Denominations

[GreenMunchkin]

CC is inter-denominational (yay!) but I really know very little about the varying denominations. What are the similarites, and the differences? Why do they all exist when Truth is absolute?

To discuss, please?

[NewGuy101]

Which ones would you like to discuss?

[GreenMunchkin]

Yah, pretty much all of them?

[Time2BCounted]

Honestly i just dont see any denomination which imho carries all the truth, but i agree with you there is one truth.

I just dont do denoms, yet i visit prolly every one of them from time to time. I realize i have brothers and sisters sitting in nearly every church.

To me too, it makes no sense to defend a doctrine disproven by scripture, simply to hold to a denominational line.

[GreenMunchkin]

So what do they all actually stand for? What *are* the differences? How are denominations created in the first place?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

So what do they all actually stand for? What *are* the differences? How are denominations created in the first place?

I won't water it down for you...
They began in the 16th Century when kings created their own churches so they could control the state and the faith of their people. The doctrines they created were new to the faith and used as a means to break away from the Catholic Church. Basically, kings were tired of not having complete control and having to listen to the Church.

The exception to this were the Anabaptists, who were anarchists. We'd consider them a anti-government cult today. They were the fathers of the various baptists theologies, many of which were adopted by 'evangelicals' and other branches.

[HowardDean]

I attended the eastern orthodox church in April/May and they say they are the first, then the Catholic church, then it all kept splitting and splitting...into 30,000 they say.
Me, I'm non denominational.

[HowardDean]

The main differences are some have closed communion and have apostolic succession for their priests.

[Rhamiel]

Greenie saidWhat *are* the differences?
beliefs differ about the eucharist, about baptism, about the nature of Christ, the nature of the priesthood, the nature of the Church
Time said Honestly i just dont see any denomination which imho carries all the truth,
as a catholic I am always surprised when I hear protestants say things like this, I think the Catholic Church is correct, I understand that you do not agree with me on the Catholic Church but you do not even think your own denomination is right. Like if you do not believe everything about your denomination how are you sure about the fact that Christ is God? I just do not get it.

[CelticRose]

Wow, you seem to have got some pretty wacky answers so I will only speak for myself. I was raised Anglican, a church with dubious origons born of Henry the VIII's need to divorce his first wife ~ so much of its tradition & theology is basically Catholic.

I am Quaker by choice, believing as they do there is a spark of the Divine in all men & the Holy Spirit is freely available to all without the need of clergy as interpreters & will lead them into Truth. Quakers practise silent worship & do not practise baptism or communion. In this I think they are mistaken but I don't believe any one church has the whole truth & nothing but the truth. There are errors of teaching in each one.

I also do not believe multiple denoms needs to be seen as a bad thing. Like the body Paul speaks of, the church is multi functional & each denom plays it's part in the whole.

[Criada]

Greenie said
beliefs differ about the eucharist, about baptism, about the nature of Christ, the nature of the priesthood, the nature of the Church
Time said
as a catholic I am always surprised when I hear protestants say things like this, I think the Catholic Church is correct, I understand that you do not agree with me on the Catholic Church but you do not even think your own denomination is right. Like if you do not believe everything about your denomination how are you sure about the fact that Christ is God? I just do not get it.
I don't think we can ever believe that we have the whole truth or have nothing wrong...
All denominations are a result of human nature, and our ability to argue with anything.

I belong to a non-denominational, bible based church. And I love everyone there very much. But - I don't believe we have everything totally right. God is continually teaching us - and will be until Jesus returns. And there will be things we have totally misunderstood, I am sure.
But - as long as we all keep listening to Him, and doing His will, I don't think it matters what label we wear. Because if we love God and accept Jesus's death and ressurection, then we agree on what isimportant. And how we work that out in church and in our own lives is just detail..:)

[GreenMunchkin]

Ok, say WoF - and I hold to a few of their teachings - for example...that's a relatively new denomination. So how did it happen? Sure, we can wikipedia it and it'll give us a breakdown of the exact events, but in terms of our being the Body of Christ, don't all these denominations just fragment the Body?

And why is there so much animosity between the varying denominations? Where does that actually come from?

[~free~]

I know for the Anglican church, it split from the Roman Catholic church way back when because someone or other wanted to get a divorce and the RC church wouldn't allow it. (Sorry for the vagueness) I think that's how most denoms start...someone doesn't agree with something so they start another on their own...each of them thinking they have the Truth.

To me though, denomination really doesnt' matter...just something else to argue about :| We all follow the same Jesus, we all have the same goal. One of my favorite quotes is: "What unites us is infinately greater than what divides us"

[ContentInHim]

Denominations usually arise from disagreement on doctrine. But it's not doctrine that saves - it's Jesus who saves! I have met people of all denominations who are born-again on-fire Christians. That's what convinced me that no one church holds all the truth.

[ContentInHim]

Greenie said
beliefs differ about the eucharist, about baptism, about the nature of Christ, the nature of the priesthood, the nature of the Church
Time said
as a catholic I am always surprised when I hear protestants say things like this, I think the Catholic Church is correct, I understand that you do not agree with me on the Catholic Church but you do not even think your own denomination is right. Like if you do not believe everything about your denomination how are you sure about the fact that Christ is God? I just do not get it.
Of course Jesus is God!

I know that it's hard for someone who's not RCC to understand, but the Holy Spirit is an awesome teacher! :)

[MrJim]

The exception to this were the Anabaptists, who were anarchists. We'd consider them a anti-government cult today. They were the fathers of the various baptists theologies, many of which were adopted by 'evangelicals' and other branches.

:D Yeah that's pretty good.

The anabaptists were a widely diverse group that said to the reformers "You are not going far enough". The divisions included a group of Munsterites that advocated a violent revolt to create the kingdom of God on earth, but they were not the voice of the entire movement.

Here's a quote from Menno Simons, a recognized leader in the anabaptist movement of which the mennonites get their name:

"True evangelical faith cannot lie dormant. It clothes the naked, it feeds the hungry, it comforts the sorrowful, it shelters the destitute, it serves those that harm it, it binds up that which is wounded, it has become all things to all people."

"The regenerated do not go to war, nor engage in strife. They are children of peace who have 'beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning forks, and know no war' (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3). ... Our weapons are not weapons with which cities and countries may be destroyed, walls and gates broken down, and human blood shed in torrents like water. But they are weapons with which the spiritual kingdom of the devil is destroyed. ... Christ is our fortress; patience our weapon of defense; the Word of God our sword. ... Iron and metal spears and swords we leave to those who, alas, regard human blood and swine’s blood of well-nigh equal value."

"We who were formerly no people at all, and who knew of no peace, are now called to be ... a church ... of peace. True Christians do not know vengeance. They are the children of peace. Their hearts overflow with peace. Their mouths speak peace, and they walk in the way of peace."

The were considered "ANTI-GOVERNMENT" because then, if you recall, the gov't and the church were one rather sordid creature. The anabaptists said NO to infant baptism and NO to fighting in the gov'ts wars, for they read the scriptures and said those were not what Christ called them to do.

So the gov't, not only Roman Catholic, but the new Protestant church gov'ts (under Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) decided to deal with the problem by persecution--prison, exile, torture, or death

http://www.bethelks.edu/mla/holdings/scans/martyrsmirror/mm%20bk2%20p539.jpg

Link (http://www.bethelks.edu/mla/holdings/scans/martyrsmirror/)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Honestly i just dont see any denomination which imho carries all the truth, but i agree with you there is one truth.

I just dont do denoms, yet i visit prolly every one of them from time to time. I realize i have brothers and sisters sitting in nearly every church.

To me too, it makes no sense to defend a doctrine disproven by scripture, simply to hold to a denominational line.

I don't think we can ever believe that we have the whole truth or have nothing wrong...
All denominations are a result of human nature, and our ability to argue with anything.

I belong to a non-denominational, bible based church. And I love everyone there very much. But - I don't believe we have everything totally right. God is continually teaching us - and will be until Jesus returns. And there will be things we have totally misunderstood, I am sure.
But - as long as we all keep listening to Him, and doing His will, I don't think it matters what label we wear. Because if we love God and accept Jesus's death and ressurection, then we agree on what isimportant. And how we work that out in church and in our own lives is just detail..:)

Denominations usually arise from disagreement on doctrine. But it's not doctrine that saves - it's Jesus who saves! I have met people of all denominations who are born-again on-fire Christians. That's what convinced me that no one church holds all the truth.

I say amen to all the above! :thumbsup:

I despise labels. It's not what the Church was meant to be! All it does is separate and alienate us as one body. God heart is for unity! The Bible is our guide, the Holy Spirit our teacher. No matter what "church" you go to. If it doesnt line up with the Word of God, it's not sound doctrine.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again here. When we get to heaven folks...we're not going to be wearing labels on our foreheads that say "catholic", "baptist", "non-denominational", "assembly of God", "word of faith", "luthern", "whatever". ^_^ We're not going to have a church building on every corner where we are to go. We will be standing at the feet of Jesus in worship. Sorry...but I get fired up at this kind of thing because I've seen so many people get hurt by it. There are times when I'm tempted to not go to church at all, and I wouldn't if it weren't for the fact that we need Christian fellowship. Contents church has the right idea. Meet in homes with strong leadership to guide bible studies. Helping each other like the first church did. :thumbsup: Oh man...that's what I wish we were all like. That's what we're supposed to be like.

