Posted on 04/08/2013 9:22:31 AM PDT by DouglasKC
"I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in...the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).
Jesus Christ proclaimed, almost 2,000 years ago, "I will build My church." He declared that His Church would never die out, promising that "the gates of Hades [the grave] shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
As we will see in the pages that follow, the institution to which Jesus referred was not an earthly building or a mere physical organization. Rather, the Church was and remains the called-out assembly of Christ's spiritually transformed and faithful followers.
Jesus assured His disciples that He would guide and preserve His Church until His return, promising them, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).
What happened to the Church Jesus built? An eyewitness tells us that immediately after Christ ascended into heaven following His resurrection, His apostles "went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs" (Mark 16:20). The Church had a powerful beginning.
Millions of people profess Christianity; they claim to be members of the Church Jesus founded. But Christianity is a divided religion, comprising hundreds of denominations and schisms. Through the centuries, most of Christianity's branches have assimilated many non biblical traditions—philosophical, cultural and religious—into their teachings and practices, spawning even more variations.
How can we account for the explosion of contradictory practices and conflicting factions in the world of Christianity? Is it possible to reconcile competing denominational groups with the standards and objectives Christ established for His Church? Can we know whether Christianity's bewildering variety of customs and teachings faithfully represents those of Jesus Christ? Remember, Jesus not only promised He would build His Church, but He assured His disciples that His Church would not perish. Is the divided Christianity we see around us that Church? Only the Holy Scriptures can provide a reliable answer to this question.
If Christ's promise that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail" against His Church should be considered a guarantee that those who believe on His name could never be misled or corrupted, then we would have every reason to accept the collective sum of the various divisions of Christianity as the Church Jesus built.
But He guaranteed no such thing. Instead, He warned His disciples that "false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect" (Mark 13:22, emphasis added throughout).
Later the apostle Paul expressed his concern to Christians in his day that their minds could be "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" by the preaching of "false apostles" (2 Corinthians 11:3 , 13).
Jesus spoke even more plainly, explaining that "narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:14-16).
In these pages we examine the fruits Jesus and His apostles said would identify His Church. We look at the contrasting fruits that identify those who are influenced by a different spirit and preach a different gospel. We will learn, not from human tradition or opinion but directly from God's Word, how we can distinguish "the church of the living God" (1 Timothy 3:15) from those who follow "false prophets" in sheep's clothing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For clarity throughout this booklet, the word Church (with a capital C ) refers to the faithful Church that Jesus Christ founded. The word church (with a small c ) refers to local groups of believers or other physical organizations. Since church is not capitalized in the Bible translations quoted, all scriptural quotations—whether referring to the Body of Christ or a local congregation—use church with a small c.
“Absolutely my friend. But you’ll notice that there is NO condemnation of individuals. “
It is a condemnation of every Christian who is a member of any denomination that does not follow or is blessed by the non-Christian religion of the UCG.
It says so right when it declares that the UCG is the true church of God on Earth, and everybody else is in a counterfeit religion.
“What denomination are you? Maybe we could nitpick you for a while.... :-)”
It’s not nitpicking. Your religion is in direct conflict with Christianity. Your religion is accursed in the eyes of God. You will find no right hand of fellowship from any Christian who knows your doctrines, cry as you might about it, even as you return to the dark, dank meeting places of your cult and comfort yourselves in the knowledge that only you understand God and have the inanimate object (by your theology) known as the Holy Ghost.
So whine! Whine! Complain that I do not see you as Christian, even as your religion says even worse of us, since I only condemn the UCG, but you condemn all the Christians in the world, and through all ages, who are not in the UCG.
You're not really reading what I write...correct?
Jewish dietary laws are MUCH more vast and complex than what is in scripture. MUCH. Christ himself rebelled against these Jewish dietary laws.
Mat 15:2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
Mat 15:3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
The traditional church thinks it's okay to eat pork because somewhere along the line someone decided they knew better than Jesus Christ. It became a tradition that directly contradicts the written word of our Lord and savior.
