A Divided Church?

  • 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.

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2013
1,987
371
83
Repeating your already-cut-and-pasted information adds nothing whatsoever to the conversation, and it is completely inadequate as a response to my post.
And using Wikipedia as an authority on the subject is foolish as anyone can alter any entry at will.
 

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2013
1,987
371
83
Popes are not apostles or prophets. They are "vicars of Christ" (albeit falsely).

According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:
(Latin Vicarius Christi).

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.

In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him.

Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep."). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. "Quanto", 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is "the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ" (cap. "Licet", 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. "Fundamenta ejus", 17, "De elect.", in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.

How does Marxist Pope Francis fit this definition? And who's going to fire him?
They get it wrong in the first sentence let alone the rest of it. They claim his supremacy over the church of Christ. The only thing he has supremacy over is the Roman Catholic Church, and even then not everyone does what he says.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,703
13,385
113
And using Wikipedia as an authority on the subject is foolish as anyone can alter any entry at will.
True; any Wikipedia entry is best taken with a grain of salt. There are better sources of information.
 

Nebuchadnezzer

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2019
1,134
205
63
Likewise, The Council of Nicea either has full authority or no authority at all. And it has no authority at all.
the WC infers that councils like the Council of Nicea has some authority These are lies. The WC contains many lies. All of these councils and confessions and creeds are contractual traps set by Satan – every single one of them.
In the Westminster Confession of Faith (WC) the WC chapter XXXI item III. infers that councils like the Council of Nicea has some authority These are lies. The WC contains many lies. All of these councils and confessions and creeds are contractual traps set by Satan – every single one of them.

The WC is no less evil then the Council of Trent, which is no more evil then the Council of Nicea.
They all have the same spiritual author.
 

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2018
8,324
1,187
113
The problem is the church has gotten away from its roots, if we really look at it, no church resembles the churches of acts, we have taken church and made it into an entertainment center where the focus is on getting together for a scripted play a few hours a week, and away from the constant meeting in homes where they studied the apostles teaching, broke bread (ate together) had fellowship and served in prayer.

instead corporate prayer is relegated to wed night prayer meeting, fellowship is regulated to a once in awhile pot luck dinner on Sunday afternoon, breaking of bread is now a religious ceremony. At its extreme paganized into a ritual, and studying the doctrines of the apostles has turned into mini sermonettes, and charismatic teachings that when you get right down to it, has very little bible and a lot of opinion, (I think of the heel I fire and brimstone messages I used to sit under, or the catholic message where they read a passage or whatever and the. The priest gave some message which really had no bible,

yes, Satan has gotten in and divided the church, and that’s bad, what is far worse is he has convinced the church into believing some ritual meeting is Gods way, and taken the power of fellowship out of the equation, because he knows how powerful that can be
Yes, the invisible church is divided into numerous denominational assemblies, but the visible church has been functioning sense the days of the apostles, as a small group, known as the little flock, the remnant, Rev 12:17 (the woman being the bride of Christ)the few, the 144,000 that has stayed faithful to their husband, Jesus, and their only practice of worship is singing (acappella), praying, and preaching, and practicing comunion, using unleavened bread, fermented wine, and washing each others feet. This is the church that the gates of hell will not prevail against.

Reference scriptures, Ezk10, Matt 7, Luke 12:32 (The kingdom is Christ's church), Zeph 3:12-13,
 

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2018
8,324
1,187
113
Two things. the 144,000 are Jews and have nothing to do with the church. And two, if the invisible church is babes in Christ, how do you know if they are invisible?
Luke 17:20, And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God (the church) should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation.

Can you give me scripture that says the 144,000 is restricted to only the Jews?
 

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2018
8,324
1,187
113
That is not a bad analogy, but it is not a subject that I think is worth debating.

Further than that, with deep respect for all present who have expressed their views on these subjects, it doesn’t concern me if someone is a preterist, a partial-preterist, a post-millennialist, a pre‑millennialist, an historicist et‑al. God will work it all out according to the plan he set out before the foundation of the world, no matter what any of us believe. I think there are far more important issues that should concern us.


▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I think that it is of utmost important to search for, and believe in the truths that are contained in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not in order to get saved eternally, but to be saved from the corruption of the world, as we sojourn here on earth.
 

Nebuchadnezzer

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2019
1,134
205
63
Constantine created the State Church that is now Roman Catholicism

He donated the land and built St. Peter's Basilica,what is now Vatican City.

