What church is the true church?

[ChristineES]

Really? If you're saying that most of Christianity is following a false religion, a false canon, then what exactly are you implying?.., if not that (most) Christians aren't even following the correct teachings.


"Christianity" by and large follows the NT, what exactly are you following?

I FOLLOW THE NT(mostly the Gospels, James, 1 Peter, and 1 and 2 John) and Jesus teachings, and even the OT to a certain extent (which is from what Jesus taught from)- I never said I didn't. I certainly didn't get my teaching from "Horton Hears a Who" by Dr. Suess.
:sarcastic

 

[Desert Snake]

I FOLLOW THE NT(mostly the Gospels, James, 1 Peter, and 1 and 2 John) and Jesus teachings, and even the OT to a certain extent (which is from what Jesus taught from)- I never said I didn't. I certainly didn't get my teaching from "Horton Hears a Who" by Dr. Suess.
:sarcastic

Great, so you follow your own version of Christianity, how exactly are you differentiating your version from the version you consider false? Do you tell people which parts of the Bible you DON'T follow?

BTW yes Jesus did teach from the OT, so I find it curious that whenever I bring up the tattoo ban people get all in a fluster. You eat pork a couple of times, so what, have some lobster while scarfing surf'n'turf with aquatainces, great, but going out of your way to pay someone to tattoo an inverted pentagram on your neck isn't quite the same thing.

 

[ChristineES]

Great, so you follow your own version of Christianity, how exactly are you differentiating your version from the version you consider false? Do you tell people which parts of the Bible you DON'T follow?

BTW yes Jesus did teach from the OT, so I find it curious that whenever I bring up the tattoo ban people get all in a fluster. You eat pork a couple of times, so what, have some lobster while scarfing surf'n'turf with aquatainces, great, but going out of your way to pay someone to tattoo an inverted pentagram on your neck isn't quite the same thing.

STOP IT. :no: I never said that at all. I don't know where you are getting this from. I don't follow my own version of Christianity- I am a Baptist. I never said any other Christians are false- this is not the first time you have accused me of this, and quite frankly, it is getting rather annoying because it isn't true and I haven't got the SLIGHTEST idea where you are getting it from. EDIT: I am a bit sorry about my sarcasm in my last sentence. I was getting frustrated that my posts were being so badly misunderstood. Shermana misunderstood me, too, but I can see why and how he would- part of what I said was unclear.

 

[ChristineES]

Great, so you follow your own version of Christianity, how exactly are you differentiating your version from the version you consider false? Do you tell people which parts of the Bible you DON'T follow?

BTW yes Jesus did teach from the OT, so I find it curious that whenever I bring up the tattoo ban people get all in a fluster. You eat pork a couple of times, so what, have some lobster while scarfing surf'n'turf with aquatainces, great, but going out of your way to pay someone to tattoo an inverted pentagram on your neck isn't quite the same thing.

I can understand Shermana's replies to my statements. I can see how what I wrote can be confusing. Just thought I'd say that.

 

[Shermana]

Honeslty, spreading the name of Jesus is also spreading what Jesus taught, as well. I implied that although I didn't say it. Why would you think I meant otherwise???

But that's not what you said. That's why I asked you for clarification if you were promoting the "minimalist Theology" of merely trying to get people to accept Jesus as Christ and that he died for your sins. All you said was to spread the name. If the implication is to spread what he taught, that's an entirely different concept than just spreading "The name". It's a very prominent and common Theology that all one must do is to get people to "accept Jesus" without anything further. Especially considering that so much Christian doctrine involves merely calling Jesus Lord and believing he died and rose from the dead for your sins to begin with, the entire "Saved by grace" thing is supported by various (cherry picked) interpretations of Paul. So your argument was that we are not to judge one another. But if we're teaching what we consider true teachings we ARE judging others by telling them what we consider to be the truth. So in order to spread the teachings and doctrines, don't we have to have our own idea of what constitutes being a "True Christian" in the first place?

