BEWARE!
- Thread starter InSpiritInTruth
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The One sent says:
John (Yahchanan ) 12:48, "He who rejects Me, and does not follow My words has One Who judges him. The word that I have spoken, the same will be used to judge him in the last day."
Mattithyah 24:35, “Heaven and earth may pass away, but My teachings will not pass away.
Yahchanan (John) 14:26, "But the Comforter--the Holy Spirit which Yahweh will send in My Name will teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you."
John (Yahchanan ) 12:48, "He who rejects Me, and does not follow My words has One Who judges him. The word that I have spoken, the same will be used to judge him in the last day."
Mattithyah 24:35, “Heaven and earth may pass away, but My teachings will not pass away.
Yahchanan (John) 14:26, "But the Comforter--the Holy Spirit which Yahweh will send in My Name will teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you."
V
Oh, I really love this question when it gets asked. It reveals so much about the questioner.
The "40,000 Christian denominations" comment is an utter failure of reason and truth.
First, there are not 40,000 denominations among Christian churches. Even under the most liberal definition of what constitutes a denomination, that doesn't begin to come close to the reality. To get even remotely close to that number is to count every minor separation as an entirely different denomination. Further, the vast majority of Christians belong to just a handful of the most common Protestant denominations, be it Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, etc. Undeniably, there are major differences in what some churches teach versus what others teach. It is somewhat sad this is the case, as it means that some are teaching unbiblical beliefs and passing them off as the Gospel, but those are in a miniscule minority. Your statement is nothing more than hyperbole and extreme exaggeration in comparison to the actual separation of doctrine that exists among all Christian churches.
Second, even if there genuinely were 40,000 Protestant denominations, one thing all Christian denominations agree on is that Christ is Lord, who died on the cross and arose the third day before ascending into heaven, having provided once for all the sacrifice for sin that delivers mankind from judgment if each man and woman will only believe that to be true. And that "one thing" is nothing less than the Gospel of God!
Further, outside of the disagreement between Protestants and Catholics over the supremacy of Rome, Christian churches agree on far more issues than they disagree on. Most of the Protestant denominations were formed because of a non-essential doctrine, a side issue, on which Christians can agree to disagree. As an example, Pentecostalism separated from the other denominations based primarily on the issue of speaking in tongues. While tongues can be an important issue in the Christian life, in no sense does it determine the genuineness of faith in Christ nor the salvation that faith provides. So here again, your superfluous question fails to raise the divisive issues you hope to raise.
Third, there is no need for any one denomination to be "right" about Scriptural interpretation. No church is infallible. No denomination is infallible. There are no perfect churches, and if we were to find such a church and join it, it would no longer be perfect. Even after receiving Christ as Savior, we are all still tainted by sin. We all make mistakes. No denomination/church has absolutely perfect doctrine on every issue.
The key is this: All the essentials of the faith are abundantly clear in God’s Word. We do not need an infallible interpreter, we do not need hundreds nor thousands of years of church tradition, we do all need to agree on ever element of belief in order to determine that there is one God who exists in three Persons, that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected from the dead, that Jesus is the one and only way of salvation, that salvation is received by grace through faith, that there is an eternal heaven awaiting those who trust in Christ and an eternal hell for those who reject Him. Those abundantly clear truths unite us, rather than divide us, as Christians. So again your question is irrelevant.
The core truths that a person needs to know and understand are absolutely and abundantly clear in Scripture. Even on the non-essentials, if Sola Scriptura were consistently applied, there would be unanimity. The problem is that it is very difficult to perfectly and fully apply Sola Scriptura, as our own biases, faults, preferences, and traditions often get in the way. The fact that there are many different denominations is not an argument against Sola Scriptura nor does that fact mean that essential truths are interpreted differently from one church to another. Rather, it is evidence that we all fail at truly allowing God’s Word to fully shape our beliefs, practices, and traditions. Nonetheless, His word is perfect. We imperfect humans can still be changed, and we can change the world, through that perfect word of truth.
The "40,000 Christian denominations" comment is an utter failure of reason and truth.