[GreenMunchkin]

So, I have another question...

Is it possible to feel quite spiritually led to a particular denomination? :scratch:

[MrJim]

One great example of the early anabaptists Michael Sattler (http://www.gameo.org/index.asp?content=http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/S280.html). He was instrumental in forming the Schleitheim Confession (http://www.gameo.org/index.asp?content=http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/S280.html) which was not so much a creed as it was an outline of orthopraxis. His work led to his and his wife's martyrdom. She was drowned, and, well here is what the court ordered:

". . . Michael Sattler ... shall be committed to the executioner. The latter shall take him to the square and there first cut out his tongue, then forge him fast to a wagon and there with glowing iron tongs twice tear pieces from his body, then on the way to the site of the execution five times more as above and then burn his body to powder as an arch-heretic."

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

So, I have another question...

Is it possible to feel quite spiritually led to a particular denomination? :scratch:

I don't think that we are called to a denomination so much as to the body of believers. Also, where you would be able to serve in ministry. There are several churches in my area that I would feel comfortable going to doctrine wise. But I go where I feel God has called me...not necessarily due to the name of the church.

[Criada]

So, I have another question...

Is it possible to feel quite spiritually led to a particular denomination? :scratch:
Anything is possible with God.
But - personally, I think He just calls us to where He wants us, and denomination is fairly irrelevant.
I know many disagree, tho :)

[MrJim]

I don't think that we are called to a denomination so much as to the body of believers. Also, where you would be able to serve in ministry. There are several churches in my area that I would feel comfortable going to doctrine wise. But I go where I feel God has called me...not necessarily due to the name of the church.

One of the things I've learned around here in the different denoms/traditions is that the name on the door and what goes on inside will vary. Even with Cath/Ortho they'll suggest to folks that if they don't like what they get to visit another congregation because the name on the door isn't necessarily an indication of the nature of the congregation.

[GreenMunchkin]

I don't think that we are called to a denomination so much as to the body of believers. Also, where you would be able to serve in ministry. There are several churches in my area that I would feel comfortable going to doctrine wise. But I go where I feel God has called me...not necessarily due to the name of the church.Hmm... cos, feeling very, very intrigued by Catholicism, but I don't know much about it. And, also, still think denominations are a sad thing in terms of our all beng able to love one another without conditions. But, still, bit drawn to it.

[MrJim]

So, I have another question...

Is it possible to feel quite spiritually led to a particular denomination? :scratch:

In the nearly 20 years after my conversion I've been part of 5 different denom congregations (Churches of God/Winebrenner, Mennonite, Evangelical Free, Reformed Baptist, American Baptist). In spite of my talk which is seemingly against established churches, I personally find my self drawn toward the Orthodox, and somewhat the Catholic traditions.

But the key here~something an anabaptist CF-er (who's no longer with us:cry: ) used to relentlessly pound into me was that Christ is the center of all, and we need to be going about His work regardless of what group we are with. She would challenge me in that she thought (and maybe she was right) that I was caught up in the trappings of a religious denom instead of being caught up in the Love of Christ.

So in what she was saying we see the Church Universal, those in all those different denom/traditions that are part of the real body. Being drawn to a particular denom/tradition isn't an issue, as long as what is taught is truth and makes you a better servant for the Lord.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

One of the things I've learned around here in the different denoms/traditions is that the name on the door and what goes on inside will vary. Even with Cath/Ortho they'll suggest to folks that if they don't like what they get to visit another congregation because the name on the door isn't necessarily an indication of the nature of the congregation. Exactly!

Hmm... cos, feeling very, very intrigued by Catholicism, but I don't know much about it. And, also, still think denominations are a sad thing in terms of our all beng able to love one another without conditions. But, still, bit drawn to it.

Well, I think your the discerning type of gal that will know if it "fits" when you go to the church you are talking about. I know of many "charismatic" catholics out there. :)

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

In the nearly 20 years after my conversion I've been part of 5 different denom congregations (Churches of God/Winebrenner, Mennonite, Evangelical Free, Reformed Baptist, American Baptist). In spite of my talk which is seemingly against established churches, I personally find my self drawn toward the Orthodox, and somewhat the Catholic traditions.

But the key here~something an anabaptist CF-er (who's no longer with us:cry: ) used to relentlessly pound into me was that Christ is the center of all, and we need to be going about His work regardless of what group we are with. She would challenge me in that she thought (and maybe she was right) that I was caught up in the trappings of a religious denom instead of being caught up in the Love of Christ.

So in what she was saying we see the Church Universal, those in all those different denom/traditions that are part of the real body. Being drawn to a particular denom/tradition isn't an issue, as long as what is taught is truth and makes you a better servant for the Lord.
Amen! :thumbsup:

[MrJim]

Hmm... cos, feeling very, very intrigued by Catholicism, but I don't know much about it. And, also, still think denominations are a sad thing in terms of our all beng able to love one another without conditions. But, still, bit drawn to it.

I've had an ongoing affair with the RCC for a number of years now~it was started by a musician, John Michael Talbot (http://www.johnmichaeltalbot.com/). The local Christian radio station played his music, and I liked it. Then I stumbled upon a bio and learned he was a monk and lived in my old stomping grounds (The Ozarks). A few years ago I came across a book of his called The Music of Creation which I figured was music oriented except it was about the teachings of the Church, and that set me on a wild adventure~I've got a pretty good collection of Catholic apologetics and some neat protestant-to-catholic conversion stories. I guess Hann's Rome Sweet Home is one of my faves...especially in how his wife as dealing with the issue~very against it, much like mine ;)

[3girls2dogs]

So, I have another question...

Is it possible to feel quite spiritually led to a particular denomination? :scratch:
Greenie, I don't know a big Theological argument for my stance, but honestly, no matter how many Churches I try to find, and I have visited a lot, I never feel *right* in any Church but a Catholic one. Whether it is because I was raised in such a strictly Catholic home, or whatever, I honestly feel much more spiritual, much more *in tune* with God as a practising Catholic.

[Miss Shelby]

So, I have another question...

Is it possible to feel quite spiritually led to a particular denomination? :scratch:
OF course it is.

The main differences. Catholicsim and Orthodoxy (which cannot be considered denominational since the roots are tracable to the beginning--they originated with the original---_--use The Bible and Sacred Tradition as the authority. Protestantism uses the Bible only as authoritative. That's only skimming the surface of of course, but it's what causes a lot of the misunderstandings between the two.

As far as differences amongst protestant denoms, Anglicans Lutherans tend to have more similiarties to the original church than later versions of Protestantism.

[Hentenza]

I think MrJim hit the nail in the head with his thread on Institutional Churches versus Biblical Churches. Most non-cultic denominations have traits from both. The agreements and disagreements are based on hermeneutics, how one views the role of tradition, and how doctrines are applied. Each denomination has a slightly different doctrine or emphasis from the others, such as: the method of baptism, the availability of Lord’s supper to all or just to those whose testimonies can be verified by church leaders, the sovereignty of God vs. free will in the matter of salvation, the future of Israel and the church, the role works play in salvation, pre-tribulation vs. post-tribulation rapture, the existence of the “sign” gifts in the modern era, and the list could go on and on. The point of these divisions is never Christ as Lord and Savior, but rather honest differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people seeking to honor God and retain doctrinal purity according to their consciences and their understanding of His Word.

Diversity is a good thing, but disunity is not. If two churches disagree doctrinally, debate and dialogue over the Word may be called for. This type of “iron sharpening iron” (Proverbs 27:17) is beneficial to all. If they disagree on style and form, however, it is fine for them to remain separate. This separation, though, does not lift the responsibility Christians have to love one another (1 John 4:11-12) and ultimately be united as one in Christ (John 17:21-22).

[MrJim]

and ultimately be united as one in Christ (John 17:21-22).

...or as I read elsewhere "Christ is returning for His bride, not His harem" ;)

[ContentInHim]

...or as I read elsewhere "Christ is returning for His bride, not His harem" ;)
Amen! :clap:

[Simon_Templar]

historical denominational outline

In the beginning there was one church. The Church was sacramental in nature and liturgical in worship, though not as rigidly so as the modern Catholic and Orthodox. Over the first 400 years or so the church maintained its unity though there were some heretical groups that tried to take over (such as the Arians, Montanists, etc)

The first division came when the Coptic churches refused to accept the ruling of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon regarding the dual natures of Jesus Christ (both man and God). The dispute was not wether Christ was man and God, but rather whether the two natures within him were fused into one nature, or if they remained two seperate natures.

Those churches who refused to accept the council's ruling were viewed as heretical.

About another 400 years things went ok, but then trouble began brewing between the eastern church and the western church.
The political climate was vastly different in western europe from eastern europe. In addition to that there were significant cultural differences as well. These differences became reflected somewhat in theology of the two churches.
The two churches disagreed about the idea of purgatory (exactly what it was) and they disagreed about the inclusion of an extra phrase in the nicean creed (the filioque). These disagreements grew over the next 200 years or so. The final disagreement occured when the Patriarch of Rome claimed supremacy over the entire church, and the eastern patriarchs denied his claim, saying rather that the Patriarch of Rome was only the first among equals and not a higher authority.

As a result the eastern and western churches split in what has become known as the great schizm. This created the "Eastern Orthodox" and the "Roman Catholics". Today, the EO tend to emphasize the more mystical aspects of the faith, and they have some slight variations and disagreements with the western view on doctrines like 'original sin'. However the two churches remain relatively close in their theology with the main difference being the issue of Papal authority.