Thus, spreading the name of Jesus is not really a sufficient way of saying "To spread the doctrines and teachings of what he taught" in context to what you said. Because "The name" is not at all the same as "The teachings" unless you imply such. Otherwise, it sounds like the standard Minimalist Sola-Fide post-Lutheran interpretation that is so prevalent among Protestants. And the idea itself has implications that contradict your idea that we are not to judge others' status as a Christian.

My whole point of my post was to say that we can follow the Bible, call ourselves followers of Jesus read the gopsels and epistles, and Revelation, etc and still not be able to look at another person and say "that person is not a true Christian". Because only the person himself or herself along with God knows for sure.

But how are you supposed to determine what the teachings and doctrines are if you don't discern between what makes a person a true believer and not? The idea of not judging people is not the same as individually deciding whether a person adheres to what the text says to do.

In other words, if is one to "Spread the name", then it means to also spread what you consider correct doctrine to those who may have views opposed to yours. Otherwise, you're in the "Spread the name to people who don't believe in Jesus at all" camp. If you're going to spread the teachings and doctrines, you're nonetheless spreading what you consider to be what a True Christian should do. If you disagree with another Christian's interpretations, are you not supposed to "spread the name" because you are thus judging their beliefs as being incorrect by trying to correct theirs? Otherwise, "spreading the name" wouldn't apply in that sense.

Besides, in James, we are exhorted to correct our brothers who are falling astray. What would that mean exactly if we don't have any judgment call on what it means to fall astray or what kind of correction is in need?

 

[Desert Snake]

STOP IT. :no: I never said that at all. I don't know where you are getting this from. I don't follow my own version of Christianity- I am a Baptist. I never said any other Christians are false- this is not the first time you have accused me of this, and quite frankly, it is getting rather annoying because it isn't true and I haven't got the SLIGHTEST idea where you are getting it from.

?? Actually you have said that in various threads, usually along the lines of you don't think most of the NT or portions of the NT are false teachings. I'm not attacking you, I don't care what version of Christianity you follow, just trying to find out what you actually believe.

I thought Baptists used the entire Bible.

 

[ChristineES]

But that's not what you said. That's why I asked you for clarification if you were promoting the "minimalist Theology" of merely trying to get people to accept Jesus as Christ and that he died for your sins. All you said was to spread the name. If the implication is to spread what he taught, that's an entirely different concept than just spreading "The name". It's a very prominent and common Theology that all one must do is to get people to "accept Jesus" without anything further. Especially considering that so much Christian doctrine involves merely calling Jesus Lord and believing he died and rose from the dead for your sins to begin with, the entire "Saved by grace" thing is supported by various (cherry picked) interpretations of Paul. So your argument was that we are not to judge one another. But if we're teaching what we consider true teachings we ARE judging others by telling them what we consider to be the truth. So in order to spread the teachings and doctrines, don't we have to have our own idea of what constitutes being a "True Christian" in the first place?

Thus, spreading the name of Jesus is not really a sufficient way of saying "To spread the doctrines and teachings of what he taught" in context to what you said. Because "The name" is not at all the same as "The teachings" unless you imply such. Otherwise, it sounds like the standard Minimalist Sola-Fide post-Lutheran interpretation that is so prevalent among Protestants. And the idea itself has implications that contradict your idea that we are not to judge others' status as a Christian.


But how are you supposed to determine what the teachings and doctrines are if you don't discern between what makes a person a true believer and not? The idea of not judging people is not the same as individually deciding whether a person adheres to what the text says to do.

Besides, in James, we are exhorted to correct our brothers who are falling astray. What would that mean exactly if we don't have any judgment call on what it means to fall astray or what kind of correction is in need?

I know. I acknowledged it a later post. I was unclear.

I believe that following Jesus and His commands is what makes a true Christian- and worshiping God. I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to relate that we don't know what it is in the heart of other believers and until we do, we can't determine, outside of ourselves, who is a true follower of Jesus and who isn't. I hope that is not unclear. That is why I don't go and say that certain denominations of Christianity are not "true" denominations- I will not do that. I had done so early on, 30 years ago when I first became a Christian, but I repented of it soon afterward.

