Denominationalism vs. Yahshua (and His 12 Apostles)

[kobuk]

Denominationalism is a man made religious construction inspired by Satan, similar to the building of the Tower of Babel. Nowhere is there even the slightest hint found anywhere in Yah's Word to support this userpation of the authority of the only structure designed and built as the institution to have authority to carry out discipleship training and all the other tasks given to Christians -- the Local Church.

Denominationalism is the brainchild of Satan, used to simplify the destruction of Christianity. It greatly simplifies the task of INFILTRATION and it's goal of DESTROYING what Yahshua and the 12 Apostles founded -- the Local Church.

Take out a few heads of a vast religious construction and the domino effect rampages through all of the Laocal Churches who are linked to the dispicable conundrum, such as gay clergymen.

Case in point....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070811/us_nm/religion_lutherans_dc;_ylt=A0WTUd4rXr5GDKwAJRtH2ocA

Just one example. There are many others of other tryies of conundrum. For instance. In this thread i'd like to talk about the fact that over 500,000 freemasons have infiltrated the Southern Baptist Convention. The 33 degree of which of Scottish Right Freemasonry, the source of most freemasionry rituals, being created by the Jesuits. The 33rd degree is completely wicked Luciferianism. We'll go into that later.

The main concern here among true Fundamentalists is what does Yah's Word have to say. His creation of the Local Church was designed to withstand all forms of INFILTRATION by it being filled with the power of the Holy Spirit in the believers of one geographic location. Who are therefore capable of together sharing in the responsibilities given to them as overseers.

There is no TOP STRUCTURE authorized by Yah to guard the 30+ million misled people who are in the SBC here in the USA. Nor is there one for the 4.8 million of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

In my opinion. Though very firm in it, i'm always willing to discuss other's opinions, in the spirit of fellowship and the searching together in Yah's Word for answers.

Denominationalism spreads so thin the defense of Christianity, that today we have exactly the disasters which only the Local Church was designed to guard against. That's my thesis. Said one more way. Church hierachy that spans across millions of square miles and that sponges control away from where it's been designed to remain as a whole and complete fortress against evil -- is tactical folly in a world that the Scriptures tell us is the domain where Satan roams. A far flung religious empire such as within Islam, RC-ism or Mormonism illustrates the principle perfectly. There, men arise who put themselves as equal authorities to Yah. Or whomever they falsely constructed in Yah's image. With their false doctrines that span millions of square miles. That "other gospel" they preach. I've got news for some who are naive. Satan has taken these religious empires over by swallowing them head first and whole, exactly like a giant snake.

[DeaconDean]

So whats your point?

God Bless

Till all are one.

[cubanito]

His point is that he wants me to stop procrastinating and blow him out of the water.

Problem is, my heavy canons are trained on you, in defense of grandmamy.

Now, is that vain and narcissistic or what? "You think this post is about you, don't you, don't you?"

JR

[kobuk]

Carley Simon sang it. "Your so vain, ...you probly think this song is about you".

The point of this thread was not to rant but to air out what i've come to believe. When control is sponged away from Local Churches that's man making his decision to run things his own way. Using a means of consolidation of authority and power that's not the will of Yahshua.

I do recognize that it's a very broad subject. There are some associations that Local Churches can have. When they are in full agreement on doctrine. But i'm not an expert on the subject. All i know for sure is that Yahshua and His 12 Apostles set up the template we're all to follow. Local Churches of the 1st centuary are that template. I don't see any way to deviate from that in the area of the full responsiblity each Local Church has to Yahshua and not to anyone or anything else.

It's the same for us as individual christians. We don't share the responsibility we each have to live our own life as we should with anyone else. We're the full unit of accountability and it's indivisible. We stand before Him in the end all alone with what we have done with our lives.

In Revelation, each of the 7 Local Churches stood alone when they gave their account of their deeds. It's the full unit. Undividable. The decisions that a Local Church has to make to carry out what the institution of the Church was created for are not rightly available for trade with any other operation.

I'd have to do a lot of study to be able to define exactly where everything falls correctly into place. Cooperation between Local Churches logically has to occur on some level on a continuous basis everywhere. We're to love each other. But with respect for the individual boundaries of every Local Church, as defined by Scripture.

I hope this makes sense to those of you who are seemingly unable to understand anything i've been saying.

[Vambram]

Kobuk, I understand what you are saying, and to some extent, I believe that I agree with you. So, whats your opinion about fellowships of pastors of independent Baptist local churches in which the pastors and the local churches mutually agree to financially support fundamentalist baptists colleges, and also support with finances, prayers, and resources the graduates of those colleges as those graduates go out into the world to be missionaries, pastors, evangelists, etc. etc, and etc.

[kobuk]

whats your opinion about fellowships of pastors of independent Baptist local churches in which the pastors and the local churches mutually agree to financially support fundamentalist baptists colleges, and also support with finances, prayers, and resources the graduates of those colleges as those graduates go out into the world to be missionaries, pastors, evangelists, etc. etc, and etc.