Hey buster I've been called a heretic by people worse than you! :-)
since I only condemn the UCG, but you condemn all the Christians in the world, and through all ages, who are not in the UCG.
Well there you go again... :-)
By the way...where do you live? I live in Michigan. You’re kind of starting to grow on me...
“You’re not really reading what I write...correct?”
I read it. It’s just that, your position is so absurd, I’m not sure if you understand mine.
The Bible is not one "book". It is the composite of the revealed Word of God in written form identified by believers long before there was such a thing as a RCC. Notice Jesus refers to the Scriptures (Torah, w'Nebiim, w'Kethubim), Paul refers to Scripture (Tim), and Peter refers to many of the letters Paul wrote as Scripture, also. And, the reminder that they are difficult to understand may explain how Rome went awry. Peter cautions that the "unstable & untaught will distort" them to their own destruction. It is evident Rome has done so.
Adhering to the doctrines taught in the Scriptures is neither veneration (as of Mary) nor is it on the same level as the reverence for icons (shroud, bones, bodies, etc), praying to "(S)aints", or any of the other behaviors prohibited by the Scriptures, themselves. The Scriptures are the repository of truths from which we derive the facts. And, Rome is conspicuously absent.
That Rome equates itself, and its disclosures, with the disclosures found in these sacred texts borders on blasphemous. There is nothing in the Scriptural texts which tell us to acknowledge such arrogance with anything other than the disdain you now read.
Absolutely I understand yours. I lived it the first 40 years of my life.
“Absolutely I understand yours. I lived it the first 40 years of my life”
1Jn_2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
You are partially correct in that the Bible is a portion of the Revelation. Some Scripture predated the the first Christian Pentecost, but much came later, derived from the verbal accounts of the eye witnesses and resulting from private revelation in the case of St. Paul. Of course St. Paul refers to Scripture, as did Jesus. That the letters of St Paul for a part of Sacred Scripture is not doubted. But what of the preaching of St. Paul not captured in his surviving letters? Or the "many things" referred to by St. John to close his Gospel?
One of the notable differences between Catholics and non-Catholics is that it is the non-Catholics are the ones demanding the exclusion of much of the Revealed Word. They strive to limit the Canon, to exclude the Sacred Tradition and in too many cases to rail against the natural revelation of science. Why do you suppose that is?
Peace bw with you
“They strive to limit the Canon, to exclude the Sacred Tradition and in too many cases to rail against the natural revelation of science. Why do you suppose that is?”
Because Tobit prescribes witchcraft, the burning of fish guts to fend off evil spirits, supposedly taught by the “Angel of the Lord” who also lied about his identity.
Judith tells us Nebuchadnezzer was the King of Assyria who reigned from Ninveh, but he is the King of Babylon who reigned from Babylon.
Other books of the apocrypha straight out ask for forgiveness for any imperfections within them.
And still others have serious problems, which is why Jerome and others asserted that they were not to be brought forward for the creation or defense of doctrine, but only used for general edification.
As for the “natural revelation of science,” I am a proud Creationist for good reason.
A few questions:
How do you reconcile your position to the fact that Yeshua commanded to do and teach the Torah (Frame as: Not for the purpose of salvation (which has never been it's purpose), but for the love of YHWH)?
How can you suppose Yeshua (and disciples in his stead) broke the Torah (by changing it in any fashion) and still consider him to be Messiah, rather than a false prophet (as per Torah)?
How can the law be gone without implicitly and explicitly declaring that there is no sin - as sin is, by definition, the transgression of the law?
How can the Law and Holy Days particularly be of no value when the prophets explicitly declare that they will be followed during the Millennial Reign?
BRAVO!
As we see on this thread and countless other times, individuals differ on what that dogma and doctrine are as determined by the word of God.
Since we cannot put Sacred Scripture on the stand and have it say A or B, either there is a church with authority or it is again, up to each individual.
thanks for your reply.
For clarification, are you UCG also?