 

[ChristineES]

?? Actually you have said that in various threads, usually along the lines of you don't think most of the NT or portions of the NT are false teachings. I'm not attacking you, I don't care what version of Christianity you follow, just trying to find out what you actually believe.

I thought Baptists used the entire Bible.

You must be mistaking me for someone else or you misunderstood what I said. I never, ever said that I thought any of the NT portions of the bible were false. No doubt you probably think I did, but you are wrong!! For the record, I don't denounce any of the Bible, either OT or NT. I am not enough of a Bible scholar to do such a thing.

 

[Shermana]

I know. I acknowledged it a later post. I was unclear.

I believe that following Jesus and His commands is what makes a true Christian- and worshiping God. I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to relate that we don't know what it is in the heart of other believers and until we do, we can't determine, outside of ourselves, who is a true follower of Jesus and who isn't. I hope that is not unclear. That is why I don't go and say that certain denominations of Christianity are not "true" denominations- I will not do that. I had done so early on, 30 years ago when I first became a Christian, but I repented of it soon afterward.

The thing is though, we CAN see what's in many believer's hearts, we can see how adamantly opposed they are to the idea of believing in the commandments of God, let alone the teachings of Jesus. We can see their willingness to examine their faith or their willingness to simply sit on the laurels of traditions they feel comfortable with unquestioningly. We can see how interested they are in pursuing the faith they claim to have or whether they're just interested in fitting in and not rocking the boat. We can tell a LOT about the hearts of believers. I'm sure you've come across many who think its' only about the "Grace" and the "faith" and don't even discuss or want to discuss the teachings of Jesus or its implications. What we can see is a heart that is set on avoiding the meat of the entire doctrine. What we can also see is those who adamantly stick to such doctrines even in the face of overwhelming textual evidence against their ideas, we can see whether they are truly interested in any sort of actions and works to their salvation or if they're only interested in a cherry picked selection of verses that cater to their particular (minimalist) preference, and we can take a guess why they prefer that preferential understanding.

We can see a whole lot about the character about people by their methodology and willingness to accept the rest of the text, in how they incorporate the text, in what parts they casually ignore or reinterpret (i.e. twist), and what sorts of methods they use to arrive at the interpretations they come to. We can judge whether they are badly abusing verses that aren't anywhere close to the intended meaning, or if they're interested in conforming their own views to what is the most probable intended meaning.

I don't see anything wrong with a person making a judgment call that various denominations are not truly Christian in how they interpret the scriptures, I think one SHOULD be ready to make those judgment calls just as the NT authors criticized those who claimed to be Christians like the Nicolations but had interpretations that catered to their personal preferences rather than having an objective sense of what the truth is.

In other words, I think it's wrong to say that one shouldn't judge another as a false Christian and it's very counter-productive. Horns need to clash if you're going to have a strong belief on what it means to carry the name. I don't think the Early Christians had much of a problem with calling each other false when they disagreed with their theology as well as the reason for their theology.

 

[ChristineES]

The thing is though, we CAN see what's in many believer's hearts, we can see how adamantly opposed they are to the idea of believing in the commandments of God, let alone the teachings of Jesus. We can see their willingness to examine their faith or their willingness to simply sit on the laurels of traditions they feel comfortable with unquestioningly. We can see how interested they are in pursuing the faith they claim to have or whether they're just interested in fitting in and not rocking the boat. We can tell a LOT about the hearts of believers. I'm sure you've come across many who think its' only about the "Grace" and the "faith" and don't even discuss or want to discuss the teachings of Jesus or its implications. What we can see is a heart that is set on avoiding the meat of the entire doctrine. What we can also see is those who adamantly stick to such doctrines even in the face of overwhelming textual evidence against their ideas, we can see whether they are truly interested in any sort of actions and works to their salvation or if they're only interested in a cherry picked selection of verses that cater to their particular (minimalist) preference, and we can take a guess why they prefer that preferential understanding.