This is for those who like reading. It's a long message. I understand that.

And so in response to Vambram's honest post then, ....It depends on if any unbiblical tentacles grow around the entire process of freewill giving and accomplishing of an intended goal. Along the entire chain. From the asking of the money to the distribution of it.

In Scripture there were times when money was collected from a large number of believers to put into a common pool for all to use as they needed. I think that was found in the book of Acts.

But what about when a large denomination collects money from it's thousands of Local Churches that have joined it or have been seeded by that denomination? The Southern Baptist Convention "requires" a certain percentage be given by every Local Church within it's control to their large missionary program. I remember my Pastor at a Local Church that was in the SBC was upset with then SBC President Charles Stanley for the way Stanley gave less and then rationilzed it away as being because he gave more in other areas. Things get dicey real quick when it comes to money and rules about giving it that come from a central headquarters. I believe that any centralization of power that sponges independence away from Local Churches is a serious violation of Yah's Word and will.

Where is decision making power supposed to be located? Local Churches are not controlled by one man called the Pastor. Elders go over what the specific tasks of their Church ought to be and that's what directs the giving process. The Pastor has one vote. A Fundamentalist Bible School could very easily be on the list of giving at many surrounding Local Churches. But i see no Scriptural basis for institutionalizing the giving into a denominational hierarchy that sets up rules and amounts to give, etc.

Respect for the proper boundaries of all Local Churches is what i believe maintains the integrity of their health, security and track record in serving their Creator. On a case by case basis. Exactly as was the proper order of individual conduct we saw as we read about the seven individual Local Church's in Revelation. The basic unit of the created institution Yahshua calls His Local Church is undividable into smaller pieces and likewise along the same line of reasoning, cannot be lumped into greater sized clumps of many together under a greater sized command and control structure.

I ask that no one try to test me to see if i know everything there is to know about this. What i believe is based on good common sense based on the basic clear instructions we all can read for ourselves and understand from Scripture.

Denominationalism today has reached the extreme level of vulnerability to Satan in at least one instance of setting the mandate that gays can be ordained ministers. We could find a long list of other "successful" invasions into Local Churches. The problem is the vulnerable "back door" entryway caused by an easily manipulated and gullible hierarchy of selfg-appointed clergymen who hold offices that are nowhere authorized by our true Head.

Never has Yahshua authorized the creation of the SBC for example. That my friends is a denomination full of abominations. It matters not that they send missionaries. What matters is that is the job of the Local Church alone. Not Denominations, not Bible Schools or parachurch organizations. Yahshua made His choice when we made His one institution for the task. The wisdom is there in it's design to substantiate my position. It's designed like a fortress where the Holy Spirit indwells the members of that body.

[Vambram]

A Local church should be the ones responsible on how to decide to budget and use the money that the church has in its budget. Pastors in the church are usually not overall in charge of the local church's finances. From my experiences in local churches, I agree that local church budgets are should be and ought to be determined by the deacons and elders in the local church. In all the churches where I have been a member, that is how it is done.
In my question which you quoted, I did not mention nor did I refer to the Southern Baptists nor to the SBC because I have never ever been a member of an SBC baptist church.

[DeaconDean]

A Local church should be the ones responsible on how to decide to budget and use the money that the church has in its budget. Pastors in the church are usually not overall in charge of the local church's finances. From my experiences in local churches, I agree that local church budgets are should be and ought to be determined by the deacons and elders in the local church. In all the churches where I have been a member, that is how it is done.
In my question which you quoted, I did not mention nor did I refer to the Southern Baptists nor to the SBC because I have never ever been a member of an SBC baptist church.

As a Deacon and Elder in an Southern Baptist church, what you have said is pretty much what we do in our church.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Vambram]

That is good to know, DeaconDean. Thank you.
Is it your opinion or belief that this is --Now-- normal for most SBC churches? As an IBF church member, I ask this question because I do seek information.

[DeaconDean]

Pretty much. The church that I'm a member of, the deacons and the church treasurer (sp?) along with the Pastor, are always on the budget committee.

From my own personal experience, yes this is typically the "policy."

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Vambram]

Oh and for the record, the missionary organisations that the churches support in which I have had membership are the Baptist Bible Fellowship International Missions, the Baptist International Missions Inc., the Missionary Avaition Fellowship, and some others as well. Although I can to some extent agree with kobuk about the problems and sins found in each and every denomination regrardless of what that Christian denomination is; at the same time I believe and recognise that when local churches of the same beliefs & doctrines decide to obey the Great Commission to send forth preachers and the gospel to all the world, then I suspect that brother kobuk's preferred methods and what he believes is proper according to Scripture, simply would not be as effective in evangelism and local church building around the world as compared to how local churches obey the Great Commission through the use of the BBFIM, or the BIMI organisations, or through other well known missionary organisations in which I also include the missionaries supported by the local churches of the SBC.

[kobuk]

Missionary Avaition Fellowship
I've heard of that one. I've also heard of 'New Tribes'. I'd have to study them to see where they position themselves on the main important doctrines.