The eastern orthodox church has remained pretty much intact.


In the 16th century political struggles in europe, together with religious turmoil in some areas combined to bring about the "reformation". There had been dissenting figures prior but at this time the political climate allowed the dissenters to be successful.

In Germany Luther began by disagreeing with the church over the idea of indulgences and the selling of indulgences. Luther originally claimed that the Pope did not have the right to alter Church doctrine and canon law, which he claimed had been done in order to justify the idea of indulgences.

Luther's disagreement was prompted by his own realization of the nature of grace and forgiveness. Originally Luther had no intention of leaving the church but merely wanted to force reforms of the doctrines he felt were wrong.
Luther, eventually had little choice and was cast out of the church wether he would or no. The Holy Roman Emperor (basically the german emperor) ordered his arrest etc.

Luther was supported by the individual german princes because they wanted political freedom from the emperor.

Luther, as he went, got progressively more and more radical and rejected more and more of the church's teaching. He began removing books from the bible which he thought didn't fit, and he got rid of 4-5 of the sacraments. He retained Baptism and Communion, and varied back and forth on Confession.

Even as far as he went, Luther still retained the basic theology and form of the Church. Luther is of course the Father of the Lutherans

Around the same time a frenchman named John Calvin, trained as a Lawyer began leading his own reformation. He moved to Switzerland and Calvin wrote a large work of theology called "the Institutes of Religion" which outlined his views. He went further than Luther in that he went away, for the most part, from the idea of sacramental faith and worship, maintaining sacraments as ordinances or commandments.
Calvin's teachings and his followers based alot of their theology on the thought of St. Augustine, and Thomas Acquinas, emphasizing the elements dealing with the idea of predestination and taking them to new extremes.
Calvin and his followers formed several town/city governments in switzerland which were intended to create religious utopian states. Calvin's brilliant logical mind and lawyer's training shows through in his analytical approach to doctrine and theology. Calvin would eventually become the father of the reformed churches, including presbyterians.

As has been covered the Anabaptists began around the same time, drawing on some older sects for some of their ideas. The Anabaptists went further than any of the others. They were persecuted by pretty much everyone, because they attacked pretty much everyone, and were themselves sometimes violent in their repudiation of the other groups. The anabaptists also had a distinct apocalyptic element to their views and related their revolutionary, violent acts to the impending return of Christ.
The anabaptists as has been stated where pretty much the only group to immediately do away with infant baptism, and require rebaptism of converts from other christian churches. They are the for-runners of the modern baptist churches.

In England some of the church leadership, notably Thomas Cranmer had been heavily influenced by Luther's writings and his views. Henry the VIII fromally broke with the Roman Church, though himself remaining essentially Catholic in his beliefs.
The English Church under the leadership of Cranmer instituded a few changes here and there in response to Luther's writings, and wrote what has become known as the Book of Common Prayer, which in various forms has been the mainstay of the Anglican Church ever since.
As with all european states, the English Church was an institution of the government, and as such, whatever the Monarch's faith was, it became the faith of the Church of England. So the Church swayed back and forth between More Roman, and more protestant as different Monarch's took the throne with different personal beliefs.

for a significant portion of its history the Church of England was strongly influenced by Reformed theolgy and this is reflected in the 39 articles of religion which are still a legal requirement in the Church of England.

The Church of England maintained its Apostolic Succession, and the basic idea of the sacraments, in essense being very similar to the Roman Church with a few key differences.
In the 19th century a movement with the Anglican church called the "oxford movement" began a trend back towards more Catholic faith. So in Anglicanism you will have a range from those who are very like lutherans, to those who are very like reformed, to those who are very like catholic.

The puritans were also a movement within the Church of England that wanted to go to a more reformed, protestant model, but they believed in maintaining unity with the Church.

[Simon_Templar]

An Anglican priest named John Wesley, in the late 18th century, started a new movement stressing a return to holy living and a renewal of the Holy Spirit's power in the church. He began holding meetings and sparked a revival. Wesley himself believed in maintaining unity with the Church and he remained an Anglican priest until his death. Together with his friend George whitfield, He was a leader of what was known as the methodist movement. They sought to work with the poor and the needy, and to bring revival in the church. They were often attacked both by other clergy, and by society in general, as being aberant, and promoting strange doctrines. Some accused them of trying to re-establish Catholicism. They also tended towards Arminianism, as opposed to reformed calvinism.
The methodists and the Weslyans descend from this group. This group is often known as the Holiness movement.


The pentecostal churches began largely as an Outbranch of the Holiness movement. The baptism of the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit broke out in several different areas beginning a revival among the Holiness movement, around the end of the 19th century. The most famous of these, though not the first, was The Azusa street outpouring, which occured at a methodist church.

Today there are two broad groups of pentecostals. Those who are oneness, or "Jesus Only". These are the UPC and some of the "Apostolic" churches (not sure if all are). These groups deny the trinity and as such have been condemned as heretical by most other churches, including the other pentecostals.
One of the major, probably best known, pentecostal trinitarian denominations is the Assemblies of God.

In the 1960's an Anglican priest in California experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and began preaching about it at his Parrish. This marked the beginning of what has become known as the Charismatic Renewal. many of the non-denominational, evangelical churches have their roots in this movement. This movement has some things in common with the Pentecostals, because they both center around the baptism of the Spirit. However there are significant differences as well.

Rather than being denominational, the Charismatic renewal has spanned across almost every denomination and impacted most church groups in some way or other. You can find Charismatics in almost every denomination.

The Word of Faith movement, which you asked about, is often seen as the result of a few teachers, most famously EW Kenyon. This movement has probably most of its roots in Pentecostalism, and some in the Charismatic Renewal.
It is most famous for its "health and wealth prosperity gospel" and is often described by such phrases as "name it and claim it".
The movement has produced many of the famous TV evangelists including Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Oral Roberts, etc.
Kenneth Hagin is often seen as the Father of this movement.
This movement has produced some odd teachings which have been attacked by many, especially the reformed leaning, as new age, or heretical. There are a number of 'typical' doctrines that are contentious.. the idea that Physical healing for all christians is gaurenteed in the Attonement, the idea that Jesus died spiritually on the cross, and went to hell as a sinner where he then had to be born again, are two of the most popular points of argument.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Wow...good stuff Simon. You sure do know your history! :)

[Criada]

:)

[Miss Shelby]

:o :confused:

[Criada]

:confused:
never mind - edited it! Sorry!

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

:D Yeah that's pretty good.

The anabaptists were a widely diverse group that said to the reformers "You are not going far enough". The divisions included a group of Munsterites that advocated a violent revolt to create the kingdom of God on earth, but they were not the voice of the entire movement.

Here's a quote from Menno Simons, a recognized leader in the anabaptist movement of which the mennonites get their name:

"True evangelical faith cannot lie dormant. It clothes the naked, it feeds the hungry, it comforts the sorrowful, it shelters the destitute, it serves those that harm it, it binds up that which is wounded, it has become all things to all people."

"The regenerated do not go to war, nor engage in strife. They are children of peace who have 'beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning forks, and know no war' (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3). ... Our weapons are not weapons with which cities and countries may be destroyed, walls and gates broken down, and human blood shed in torrents like water. But they are weapons with which the spiritual kingdom of the devil is destroyed. ... Christ is our fortress; patience our weapon of defense; the Word of God our sword. ... Iron and metal spears and swords we leave to those who, alas, regard human blood and swine’s blood of well-nigh equal value."

"We who were formerly no people at all, and who knew of no peace, are now called to be ... a church ... of peace. True Christians do not know vengeance. They are the children of peace. Their hearts overflow with peace. Their mouths speak peace, and they walk in the way of peace."

The were considered "ANTI-GOVERNMENT" because then, if you recall, the gov't and the church were one rather sordid creature. The anabaptists said NO to infant baptism and NO to fighting in the gov'ts wars, for they read the scriptures and said those were not what Christ called them to do.

So the gov't, not only Roman Catholic, but the new Protestant church gov'ts (under Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) decided to deal with the problem by persecution--prison, exile, torture, or death



Persecution? They were anarchists and revolutionaries. Even polygamists early on. They weren't peaceful little farmers isolated from society minding their own business. Their aim was anti-establishment and used violence when necessary.

Luther and the protestants were absolutely right in putting down their rebellion, by any means necessary. They went against the establishment and lost. That's not persecution, that's playing with fire and getting burned.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

historical denominational outline


Not really- a lot of the information isn't accurate. It gives details that make it sound like something it's not.
The Coptics for example, left on their own accord.


The two churches disagreed about the idea of purgatory (exactly what it was) and they disagreed about the inclusion of an extra phrase in the nicean creed (the filioque). These disagreements grew over the next 200 years or so. The final disagreement occured when the Patriarch of Rome claimed supremacy over the entire church, and the eastern patriarchs denied his claim, saying rather that the Patriarch of Rome was only the first among equals and not a higher authority.

That had nothing to do with the split. It was a jurisdiction issue related to the Byzantine Empire having lands in Italy.
The Pope Latinized all the Latin parishes and Constantinople responded by closing all Latin parishes in their jurisdiction. The pope responded by ex-communicating the patriarch.

The eastern orthodox church has remained pretty much intact.

Much of it reverted back to the Catholic Church.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Mr. Sattler was a good little Anabaptist and didn't go around publicly contradicting the Church, right?