The Early Church had nothing to do with Constatine.

A prime example is the 1st Nicene Council in 321AD, 1800 bishops were invited by Constatine, all expenses for travel and accommodations, only 318 showed up.

Constatine and his High Priest Eusebius persecuted the early Church.
This is what I am seeing clearly in Revelation about the State Church.

In Late Antiquity and Middle Ages
State = 1st Beast
(one example of many would be Byzantine Emperor)
Church = 2nd Beast (one example of many would be Byzantine Papacy)

Today
State = Beast
(beast is not b/c we have in USA separation of powers and separation of church and state. Even in Europe where they have state sanctioned churches they have democratic form of government so even there the beast is not)
Church = False Prophet (still remains today, notice how there is no time constraint on false prophet or 2nd Beast in Revelation)
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Yes, the invisible church is divided into numerous denominational assemblies, but the visible church has been functioning sense the days of the apostles, as a small group, known as the little flock, the remnant, Rev 12:17 (the woman being the bride of Christ)the few, the 144,000 that has stayed faithful to their husband, Jesus, and their only practice of worship is singing (acappella), praying, and preaching, and practicing comunion, using unleavened bread, fermented wine, and washing each others feet. This is the church that the gates of hell will not prevail against.

Reference scriptures, Ezk10, Matt 7, Luke 12:32 (The kingdom is Christ's church), Zeph 3:12-13,
Do tell. Which church or churches resemble the churches in Acts?
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,492
113
This is what I am seeing clearly in Revelation about the State Church.

In Late Antiquity and Middle Ages
State = 1st Beast
(one example of many would be Byzantine Emperor)
Church = 2nd Beast (one example of many would be Byzantine Papacy)

Today
State = Beast
(beast is not b/c we have in USA separation of powers and separation of church and state. Even in Europe where they have state sanctioned churches they have democratic form of government so even there the beast is not)
Church = False Prophet (still remains today, notice how there is no time constraint on false prophet or 2nd Beast in Revelation)
I understand what you believe, thanks for the response.

The Beast will have a literal human body, that will be thrown into the flame, Jesus Christ destroys this human body at the (Future) brightness of his coming

Neb, you cant symbolize (The Beast) as being the State, it's a literal interpretation, a human man (His) and a literal human body.

You believe the false prophet to be the Church?

Biblical symbolism relating to the Church is always (Feminine) She, Her, the masculine dont cut it, it would have been the false prophetess if it was the Church?

Daniel 7:11KJV
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

2 Thessalonians 2:8KJV
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
 

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2018
8,324
1,187
113
Do tell. Which church or churches resemble the churches in Acts?

The church is called in the scriptures as the kingdom of God. The church that holds to the same practice as did the apostles, in this day and time, is called primitive baptist.
 
Oct 6, 2020
58
67
18
88
New South Wales
I think that it is of utmost important to search for, and believe in the truths that are contained in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not in order to get saved eternally, but to be saved from the corruption of the world, as we sojourn here on earth.

Yes. But even here there are priorities.

To my mind, high on the list are statements such as “…for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.” (Philippians 2:12-13, NIV).

God is working in us today to transform us into the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18). The degree to which we understand and cooperate with what he is doing in us today will have consequences both for our lives tomorrow and for eternity.


▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
 
S

Scribe

Guest
A DIVIDED CHURCH?

I have never felt that the church has been divided. Rather, I believe that the divisions which have occurred are within the denominational church structures which have erroneously been viewed as being “the church.” These actually are organisational structures which have, over the centuries, been built by ecclesiastical leaders (rather successfully as it happens) in an effort to establish and consolidate their own power and influence on the earth. In so doing they have been able to pursue their own agenda without reference to the purpose of God in Redemption or in the lives of His children.

Moreover, I believe that it is God who is the author of the divisions which have occurred within these man-made structures having, at various times in history, torn those structures asunder so that the worldly power and authority at the centres of their power will not exceed certain limits.

The analogy given by Scripture is found in the Old Testament account of the tower of Babel.
Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” (Genesis 11:4, NIV)
The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” (Genesis 11:6‑7, NIV)

Mankind, who at the time had a common language, started to build a city with a large tower that would establish their power and influence on the earth, independently of the purpose of God in creation. God then brought division among them by confounding their languages. If he had not done this then men would have done what they liked with the world bypassing the Eternal Purpose of God.