The point i wanted to make with this post is that it is logical that to carry out the Great Commission, Local Churches each can't afford to own their own airplane. Or in the mission field, each own 4x4 trucks, logistyical support buildings and so on. So some pooling of resources is required among Local Churches to be practical.

But there has to be safeguards against our enemies who will try to destroy us anyway they can. This is an area i don't make any claims to be an expert on. I'm going on good common sense. Cooperation between Local Churches can lead to top down control by a hierarchy of "leaders" and that's going in the wrong direction. There's a lot i don't know. But i can agree that the most effective missionary efforts certainly must be pooling resources. In the Amazon they share riverboats and float planes. Same in any river country such as much of Alaska. In Africa they share logistics facilities and equipment to lodge overnight and then travel over deserts and jungle, etc.

A Local Church may only be able to afford to send just one missionary to some far away land. Some "service" that serves the needs of these Local Churches in carrying out the Great Commision is often required.

It's a complex subject and i think i've made my point about the risks associated with going beyond what our Creator made for the task. His Local Churches. How they get along with each other is very important. But they are never to ceed any control of their affairs to a clergymen that's not of their Local Church. That would mean that some man or group of men had created a "superior" Institution to control an "inferior" Institution in their minds in their scheme to commandere and control dozens or hundreds or thousands of Local Churches. What happens is consolidating power always corrupts Christianity.

Imagine for instance, the bizarre scenario where one man claims to be infallible ruler of not just the Local Churches, but the governments, Kings and all lands. Has anyone ever heard of something like that before? I think so. ;)

[BigNorsk]

kobuk,

How do you resolve what seems to me to be the apparent conflict between the first Jerusalem Council as recorded in Acts and your basic thesis?

I mean here it was, a conflict in the local churches, and they elected and sent guys to Jerusalem, to get the matter resolved. They specifically did not resolve it in their local churches.

Act 15:1-3 NET.
(1) Now some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
(2) When Paul and Barnabas had a major argument and debate with them, the church appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them to go up to meet with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this point of disagreement.
(3) So they were sent on their way by the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they were relating at length the conversion of the Gentiles and bringing great joy to all the brothers.

Act 15:22-28 NET.
(22) Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to send men chosen from among them, Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leaders among the brothers, to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
(23) They sent this letter with them:
From the apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, greetings!
(24) Since we have heard that some have gone out from among us with no orders from us and have confused you, upsetting your minds by what they said,
(25) we have unanimously decided to choose men to send to you along with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul,
(26) who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(27) Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas who will tell you these things themselves in person.
(28) For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules:

Seems to me a clear case of a local congregation turning to an authority outside their group, don't you agree?

Marv

[DeaconDean]

Seems to me a clear case of a local congregation turning to an authority outside their group, don't you agree?

Marv

Don't bet on it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Albion]

Act 15:22-28 NET.
(22) Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to send men chosen from among them, Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leaders among the brothers, to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.
(23) They sent this letter with them:
From the apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, greetings!
(24) Since we have heard that some have gone out from among us with no orders from us and have confused you, upsetting your minds by what they said,
(25) we have unanimously decided to choose men to send to you along with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul,
(26) who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(27) Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas who will tell you these things themselves in person.
(28) For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules:

Seems to me a clear case of a local congregation turning to an authority outside their group, don't you agree?

Marv

I agree. Jesus said he was founding his church, not churches. The seven churches mentioned in Revelation are emblematic, not the only people who will make it to Heaven. And we know for a fact that as soon as Christianity spread beyond its local beginnings, Apostles and their successors were in charge of the spin-off congregations just as much as the churches that founded them as their missions.

[kobuk]

I agree. Jesus said he was founding his church, not churches. The seven churches mentioned in Revelation are emblematic, not the only people who will make it to Heaven. And we know for a fact that as soon as Christianity spread beyond its local beginnings, Apostles and their successors were in charge of the spin-off congregations just as much as the churches that founded them as their missions.

Let's cover what you just said...

There are no "successors" to the 12 Apostsles and Paul. These were Apostleships created for the establishment of Christianity right after Yahshua completed His establishment of the Gospel through His substitutionary death and victorious resurrection as the foundation of all of the future.

Second, Scriptures define what a Local Church is in many other areas besides Revelation. There is no such thing as a "leader" of several Local Churches. The highest leadership position within christianity is in the Local Church itself. Therefore, if you try to create a hieracrchy of clergymen to rule over several Local Churches, you have to invent their job resume and invent the doctrine to support your agenda.

It's the old argument of the ecumenicist and RC-ism. That "the church" is to be completely united under one ruling hierachy of clergymen. I can show you the twisted Scripture they invented to use in support of their agenda.

Let's not ignore the very obvious will of Yahshua. He designed the Local Church as the next and only other level up in responsibility beyond our individual responsibility for our own selves. We form a body of believers and establish a Local Church and TOGETHER we pick up on the GROUP responsibility to carry out the tasks that the institution was created to accomplish. If we succeed as that group we share in a great reward. If we fail as that group, we share in the reproof from Yahshua - so adequitely described in Revelation.