We can see a whole lot about the character about people by their methodology and willingness to accept the rest of the text, in how they incorporate the text, in what parts they casually ignore or revise, and what sorts of methods they use to arrive at the interpretations they come to.

I don't see anything wrong with a person making a judgment call that various denominations are not truly Christian in how they interpret the scriptures, I think one SHOULD be ready to make those judgment calls just as the NT authors criticized those who claimed to be Christians like the Nicolations but had interpretations that catered to their personal preferences rather than having an objective sense of what the truth is.

In other words, I think it's wrong to say that one shouldn't judge another as a false Christian and it's very counter-productive. Horns need to clash if you're going to have a strong belief on what it means to carry the name. I don't think the Early Christians had much of a problem with calling each other false when they disagreed with their theology as well as the reason for their theology.

You make a good point here. Let me clarify that I meant by denominations- not really by individuals. There are individuals who say they are Christians, but in reality, they are just paying lip service to the entire thing and not putting it into practice- and it can be very apparent when they do that.

However, I don't feel qualified to tell people are different denominations that they are NOT true Christians because I believe in for example, full body immersion baptism when other denominations only do sprinkling. It is a bit tougher when it comes to believing in the Trinity- as a Baptist, it is one of the teachings, but I know of certain individuals, and denominations that reject the trinity- I believe that you do, Shermana (you can correct me if I'm wrong). And there is a difference of opinion of whether Jesus rose physically during His resurrection or only spiritually. I, personally, believe that Jesus rose physically, but I am not going to point and say "You are not a true Christian" to someone because that person believes He was only raised spiritually.

Also, keep in mind that everything I say is only my opinion and any opinion can be wrong and disagreed with.

 

[Shermana]

You make a good point here. Let me clarify that I meant by denominations- not really by individuals. There are individuals who say they are Christians, but in reality, they are just paying lip service to the entire thing and not putting it into practice- and it can be very apparent when they do that.

However, I don't feel qualified to tell people are different denominations that they are NOT true Christians because I believe in for example, full body immersion baptism when other denominations only do sprinkling. It is a bit tougher when it comes to believing in the Trinity- as a Baptist, it is one of the teachings, but I know of certain individuals, and denominations that reject the trinity- I believe that you do, Shermana (you can correct me if I'm wrong). And there is a difference of opinion of whether Jesus rose physically during His resurrection or only spiritually. I, personally, believe that Jesus rose physically, but I am not going to point and say "You are not a true Christian" to someone because that person believes He was only raised spiritually.

Also, keep in mind that everything I say is only my opinion and any opinion can be wrong and disagreed with.

I most certainly do reject the Trinity. In fact, I'd even use that as an argument that I'd say those who think Jesus was God generally don't have a remotely close understanding to what the Messianic Prophecies were about in the first place, and what it means to be "Christ" to begin with. I could argue that belief in the Trinity demonstrates a willingness to side with the historic majority in the face of scholarly and reasoned counter-argument and interpretations. One can ask: "Do they truly believe that the text unequivocally says that Jesus was God and that the Nicene arguments for the Trinity are true because they agree with the scholarly and grammatical concepts or is it because they want to fit in with the majority"? A great example, what was in the hearts of those who went by the newly invented "Colwell's rule" in the 1930s? Were they honestly believing that they made some groundbreaking grammatical discovery or were they trying to help prevent a scholarly argument that would pose a threat to the status quo to the point that they'd be willfully dishonest about Greek grammar? What can be said about the hearts of those who believe Colwell's rule and ignore or reject all the arguments against it? Is their thought well reasoned? Have they researched it? Do they understand it? Or do they just repeat it because of where their hearts lie on the matter? Same can be said for every argument of the Trinity. Do they believe in it because they really think its true based on all the evidence or is it because their heart is set on fitting in with the rest?

How many Christians do you think would be prepared to defend why they think Yeshu Ben Yusuf was the Messiah and why they so earnestly accept this claimant as lord other than the popularity factor?

