thedictator
A Dictator of a Coach
If it's stated in the Bible then it is the word of God. If it is not stated in the Bible then it is denominational.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The True Church
- Thread starter thedictator
- Start date
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
So? What difference does that make? None, except one espouse the erroneous concept of sola scriptura. The nature of the sacraments need not be named as such in order for them to be what they are. The Trinity need not be spoken of in exact terms in order for it to be what it is. Sacramental theology is not a "teaching of a denomination," but the theology of the majority of the Church.
Just as the Church comprises more than just one person, so the Church's teachings comprise more than just the Bible. It must (and does) include the Tradition of the Church, and reason, and experience.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
What of the different interpretations of the "words of God" stated in the Bible? Aren't those also denominational? How do we decide between the Word of God and the "words of god"?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
But that rule is not stated in the Bible. So it must be denominational.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
If it's stated in the Bible, then it's Biblical. If it's not stated in the Bible, then it's either extra-Biblical, or implied. "Bible" and "denomination" are not mutually exclusive. Just because it's extra-Biblical does not make it inherently untrue. If the Church is the Body of Christ (which is Biblical, BTW), then the Church speaks for Christ, and not only through the Bible. Did Christ speak only through the words of the Bible when he was on earth? I don't believe so. In fact, he refuted the scriptures in several places. "It is written...but I tell you..." By limiting theology to strict Biblical language, you're placing a gag order on Christ.
thedictator
A Dictator of a Coach
Wrong! All these religions do not believe in Sacramental theology: Apostolic Christian Church of North America, Advent Christian Church, All Baptist Churches, Bible Churches,The worldwide Bible way Church, Christadelphian, Christian Church, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ Churches, Churches of God, Holiness Churches, Christian Churches of North America, Church of Christ-scientist, Churches of Jesus Christ, The Lord's True Churches, All Pentecostal Churches, Salvation Army, World Missionary Churches, to just name a few.:run: :faint:
thedictator
A Dictator of a Coach
WOW! The bible has so many fingerprints of the HaSatan it is almost unbelievable!
The AV KJV is loaded with outright lies of HaSatan!
Any of it that does not align with Torah is False!
All over this Forum, it's debated how much of it is from ADDERS!
I wrote along time ago that "If you bible has lied to you replace it."
Went on to say if your Preacher/Pastor/Sunday School Teacher or Church has lied to you it is time to Replace "Replacement Theology"!
What with? Glad you asked! With the Tanach, Jewish scriptures. They have been handled by men also, so beware!
Yeshua the Word of God says he will send a Comforter who will bring all things to your remembrance.(paraphrased)
Shalom
The AV KJV is loaded with outright lies of HaSatan!
Any of it that does not align with Torah is False!
All over this Forum, it's debated how much of it is from ADDERS!
I wrote along time ago that "If you bible has lied to you replace it."
Went on to say if your Preacher/Pastor/Sunday School Teacher or Church has lied to you it is time to Replace "Replacement Theology"!
What with? Glad you asked! With the Tanach, Jewish scriptures. They have been handled by men also, so beware!
Yeshua the Word of God says he will send a Comforter who will bring all things to your remembrance.(paraphrased)
Shalom
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
So what does that mean? If it's not in the Bible, then it's false? I think what you're really saying is that if it's in the Bible and is being interpreted as you would interpret it, it's the word of God. If it's in the Bible and is being interpreted differently than you would interpret it, it's not the word of God.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
First of all, the Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ) certainly do believe in the sacramental nature of the rites of the Church. I offer:
Alexander Campbell mentions in the 1859 Millennial Harbinger...that some of the members of his church in Bethany (or else from other Disciples of Christ congregations) continued to refer to celebrating communion on Sundays as "keeping the sacrament."
[Campbell's] understanding of baptism was virtually sacramental in substance...Similarly, Campbell's associate Robert Richardson clearly entertained a sacramental view of the Lord's Supper but stopped short of applying the term, at least in his published writings on the subject. Campbell and others in the early Movement, again without using the term "sacrament," referred to both baptism and the Lord's Supper as "means of enjoyment" of the grace uniquely communicated therein.
The use of the word "sacrament" began to grow in the early twentieth century among some Stone-Campbell churches, largely under the influence of the British churchman William Robinson...and his proteges. Robinson held that the word "ordinance," while scriptural, was not applied in Scripture to either baptism or the Supper, and so he abandoned it for the term "sacrament." "Sacrament," Robinson believed, was not only a more fruitful definition in the context of ecumenical relationships, but it also divulged deeper meanings of baptism and the Lord's Supper in Scripture that had been rendered opaque by the prescriptive terminology of "ordinances."
The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, pg. 663.
Second, all of these bodies combined do not equal the number of Roman Catholic, Eastern, Anglican and Lutheran bodies. The American denominations you mention are a drop in the bucket.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
In part, yes. Is there something wrong with that?So your talking about the POPE???
But mostly what I'm referring to is Tradition -- the belief and praxis of the Church that is not directly identified in scripture, but always based, in part, upon it.
Original mormons were not hung up about alcohol the way they are today.
Joseph Smith drank alcohol for pleasure on a number of occassions as documented in the History of the Church.
On Wednesday May 3, 1843, Joseph "... drank a glass of wine with Sister Jenetta Richards, made by her mother in England ..."
On the night that Joseph was murdered he drank again. The LDS Church records describe in detail that, "The gaurd immediately sent for a bottle of wine, pipes, and two small papers of tobacco; and one of the gaurds brought them into the jail .... Dr. Richards uncorked the bottle, and presented a glass to Joseph [Smith], who tasted, as also Brother Tylor ...." (History of the Church, vol. 6, pg. 616) Some may argue that this was for sacrament so I will address this argument before it starts with John Taylor's statement. "Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent to revive us" (History of the Church, vol. 7, pg. 101)
In addition, Joseph Smith had a liquor license to distribute alcohol from his home. Take a look at History of the Church, vol. 6, pg. 111, "Section 1 - Be it ordained by the City Council of Nauvoo, that the Mayor [Joseph Smith] of the city is hereby authorized to sell or give spirits of any quantity as he in his wisdom shall judge to be for the health and comfort, or convenience of such travelers or other persons as shall visit his house from time to time."
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The status of the Church as a "true" entity is not predicated upon "proving" the existence of Jesus. The Church dhas always assumed the existence of Jesus. That's the entire reason for its own existence. If there were no Jesus, there would be no Church.
Your argument is not cogent to the thread. You're arguing against the existence of the Church, not against its status as a "true" entity.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Again with the unsupported assertions.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
'K...prove it. ......**taps foot impatiently**.......I'm waiting.......**crickets chirp**.......**looks impatiently at watch**.........