Cooperation between Local Churches must never disrespect the boundaries of each, by creating an octopus of control over them all. This is the teaching from Scripture and Yah's wise design principles in action. An octipus too easily get's a fat head and it's legs cut off.

A Local Church represents the most intense human endeaver of mankind. The care and nurturing of the new disciples. The raising up of mature christians to become missionaries. The breaking of bread together.

[Albion]

Let's cover what you just said...

There are no "successors" to the 12 Apostsles and Paul.

Well, the first century Christians thought there were.

Second, Scriptures define what a Local Church is in many other areas besides Revelation. There is no such thing as a "leader" of several Local Churches.

Within a few years in the time when the Apostles themselves were still alive and active, there were indeed regional authorities.

It's the old argument of the ecumenicist and RC-ism.

Naaa. It is not dependent upon either of them at all. As you see, I cited Apostolic history and never once referred to the ecumenists or RCC.

Let's not ignore the very obvious will of Yahshua. He designed the Local Church as the next and only other level up in responsibility beyond our individual responsibility for our own selves.

If he had, I suppose we'd find the verification for that in the New Testament, wouldn't we? But he spoke of his "church," not his "churches."

[kobuk]

There are no more Apostles after the 1st century A.D. Scripture makes that clear. Yahshua called His 12 and then Paul personally to do His work of setting up the first Local Churches all around the Mediterrenean Sea. An Apostle had the very unique authority of an Apostle to establish the doctrines of Christianity. They were not to be compared to a hierarchy of clergymen, nor did they ever preach for the creation of one. The Church at Jerusalem was the first. Then there soon were many in many other cities. The Apostles had the authority to set straight all christian doctrine wherever they went. A nessessary function that was required to harmonize the doctrine of all Local Churches with the direct revelations from Yahshua that the Apostle recieved and faithfuilly transmitted.

Fundamentalists can go on and on in a debate with Anglicans and get nowhere. Please, if you have more to say, carry it up into the "ask a Fundamentalist" sub-forum.

Anglicanism is perhaps the perfect example of falling prey to RC-ism. The Anglican "hierarchy of clergymen" have been dragging thousands of Protestant Local Churches back under the rule of RC-ism.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1403702.ece

78 million Anglicans have been taken over by the hijacking of their totally unScriptural hierarchy system of their clergymen. This is exactly another big reason why Yahshua never created the hierarchy system. The corruptable octopus that is the hierarchy system, is tactical folly, in a world that's filled with hijackers who are running around trying to overthrow and destroy Christianity. Men are never called by Yah to serve in any such hierarchy. Because that hierarchy contradicts His Word.

Go to your Local Church and cancel all it's ties to Anglicanism and all the other isms. Because they are not of Yah's Word and they will inevitably be taken over and try to lead you away from the sound doctrine that the Apostles drilled into every Local Church and which Yahshua gave the responsibility to maintain pure.

REVELATION CHAPTER 2

1 ¶ Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of YAH.

[Albion]

There are no more Apostles after the 1st century A.D. Scripture makes that clear.

I didn't say anything to the contrary.

Yahshua called His 12 and then Paul personally to do His work of setting up the first Local Churches all around the Mediterrenean Sea.

And we know from scripture that they commissioned others to do the same.

Fundamentalists can go on and on in a debate with Anglicans and get nowhere.

Often they do just fine, especially since many Anglicans are fundamentalists.

Anglicanism is perhaps the perfect example of falling prey to RC-ism. The Anglican "hierarchy of clergymen" have been dragging thousands of Protestant Local Churches back under the rule of RC-ism

I'll take that bizarre observation as indicative of one who is unknowledgable concerning Christian history.

78 million Anglicans.

It appears that you don't know too much about Anglicanism in the present, either. There are about 110 million Anglicans.

Go to your Local Church and cancel all it's ties to Anglicanism and all the other isms. Because they are not of Yah's Word and they will inevitably be taken over and try to lead you away from the sound doctrine that the Apostles drilled into every Local Church and which Yahshua gave the responsibility to maintain pure.

You are entitled your own denomination slant on all of this, but you can forget about trying to make a discussion into a lecture. However, If you have questions about Anglican history, I'll be glad to help you. Otherwise, why don't we just stick to the topic?

[BigNorsk]

There were a lot more Apostles than just the 12 plus one. However, once those who had studied with and been sent by Jesus died, there were no others.

1Co 15:5-9 NET.
(5) and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
(6) Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
(7) Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
(8) Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.
(9) For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Note that the twelve are clearly not all the Apostles or Paul would just be repeating himself as to whom the Lord appeared to.

Marv

[Albion]

There were a lot more Apostles than just the 12 plus one. However, once those who had studied with and been sent by Jesus died, there were no others.

