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.
“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.”
And if the existence of delusion and incorrect doctrine forbids us from reasoning with the scriptures, Christ and the Apostles would not have always done so with the heathens and infidels on every occasion. They would have simply said, “It’s because we have infallibly decided this on our own, out of thin air, and the magisterium we have created will continue this Gospel of baseless assertions forever and ever.” Of course, what they actually did, was this:
Act 8:30-35 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? (31) And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. (32) The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: (33) In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. (34) And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? (35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
God is a reasoning God, not a God who hates reason.
Isa_1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
If you still disagree with this, can you tell me what is in that cultic guy’s theology that you find compelling? If his arguments are irrational and demonstrably false, then you acknowledge that the scripture is indeed “useful for reproof, correction, doctrine... making the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished for good works.”
I don’t think Calvinists are cultist, yet they disagree on salvation.
I don’t think Anglicans are cultist, yet they disagree with many Protestants on Eucharist and the real presence.
Lutherans, Calvinist, Arminians, etc.. You and I disagree on much and I don’t think either of us is cultist.
Throughout history, well meaning people have disagreed on dogma and doctrine based on the same Sacred Scripture.
Should have been:
well meaning and *rational * people have disagreed ..”
:)
“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.”
Tobit 6:5-7, “Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.
So how often do you burn fish guts to fend off evil spirits? Once a day? Once on Sundays? Once a month?
This is a pretty statement of yours, but it falls when you actually examine the specifics.
Umm... Yes and no...
Dietary laws as per the Torah... which is different than 'kosher' per se. For instance, I have no problem eating/cooking meat and milk together. And while I try to buy kosher, I am not going to worry if a product winds up with a non-kosher item in it (and I didn't know). Although I must admit to falling down where baby-backs and pulled pork sandwiches are concerned : ) (the two things I have found to be hard to replace, and still a vast temptation to me).
Holy Days, certainly, albeit imperfectly. I certainly mark them, as they are prophetic. And I am trying to keep them, but that is still in the works. I do not follow the Jewish calendar. I follow the barley (as the Torah requires). And I hold to *none* of the traditional Christian holidays festivals...
Sabbath - Absolutely. There is no warrant in Scripture to change or move what YHWH declared eternal from the very beginning. That is not to say that I won't go to church on Sunday - any day is suitable for worship. But I observe the Sabbath of YHWH.
What about on trinity, Holy Spirit?
Trinity - I am basically trinitarian, but not by your formula, which I think is an unnecessary and unworkable construct. And not for the reasons generally applied.
Holy Spirit - What about Him?
“Throughout history, well meaning people have disagreed on dogma and doctrine based on the same Sacred Scripture.”
Repeating the same thing again, doesn’t really explain why it should be regarded as important, or how the existence of disagreement renders meaning impossible to find.
For example, you disagree with Calvinism (or, actually, Augustinism), but your position of disagreement on the matter is untenable. The scripture is clear that even faith itself is the gift of God, “no man can come to me except my Father draws him”. That works have no basis in salvation “for those He foreknew, He predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son... for it by grace, it is no more works... ye are saved by grace without the works of the law.”
Isn’t your appeal for the inability to figure out the scriptures, really your own thinly veiled attempt to cover up the fact that your own theology is not found in the scripture?
But a great many say that. Well meaning, educated, rational folks disagree on dogma and doctrine - and say 'the scripture is clear..'
“Umm... Yes and no...”
Jas_2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
If you admit that you are not perfectly following the dietary laws or the festivals, and, in fact, that you only obey them sometimes, and not on all occasions, what is the point of following them at all? Because it makes you feel holy and complete? Or do you think that it makes you greater in the sight of God?
Rom_3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Isa_64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
I’ll fulfill the royal law, and I’ll be complete in it, by the grace of God:
Jas_2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
If this is the case, your decision to follow the dietary laws and festivals, albeit not very well... is only your personal preference, which does not add to or take away from your salvation.
Rom_11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
“Trinity - I am basically trinitarian, but not by your formula,”
How is someone “basically trinitarian?” Even Mormons have told me they are “basically Trinitarian,” even though they’re polytheists. It’s a scary phrase that does not tell us anything.
“But a great many say that. Well meaning, educated, rational folks disagree on dogma and doctrine - and say ‘the scripture is clear..’”
And three times you’ve repeated this, and two times you’ve not responded to what I’ve said in reply. I’ll count it a strike out if you repeat it a fourth time.
I said that absent an authority, that means it is up to each individual.
You answered that God is a reasoning God. I replied that rational, non-cultic folks still disagree..
You replied "the scripture is clear.." I answered that disagreeing folks think the scripture is clear too.
I think my responses have been on point thus and I appreciate yours.
You are shortchanging yourself if you accept only a literal interpretation of Scripture. On a broad scale there are two distinct senses of Scripture; the literal and the spiritual. Within the spiritual sense there are four senses. When I read Scripture I read it in each of the five senses of Scripture, which are outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
1. Literal Sense: The meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture the actual event, person, thing described in the biblical text. The literal sense gives rise to the following four “spiritual senses.”
2. Allegorical Sense: How those things, events, or persons in the literal sense point to Christ and the Paschal Mystery.
3. Moral Sense: How the literal sense points to the Christian life in the Church.
4. Anagogical Sense: How the literal sense points to the Christian’s heavenly destiny and the last things.
5. Typological Sense: Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when "God [will] be everything to everyone.
After this is is useful to practice lectio divina to contemplate and meditate of the entire Word. It is here that one listens for and hears the Word of God. One must approach Scripture prepared to absorb every message it contains.