Nope.
Thanks, am I right that you are in agreement though on dietary laws and holy day observance and sabbath?
What about on trinity, Holy Spirit?
“How do you reconcile your position to the fact that Yeshua commanded to do and teach the Torah (Frame as: Not for the purpose of salvation (which has never been it’s purpose), but for the love of YHWH)?”
The Torah is not fulfilled in dietary laws or carnal ordinances or the sacrifice of animals, which are merely the shadows of Christ who is to come (Col 2:16-17, Heb 8:4-6, Heb 10:1, Heb 9:9-10). If these things are only imperfect shadows, having been fulfilled by the perfection of Christ, there is nothing in them that can profit us any further. It is against the Spirit of the scriptures, in fact, to even harp on these ordinances instead of the meat of God’s commandments which really deserved the most attention all along, which fulfills the whole law, and is the foundation upon which every commandment has its purpose:
Mat 22:37-40 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Jas_2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Rom 13:9-10 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
If it was important to uphold the carnal ordinances of the Old Testament, to attend every festival, to rest on every rest day, to keep from our mouths the complicated arrays of forbidden foods, Christ would have told us so, and Christ, through the Apostles, would not have told us “eat whatever is presented to you... and judge not those who eat only herbs, and those who eat only herbs, judge not those who feel they can eat all things”. Instead, we are told that the law is fulfilled in a single phrase “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” with no mention of any complicated ordinance.
If you disbelieve me, go eat some pork, and tell me whether you feel less loved by God thereafter.
When Scripture appears to contradict Scripture, when Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition appear to be contradict, when they appear to conflict with natural revelation and when stand counter to human reason, whether yours or mine, it is our interpretations and understandings of Scripture or Tradition that are flawed.
Much of Christian theology involves mysteries. Mysteries are not something we can know nothing about, however they are things we will never know everything about. Through faith we accept the mysteries as being beyond reason, but mysteries are never contrary to reason. They often present difficulties for us. The Venerable John Cardinal Newman said; "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt." We must trust our Faith. When we make the mysteries subject to our limited capacities to know and to reason, when we make ourselves the arbitrator of what is true and not true, we have again accepted the serpent's call as was done in Eden.
Peace be with you
One of the notable differences between Catholics and non-Catholics is that it is the non-Catholics are the ones demanding the exclusion of much of the Revealed Word. They strive to limit the Canon, to exclude the Sacred Tradition and in too many cases to rail against the natural revelation of science. Why do you suppose that is?"
There are many questions embedded in this post, although there appears to be only 3 question marks.
The first, about Paul (he would no more call himself St. Paul than he would call you St. Natural, although that sounds kind of cool) is a rather peculiar question. It implies that everything said by a certain person is valuable. It causes me to wonder what Rome thinks of the words which David whispered into Bathsheba's ear just before the rape. Are these Logos because they derive from a notable believer? After all, he was a "friend of God", a name not even Paul took. Where are you going with this?
Clearly, if anything perceived by men who claim authority becomes the Word of God, we end up pronouncements such as: Any persons whatsoever who shall be detected, acknowledged or proved to have departed from the Catholic Faith...or fallen into heresy, or have entered into, fomented or ordered schism, shall incur the aforesaid penalties [of excommunication and dispossession of property], whatever position, rank, order, condition or pre-eminence they may enjoy, even if they...possess the worldly authority and honor of a Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor...
It is permitted to no man to challenge this statement...but if anyone should presume to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the anger of Almighty God and of His blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Given in Rome at St. Peter's, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1559 on the fifteenth day..." blah, blah, blah.
Well, let it be known...here and now...I stand in complete CHALLENGE to this kind of utter self-appointed arrogance and blasphemy. I am fomenting all the rebellion against this self-aggrandizing clap-trap that I can. Foment, foment, foment.
If this is the kind of "Revealed Word" to which you refer, then you are darn right I demand that it comport with that which is revealed already...and it does not. There is nothing about Rome in the text, my FRiend. Grace to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.