1Co 15:5-9 NET.
(5) and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
(6) Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
(7) Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
(8) Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also.
(9) For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Note that the twelve are clearly not all the Apostles or Paul would just be repeating himself as to whom the Lord appeared to.

Marv

Couldn't the references to the 12 or to Apostles just be different appearances to them? That's the way it reads.

[kobuk]

The pink elephant standing in the middle of the living room that is purposely not seen is the disaster of the elligitimate man-created religious hierarchy scheme that misleads into the hands of the Harlot of Revelation 17-18, an estimated 78 to 110 million Anglicans.

A Fundamentalist would notice it. Somebody like David Cloud preaches on it.

These are our Protestant brethren being lost. If you loved them, it would be clear that a great tragedy is occuring. Going from a grace based Gospel to a works based Gospel is moving to no Gospel at all. The end of being a part of Yah's team and the beginning of working against Him.

When caught up in a religious hiearchy scam, fall back to solid ground. Break the connections to them. Become a pure Local Church that's free of the bondage to a false religious hierarchy scam.

[Albion]

What question about Anglicanism would you like to ask?

[kobuk]

What question about Anglicanism would you like to ask?
Support the move back to Rome with Scripture please. I find the fact that over 100 million Anglicans are marching back to Rome (by your estimate of numbers), to be one of the most mind boggling tragidies of this final century we are in today.

Well, mind boggling if we try to understand all of the details. The basics of course are quite simple. We know from Scripture the basics of what is really going on. ...Apostacy. :swoon:
II THESSALONIANS CHAPTER 2 (KJV)
1 ¶ Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
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:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
16 ¶ Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
17 Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

[Albion]

Support the move back to Rome with Scripture please. I find the fact that over 100 million Anglicans are marching back to Rome


Well, that's just wrong. There is no marching "back to Rome" other than that you've written it, and I wouldn't support such a thing if there were true. While there are some Anglicans who think of themselves as being "as Catholic as Roman Catholics," you can't characterize all or even most Anglicans in that way. And it is wrong to characterize the Church itself in that way.


The Church is as old as the Roman Church, so there's no automatic "back to Rome" in merely being an Anglican, and the church's Articles of Religion and Prayerbook--both of which I firmly support--are unmistakably reformed.

Are there other questions I can help with?

[kobuk]

Are there other questions I can help with?
Yes thanks for asking.

Are you ignoring this article?...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1403702.ece

I could search for more links about the merger plans if you are interested. Or you could as well.

What my main point was about is how a denominational hierarchy was never created by Yahshua for exactly these reasons. A few centrally located clergymen sitting at denomination headquarters decided to merge with RC's and so now millions of Anglicans in thousands of Local Churchs face very possible radical changes.

I was once a Southern Baptist. I'm trying to imagine what it would have been like, if at the time i learned our SBC "Leaders" were in talks with the Vatican to merge together. I'm trying not to harp, so i'll be brief and try not to repeat this over again. It's just so bizarre that i had to make the analogy.

How would the SBC integrate with RC-ism? Pretty wild to imagine the scenario. I guess it would require going under Papal control as a Baptist. That would cause the Baptists to disintigrate in their beliefs.

[Albion]

Yes thanks for asking.

Are you ignoring this article?...

No, but it doesn't mean anything much. Outsiders get all worked up when they read stuff like this, but it's all busy work on the part of members of various commissions. There have been talks like these with the Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox, with the Old Catholics, the Roman Catholic Church with the Orthodox and with the Lutherans, with the Reformed churches, if I remember correctly, the Eastern Orthodox with the Nestorians, and the Anglicans with the Methodists. Nothing ever comes of it. But IF the Church of England were to do something like this, is would have no force with the rest of the world's Anglicans. I think you have the idea that we are something like the Roman Catholics in being one universal church under one leader, but we are not organized that way.

What my main point was about is how a denominational hierarchy was never created by Yahshua for exactly these reasons.

Well, according to the Bible, Apostles created their successors and there was a difference between presbyters and deacons whom they created, so a hierarchy WAS present, although not the Papal kind that we all know was invented much later.

A few centrally located clergymen sitting at denomination headquarters decided to merge with RC's and so now millions of Anglicans in thousands of Local Churchs face very possible radical changes.

No, none of that will happen. I know you are exercised over this juicy news report, but you're way overreacting. Something like this is reported every couple of years and each time nothing happens. Anyway, a verbal agreement that the bishop of Rome is the most honored bishop in the West is all that will happen at most, a cosmetic unity, and every Anglican church will have to make its own decision. Since mine would have nothing to do with such a proposal, I really am not worked up about it. Possibly, a member of one of the Anglican churches affiliated with the Church of England would be someone for you to ask about this matter.

[kobuk]

[/color][/font][/size]Outsiders get all worked up when they read stuff like this, but it's all busy work on the part of members of various commissions.
Oh right. Ok. It's just busy-body clergymen at clergymen headquarters being busy bees. Nothing us "outsiders" should be concerned with.