But I think differences in details are a different category, but it can still relate to how one can see one's character. If one believes Infant baptism is sufficient, that can possibly show that A) They don't really think much of baptism being of value regarding one's conscious understanding of what they are doing and that it's just a ritual that causes some effect of sorts (assuming they can argue what that effect is) and B) They may be going by a traditional doctrine guiding their opinion as opposed to what the text may indicate on what Baptism was intended to be and what it does.

On the other hand, the question of whether Jesus rose physically or alone in the Spirit I don't think has much bearing on the actual teachings and lifestyle choices of a believer. That's more of a matter of interpretation that doesn't involve the spectrum of behavior and action. However, it can be said that those who believe Jesus rising from the dead somehow means all their sins forever are forgiven and that their works don't matter are demonstrating where their hearts lie in that regard. As opposed to the issue of obeying the commandments and what Jesus taught which doesn't have much room for debate.

My main issue however is the teachings themselves as well as the basis for what Jesus was and was teaching, which was the Jewish context. But in this instance, if a person thinks baptism isn't necessary at all, when the text says that the disciples ARE to baptize, what does that say about their hearts? That they are willing to ignore Jesus's command for the sake of a theology they find less burdensome?

Trust me I'm aware that everything anyone says is everyone's opinion. Including mine! But I'm nonetheless using such statements to show where my own opinion stands in relation.

 

[ChristineES]

I most certainly do reject the Trinity. In fact, I'd even use that as an argument that I'd say those who think Jesus was God generally don't have a remotely close understanding to what the Messianic Prophecies were about in the first place, and what it means to be "Christ" to begin with.

How many Christians do you think would be prepared to defend why they think Yeshu Ben Yusuf was the Messiah and why they so earnestly accept this claimant as lord other than the popularity factor?

But I think differences in details are a different category, but it can still relate to how one can see one's character. If one believes Infant baptism is sufficient, that can possibly show that A) They don't really think much of baptism being of value regarding one's conscious understanding of what they are doing and that it's just a ritual that causes some effect of sorts (assuming they can argue what that effect is) and B) They may be going by a traditional doctrine guiding their opinion as opposed to what the text may indicate on what Baptism was intended to be and what it does.

On the other hand, the question of whether Jesus rose physically or alone in the Spirit I don't think has much bearing on the actual teachings and lifestyle choices of a believer. That's more of a matter of interpretation that doesn't involve the spectrum of behavior and action. However, it can be said that those who believe Jesus rising from the dead somehow means all their sins forever are forgiven and that their works don't matter are demonstrating where their hearts lie in that regard.

My main issue however is the teachings themselves as well as the basis for what Jesus was and was teaching, which was the Jewish context. But in this instance, if a person thinks baptism isn't necessary at all, when the text says that the disciples ARE to baptize, what does that say about their hearts? That they are willing to ignore Jesus's command for the sake of a theology they find less burdensome?

Trust me I'm aware that everything anyone says is everyone's opinion. Including mine! But I'm nonetheless using such statements to show where my own opinion stands in relation.

I think where I have the most trouble is although I have tried to study certain things from a Jewish perspective- along the lines of Zola Levitt and other Messianic Jews. I have tried further: With a Messianic group years ago (when my mother found out her mother was a Jew, and therefore she was one, too and wanted to find out more and not give up her new found faith in Jesus- I went with her- It was more than 20 years ago), with a forum that was messianic Jew, et. al. But I have never practiced Judaism- although I have Jewish ancestory. I am outside of that understanding. That's the best I could do- and I have tried. I even studied about various feasts and celebrations- Passover, Chanukah, etc. I still see things with a gentile point of view- which is why I call myself a Christian or Follower of Yeshua rather than a Messianic Jew.

For the record, I have had, off and on, serious doubts about the trinity- I have tried to accept it although I don't truly understand it and the way I did understand it- I was told that it was wrong (Modalism) and a false teaching by some Christians. Which made me even more confused.

 

[Desert Snake]

I wouldn't worry about the trinity concept too much, 'modalism' seems just as correct as any other interpretation I've read.