[MrJim]

Mr. Sattler was a good little Anabaptist and didn't go around publicly contradicting the Church, right?

Yeah he did, and I am so grateful for him:thumbsup: Maybe having been a monk and seeing the problems from the inside helped.

Then seeing that the reformers were only going halfway...

What the evangelicals don't see is that they have far more in common with Sattler/Simons/Hubmaier/Marpeck than they do with Luther/Calvin/Zwingli...so they make heroes of the latter, though Luther/Calvin/Zwingli would have persecuted them since they don't follow infant baptism.

[Miss Shelby]

Everyone can give their version of history, it doesn't help one bit if we don't give sources. We could sit here and argue all day. Of course, we'd argue none the less, but I'd like to see some sources posted.

[Criada]

I've had an ongoing affair with the RCC for a number of years now~it was started by a musician, John Michael Talbot (http://www.johnmichaeltalbot.com/). The local Christian radio station played his music, and I liked it. Then I stumbled upon a bio and learned he was a monk and lived in my old stomping grounds (The Ozarks).

Thanks for the link, Jim. One of my favourite musicians - sadly I only have him on cassette tape, which I can't play anymore.
Maybe I'll order the new one :)

[MrJim]

You can check his myspace (http://www.myspace.com/johnmichaeltalbot) site, he's set up to place some of his songs there.

...monks these days :cool:

[ContentInHim]

Love John Michael Talbot's music. It's so serene. And the only music I can read scripture to. Otherwise I get to singing, clapping, dancing .... But with his I can truly "meditate" on the word!

[MrJim]

Menno Simon's Renunciation (http://e-menno.org/ren.htm)
OF THE
CHURCH OF ROME.
written by himself, and originally published in the Dutch Language. A.D. 1554

NOW for the RC folks, if ya can read past the obvious schismatic nature of this writing, you'll find points made earlier, particularly to the violent Munsterites that did not represent the whole of the anabaptist movement.

[tulc]

Killing anabaptists: one of only a few things the Catholics and Lutherans agreed on back in the day. :sigh:
tulc(it's nice when people can agree about something, well nice unless you're an Anabaptist of course) :)

[ContentInHim]

My dad said that his family was Anabaptist and it's one of those things I always meant to look into but did not. :( Anyone have good resource recommendations? You, tulc or MrJim?

[tulc]

Hey MrJim! :wave:
tulc(still take naps over in the Anabaptist ghetto?) :D

[MrJim]

Hey MrJim! :wave:
tulc(still take naps over in the Anabaptist ghetto?) :D

Not much, but there sure is a lot of rooms available ;)

[MrJim]

My dad said that his family was Anabaptist and it's one of those things I always meant to look into but did not. :( Anyone have good resource recommendations? You, tulc or MrJim?

http://www.e-menno.org/frames_en.htm
http://www.anabaptists.org/
http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/
http://www.mennoniteusa.org/
http://www.cmcrosedale.org/

Very diverse group, from buggy-riding conservatives to some far-out there liberals~a capella to rock-n-roll;)

[Miss Shelby]

Then seeing that the reformers were only going halfway...


How long have anabaptists been around?

[Miss Shelby]

Jim, I was searching around on some of those websites. There's a pastor I know, very conservative Lutheran, he had to resign because he disagreed with infant baptism and baptism before belief. Other than that his beliefs still remain very much solidly Mo. state synod Lutheran. It's interesting. He has a personal testimony about it. Of course, I disagree, I don't think the doctrine of infant baptism is heretical, but it is intersting to get differing views.

[tulc]

How long have anabaptists been around?

They're not all that round, they just tend to be husky...oh wait you asked how long have they been Around! Sorry :sorry:
Generally they are understood to have begun early to mid 16th century. :) Have you read this?
http://members.iquest.net/~jswartz/schleitheim/index.html
it's one of our earliest documents.
tulc(their history is an interesting read) ;)

[MrJim]

aJim, I was searching around on some of those websites. There's a pastor I know, very conservative Lutheran, he had to resign because he disagreed with infant baptism and baptism before belief. Other than that his beliefs still remain very much solidly Mo. state synod Lutheran. It's interesting. He has a personal testimony about it. Of course, I disagree, I don't think the doctrine of infant baptism is heretical, but it is intersting to get differing views.

Lutheran believing in a believer's baptism is an interesting thing indeed~not sure how he'd be able to really stay in a Lutheran church, especially Missouri Synod, which is especially conservative (I'd like to visit one, there's a dozen Lutheran churches in our area and all are ELCA).

It would automatically classify him as an anabaptist...hmmm, anabaptist Lutheran, wonder what Martin would say;)?

[Simon_Templar]

Not really- a lot of the information isn't accurate. It gives details that make it sound like something it's not.
The Coptics for example, left on their own accord.




That had nothing to do with the split. It was a jurisdiction issue related to the Byzantine Empire having lands in Italy.
The Pope Latinized all the Latin parishes and Constantinople responded by closing all Latin parishes in their jurisdiction. The pope responded by ex-communicating the patriarch.



Much of it reverted back to the Catholic Church.

The coptics left because they disagreed with the council of Chalcedon. As a result, since that time they have been regarded as heretical or schizmatic at best.

If you go back and read what I said again, you'll find that my comments on purgatory were listed prior to the schizm. The disagreements between the churches had been going on significantly since the 9th century, 200 years before the schizm actually occured. One of the points that was heatedly debated during that 200 years was the nature and/or existence of purgatory.

The schizm itself was over the issue of papal authority, which i clearly stated. The pope excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople, and the Patriarch returned the favor. (or visa versa can't remember who excommunicated who first).

[Simon_Templar]

the vision of the poor persecuted anabaptist is a little skewed. They were a radical violent sect who not only fomented wide scale rebellion and sacking churches, they even killed each other when they had disagreements.

The reason they were especially persecuted was because they were especially radical. Being an anabaptist was a capital crime in the HRE not because they had aberant views on baptism, but because they waged open war against the churches they didn't like.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I think we are in agreement, Simon, but I'd prefer that we clarify reasons and focus on a few particular points in the history.

The coptics left because they disagreed with the council of Chalcedon. As a result, since that time they have been regarded as heretical or schizmatic at best.

If you go back and read what I said again, you'll find that my comments on purgatory were listed prior to the schizm. The disagreements between the churches had been going on significantly since the 9th century, 200 years before the schizm actually occured. One of the points that was heatedly debated during that 200 years was the nature and/or existence of purgatory.

Those were minor factors and part of the strain between the two. No one will disagree that the two sides had bad blood between them for 200 years prior. However, I believe it is important that people realize the actual true cause was jurisdiction.

Oddly enough, jurisdiction is the main problem for unification today. I believe it is important to point out that doctrine isn't and hasn't really been a big problem.

The schizm itself was over the issue of papal authority, which i clearly stated. The pope excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople, and the Patriarch returned the favor. (or visa versa can't remember who excommunicated who first).I wouldn't say it was over papal authority. It is more about the pope's authority in matters of jurisdiction.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

the vision of the poor persecuted anabaptist is a little skewed. They were a radical violent sect who not only fomented wide scale rebellion and sacking churches, they even killed each other when they had disagreements.

The reason they were especially persecuted was because they were especially radical. Being an anabaptist was a capital crime in the HRE not because they had aberant views on baptism, but because they waged open war against the churches they didn't like.

Exactly- the anabaptists and their descendants like to play off their deaths as martyrdom- it was about treason. There are always groups that are against the establishment and form cults. Today, we have Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh and his Branch Davidians... etc.. etc even the Muslims have their radicals who attack innocents and cause violence. That's what the Anabaptists were in the 16th Century. Like Koresh and other cults, they even experimented with polygamy.

The Anabaptists were not quiet little farmers like the Lutherans decided to kill because they didn't show up for Church on Sunday.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Killing anabaptists: one of only a few things the Catholics and Lutherans agreed on back in the day. :sigh:
tulc(it's nice when people can agree about something, well nice unless you're an Anabaptist of course) :)

Catholics and Lutherans would agree that terrorists are bad today. Why I should feel sorry for, much less like a group that burned cities is beyond me.

[Rhamiel]

wow this thread got off topic
Greenie, what denominations do you want to know about, besides theology there are other things that brake up protestant denominations, everything from race to local to style
The Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Churches are not denominations but Churches in the proper sense

[MrJim]

the vision of the poor persecuted anabaptist is a little skewed. They were a radical violent sect who not only fomented wide scale rebellion and sacking churches, they even killed each other when they had disagreements.

The reason they were especially persecuted was because they were especially radical. Being an anabaptist was a capital crime in the HRE not because they had aberant views on baptism, but because they waged open war against the churches they didn't like.

Again, the munsterites were a seperate group and not representative of all the anabaptists.

Sattler was executed for refusing to fight the muslims and for be rebaptized, not for leading revolts.

Felix Manz was excecuted (by protestants) for being rebaptized.

I fear the apostolics choose the lump all the anabaptists into the violent sects to smooth over a rough period of history.

[Time2BCounted]

Again, the munsterites were a seperate group and not representative of all the anabaptists.

Sattler was executed for refusing to fight the muslims and for be rebaptized, not for leading revolts.

Felix Manz was excecuted (by protestants) for being rebaptized.

I fear the apostolics choose the lump all the anabaptists into the violent sects to smooth over a rough period of history.
I think nearly every church or denomination has this in common, in that they all had their days of fire and glory, and then they had their 'rough periods'.