Sorry if that had even a hint of combativeness. It was not my intent, nor will i ever get combative. What i said illustrates perfectly what i feel so strongly about. That denominationalism wrecks havoc by it's unScriptural watchdog position as "leader' over millions. (there's my point) Yahshua did not create a "hive brain" in our heads. We are each a soveriegn individual that are owned by Him. We are made in such a way, that we best organize together locally and in direct contact with each other. Put in this solid community environment that already existed, was Yahshua's creation, ...the Local Church, in the first centuray A.D. The ONLY Institution assigned to carry out His will His way. Each LC being soverign like the Individual is. Both are OWNED by Him as well. In this context, both are responsible to Him for their actions. So as a Christian, i am responsible for both my own actions as self, and for my group actions as a member of a LC.

There is no way for RC-ism to conquer thousands of our LC's when each is guarded locally by truely spirit-filled christians.

Hopefully, in the case of Anglican-ism, RC's will again fail in taking them over by hijacking the "denominational leadership hierarchy". But enough of these counter-reformation attacks already. Clearly, the call should go out for all Anglicans to SEPERATE and become Local Churches, as per Yahshua's original and unalterable will and design.

[Albion]

Oh right. Ok. It's just busy-body clergymen at clergymen headquarters being busy bees. Nothing us "outsiders" should be concerned with.

More or less, that's correct. Most churches have all sorts of committees studying everything imaginable, but most of it comes to nothing...and I've already shown you the record of this particular kind of discussion--nearly zero.

That denominationalism wrecks havoc by it's unScriptural watchdog position as "leader' over millions.

Aside from the fact that you seem to have my church, or what you suppose it to be, as a particular target, I don't see that independent congregations are much different when you look closely.

[kobuk]

My statement here was a quip about how rediculous it is to take your position as reality.

(kobuk) Oh right. Ok. It's just busy-body clergymen at clergymen headquarters being busy bees. Nothing us "outsiders" should be concerned with.[/color][/font][/size]
More or less, that's correct.

It's not correct. Anglicanism is steadily going Apostate. That's very well known by true Fundamentalists like David Cloud who has said that this and other denominations are being seduced into going back to Rome.

The fact is they ARE being seduced. They are gradually establishing more and more institutionalized union between Protestant and Papistry. This is genuine cause for great alarm. Meanwhile, your advice to us is to just ignore a threat from Rome.

More material will follow about Anglican leadership and some other denominations leading millions into both RC-ism and Apostacy. The one article i mentioned is just that one article. Much more exists on this subject.

...so stay tuned. It illustrates perfectly the disaster that denominationalism truely has become in the End Times. It's a tar pit that traps millions.

I'd appreciate real resposes from otherts from now on and not just stuff from one person that's purposely designed to try to "neutralize" my opinion. Anyone with any true spiritual discernment will do. Imagine an English castle guard in 1066 who is stationed high atop a wall saying "the Vikings are of no concern. Go back to sleep."

Useful now would be some verses from the KJV Bible about our duty to remain vigilant against anything that would damage our Local Churches and their assigned tasks.

[Albion]

My statement here was a quip about how rediculous it is to take your position as reality.

Well, I understand that a lot of what is happening among the churches sounds ridiculous to anyone who depends upon the non-religious news media for most of his information on these complicated subjects and is not open to getting the whole story.


It's not correct. Anglicanism is steadily going Apostate. Thats' very well known by true Fundamentalists like David Cloud who has said that this and other denominations are being seduced into going back to Rome.

If David Cloud said it, it must be so huh? :D

The fact is they ARE being seduced.

Easy to say, isn't it? I mean, what does "steadily going Apostate" mean in reality? Nothing. Same with "being seduced." Those are such vague claims that they can neither be substantiated--which you've never tried doing--nor refuted.

Your main objective is to attack any denomination with whatever you can come up with as a way of atempting to support your idea that only the local church is correct. I would only suggest that you also get your facts right when laying out that line of thought.

I've had to correct you several times on plain statements of fact, not to mention interpretations of them that you were having trouble with, but if you aren't willing to take account of this when you receive it, there's not much more that can be done.

More material will follow about Anglican leadership and some other denominations leading millions into both RC-ism and Apostacy. The one article i mentioned is just that one article. Much more exists on this subject.

...so stay tuned.

I'm sure you will do just as you threaten, but since I don't belong to a church that is party to any of that, it won't matter to me. My interest was only in setting you straight, not that my own faith or church membership is involved.

[kobuk]

If David Cloud said it, it must be so huh? :D

Pride always goeth before a fall.

Denominational pride is causing your chaffing with strife over seeing your baby (Anglicanism) spilled out with the bathwater. As the flood of truth clears away the houses built on the quicksand of error.

Discrediting David Cloud here in the Fundamentalist Congregation area won't help your self-assumption of your identity as a fundamentalist be believed. Nor will thread craping anywhere here where alarm bells are sounding about wolves pushing inwards on the last remaining gates of true christendom. (or what was true christendom). As is happening right now in one of the major travesties of denominationalism today, ...Anglicanism. Instead of bracing their gates with a bar of iron, they choose to ENTERTAIN their new furry long-fanged friends with the juiciest raw meat they have, ...shared control of thousands of protestant Local Churches. Who have willingly chained themselves to an extremely corrupted and comprimized Denomination Headquarters.