First, there are not 40,000 denominations among Christian churches. Even under the most liberal definition of what constitutes a denomination, that doesn't begin to come close to the reality. To get even remotely close to that number is to count every minor separation as an entirely different denomination. Further, the vast majority of Christians belong to just a handful of the most common Protestant denominations, be it Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, etc. Undeniably, there are major differences in what some churches teach versus what others teach. It is somewhat sad this is the case, as it means that some are teaching unbiblical beliefs and passing them off as the Gospel, but those are in a miniscule minority. Your statement is nothing more than hyperbole and extreme exaggeration in comparison to the actual separation of doctrine that exists among all Christian churches.
Second, even if there genuinely were 40,000 Protestant denominations, one thing all Christian denominations agree on is that Christ is Lord, who died on the cross and arose the third day before ascending into heaven, having provided once for all the sacrifice for sin that delivers mankind from judgment if each man and woman will only believe that to be true. And that "one thing" is nothing less than the Gospel of God!
Further, outside of the disagreement between Protestants and Catholics over the supremacy of Rome, Christian churches agree on far more issues than they disagree on. Most of the Protestant denominations were formed because of a non-essential doctrine, a side issue, on which Christians can agree to disagree. As an example, Pentecostalism separated from the other denominations based primarily on the issue of speaking in tongues. While tongues can be an important issue in the Christian life, in no sense does it determine the genuineness of faith in Christ nor the salvation that faith provides. So here again, your superfluous question fails to raise the divisive issues you hope to raise.
Third, there is no need for any one denomination to be "right" about Scriptural interpretation. No church is infallible. No denomination is infallible. There are no perfect churches, and if we were to find such a church and join it, it would no longer be perfect. Even after receiving Christ as Savior, we are all still tainted by sin. We all make mistakes. No denomination/church has absolutely perfect doctrine on every issue.
The key is this: All the essentials of the faith are abundantly clear in God’s Word. We do not need an infallible interpreter, we do not need hundreds nor thousands of years of church tradition, we do all need to agree on ever element of belief in order to determine that there is one God who exists in three Persons, that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected from the dead, that Jesus is the one and only way of salvation, that salvation is received by grace through faith, that there is an eternal heaven awaiting those who trust in Christ and an eternal hell for those who reject Him. Those abundantly clear truths unite us, rather than divide us, as Christians. So again your question is irrelevant.
The core truths that a person needs to know and understand are absolutely and abundantly clear in Scripture. Even on the non-essentials, if Sola Scriptura were consistently applied, there would be unanimity. The problem is that it is very difficult to perfectly and fully apply Sola Scriptura, as our own biases, faults, preferences, and traditions often get in the way. The fact that there are many different denominations is not an argument against Sola Scriptura nor does that fact mean that essential truths are interpreted differently from one church to another. Rather, it is evidence that we all fail at truly allowing God’s Word to fully shape our beliefs, practices, and traditions. Nonetheless, His word is perfect. We imperfect humans can still be changed, and we can change the world, through that perfect word of truth.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
That sounds like saying: "Catholics are not going to be saved" or "JW aren´t saved".
Just for the records and ignore lists: Count ME as a non-pauline.
Jesus is the one who can save me, if GOD Almighty allows Him to do so (not by Paul´s teaching).
PS
Who put any of you on the JUDGEMENT Seats, by the way?
That sounds like saying: "Catholics are not going to be saved" or "JW aren´t saved".
Just for the records and ignore lists: Count ME as a non-pauline.
Jesus is the one who can save me, if GOD Almighty allows Him to do so (not by Paul´s teaching).
PS
Who put any of you on the JUDGEMENT Seats, by the way?
As for "judging", we are commanded by Paul (who was instructed directly by Jesus upon his conversion) in Romans 16:17-18 (KJV) [SUP]17 [/SUP] Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
[SUP]18 [/SUP] For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
Paul's teaching in no way contradicts that of Jesus. To reject Paul's teaching as 'in error' is equal to disagreeing with the other apostles and Jesus. Paul can't save anyone, but continues the gospel teaching Jesus promised would come after him.
Jesus said he had much more to teach, but the disciples couldn't handle it yet. While Jesus was alive none could be filled with the Holy Spirit. I think it's error to say we don't need the teaching Jesus said he wanted to impart to believers. Acts through Revelation contains that promised word from Jesus.
John 16:12-15 (KJV) [SUP]12 [/SUP] I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
[SUP]13 [/SUP] Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
[SUP]14 [/SUP] He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
[SUP]15 [/SUP] All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
So, you think you got enough from the words of Jesus without the rest of it delivered by the Holy Spirit? That's the sort of division of believers that should be judged by the Church.