Peace be with you
UCG is pretty non-trinitarian when it comes to the Holy Spirit, that’s why I asked.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Is this the result of your own study or do you follow a particular teacher, teaching, church?
But they are not fulfilled. Even the Passover has one more cup. While the Spring Feasts are fulfilled (pretty much) by His first coming, the Fall Feasts are yet to come. Do you suppose there is profit in knowing the Fall Feasts? And don't the Spring Feasts serve to celebrate His first coming? Do you suppose that is why the Feasts remain in the Millennial Kingdom (when all of the Works of YHWH are completed, yet still the Feasts remain)?
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:
Yet they continue, both the ordinances and the Holy Days, into the Millennial Kingdom wherein Yeshua is sitting upon David's throne, and the whole purpose (as per your definition) is certainly completed... Doesn't that bug you?
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.
Sure. So how does one know he loves YHWH? How does one know that he loves his neighbor?
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 [...]
He did. Not one jot or tittle.
Although your definition of 'complicated arrays of forbidden foods' is misinformed. The food laws are fairly straightforward if one is not looking to the Jewish tradition.
And I would suppose you are content to 'to attend every festival, to rest on every rest day' that your faith/denomination accepts - Why those days and not the Days that YHWH ordained, which perfectly describe His will through time? The Days that will be celebrated in the Kingdom?
[...] and Christ, through the Apostles, would not have told us “eat whatever is presented to you...
I think that is the framing of interpretation. If one accepts that Yeshua said to do and keep the Torah (which He certainly did), that changes the complexion of everything thereafter. And rightly, it should be figured into every interpretation of His disciples words and actions.
“I think the same answer fits.”
I’m not convinced that thinking is involved here in your point. It only begs the question. Suppose you are saying, “only those whom I acknowledge as my authority are allowed to do my thinking about what sentences of scripture mean.” Okay, so then we go back to my previous post, wherein I demonstrated that Popes and Church leaders, and indeed church councils (Pelagianism was officially condemned, which the Romanists now embrace), hold to doctrines and “traditions” utterly contrary to what Rome holds today. Thus, Rome has no continuous tradition going back 2,000 years, but only a tradition that, for over 2,000 years, has gone through many revolutions, and is not the same one that Augustine would have recognized, or even Gregory, or Jerome, or Cyril of Jerusalem, or Athanasius, and on and on and on. Thus, there is no basis for the infallible claims of the Romanists.
I think all of the Roman arguments on this matter fall apart when any actual doctrine or idea that they hold is examined in detail.
"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness: But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Cor. 1:21-25.
Preach on, Dutchboy. We are STANDING in unison and faith.
“You are shortchanging yourself if you accept only a literal interpretation of Scripture.”
Again, you make another pretty post, but you fail to examine any of the specifics that actually render it pretty much worthless. I don’t care for your general guidelines or general thoughts, when you aren’t specifically roasting fish guts to fend off devils, or aren’t specifically explaining how Nebuchadnezzer can reign in both Babylon and Nineveh at the same time, or why we shouldn’t believe the apocrypha when it tells us that it is unsure of itself and possibly in error.
not the same one that Augustine would have recognized, or even Gregory, or Jerome, or Cyril of Jerusalem, or Athanasius, and on and on and on.The question would be not whether one individual disagreed with a particular doctrine, but whether the Church taught differently.
This is back to my original post to you..
I explained the Catholic view that this, in part, avoided the problem of individual's determining doctrine and dogma resulting in a non-universal church; individual disagreements on doctrine and dogma.
After that, I was arguing that saying scripture determines, sola scriptura, does not solve the disagreement question.
Hope this clarifies.
“Do you suppose that is why the Feasts remain in the Millennial Kingdom (when all of the Works of YHWH are completed, yet still the Feasts remain)?”
And where does it say that? And why does Paul say that no one should judge another for not esteeming one day over another, or vice versa? And where does it say that Jesus does not fulfill the law, and that men are not saved through Christ and not through the workings of any law?
If you think you should celebrate festivals, because you are still in the shadows about them, I suppose you are free to do so. It makes no difference to me, and it makes no difference to God.
Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
But I am quite confident I know how things are going to turn out. When those who believe in Christ die, we will be risen again with Him, and will dwell together with Him forever.
“Sure. So how does one know he loves YHWH? How does one know that he loves his neighbor?”
It is God who knew us before the foundation of the world, and predestinated us so that we would be conformed into the image of His Son. Not because He knew we would love Him enough, or because He knew we would be good enough, but rather so that we WOULD be what He wants us to be.
Rom 8:28-31 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (31) What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
We are complete in Christ, we who believe, and not through the working of the law:
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
If God starts a work in us, we can be sure it will go on to completion:
2Ti_1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Therefore, we ought to rest with God, not wrest with God the promises He has made to those of us who believe.
“Doesn’t that bug you?”
Shouldn’t it bug you more that you, who seek to put a yoke on others to obey and observe these carnal ordinances, do not even follow them yourself?
“He did. Not one jot or tittle.”
And not one Jot or Title has been undone, because Christ has fulfilled them, having been the point of them in the first place. Why cling to that which was only a shadow of Christ?
“And I would suppose you are content to ‘to attend every festival, to rest on every rest day’ that your faith/denomination accepts”
I didn’t even have a tree for Christmas. Easter passed by without my notice. I do work on the sabbath day out of necessity, and yet, in all of this, my God routinely answers my prayers and delivers me from my troubles. My God is a living God, not a dead one concerned with works which can never make me perfect. He’s concerned, more, with showing me that I ought to lean on Him, and not on myself.
” but whether the Church taught differently”
The Church taught differently, as the Bishop of Hippo, Pope Gregory, and many others, did not share Romanist views, and were not in rebellion with the church they led.
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.