But we all know a pack of hungry wolves never shares their prey except amomg themselves. They grab a 2000 pound bull moose where? By the nose and by the hamstrings. Exchange the word "nose" with "Primate" and the word "hamstring" with "Archbishop". Leadership titles that elavate men beyond the proper bounds of both Scripture and the direct commands therein from Yahshua to not stray outside His revealed Word. He as Creator, designed the template of the structure of the institution of which He is to be the only supreme Head of. Our properly instituted Local Churches.

Conversely then, what are the odds of wolves in sheeps clothing obtaining control of thousands of these Local Churches that are properly guarded by the Holy Spirit through spirit-filled true believers who have been gifted with good spiritual discernment as good watchmen? ...Zero!

[Albion]

Denominational pride is causing your chaffing with strife over seeing your baby (Anglicanism) spilled out with the bathwater. As the flood of truth clears away the houses built on the quicksand of error.

You don't even know what church I belong to, so spare me the lectures about what I should do in order to please you. If you would like to tell the Archbishop of Canterbury your theories, I think there's an email address for that.

Discrediting David Cloud here in the Fundamentalist Congregation area won't help

I certainly did nothing like that.

All I said was that it appears that if he said it, you take it for granted that it is true. That is not to discredit him at all. It may say something about you, but not about him.

[kobuk]

Albion this discussion is for Fundamentalists. Begin a new thread in the "debate" or "ask question" area at the top of my Congregation area and carry on with it there if you must.

[Albion]

Albion this discussion is for Fundamentalists.

That's all right. Even with the somewhat unusual perspectives you are expressing, I would not deny that you are a Fundamentalist if you subscribe to the forum's definition.

Begin a new thread in the "debate" or "ask question" area at the top of my Congregation area and carry on with it there if you must.
No thanks. I've already said that I don't care to debate your assessment of Anglicanism's future, since my church is not part of what is alarming to you. I have stepped in only to correct factual mistakes you've made about Anglicanism, hoping to assist you to that extent.

[kobuk]

Excellent commentary by a true Fundamentalist, David Cloud...

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=anglican&btnG=Google+Search&domains=www.wayoflife.org&sitesearch=www.wayoflife.org

"Large numbers of Anglican priests and bishops are modernists who deny the Word of God, and there is a massive homosexual movement within the Church of England. When the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement celebrated its 20th anniversary recently at the Anglican Southwark Cathedral, more than 2,000 assembled to show their support. One can find every sort of strange unscriptural thing in Anglican churches today. In one newspaper I read while in London in late March of 1997, a well-known secular reporter described his visit to an Anglican church on Easter Sunday. He said he went to see if it was still as boring as he remembered it being when he was young. The service featured songs by the Spice Girls, a popular female British rock group. The audience was asked trivia questions about this group and their music. The speaker then said the first "spice girls" were Mary and Martha who brought spices to Christ's empty tomb! This wicked nonsense is typical of Anglicanism today. In 1996, the Anglican doctrinal commission reported that Hell is not a place of eternal fiery torment. The present Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, glories in the Church of England's diversity. In 1996 he stated: "Anglicanism at its very best can hold differences of thought together. Catholicism, evangelicalism, charismaticism, and liberalism all contribute."

This continues to illustrate beautifully my thesis that denominationalism's unBiblical accumulation of control over thousands of Local Churches too often leads to a fast moving and widespread infection of false doctrine.

Conversely. Each Biblical based Local Church has a strong resistance to the spread of false doctrine. There's a principle in action here. Denominational clergy at their headquarters can be weakened by Satan and false doctrine introduced that infects the entire collection of Local Churches that have put too much trust in the system.

[Albion]

Thanks.

[kobuk]

No problem. Glad i could help. ;)

[Albion]

No problem. Glad i could help. ;)

Well, I see that after posting that you would end the discussion rather than risk it being stopped by the mods--and after I thanked you for that--you went back and edited the post in which you had written that...to replace it with more propaganda.

Some Christian way to behave, that is. :sigh:

Anyway, it has nothing to do with me, since this isn't my church which you have targeted for defamation, so I'm content to let you wallow in your debating tricks and imaginary conspiracies.

[kobuk]

Well, I see that after posting that you would end the discussion rather than risk it being stopped by the mods--and after I thanked you for that--you went back and edited the post in which you had written that...to replace it with more propaganda.

Some Christian way to behave, that is. :sigh:

Anyway, it has nothing to do with me, since this isn't my church which you have targeted for defamation, so I'm content to let you wallow in your debating tricks and imaginary conspiracies.
When being gamed i'll reserve the right to counter that nonsense anyway i get a kick out of. These Congregation Forums like mine that respect Yah's entire Word get trampled on all the time by agitators from the camp that picks and chooses what Scriptures fit their religious whims.