Today is a 'rough period' for many of the old firebrand denominations imho.

In san francisco in the mid 80's homosexual pastors and 'liberation theology' was in full swing, it was accepted everywhere and literally praised through the city.

There are chuches within every denom i would say, who have wholesale departed, bringing in new age mysticis, mixing religions like christianity and wicca and worse.

Today too, one sad thing is that about the only ones saying anything against these things are the world because imho, we all spend far too much time dividing over non essentials, when we should be uniting to stand together as one powerful body FOR the essentials

[tulc]

Forgot which forum I was in. :sorry:
tulc(no debates) :)

[Simon_Templar]

Again, the munsterites were a seperate group and not representative of all the anabaptists.

Sattler was executed for refusing to fight the muslims and for be rebaptized, not for leading revolts.

Felix Manz was excecuted (by protestants) for being rebaptized.

I fear the apostolics choose the lump all the anabaptists into the violent sects to smooth over a rough period of history.
radical violence wasn't limited to the munsterites, though they are the most famous incidence of it within anabaptism. Quite a while after the Munster uprising, the anabaptist community in the netherlands was still engaging in both external and internal violence.

My point here is not to slander, or degrade the anabaptists. The fact is every group at that time made use of violence against the other christian sects. The fact of that time was that religion was a state institution and as such most rulers required allegience to their religion from their subjects. This was as true of the reformed and lutheran civil governments as it was of the catholic. In England, both sides were persecuted and martyred, depending on whether the current monarch was catholic or protestant.

In the midst of all that there are also simply a good deal of politics involved. Tyndale, for example, was actually executed by Henry VIII AFTER the later had already split from Rome.. and his primary gripe against Tyndale was that Tyndale had attacked him in print over his divorce.
What most people are told is that Tyndale was martyred by the Catholic Church because he translated the bible into English. (he was ordered arrested by the Church because he applied for permission to translate the bible, and they denied him because they ruled his translation to be errant on several points.)

[Simon_Templar]

I think we are in agreement, Simon, but I'd prefer that we clarify reasons and focus on a few particular points in the history.



Those were minor factors and part of the strain between the two. No one will disagree that the two sides had bad blood between them for 200 years prior. However, I believe it is important that people realize the actual true cause was jurisdiction.

Oddly enough, jurisdiction is the main problem for unification today. I believe it is important to point out that doctrine isn't and hasn't really been a big problem.

I wouldn't say it was over papal authority. It is more about the pope's authority in matters of jurisdiction.

I think the last point here is probably just a difference of terms.. when I say Papal authority, I mean the fact that the Pope claimed authority over the other patriarchs, which essentially is jurisdiction.

In my experience the doctrinal disputes that exist are primarily an issue from the Orthodox point of view. The Catholic church tends to be more broad, and they don't have a problem with Orthodox teachings for the most part.. the Orthodox on the other hand are a bit more narrow and tend to view over all Catholic and all western theology as a bit skewed. Alot of Orthodox have trouble distinguishing cultural or stylistic elements from doctrine and theology, because of the very strong ethnic nature of most of the Orthodox churches, thus usually, in my experience, they tend to view the different tradition and influence of western, latin/frankish culture as a corruption of theology and doctrine.

not that this is the major source of disagreement and disunity, but just a general observation based on my experience.

[MrJim]

radical violence wasn't limited to the munsterites, though they are the most famous incidence of it within anabaptism. Quite a while after the Munster uprising, the anabaptist community in the netherlands was still engaging in both external and internal violence.

My point here is not to slander, or degrade the anabaptists. The fact is every group at that time made use of violence against the other christian sects. The fact of that time was that religion was a state institution and as such most rulers required allegience to their religion from their subjects. This was as true of the reformed and lutheran civil governments as it was of the catholic. In England, both sides were persecuted and martyred, depending on whether the current monarch was catholic or protestant.

In the midst of all that there are also simply a good deal of politics involved. Tyndale, for example, was actually executed by Henry VIII AFTER the later had already split from Rome.. and his primary gripe against Tyndale was that Tyndale had attacked him in print over his divorce.
What most people are told is that Tyndale was martyred by the Catholic Church because he translated the bible into English. (he was ordered arrested by the Church because he applied for permission to translate the bible, and they denied him because they ruled his translation to be errant on several points.)
Your still painting the movement by the actions of the fringe elements.

Today's decendants of the anabaptists (mennonite, amish, brethren, hutterite) look these men as their forebears~Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, Michael Sattler, George Blaurock, Menno Simons, Peter Rideman, Pilgram Marpeck~find a quote from one of these that advocated anarchy & violence.

The "Radical Reformation" encompassed a diverse group, many that saw it as cue to overthrow the tyranny they'd suffered under the regimes they lived under, but don't lump into this mix people like Servetus, the Zwickau prophets, Storch, or Munster into the anabaptists mentioned above, they were a different pack of crackers.

Some quotes from Grebels letters (JC Wenger, ed. and trans. Conrad Grebel's Programmatic Letter of 1524 [Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1970), II)

"One should not protect the gospel and its adherents with the sword, nor themselves."

"True believing Christians are sheep among wolves, sheep for the slaughter. They must be baptized in anxiety, distress, affliction, persecution, suffering, and deather."

"They [true disciples of Christ] employ neither worldly sword nor war, since with them killing is absolutely renounced."

This then is representative of the leaders of what is today the anabaptists. These are not the writings of one advocating anarchy but of reading and interpreting the New Testament and following after Christ.

Menno Simons was a recognized leader of the Dutch Anabaptists~some of his quotes are listed earlier; they're very similar to the above.

Regarding "terrorism", if you wanted to take the approach that what they taught (nonresistance, believer's baptism, no oath-swearing, seperation from the gov't) was "terroristic" teachings against the established Church, then, yeah I could buy that. But the above listed were not only writing against the reformers, but also against these violent movements around them. But these above leaders were not engaged in anarchy & violence.

I don't attend an anabaptist church, haven't been a member in over a decade. There is an indelible mark in my soul from mennonites, since I was discipled amongst them (no they didn't drive buggies). There are really few anabaptists around and fewer that know & understand their history, so when it comes up I do my best to help explain a little further. I usually get worked over by all groups (even many of the baptists since most would rather claim Calvin & Luther rather than realizing their heritage lies more with the hedge preachers;) )

[edb19]

You know - one of the things that I really appreciate about CC is the fact that people come together here across denominational lines. I haven't seen "my denomination is better/right because...." in this forum. This thread runs the risk of upsetting that balance.

If folks have questions about a denomination seems to me we should be able to answer those same questions without criticizing another denomination. If you want to argue about which denomination did what despicable thing to another denomination or which church is a "true" church - may I suggest you take it to general theology.

Leave CC for the fellowship forum that it is.

Just my 2cents.

edie

[Rhamiel]

good point edb19
Greenie what do you want to know about differant denominations, just pointing out that Catholics and Orthodox do not like people to refer to their Churches as denominations

[GreenMunchkin]

good point edb19
Greenie what do you want to know about differant denominations, just pointing out that Catholics and Orthodox do not like people to refer to their Churches as denominationsAm sorry if I offended you :hug: I didn't know that. Am sorry :hug:

[Rhamiel]

No I am not offended, It was just an "now you know" kind of thing, I love talking about all the differant kinds of christians out there we are all so differant and all so the same

[Rhamiel]

this "not a denomination" thing makes us Catholics and Orthodox look arrogant, but we have be honest about theological views

[Hentenza]

You know - one of the things that I really appreciate about CC is the fact that people come together here across denominational lines. I haven't seen "my denomination is better/right because...." in this forum. This thread runs the risk of upsetting that balance.

If folks have questions about a denomination seems to me we should be able to answer those same questions without criticizing another denomination. If you want to argue about which denomination did what despicable thing to another denomination or which church is a "true" church - may I suggest you take it to general theology.

Leave CC for the fellowship forum that it is.

Just my 2cents.

edie

Hi Edie,

I agree with your post, however, for the most part we have been able to debate doctrine in the past because we fellowship and have respect for each other's beliefs. We here at CC do our best not to push each other's buttons like they do in GT. It is a considerable better way to discuss different doctrines without hurting anyone's feelings. We have also learned how to push our pride aside and concentrate of what should be our main focus, Christ.:amen:

[MrJim]

this "not a denomination" thing makes us Catholics and Orthodox look arrogant, but we have be honest about theological views

I go out of my to refer to the apostolics as "traditions" instead of "denoms" out of respect for their beliefs, that may not be enough but it's what I do.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

You know - one of the things that I really appreciate about CC is the fact that people come together here across denominational lines. I haven't seen "my denomination is better/right because...." in this forum. This thread runs the risk of upsetting that balance.

If folks have questions about a denomination seems to me we should be able to answer those same questions without criticizing another denomination. If you want to argue about which denomination did what despicable thing to another denomination or which church is a "true" church - may I suggest you take it to general theology.

Leave CC for the fellowship forum that it is.

Just my 2cents.

edie

Do you believe in objective truth?

[Hentenza]

Do you believe in objective truth?

Objective truth when is backed up with solid proof has merit, however, when just opinions are used then it ceases to be objective.

BTW- Let me remind you that debating by non-members in the main CC forum is not allowed. If you want to start a thread in the CC debate area, you are welcomed to.:wave:

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Objective truth when is backed up with solid proof has merit, however, when just opinions are used then it ceases to be objective.