Reconsider with gravity Galatians 1:6-9 (KJV) [SUP]6 [/SUP] I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
[SUP]7 [/SUP] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
No Christians want to witness something like that. We are commissioned to at least attempt to teach the truth.
Of course there were numerous quotes from Moses, but there's a huge distinction between keepers of the law and Christianity. Just take stoning violators. Did Jesus quote such laws to be carried on? What apostle recommended stoning of wizards? In fact, Peter led a wizard to salvation.
I'm really concerned over the large volume of bad teaching here. A little of Moses appears repeated in the New Testament, but very little of the New Covenant is embedded in the law. The prophets began revealing some of the New Covenant talk. The Law was obedience by force, strictness of the flesh, not of the heart.
The apostles didn't "derive" their teachings from Moses, but from Jesus and by the Holy Spirit.
Here's about as wide a gulf as can be found between the two covenants.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (KJV) [SUP]18 [/SUP] If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
[SUP]19 [/SUP] Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
[SUP]20 [/SUP] And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
[SUP]21 [/SUP] And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
What you'll find in the New Covenant, your [1] Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right., is a more loving approach shared by Jesus and the apostles, perhaps casting demons out, bringing a child up in the Lord Jesus, praying for the child and not provoking one's children to wrath, husbands to love their wives and provide a godly home.
Having both covenants run simultaneously won't work, the reason many commandments in the Law are not taught by the apostles. Oil and water don't mix.
The old is abolished.
I'm really concerned over the large volume of bad teaching here. A little of Moses appears repeated in the New Testament, but very little of the New Covenant is embedded in the law. The prophets began revealing some of the New Covenant talk. The Law was obedience by force, strictness of the flesh, not of the heart.
The apostles didn't "derive" their teachings from Moses, but from Jesus and by the Holy Spirit.
Here's about as wide a gulf as can be found between the two covenants.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (KJV) [SUP]18 [/SUP] If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
[SUP]19 [/SUP] Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
[SUP]20 [/SUP] And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
[SUP]21 [/SUP] And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
What you'll find in the New Covenant, your [1] Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right., is a more loving approach shared by Jesus and the apostles, perhaps casting demons out, bringing a child up in the Lord Jesus, praying for the child and not provoking one's children to wrath, husbands to love their wives and provide a godly home.
Having both covenants run simultaneously won't work, the reason many commandments in the Law are not taught by the apostles. Oil and water don't mix.
The old is abolished.
If believing Peter wrote truth, then if one can't handle Paul, one ought to admit one is unlearned and unstable while twisting or wresting any scriptures in the Bible. If not admitting that, then Christians ought to attempt to correct them with sound teaching made possible by love for the unlearned and unstable. That's what Christians here are attempting towards the Judaizers here who would jeopardize us having begun in the Spirit, to be made perfect by the flesh. We won't get love feast doctrines from Moses, as under the Law such an unlearned unstable twister of scriptures person might get stoned with many stones or hung by the neck.
Of course we in America don't approve of stoning children, Moses or not. So those saying they follow all the Law disobey the Law because such things are illegal among men here? I rather think the Law served a finite purpose for that ancient nation Israel, no longer suitable, abolished and replaced by the New Covenant, which contains what little love instructions were afforded by the Old Covenant. We have a better covenant than they. So why try keeping a lesser covenant and a better one? That would be like moving out of a worn out house, giving the deed free to someone needing a home. Then the receiver of the old home comes with a lawsuit demanding the previous owner must maintain the old house. A bad judge would order the good man to be responsible for both.
Of course we in America don't approve of stoning children, Moses or not. So those saying they follow all the Law disobey the Law because such things are illegal among men here? I rather think the Law served a finite purpose for that ancient nation Israel, no longer suitable, abolished and replaced by the New Covenant, which contains what little love instructions were afforded by the Old Covenant. We have a better covenant than they. So why try keeping a lesser covenant and a better one? That would be like moving out of a worn out house, giving the deed free to someone needing a home. Then the receiver of the old home comes with a lawsuit demanding the previous owner must maintain the old house. A bad judge would order the good man to be responsible for both.
Mar·cion·ism?
