Is this too simple of an idea?

[Sparkey]

I was speaking to somebody who had knocked at my door. The subject was "religion". My statement was, "I don't know if we can every agree or not because of that one thing... the Stone of stumbling... I doubt that we can agree on Jesus, about who He is."

You see, I'm one of those. One of the group of people who profess to believe on the Word of God. It is there that I find such gems as, "Two can not walk together unless they are agreed." Amos 3:3 - Passage*Lookup - King James Version - BibleGateway.com The problem (as I saw it while speaking to the one who knocked) was that so was he.

When I imagine that scenario (walking together) there comes to my mind a couple - they want to take a walk together. One though, wants to go to the store (to the north) and the other wants to let's say walk to the park (to the east). As they each take a step on the direction of their travel, toward their destination, they find that they are separating and the distance between them is growing. They can not walk together because they are not in agreement.

Our Father in heaven has told us to come out from them and commands us to walk toward the Light, to Him and to holiness. We are His temple if we continue in this and have no further part with our old lives. "So, come out from among [unbelievers], and separate (sever) yourselves from them, says the Lord," Amplified Bible - BibleGateway.com

So then, there I was, wanting to speak of Jesus and knowing that we could not walk together. The person who had knocked on my door wanted to speak to me and "teach" me elementary things. He expected to be able to engage me in simple discussion and eventually invite me to his church (they call it a "hall" and not a church, but it's the same thing to my way of thinking).

So then, while considering these things, a thought occurred to me and maybe I'm oversimplifying it but if there really is only one church, is it possible for that church to have been started in the 19th century? If it is required (for me to be counted by the knocker on the door) for me to be considered one of the brethren, that I be accepted into his church, then ...

I mean, is it even possible for any church (whose members actually follow after God in truth) to have been begun in the last couple hundred of years? What about the people who were living in the 11th century? I'm thinking that this is a very basic flaw for "new" churches, those that some might call cults. I've not had any discussion on this before but would welcome it.

~Sparrow

 

[Theofilus]

I don't think it's too simple at all. If a group claims that they are the only ones that have the truth, that implies that nobody had the truth before they came along. You don't have to look back a couple hundred years though. Some groups like that have been started within the past few decades.

 

[PouringRain]

p.s. funny story.
As I was returning from the Eid prayer, a JW knocked on my door - I opened the door wearing a big white Turban, and Thobe (long middle eastern style shirt) and a cheddah (a Afghani shawl) - The JW looked shocked and asked me if I had heard about Jesus(AS) in a meek voice - I told him "I would love to hear more about our beloved Nabi(AS), come on in" - he just put a pamphlet in my hand and said "no thank you" and litteraly RAN AWAY - it was hillarious.

 

[Pard]

Sparrow,

I think it is a good question. I am like you, the Bible is the Word of God and should be taken literally. The entire book is profitable for all things. Now, I am a Pentecostal. I started out as a Pentecostal because that is the church my grandmother belongs to and so I went with her. I stayed a Pentecostal because after taking a long hard look at different denominations I was having a hard time finding one that was closer to the Word than this church.

I believe God knew this was the case and led me there for this reason. Now I am not saying Pentecostal is the one church, I think my Baptist brethren are equally part of the body of Christ. So are my Lutheran brethren. So are my Catholic brethren. So are my orthodox brethren. So see, though I believe that the Word is 100% true and should be followed 100%, I understand that there are a need for these other denominations because some people are simply not spiritually mature enough to take on the Bible at 100% and that is no more their fault than it is the fault of a baby for only knowing how to crawl!

So new churches, the Assemblies of God church that I attend being one of them, are no better or worse than the oldest church (Orthodox). In fact I think that they are a good thing because it "airs" out, if you will, the traditions that build up over time and become as important, or more so, than the Word.

MA,

JW believe Jesus was an angel... they are not Christian.

 

[Sparkey]

p.s. funny story.
[story truncated by Sparrow]
... he just put a pamphlet in my hand and said "no thank you" and litteraly RAN AWAY - it was hillarious.

:scared @MA --> cracks me up too The above is a self-pic. You've given me an idea... (shame on you & many thanks *wink* ). I'll pass on the discussion of various "non-core" beliefs though, including rapture doctrine. Seems to me that one bugs you - but it would be better discussed in another thread without sidetracking this one. But please pardon the sound of that, because I know that wasn't what you were trying to do. Instead, it is my thought that you were trying to introduce another aspect of those various things that have divided the faithful. This thread is in the "Christianity and Other Religions" forum and attempts to address churches (or cults) that have only recently been formed especially when those churches (or halls) hold tenets and/or doctrine that have not been preached by Jesus, not foreshadowed in Holy Scripture, not taught by the Apostles. In other words, their "special knowledge". I do take your point about doctrinal divisions too.

@Others --> Thanks for the many replies.

The balance of my first thought - when I was trying to say that we need to be aware that many false teachers are out there - and that we need to be able to discern, knowing that the written word, the Bible is our more sure word (of prophecy) -->> BALANCES WITH another thought. Recall when the Children of Israel were led out of Egypt by Moses. They worshiped God in the Tabernacle of the Wilderness. Later, after occupying the Promised Land, the Temple of David (another, smaller and more intimate tent) is seen and even later, the Temple of Solomon was made for full temple worship.

We are given example of various "forms" of worship that accompany the different "tabernacles". We see more of God, working with men, and of Him revealing Himself to his children. My reply here can not, of course, speak at any depth to this but I'd call attention to the introduction of music and musical instruments and the Glory of God seen by the average follower as Man and God walked together, as David tried to make a "house" for our God and as God completed it through his son.

Those far away from the Temple of Solomon would have been familiar with the "old style" worship - Musical Worship would not be "their way" -- but they did not splinter off into different groups. There was a blood bond. They were brothers / sisters / cousins etc. in truth and by blood and they knew they were 'physically' related in the flesh. They were family.

I guess what I want to say is that we too are physically related. The spilling of the physical blood of the Lamb of God, our Jesus establishes us by blood, real blood - physical blood. That is what forms our bond. It's wrong to put more emphasis on doctrine than this fact. I honestly believe that as followers of Christ follow Him - we will see our unity more and more as the Great Day of the Lord approaches. The word, given to workers in the field, "Un-bow yourselves and look up," comes to mind.




~Sparrow