I don't follow your logic there. Something can only be objective truth if you back it up? I think you are confused about what objective truth is.

According to you, if I say that the Earth is a spherical and not flat, I'm just giving my opinion and not stating objective truth?

If I state the Earth is spherical, that's objective truth. Just as much as saying God is real is objective truth. Whether or not I agree with that objective truth is my opinion. Whether or not I have stated it with evidence then becomes external support for that opinion.

[edb19]

Do you believe in objective truth?

that has nothing to do with the OP

there are places to debate - this thread isn't one of them

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

that has nothing to do with the OP


It was a follow up question to her post. Are you saying her post had nothing to do with the original post?

[GreenMunchkin]

Brief reminder that only CC members are permitted to debate in the main forum.

Any non-members, please start a thread in the Debate sub-forum if you wish to debate. Thanks! :)

[Time2BCounted]

http://foru.ms/showthread.php?t=6186191

There ya go Spiritual Antiseptic

I dont mind discussing it there

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

CC is inter-denominational (yay!) but I really know very little about the varying denominations. What are the similarites, and the differences? Why do they all exist when Truth is absolute?

To discuss, please?

So, I have another question...

Is it possible to feel quite spiritually led to a particular denomination? :scratch:

I'm curious, do you believe in objective truth?

[GreenMunchkin]

Do you believe in objective truth?I believe in Absolute Truth :) Objectivity and subjectivity have very little to with it.

But Absolute Truth is a question of theology, not doctrine. Please, Time2BCounted has started a thread so you can be as open as you want to be. Can we move this there instead? :hug:

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I believe in Absolute Truth :) Objectivity and subjectivity have very little to with it.

But Absolute Truth is a question of theology, not doctrine. Please, Time2BCounted has started a thread so you can be as open as you want to be. Can we move this there instead? :hug:

Why would i want to go to another topic to ask you questions you posted in this one?

I'm curious how you say absolute truth is a matter of theology, not doctrine.
Theology, as I understand it, is a belief. Doctrine is the statement that that belief is necessary and true.
If a particular theology is absolutely true then its doctrine would logically follow as being true, no?
For example, if the Trinity defined as three persons of one substance is theologically absolutely true, then a Church's doctrine that states that theology correctly would be stating objective truth, no?

It would seem to be that some doctrines define theologies which are absolutely true and are therefore absolutely true as well. Wouldn't you?

[GreenMunchkin]

http://foru.ms/t6186191

There ya go Spiritual Antiseptic

I dont mind discussing it there

Why would i want to go to another topic to ask you questions you posted in this one?

I'm curious how you say absolute truth is a matter of theology, not doctrine.
Theology, as I understand it, is a belief. Doctrine is the statement that that belief is necessary and true.
If a particular theology is absolutely true then its doctrine would logically follow as being true, no?
For example, if the Trinity defined as three persons of one substance is theologically absolutely true, then a Church's doctrine that states that theology correctly would be stating objective truth, no?

It would seem to be that some doctrines define theologies which are absolutely true and are therefore absolutely true as well. Wouldn't you?Have a look at the thread he started. It's on this very topic :hug:

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Have a look at the thread he started. It's on this very topic :hug:

Yes, but why would I want to go to another topic to ask question pertinent to this one?

if you didn't want me to question you, because I'm curious about your logic and reasoning, then feel free to PM me and let me now. I feel as though I'm being pushed out of a topic without any reason to. Are you unable to answer them? Let me know and I'll help explain my questions a little better :)

[GreenMunchkin]

Yes, but why would I want to go to another topic to ask question pertinent to this one?

if you didn't want me to question you, because I'm curious about your logic and reasoning, then feel free to PM me and let me now. I feel as though I'm being pushed out of a topic without any reason to. Are you unable or unwilling to answer them? Let me know.No, you're not being pushed out, at all :) You're very, very welcome here :hug:

But, no, am not overly willing to answer questions. I was more looking for answers :D The reason you're being referred to the spin-off thread is because, as per my pm, this forum doesn't allow non-members to debate. However, the debate sub-forum is open to everyone. Yayness!

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

No, you're not being pushed out, at all :) You're very, very welcome here :hug:

But, no, am not overly willing to answer questions. I was more looking for answers :D The reason you're being referred to the spin-off thread is because, as per my pm, this forum doesn't allow non-members to debate. However, the debate sub-forum is open to everyone. Yayness!

Well, I wasn't debating, I was asking :)

Perhaps you could explain what part of my questions you don't understand and I can help you with any questions.

[Hentenza]

[quote=SpiritualAntiseptic;39279699]Well, I wasn't debating, I was asking :)
Yes you are.:)

Perhaps you could explain what part of my questions you don't understand and I can help you with any questions.

Again, we are really not looking for your answers since you can't debate nor teach in this forum. Look, why don't you start a thread in the debate section? It is very unlikely that anyone will listen to you while you are being told that you are braking the rules voted in by the members of this forum. :o

Frankly, it makes you look bad and not very credible.;)

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

[quote]
Yes you are.:)



Again, we are really not looking for your answers since you can't debate nor teach in this forum. Look, why don't you start a thread in the debate section? It is very unlikely that anyone will listen to you while you are being told that you are braking the rules voted in by the members of this forum. :o

Frankly, it makes you look bad and not very credible.;)

Okies, I just signed up.

Green, do you know what objective truth is? What is your understanding of it?

[HowardDean]

Only if you Are a conservaitve christian.

It has to do with forum rules.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Only if you Are a conservaitve christian.

It has to do with forum rules.

No worries, I am :)

[Hentenza]

No worries, I am :)

Good, nice to meet you SA and welcome to CC. :hug:

Now, what is it that you want to discuss?:wave:

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Read the last posts, please. See the discourse between I and GreenMunchan.

[Hentenza]

There really is no discourse SA. You want to know if there is objective truth and I answered that objective truth needs to be accompanied with proof. There are absolute truths, like the earth being not being flat, but there is also interpretative truth where truth can be interpreted. So, what truth are you talking about?

[GreenMunchkin]

Read the last posts, please. See the discourse between I and GreenMunchan.I resent that! It's GreenMunchkin :D

I believe the Christ is the Truth, and that Truth is absolute. But I believe denominations and traditions may or may not be the truth - small t - as they are man-made interpretations, and specific doctrine has been created and developed on those interpretations.

I don't think any denomination or tradition has the monopoly on truth; but all are centred and are created to glorify the Truth.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

There really is no discourse SA. You want to know if there is objective truth and I answered that objective truth needs to be accompanied with proof. There are absolute truths, like the earth being not being flat, but there is also interpretative truth where truth can be interpreted. So, what truth are you talking about?

Objective truth doesn't need to be accompanied by proof. By its very meaning it exists.

Let's suppose that 6 billion light years away, a small asteroid is orbiting a small star, completely undetected by our technology. That asteroid exists, regardless of whether or not there is proof of it. It doesn't suddenly become true because a human perceived it or proved it, It exists. The asteroids existence is objectively true.

If I agree or disagree with its existence, that's an opinion. It is a take on or view of some objective truth.

[Hentenza]

Objective truth doesn't need to be accompanied by proof. By its very meaning it exists.

Let's suppose that 6 billion light years away, a small asteroid is orbiting a small star, completely undetected by our technology. That asteroid exists, regardless of whether or not there is proof of it. It doesn't suddenly become true because a human perceived it or proved it, It exists. The asteroids existence is objectively true.

If I agree or disagree with its existence, that's an opinion. It is a take on or view of some objective truth.

OK, but what is your point? How does this relate to the OP?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I resent that! It's GreenMunchkin :D

I believe the Christ is the Truth, and that Truth is absolute. But I believe denominations and traditions may or may not be the truth - small t - as they are man-made interpretations, and specific doctrine has been created and developed on those interpretations.

I don't think any denomination or tradition has the monopoly on truth; but all are centred and are created to glorify the Truth.

So there is objective truth? Meaning, that God could write up a list of all that was true, no? The list wouldn't be 'generally' true or 'maybe' true, they would be objectively true.

Whether or not a doctrine was written by human hands has nothing to do with it being true. Whether or not what is written is true is what makes it true. "3 + 3 = 6" is objectively true. It is true according to the inter-workings of the Universe. By its properties we call laws of physics and mathematics.
Just because a human hand wrote "3 + 3 = 6" doesn't mean it can not be objectively true.

Whichever set of Christians that has the most correct doctrine would then have more objective truth.

As well, how do you know the Holy Spirit didn't inspire those interpretations?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

OK, but what is your point? How does this relate to the OP?

She was asking about objective truth. If we can't even come to a common agreement on what objective truth is, that is going to make for a pointless discussion.

[Time2BCounted]

Objective truth doesn't need to be accompanied by proof. By its very meaning it exists.

Let's suppose that 6 billion light years away, a small asteroid is orbiting a small star, completely undetected by our technology. That asteroid exists, regardless of whether or not there is proof of it. It doesn't suddenly become true because a human perceived it or proved it, It exists. The asteroids existence is objectively true.

If I agree or disagree with its existence, that's an opinion. It is a take on or view of some objective truth.
I kinda disagree SA

First of all we have this definition showing that 'objective' truth would be observable, therefore having something substantial to support it in the way of observation.





