few people scattered in competing groups or denominations?
If there is one character trait God has made plain is one of organizational consistency (1 Cor 14:40). Although Israel ultimately rejected God's calling to be a model nation for the world, they were the only group of people in the OT whom God chose to work with as His church or congregation. They were also of one body; one faith; one baptism-- Not a wide variety of schisms and factions with contrary beliefs and doctrines while all claiming to worship the same true God, like we see today.
If God chose one single denomination or group in the OT in which He was present and active, why would He do it any different for the New Testament church?

God chose a nation, and not all of them were faithful or obedient. There was idolatry among them. But God still had his faithful assembly in their midst.

It is the same today. Not all in the churches are faithful and obedient. There is growing unbelief and disobedience among those who name themselves Christian.
But God still has his true church, the Body of Christ, and Jesus still has his Bride, among them.

All true Christians are purified in God's sight (Mat 5:8;1 Jn 3:3; 1 Pet 1:22; 2 Pet 3:1)

And that is the description of the Body of Christ among many of the denominations.

 

[smokydot]

I agree, Smoky. That's why God inspired Peter to use this particular word for hell. Tartarus is a place only for the most wicked spirits which 1 Pet 3:19-20 and 2 Pet 2:4-5 collectively indicate are of the demon and not human kind.

And Jesus said Gehenna was for wicked mankind.

 

[smokydot]

All true Christians are purified in God's sight

A totally meaningless cliche, imo!

But the testimony of the NT, nevertheless.

 

[james2ko]

And Jesus said Gehenna was for wicked mankind.

Agreed..AKA..."The Lake of Fire"

 

[james2ko]

God chose a nation, and not all of them were faithful or obedient. There was idolatry among them. But God still had his faithful assembly in their midst.

Although some fell away, the faithful maintained their doctrinal integrity.

It is the same today. Not all in the churches are faithful and obedient. There is growing unbelief and disobedience among those who name themselves Christian. But God still has his true church, the Body of Christ, and Jesus still has his Bride, among them.

And that is the description of the Body of Christ among many of the denominations.

I agree. And like the ancient Israelites, His faithful followers all maintain the same doctrinal understanding--not competing ones.

I believe the genesis of our disagreement lies in our competing views of what constitutes God's "true" church.

 

[smokydot]

Although some fell away, the faithful maintained their doctrinal integrity.
I agree. And like the ancient Israelites, His faithful followers all maintain the same doctrinal understanding--not competing ones.
I believe the genesis of our disagreement lies in our competing views of what constitutes God's "true" church.

There was only one "denomination" among God's people in the OT, and it was the true (visible) church (assembly).

But even in the one, (doctrinally) true (visible) church of the OT, there were those who were unbelieving, unfaithful and disobedient.

It's no different in the NT. God didn't promise us a 100% pure visible church, either then or now.
The only 100% pure church is the invisible church, made up of the believing, obedient faithful everywhere, which is the one Body of Christ.

 

[james2ko]

There was only one "denomination" among God's people in the OT, and it was the true (visible) church (assembly).

But even in the one, (doctrinally) true (visible) church of the OT, there were those who were unbelieving, unfaithful and disobedient.

It's no different in the NT. God didn't promise us a 100% pure visible church, either then or now.
The only 100% pure church is the invisible church, made up of the believing, obedient faithful everywhere, which is the one Body of Christ.

So we're right back to square one. Agreeing to disagree. I guess we'll just have to wait for Christ to settle this one.

 

[smokydot]

So we're right back to square one. Agreeing to disagree. I guess we'll just have to wait for Christ to settle this one.

Sure, why not. . .I'll be seeing you in glory anyway.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I know I do!

Last time I checked a body is made up of many parts. So why not the Body of Christ, as well?

That is close to my own thoughts on the matter.
If God was concerned that "His" church would be so divided, he would not have established it the way he did.
Its very multiplicity indicates to me that this is what he intended.
It shows very clearly that the details causing those splits are not important.
What is important is the faith that they share.
God's Church embraces diversity, unlimited in the love of Jesus.

 

[smokydot]

And there are also Christians who don't believe Jesus existed; 'Son of Man' is a clue, it's meant to be allegorical for 'any man' - for us all to be Christlike. Jesus for these is just an archetypal figure and the death and resurrection is symbolic of the death and resurrection of the spirit; a sort of spiritual awakening I guess.

There is another school of thought where people believe Jesus was a Buddhist. But I think it's normally Buddhists who believe this! ;-)

There was also a school of thought among the Jews in his day that Jesus was a demon.