In the same way and for the same reasons God has brought division into the established churches, confounding their languages (doctrine and practices) and thus allowing for suspicion and mistrust to arise between them in a manner analogous to what has happened to the nations of the world.


▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I don't think it is as simple as that. Each denomination has it's own history. There are different reasons why churches had to separate from parent groups like the reformation and Catholicism. There were some things we were not going to be able agree to disagree about because they were evil or not compatible with sound doctrine.

Same today. There are some denominations that get along with other denominations and consider one another all the same Church all going to heaven together but because of unresolved differences of hermeneutics on things like speaking in tongues they decide to meet separately rather than vilify one another.

It is a peaceful and godly resolution because constantly striving about doctrinal differences is not pleasing to God.

There is no desire to control people or enforce ecclesiastical rulership over laity in many of these churches, they simply want to be in agreement and accomplish the great commission together by pooling their resources. One local assembly can only do so much but when thousands contribute to a mission they can turn the world upside down and plant churches worldwide.

Many wise christians want to fellowship with a larger group of christians world wide who are doing the best they can at interpreting scriptures the correct way and so they find that denomination or loose association of churches that they think are doing the best job of interpreting scriptures correctly. There is no evil intention in many of these separate church organizations, it is simply a matter of hermeneutics.

There will always be those who are attempting to gain a following and lord it over a flock and so they will separate and start their own little dynasties and call them nondenominational and yet they are worse than the denomination they departed from as to control over people. BEWARE of nondenominational church that have no voluntary accountability with the rest of the church and no leadership higher than the pastor. These are abundant today and very popular and one of the reasons is that they claim to be closer to the real church than "man made" denominations, (when the pastor who started the church did the same thing the denominations do when they plant a church) and they pass off their office of pastor to their sons which usually have no gift to preach or call from God but are just inheriting the dynasty. No one can question the pastor without being accused of rebellion. They claim to be a purer church than a denomination and yet they are under the totalitarian rule of one man. How is that better than a denomination that has many accountability and where pastors have certain requirements like "being called by God" and an gift of ministry evident in their lives and not simply because they are the son of the pastor. Nepotism is not God's method.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
The church is called in the scriptures as the kingdom of God. The church that holds to the same practice as did the apostles, in this day and time, is called primitive baptist.
We will all have our own opinions about that which is why there will always be a need for different organizations based upon which one you feel is doing the best job of hermeneutics and of following the biblical pattern of faith and practice.

I don't have a problem with different church organizations. I believe the Assemblies of God is the closest to my interpretation of scripture both in doctrine and in faith and practice but I will not argue with people about it. Each person has to find that organization that matches their own illumination as to what is biblical and be lead by the Holy Spirit and then roll up their sleeves and get busy with the great commission.

There are many positive things about having different church organizations to make it easy for different people of different levels of maturity to find that fellowship that they feel God wants them to join.

So I do agree with the OP about the different groups being the plan of God all along. We see through a glass darkly and one day we will know if full in heaven or in the eternal kingdom of God and we will all have graduated to see things clearly. We will not argue about anything then so it is a good idea to not argue about anything now. :)

If that means fellowshipping in different organized groups of churches to avoid arguing so be it.
 
Oct 6, 2020
58
67
18
88
New South Wales
I don't think it is as simple as that. Each denomination has it's own history. There are different reasons why churches had to separate from parent groups like the reformation and Catholicism. There were some things we were not going to be able agree to disagree about because they were evil or not compatible with sound doctrine.

Same today. There are some denominations that get along with other denominations and consider one another all the same Church all going to heaven together but because of unresolved differences of hermeneutics on things like speaking in tongues they decide to meet separately rather than vilify one another.

It is a peaceful and godly resolution because constantly striving about doctrinal differences is not pleasing to God.

There is no desire to control people or enforce ecclesiastical rulership over laity in many of these churches, they simply want to be in agreement and accomplish the great commission together by pooling their resources. One local assembly can only do so much but when thousands contribute to a mission they can turn the world upside down and plant churches worldwide.

Many wise christians want to fellowship with a larger group of christians world wide who are doing the best they can at interpreting scriptures the correct way and so they find that denomination or loose association of churches that they think are doing the best job of interpreting scriptures correctly. There is no evil intention in many of these separate church organizations, it is simply a matter of hermeneutics.