ADJECTIVE:


Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
<LI type=a>Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry;_ylt=AsEtwmcZKsqu.9RkpErU9mOugMMF?id=F0013200) 1.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
Grammar
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
Secondly even the book of Romans tells us

Romans 1:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=1&verse=20&version=9&context=verse)
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


So even the invisable and even the Godhead itself is truth and yet we are without excuse because there indeed IS objective proof

[GreenMunchkin]

Whichever set of Christians that has the most correct doctrine would then have more objective truth.Well, see, objective truth isn't a sliding scale. Subjective truth is, yes, because it's relative, but objective truth, no.

Absolute Truth and objective truth are different things, in that the only thing that is the Absolute Truth is Christ; doctrines/traditions/denominations... they may or may not be objective truths, but they are not Christ - they are Christian - so they cannot be Absolute.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I don't care how a source defines a word. I only care about how you interpret that word and how it relates with my interpretation. How you interpret webster's may be different than mine.

Furthermore, Webster's defines objective truth in several ways. The third one is a materialistic/mechanical philosophical definition that Christians reject.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Well, see, objective truth isn't a sliding scale. Subjective truth is, yes, because it's relative, but objective truth, no.

Being more or less correct about a variety of subjects isn't a sliding scale of objective truth.

Absolute Truth and objective truth are different things, in that the only thing that is the Absolute Truth is Christ; doctrines/traditions/denominations... they may or may not be objective truths, but they are not Christ - they are Christian - so they cannot be Absolute.


Why can't they be absolute?

[Time2BCounted]

I don't care how a source defines a word. I only care about how you interpret that word and how it relates with my interpretation. How you interpret webster's may be different than mine.

Furthermore, Webster's defines objective truth in several ways. The third one is a materialistic/mechanical philosophical definition that Christians reject.
Regardless objective truth, by any correct definition is always observable and therefore has proof accompanying it

[Hentenza]

She was asking about objective truth. If we can't even come to a common agreement on what objective truth is, that is going to make for a pointless discussion.

No, GM was asking about the differences in denominations which is interpretative truth. :)

[Time2BCounted]

Regardless objective truth, by any correct definition is always observable and therefore has proof accompanying it
SA
How do we know that if titanium is exposed to 10,000 heat over a suffiecient period of time relative to the thickness of the metal, it will melt?

Is this an objective truth that it indeed does melt under the proper conditions or is it a subjective truth?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

No, GM was asking about the differences in denominations which is interpretative truth. :)

No, see mentioned that truth was absolute.

Differences in denominations are not interpretive truth- they are objective truth. Either they are right or wrong. They are not 'maybe' right or 'maybe' wrong unless God plays around with the laws of existence.

[GreenMunchkin]

Being more or less correct about a variety of subjects isn't a sliding scale of objective truth.Of course it is. Because being more or less correct allows room for being more or less incorrect. At that point, it's no longer the truth.

Why can't they be absolute?Because they are man-made interpretations, and man is a) fallible, and b) unable to fathom the real nature of the Truth.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

SA
How do we know that if titanium is exposed to 10,000 heat over a suffiecient period of time relative to the thickness of the metal, it will melt?

Is this an objective truth that it indeed does melt under the proper conditions or is it a subjective truth?

Whatever my answer it, it is an opinion as to that objective truth.

Whether titanium melts at '10,000 heat' (whatever the heck that means) is true or not true- and it doesn't matter if I can prove or observe it.

[Hentenza]

No, see mentioned that truth was absolute.

Differences in denominations are not interpretive truth- they are objective truth. Either they are right or wrong. They are not 'maybe' right or 'maybe' wrong unless God plays around with the laws of existence.

No, actually the only objective truth is the Jesus is our Lord. The rest of it is interpretative truth.;)

[Time2BCounted]

No, see mentioned that truth was absolute.

Differences in denominations are not interpretive truth- they are objective truth. Either they are right or wrong. They are not 'maybe' right or 'maybe' wrong unless God plays around with the laws of existence.
the differances in some doctrine is indeed objective and the truth can be and is objective.

Consider the doctirne that Jesus is God. This is observable in several ways and most especially when we dont look at them as sinv=gle units of truth, but bits making a whole truth.

Jesus Himself acceptd the title and worship of God and this is written

John calls Him God

Abraham called Him God

Jacob called Him God

Thomas called Him God

Paul called Him God

Jude called Him God

He performed miracles that, if real, only God could perform. (Though God can chpoose to perform miracles through whom He pleases)


He rose from the dead

He is coming again to take the kingdoms of the world.


all of these things were, and are and are going to be observable, therefore objective truths

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Of course it is. Because being more or less correct allows room for being more or less incorrect. At that point, it's no longer the truth.

You are talking about truth in regards to the whole of truth, not the truth of a particular subject.
1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true and I'm stating objective truth even if I know nothing else.

For example: Lets say that one group A believes:
1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
3 + 3 = 6

and group B believes:
1+1 = 2
2+2 = 5
3+3 = 6

Clearly, group A has more objective truth than B.


Because they are man-made interpretations, and man is a) fallible, and b) unable to fathom the real nature of the Truth.


Man is capable of being inspired. When the Holy Spirit teaches through men, it is infallible.
Also, fallible means capable of being wrong, not wrong all the time. So man is perfectly capable of writing objective truth.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

No, actually the only objective truth is the Jesus is our Lord. The rest of it is interpretative truth.;)

Okie dokie then.

[Time2BCounted]

Whatever my answer it, it is an opinion as to that objective truth.

Whether titanium melts at '10,000 heat' (whatever the heck that means) is true or not true- and it doesn't matter if I can prove or observe it.
If it cannot be observed it cannot be objective

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

all of these things were, and are and are going to be observable, therefore objective truths


Only according to a materialist philosophy which rejects God.

If you define objective truth as being observable or empirical (which no Christian does), then you are saying God doesn't exist.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

If it cannot be observed it cannot be objective

So for you, objective truth doesn't mean something is really true, it just means something is observable?

You are clearly confused about the difference between objective truth and empirical truth.

[Hentenza]

[quote=SpiritualAntiseptic;39282065]You are talking about truth in regards to the whole of truth, not the truth of a particular subject.
1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true and I'm stating objective truth even if I know nothing else.

For example: Lets say that one group A believes:
1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
3 + 3 = 6

and group B believes:
1+1 = 2
2+2 = 5
3+3 = 6
[/color]
Clearly, group A has more objective truth than B.



LOL!!! No, it sounds to me that group A has people that are better at math than B.
[color=green]


Man is capable of being inspired. When the Holy Spirit teaches through men, it is infallible.
Aren't we being taught by the HS once we are "born again"? I guess all of are infallible.

Also, fallible means capable of being wrong, not wrong all the time. So man is perfectly capable of writing objective truth.
Fallible means that we can be both wrong and right. Man is capable of writing objective truth. But how does that relate to theology?

[GreenMunchkin]

You are talking about truth in regards to the whole of truth, not the truth of a particular subject.
1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true and I'm stating objective truth even if I know nothing else.

For example: Lets say that one group A believes:
1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
3 + 3 = 6

and group B believes:
1+1 = 2
2+2 = 5
3+3 = 6
Clearly, group A has more objective truth than B.No, Group B is simply incorrect. Maths and Christ are incomparable, and maths and doctrine, likewise are incomparable, because none of us know which doctrine or tradition has it right, but we *do* know that 2+2 does not equal 5.

Man is capable of being inspired. When the Holy Spirit teaches through men, it is infallible.
Also, fallible means capable of being wrong, not wrong all the time. So man is perfectly capable of writing objective truth.No, man isn't capable of writing objective truth, because when it comes to Christ, man will always have to use their own subjective understanding.

Put it this way, Jesus doesn't change, regardless of what we believe or think. He is Absolute, and is Absolute outside of our comprehension and acknowledgement.

The problem today is too many people want to believe He isn't. Hence the advent of liberalism, and this modern phenomenon of new age Christianity.

[Hentenza]

If it cannot be observed it cannot be objective

But you can't observe that asteroid billions of miles away so, how does that relate to your definition of absolute truth?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

LOL!!! No, it sounds to me that group A has people that are better at math than B.

Yes and because math is easily observed and written, and objectively true, it makes for a perfect example of how one groups beliefs can contain more objective truth.

Aren't we being taught by the HS once we are "born again"? I guess all of are infallible.

We all receive the Holy Spirit at the sacraments of baptism and confirmation. However, the Holy Spirit teaches through men of authority within the Church.

Fallible means that we can be both wrong and right. Man is capable of writing objective truth. But how does that relate to theology?

How is that not related to theology? Isn't theology about objective truth?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

But you can't observe that asteroid billions of miles away so, how does that relate to your definition of absolute truth?

That's not my definition of objective truth. That's the definition of empirical truth.

Objective truth means something is really true or really exists. That's regardless of whether or not it is observable. Empirical truth means that something must be measurable to be true.

[Hentenza]

[quote=SpiritualAntiseptic;39282283]Yes and because math is easily observed and written, and objectively true, it makes for a perfect example of how one groups beliefs can contain more objective truth.



LOL!! Not according to your example. People are fallible which means that the make mistakes. A mistake in math does not make one group more objective than another, just less capable than the other.

We all receive the Holy Spirit at the sacraments of baptism and confirmation. However, the Holy Spirit teaches through men of authority within the Church.

That is your opinion. That happens to be your interpretative truth not the absolute truth.


How is that not related to theology? Isn't theology about objective truth?
No, theology is about interpretative truth. Otherwise, why do we have different denominations?