Mar·cion·ism: the doctrinal system of a sect of the second and third centuries a.d. accepting some parts of the New Testament (Paul) but denying Christ's corporality and humanity and condemning the Creator God of the Old Testament
John 7:16-17 "Yahshua answered, them, and said: My doctrine is not Mine, but His Who sent Me. If any man will do His will, he will know about this teaching--whether it comes from Yahweh, or whether I am speaking of My own authority."
Marcionism was an Early Christian dualist belief system that originated in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome around the year 144.[1]
Marcion believed Jesus was the savior sent by God, and Paul the Apostle was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament
Isayah 45:18, "For this is what Yahweh, Who created the heavens, Who is the Strength, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited, says: I am Yahweh, and there is no other source of power!"
Romans 9:6-8, "However, it is not as though Yahweh's plan had failed. For it is not everyone who is a descendant of Israyl who belongs to Israyl. Nor, just because they are his descendants, are they all Abraham's children; but: In Isaac will your seed be called. That is, it is not those who are the children of the flesh who are Yahweh's children; but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's seed."
Psalm 105:6-9, "O seed of Abraham His servant, You children of Yaaqob, His chosen ones! He is Yahweh our Father! His judgments are in all the earth. He has remembered His covenant forever, the Law He commanded for a thousand generations; Which He made; ratified, established, with Abraham, and vowed by His oath to Isaac. He confirmed it; let it stand, to Yaaqob for a Law, and to Israyl for an everlasting covenant."
Mar·cion·ism: the doctrinal system of a sect of the second and third centuries a.d. accepting some parts of the New Testament (Paul) but denying Christ's corporality and humanity and condemning the Creator God of the Old Testament
John 7:16-17 "Yahshua answered, them, and said: My doctrine is not Mine, but His Who sent Me. If any man will do His will, he will know about this teaching--whether it comes from Yahweh, or whether I am speaking of My own authority."
Marcionism was an Early Christian dualist belief system that originated in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome around the year 144.[1]
Marcion believed Jesus was the savior sent by God, and Paul the Apostle was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament
Isayah 45:18, "For this is what Yahweh, Who created the heavens, Who is the Strength, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited, says: I am Yahweh, and there is no other source of power!"
Romans 9:6-8, "However, it is not as though Yahweh's plan had failed. For it is not everyone who is a descendant of Israyl who belongs to Israyl. Nor, just because they are his descendants, are they all Abraham's children; but: In Isaac will your seed be called. That is, it is not those who are the children of the flesh who are Yahweh's children; but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's seed."
Psalm 105:6-9, "O seed of Abraham His servant, You children of Yaaqob, His chosen ones! He is Yahweh our Father! His judgments are in all the earth. He has remembered His covenant forever, the Law He commanded for a thousand generations; Which He made; ratified, established, with Abraham, and vowed by His oath to Isaac. He confirmed it; let it stand, to Yaaqob for a Law, and to Israyl for an everlasting covenant."
Every minor seperation, as you call it, denotes DIFFERENCES IN INTERPRETATION. I never said essential truths don't exist, but you've gone on and on about people needing to be 'dividing it rightly', so tell us, oh all-knowing one, which one of the thousands of interpretations is correct?
Of course you backslide and say ''were infallible, we don't need to get it absolutely right''. Okay then. So why the hell do you keep going on about ''dividing it rightly''?
If you only require that people accept that Jesus was put on the cross, died, was resurrected, then why talk about ''dividing it rightly''? If that's all that's required, why study it at all?
If your only required truths are all the same, then why argue over the specifics of the interpretive process or any of the things that split denominations?
What you're displaying here in backsliding to attempt to reconcile difficult discrepancies is called cognitive dissonance, and as an ex-psychology student you should be familiar with it.
Of course you backslide and say ''were infallible, we don't need to get it absolutely right''. Okay then. So why the hell do you keep going on about ''dividing it rightly''?
If you only require that people accept that Jesus was put on the cross, died, was resurrected, then why talk about ''dividing it rightly''? If that's all that's required, why study it at all?
If your only required truths are all the same, then why argue over the specifics of the interpretive process or any of the things that split denominations?
What you're displaying here in backsliding to attempt to reconcile difficult discrepancies is called cognitive dissonance, and as an ex-psychology student you should be familiar with it.