There will always be those who are attempting to gain a following and lord it over a flock and so they will separate and start their own little dynasties and call them nondenominational and yet they are worse than the denomination they departed from as to control over people. BEWARE of nondenominational church that have no voluntary accountability with the rest of the church and no leadership higher than the pastor. These are abundant today and very popular and one of the reasons is that they claim to be closer to the real church than "man made" denominations, (when the pastor who started the church did the same thing the denominations do when they plant a church) and they pass off their office of pastor to their sons which usually have no gift to preach or call from God but are just inheriting the dynasty. No one can question the pastor without being accused of rebellion. They claim to be a purer church than a denomination and yet they are under the totalitarian rule of one man. How is that better than a denomination that has many accountability and where pastors have certain requirements like "being called by God" and an gift of ministry evident in their lives and not simply because they are the son of the pastor. Nepotism is not God's method.

I most certainly do respect many fine Christian people in the major denominations. I was a pastor in the AOG many years ago and have retained some of the connections I had in that environment.

I also had some experience in what you term “nondenominational” groups. Our experience back there (the 1970s) was not good, but I have had contact on the internet in recent times with some groups, such as Home Church and Simple Church. I found that most stimulating and there were a lot of fine Christians among them although there were some unique problems in that setup.

However, none of this has persuaded me to sweep under the carpet some of the fundamental problems of the church institutions, as we know them today.

To my mind one of the major problems with institutional churches is that they, to a large extent, inhibit the expression of the true spiritual worth of the lay people. While this is more pronounced in some than others it exists either consciously or unconsciously in all.

Each of us is meant to be involved in the building up of the Body of Christ.
From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. (Ephesians 4:16, NIV)

We are empowered with the ability and the authority to carry out the role (small or large) that God has allocated to us. He does this by means of the “Gifts of the Spirit.”

These spiritual gifts are imparted to each ones of us at the time of the new birth. They remain with us whether or not they are recognised or utilised.
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. (1 Corinthians 12:7, NIV)

We wrestle not against flesh and blood. It is not that degree in theology that provides us with the spiritual authority that is required to do this work.

This hardly scratches the surface, but I will leave it there.


▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
 
Last edited:
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
The church is called in the scriptures as the kingdom of God. The church that holds to the same practice as did the apostles, in this day and time, is called primitive baptist.
never heard of a denomination called kingdom of God, where can they be found? I was a Baptist, and my churches looked nothing like the churches of acts, so must have been real primative
 

Nebuchadnezzer

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2019
1,134
205
63
I understand what you believe, thanks for the response.

The Beast will have a literal human body, that will be thrown into the flame, Jesus Christ destroys this human body at the (Future) brightness of his coming

Neb, you cant symbolize (The Beast) as being the State, it's a literal interpretation, a human man (His) and a literal human body.

You believe the false prophet to be the Church?

Biblical symbolism relating to the Church is always (Feminine) She, Her, the masculine dont cut it, it would have been the false prophetess if it was the Church?

Daniel 7:11KJV
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

2 Thessalonians 2:8KJV
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
His can refer to a man.
His can also refer to Satan.
His can also refer to any demonic being.

Furthermore a number of translations of Rev 19:20 refer to the Beast and False Prophet as "him". While some translations refer to the beast as "it".

It does not refer to a man
It would refer to a kingdom
It would refer to an attack strategy or some type of concept that the demonic use.

You yourself sight Daniel 7:11KJV, which says the horn spake. But here you are are biblically symbolized the horn to be a man. How dare you! And if the horn is a man, then what is the beast that the horn is attacked to? hmmm?
 

Nebuchadnezzer

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2019
1,134
205
63
I understand what you believe, thanks for the response.

The Beast will have a literal human body, that will be thrown into the flame, Jesus Christ destroys this human body at the (Future) brightness of his coming

Neb, you cant symbolize (The Beast) as being the State, it's a literal interpretation, a human man (His) and a literal human body.

You believe the false prophet to be the Church?

Biblical symbolism relating to the Church is always (Feminine) She, Her, the masculine dont cut it, it would have been the false prophetess if it was the Church?

Daniel 7:11KJV
11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.

2 Thessalonians 2:8KJV
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
His can refer to a man.
His can also refer to Satan.
His can also refer to any demonic being.

Furthermore a number of translations of Rev 19:20 refer to the Beast and False Prophet as "him". While some translations refer to the beast as "it".

It does not refer to a man
It would refer to a kingdom
It would refer to an attack strategy or some type of concept that the demonic use.