[MrJim]

This thread took an odd turn....:scratch:

[Time2BCounted]

But you can't observe that asteroid billions of miles away so, how does that relate to your definition of absolute truth?
Actually Hen bro, i dont think our ability to observe it effects its ability to be observed simply because it exists in a time and place. In this case it is an objective truth even if it is unobservable from our standpoint, from another standpoint it would be observable.

This can work in scripture too. Sometimes we may not see a particular point in a passage, there could be so many points to ponder. But it could be that reading another passage something will strike me which takes me back to a point i had missed in the previous passage. So from the standpoint of another passage, i see a point made that i couldnt see before, simply because of my standpoint.

[GreenMunchkin]

This thread took an odd turn....:scratch:Interesting, though :D :hug:

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Interesting, though :D :hug:

Please note- although this is philosophical, this is very important in understanding theology.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

[quote]

LOL!! Not according to your example. People are fallible which means that the make mistakes. A mistake in math does not make one group more objective than another, just less capable than the other.I didn't say objective. Group A has more objective truth in their beliefs regarding 1+1, 2+2 and 3+3 than Group B.

That is your opinion. That happens to be your interpretative truth not the absolute truth.Wrong, that is my opinion about some objective truth.

No, theology is about interpretative truth. Otherwise, why do we have different denominations?Different denominations and beliefs exist because of varying opinions on objective truth. I don't even know what your understanding or definition of 'interpretative truth' is.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Actually Hen bro, i dont think our ability to observe it effects its ability to be observed simply because it exists in a time and place. In this case it is an objective truth even if it is unobservable from our standpoint, from another standpoint it would be observable.

Whether or not something can be observed doesn't matter in terms of objective truth. That's why it is called objective- because it is true regardless of perceptions.

Things which are observably true are just that. Things which are considered true because of empirical evidence are empirically true.

Sometimes we may not see a particular point in a passage, there could be so many points to ponder. But it could be that reading another passage something will strike me which takes me back to a point i had missed in the previous passage. So from the standpoint of another passage, i see a point made that i couldnt see before, simply because of my standpoint.


I'd agree with that.

[MrJim]

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

This ties in here somewhere...

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

This ties in here somewhere...

If you'd like to contribute to the discussion, please do! :)

However, I do ask that you not quote things without explaining your take on them.

[Hentenza]

That's not my definition of objective truth. That's the definition of empirical truth.

Objective truth means something is really true or really exists. That's regardless of whether or not it is observable. Empirical truth means that something must be measurable to be true.

But wasn't you who used the example of the asteroid billions of miles away as an example of objective truth? Are you now calling that empirical truth?

[MrJim]

If you'd like to contribute to the discussion, please do! :)

However, I do ask that you not quote things without explaining your take on them.

I live here hoss, and yer the guest, so if I decide to drop a line, it's homeowner's privilege.

Scripture inserted into this discussion since, well, discussing things of God here, thought maybe His Word might be useful.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

But wasn't you who used the example of the asteroid billions of miles away as an example of objective truth? Are you now calling that empirical truth?

No.

The asteroid would exist under objective truth. It's there, regardless of whether or not we can see it.
The asteroid would not exist according to current empirical truth, because we can not see it.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I live here hoss, and yer the guest, so if I decide to drop a line, it's homeowner's privilege.

Scripture inserted into this discussion since, well, discussing things of God here, thought maybe His Word might be useful.

You don't own the forum and I'm a member here :)

Scripture really isn't helpful unless you want to explain how it fits into the discussion.

[MrJim]

You don't own the forum and I'm a member here :)

Scripture really isn't helpful unless you want to explain how it fits into the discussion.

I didn't see your name on our list

[MrJim]

I see you just signed up today. Why don't ya sport the Catholic icon?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I didn't see your name on our list

Well, I can't say that I'm disappointed things like that are important to you.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I see you just signed up today. Why don't ya sport the Catholic icon?

Why should I?

[Hentenza]

[quote=SpiritualAntiseptic;39283013]I didn't say objective. Group A has more objective truth in their beliefs regarding 1+1, 2+2 and 3+3 than Group B.

I really don't know what you are saying.^_^^_^

Wrong, that is my opinion about some objective truth.
So, if it is your opinion about objective truth, then wouldn't that not be objective?

Different denominations and beliefs exist because of varying opinions on objective truth. I don't even know what your understanding or definition of 'interpretative truth' is.

Interpretative truth relates to varying degrees of truth. Some truths are evident, however, other truth are interpreted as truths. Isn't the different denominations relating to interpretative truth?

[MrJim]

Why should I?

In the interest of peace I'll just keep my distance-I'm sure when you tire of us you'll go find another interesting plaything

[HowardDean]

You don't own the forum and I'm a member here :)

Scripture really isn't helpful unless you want to explain how it fits into the discussion.From posts here it seems you just signed up today for the purpose of debating here.
:confused:

[MrJim]

From posts here it seems you just signed up today for the purpose of debating here.
:confused:

...

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I'll explain- I've been posting here for some time. The moderators have asked me in the past to sign up as member- I saw no immediate need to. However, tonight they made it very clear I could either sign up or leave. I didn't come here to debate, I like to discuss.

[Hentenza]

Well, the moderators have decided these kinds of attacks against me are within the rules.

So with that, I'll explain- I've been posting here for some time. The moderators have asked me in the past to sign up as member- I saw no immediate need to. However, tonight they made it very clear I could either sign up or leave. I didn't come here to debate, I like to discuss. However, the moderators refused to explain what debate what and just showed me the door. So I decided to make the jump as a member.

That is not correct. You were warned not to debate as a nonmember in the main CC forum. At any time has a moderator of CC asked you to leave. If fact, I even invited you to open a discussion thread in the CC debate area.
For further information see this report, link (http://foru.ms/t6180271-conservative-christians-spiritualantiseptic-09-28-2007.html), which contains a pm sent to you by GM explaining the rules of this forum and inviting you to join if you agreed with the statement of beliefs. No one here has forced you to join CC nor has asked you to leave.

Please stick to the facts.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

That is not correct. You were warned not to debate as a nonmember in the main CC forum. At any time has a moderator of CC asked you to leave. If fact, I even invited you to open a discussion thread in the CC debate area.
For further information see this report, link (http://foru.ms/t6180271-conservative-christians-spiritualantiseptic-09-28-2007.html), which contains a pm sent to you by GM explaining the rules of this forum and inviting you to join if you agreed with the statement of beliefs. No one here has forced you to join CC nor has asked you to leave.

Please stick to the facts.

I was given a link and strongly 'encouraged' not to post here anymore. Go back and read the moderator posts accusing me of debating in a forum because I was asking questions.

As for forced, of course you didn't :)

[HowardDean]

In Heaven, there will be no denominations. Here, there are, and thats okay.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Here, there are, and thats okay.

Well, I disagree. Christ created only one Church and one authority after all... so that means the rest.......

[Hentenza]

I was given a link and strongly 'encouraged' not to post here anymore. Go back and read the moderator posts accusing me of debating in a forum because I was asking questions.

As for forced, of course you didn't :)

Here is the PM. Could you please point out where you were strongly encouraged not to post in CC anymore?

Hullo, SpiritualAntiseptic :)

I just wanted to write quickly to ask you to refer to our forum rules, found here (http://foru.ms/t5746943-sign-in.html&page=85). Part of our rules state than non-members aren't permitted to debate, unless the discussion is taking place in our Debate sub-forum.

Along with our rules is our Statement of Belief. If you have a read through and feel you want to be a member of CC, please add your name here (http://foru.ms/t5746943-sign-in.html&page=85) :)

If you feel unable to join as a member, but wish to carry on the discussion, you are free to start a thread in the Debate sub-forum, and then you can debate to you heart's content :D

Many thanks for your time. Please do reply if you have any questions.

God bless you!

GreenMunchkin
CC Moderator

[HowardDean]

The problem is getting all to recognize which one is the true one.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

The problem is getting all to recognize which one is the true one.

Well, it would be hard to believe one that started in the 16 Century would be it, right?

[Time2BCounted]

Well, I disagree. Christ created only one Church and one authority after all... so that means the rest.......
Yes Christ is the head of this church. Also you say there is only one church. This too is right but it begs the quesiton, Who makes up that church in your opinion?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Yes Christ is the head of this church. Also you say there is only one church. This too is right but it begs the quesiton, Who makes up that church in your opinion?

All baptized Christians.

The bigger question is, who is the authority of that Church? I guarantee it isn't Billy Bob's House of Jesus down the street.

[Time2BCounted]

All baptized Christians.

The bigger question is, who is the authority of that Church? I guarantee it isn't Billy Bob's House of Jesus down the street.
wait
all baptized Christians?

What about Adam? As far as we know baptism sure wasnt around then.

What about Abraham? Moses? Isaac? Jacob? Or are you saying that they are not going to be a part of the church? Are they a seperate body? Did the church not exist before the book of acts?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

wait
all baptized Christians?

What about Adam? As far as we know baptism sure wasnt around then.

What about Abraham? Moses? Isaac? Jacob? Or are you saying that they are not going to be a part of the church? Are they a seperate body? Did the church not exist before the book of acts?

No dude, Adam and the jews were not part of the Church. They were unbaptized jews, not baptized Christians. That's why they didn't go to Heaven immediately after they died.

[Time2BCounted]

No dude