David Cloud is a true Fundamentalist. Thus we see the huge difference in position between the hiding of Anglicanism's wickedness and the proper Biblical seperation from and exposure of it. Don't like it, present a reasoned argument using debate principle that properly defines the word "argument" as the support of one's position. Discrediting, 'you, you, you, you' attacks and such heavy gaming are for disgruntled trolls.

The gaming of this thread has been quite excessive. I've presented a powerful argument against denominationalism and recieved some flack from Satan for it.

If you are in a wicked denomination, get out of it. Period. That's what our Creator commands. A true Fundamentalist, rather than try to hide the fact, gets out, because we are bound by principles to seperate.

At this stage i would like to hear some opinion from other Fundamentalists. Do i see denominationalism wrongly? Is my position excessive? Or am i properly defending Yahshua's position as the only qualified authority with the right to govern the affairs over more than one Local Church?

Somebody show me from Scripture where it's ok for a man to userp Yahshua's position.

I'm not interested in bashing Anglicanism excessively for their wickedness. Cloud covers it well enough to let that be the score card of Anglicanism. That unBiblical wicked hierarchy serves perfectly to reinforce my debate position within this discussion. The UK is where Anglicanism originated. It is where the most deterioration of that comprising hierarchy has occured as well. The blind leading the blind...

[Albion]

David Cloud is a true Fundamentalist.

Probably so, but if you think that he speaks infallibly or has written everything that there is on the subject, you ought to reconsider. And there are many good fundamentalists--Anglicans included among them--who do not agree with his simplistic views. It's as clear as that.


If you are in a wicked denomination, get out of it.


If I were, I would. In fact, I did. All your raving is just theoretical, as I told you several times. So why do you persist at your game anyway?

I'm not interested in bashing Anglicanism excessively for their wickedness.

In the first place, you don't know what you are talking about with this. You already realise this, of course, but when you are speaking categorically of Anglicanism as you do, you make no more sense than if you were speaking of Methodists or Lutherans and not making a distinction between the many kinds of churches go under those loose historical titles.

Or we could say the same of Fundamentalism. To you, every "good" Fundamentalist holds 100% identical views as every other Fundamentalist and belongs to the same church. Hardly any Fundamentalists actually agree with you on not belonging to any church with more than 1 congregation, as we know, ...so, according to your logic, every Fundamentalist except you and David Cloud is supposed to be Satanic. It's nonsensical thinking but worse, it's based on ignorance.

Secondly, it is only the Church of England--which I don't belong to--that you have been attacking, so no one can take seriously your saying that you are not intent upon bashing Anglicanism. And why you are continually attacking me because of your animosity towards that particular church in another country strikes me as delusional.

Cloud covers it well enough to let that be the score card of Anglicanism.

See? No question who you are bashing with that, is there?

[kobuk]

Using the word search function on the post above, results in a tally of 23 for the total number of times the word "you" was used. Please remember that "you,you,you,you" -ism amounts to a very personal focus on another debate participants character. That's out of bounds procedure in any debate class or debate contest. I'm not up for trial here in a court of law for my opinion.

If you disagree with my thesis present your own and we'll apply the peaceful rules of debate and go a few rounds. I offer this peaceful challenge to everyone interested in Yah's Word and honest mature discussion.

I think denominationalism is entirely man's invention that's been foisted upon christianity at a great cost. Destroyed Local Churches led astray through their entanglement with often pathetically corrupt clergymen. Who are at denomination headquarters pulling the strings of hundreds to even thousands of Local Churches. Introducing gay marriage, gay preachers, other false doctrines and union with pagans and apostates.

Independent Baptists i think unite only superficially to share in a common doctrinal stance and to help each other to pool some resources in missionary endeavers, etc. But they don't create any leadership positions that are designed to make decisions that when implemented will userp any Local Church's own leadership role as the highest decider in all of their own Church business.

All resposibility falls into the confines of the Local Church. Yahshua created them to be this way and no other way.

[Albion]

Using the word search function on the post above, results in a tally of 23 for the total number of times the word "you" was used. Please remember that "you,you,you,you" -ism amounts to a very personal focus on another debate participants character.

That's nonsense. I used the word "you" because I was in a discussion...with you. But you (sorry) are in the business of telling me how to live my life. That is the difference.

I think denominationalism is entirely man's invention that's been foisted upon christianity at a great cost.

You've said that many times and it has nothing to do with your personal attacks or why you've decided to launch your broadsides against the Church of England and no other church.

All resposibility falls into the confines of the Local Church. Yahshua created them to be this way and no other way.


If that is your conclusion, then it is. The Bible shows us something else, but you can believe whatever you want as far as I am concerned. Unlike yourself, I will not say that you are in the grip of Satan or need to change churches, etc.

[kobuk]

Don't feed the trolls.

There's plenty of other relevant evidence besides just one denomination that's become Apostate to verify what so often is destroying true Christianity all over the world.