You yourself sight Daniel 7:11KJV, which says the horn spake. But here you are are biblically symbolized the horn to be a man. How dare you! And if the horn is a man, then what is the beast that the horn is attacked to? hmmm?
The more I hear from you I think you are a saved person. But then we still have to negotiate through this miserable world.
1) the church we were saved is flawed, even more then we realize.
2) everything is top down meaning that we are taught from the pastor, we are taught from the biblestudy and then we go home and want to learn more so we go online or buy books or what have you and again the teaching we get is top-down. The problem with top down you can see is that it is corrupting. The biggest top down is the Roman Church and it is most corrupt.

So we the little guy who got saved is getting contantly bombarded top down with amix of true and false teachings.
USA we have been persecution free pretty much for 200+ years. Thus the main level of attack is from false teachers and false teachings that have percolated into the church.

Where they have succeeded the most is in attacking eschotology. Eschatology is part of the armor of god. Once we are saved it is part of the armor for use to stand against the evil schemes of the devil which at this time is false teachings.
The false teachers here in America have take 80% of Revelation from us telling us that it is "still to the future". They ahve taken other verses like Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2 from us as well saying it too "is still to the future".

The false teachers have succeeded in taking away like 1/4 of the New Testament from use. They have succeeded in taking some of the armor from us.

You Have to throw out EVERYTHING you ahve been taught top down on eschatology. EVERYTHING. You have to come at it from a new perspective. You have two advocates: 1 the WORD, 2 the Holy Spirit. and your have a third source at your finger tips. 3) Historical Record.

You have Church History and Ancient History. This is what is also needed to make sense of the biblical prophesies.

Test everything.
 

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2018
8,324
1,187
113
I most certainly do respect many fine Christian people in the major denominations. I was a pastor in the AOG many years ago and have retained some of the connections I had in that environment.

I also had some experience in what you term “nondenominational” groups. Our experience back there (the 1970s) was not good, but I have had contact on the internet in recent times with some groups, such as Home Church and Simple Church. I found that most stimulating and there were a lot of fine Christians among them although there were some unique problems in that setup.

However, none of this has persuaded me to sweep under the carpet some of the fundamental problems of the church institutions, as we know them today.

To my mind one of the major problems with institutional churches is that they, to a large extent, inhibit the expression of the true spiritual worth of the lay people. While this is more pronounced in some than others it exists either consciously or unconsciously in all.

Each of us is meant to be involved in the building up of the Body of Christ.
From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. (Ephesians 4:16, NIV)

We are empowered with the ability and the authority to carry out the role (small or large) that God has allocated to us. He does this by means of the “Gifts of the Spirit.”

These spiritual gifts are imparted to each ones of us at the time of the new birth. They remain with us whether or not they are recognised or utilised.
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. (1 Corinthians 12:7, NIV)

We wrestle not against flesh and blood. It is not that degree in theology that provides us with the spiritual authority that is required to do this work.

This hardly scratches the surface, but I will leave it there.


▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Among the vast amount of beliefs, there is a diversity of doctrines that are being taught. Is it important what doctrine that we teach? Should we not be searching the scriptures to try to understand what doctrine that Jesus taught, and teach the same doctrine?

Matt 16:6, Then Jesus said unto them, take heed and beware of the leaven of the pharisees and of the Sadducees. Verse 12, Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of the bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Those who are newly born babes in Christ, who are sustaining themselves with the milk of the word, have not grown enough in the knowledge of God's righteousness to understand the doctrine that Jesus taught, the gospel. Is not the new born babes in Christ referred to in Matt 10:5-6, as the lost sheep of the house of Israel ? (Jacob surname Israel who is representative of God's elect, Rom 9:11) Is this not who Jesus instructed his apostles to go and preach the gospel to?

Isaiah 28:9-10, Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little.

Is it not a gradual process for a newborn babe in Christ to grow into maturity?

Eph 4:11-12, And he gave some apostles, and some, prophets, and some, evangelists, and some, pastors and teachers, For "perfecting of the SAINTS, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of THE BODY OF CHRIST".
 

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2018
8,324
1,187
113
never heard of a denomination called kingdom of God, where can they be found? I was a Baptist, and my churches looked nothing like the churches of acts, so must have been real primative
The church, which is the kingdom of God, is not a denomination that came out of the reformation from the RCC in the 1500's, and never was a part of the RCC, that tried to wipe them out, with the help of Saul.