 

[ChristineES]

I wouldn't worry about the trinity concept too much, 'modalism' seems just as correct as any other interpretation I've read.

I started a thread in Same Faith debates a couple of years ago about my confusion of the Trinity. It was an interesting conversation, and had some good replies- but, unfortunately, my confusion remains and I have downplayed the whole teaching of the Trinity. I decided to study other aspects of my faith and steer clear of it for the time being. EDIT: I try to be more lenient with those types of teachings because of it- I was called a "non-Christian" because of my confusion and doubt of the Trinity in the past. I didn't very much like that.

 

[Desert Snake]

I started a thread in Same Faith debates a couple of years ago about my confusion of the Trinity. It was an interesting conversation, and had some good replies- but, unfortunately, my confusion remains and I have downplayed the whole teaching of the Trinity. I decided to study other aspects of my faith and steer clear of it for the time being. EDIT: I try to be more lenient with those types of teachings because of it- I was called a "non-Christian" because of my confusion and doubt of the Trinity in the past. I didn't very much like that.

That's an example of false accusation IMO, it must have been from a certain denomination or something.

 

[gnostic]

Our job has only been to spread the name of Jesus- not judge who is or who isn't a true follower of Jesus. (Sorry, just a bit frustrated here).

Really? If you're saying that most of Christianity is following a false religion, a false canon, then what exactly are you implying?.., if not that (most) Christians aren't even following the correct teachings.

WHAT???

I don't know you're reading, but I don't get the impression that she was saying anything about Christians following false religion or false scriptures.

She saying that people shouldn't judge others of who are "true Christians" and who are not.

Jesus did preach to his followers not to judge or persecute others. And I believe that anyone who would say something like "You're not a true Christian" would be judging another.

Of course, I think such advice is not so simple to follow.

 

[Desert Snake]

WHAT???

I don't know you're reading, but I don't get the impression that she was saying anything about Christians following false religion or false scriptures.

She saying that people shouldn't judge others of who are "true Christians" and who are not.

So you didn't read the entire thread.

 

[George-ananda]

There are nearly ten thousand flavors of Christianity today. When we add to the mix the churches that did not survive to the present date, the number of churches are even higher. What criteria should a person use to determine the true church? I define the “true church” as a church that teaches an accurate teaching of Jesus Christ. If you know of such a church, please explain in detail why that church is the true church.

What makes you think there is a single 'True' Church or even a single 'True' world religion.

The ultimate 'Truth' is beyond our ability to conceptualize. So many people (Churches, religions) try to point to that which is beyond conception. None may be perfect because words and human concepts are limited. We can though choose a Church or religion that our individual intellect is most suited towards.

 

[Pegg]

What makes you think there is a single 'True' Church or even a single 'True' world religion.

The ultimate 'Truth' is beyond our ability to conceptualize. So many people (Churches, religions) try to point to that which is beyond conception. None may be perfect because words and human concepts are limited. We can though choose a Church or religion that our individual intellect is most suited towards.

the truth is whatever God says is the truth. Jesus himself showed that truth about God was accessible

John 17:17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth.

John 8:31 And so Jesus went on to say to the Jews that had believed him: “If YOU remain in my word, YOU are really my disciples, 32 and YOU will know the truth, and the truth will set YOU free.”

choosing a church which is not based on 'Gods Word' is not going to lead you to truth, but if someone feels that their own way of seeing the world (and thus finding a religion which suits their own beliefs) is a better sort of truth, then i guess you are right...choose a religion which tickles your fancy

But if someone is serious about finding Gods truth, then look to Jesus...the one sent by God to reveal truth.

 

[ChristineES]

WHAT???

I don't know you're reading, but I don't get the impression that she was saying anything about Christians following false religion or false scriptures.

She saying that people shouldn't judge others of who are "true Christians" and who are not.

Jesus did preach to his followers not to judge or persecute others. And I believe that anyone who would say something like "You're not a true Christian" would be judging another.

Of course, I think such advice is not so simple to follow.

Thank you! That is what I was saying.